Statement Analysis of Matthew Palmgren

In Statement analysis, we recognize that pronouns are learned in the earliest days of speech and are critical to analysis.  When someone speaks for another (present in the room often) the use of "we" is appropriate.  A change to "I" will thus be considered very strong, or very personal.  When someone speaks for himself and uses "we", it is a weakened assertion.  When pronouns are confused, it is often an indication of deception.  

Matthew Palmgren (estranged husband): 

"Thank you. As you can tell its been a rough 2 weeks for the family. I'd like to start off by saying thank you to Chief Veal, Detective Tizzio, uh all my neigbors have been out Diane coming down all my family that's helped us look, uh, for Gail.

Note that "as you can tell" and "as you can see" are words chosen when a subject wants us to accept something as a fact, without questioning it.

Please note that he uses the strong "I" in "I'd like to thank..."   The reader/analyst should expect this to continue.  He is addressing the audience for himself and the first person singular should be consistent.  A change to "we" or "us" (plural) is a weakening of the assertion, unless he first introduces someone else (or others) he is speaking for.

Note that the statement begins telling us that it has been a rough two weeks for the family, and not for the victim.  The reader/analyst would expect to hear concern for the missing, as it would the the norm, since missing is unknown, and unknown is dangerous.  Beginning a statement that is not about the victim is concerning.   

Note that the subject wants to start off thanking law enforcement.  This should be noted and it would be interesting to see if either named official has concerns about the subject, as it may be an attempt to befriend or draw close to either or both men.  They are named first.  Next is the neighbors, and then all his family...that helped us look..."for Gail". 

It is interesting that he adds "for Gail" as if anyone else would be searched for. 

And as you can see  the jeep has been spotted a few times out there so we're asking for anybody who's seen that to immediately contact

"as you can see" means that he wishes us to take for granted something, without questioning it.  This means it should be questioned. 

In Statement Analysis, we highlight "so, since, therefore, because" (etc) as sensitive.  Why?  Because it tells us why something is done, rather than simply report what happened, making it sensitive and highly important to the subject.  Here, it is no different:  it is highlighted for sensitivity, but it is the sensitivity itself which gets our attention:

"so, we're asking for anybody..."

This tells us the reason why "we're asking for anybody to...."  

This indicates that reports of jeep spotting is the reason why he is asking people to contact police, not because his wife is missing but because a jeep has been seen.  

Recall:  we do not interpret his words, we listen to what he tells us.  Here he has told us the reason why he wants contact made.  Would he make the same request if a jeep had not been spotted?  

 their local police and let us know 

Note that they are to contact their local police, not to let the local police know, but to let "us" know

to get more clues to where Gail could be. 

Note:  not to find her, but to "get more clues" to where Gail could be.  He wants himself and the police notified so that he can get more clues.  

So...for myself, we've done everything in our power to finding Gail.

Note that "so, since, therefore, because" is sensitive because it tells us why, rather than what. 

Note that he now speaks for himself: "for myself", and then says "we've" which is a change in pronoun.  Since pronouns are instinctive and reactive in humans (we learn them at the earliest days of speech) this change of pronoun does not appear justified and should be flagged for possible deception. 

When someone speaks for himself only, the first person, "I" will follow.  When someone speaking for himself uses plural, it is a weakening of the statement.  

Here, he begins the statement telling us he is going to speak for himself but then goes to the plural. 

This is an indication of deception. 


This is why police administer polygraphs in missing persons cases.  A subject may be deceptive for a variety of reasons and statement analysis can show deception, but not always know why there is deception.  Could he be having an affair?  Could he know where she is?  Could he be involved in her disappearance?   The deception raises questions.  Sometimes the reason for deception is plain; but other times it is not. 

Please also note that if "we've done everything in our power", there is nothing else "we" can do to search.  This is a strong indicator that the subject speaking wants the searching to end. It is similar to the statement "that is all I know" which seeks to end the questioning.  By telling us that he has done "everything" it indicates that there is nothing else that can be done and police should be concerned and questioning whether or not he wants Gail to be found.  This is an indication that he is not going to search because he has done "everything" that could be done.  


The constant use of the plural should also lead police to ask if he was having an affair.  

 We've hired a private investigator, we continue to look, we're turning over everything we can. 

Note the "we" shows weakness.  He began his statement with the use of "I"

Note that by turning over "everything we can" indicates that there are things that have not been turned over.  When someone says "can" it indicates that there is a restriction.  "I've told you everything I can" would indicate a limitation.  Is the limitation due to the lack of knowledge?  It is possible.  Is the limitation due to consequence?  It is also possible.  Here, everything he "can" turn over; that is "everything" he can turn over, has been.  What things "can't" he turn over?

So, as Diane says its like "Gail if you hear us", please come forward, [J and L love you?],(referring to their children's names) and please, please show yourself soon. I hope everyone keeps us in their thoughts and prayers. Thank You."

This is very concerning.  People do not like to lie, as it causes stress.  So rather than directly address his wife, which, if he has knowledge that she is deceased would be a lie (guilty parties avoid, for as long as possible, addressing a 'missing' person they know are dead:  see how long it took for Hailey Dunn's family to do so), he says

"as Diane says" rather than directly addressing Gail.  Note since he, alone, is speaking, it is his voice she would hear, but he says, "if you hear us" not "if you 
hear me", and then states that her children love her. 

He wants Gail to "show herself," which implies that she has the power to exercise her own free will in whatever situation she is in.  He doesn't tell Gail to come home, but to "show herself." 

Note that he hopes for thoughts and prayers (note order) for himself but not for the 
victim. 

The police should interview Gail's husband extensively.   

www,timesfreepress.com
published Saturday, May 7th, 2011
Police searching for missing Signal woman
by J. Todd Foster

"Matt Palmgren said in a telephone interview Friday that his wife has disappeared before.

“We’re very upset,” Matt Palmgren said. “She’s had psychiatric issues in the past. ... Usually she just goes somewhere and decompresses but stays in contact with the kids.”

Note "we" rather than "I" and note the subtle disparaging of the victim:  "psychiatric issues"

Matt Palmgren said his wife returned with the children and the family’s dogs early April 30 from the family’s lake house, about 20 miles north of Montgomery, Ala. He said he did not know how long she had been there and that she dropped the children off with no one home at about noon.
“You can imagine what a difficult time it is for me and the kids right now,” he said.

Note the order:  "me" before the kids.

Note that you can't imagine what it is like for him and the kids but not for the victim.  This is concerning.


The samples here are small, but have raised more questions.  The notion of having done "everything" is an indication that he may know more than he is letting on.