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

[eve carson]

I want to give one more example and relate it to Problem 1 and Problem 2.

A federal bankruptcy case against Paradiso in April 1985 was instigated by Tim Burke. One of the central components of the case was the boat, the alleged crime scene. There is a document trail for Burke’s involvement and influence over case CR 85-010-S. Note: Burke misrepresented this case in his 2008 publication.

On April 9, 1985, Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat did not exist on November 28, 1981, when Joan disappeared. I have recovered the trial records. The evidence is overwhelming that the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. I have found no evidence to suggest otherwise. Judge Selya’s comment is uploaded.

Sentencing took place on May 9, 1985, one month after Judge Selya’s affirmation. AUSA Marie Buckley presented three letters to the court. She worked for USA William Weld. At the time, William Weld was the USA for the DOJ in Massachusetts. I am uploading excerpts from the sentencing hearing on May 9, 1985.

Who had knowledge of this case?

The authorities knew. The paper trail clearly shows involvement by Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo, the team paired for Joan’s investigation. This relates to Problem One.

The Websters knew. Certified court records clearly show George Webster was in contact with William Weld’s office and submitted letters that Buckley presented to the court. This relates to Problem Two.

The current custodians did NOT know. Their records did not contain these files. When I met with the ADAs on May 1, 2017, they appeared ignorant of this case. It highlights the problem of missing records they obtained from the MSP in 1990.

As I stated previously, knowledge is a factor to determine if someone is lying or simply repeating erroneous information out of ignorance or deception.

I will start filling in some concerning gaps in an upcoming post.

 

[eve carson]

In the next couple of posts, pay close attention to the dates. They are critical.

Tim Burke claimed he received an unsolicited letter from Robert Bond on January 5, 1983. Burke asserts that Bond detailed how Paradiso murdered Marie Iannuzzi and Joan Webster. The arrangement Burke described was the letter was written in two separate parts for the two alleged crimes. The letter was mailed first to Bond’s wife and an inner envelope was addressed to Burke. This is pretty complex scheming for Robert Bond.

Andrew Palombo identifies the letter in his warrant to the court. The first warrant issued was under the Marie Iannuzzi case and executed on April 25, 1983. In point 4, Palombo indicates the letter from Bond was received by Burke on January 5, 1983. In point 5. Palombo tells the court Burke scheduled a meeting with Bond and the MSP conducted on January 14, 1983.

Notice in the first upload, Palombo is sworn that the statements are true. To date, the current DAO has denied the Bond letter and transcript of the interview with Bond. They claimed an investigatory exemption and grand jury. Both documents were recovered through another source. Neither of these documents were obtained through grand jury testimony. That is an incorrect refusal to comply. An investigatory exemption is in essence to protect methods. Not appropriate if it shields misconduct by authorities.

Burke and Palombo’s sworn timeline is:

January 5, 1983: Burke received letter from Robert Bond and arranged interview with MSP.
January 14, 1983: MSP interview Robert Bond regarding Marie Iannuzzi and Joan Webster murders.

I will get another post up shortly. I am connecting some dots. If I am a bit repetitive, bear with me. It is very important to lay the foundation for concerns with proper documentation.

 

[eve carson]

In order to understand an upcoming post, the timeline needs to reflect the actual dates in source documents.

January 19, 1982 – Patty Bono, friend of MSP Sgt. Carmen Tamarro, placed an anonymous call to the Saugus PD implicating Paradiso for the Marie Iannuzzi murder and Joan’s disappearance. She alleged an unverified 1972 assault by Paradiso. Bono is identified by Burke as the caller during the Iannuzzi pretrial on March 5, 1982. Bono has affirmed placing the call.

March 5, 1982- Tim Burke conducts a grand jury in the case of the Commonwealth v, Leonard Paradiso for the murder of MI. This is documented in MI grand jury records.

March 11, 1982 – MSP Trooper Karl Sjoberg contacts Paradiso’s parole officer and implicates him in a new Boston crime, Joan Webster. This is documented in Paradiso’s parole records.

April 5, 1982 – Burke convenes another grand jury, same cause number, but changes the suspect to John Doe. This is confirmed in MI grand jury records. Burke misrepresents his case in front of the grand jury began targeting Paradiso.

July 6, 1982 – Andrew Palombo arrested Paradiso for the Iannuzzi murder. Tammaro was Palombo’s superior officer. This is confirmed in court docket records.

August 1, 1982 – Tamarro visits Paradiso at the Charles Street Jail and alleges Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. Paradiso documented the visit in a letter dated August 2, 1982, to Jimmy, probably his attorney James Cipoletta. The Bond letter and interview affirm a meeting with MSP 3 weeks after Paradiso’s arrest.

November 5, 1982 – Paradiso’s fingerprints submitted to the FBI in the Joan Webster case. This is in FBI reports.

November 24, 1982 – Fingerprint results are negative. This is exculpatory evidence concealed and contained in FBI records. Both reports are prior to Robert Bond.

December 8, 1982 – Robert Bond is transferred to the Charles Street Jail awaiting trial for the Mary Foreman murder. He is placed in cell 68 and later moved to cell 31 in close proximity to Paradiso in cell 36. This is documented in the MSP interview on January 14, 1983.

January 10, 1983 – Bond meets with the MSP at the courthouse following his sentencing for the Foreman murder. This is Bond testimony during the MI trial.

January 14, 1983 – MSP interview Robert Bond. Tamarro leads the interrogation leading Bond through the boat scenario that closely resembles his allegations to Paradiso on August 1, 1982. This is verified in the MSP interview on January 14, 1983.

After January 14, 1983 – Authorities receive the Bond letter. The letter was not received on January 5, 1983, and had not been received by the time MSP interviewed Bond on January 14, 1983. This is confirmed in the MSP interview transcript on January 14, 1983. The anticipated letter was mailed on January 10, 1983, which coincides with the date of the Bond sentencing and the previous meeting with the MSP on January 10, 1983.

It is important to know the proper sequence of events to understand the next piece I will be adding in the next post. Note: To date, the current custodian has continued to deny records related to Bond

 

[eve carson]

When all of this was going on, I relied on the information I was told. My information came from the family and authorities. I did not have access to records and had no reason not to trust what I was told.

I had no idea where to start. Some of this has been by trial and error, but mostly I see the hand of God helping me get to answers. I have learned a lot along the way. Information was not learned in any particular order. Pieces came in a bit at a time and in no particular order. All pieces of the puzzle. Information had to be examined in context with other documents and corroborated.

On May 6, 2008, a PI and attorney met with Robert Bond. It was a frustrating encounter. Bond was suspicious and provided very little information. But he did reveal one important nugget. He identified someone who sent people to see him. Anything Bond says needs corroborating information.

It is easy to identify the people who went to see Bond: Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tamarro, and Tim Burke. Those names are prevalent throughout documents. Bond even names them in his sworn affidavit on November 15, 1985. These are the individuals that ignored the facts and pressed the boat theory aggressively. These are the people that improperly comingled cases. Their methods and tactics are very evident in the Marie Iannuzzi case. Documents support this was a wrongful conviction. Several victims have been denied true justice and innocent people left vulnerable.

One police entry stood out to substantiate Bond’s identification. I have uploaded the entry from the Glen Ridge police from November 30, 1982. The date a meeting was being scheduled coincides with the date Bond was transferred to the Charles Street Jail and positioned close to Paradiso, December 8, 1982. Note: Negative fingerprint results for Paradiso had already come back from the FBI.

An excerpt from the Bond interview on January 14, 1983 is uploaded. It refers to the previous meeting and also supports the identification Bond made to the PI and lawyer. It is important to point out that the meetings with the MSP all took place BEFORE the Bond written letter with allegations against Paradiso for Joan’s murder.

I am uploading the email I received from the PI dated May 6, 2008, with the two substantive findings after interviewing Bond. Bond identified “The Guy from New Jersey” sent people to see him.

In Tim Burke’s publication, he claims the Websters came to see him the summer of 2005. Burke dedicated his book to them, and indicated they wanted to know as much as possible about their daughter’s killer. Burke published a graphic description of rape and murder on Paradiso’s boat with the Websters’ public cooperation. That was an impossible crime.

 

[eve carson]

FOIA Update

When I first contacted the DAO about Joan’s case in 2006, I asked about an extortion incident. In my mind, the case custodians would be interested in talking to someone who came forward asking about an incident that was not publicly known. I was wrong, they were very dismissive. As I learned later through FOIA’s and meetings, the DAO had no records related to the incident. They did not seem to know a thing about the incident. To describe the event to someone with no knowledge and without the records sounds sensational. Now, the DAO has been provided numerous reports about the extortion incident from multiple sources. I think it is fair to say, the DAO knows I am coming forward with verified documents to support my concerns.

This experience with the DAO actually laid open a problem even though it took time to establish. Recent FOIAs and appeals to the DAO have emphasized a serious problem getting to truthful answers. In an FOIA on April 2, 2017, the DAO was missing 13 of 22 requested records or group of records. The DAO had no records regarding the boat from case CR 85-010-S. They did not even seem to know about it. That fact alone should have prompted the DAO to look more closely at the case. Murder cannot be committed on a boat that did not exist.

The DAO argued exemptions for other documents on the list. As the list whittled down, they acknowledged they did not have other items requested. A narrowed FOIA submitted on January12, 2018, asked for 4 records or group of records. After appealing the request, I received a response and a few documents. It is glaring what is NOT in their files.

On May 1, 2017, ADA Dawleyinformed me they had a summary report. In the response for that record, another ADA, also present in the meeting, replied they do not have such a document in their files. The meeting was well-documented, so there is no question of ADA Dawley’s comments.

They previously argued numerous exemptions to deny a list of Joan’s belongings recovered by police. Now they tell me they have provided all they had in a previous request. Apparently they do not have the list of items contained in Joan’s purse or luggage.

There was a Jane Doe grand jury regarding Joan in July 1983. Grand jury records are exempt by statute. However, that is the only inquiry into Joan’s case they confirmed. There was no inquest or hearing after Joan’s remains were found which would be proper protocol. I have found nothing to suggest Paradiso received any hearing or inquest. Authorities just continued to accuse him.

The DAO was provided supporting documents to identify requested records related to Robert Bond. Bond testified during the Iannuzzi trial he met with the MSP on January 10, 1983. There apparently is no report. Bond gave authorities a written letter containing allegations in the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. The letter was written in two parts, separating each case. Note: Bond is not that smart. Tim Burke swore, under the pains and penalties of perjury, to the courts that he received the letter on January 4 or 5, 1983, and scheduled an interview with MSP on January 14, 1983, based on the receipt of an unsolicited letter. This letter was sealed by the court during the Iannuzzi pretrial. This is Burke’s explanation that started the whole gut wrenching roller coaster. The DAO indicates they do not have a critical document to sort out this mess. I do have a copy of the letter with the allegations related to Joan, obtained through a PI. I would venture a guess Tim Burke has it, too, since he quoted from it directly giving a gruesome description of rape and murder on the boat.

The DAO also indicated they do not have the transcript or tape of the interview with the MSP conducted on January 14, 1983. What they did provide are briefs Burke submitted to the court suggesting Bond’s credibility to testify. I have to wonder where the transcript went. The DAO obtained 9 banker’s boxes packed to the hilt with records related to Joan from the MSP. There are some major documents missing that expose malfeasance in the entire presentation of this case. I also informed the DAO that Burke removed a carton of files from the Suffolk County DAO when he left in 1985. I do have the transcript recovered through the PI. The DAO was apparently provided with a lot of confusing records that would never make sense without key documents.

The Bond letter and transcript of the interview expose Burke, Palombo, and Tamarro. I will wait and see if the DAO wants copies of those records, if they are interested in justice for Joan. They are going to be exposed. The people now in charge of this case are unfamiliar with many aspects of this case, they have a known acquaintance with Tim Burke, and they are missing many critical documents to unravel this mess.

 

[eve carson]

The current custodians have records in their files that reflect the representations of former ADA Tim Burke. They are missing the supporting documents. That is a big red flag. The files regarding the unresolved murder of Joan do not have the foundational documents for the state’s allegations. The records recovered from the DAO affirm the documents requested in the FOIA. However, they state they do not have them. In records the DAO just provided, Tim Burke argued that missing or destroyed evidence shows consciousness of guilt. He argued that against Paradiso. The standard must apply here to the MSP and Burke.

Burke’s brief to the court on March 2, 1984, argued admissibility of Bond’s allegations. The cause number listed is for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi, the comingled case.

The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] document I have provided affirms the existence of the documents requested. This filing from Burke is under the pains and penalties of perjury. There are discrepancies between what Burke submitted to the court and what is contained in records missing from Joan’s case files.

Lying to the court to obtain search warrants, the admissibility of statements, and wrongful prosecution is a felony. It falls under at least one federal statute, USC Title 18 Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law.

 

[eve carson]

Let me go back to what Ebfortin 76 suggested.

The current custodian has a police report in their possession. I obtained a copy through an FOIA. A description from an eyewitness identified an individual that left the airport with Joan. The description was not and could not be mistaken for Leonard Paradiso. New Jersey police reports, obtained through an FOIA, confirm this lead was provided to the Websters on December 21, 1981. This lead and the composite were suppressed.

Ebfortin 76 suggested authorities knew the individual. The hypothesis is the individual was too valuable for other police activity to disclose his identity. Let me know if I understand your theory correctly. That means authorities diverted the investigation into Joan’s loss to shield an informant.

As a parent, I personally would not accept allowing an offender to get away with murder to facilitate another priority. Joan should have been the priority for George and Eleanor Webster. However, if they were pressured or coerced into that position, it seems more reasonable to me, they would do so very reluctantly, not as facilitators.

The Websters were very actively involved throughout this investigation. Their influence is seen throughout the records. The Websters and the authorities had knowledge the bearded man Joan left with was not Leonard Paradiso.

Here is the chain of events. Paradiso was identified by an anonymous caller on or about January 19, 1982. She was later identified in court records as Patty Bono, a woman who grew up with Carmen Tammaro, an involved officer. Bono implicated Paradiso for Marie Iannuzzi’s murder and Joan’s disappearance.

The Websters request a high powered meeting in February 1982. Tim Burke gets paired with Andrew Palombo, the lead cop on Iannuzzi’s case. A grand jury is convened on March 5, 1982. The suspect named is Paradiso for the Iannuzzi murder. MSP circulate Paradiso’s name internally as a suspect in Joan’s case on March 11, 1982. That is evident in parole records. The cause number gets changed to a John Doe by the next grand jury session on April 5, 1982. Paradiso is indicted and arrested on July 6, 1982, for Iannuzzi. Tammaro visits Paradiso in the Charles Street Jail on August 1, 1982, and suggests Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. The meeting is documented in a letter Paradsio wrote to his attorney.

Fingerprints are submitted to the FBI on November 5, 1982, but come back with negative results for Paradiso in Joan’s case.

The head of security at ITT , George's company, schedules a meeting with NJ police officers for December 8 or 9[SUP]th[/SUP], 1982. Robert Bond is transferred to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982, awaiting trial. His cell is changed and he is positioned close to Paradiso. That is confirmed in the interview transcript on January 14, 1983.

On May 6, 2008, Bond told a PI and attorney, the guy from NJ sent people to see him. The people that went to see Bond were Carmen Tammaro, Andrew Palombo, and Tim Burke. Bond testified during the Iannuzzi trial that he met with the MSP on January 10, 1983. The current DAO claim they do not have a record of this meeting. The MSP interview Bond on January 14, 1982. It is clear in that transcript, authorities do not have the letter from Bond. The interview refers to the prior meeting and the Webster reward money.

Burke represents to the court he received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983, and then scheduled the interview on January 14, 1983. Burke lied to the court. The letter was solicited and obtained after the interview. Facts learned later confirmed Bond’s statement was false, the boat did not exist, and Joan was not dumped in Boston Harbor. The authorities and the Websters continue to maintain Bond is credible. However, Bond’s written statement contains the correct manner of death with correct detail more than 7 years before Joan was recovered. Bond was talking with someone who knew what happened to Joan. Note: the current DAO indicate they do not have the Bond letter or the transcript of the interview. They provided a document indicating these records for Joan's case are sealed in the Iannuzzi case.

The authorities and the Websters already knew that Paradiso was not the person Joan left with from Logan. Paradiso was a scapegoat. But they were all involved actively to solicit this explanation.

I feel like David Kaczynski. He recognized certain things and led authorities to his brother Ted, the uni bomber. The Websters are not telling the truth about what happened to Joan. The course of Joan’s case has had serious consequences in many lives. I cannot come up with any explanation that gives me comfort for the Websters’ participation in this. I welcome your thoughts.

 

[eve carson]

An eyewitness identified a man leaving the airport with Joan on November 28, 1981. A composite was compiled from the description. It was not and could not be mistaken for Leonard Paradiso. Authorities suppressed the lead and composite suggesting they knew the individual.

The composite was handed to Eleanor Webster on December 21, 1981. The Websters did not share the lead, suggesting they knew who the individual was.

Patty Bono placed an anonymous call on January 19, 1982, implicating Leonard Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi and Joan’s disappearance. Bono grew up in the NE of Boston with Carmen Tammaro, an officer involved in Joan’s investigation.

Let me step back to the Webster meeting in February 1982. What transpired is an indicator of the plan put in place at the February 1982 meeting.

I am uploading an excerpt published by Tr Dave Moran in 1986. Moran was sometimes partnered with Andrew Palombo. Moran and Palombo co owned a sailboat. Moran was involved in aspects of investigations surrounding Paradiso. He was part of the team executing a search warrant on April 25, 1985, under the Iannuzzi case. He was part of the assigned dive team that searched the Pier 7 area after Paradiso’s boat was recovered on September 27, 1983. Their search found nothing linking Joan to Paradiso or his boat. That is affirmed in FBI lab reports.

Bono provided the name Paradiso. Paradiso was a possible suspect in the Marie Iannuzzi case. Tim Burke was partnered with Andrew Palombo. Palombo was the lead officer on the Iannuzzi case beginning in February 1981. That is affirmed in Iannuzzi transcripts. Beginning on March 5, 1982, Burke convenes a grand jury. The evidence and testimony implicated the boyfriend David Doyle.

On March 11, 1982, Trooper Carl Sjoberg implicates Paradiso for a new Boston crime to Paradiso’s parole officer. On April 5, 1982, Burke convenes another grand jury, but changes the name to John Doe for the same cause number.

Palombo arrests Paradiso on July 6, 1982, for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Carmen Tammaro visits Paradiso on August 1, 1982, at the Charles Street Jail. Tammaro alleges Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.

On November 5, 1982, Paradiso’s fingerprints were submitted to the FBI to compare in Joan’s case. The FBI reports negative results, hidden exculpatory evidence, on November 24, 1982.

Jack McEwan, head of ITT security schedules a meeting with NJ police for December 8 or 9, 1982. That coincides with the date Robert Bond is transferred to the Charles Street Jail and positioned close to Paradiso.

The MSP meet with Bond on January 10, 1983. They meet again on January 14, 1983, in a taped interview. Burke and Palombo both lie to the court that Bond sent an unsolicited letter on January 4 or 5, 1983, detailing both Marie Iannuzzi’s murder and Joan’s murder. The letter was mailed on January 10, 1983, after the first meeting with the MSP. It was not received until after the interview on January 14, 1983. During the taped interview, Tammaro leads Bond through the same boat scenario he suggested to Paradiso on August 1, 1982. There are numerous discrepancies in the Bond interview and known facts in both cases.

The Bond statements are proven false with facts learned. Joan was not dumped in Boston Harbor. She was recovered more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene. Certified court records affirm the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared.

The plan appears to deliberately divert attention away from the man identified leaving the airport with Joan. A name is suggested anonymously by an involved officer’s friend. He is vulnerable and arrested for an unrelated crime. He is kept under wraps for a year while authorities use the Iannuzzi case as a smokescreen. A snitch is positioned close to Paradiso in jail to prod a “confession.”

Tim Burke, Carmen Tammaro, and the Websters maintain Paradiso’s guilt. Burke’s published account gives a graphic description of rape and murder on Paradiso’s boat with the Websters’public cooperation. That’s impossible.

 

[eve carson]

The evidence in recovered documents and the chain of events indicate a very organized and deliberate scheme to falsely implicate Paradiso for Joan’s murder.

Witnesses that the state brought forward during the Iannuzzi pretrial give a very glaring example of manipulated witnesses. Janet McCarthy was an assault victim in 1980. There is a police report.

McCarthy was interviewed by Palombo. That is verified in Iannuzzi case records. McCarthy’s story changed dramatically by time she took the witness stand and implicated Paradiso. McCarthy was hitchhiking on July 10, 1980. I won’t go into all of the conflicts with the testimony, but the color of the car changed from white to yellow to match a photo in Paradiso’s picture albums. McCarthy also claimed in testimony, Paradiso drove past her when she tried to wave down a car. The point is, Palombo was manipulating witnesses to develop his story.

The state was promoting an MO of a sexual predator. Paradiso was vulnerable to that with an assault conviction in the Constance Porter case. Other victims Burke suggested in the Iannuzzi pretrial were Patty Bono, Charlene Bullerwell, Marie Iannuzzi, and Joan Webster.

Patty Bono alleged a 1972 assault that had strong similarities to the theory about Joan. The facts learned in Joan’s case eliminated any similarity. No corroborating evidence was provided for Bono’s accusations. There is conflicting information that suggests her story was contrived. Bono grew up with involved officer Carmen Tammaro and dropped the dime on Paradiso.

Burke published that Charlene Bullerwell was assaulted. Her own testimony discredits Burke’s assertions. She testified she was pressured by the FBI to testify. Facts learned in Joan’s case discredit Burke’s representations about Bullerwell’s story. Joan was not chopped up and weighted into Boston Harbor. Bullerwell did not have Joan’s bracelet. And she did not know where Joan’s body was dumped.

There is evidence in the record that Marie Iannuzzi had sexual relations sometime up to 18 hours before her death. There was no physical evidence suggesting a forced assault. The state presented Bond as the only witness claiming Paradiso assaulted and murdered Marie. What Burke described about Paradiso trying to remove panty hose through one leg of a bodysuit is ludicrous. Autopsy photos show her clothing intact.

The state tried to introduce Joan into a list of victims. They had no body. They had no evidence Joan was deceased. They no evidence Joan was the victim of a sexual assault.

Burke’s fraudulent case took advantage of real victims: Joan, Marie Iannuzzi, and Janet McCarthy. If it even seems possible, Burke’s disgraceful disregard for victims make this case even more disgusting.

 

[Ibiz]

I'm having trouble remembering. Did you post a sketch of the bearded man?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ibiz,

I am glad you asked for the composite image again. I am uploading two copies. The first is the one a PI helped me reconstruct from the template numbers found in a police report. Two separate individuals reconstructed the composite and provided the same image.

[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]
The second copy comes from the DAO files along with the eyewitness report providing additional details. The images are the same. It affirmed the current custodian had this information.

[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]
There are concrete leads to identify who murdered Joan Webster.

1. The eyewitness report from the cabbie at Logan
2. The composite constructed from the cabbie description
3. Shielded by authorities
4. Shielded by the Websters
5. Manner of death

In the next post I want to elaborate on the leads and narrow the field.

 

[eve carson]

Who murdered Joan Webster? –Narrowing the field

The Websters and the police had knowledge in December 1981 that an eyewitness identified Joan leaving the airport with a bearded man. The lead was not Leonard Paradiso. This lead was suppressed.

The timing of this information eliminates Tim Burke as a suspect. He was not brought into the case until February 1982. However, Burke remains complicit. Burke looks to be someone who could be manipulated.

Palombo was paired with Burke in February 1982 after the Webster meeting.

Andrew Palombo and CarmenTammaro were assigned to F Barracks at Logan where Joan was last seen. They unquestionably had knowledge of the lead. There are multiple contemporary accounts that indicate Tammaro took charge of other departments involved. Tammaro was Palombo’s superior.

Tammaro grew up with Paradiso. There is a connection between Tammaro and the anonymous caller, Patty Bono, who implicated Paradiso.

Palombo was the lead cop on the Iannuzzi case. Both were familiar with Paradsio.

Tammaro met with Paradiso on August 1, 1982, in the Charles Street Jail. He alleged Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.

Robert Bond was positioned close to Paradsio on December 8, 1982. Tammaro met with Bond on January 10, 1983, the day Bond was sentenced for murder. A taped interview with Bond took place on January 14, 1983. Tammaro conducted the interview. Palombo was also present.

The others present had only limited involvement in Joan’s case. John Gillam was a corrections officer who accompanied Bond at the courthouse. Robert Hudson was with Boston PD. His name does not appear in any other source documents. Jack O’Rourke with MSP is quoted in early articles indicating he had some initial interaction with the Websters.

Palombo and Tammaro are the central participants involved in obtaining Bond’s statements. That is where another critical lead turns up, the manner of death.

Persons of interest: AndrewPalombo and Carmen Tammaro.

Andrew Palombo

Carmen Tammaro

 

[eve carson]

Who murdered Joan Webster? – Narrowing the field

Criminals tend to operate in areas familiar to them. In Joan’s case, there is a very broad area covered. The offender had mobility and familiar with the Boston area.

Tammaro was the desk sergeant at F Barracks at Logan. His mobility would be limited. His function was more centralized. Contemporary reports indicate Eleanor Webster contacted Tammaro at Logan and he coordinated other departments that got involved.

Palomobo was an undercover cop at the F Barracks at Logan. Logan is the last place Joan was seen. Palombo had mobility and less conspicuous as an undercover cop. He was not in uniform. Palombo would have easy access to his transportation at Logan.

At the time of Joan’s murder, Palombo lived in Peabody, MA, north of the airport. The main route to and from Logan was route 107. The marsh on the southbound side, toward the airport, is where Joan’s purse and wallet were found on December 2, 1981. Marie Iannuzzi’s body was found in 1979 on the northbound side of 107 behind a shuttered up business. Palombo was the lead officer on the Iannuzzi case beginning in February 1981. He had an improper relationship with David Doyle, the boyfriend and other Iannuzzi suspect. Palombo testified he met with Doyle 20-30 times in undocumented meetings.

Palombo’s address was just west of road blocks going into Lynn, MA on November 28, 1981. The 12 alarm fire in Lynn had been burning since approximately 2:30 am the morning of Joan’s disappearance. Joan arrived at Logan about 10:30 pm that night. The fire was in full blaze and obstructed a straight line to the gravesite. Law enforcement was well-aware of the fire.

Palombo’s residence was a short distance to the on ramp of route 128 and a few exits from exit 16 to Chebacco Road, the grave location. Law enforcement was familiar with this area for various criminal activity. It is remote and heavily wooded.

Joan was stripped of all clothing, and no personal items were found at the gravesite or in the vicinity. The exceptions are a gold chain and ring still on the skeleton. Identifiers were removed. That indicates forensic knowledge. Palombo had forensic knowledge and even states in his warrants that he knew how criminals avoid detection.

Palombo was familiar with the bus station. A police report affirms undercover activity at the bus station where the suitcase was placed. The police report about the luggage determined the suitcase was placed in a locker sometime "since 9 am on November 29, 1981." That is the morning after Joan disappeared. Note: Paradiso lived in an area in Lynn that would have been difficult to get around with the fire.

Palombo was extremely aggressive pursuing Paradiso for multiple allegations and ignored documented facts. Tammaro appeared to have the back of his subordinate.

The facts place Palombo on the list of suspects. I have gone over these details, but will be adding more context. I do not believe Palombo acted independently.

 

[eve carson]

Who murdered Joan Webster? – Narrowing the field

Manner of death is very important in identifying the culprit. A blow to the head is hard to trace. There was major trauma to Joan’s skull. The blow was delivered with tremendous force. I have uploaded the picture of Joan’s skull again.

With other known facts, it is reasonable to conclude this was no accident. It indicates the killer had enormous rage. That coincides with the man at the airport. The man was impatient and demanding. He exchanged words with the cabbie when he had difficulty loading a very heavy bag. The man and Joan changed vehicles.

Manner of death combined with other known facts, also suggests forensic knowledge. The weapon was not traceable, or easy to identify.

The Robert Bond interview on January 14, 1983, and the Bond written statement, both had detail about the manner of death with correct detail. That is disturbing, but also a major clue who had knowledge about what happened to Joan. Palombo and Tammaro were involved getting the Bond statement. I believe both of these officers knew what happened to Joan. The previous post outlined specifics that support Palombo may have been involved on some level. Both officers are complicit.

During the interview, Bond initially gave a multiple choice for manner of death and told the MSP to choose. He offered strangulation or blow to the head. I have added the excerpt. The final version was a blow with a whiskey bottle, an item Bond saw in the pictures of Paradiso’s boat. Burke and Palombo later lied about glass shards found on the boat. FBI lab reports discredit the claim.

Robert Bond was talking to someone with specific knowledge about Joan’s murder. The list is short.

I will be adding more context in upcoming posts.

 

[eve carson]

Who murdered Joan Webster? – Narrowing the field

There is no question Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro knowingly fabricated a false explanation for Joan’s loss. They are complicit. Why and for who?

The recovered records and personal recollection had raised some questions for me. A couple of things did not ring true. It was not until August and the recovery of the police report taken from an eyewitness that reinforced my gut instincts.

The cabbie stated Joan indicated someone was with her. I am going to dissect this a piece at a time. The cabbie described the man’s suitcase.

Red Flag: The man had a suitcase. That is a good indicator this man was traveling. He is in the arrival area by the taxi stand. The report does not describe Joan in any distress. She said the man was with her.

The evidence suggests the man was flying in and connected with Joan. Was this just a coincidence? I am not big on coincidences. Joan ended up missing and murdered. The way the investigation played out suggests the man was being shielded by authorities.

One of the first questions I had comes back to the surface. Who knew Joan was going back to Boston on Saturday night?

 

[Ibiz]

Red Flag:. Who knew Joan was going back to Boston on Saturday night?

And why did she fly back early when she could have rode home with sister?

What was in the bearded mans suitcase that was so heavy?

Why did they go to the bus station?

What happened to Joan's duffle bag, and what was in it?

Did the cab driver ever describe the bearded man's suitcase?

I have a feeling he wasn't traveling.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ibiz,

All good questions. I am developing a profile. There will still be some unknowns, but it will narrow the search down.

The cabbie described the man’s luggage. It was a large blue suitcase with lime running through it. A cabbie working the airport would handle a lot of bags. This bag stood out to the cabbie as extremely heavy, so heavy he had difficulty loading it into the trunk.

Someone suggested on a previous post, paper would be very heavy. Following that vein, perhaps the suitcase was filled with money. That makes sense if this was an arranged abduction and murder. There is no way to know with certainty what was in the man’s luggage.

Joan’s tote bag was not loaded into the trunk of the cab. She held it with her. The contents were fairly generic. The tote and contents were never recovered. When Tim Burke published his account, he claimed an item was in police evidence. Burke claimed it was in her suitcase. It was not. It is among items listed in the tote bag. I am not specifying the item, but it was a common item. I am aware certain individuals with an interest in the case are following this thread. The item was not in Joan’s suitcase, affirmed in FBI reports. I have not obtained a straight answer whether this was in police evidence. If it was, that indicates someone who had contact with Joan after she landed also had access to get an item into the evidence room.

Joan and the man did not go to the bus station. The suitcase was placed in the locker at the bus station sometime since 9 am November 29, 1981. This is supported in police records. I think it is reasonable to conclude, Joan was already dead and the suitcase placed at the bus station after the act, taking care of loose ends as it were.

Why Joan went back on Saturday is one of the things that did not ring true as I pieced this together. George Webster said she planned to meet with classmates on Sunday to work on a project. Joan completed an 11-week project and presented it on Monday November 23, 1981. There is nothing recovered to support the claim she was meeting with classmates. George claimed she spoke with a classmate on Saturday morning to see if they had supplies. That is quoted in an article. The home phone records do not support that.

The cabbie did not say if there was an airline tag on the man’s suitcase. I won’t rule out whether the man was traveling or not. Either way he was organized. There are a couple of things that gnaw at my instincts that he was traveling. I will get into that more in a later post.

Profile: (so far)
Influence over authorities
Possibly traveling
Joan was comfortable with him
Organized

 

[eve carson]

Who murdered Joan Webster? – Profile

The police report details the cabbie’s difficulty getting the man’s suitcase loaded in the trunk. The man stated he did not appreciate the way the cabbie was putting the bag in the trunk. The man exchanged words with the cabbie.

I take a few things from this. The man was unreasonable and irritated by something seemingly non consequential. The cabbie was not throwing the bag around. A reasonable person understands a heavy bag is obviously more difficult to handle. It strikes me as being impatient and perhaps guarded about what was in the bag. This is a demanding personality. It hardly seems like the type of situation to exchange words.

The man said we don’t want to take this cab. Joan and the man moved to another vehicle. The man is controlling.

Joan had knocked on the window and asked to go to Cambridge. If Joan was just sharing a cab, she would not change vehicles with someone she did not know and was creating a fuss. Based on what happened to Joan, this seems orchestrated to maneuver Joan to a different car. That’s manipulative and controlling.

The cabbie identified the car as blue. He did not know the company. Based on what happened to Joan, the man had assistance. The fact the cabbie could not identify a company tells me this was not a regular cab. Was the vehicle positioned in the cab line waiting for the man? That suggests premeditation requiring organization.

Profile: (so far)
Influence over authorities
Possibly traveling
Joan was comfortable with him
Organized
Lacks reasoning
Demanding personality
Controlling and manipulative

 

[eve carson]

Who murdered Joan Webster? – Profile

There are some characteristics to add to the profile of the man at the airport with Joan.

The cabbie described the man as a white male, approximately 160 pounds.

The man had dark hair. The report indicates the hair is not as frizzy as the composite. Perhaps the man’s hair was wavy or windblown.

The cabbie approximated the man in his 40s. That is important. This man was older than Joan. Young men she dated were contemporaries, her own age group. The man she was with can be described as middle-aged.

The man wore glasses. The cabbie did not describe them as sunglasses or shaded. It was dark. It is reasonable to think the glasses were prescription.

The cabbie described the man as approximately 5’7”. It is hard to know the cabbie’s frame of reference observing the man. But, the man is under 6’. That rules out Leonard Paradiso. It also eliminates Andrew Palombo as the man who maneuvered Joan to a different vehicle. Even though the composite looks like Palombo, the physical description is not Palombo. He was over 200 pounds and stood 6’4”. We are looking for another individual who collaborated with Burke, Palombo, and Tammaro.

Profile: (so far)
Influence over authorities
Possibly traveling
Joan was comfortable with him
Organized
Lacks reasoning
Demanding personality
Controlling and manipulative
Middle-aged white male
Approximately 160 pounds
Approximately 5’7” (under 6’)
Wears glasses
Dark hair, perhaps wavy or disheveled

 

[Ibiz]

Did you ever do any checking to see what kind of motorcycle gangs were active in this area?