MA MA - Joan Webster, 25, Logan Airport, Boston, 28 Nov 1981

New Posts

Hi Eve....checking in.
The letter you found, which possibly could contain the motive for Joan's murder, do you think Joan stumbled upon that letter too and confronted the person (s) ? How long in advance did Joan make travel plans at Thanksgiving time...and do you think the person/people involved took advantage of this? IMO, this was well planned out and not spontaneous.
 
Hi Sweetluv,

Joan did not discover the letter. I can say that with 100% certainty based on who wrote the letter and where and when it was found. However, the letter reflected serious behaviors in the Webster family that Joan would have been aware of, secrets the Webster family would hide. If Joan had been able to share that information, it hopefully would have prevented the allegations in the letter. Joan may have confronted her parents, but she probably wanted to share a warning. When I discovered the letter, the Websters already knew about the same behaviors with another family member. Not one word.

During the Joan Webster investigation, George and Eleanor were secretive, misleading, and lied. On the surface, and what I could see was that they were fully engaged and cooperating with the investigation. The investigation itself turned out to be the problem.

In listening to the Murdaugh trial, I have had such deja vu. It is very difficult for people to wrap their heads around someone killing their wife or child, especially people that have a strong and positive public image. Some people are skilled at lying. People with dark secrets can play a part convincingly. The Websters' background in intelligence would have enhanced the skills of deception.

Joan and her sister drove from Boston to NJ before Thanksgiving. I spoke with Joan on Thanksgiving Day. I asked about the visitor that was planning to "meet the parents." She knew he was a friend of mine from our undergrad years. She did not say anything about a change in plans. The Websters were meticulous in their planning down to almost absurd minutia. Changing plans was unusual. But Joan's plans changed over the break, and she flew back Saturday night. George would have booked the flight. Only a very few people would have known where and when Joan would be there.

The eyewitness police report that is in the custodian's files, gave the description of the man with Joan at Logan. It was not Leonard Paradiso. That is an absolute certainty; the man was much smaller in stature. Joan told the cabbie that the man was with her. She knew him. The man maneuvered Joan to a different car. She trusted him. There was a second person involved, the driver of the second car. The lead was hand delivered to the Websters, but they never shared one word about it. Instead, they went after Paradiso. They knew in December 1981 that Paradiso didn't commit this crime.

The current custodian has still not complied with the FOIA. Frankly, it seems pretty obvious they do not have information regarding the boat that would support the allegations that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. That crime didn't happen; there was no boat. On the other hand, I have recovered substantial documentation that the boat was long gone by August 1981, months before Joan disappeared.

Motive is always a question, but it is not always easily identifiable. Getting into the head of someone capable of such heinous acts is difficult. However, intent is very obvious. The Websters working with authorities did not want anyone to know what really happened to Joan. That left people vulnerable, hence the allegations I discovered in the letter.
 
Listening to the Murdaugh trial restored some faith for me that there are people who can see through deception. One juror did an interview post trial. From a distance, Alec looked sympathetic on the stand. A lot of commentary on how genuine his emotions seemed. The juror commented that there were no tears. He could see his eyes. It reminds me of a photo of George Webster sitting in the courtroom at the Marie Iannuzzi trial. He took off his gasses and rubbed his eyes. The Websters sat in the galley through that case and looked very sympathetic. They had a lot of influence over people's perceptions.

I never once saw the Websters cry. I never judged how they reacted. People respond differently to grief. But just like with Murdaugh, you have to look at the totality of circumstances. You have to use common sense. Murdaugh got caught in a lie, a serious one. I think it is safe to say that if that video had not surfaced, he would still be saying he was never at the kennel. The defense tried to spin another scenario. It was pretty preposterous if you really listened.

Murdaugh lied to family, friends, clients, victims, colleagues. Once I was able to get into source documents, I could see that the Websters did the same thing. They told everyone that no one saw Joan leaving Logan, she just vanished without a trace. That was not true and they knew it. They had the eyewitness lead in hand on December 21, 1981. A small circle of authorities working closely with the Websters knew the same thing. They offered up a story that got more and more sensational. The media fueled speculation. I began to doubt it when Joan surfaced a long way from the scene of their envisioned crime. As I gathered the facts, the whole thing was preposterous and impossible.

I heard one attorney comment that shame was very provocative for Murdaugh. He said Murdaugh fooled everyone including those closest to him. The defense stated that family members still believe Murdaugh is not guilty. I am not surprised by that reaction. It is very difficult to wrap your head around people you loved and trusted would be capable of terrible things and betray that trust.

I live with that every single day. You have to take the blinders off. There was not anyone in any better position to understand that the Websters were secretive, misleading, and lied, once I was able to get to the facts in the records. Why do people lie? That's easy, they don't want people to know the truth. Shame would have crushed the Webster family. Image was always their focus. I found a letter and uncovered a very damning secret. I look at the totality of the circumstances. After finding the letter, the Websters spread more lies. It was after the discovery of the letter that the Websters paid a visit to Tim Burke and supported him writing a book about Joan's case and entangled matters. It is filled with lies and distortions.

Joan knew the man with her at Logan. She trusted him when he maneuvered her to a different car. There was at least one other person involved, the driver of the second car. At that point Joan vanished and was murdered. George and Eleanor did not want us to know that or who the man was. Joan was murdered because of Webster secrets. Did I discover the defining secret or just one of many? That's hard to say, but it was the catalyst to look into Joan's case. Thank God.
 
eve carson said:
Listening to the Murdaugh trial restored some faith for me that there are people who can see through deception. One juror did an interview post trial. From a distance, Alec looked sympathetic on the stand. A lot of commentary on how genuine his emotions seemed. The juror commented that there were no tears. He could see his eyes. It reminds me of a photo of George Webster sitting in the courtroom at the Marie Iannuzzi trial. He took off his gasses and rubbed his eyes. The Websters sat in the galley through that case and looked very sympathetic. They had a lot of influence over people's perceptions.

I never once saw the Websters cry. I never judged how they reacted. People respond differently to grief. But just like with Murdaugh, you have to look at the totality of circumstances. You have to use common sense. Murdaugh got caught in a lie, a serious one. I think it is safe to say that if that video had not surfaced, he would still be saying he was never at the kennel. The defense tried to spin another scenario. It was pretty preposterous if you really listened.

Murdaugh lied to family, friends, clients, victims, colleagues. Once I was able to get into source documents, I could see that the Websters did the same thing. They told everyone that no one saw Joan leaving Logan, she just vanished without a trace. That was not true and they knew it. They had the eyewitness lead in hand on December 21, 1981. A small circle of authorities working closely with the Websters knew the same thing. They offered up a story that got more and more sensational. The media fueled speculation. I began to doubt it when Joan surfaced a long way from the scene of their envisioned crime. As I gathered the facts, the whole thing was preposterous and impossible.

I heard one attorney comment that shame was very provocative for Murdaugh. He said Murdaugh fooled everyone including those closest to him. The defense stated that family members still believe Murdaugh is not guilty. I am not surprised by that reaction. It is very difficult to wrap your head around people you loved and trusted would be capable of terrible things and betray that trust.

I live with that every single day. You have to take the blinders off. There was not anyone in any better position to understand that the Websters were secretive, misleading, and lied, once I was able to get to the facts in the records. Why do people lie? That's easy, they don't want people to know the truth. Shame would have crushed the Webster family. Image was always their focus. I found a letter and uncovered a very damning secret. I look at the totality of the circumstances. After finding the letter, the Websters spread more lies. It was after the discovery of the letter that the Websters paid a visit to Tim Burke and supported him writing a book about Joan's case and entangled matters. It is filled with lies and distortions.

Joan knew the man with her at Logan. She trusted him when he maneuvered her to a different car. There was at least one other person involved, the driver of the second car. At that point Joan vanished and was murdered. George and Eleanor did not want us to know that or who the man was. Joan was murdered because of Webster secrets. Did I discover the defining secret or just one of many? That's hard to say, but it was the catalyst to look into Joan's case. Thank God.
Click to expand...
Well written, Eve.
 
Happy Easter. Easter is the season of renewal and hope. Faith has kept me strong through the struggles of finding answers.

I received a letter a few weeks ago through my publisher. After failed attempts to find a number to reach out, her daughter emailed me. The daughter provided a little more information that caught my attention. I went back to the police reports and sure enough, the woman's name was in the reports. The woman does not have a computer or smart phone ability. Snail mail may be my only option for now, but I can't wait to hear from her. Based on what the daughter said, I think I will learn more about a certain individual on my radar. If correct, it will be another person who had similar experiences with this individual that I did.

Some people are very skilled at masking themselves. It is difficult to strip away the mask for others to see unless they have had those experiences themselves. The facade is breaking down.

Joan's murder investigation was a hoax, creating false perceptions. Simply put, the person/s responsible for Joan's murder diverted attention to a scapegoat. This was a cover up, but it was two faceted, made more difficult by the part the authorities played.
 
Happy Easter Eve!
As always, praying Joan gets Justice!
 
Hello Eve,

Hope you had a nice Easter. Not sure if you saw this recent story but I was thinking of you and Joan when I saw the story. police are looking for the remains of Harmony Montgomery, a missing child and they are looking on route 107 in the marshland near Revere.
 
eve carson said:
Happy Easter. Easter is the season of renewal and hope. Faith has kept me strong through the struggles of finding answers.

I received a letter a few weeks ago through my publisher. After failed attempts to find a number to reach out, her daughter emailed me. The daughter provided a little more information that caught my attention. I went back to the police reports and sure enough, the woman's name was in the reports. The woman does not have a computer or smart phone ability. Snail mail may be my only option for now, but I can't wait to hear from her. Based on what the daughter said, I think I will learn more about a certain individual on my radar. If correct, it will be another person who had similar experiences with this individual that I did.

Some people are very skilled at masking themselves. It is difficult to strip away the mask for others to see unless they have had those experiences themselves. The facade is breaking down.

Joan's murder investigation was a hoax, creating false perceptions. Simply put, the person/s responsible for Joan's murder diverted attention to a scapegoat. This was a cover up, but it was two faceted, made more difficult by the part the authorities played.
Click to expand...

I’m happy for you to have received this letter/communication! Anything that might be another piece of the puzzle must come with a whole cascade of emotions, especially hope.

Question for you, and I apologize if this has already been covered - have you felt safe as you pursue this?

You demonstrate real gumption, and are a great storyteller!
 
Thank you all for your continued interest in Joan's case. To answer your question, Schatz, I have had threats and been harassed. When I first started looking into this, an abuse advocate advised me to start writing things down to try and sort through everything I had experienced. The second piece of advice was to be vocal, probably the best measure to protect myself and others. To give you a recent example, I reference the Alex Murdaugh case. I think it is very apparent that those who have uncovered or have knowledge of serious secrets are extremely vulnerable, even from those closest to them. Let me remind you, Alex was found guilty because he lied about information relevant to the murder of his son and wife. The Websters lied to me. It makes me very nervous. Not as much for myself, now I know the deception. I am nervous those still being influenced by the family.

I have had contact with the woman who reached out. I can verify she spoke with Eleanor Webster from police reports. This woman was a good citizen trying to help, but was taken aback by her call with Eleanor. In 2002, she called authorities after a name she was familiar with appeared in the news. The authorities told her that Joan's case was closed. That was absolutely false. Authorities in MA are determined to keep this buried no matter who they endanger. Joan's brother told his lawyer the same thing. He said they caught the guy who murdered Joan and he was in jail. Eleanor posted a comment that said they did not go after and charge Paradiso because of "scanty" evidence. Fact is they had no evidence at all and the witness statement was proven to be false.

The woman who reached out shared some additional information. Her daughter gave her copies of both of the books I have written. One was a used copy and had a letter in it that I had written in 2020. There were notes scheduling a meeting. The letter I sent was stamped as received with a date, not typical with personal correspondence. This was a holiday letter with annual updates that went out to a mailing list. I do not know the recipient of the letter, but it was not mailed out tucked in the book.

I reflect on a couple of incidents when I was married to Joan's brother. I view them very differently with what I know now. The first was an incident with a neighbor. Steve had invested in a business startup. Steve got several friends and his dad to invest. The business went belly up. Steve was humiliated and livid with the neighbor. The neighbor had MS and very little mobility. He moved out of the house leaving his wife and moved in with another woman. The wife was livid, too. He had put her in a very bad financial situation. The neighbor did end up moving back home. I was told because of health related issues. Steve went to their house for dinner when the neighbor returned. I did not go, I had a busy schedule with my children. Very early the next morning, the wife called and said the husband was dead. Steve was front and center being Mr. helpful which was way out of character.

The other set of incidents related to three very bizarre maladies with three of our dogs. The vet always gave some possible explanation, but without certainty. Your mind does not go to more sinister explanations.

These events really stick with me, uncertain what members of the family are capable of. I won't take the chance.
 
There is still no response from the current custodian of Joan's case to the FOIA and appeal. Their office was ordered by the Superintendent of records to comply. From my perspective, the custodian does not have records supporting the boat theory and allegations against Paradiso. If they did, it would be in their interest to provide them. It would support the allegations maintained by Tim Burke, the state of MA, and the Websters. Apparently, they do not have evidence that counters the certified court records that the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. Needless to say, that is a problem.

In addition, their files did contain the eyewitness report describing the man that maneuvered Joan to the blue car at Logan. It was not Paradiso. The police and the Websters had that report verified in source documents. That is a problem.

What do people do when caught in serious lies? They lash out against someone who could expose them. I have definitely experienced that. I looked under the right rock.

An update on the recent contact. The woman received a used copy of a book about Joan for Christmas. She had been interested in the case for many years. She did what everyone is advised to do, if you see something, say something. Her contact with Eleanor Webster was affirmed in police records. Eleanor, mother of a missing daughter, didn't bother to ask any questions. In 2002, a name surfaced in the news that rekindled her curiosity about what happened. She called the Saugus PD and was told the case is closed.

The copy of the book she received had a copy of a holiday letter I mailed out in 2020. It was time stamped as received. There are a couple of things that help me narrow who received the letter, but nothing definitive. On the first page of the copy of the book, there were some handwritten notes. I apparently touched a nerve. A meeting was scheduled. There are two strings of numbers that I can't identify. There is also a phone number with a Boston area code. I have not been able to identify the owner yet. What are the odds this woman got this book? I can only see it as the hand of God.
 
During a chaotic time with my family, counseling was involved. I was asked by one counselor why I didn't like myself. I had a very confused look on my face. My response was that I did like myself. I am a good and decent person, but my feedback was all wrong.

At the time, I felt like I was swinging at shadows. After getting into Joan's records, I understood this much differently. Family was saying what I would expect to my face but spreading much different perceptions behind my back.

I have encountered the same thing with current custodians. I met with ADA John Dawley and ADA David O' Sullivan on May 1, 2017. I was a person related to the victim, familiar with the case since day one, have a long history with the family, and provided extensive verifiable documentation to the custodian's office. If authorities were interested in resolving a case, I would be the kind of witness you would want. To my face, the ADAs affirmed what I would expect to hear. It is much different than what is being spread behind my back.

I am adding some clips of the feedback I received to my face.

Clip 1

ADA John Dawley affirmed that my attention to detail is impressive, and he knows that I know what I am talking about.

Clip 3

ADA Dawley affirmed I have mastered the facts, document management, and everything else.

Clip 4

ADA David O'Sullivan, speaking for both of them do not question my good faith or intelligence.

Clip 5

ADA Dawley was impressed with a very credible presentation that caught his attention.

The question I had as I started to discover the discrepancies in source documents was did authorities lie to the Websters, or did they lie for the Websters. Do they continue that today to shield malfeasance during the investigation. Source documents answered that question. The Websters were in possession of exculpatory evidence, favorable to Paradiso, the man they continued to accuse, beginning in December 1981.

This is the most disturbing comment.

Clip 2

ADA Dawley asked if I thought the Websters are a threat to my children. I answered if family secrets get out. ADA Dawley suggested secrets would only get out if I continue to probe deeply.

Dark secrets in a family put people at risk. I think the recent Alex Murdaugh case was a good demonstration of that risk.

Let me be clear, the secrets relate to an unsolved homicide in the family, and allegations of abuse that would be a felony if true. A second person came forward with similar allegations. This comment sounds more like a warning. Today, ADA O'Sullivan documented in a written response to an FOIA that my requests are "a needless and wasteful expenditure of public funds." I provided the current custodians with source documents, evidence, that the alleged crime scene, the boat, did not exist at the time Joan disappeared. The current custodian was already in possession of the eyewitness description of the man seen with Joan at Logan, the man that maneuvered Joan to a different car, a man she knew and trusted, a man who knew where Joan would be, a man much smaller in stature that Paradiso.

This case was and remains a cover up.
 
eve carson said:
During a chaotic time with my family, counseling was involved. I was asked by one counselor why I didn't like myself. I had a very confused look on my face. My response was that I did like myself. I am a good and decent person, but my feedback was all wrong.

At the time, I felt like I was swinging at shadows. After getting into Joan's records, I understood this much differently. Family was saying what I would expect to my face but spreading much different perceptions behind my back.

I have encountered the same thing with current custodians. I met with ADA John Dawley and ADA David O' Sullivan on May 1, 2017. I was a person related to the victim, familiar with the case since day one, have a long history with the family, and provided extensive verifiable documentation to the custodian's office. If authorities were interested in resolving a case, I would be the kind of witness you would want. To my face, the ADAs affirmed what I would expect to hear. It is much different than what is being spread behind my back.

I am adding some clips of the feedback I received to my face.

Clip 1

ADA John Dawley affirmed that my attention to detail is impressive, and he knows that I know what I am talking about.

Clip 3

ADA Dawley affirmed I have mastered the facts, document management, and everything else.

Clip 4

ADA David O'Sullivan, speaking for both of them do not question my good faith or intelligence.

Clip 5

ADA Dawley was impressed with a very credible presentation that caught his attention.

The question I had as I started to discover the discrepancies in source documents was did authorities lie to the Websters, or did they lie for the Websters. Do they continue that today to shield malfeasance during the investigation. Source documents answered that question. The Websters were in possession of exculpatory evidence, favorable to Paradiso, the man they continued to accuse, beginning in December 1981.

This is the most disturbing comment.

Clip 2

ADA Dawley asked if I thought the Websters are a threat to my children. I answered if family secrets get out. ADA Dawley suggested secrets would only get out if I continue to probe deeply.

Dark secrets in a family put people at risk. I think the recent Alex Murdaugh case was a good demonstration of that risk.

Let me be clear, the secrets relate to an unsolved homicide in the family, and allegations of abuse that would be a felony if true. A second person came forward with similar allegations. This comment sounds more like a warning. Today, ADA O'Sullivan documented in a written response to an FOIA that my requests are "a needless and wasteful expenditure of public funds." I provided the current custodians with source documents, evidence, that the alleged crime scene, the boat, did not exist at the time Joan disappeared. The current custodian was already in possession of the eyewitness description of the man seen with Joan at Logan, the man that maneuvered Joan to a different car, a man she knew and trusted, a man who knew where Joan would be, a man much smaller in stature that Paradiso.

This case was and remains a cover up.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this, Eve. I know that I'm not alone when I say thank you for sharing your story.
 
It has been almost a year since I submitted an FOIA to the custodian of Joan’s case. I have appealed multiple times and the custodian was ordered to reply. No response.

I am testing something. I have been able to determine that the custodian’s files were grossly deficient of relevant records. It is difficult if not impossible to resolve a case when evidence is missing or ignored. There is a piece of evidence that discredits Tim Burke’s timeline of events. It is verified evidence. Aside from the facts that they do not have the crime scene and Joan was not dumped in Boston Harbor, discrediting snitch Robert Bond, this evidence shows malfeasance from the onset of the investigation. I am taking steps to determine if the custodian is selectively Ignoring a known fact like they are with the boat, then the custodian is willfully obstructing Joan’s case.
 
Hi Sweetluv,

Yesterday was Joan's birthday. It was a very somber day for me.

There is a current iron in the fire. I am waiting for that to play out before commenting.

The question I had as I started to dig into the records was: Did the authorities lie to the Websters or did they lie for the Websters? That is a very gut-wrenching question. All of the Websters are image conscious. Image is only what you perceive someone to be. Actions and behaviors can be very different than someone's public persona.

For anyone to believe the Websters just accepted a story handed to them and ignore facts means to me that the Websters were embarrassed by Joan, so were just willing to put a bogus explanation out there. For anyone that knew Joan, that notion is absurd. Joan was a real star based on what she did. Another possible explanation is that Joan could cause them embarrassment. To me, that is very real. It's the situation I found myself in.
 
Hi Eve!
Do you know if the cabbie who gave the description of the bearded man and blue car is still alive? If so, it would be interesting to know if he has remembered any other detail since then. In the years following Joan's death, did any other eyewitnesses come forward who were at the airport besides the people on her flight...like employees or other travelers inside/outside the airport?
 
Hi Sweetluv,

Sorry for the slow response. I have had a very busy fall.

The only information I have been able to find for the cabbie indicates he is deceased. There was a Harvard student who saw Joan at Logan the night she disappeared. He identified her speaking to a man behind a counter at the carousel area. This was reported in the Newark Star Ledger. An interesting note about the article. It caught the attention of the Head of ITT Security, Jack McEwen, the liaison with George Webster. He was part of the group interviewing possible witnesses, more specifically, airport transportation. These interviews produced the eyewitness, Fenton Allen Moore, the cabbie. Jack McEwen, the liaison with George Webster, reached out to law enforcement and quickly cast doubt on the lead. He got it suppressed.

I have submitted another FOIA to the custodian, and they have again failed to comply. They are obligated by law to respond. I believe it is very evident that the custodian does not have the documents that would support the allegations against Paradiso made by authorities and the Websters. The system is broken when they ignore justice for the victim/s and shield malfeasance.
 
Hi Eve...
This man behind the counter..employee i assume...what do you make of him?
Do you think Joan was asking him a question or was he apart of Joan's disappearance in some way? Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 3,508 (members: 80, guests: 3,428)

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
3,428
Total visitors
3,508
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,844
Messages
17,993,831
Members
229,258
Latest member
momoxbunny
Back
Top