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

[ebfortin76]

Every unresolved case has an answer. Joan’s case is no different. It should be obvious to anyone that an offender seeks to avoid detection. Recovered documents show serious discrepancies with the case authorities represented to the courts, other agencies, and the public. The problem with Joan’s case is there are people in positions of "trust" that do not want this case resolved. Justice rests in the hands of people with other agendas. There is not sufficient recourse when evidence of misconduct is present. A breakdown in our legal and law enforcement systems hurts everyone. Most of those serving in our legal and law enforcement communities are decent, hardworking, and honest players. One or two bad actors can cause serious harm.

I have submitted an article to The Journal of Forensic and Crime Investigation. My article has been through peer review and a final galley proof approved. It is currently in press. The article is available for view at the following link.

http://www.scienceinquest.com/open-...t-in-the-cold-case-murder-of-joan-webster.php

The answer to Joan’s loss is simple. Who was shielded by authorities?

Where are we Eve with this case? Any new lead? Any credible suspect? Any news on the FISA request?

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

Here is where things stand. On November 29, 2017, I received the last few documents from the DAO. I affirmed receipt and requested clarification of documents not included in the FOIA appeal. The DAO has not responded nor has the Superintendent of Records.

To date, the DAO has claimed the privacy and investigatory exemptions to deny records. In some cases they claimed requested records were exempted by statute as grand jury. None of the records requested were obtained through a grand jury. Documents were provided to the DAO to affirm they should have the documents in their files and how and when they were obtained in the investigation.

The DAO either does not have the documents or they are obstructing the release of documents that raise concerns about misconduct. Per ADA John Dawley, their office obtained the records from the MSP. They have already affirmed their files are missing key documents. I think it is pretty logical to conclude if misconduct exists, as recovered records indicate, relevant documents were removed from the files before the DAO received them. In addition, former ADA Tim Burke left the Suffolk County DAO with a box of files in September 1985. The evidence in recovered records does support police involvement.

Two offices have been contacted for an external review of the conduct of past and present authorities. I have learned to be very patient. The wheels of justice turn very slowly.

The current DAO does not have justification to deny records available through other sources. Former government employee Tim Burke represented things to the courts, other agencies, and the public that the current DAO cannot support. He also has published representations from documents I have obtained, but the DAO continues to deny. The quotes are out of context and do not reflect the content of those records correctly, especially when reviewed with other records.

I spoke with a longtime friend over the weekend. This friend was around when Joan disappeared and heard the information as I learned it at the time. This friend gets it. The questions were the same ones I have asked over and over. If there was an earnest desire for truth and justice, why the resistance? The answer is simple based on what is in the records, people have things to hide.

 

[mshannon]

Can you provide more information on current status of Burke, Tammaro and Broce? I agree with the person who said it is more likely to be someone Palombo was shielding than Palombo. Would Palombo have targeted Joan Webster and why? How would he know which flight she was on in order to intercept her? Would he have had a heavy suitcase ready to go? How would the wrong cab just conveniently been second in line waiting for them? This all seems far-fetched. More likely to me is a predator picked Joan Webster at random when seeing her waiting for luggage at baggage claim. He pretended to be going to Cambridge so he could prey on her. It was a real cab, but the bearded man drew a gun during the trip and forced the cab to go somewhere. This still leaves many problems. Why did Joan return early? What happens to the cab/car and driver used in the abduction. Was the driver also killed and disposed of? Or - was Palombo really a predator at heart, and he picked Joan at random because she was attractive and he wanted to rape her? It seems to me that an aspect that has been neglected is what happened to the driver and the car? Hard to explain unless they were complicit or were also disposed of and never found.

 

[mshannon]

Having read through all this, I agree with this conclusion. It seems likely to me that the motivation for Burke’s book is to try to end scrutiny to this case, to keep the cover up and malfeasance from being unearthed. To stop Eve, et al. from ever finding out the truth.

 

[Ibiz]

I would think the million dollar question is: why did she decide to fly back to Cambridge a day early when she could have simply drove back the next day with her sister?

Answering that question would provide the first clue to solving the case.

 

[mshannon]

I'm really at a loss as to how to approach this case and make it advance further. The parents doesn't want it to change. Burke, who is central, doesn't want it to change. The current organisation that has controlled the records doesn't want it to change. It's been a while and some people are now deceased. I don't see much things that can be done to force a breakthrough in this case.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

How about some publicity? Websleuths seems like a good start. It has pulled in people like me who have no vested interest, and are reading with fresh eyes. I find it totally convincing that the boat theory is hogwash and a cover up. It seems very convincing that Palombo was either the murderer, or knew the murderer, and actively participated in (and motivated?) the coverup, including disposing of evidence and burying the body. Palombo as the bearded man in a sting that went awry? Mis-identified Joan as someone else? just thinking out loud here.

 

[mshannon]

Another thought is that the bearded man was someone ITT/CIA/Websters knew, and they did not want it to come out. Because I am very unclear about why the ITT security guy would be acting to divert the investigation, which seems to be the case.

 

[Ibiz]

I would think the million dollar question is: why did she decide to fly back to Cambridge a day early when she could have simply drove back the next day with her sister?

Answering that question would provide the first clue to solving the case.

The second question would be: what was inside the sac she was carring with her?

Her purse was found dumped on a roadside, and her suitcase was found at a bus station locker, but the carring sac was never found.

What was in this sac that was so important to her killer(s)?

I think those two items are important, need to be answered before an assumptions are made.

 

[mshannon]

The second question would be: what was inside the sac she was carring with her?

Her purse was found dumped on a roadside, and her suitcase was found at a bus station locker, but the carring sac was never found.

What was in this sac that was so important to her killer(s)?

I think those two items are important, need to be answered before an assumptions are made.

Yes, I would really like to know what was the item entered into police evidence that Eve mentioned, which came from the tote bag? Eve, can you share any more about that?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Mshannon and Ibiz,

A very heartfelt thank you for caring about Joan and your interest in her case. I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

The current status of participants from the investigation is the following. Tim Burke is a practicing defense attorney in MA. Carmen Tammaro is the head of security with a major firm in MA. It makes me very uncomfortable for these people to hold authority that impacts public safety. Steve Broce is currently in CA. In 2013, a male whistleblower in the agency brought forward serious allegations about Broce. The whistleblower was forced out of his position in the FBI.

There is no question in my mind Palombo played some part in Joan’s loss. He was all over the place pressing the boat theory and ignoring facts in numerous entangled cases around Paradiso. I do not see that Palombo had his own motivation. I have looked for influence and possible enticement. Was Palombo hired?

One area I studied in reviewing this case was the climate and dysfunction in Boston at the time. There was a lot of this behavior on all levels, state, local, and federal. Do not take that to mean I mistrust legal and law enforcement. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel.

I do not think Joan’s loss was random. The lead Joan approached and had her bag in a taxi was suppressed. That would not have been the case for a random perp. That lead was buried before Burke joined the case. It points squarely at the officers in charge, the MSP.

There are a couple of points that make the encounter seem premeditated. If someone saying they were going to Cambridge to share a cab, it does not make sense Joan would switch cars with him. No one ever searched for the bearded man or the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] vehicle. However, I am sure other events that occurred on November 28, 1981, were reviewed. There is nothing to point to the bearded man or the car that surfaced.

How did someone gain Joan’s confidence? How did another car end up in the cab line? Both can be answered by law enforcement. A badge would reasonably gain someone’s confidence. As an example of persuading Joan, her grandfather RN was in failing health at that time. Police may have had flight rosters at F Barracks. The other possibility is being notified Joan was on the flight.
The scenario as the facts are known to date suggests premeditation; Joan was the intended victim. The idea of such an orchestrated scene at the airport does not seem far-fetched to me after reviewing the level of malfeasance during the whole investigation and entangled cases.

The explanation Joan went back early was George’s explanation. It never made sense. She completed an 11-week project Monday before she left on break. No evidence has turned up that she planned to meet classmates on Sunday. George is quoted in an article Joan placed a call that morning to check on supplies. That call is not in the phone records. From personal knowledge, Joan had invited a guest at Thanksgiving, but the plans changed. Travel plans altered during Thanksgiving.

The item I have referred to is a common item; it would not be any cause for motive. Burke claimed it was in Joan’s recovered suitcase. I have the FBI list of contents. Burke lied. I am still going through appeals with the DAO. They have not provided the requested list of recovered items. The item was in Joan’s tote bag. According to the Superintendent of Records, the DAO cannot deny records obtainable from other sources. Regardless, they have not provided records. An item from Joan’s tote bag in police evidence further implicates the MSP for complicity in Joan’s loss. I want facts to support my concerns. Until I have a final resolve on requested records, I will refrain from identifying the item, but it was not a factor in her murder.

The question whether the Websters knew the bearded man remains unanswered. They did not have the composite until December 21, 1981. The MSP derailed the lead well before that. The Websters kept a lid on the composite and the lead. ITT’s involvement is also concerning. Jack McEwan was very involved and threw in distractions that diverted away from the legitimate lead.

I agree the question why Joan went back early is very important and who knew she was going back.

 

[mshannon]

I cannot see pre-meditation clearly from what I have read (everything posted here and a bit elsewhere). How would she be lured back? How would anyone force her to go back early? To me it seems like there would only be three ways to gain her confidence: she was sent back deliberately to meet with someone specific; it was someone she already knew; law enforcement. I can’t see a clear motivation for law enforcement to murder her. However, I can more easily imagine a screw up and coverup. I can totally understand why you have been compelled by this case. I can’t understand why the rest of her family would not be equally compelled unless they know something more that has led them to know the answer, or to know it is futile.

 

[Ibiz]

Ms. Carson, the fact that Joan's suitcase was placed in a bus station locker for safe keeping indicates to me that she herself "Joan" was the one who put it there.

Other wise the perp(s) would have just discarded it on the roadside with her purse. THIS MEANS THAT AFTER HER ARRIVAL AT THE AIRPORT, she "Joan" went to the bus station.

Still with all the info you have provided we know everything about everyone who lived in Boston, but nothing about Joan.

Also, there is zero motive as why the people you claim did this would have done it. SO I WILL ASK AGAIN.

What was in the sac she was carring that was never found? Why was it so urgent for her to return to Boston in the middle of a holiday weekend in the wee hours of the night, and why did she go to the bus station, and put her suitcase in a storage locker for safe keeping?

 

[mshannon]

contents of the suitcase are listed in earlier posts, these contents were detailed by the FBI in Quantico. There is also a list of suspected contents of the tote bag in other posts but this is not totally certain. Remember that the cabbie said she asked for a cab to Cambridge, so it would not make sense to me that she went to the bus station herself. It seems more likely that someone dispersed her belongings afterwards to confuse the search for the killer. just my thinking anyway.

 

[Ibiz]

Someone schooled in ivestigative techniques would not sprinkle clues and other little breadcrumbs all over town. The purse had been rifled through the suitcase had not.

The contents of the tote bag was important to the perp(s), and has never been found. The perp(s) would not have paid money to store a suitcase that they never even rifled through.

There is no evidence of what the cab driver heard or saw. On another note, if the bearded man had a very heavy suitcase, then I would assume it was filled with money or paper.

 

[mshannon]

good points. i will think more about this. but do you think she disposed of her own purse?
there was a police interview of the cabbie, and the composite that finally came out came from him. It was a pretty detailed report.

 

[Ibiz]

No, I do not think she would have disposed of her purse. From what I read, it sounds like it was just thrown from the window of a vehicle.

 

[mshannon]

yes, that is what it sounds like to me too.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Mshannon and Ibiz,

I have been digging into the case for more than a decade. It has not been easy, but I had the advantage of personal knowledge and where to look. I recovered the composite in 2009. I sat up all night staring at it. Through FOIAs, the composite has been affirmed from multiple sources. I recovered the photo of Joan’s skull and detail of her remains from an investigator who was part of the recovery. I could not get out of bed for 2 days. I have learned to be very patient to get to this information. The authorities have been an obstacle, not a help.

The tote bag contained record albums, some items of clothing, a playbill from Pirates of Penzance, possibly architectural pamphlets, papers or books, and possibly some jewelry items. The significance for me about the tote bag is that it was never recovered. However, the former prosecutor placed an item that was in that bag in police evidence.

The locations of items are in different directions. The purse and wallet were 7-8 miles north of the airport. It is a split roadway with four lanes and a median. The items were in the marsh along the southbound side of the highway headed toward the airport. Nothing suggests Joan disposed of her purse herself. The only thing noticeably missing was cash in her wallet. I have a detailed police report taken from the man who found them on December 2, 1981.

The bus station was going east in Boston. It was not the best part of town. Joan would not go there. A calculated person who wanted to throw off an investigation and knew the process would spread things to avoid detection. The suitcase was not found until January 29, 1982. Again, the police report is detailed. A legitimate investigation was indeed thrown off. As these items were found, the investigation went off in all sorts of directions. Note: the key to the locker was not in Joan's purse.

The grave was about 30 miles due north of the airport. There were roadblocks due to a major fire in Lynn that night.

Joan either knew the bearded man or he gained her confidence. The eyewitness report from the cabbie is detailed. What he observed and heard was confirmed when a dispatcher came over the radio to check on the driver. The dispatcher was named and affirmed the incident to police. The key indicator for me was why this lead was not followed.

Go back to the basics. The state’s snitch claimed Joan was raped and murdered on Paradiso’s boat and dumped in Boston Harbor. Certified court records affirm the boat did not exist. Recovered documents affirm police were aware the boat was gone when they interviewed Bond. The story changed when Joan was found more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene, not in Boston Harbor. Bond’s interview with MSP gave a multiple choice for the manner of death. The written statement came later with the correct manner of death with correct detail.

I cannot say with certainty why Joan went back early. I spoke with her on Thanksgiving and there was no indication. She had other plans that got cancelled. George offered a reasonable sounding explanation, but I can’t find any records that affirm it. George traveled that weekend. That is not only my personal recollection, but confirmed by the Websters quoted in a Boston Magazine article. George ruled the roost. Joan’s plans could have changed to accommodate George’s schedule. That also explains why Anne and Eleanor also made the trip to the airport. Eleanor never went to the airport. But if George had a flight, Eleanor would not drive in the dark, Anne would.

The boat story is false. The lead of the bearded man was suppressed. The explanation was fabricated.

 

[Ibiz]

Ms. Carson: do you realize that your screen name is of a woman who who was murdered in 2008.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Eve_Carson

Who are you, and if you are married to Joan's brother would your last name not be Webster ?

 

[Jennifer17]

I don't think that anyone could possibly know what was in her tote. She may have taken something out of her tote and put it in her checked luggage, unless it was a boarding pass or something that she needed on the flight.