published Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Searches held at Palmgrens’ Alabama properties

Follow us on Twitter for the latest breaking news

Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office investigators are searching the last of five properties shared by a missing woman and her husband.

Gail Palmgren, 44, has been missing since April 30. No one has heard from her. She was last seen by her two children after she dropped them off at the couple’s Signal Mountain home.

Palmgren and her husband, Matthew Palmgren, share a lake house in Wetumpka, Ala. where investigators are searching. There is an additional vacant home in Palmgren’s name they are searching on Lake Jordan in Alabama.

Sheriff Jim Hammond said that, after the last of the property searches are completed, investigators may consider doing another aerial search.

“I’m still of the opinion when the leaves drop, we’ll be able to see more,” he said.

In June, investigators searched the couple's Signal Mountain residence, which is now listed for sale at $669,000. Authorities also have checked a storage unit in Red Bank as well as a Matthew Palmgren's mother's home.

For complete details, see tomorrow’s Times Free Press.

9
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
potcat said...

When the leaves fall, we'll be able to see more, thats not a plan. What do you think, she's laying out in the open!

September 27, 2011 at 3:59 p.m.
ruth53 said...

No kidding. And where does the sheriff think the leaves go when they fall off the trees???

September 27, 2011 at 4:10 p.m.
ChattanoogaVol said...

They are just now searching this property? You have got to be kidding me. This thing has been botched from the beginning. Did they have to get the husband to "sign off" on this search too? Geez.

September 27, 2011 at 4:13 p.m.
rolando said...

Yes, ChattVol, they "had" to get Mr. Palmgren's permission to search his house...provided they still have no probable cause to search it, which I presume since that would have made the news, fershur. It's that pesky Constitution poking its nose in everybody's [illegal] business and stopping police hanky-panky. No way around that one. Mr Palmgren was gracious enough to allow the police to search...under certain restraints -- no looking for elephants in desk drawers, for instance.

What, exactly, would you have the police do? Please...nothing shady, illegal, or immoral...they must obey the law, after all.

September 27, 2011 at 4:36 p.m.
AKINDREDSPIRIT said...

@rolando I would use MANY adjectives to describe Matt but "gracious" is definitely not one of those adjectives!

September 27, 2011 at 5:31 p.m.
rolando said...

He was under absolutely no legal or moral obligation to allow the police to search his properties, Kindred. There was, and evidently is, no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever; without that, the police could search nothing on the properties. Not even the FBI would go that far...not in this high-visibility case, anyway.

Seems to me that Mr Palmgren's granting them that boon falls under the definition of "gracious".

September 27, 2011 at 8:02 p.m.
MarshaA said...

What is clear Rolando is that you don't really know anything about missing persons investigations. This is a situation where a woman whose husband said she had "psychiatric issues" disappeared. His friends were quoted as saying Gail had a "psychotic breakdown" just before her disappearance. For public safety and welfare, law enforcement is morally and legally obligated to try to find her, because she is a potential harm to self and others. That means they should investigate, and part of that investigation means checking the home. You know, for psychotropic medications, online activity, missing articles to show she ran off, emails, phone calls, letters, something. The police did none of these things. They did not even try to go in front of a judge to get a warrant.

This is sadly not a "high-visibility case." It gets medium coverage on a local level with lengthy periods of no coverage at all.

Your comments on this case are routinely ill-informed and ridiculous.

September 27, 2011 at 9:28 p.m.
rolando said...

And you, Ms MarshaA, clearly know little to nothing about the rules of evidence, proper police procedure [followed in this case], the value of hearsay in a police investigation, police protection requirements, etc. Need I go on?

The police must have evidence of a crime [which they do not have] before even approaching a judge for a search warrant. Without that, they would no doubt be severely chastised by any judge worth his salt...and rightly so.

You are clearly out of your depth, madam, although you would probably do well in Child Protective Services or perhaps Homeland Security [our own schutzstaffel]...they do things your way saying, "Search warrant? We don' need no steenkin' search warrant".

September 28, 2011 at 5:48 a.m.
MarshaA said...

Ronaldo, you spend a lot of time trolling a lot of threads on TFP, and your tendency to Godwin comments by inserting random, inappropriate Nazi reference always amuses me.

Yes, there are some like you who think lack of evidence means she's off with a new name, new social security number, and a new life after having abandoned her entire family, her children, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement accounts. That makes sense to people like you.

September 28, 2011 at 9:22 p.m.
please login to post a comment

Other National Articles

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement
400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.