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

[eve carson]

Hi Ibiz,

I am sure there were more than one motorcycle gang in the area. I would have to go back and check the name. One gang surfaced when examining the 1979 Iannuzzi case. The boyfriend David Doyle had some connection.

Palombo would be very familiar with them. He was undercover and rode a Harley. In his role getting tips on the street about drug activity, he would have mingled.

Joan did not do drugs. Her circle of friends was very clean cut, academic, and preppy. If there was any association, it was well hidden. I truly don't think there was. Her schedule was too demanding.

I can see Palombo protecting an informant. He did with David Doyle. I am not sure a gang member would have the level of sophistication and organization to pull off this scheme. I do not see a random act which would be the likely explanation if a gang member was involved.

However, I keep all options open until such time evidence crosses it off the list.

 

[OldSteve]

I remember this case first appeared in the news... being local NJ, it caught my attention.
I find it strange that she was left with some jewelry and nothing else.. appears to be a one-off sexual assault abduction/murder versus serial killer act.

 

[eve carson]

Hi OldSteve,

Thank you for remembering Joan. Her case was highly publicized for many years.

When I started to dig into this, I wiped the slate clean, starting from scratch. Authorities promoted the motive of sexual assault. They targeted a scapegoat and that reasoning sounded plausible. Paradiso was vulnerable to those accusations, but Burke represented multiple allegations of sexual assault against Paradiso that do not hold up under scrutiny.

I found no evidence Joan was the victim of a sexual assault on November 28, 1981. I think the idea sticks because of the perception authorities created. When other answers are not easily identified, that seems to be a rationale people are able to accept. I agree that Joan was not the victim of a serial killer. Even at the time, the facts in Joan's case did not follow the same patterns of other cases Burke tried to tie together.

The aggressive behavior to ignore the facts and promote a false explanation suggest to me Joan was the intended target. The malfeasance evident in source documents is so overwhelming it eliminates human error or incompetence. The aggressive pursuit to pin this on Paradiso, along with other allegations contradicted in documents, was deliberate. It started right after Joan disappeared when the composite and lead were suppressed.

This level of organization to undermine justice is not by chance and suggests Joan's loss was premeditated.

When I learned about the condition of Joan's remains, I could not get out of bed for two days. Removing clothing and no personal items in the vicinity where Joan was found are important facts. I do not think Joan was killed at that location. The body was transported there to dispose. Clothing and personal belongings are identifiable. The culprit(s) had forensic knowledge to impede identification if she was found. It is a miracle she was found.

The two items on the skeleton, a gold chain and gold ring, were generic items, very common type of jewelry. It would not have been traceable. I was struck by the fact her signet ring was missing. She always wore it. It had her initials engraved.

The blow to the head would have caused tremendous blood. She would have bled out in minutes. One of the officers involved during the recovery suggested the plastic trash bag was necessary to contain the blood. The offender(s) was probably less concerned removing the untraceable jewelry items.

 

[OldSteve]

To keep this thread alive, I pose questions/thoughts. Just to mention, my questions are not negative to all you've done.

Would think if her murder(s) were clever enough to have gotten to her, they would have done a better job of hiding her body (sorry, that sounds so cold/heartless).. that he/they went back to recover her adds to this..

Would think by the time she was found, it would not be possible to tell if something sexual took place?

 

[eve carson]

Hi OldSteve,

I welcome the comments and questions. I have approached this looking at all possibilities.

Joan was not found for 8 1/2 years. They did a fairly good job hiding her body. The gravesite was covered with a layer of cut logs. The power company had recently thinned out the trees and branches. Even today, this area is remote and heavily wooded. The area is off the beaten path and the site where she was buried still undeveloped. The road that goes back into the site narrows, is unpaved, and rutted. A second layer of logs was added over the grave at a later point in time. The degree of decomposition of the logs establishes that.

Nature and animal activity is likely what caused Joan's skull to surface. The actual grave was well hidden. Authorities were ready to give up when an officer reached down into the decomposed logs and found a vertebrae.

On October 9, 2009, a PI accompanied me to meet Robert Bond. Bond made some interesting statements. He indicated Palombo corresponded with him up until the time Joan's remains surfaced. Bond claims Palombo instructed him not to change his story. The meeting and statement are documented. Palombo is a central figure trying to pin this on Paradiso. Palombo lived close to this area and would be familiar with the location because of criminal activity. Palombo was involved in developing Bond as a witness.

I agree that the condition of the remains made it almost impossible, if not entirely impossible, to determine sexual assault.

The approach I took to understand this case was to examine the state's explanation. That is where the real problems are to resolve the case. There is no question this was an investigation riddled with discrepancies and malfeasance.

Who was behind a cover up and why?

 

[eve carson]

Who murdered Joan Webster?– Profile

It is a reasonable assumption an offender wants to avoid detection. Joan disappeared from a busy airport in view of many people. One of the questions that came to mind researching all aspects of Joan’s loss was, “Is the man more easily identified without the beard?”

One of the distinctive features of the composite is the beard. Was it a disguise? Using a disguise came up in different areas of research. Corruption in the law enforcement and legal systems in MA was prevalent when Joan disappeared. A major figure infecting the system was Whitey Bulger. Bulger was known to use disguises on multiple occasions. He wore a wig and moustache when committing a murder and escaped in a car rigged to emit smoke and oil on the road. While he was in hiding from authorities, he made several trips back to Boston in disguise. An interesting fact about Bulger was his participation in CIA experiments with LSD in the 1950s.

In another area of research about the CIA and ITT, there is another example of the use of disguises. E.Howard Hunt, former CIA agent, donned a disguise when he worked in clandestine affairs for Nixon’s Whitehouse. The incident Hunt is best known for was as a Watergate Plumber. He obtained his disguise from the CIA. Hunt was also engaged with ITT at this time. He met with an ITT lobbyist, Dita Beard in the hospital. Again he was in disguise. Reporters broke a story about undue influence at the DOJ to excuse an anti-trust lawsuit against ITT. Hunt “helped” Dita “forget” the memos and meetings she discussed with reporter Brit Hume. When Brit Hume met with Dita at her home, ITT was busy at the office shredding documents. ITT had other entanglements at the time. The telecommunications division became a corporate cover for CIA activities in Chile.

Bulger surfaced because I was looking at the climate and incidents in Boston at the time. ITT and the CIA were both part of George Webster’s background. I have found no connection to think Bulger or the mob were involved in Joan’s murder. The common denominator was the misconduct of the authorities.

The point of these examples is to keep an open mind about the offender. Was the beard a disguise? I am placing greater weight on other aspects of the cabbie description and behaviors of the man that left Logan with Joan. As the saying goes, I have left no stone unturned.

 

[OldSteve]

I wish there was more info about Joan, herself.... what were her career plans, had she been on job interviews, friends at school, etc.. search of her bank/credit , search of written correspondence in those pre-internet, social media days.., college papers.. clubs (what was Joan into?)

 

[eve carson]

Hi OldSteve,

Joan was a truly kind person. She did her undergrad at Syracuse and won numerous awards for design. She was always on the Dean's list. After college, she worked for Skidmore, Owens, & Merrill, a well-respected design firm in NYC. Joan was involved in many well known projects. She was held in high regard by classmates, co workers and peers.

Joan absolutely loved NYC. She enjoyed the theater. A Chorus Line was probably her favorite show. She dated very nice young men, professionals. She was not ready to be in a committed relationship until she finished school.

When she went back for grad school, she was a dorm proctor at Perkins Hall. She was always available to help the other students. She had a heavy workload in the Graduate School of Design, studying to be an architect. She was in the second year of a three year program when she disappeared.

Classmates were in shock when she disappeared. Groups of her classmates passed out posters and information throughout the New England area. I think everyone was in disbelief and heartbroken. Joan was very loved and admired.

Joan loved to travel. Every summer the family gathered in Nantucket. The last time I saw Joan was just before she returned to school in 1981. I don't think I ever saw Joan without a big smile on her face. She was a very caring and giving person, she was genuine.

Joan was from a prominent family. Her grandfather had a very exclusive address in NYC. He raced thoroughbreds and had been the CEO of Standard Thomson and the Otto Corporation. He sat on many boards. I imagine her bank records were reviewed, but it is doubtful they found anything out of the ordinary. George largely controlled the purse strings.

One of my last memories with Joan was picnicking at the head of the harbor in Nantucket. The tide had gone out and we wandered back into the dunes. There were literally thousands of fiddler crabs that scurried out of their holes. We made a mad dash back to the beach towels and bent over in laughter. We laughed until we cried. It is a beautiful memory of a very special person.

 

[OldSteve]

A beautiful picture in words you've given us Eve of Joan.

 

[OldSteve]

What do you make of leaving the jewelry on Joan? Some kind of remorse? To make it seem like that was all she had, should she ever be found?
Appears the way she was buried, no provision was made for future removal since she wasn't placed in anything.. also, the way she was left, parts could eventually surface, especially if a stream was nearby...

 

[eve carson]

Hi OldSteve,

Joan was very special. As I have dug into this case, it has only added to the place Joan holds in my heart. I hope in time, others will see the character and courage Joan had that I now more fully understand.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that Joan was devalued by the offender(s). The two jewelry items found on the skeleton were not items that could be specifically tied to Joan. A lot of people would have similar type of jewelry. Jewelry unique to Joan was missing. It suggests to me the offender(s) was most concerned with removing anything identifiable. Leaving some undistinguishable jewelry items may distract from the fact ALL identifiable clothing, jewelry and belongings were gone.

Joan was discarded in a trash bag. The area where she was buried is a natural basin sometimes flooded. Would anything surfacing be noticed in a remote wooded area? Would animals carry bones off? Would decomposition of trees and logs ultimately bury her deeper? George Webster was quoted that it made no sense where the body was located based on the theory being promoted. I agree, it made no sense.

It makes even less sense the boat theory is still maintained.

 

[eve carson]

Here is the person to look for.

Profile:

Middle-aged white male
Dark hair
Beard?
Approximately 160 pounds
Under 6” tall
Wears glasses
Organized
Influence over authorities
Traveler?
Large blue and lime suitcase
Demanding
Controlling
Unreasoning
Joan was relaxed with him

The next step is to look at who had specific knowledge of facts, but maintained a false perception to explain Joan’s loss.

 

[eve carson]

As I started to dig into this, certain things struck me that just did not seem right. Some I did not know at the time. Other things I was aware of in part, but did not have enough experience with the family to put things in some logical context.

I did not know George Webster gave the explanation Joan went back early to meet with classmates to work on a project. Articles quoting him were not part of the clippings the family sent. The explanation was furthered by authorities. It is an explanation that seemed plausible, but it was not correct. Joan completed an 11-week project she presented on Monday, November 23, 1981, before the break. George is also quoted affirming that. It was never brought out that a friend had planned to visit over the break, a meet the parents kind of visit. That contradicts planning to meet with other students back at school and cut the break short.

I heard early on that George, Eleanor, and Anne all were in the car taking Joan to Newark Airport. If they were coming from NYC, that might make sense. In all the years I have known them, Eleanor never made the trips to the airport; that is uncharacteristic. She always waited at the house. George was the designated chauffer. The family attended two cocktail parties before the trip to the airport. They were friends in the small NJ community. It was not inconvenient to drop Eleanor and Anne back home. Eleanor did not like to drive after dark. If George was dropped off to catch a flight, then it makes sense for Eleanor and Anne to be in the car.

When Eleanor called on December 1, 1981, to let us know Joan was missing, George was out of town. I did know that. As I understood it, George was traveling home from a business trip in CA on December 1, 1981. A coast to coast trip in 1981 would have been a full day of travel. He had to travel over the same weekend to be in CA for any meetings on Monday, and then a full day of travel back on Tuesday. After many years of experiences, that would be very uncharacteristic. George was an executive with ITT. He did not like to be inconvenienced to travel over a holiday weekend. The trip is not just my recollection. The Websters are quoted in an article that George was away on a business trip. Eleanor added the detail of calling George’s secretary Judy for his itinerary. That would not be necessary. The family had very detailed itineraries always posted and distributed to family.

When I got into records, I immediately noticed something was missing from the NJ police reports, the second number into the house. The best investigator would not know it was missing if they did not know about it. That is upsetting. Joan is missing and the line was not checked for calls.

After many years of an emotional ordeal, Anne did not come back when Joan was interred. That has always bothered me. That seems like a real emotional disconnection.

Things I learned from recovered documents, such as the bearded man and the status of the boat, made these details really upsetting. The particulars of the family would not really stand out to anyone who did not know their behaviors and nuances. The fact the family maintains a false explanation, an impossible explanation for Joan’s loss, justifies scrutiny of the behavior.

 

[eve carson]

The man at the airport with Joan exchanged words with the cabbie. The man said, “’We’ don’t want to take this cab.” The man had the cabbie remove the luggage from the trunk of his cab. That included Joan’s luggage.

This is not random. This is the critical point. Joan was maneuvered into a different vehicle. She disappeared. Her murdered remains surfaced in 1990.

The man at the airport had some control or authority over Joan. Joan must have felt compelled to go with this man. You do not do that with an unknown person sharing a ride.

Who had knowledge of this lead?
Answer: The police and George and Eleanor Webster.

Who lied about this lead?
Answer: The police and George and Eleanor Webster.

The authorities and the Websters both represented Joan vanished without a trace, without being seen. The authorities and the Websters had knowledge to the contrary.

Go back to the profile. There is a description of the man at the airport. However, the authorities and the Websters went after a man who did not fit the description. Leonard Paradiso was 6’2” and over 200 pounds.

Ebfortin 76 suggested perhaps the man was critical to authorities for other investigations, an informant. We know authorities protected even criminal informants in that era in Boston. However, in that scenario, I struggle with the parents’ willingness to go along with that. More importantly, Joan’s willingness to switch vehicles with this man does not fit.

This lead was suppressed deliberately. That suggests the police, more specifically Palombo and Tammaro, and the Websters knew who this man was. They know who murdered Joan.

 

[eve carson]

A few posts back, OldSteve asked why I thought the two items of jewelry were left on the skeleton. I do believe the offender was most concerned to remove identifiable items. That helps narrow the field of suspects.

Joan had identifiable jewelry. What was left on the skeleton was generic, common items many women wore. Her charm bracelet was not recovered. It was not in her suitcase or the purse when recovered. Either she was wearing it, it was in the tote bag, or it was removed from her purse. Joan also had a signet ring. She always wore it. Any bad actor might take an expensive looking bracelet.

The signet ring is the most telling item. The offender would need to know that ring was identifiable. They left other items on the skeleton. The motive was not robbery, or the other items would have been stripped. It was not random; she was maneuvered to another vehicle and identifiers were removed. Items were dispersed in different areas.

It is reasonable to conclude the offender knew Joan and she knew him.

Profile:

Middle-aged white male
Dark hair
Beard?
Approximately 160 pounds
Under 6” tall
Wears glasses
Organized
Influence over authorities
Traveler?
Demanding
Controlling
Unreasoning
Joan was relaxed with him
Joan likely knew her killer

Input is welcome.

 

[OldSteve]

So strange to leave a few pieces jewelry. Was it because he thought there was a chance she might be found, or was it some kind of killer's remorse - of not wanting to leave her without anything.

I imagine her ring was not inscribed... even so, the killer might have instinctively felt it was identifiable, as people often show their rings in their photos... But, again, why leave anything..

 

[OldSteve]

Regarding "The man said, “’We’ don’t want to take this cab.” Could he have said that simply as a oneself?

 

[ebfortin76]

The man at the airport with Joan exchanged words with the cabbie. The man said, “’We’ don’t want to take this cab.” The man had the cabbie remove the luggage from the trunk of his cab. That included Joan’s luggage.

This is not random. This is the critical point. Joan was maneuvered into a different vehicle. She disappeared. Her murdered remains surfaced in 1990.

The man at the airport had some control or authority over Joan. Joan must have felt compelled to go with this man. You do not do that with an unknown person sharing a ride.

Who had knowledge of this lead?
Answer: The police and George and Eleanor Webster.

Who lied about this lead?
Answer: The police and George and Eleanor Webster.

The authorities and the Websters both represented Joan vanished without a trace, without being seen. The authorities and the Websters had knowledge to the contrary.

Go back to the profile. There is a description of the man at the airport. However, the authorities and the Websters went after a man who did not fit the description. Leonard Paradiso was 6’2” and over 200 pounds.

Ebfortin 76 suggested perhaps the man was critical to authorities for other investigations, an informant. We know authorities protected even criminal informants in that era in Boston. However, in that scenario, I struggle with the parents’ willingness to go along with that. More importantly, Joan’s willingness to switch vehicles with this man does not fit.

This lead was suppressed deliberately. That suggests the police, more specifically Palombo and Tammaro, and the Websters knew who this man was. They know who murdered Joan.

I still think that the murderer, most probably known by the police, has been protected by them. That he was important for some investigation

But, I do agree with you that then the cab switch doesn't make much sense. It would means Joan knew the guy. And I could stretch that to the Webster knew the guy. And even further the Webster knew she would meet that guy. This shake my theory. The Webster behavior is key, and it's hard to explain it.

Thinking about it in the back of my head doing something else I even came up with a scheme where Joan would have wanted to follow her father's footsteps and this was her first "assignment". Good for a movie. But in real life? Not so sure.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Thank you for the comments OldSteve and Ebfortin 76.

Let me start with the jewelry. I think it is a reasonable conclusion robbery was not the motive. Two items remained on the skeleton. I have a photo of Joan with a neck chain that fits the description. I also have a photo of Joan with the charm bracelet on. The chain was generic. The ring left on the skeleton might be identifiable in a photo. So it begs the question why leave those items and remove others?

I have uploaded a quote from George Webster on May 1, 1990, in the Beverly Times. Note: This is the day after a positive identification was made by dental forensics.

The signet ring was engraved with Joan’s initials. It was a small ring, so not much more distinguishable in a photo than the ring that was left on her finger. The charm bracelet was very identifiable; charm bracelets are unique. In addition, there was an engraved charm on the bracelet.

Based on the brutality of this murder, and the devaluation to throw her out in a trash bag, suggests the offender was an emotionally detached personality. They would not feel remorse.

The disbursement of items, removal of other belongings, clothing, etc, all reinforce the ring was removed because it was identifiable to Joan. That suggests the offender knew Joan well enough to know she wore that ring and distinguish it from other jewelry.

I don’t think the comment “We”don’t want to take this cab is just a one’s self comment. I base that conclusion on what took place. Joan introduced she had someone with her. After the dispute over the heavy suitcase, Joan’s suitcase was removed from the trunk of the cab. Joan and the man moved to another vehicle. The cabbie does not describe any distress in Joan’s behavior.

I think the offender felt relatively confident the body would not be found, at least for some time. This is a really remote area. The site was covered with logs on two occasions. Someone returned to the site. However, if it surfaced, as it ultimately did, the easily identifiable items were gone.

I think the authorities and the Websters knew who the man was at the airport. They both had the lead, but the lead was suppressed. Together they went after someone who did not fit, but was vulnerable to accusations. I agree that Joan knew the man at the airport.

I am not convinced Joan planned to meet this person at the airport. There is a contemporary account she spoke with someone behind the counter at the airport. Was she told someone was there waiting for her? She had planned to have a friend visit in NJ. The private phone line in George’s study was never checked for calls.

Even if Joan was meeting someone that the Websters perhaps didn’t approve of, why would you cover for him? Most parents would go after him full tilt. I don’t think Joan had the time to get into undercover or nefarious activities. I would not discount it if there was any evidence, but there is none. She had a heavy workload at school and the added responsibility as dorm proctor. She had to be available on a regular basis. She even had available hours posted on her door.

Cutting away all the chaos and drama that circulated around Joan’s case, it is reasonable to conclude that was deliberate distraction. This offender was shielded.

 

[OldSteve]

Thanks Eve for your excellent analysis - amazing the details you provide!