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

[Sweetluv]

Checking in..how are things Eve!?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

I am chugging along. I have just been approved for 501(c)(3) status. The foundation name is Victims of Injustice Speak or VOIS, (voice). It is a step-by-step process and I hope to have a website up soon. I'm learning as I go. There are cases where overzealous prosecutors put forward false allegations and law enforcement officers have different agendas. I do believe the bad actors are the exception rather than the rule, but when it impacts a case, they create more victims. A few sensational examples of this do make the headlines. Those are the lucky ones. If they are not exposed, they leave real destruction in their path. It's an area of crime resolution that does not get enough attention.

There are things in the works. Here is a sample for you. It is a trailer from the interview I did with Close UP TV. You will notice the addition of Essex County officials during a meeting on May 1, 2017. They are obstructing justice in Joan's case.

Eve Carson Interview with Close Up TV

 

[eve carson]

I want to make a distinction for anyone who takes on the challenge of resolving crimes.

Motive is often the first question people ask, why? Motive is NOT an element that has to be proven in a criminal matter. If a motive can be identified it helps understand the mindset of someone's actions.

Intent is different. Intent is an element that must be established in some criminal cases. Intent is different than motive and should not be confused. A person's behaviors reflect intent.

I began to gather source documents and saw the glaring discrepancies from what I was told. The question then became were George and Eleanor deceived, were they delusional, or was their support of the false Paradiso/boat theory deliberate?

I crossed off delusional right away. These are very smart people, highly educated, with an intelligence background. George held a high-level position with a major corporation.

Source documents confirmed that the Websters were not deceived. They were in possession of the eyewitness lead by December 21, 1981. The man with Joan was NOT Leonard Paradiso. Source documents also confirmed that George was in contact with the DOJ during the bankruptcy fraud case, CR 85-010-S. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed in that case that the alleged crime scene, the boat, was long gone by August 1981, months before Joan disappeared. His determination was based on undisputed evidence.

These factors were not visible to the public or to me as part of the family. That left the last option. Were the Websters deliberately throwing off the investigation of their daughter's murder? There is already evidence of intent in the source documents. You do not ignore and conceal an eyewitness lead if you are sincerely looking for your daughter. You do not influence the court or the public that Joan was murdered on a boat that did not exist when she disappeared. You don't support the former prosecutor to write a book filled with discrepancies about an untried theory, but they did. The elements of intent are there.

Connecting the dots is not easy. There are other dots I can add based on my relationship with the Websters and behavior I observed. I will do so in a later post.

 

[eve carson]

Let me add some personal dots so you get a sense of my concern. I am not going to air dirty laundry. These are things that I think are relevant to the discussion. If they are verifiable, I will note it with an *

* Let me begin with the fact that I was pregnant when Joan disappeared. I had a miscarriage the same night she disappeared. I felt a special bond with Joan because of that, but as I have looked at records and my personal experiences, I do think it is relevant.

On Christmas 1981, George said, "She is gone, we have to move on." No tears, very stoic.

In August of 1990, after Joan's remains surfaced, Eleanor told a family member that Paradiso's girlfriend had one of Joan's rings. Paradiso, nor anyone associated with him had anything belonging to Joan. (That would have been a slam dunk case)

My former brother-in-law suspected Anne, Joan's sister, had been molested. He could never get her to talk about it.

* Steve used to get naked in the hot tub when my adolescent girls and friends were around. He got out once when a teen who had been watching the dogs came to get paid. She was visibly shaken when he said turn around and got out naked. Her mother was livid. I tried to no avail to work with counselors about his behavior that it was not appropriate. (This was not long before we divorced). When I raised the issue with Eleanor for her help, she said it was his house. The Websters do not have healthy boundaries.

In a discussion about discipline, I asked Steve if his parents ever disciplined him. He said his father hit him so hard one time it sent him to the ER for something he did to Anne. He would not elaborate.

* In 2001, Joan's first cousin John Reed was convicted of sexual assault of children. He is listed on the sex offender registry. No one ever mentioned a word to me about this. As a note, Eleanor's sister Marge, Joan's aunt and John Reed's mother was also reported to the police at this time because of her behavior with grandchildren.

* In 2001 I found the Letter to God with allegations against Steve. The letter and the author are verified and notarized. There is contemporaneous and corroborating evidence. This was reported to professionals and authorities. There is a police file.

My children were very hostile toward me and had a "war room" set up. Among the things they kept in a locked closet was the scrapbook I kept with articles about Joan.

At Christmas 2002, Eleanor called me a "whistleblower" with such disdain it sent a chill up my spine. It was in regard to speaking out about hazing that was going on at my children's swim club.

Steve's hallmark phrase was "Don't tell." He would say it to me and say it to our children.

* In 2003 I found my children's journals. There is corroborating evidence in them. I did provide information from these to the family counselors and police. (NOTE: The letter to God made allegations about Steve. There is one journal entry on a page where my children were venting about me. My child appeared to be blaming me for Steve's behavior.)

* One of my children felt responsible to keep me alive.

* On January 22, 2009, I received a hand delivered anonymous letter to my mailbox. It made allegations I was delusional or disturbed.

On Christmas Eve 2009, I took small gifts for my children to the house. I could see George in the family room. When he realized it was me at the door, he ran and hid.

* In July 2010, I received a flood of emails to two emails used exclusively to communicate with the Websters. It contained the same insinuations that I was not right in the head (to put it nicely). The IP address was linked to a Webster family member.

* On Christmas night 2012, I received a profanity laced email from George wishing me to die. The IP address was identified and implicates another member of the Webster family.

* On October 22, 2014, I received an email from Anne. The bullying tactics were on full display.

* On December 8, 2014, I received an anonymous letter, mailed from out of town. Very demeaning and wishing me to die. (NOTE: People connected to this investigation got anonymous letters, Paradiso and his girlfriend Candacy Weyant.) (I am aware of an incident where Steve sent an anonymous letter smearing a coworker.)

* On November 28, 2006, George and Eleanor publicly supported Tim Burke's fallacious book.

This is to give you a glimpse behind closed doors with the Websters. They have a strong public persona. They care about image. My experience was much different, but it became more apparent over time.

There are two incidents that I am not going to discuss here, but they leave me scared stiff. At the time, there was some sort of explanation, but with the benefit of the lens I have now, certain family members scare me to death.

 

[cenazoic]

Eve, thanks for your update/timeline. The thing that struck me most immediately (and viscerally) was “Steve should be a POI in Joan’s case”.

Half-baked theory: if Joan was murdered because of fear of her ‘saying something’, maybe it was about her brother, not her father. The coverup, much like the one alleged in the JonBenet Ramsey case, was to protect another Webster child (Steve).

Off the mark?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cenazoic,

These are behaviors Joan would have known about. Steve was not in Boston. We were in the Midwest. I remember the night we got the call from Eleanor that Joan was missing. I had just had a miscarriage; my hormones were out of whack and emotions high. Steve yelled at me that I had no right to cry, Joan was his sister. Steve is immature in many ways. I attributed it to back-to-back stresses.

Steve is not a POI due to his location, but my gut tells me this would have been something Joan would have told me being pregnant. Joan is gone, I will never really know, but I carry that with me. Knowing the Websters for so many years, image management was always the priority. Whether Steve is like father like son, I'm not sure. But Steve's behaviors set off real alarms. I don't think you are off base at all. They are also very emotionally detached. That is something people forget to look at. Those are dysfunctions that will be visible in other relationships. Being emotionally detached means you don't care what happens to others. Having been part of the family for many years, I am fully aware now that they are capable of some pretty ugly behavior.

The fact that the family influenced a false story is a reflection of that. Source documents proved they had exculpatory evidence favoring Paradiso's innocence in their possession. The scrapbook my children had stashed away and thinking they were responsible to keep me alive are things that give me sleepless nights.

 

[eve carson]

Let me add another dot.

* On March 24, 2009, Steve was asked about an extortion incident that took place in October 1982.

It was very dramatic. I actually had a second miscarriage shortly after this. The incident was never publicized. I knew about it as part of the family. It involved George arranging a meeting with a man named Harvey Martel in NH. The FBI had traced the calls and identified the caller. George travelled to NH accompanied by the FBI. He was wired and met with Martel in front of the courthouse in Concord accompanied by SA Frank Barletto posing as George's cousin. The three men travelled to Boston crossing state lines. The FBI tracked them. Martel gave a bogus address in Boston. He was taken to FBI offices, questioned, fingerprinted, and then released with no charges.

When Steve was asked, he said he didn't know anything about anything like that. He emphasized saying "Honest to God." Now if someone wants to give Steve the benefit of the doubt, the incident took place many years before and certainly was not foremost in his mind. However, bringing up the incident would jog the memory of most people. If he doubted it, he could have asked for records to refresh his memory.

At the time of the call in 2009, I had recovered FBI reports detailing the incident. I later recovered police reports that gave a very detailed account.

Claiming he knew nothing about any incident like this was a deliberate effort to suggest I was delusional or off my rocker, IMO. There were no reports in the media of this incident, but it is well documented. It's not the kind of incident you forget, and my memory was validated in source documents. The current custodians said they knew nothing about this. These records were not in their files.

The incident is fully documented, but so is Steve's denial of any such incident.

If you would like to see some of those documents, they are under the Extortion tab on www.justiceforjoanwebster.com

 

[cenazoic]

it’s interesting that, on the report from 15 October 1982, the first entry mentions that GW asked to speak to Joan and the extortionist agreed to call back at 10-1030.

The next entry is recorded as 10:20 and there’s no mention of GW speaking to Joan or otherwise pushing the matter; it’s like that demand for proof of life was no longer important to either him or the reporting officer. An odd omission.

(And totally unrelated, but I was unreasonably amused by the appearance in the reports of one “Marge Duncan, (Annoyance Bureau)”.)

 

[kielo]

Eve, I'm very sorry for your loss and lack of answers over such a long period of time. The witnesses of her waving at the bearded man, was he in a car? If not in a car did was he carrying luggage? And if the bearded man wasn't in the car and she got into it with him did she leave in a cab? By the 1980's CCTV technology was cheap enough for citizens to use at home. Was there any airport footage available and was there attempts to recover any? Also i understand the suspicion around the undercover cop given the locations. Is there any descriptions on him? it's unfortunate so much of the police resources were used on Paradiso given his prints were not a match. It's easy to get lost in the details or tunnel vision on a certain piece of information given all the information. I personally very much appreciate the bulleted points.

 

[kielo]

I'm sorry Eve some reason the last 2 posts are just showing up. I see in justiceforjoanwebster.com the cabbie does report the bearded man did pick her up.

The "Break" in the Joan Webster case - 1983

On January 28, 1983, headlines announced a “break” in Joan’s case. When these articles landed on my kitchen table, it was the first time I learned of Leonard Paradiso. The news reported a confidential source told police Paradiso allegedly confessed to the murder of Marie Iannuzzi and Joan Webster. The source was not named.

News reports arrived in the mail with great regularity from Eleanor Webster. The press really took off with the story. According to the source, Paradiso confessed he took Joan on his boat at Pier 7 in Boston. When she rejected a pass, he hit her in the head with a whiskey bottle, raped her, then took his boat out and dumped her in Boston Harbor.

I learned Paradiso was in jail for another murder, Marie Iannuzzi. The two cases were entangled in media reports. There were few facts around the Iannuzzi case at this point. I knew Paradiso was a parolee for an earlier assault conviction. So the perception was this is a bad guy who does bad things and Joan may have been another victim. The explanation was a random act and Joan was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I learned Paradiso was a shellfish fisherman. He attended the same wedding with the 1979 murder victim Marie Iannuzzi. He knew the family because he sold shellfish to their restaurants. He was named as a suspect in the case.

Reporters quoted ADA Tim Burke, Tr Andrew Palombo, and Sgt Carmen Tammaro in the news accounts. The Websters also made them selves available to the press and were frequently quoted. The intensity of the two cases increased in the media for the next year. Needless to say, it was reasonable for me to trust what I learned from authorities and the family.

The investigation became sensational. As in any baffling mystery like this, there was a lot of speculation and theories that swirled around. As I dug into this case, the way to unravel it was to follow the documented events, in other words, look at the investigation. Records gave me names, dates, and events to construct a timeline. It helps to look at a case that way and be able to put other information in context.

This is what I knew in 1983. I did not know the additional facts from year 1. I will be posting what I learned next.

A slight correction to the last post. The purse and wallet were found along the Lynn Marsh Road in Saugus right at the border with Lynn. There was a 12-alarm fire in Lynn that began burning at 2:30 am the morning of 11-28-1981. Roadblocks on the Lynn Marsh Road detoured traffic so they could not drive into Lynn. The fire burned for 2 weeks. The fire was raging by time Joan landed.

has the area of the fire been searched for her remains? if i was to kill someone and needed to get rid of the body i would take advantage of that fire.

 

[kielo]

Elementarywatsonsir,

Take your logic even further. It is the end of November. Who in their right mind is going to get on a boat at that time of year. It's cold in Boston and most people had their boats stored for the winter. In addition, her flight landed after 10 pm. It is very clear she would not be on this boat of her own free will. Those questions came up. The authorities came up with explanations. We are conditioned to trust authority.

Doing a forensic examination of the investigation was the key to cutting through the chaos to see what really needed attention for a just resolve in the case.

You missed a subtle point. Joan had already presented her project before the Thanksgiving break. The reports that came out said she went back early to work on a project. That made no sense. She was a very dedicated student, but she also enjoyed time with friends, going to the theater, and other activities. She presented the project the previous Monday. I spoke to her Thanksgiving Day. There was no mention of going back early, not that she would tell me, but she was very elated over high marks she just got on her project. I have not found anything to corroborate she went back to meet with classmates on Sunday to work on a project.

Joan was not the type of person to go off with some unknown person or someone she just met. The boyfriend who planned to visit said he was ready to put a ring on her finger. Did they have an argument? I will never know, but other things that came to light suggest another possibility for the change in plans. The boyfriend met her when he was finishing his MBA at Harvard. At the time, he lived in Detroit. I knew him from undergrad days before he ever met Joan.

I have not even come to the boat yet. There were events regarding the boat that took place in 1983, but I am trying to step through this a piece at a time.

Your questions and comments are right on track. Too many things just did not add up with this explanation.

you know her boyfriend, do you think he could possibly have done something like this to her? Could he have been the one to pick her up? i see he planed to visit but is it possible he showed up to get her? did she give any hints to her perspective of the relationship? could the boyfriend have grown a beard while she was gone? (almost every clean cut business man alive did during covid) i think anything you can remember from that thanksgiving visit could be helpful. the waving to the gentleman that picks her up indicates it's someone she knows. usually only someone with such intense emotions would be the one to snap or be so emotional to let go of grooming. did she mention any of her travel plans? who of your family dropped her off? any phone calls made or information given from her at that time could be clues. also is there any description of the man behind the counter at the airport?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Kielo,

Let me see if I can get you up to speed. Joan traveled alone back to Boston. She spoke to a couple and a priest on the flight. At the luggage carousel, she waived to a couple of friends. She then spoke to a man behind a counter. There was no description of him. She engaged a Town Taxi to take her back to her dorm in Cambridge. Her suitcase was loaded in the trunk. There was no camera footage to my knowledge. That is when the bearded man caught up with Joan. Joan told the cabbie the man was with her. That indicates to me she knew him. The bearded man got into a verbal exchange with the cabbie over how he was loading the man's heavy suitcase. The exchange was verified. The bearded man turned to Joan and said we don't want to take this cab. This tells me not only did Joan know him, but she also trusted him. Joan's luggage was removed from the Town Taxi and Joan and the bearded man got into a blue car in the cab line. That indicates the involvement of another person, the driver of the blue car. This eyewitness lead and the composite made from the cabbie's description were suppressed.

The fire in Lynn, MA started at about 2:30 am on November 28, 1981. By time Joan landed, this had been burning all day. This was a 12-alarm fire that burned for almost two weeks. The whole area was blocked. It would have been difficult at best to get in there. That is important many years later when Joan's remains surfaced. Anyone traveling from the airport to the gravesite would have been diverted from the most direct route to Hamilton, MA where Joan was buried. That indicates someone not only knew the Boston area well but had to be familiar with the remote Hamilton area.

The undercover cop, Andrew Palombo, was 6''4", about 240 lbs. He had various looks, but most often had long hair and a beard to fit in with the motorcycle gangs he hung out with. At one point, I considered he was the bearded man, but he was much larger than the man described with Joan. Key points in Joan's case match up pretty well with Palombo. He worked at the airport. He was familiar with Route 107 where Joan's purse and wallet were found. He would know how to bypass the Lynn fire. His home was very close to on ramp to Route 128. Then it was only a couple exits away from the turnoff that went back to the gravesite. It was affirmed that Palombo was familiar with the area. Palombo was not the man that moved Joan to the blue car, but I cannot rule him out as the driver of the blue car. He could get into the cab line without causing any suspicion with his police credentials. He also knew the correct cause of death with correct details more than 7 years before Joan surfaced.

I know the individual who planned to visit Joan in NJ. They met at Harvard, but he had already graduated and lived in the Midwest. He was a contemporary, not the middle-aged man described with Joan.

One very critical question that has to be answered is who would George and Eleanor protect instead of their daughter? George and Eleanor had the eyewitness lead on December 21, 1981. They suppressed and so did the authorities. A small group influenced this story: ADA Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo and his superior Carmen Tammaro, and George and Eleanor Webster.

Joan was dropped off at Logan by George, Eleanor, and her sister Anne. That was highly unusual for everyone to make the airport run, usually it was just George. George did travel at some point over that weekend. My memory is corroborated by a statement Eleanor made to the media, but I don't know what George's exact itinerary was. What makes sense for the whole family to tag along was Eleanor did not like to drive at night. If George left from Newark on that Saturday night, Anne probably drove back. Anne then drove back to Boston on Sunday. There were two flights within a short time from Newark to Boston. George also had access to the corporate jet for ITT.

 

[ifindedout]

The fire in Lynn, MA started at about 2:30 am on November 28, 1981. By time Joan landed, this had been burning all day. This was a 12-alarm fire that burned for almost two weeks. The whole area was blocked. It would have been difficult at best to get in there. That is important many years later when Joan's remains surfaced. Anyone traveling from the airport to the gravesite would have been diverted from the most direct route to Hamilton, MA where Joan was buried. That indicates someone not only knew the Boston area well but had to be familiar with the remote Hamilton area.

RSBM

Lynn, Massachusetts - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Lynn suffered several large fires. On November 28, 1981, a devastating inferno engulfed several former shoe factories, located at Broad and Washington Streets. Seventeen downtown buildings were destroyed in less than twelve hours, with property losses estimated to be totaling at least $35,000,000 (equivalent to about $117,300,000 in 2023). At least 18 businesses were affected, resulting in the estimated loss of 1,500 jobs. The Lynn campus of the North Shore Community College, planning for which was already underway at the time of the fire, now occupies much of the burned area.

The Second Great Lynn Fire: 15 Years Later

David Liscio describes the conflagration that ravaged a shoe factory and required mutual aid from 94 communities in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

www.firehouse.com

 

[kielo]

Hi Kielo,

Let me see if I can get you up to speed. Joan traveled alone back to Boston. She spoke to a couple and a priest on the flight. At the luggage carousel, she waived to a couple of friends. She then spoke to a man behind a counter. There was no description of him. She engaged a Town Taxi to take her back to her dorm in Cambridge. Her suitcase was loaded in the trunk. There was no camera footage to my knowledge. That is when the bearded man caught up with Joan. Joan told the cabbie the man was with her. That indicates to me she knew him. The bearded man got into a verbal exchange with the cabbie over how he was loading the man's heavy suitcase. The exchange was verified. The bearded man turned to Joan and said we don't want to take this cab. This tells me not only did Joan know him, but she also trusted him. Joan's luggage was removed from the Town Taxi and Joan and the bearded man got into a blue car in the cab line. That indicates the involvement of another person, the driver of the blue car. This eyewitness lead and the composite made from the cabbie's description were suppressed.

The fire in Lynn, MA started at about 2:30 am on November 28, 1981. By time Joan landed, this had been burning all day. This was a 12-alarm fire that burned for almost two weeks. The whole area was blocked. It would have been difficult at best to get in there. That is important many years later when Joan's remains surfaced. Anyone traveling from the airport to the gravesite would have been diverted from the most direct route to Hamilton, MA where Joan was buried. That indicates someone not only knew the Boston area well but had to be familiar with the remote Hamilton area.

The undercover cop, Andrew Palombo, was 6''4", about 240 lbs. He had various looks, but most often had long hair and a beard to fit in with the motorcycle gangs he hung out with. At one point, I considered he was the bearded man, but he was much larger than the man described with Joan. Key points in Joan's case match up pretty well with Palombo. He worked at the airport. He was familiar with Route 107 where Joan's purse and wallet were found. He would know how to bypass the Lynn fire. His home was very close to on ramp to Route 128. Then it was only a couple exits away from the turnoff that went back to the gravesite. It was affirmed that Palombo was familiar with the area. Palombo was not the man that moved Joan to the blue car, but I cannot rule him out as the driver of the blue car. He could get into the cab line without causing any suspicion with his police credentials. He also knew the correct cause of death with correct details more than 7 years before Joan surfaced.

I know the individual who planned to visit Joan in NJ. They met at Harvard, but he had already graduated and lived in the Midwest. He was a contemporary, not the middle-aged man described with Joan.

One very critical question that has to be answered is who would George and Eleanor protect instead of their daughter? George and Eleanor had the eyewitness lead on December 21, 1981. They suppressed and so did the authorities. A small group influenced this story: ADA Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo and his superior Carmen Tammaro, and George and Eleanor Webster.

Joan was dropped off at Logan by George, Eleanor, and her sister Anne. That was highly unusual for everyone to make the airport run, usually it was just George. George did travel at some point over that weekend. My memory is corroborated by a statement Eleanor made to the media, but I don't know what George's exact itinerary was. What makes sense for the whole family to tag along was Eleanor did not like to drive at night. If George left from Newark on that Saturday night, Anne probably drove back. Anne then drove back to Boston on Sunday. There were two flights within a short time from Newark to Boston. George also had access to the corporate jet for ITT.

eve my apologies i am brand new on here. i'm not sure why but every time i get back on i see previous posts that weren't there before. my first comment i made after i had read every post that was on my screen till there were no more. but past couple times i've come back on here i see posts above mine that weren't there before..? i will continue to like the ones i have seen to see if maybe there are even more i haven't seen. i apologize if i asked questions you have addressed in other posts i haven't seen. forgive me for my delay in my next response. i have not forgotten you or given up i just have a lot more to read.
this post i am replying to clears a lot of things up for me. considering her stuff found so close to the airport and last place where she was seen i appreciate all the info possible on that. you are right about a second person if they got into a blue car with someone else. you said she was shown waving to several friends inside the airport. it's possible that at the gate before the flight that she met the bearded men and few other passengers. i'm having difficulty explaining that differently given she was going to take a cab and the bearded man had luggage and wasn't there to pick her up. could that have been just a coincidence he didn't like the way the cabbie handled his luggage or could the bearded man have had an alternative reason to get her to leave in the blue car with him. all very strange. the parents and police withholding information is baffling. i'm going to go read the posts im just now seeing and i'll get back to you.
any tips on navigating on here is much appreciated!

 

[eve carson]

Hi Kielo,

No worries. This case was a baffling, tangled mess. It's taken years of digging into it to make sense of it, and I lived it. I believe it was complicated by design. Based on source documents I recovered and the obstacles I encountered, this case was not as complicated as it first seemed. Authorities made up a story. They have no crime scene and went after a scapegoat rather than the man seen with Joan at Logan. This was a cover up.

Knowing what happened to Joan after the man maneuvered her to the blue car, this appears to have been a ruse to get her into a different vehicle. The story that the public heard, including myself was that no one noticed Joan, she just vanished. That was simply not true.

The former prosecutor Tim Burke wrote a book published in 2008 promoting the same Paradiso boat theory. The family supported it publicly. My copy of the book is so flagged for the errors and discrepancies. Burke's book is really evidence in an open homicide case.

I have a website Joan Webster Murder. I have laid things out with a timeline, documents, photos, narrative, etc. If you are just starting to follow this thread, the website will probably help. But don't hesitate to ask questions or offer your thoughts.

 

[kielo]

Hi Kielo,

No worries. This case was a baffling, tangled mess. It's taken years of digging into it to make sense of it, and I lived it. I believe it was complicated by design. Based on source documents I recovered and the obstacles I encountered, this case was not as complicated as it first seemed. Authorities made up a story. They have no crime scene and went after a scapegoat rather than the man seen with Joan at Logan. This was a cover up.

Knowing what happened to Joan after the man maneuvered her to the blue car, this appears to have been a ruse to get her into a different vehicle. The story that the public heard, including myself was that no one noticed Joan, she just vanished. That was simply not true.

The former prosecutor Tim Burke wrote a book published in 2008 promoting the same Paradiso boat theory. The family supported it publicly. My copy of the book is so flagged for the errors and discrepancies. Burke's book is really evidence in an open homicide case.

I have a website Joan Webster Murder. I have laid things out with a timeline, documents, photos, narrative, etc. If you are just starting to follow this thread, the website will probably help. But don't hesitate to ask questions or offer your thoughts.

yes those sites you have provided are making it a lot easier! you are absolutely right. they are using the tactic of overload information and misinformation. infamous move when cornered and have to give over something. i have also moved to my lap top to see if that will help with maneuvering on this site. do you know if the family worked with or had any dealings with people in Boston? i still can't get over the fact footage wasn't even attempted to be obtained from the airport. i know there is discrepancy's in where the suitcase was found it seems the evidence points to the Boston bus station, again opportunity for recovering footage i assume that was never made. are you aware of a previous relationship with the websters and burk or did they meet due to this case?
God bless you for your pursuit on answers when even her own family won't! you really are quite amazing!

 

[eve carson]

On April 22, 2024, I submitted the following FOIA request.

FOIA for records requested:

All records regarding the alleged crime scene, the Malafemmena, a 25 foot Christ Craft boat titled to Candace Weyant and operated by Leonard Paradiso.

Records should include, but not limited to

• Insurance records with Liberty Mutual Insurance
• Police reports
• FBI reports and lab results on the Malafemmena
• Marine Surveyor David Williams report
• Court records
• Witness statements regarding the boat
• Boat recovery reports
• Reward poster and reports for information regarding the boat
• Reports regarding developer John O’Connell and Pier 7
• Reports of .357 magnum allegedly recovered under boat mooring
• Warrants submitted regarding the boat
• Briefs or court filings regarding the boat
• Reports or documents identifying marine equipment recovered either on the boat or identified as equipment used on the boat
• Report on the condition of the boat when it was raised on September 26, 1983
• Reports of diving efforts to locate the boat

All of this information is available. I provided some information to the custodian or informed them where documents could be located. To be clear, the boat referenced was the alleged crime scene. In prior communication with the custodian, I learned their files were deficient of numerous items.

In a meeting with the custodian on May 1, 2017, the ADAs I met with affirmed I had mastered the facts and document management. ADA John Dawley also stated he knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. That's the rub because that is where the problem is to resolve this case. During that meeting, I gave them the name of a first-hand witness that affirmed Tim Burke had a carton of Joan Webster files removed when he left Suffolk County and went into private practice. The current custodian received the files, nine banker's boxes, in 1990 when Joan's remains surfaced in their jurisdiction.

After appealing the FOIA, this is the response received from ADA David O'Sullivan.

I apologize for the delay in responding. This Office has previously provided all records contained in the file that reference any boat, including the Malafemmena in 2017 and again in 2022 free of charge. This Office is not in possession of further responsive records.

Respectfully,

David F. O'Sullivan

NOTE: The only documents provided are boat registrations. That is not even remotely reasonable that the only information in case files about the crime scene are boat registrations. That proves nothing. They did not acknowledge any information I provided them, request information from me, or make any effort to obtain documents independently.

This was a fraudulent investigation based on a contrived story. Now the malfeasance is being covered up.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve! Hope all is well..
So I'm trying to wrap my head around the theory of LE. They think Paradiso randomly showed up at the airport with an accomplice to abduct and kill a young woman? I didn't think he operated like this..wasn't Paradiso more of a person who picked up hitchhikers and acted alone? And why would he need to go to a crowded airport to do this? Sure, I can see him as the type to pose as a cab driver, but then that doesn't explain the bearded man. Do you think Paradiso could have been "recruited" by the bearded man, who Joan must have known to willingly go with him?
Also, do you suspect Joan did know the bearded man or he was rehearsed as to what to say to Joan that would make her trust him?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

I had trouble wrapping my head around it too. The pieces don't fit. Paradiso had a rap sheet. He was vulnerable to accusations. I can't find any actual and verifiable evidence that Paradiso had anything to do with Joan's murder. A couple factors emphasize that. First, the boat was sunk four months before Joan disappeared, so the story LE was constructing was impossible. Second, I analyzed the Marie Iannuzzi case in depth. There is a lot of strong evidence this was a wrongful conviction. LE was tying all this together and it really clouded the issue. Paradiso was a scapegoat.

There is no question in my mind that Joan knew the bearded man and trusted him. She had engaged a cab already and would not have shifted cars if she didn't trust the man. Paradiso was a parolee and could not get a hack license to drive a cab. If he was doing it off the grid, I imagine someone would have come forward about that with all the publicity. LE never suggested Paradiso worked with an accomplice. There was never any verifiable evidence Paradiso drove a cab ever.

There is no connection I can find between the bearded man and Paradiso. The bearded man is the one responsible for Joan's murder. Paradiso was a distraction to divert the investigation. I go back to the two officers, Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo. Tammaro suggested the boat theory four months before he guided a jailhouse snitch through the same story. Robert Bond's story follows that line but is false on numerous points. In fact, during the interview with Bond, he gave Tammaro and Palombo a multiple choice for cause of death. He did not know. That means those two officers knew the correct cause of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan's remains surfaced. I would conclude these two officers knew the bearded man and what happened to Joan. I believe one of them was probably involved based on identifiable points in Joan's case, and the other had his back. The cause of death at that time would have only been known to the killer or someone complicit in the crime. The Paradiso boat story was a cover up.

 

[eve carson]

I am at a point that I believe Joan's case is solvable. It's not difficult to identify certain things. What has been difficult is the resistance I have encountered. That in and of itself is a clue.

Here is the profile of the individual responsible for Joan's murder.

1. Middle-aged white male
2. Under 6' and weighed approximately 160 pounds
3. Dark hair
4. Joan travelled alone - the man knew where Joan would be
5. Joan introduced him to the cabbie as someone that was with her - Joan knew the man
6. He was likely travelling - he had a suitcase
7. Demanding - he got into a verbal exchange with the cabbie over a heavy suitcase
8. He told Joan "We don't want to take this cab," and maneuvered her to another vehicle - Joan trusted him
9. The man is organized - a car was waiting in the cab line with an accomplice - a premeditated abduction

These are the two critical pieces of the profile that distinguishes this case

10. The man had the means, or influence, or both to enlist the aiding and abetting from LE
11. The man was more valuable to George and Eleanor Webster than their daughter Joan - George and Eleanor had the eyewitness lead in December 1981 - This was not Leonard Paradiso, the man they accused

This narrows the list of suspects considerably.