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

[eve carson]

Ibiz,

I was driving when I heard the news about the murdered student Eve Carson. I almost wrecked the car. There is no relation. I had to phone my mother immediately to let her know the news casts were not about me. Carson is my maiden name. I was married to Joan's brother for 25 years.

Jennifer 17,

There is a list of items carried in the tote bag provided by the family. There is specific detail about items.

 

[Midge Montana]

I found this thread yesterday and spent my Christmas reading it.
What an amazing gift! I can't think of any other thread on WS that I have read that "gives us" so much information, from a verified insider who has done the hard work and taken so much time to explain the case to us.
Eve, you are my sleuthing hero right now, for sure. I love that Joan has you to stand up for her, to advocate for her and, in doing so, all of us.
What a horrifying story, indeed. Keep up the good work but please be safe!

 

[eve carson]

Hi Midge Montana,

Thank you for yourincredibly kind words and your interest in Joan. I truly appreciate it. I do believe this case is solvable.

I get one question or comment on a regular basis. What’s the motive? I cannot fathom what goes through the mind of anyone that commits such heinous acts on another human being. This case has been incredibly difficult to unravel. Certainly someone had motive. This was no accident.
I did not think about motive to examine this case. I looked at facts. I looked at the timeline. I looked at who knew what and when. I looked for discrepancies. I looked at identifiable behaviors.

Set aside motive for the time being and look at the facts.

Fact one: An eyewitness positively ID’d Joan at Logan and had her suitcase in the trunk of his cab. The cabbie provided a description of a man with Joan. The man and Joan moved to another car when the cabbie struggled with a heavy bag. Joan disappeared. This is the critical lead.

This lead was not pursued. The composite was suppressed. Not only is that crystal clear from all I learned at the time, but it is evident throughout records documenting the case. That is the farthest thing from an earnest search for a missing person. There could be any number of motives why authorities were not looking for Joan. The fact is a legitimate investigation was derailed. Note: There were a lot of dedicated officers who earnestly sought truthful answers, but they lacked access to adequate information.

Fact two: The state promoted a theory Joan was murdered on a boat through a snitch, a convicted killer positioned close to Paradiso. Authorities had knowledge the alleged crime scene was missing when they spoke to Bond. Rudimentary detective work would have establish the status of the boat. News accounts reported the boat was missing before Joan disappeared at the same time Bond’s statement hit the papers in January 1983. In April 1985, Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared in a federal bankruptcy fraud case. This is case CR 85-010-S. These are public records.

Regardless, authorities continued to promote the boat theory. Authorities involved at the time shut down investigation reporting to the FBI on July 24, 1985, they had developed enough evidence to conclude Paradiso murdered Joan in November 1981. They had nothing connecting Paradiso to Joan. That is false information reported to the FBI during a criminal investigation. That is a felony. Burke published the same explanation in 2008.

Facts one and two are clear indicators of malfeasance. The authorities were not looking for Joan and fabricated a story to explain her loss. This case should be important for everyone who values justice and our legal and law enforcement systems.

I don’t know how many people here have a personal experience with such tragedy of a missing or murdered loved one. It is a hell I would not want for anyone. Imagine what it has been like recovering documents that exposed such an egregious miscarriage of justice. Not only did the offender have no value for Joan, neither did the participants in spreading false stories. Authorities need to be held accountable. This could happen to anyone if left unchecked, and sometimes does.

Follow where the facts lead. I believe questions of motive will logically follow when the last layers of this onion are peeled.

 

[ebfortin76]

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 ?

I think her identity as a person related to the family of Joan has been verified by Websleuth.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[ebfortin76]

I think that the key to this case, more than why she went back sooner, is what happened at the meeting between the Webster and law enforcement. Just before people were assigned to the case. Actually where they were assigned to the case. Something was said that fixed all the events that happened after that. It's the key to why the Webster's have been going along with clearly false stories. Why everything point to a cover up. And countless other things. This meeting is too unusual. You don't meet with the family to determine the course of action. Something happened.

My gut feeling was and still is that they presented the facts to the Webster's. They explained why they couldn't arrest the guy now. And they agreed to go along because of what was at stake.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[chinacat67]

I'm less than 100 posts in but if this doesn't scream 1980s corruption a la Whitey Bulger and Boston FBI and PD, I don't know what does.

It is a tragedy that plays like The Departed. Of course, it's not a movie and the pain is still clear and I am so sorry for all of those affected...so so many.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Bulger was involved somehow (not in murder but in cover up) and maybe even handed up an enemy for prosecution and or harrasment etc.

MOO...

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[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?

If we think about the injuries that Joan suffered; ( that we know about,) then we would have to assume that the person that murdered her was very angry about something. A 2x4 piece of wood could cause such an injury, but so could a 4" square 5th size whiskie bottle.

Also, if the person held it in their hand like a brick, then it could do great damage to their hand. That said, I really think whoever killed her was ether very angry with her or they were trying to send a message to someone else.

 

[eve carson]

A lot of really good points have been made. Let to respond to each of them.

First, I did go through verification here at WS. I provided documents to establish my relationship to this case.

I agree that what transpired in the February 1982 meeting with the Websters is very important. The meeting was disclosed publicly by former Trooper Dave Moran. He played a part in aspects of both the Iannuzzi case and Joan’s investigation. This is a record I have requested from the current custodian. This is still under appeal if they have it. Note: The records they obtained from the MSP were missing many documents. In addition, Palombo is on record during the Iannuzzi trial affirming he had undocumented meetings with the boyfriend in that case. That's not how it is done. After a meeting with Joan’s parents, the team comes out going after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case. That is unusual too, going after a suspect in an unrelated case.

This case most definitely reflects the same dysfunction in the system that shielded Bulger. I have not found anything that connects Joan to organized crime. However, there are names associated with Joan’s case that also had links to Bulger. Burke and Palombo are two of them. Burke paints himself as some sort of hero boasting he wrote a warrant to bug Bulger’s garage. Burke says he met Palombo at that time and describes a long-haired undercover cop who drove a van into Bulger’s Lancaster Street garage. Tammaro leaked the location of a camera watching the mafia and “predicted” the arrests of key figures. He described unethical practices how the FBI could fix the tapes to say what they wanted them to say. It is unreasonable to think if some of these participants did not play by the book in other matters, why would anyone expect Joan’s case to be legitimate?

Joan sustained a tremendous blow to the head. The offender was angry; that suggests it was personal. Using an object makes it harder to identify. The elbow is the only bone harder than the skull. This took enormous force to leave a hole that size. Burke and Palombo both came out claiming there were shards of broken glass found on the boat. That would be consistent with Bond’s story, or the story the MSP settled on. There was no glass found on the boat. That is affirmed in FBI reports. Burke and Palombo lied to the courts. There were no liquor bottles found on the boat. There was no trace of anything on the boat to support Burke’s allegations. As a matter of fact, the boat did not even exist when Joan disappeared. An officer involved in the recovery had no knowledge of any glass found with Joan’s remains.

My inclination is this was a limb, tire iron, 2 x 4, or similar type item that could be swung with tremendous force. I have no doubt Joan died instantly.

The most telling circumstance for me is the response of current custodians. They affirmed I have extensive knowledge of this case. They acknowledged my credibility and said they hoped for credible evidence. I think certified court records and FBI reports they can obtain independently qualify for their criteria. Regardless, ADA John Dawley “advised” me not to probe so deeply. That’s a warning as far as I am concerned. I am on the right track.

 

[eve carson]

Why is this case stuck?

When I started digging into this and finding discrepancies, I spoke with a Boston lawyer who said solving this case would make his career. A PI I worked with had his license threatened. I was advised not to probe deeply.

These are tightly knit circles in MA. The Center for Public Integrity does not grade MA favorably. I have added the CPI grades for 2015.

[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]
The Boston FBI and Suffolk County DAO were both exposed for corruption during the time of Joan’s investigation.

ADA John Dawley is currently the responsible person to address misconduct. He knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. He has to “weigh” investigating and opening old wounds. He advised me not to probe deeply. That is too much control in the hands of an individual who has conflicts of interest.

I have approached the AG office. The previous AG Martha Coakley also knows Tim Burke. The current AG Maura Healey’s office informed me the case has to be referred to them before they review it. It’s a mess.

MA has a history of these cases. The system in MA tends to circle the wagons and shield their own at the expense of victims and loved ones.

 

[eve carson]

Hypothetical

Let me take a hypothetical situation that addresses a couple of points brought up. It was suggested authorities presented the Websters with a set of circumstances where officials protected someone who may have been critical for some other investigation. At that time, Whitey Bulger was shielded by authorities, so we know authorities did that sort of thing. Note: I am not suggesting Bulger was involved in Joan’s loss; this is hypothetical.

And then let’s say, the Websters were convinced to cooperate for the “greater good” of ongoing investigations. I don’t know that most parents would do that when it comes to the safety and well-being of their daughter. However, the Websters had an intelligence background and may have felt Joan was already lost.

Here are the questions I am left with.

Why was this case sensationalized through the media for years on some sort of pretense?
Why was a scapegoat necessary to provide an explanation?
Why were other cases infected, denying justice for many?
Did this other person, who was more important than Joan and other victims, serve his purpose?
What was the outcome?
Why is that individual still shielded to deny justice in Joan’s case?

Offenders like Bulger have now been caught. I have had contact with a former FBI agent familiar with the Bulger case. He did indicate a lot of people in Boston are still covering their hind ends. Simple reason, there is hell to pay for shielding criminal informants. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. If the Websters were unfairly put in the position to cooperate with authorities at the expense of Joan, then they should be first in line to want the truth to be told.

Only the Websters cananswer those questions.

 

[ebfortin76]

Hypothetical


Here are the questions I am left with.

Why was this case sensationalized through the media for years on some sort of pretense?
Why was a scapegoat necessary to provide an explanation?
Why were other cases infected, denying justice for many?
Did this other person, who was more important than Joan and other victims, serve his purpose?
What was the outcome?
Why is that individual still shielded to deny justice in Joan’s case?

I'll try to answer based on my "theory". I obviously doesn't have all the answers to everything. It's only a theory based on very few things I have access to.

Why was this case sensationalized through the media for years on some sort of pretense?

I don't thing they hyped it through the media. For me they would have gladly keep the case a low profile. However the media took over the news and hyped it. They had to live with it. It's true that they could have stopped at some point. And your question is valid.

Why was a scapegoat necessary to provide an explanation?

Given the coverage in the medias, they had to come up with something. They couldn't just let it go.

Why were other cases infected, denying justice for many?

For the same reason above. That's the strategy they employed. I'm not pretending that their deception is all perfectly thought through. No doubt some decision made were not the right one and in their own best interest at the end.

Did this other person, who was more important than Joan and other victims, serve his purpose?

I think he did. But if he didn't it doesn't change anything to this case. The fact is, based on this theory, they were seeing him as a valuable asset at the time. I also think that he died long ago. Or is in prison for the rest of his life. And that's why the Webster don't want to reopen anything in this case and became even agressive with you. Justice in their view was served. So no need to go there. Again, a theory.

What was the outcome?

Whatever the outcome, it doesn't change this case.

Why is that individual still shielded to deny justice in Joan’s case?

You said it yourself. If they did what we are talkimg about here, they commited a criminal offense. So the more reason to continue to shield everyone involved.



Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

One point I will clarify. This was hyped through the media. The news items began when Joan’s purse was found and never let up. It got more sensational over time when Paradiso was inserted publicly and things like the Zodiac theory were circulated. This case was never kept low profile whether that was the original intent or not.

I think part of needing a scapegoat relates to the Websters. They would need an explanation.

In following this hypothesis, I go back and look at the timeline. The following are statements of fact supported with source documents. This is just a sampling. I will agree with anyone that thinks these facts are not a good reflection of the Websters. That concerns me a great deal. And it also explains the Websters’ resistance to an examination of this case.

The Websters were involved in several extortion incidents. The one in October 1982 was very dramatic and involved. George Webster was right in the center of it. Steve, Joan’s brother, is on record denying anything like that happened. “I don’t remember” is a pretty classic evasion. The DAO did not have knowledge or documents about the incident. I provided multiple reports that the custodians can obtain independently.

The Websters had an Interpol Blue Notice submitted in March 1983. That’s long after Joan disappeared and highly unlikely to do anything except distract in yet another direction.

Witness Tony Pisa made assurances to George Webster. It is more than a breach of protocol and highly unusual to have the father of a victim in discussions with Pisa.

The Websters sat in the courtroom during the Iannuzzi trial and were frequently quoted touting the credibility of Robert Bond. Their presence undoubtedly had some influence.

George Webster was in contact with USA William Weld that prosecuted the bankruptcy fraud case, CR85-010-S. The prosecutor submitted three letters from George one month after the same court affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. The prosecutor was recommending an unusually harsh sentence in that case on speculation Paradiso murdered Joan.

The Websters visited Tim Burke in 2005, and Burke then announced a book. The book is dedicated to theWebsters. They publicly cooperated with the book. The book gives a graphic description of rape and murder on Paradiso's boat, the boat that did not exist on November 28, 1981.

I believe I have already posted supporting documents, but if I have not or you want something reposted, let me know.

If the Websters had knowledge and went along with authorities for the “greater good,” they were very proactive to push it forward rather than just staying in the background. I can’t tell you how much I pray there is a reasonable and verifiable explanation. I want to state here unequivocally that if the Websters were lied to or threatened or coerced to go along with this, I am 100% behind them with a mountain of documents. That has been communicated to the Websters.

Murder is not a private family matter.

 

[eve carson]

Resolving Joan’s case is a two-part problem.

Problem # 1:

Authorities diverted the investigation. They fabricated the boat scenario and implicated a scapegoat. An offender avoided detection.

Take the most glaring hole in the promoted theory. The alleged crime scene, Paradiso’s boat did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981. I have uploaded Tim Burke’s brief mention of the bankruptcy case.

Burke misspelled Judge Richard Stearns name. There is only one Judge Richard Stearns in the federal court system, past or present, anywhere. He was appointed to the bench in 1993. That is eight years too late for this case.

I am uploading the actual case in April 1985, CR 85-010-S, Judge Bruce Selya presiding. I have added the certification, title page, and confirmation the boat did not exist. There is plenty more revealed in the case records.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that Burke did not want the real case revealed. It completely discredits the boat theory and his published account in 2008. He continues to obstruct the truth in Joan’s loss. Keep in mind, this was a former government employee with privileged access to records. These files were missing from the current custodian’s records. How could that be? The boat is the central component of the alleged crime.

ADA John Dawley stated he knows Tim Burke and did not want to focus on him. That’s a conflict of interest.

Problem # 1: Authorities at the time obstructed real justice and current authorities are shielding malfeasance. The state of MA is effectively covering up Joan’s murder.

The challenge is what avenues exist to hold authorities accountable.

 

[eve carson]

The definition of Lie is:

1. (n) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. (n) something intended or serving to convey a false impression
3. (n) an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4. (v) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive
5. (v) to express what is false; convey a false impression
6. (v) to bring about or affect by lying

In my opinion, an important component of lying is knowingly spreading a false statement.

Recovered documents overwhelmingly expose the authorities for lying in documents filed with the courts, other agencies, and the public. Problem One simply stated is a corrupted investigation perpetrated by Massachusetts and federal authorities. Joan was denied justice by their actions.

Problem Two is much more difficult and sensitive. The Webster family publicly cooperated with the representations made by authorities during and after the investigation. They publicly supported Tim Burke’s published account that gives a graphic description of rape and murder on Paradiso’s boat. Recovered documents contradict that explanation.

In reviewing meeting notes with the current custodians, there were comments that stood out. First, ADA John Dawley knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. That is a conflict of interest contrary to their responsibility to Joan.

Dawley suggested he had to “weigh” investigating and opening old wounds. To correct ADA Dawley, the wounds were inflicted by the person(s) responsible for Joan’s loss and authorities who denied her justice. The DAO is delegated the responsibility of truth, justice, and public safety. Any truthful answer is going to be painful.

ADA Dawley indicated some people “move on” and others want to turn every stone for the answers. I fall under the second category. The Websters current position indicates the former. That is consistent with my personal experiences. That suggests to me an emotional disconnection. To not want a truthful answer for your daughter/sister is a mindset I cannot understand. There is no comforting explanation I can think of.

ADA Dawley responded to my concern for vulnerable people with the “advice” not to press deeply into Joan’s case. To my knowledge, it is unlawful to withhold evidence in a felony; that would make me complicit. That warning in effect suggested breaking the law to keep a lid on this case. I will not be intimidated to remain silent. The DAO has an obligation to be truthful.

Who were authorities shielding at the time? Who is the current custodian shielding now?

Nobody should be afraid of the truth.

 

[eve carson]

Update:

This is a tough nut to crack. Three offices have been notified. One office has responded and looking at documents. I am uncertain if the other two offices will notify me since the wheels of justice seem to turn behind a veil of secrecy. However, I am certain the notifications will make it uncomfortable for anyone obstructing justice for Joan.

A new FOIA was submitted requesting a few select documents. Some of the items have already been recovered through other sources. I believe one document requested is not contained in files because proper legal procedures may not have been followed at the time. Another may not exist in files based on Andrew Palombo’s testimony that he conducted many undocumented meetings, an improper procedure. One document has been confirmed to me that it exists in the files.

The office is compelled by law to respond within a prescribed amount of time. We’ll see.

Let me point out a current event on Capitol Hill that really highlights the problem I am encountering. We all know there have been endless investigations on multiple issues in Congress. Documents were requested and various agencies ignored the requests. Finally, the offices were compelled to comply. According to reports, one document exposes named individuals for misconduct. No wonder authorities resisted providing the documents. Note: I am not taking a political position on one side or another.

Based on the documents I have recovered, that is the likely situation in Joan’s case. One document in my possession names names. Remember, Bond indicated an identifiable individual sent people to see him. Bond then came out with his story of rape and murder on Paradiso’s boat. Certified court records affirm the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. There is reference to that individual in one of the documents.

The dots are connecting.

 

[eve carson]

To address Problems 1 & 2, I went back to the critical pieces of information.

I received a police report late last year. That police report confirmed Joan was identified at Logan airport. She asked a cabbie for a ride to Cambridge. The driver named was NOT Leonard Paradiso. The cabbie had Joan’s suitcase loaded in the trunk of his cab.

The cabbie described a bearded man Joan indicated was with her. He had a very heavy suitcase the cabbie had trouble loading into the trunk. The bearded man exchanged words with the cabbie and said they did not want to take this cab. The bags were removed, and Joan and the bearded man got into the car behind them. The vehicle they left in was not a white cab like Tim Burke alleges.

The description of the bearded man was not and could not be mistaken for Leonard Paradiso. There was never a suggestion Paradiso had an accomplice.

Authorities suppressed the composite and there is no information indicating this lead was pursued.

Who knew this information?

The police knew this information, it was in their files. This relates to Problem #1. The authorities knew it was not Paradiso. Concealing this information indicates authorities knew the bearded man.

The cabbie did not comment about any distress from Joan in the presence of the bearded man. That suggests one of two things to me. Either Joan knew this man or he gained her confidence that she should be riding with him. It is not reasonable she would switch cars with someone she did not know just sharing a ride to Cambridge.

George and Eleanor knew this information. This relates to Problem #2. They were provided the composite on December 21, 1981. It does not seem reasonable they would not ask about the circumstances that generated the lead. Did the Websters know the bearded man? As a parent and family member, it is very troubling Joan was not the top priority.

It can now be confirmed the current custodians knew this information. The police report was in their files. This relates to Problem #1 and Problem #2. The DAO affirms George Webster does not want information released claiming privacy. ADA Dawley stated he has to “weigh” investigating and opening old wounds.

I welcome your input.

 

[Ibiz]

Eve: Leonard Paradiso was never convicted of Joan's murder. So why do we keep trying to prove him inconent?

We've chewed that old chestnut over and over. So we need to go back and rethink things.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ibiz,

No one was ever charged or tried for Joan’s murder. However, the trial by tabloid has continued all these years. Burke published his theory in 2008 and boasts about his allegations against Paradiso. Paradiso went to jail for the rest of his life after the Iannuzzi conviction. Even after Joan surfaced, I believed it was a just conviction. Recovered documents support this was a wrongful conviction. It is clear through source documents the Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to pin Joan's loss on Paradiso. Everyone should be concerned about the abuse ofauthority that has those kind of consequences.

The biggest problem is the cooperation of George and Eleanor Webster to support the Paradiso boat theory. That is what the family maintains and are hostile to any questions.

While the current custodians sit on the files, they are shielding misconduct that effectively make authorities complicit. That is the layer to peel back. Who were authorities protecting? That is the answer to the long lingering mystery who murdered Joan.

You have to factor in the Webster resistance to resolving the case. Either the authorities lied to the Websters or lied for them? If the Websters were lied to or coerced to go along with a false explanation, I have a mountain of documents to support them. If not, I can’t defend their actions. There were a lot of people left vulnerable. Some suffered irreparable harm.

In 2009, I received an anonymous letter. It was very disparaging. It came only a few weeks after another person in Boston received an anonymous letter wishing them harm. That was a pretty good indicator to me I was on the right track. I have had identified individuals wishing me to die for raising the questions that are obvious from recovered records. The current custodian “warned” me not to probe deeply into Joan’s case. They are too late. I already have. This was a cover-up. The theory that is promoted needs to be exposed for what it was, a gross miscarriage of justice.

Who were the key participants during the investigation shielding? That is the answer to who murdered Joan.

 

[ebfortin76]

Hi Ibiz,

No one was ever charged or tried for Joan’s murder. However, the trial by tabloid has continued all these years. Burke published his theory in 2008 and boasts about his allegations against Paradiso. Paradiso went to jail for the rest of his life after the Iannuzzi conviction. Even after Joan surfaced, I believed it was a just conviction. Recovered documents support this was a wrongful conviction. It is clear through source documents the Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to pin Joan's loss on Paradiso. Everyone should be concerned about the abuse ofauthority that has those kind of consequences.

The biggest problem is the cooperation of George and Eleanor Webster to support the Paradiso boat theory. That is what the family maintains and are hostile to any questions.

While the current custodians sit on the files, they are shielding misconduct that effectively make authorities complicit. That is the layer to peel back. Who were authorities protecting? That is the answer to the long lingering mystery who murdered Joan.

You have to factor in the Webster resistance to resolving the case. Either the authorities lied to the Websters or lied for them? If the Websters were lied to or coerced to go along with a false explanation, I have a mountain of documents to support them. If not, I can’t defend their actions. There were a lot of people left vulnerable. Some suffered irreparable harm.

In 2009, I received an anonymous letter. It was very disparaging. It came only a few weeks after another person in Boston received an anonymous letter wishing them harm. That was a pretty good indicator to me I was on the right track. I have had identified individuals wishing me to die for raising the questions that are obvious from recovered records. The current custodian “warned” me not to probe deeply into Joan’s case. They are too late. I already have. This was a cover-up. The theory that is promoted needs to be exposed for what it was, a gross miscarriage of justice.

Who were the key participants during the investigation shielding? That is the answer to who murdered Joan.

I think Ibiz point is that we can safely conclude, from what you give us as info and insight into the case, that Paradiso is innocent of that crime. So we can stop talking about him. He's out of the loop.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

If you go back a few posts, I gave the definition of “Lie.” One component is a blatant disregard for the facts. It is one thing to continue to repeat things out of ignorance or being deceived. That is not an intentional lie, but regardless, it is not the truth. In peeling this onion, I am looking at who knew what and when. The continued promotion of a false narrative when the facts contradict it is a deliberative obstruction of justice.

I have carefully stepped through the explanation that the state represented to the courts, other agencies, and the public. There are some that continue to this day to support the boat theory. There has been an abundance of information provided here. Leonard Paradiso did not murder Joan Webster. The story perpetuated was an impossible crime. I am not trying to rehash that at this point. I am pulling out some specific examples of who had knowledge that the scenario was false.

Finding the answer to who murdered Joan, you have to look at who is lying about it. Those with knowledge who continued to put out disinformation are the key. I think it is fair to say, they want to cover up what really happened to Joan.

Paradiso is not the answer, but remains a scapegoat that provides cover. Because it is the officials involved in the investigation maintaining the fraud, that scenario is the dysfunction that has to be exposed. This is the explanation that has shielded the offender(s).