“The most problematic aspect about this piece of information was the person who tried to suppress it, Jack McEwan, head of ITT security, who was involved in interviews at the airport.”
Is this character still alive? If so, can you share his details? I would like to contact him!
“I think it is very possible the message at the counter was to inform Joan someone was waiting for her. Why? Because of what we know happened, she ended up with someone she knew that she was not seen with prior to the taxi line.”
This scenario is debatable. And why? Because if Joan was told that someone was waiting for her, why would she, and according to your information, knock on the taxi driver’s window? I think it’s safe to deduce that we don’t know if Joan did, in fact, wait for the individual before speaking to the cab driver. Perhaps she did wait. Furthermore, we don’t know if she looked for him inside the airport terminal or outside. We don’t know if the individual at the counter gave her the name of the person that allegedly was waiting for her. I presume he did, otherwise how would she recognize the man? It’s unlikely that he told her “someone is waiting for you.” I don’t think Joan would have been that stupid to wait around in the middle of the night waiting for an “alleged” phantom without knowing his identity or name. We don’t know, because it has not been established, how long it took Joan to exit the terminal from the moment she gathered her luggage to heading on over to the taxi. However, the other likely scenario is that the man she knew, and the man that approached her at the taxi, the man she was told was waiting for her, was running late for some unforeseen reason. Does that explain the reason Joan approached the taxi driver? Perhaps she was sick of waiting for him? Does it further explain the reason why the man appeared out of nowhere, seemingly with the two cars behind the taxi?
“The manner of death is listed on her death certificate. There was also a press conference after identifying her remains. There is no speculation here. However, I have always remained open to other information I learn that can be supported. The coroner's report is only available to the next of kin by statute, or investigators handling the case. Leonard Paradiso would have been provided the autopsy if he had legitimately and lawfully been accused of the crime. He was implicated by authorities and the power of a tabloid press. There was no inquest or hearing for Paradiso after the recovery. He was never charged. In other words, George Webster and authorities maintain control of the autopsy report.”
Come now Eve, in this instance, you're somewhat naïve. Who’s the pathologist/coroner that signed the death certificate? Can I get his name? If he signed the death certificate without a thorough assessment of the sequence of events leading up to Joan’s death, and the document has not been released, I smell a rat. How many cases do you know of that involve false declarations and perjury involving documents? You have continually hit upon the subject of a cover-up. And I’ve expressed the sentiment that this case has more twists and turns than the JFK assassination. The law declares that only the next of kin or investigators handling the case have permission to read the document. That’s how document manipulation works. The law’s been created to aid and abet corrupt investigative practices. Be that as it may, I assure you that I can get my hands on several coroner’s reports from various cold cases, without being a next of kin or the current cold case detective handling the case. The coroner’s report has not been released. If there is a cover-up, it’s likely that the coroner’s report will never land in your hands. Thus, the “official” manner of death will forever remain “blunt force trauma to the head.” Are you really placing so much confidence in a plausibly choreographed press conference?
“I knew a lot about Palombo before I ever learned where he lived at the time.”
Are you saying that you knew Palombo before Joan’s disappearance? Can you clarify this issue?
“I have been researching Joan's case in depth since 2006.”
Not once have I doubted your dedication to the cause. Your work is thorough and well researched. However, at times I get the impression you’re trying to fit Palombo into the mix. Without wanting to seem dull, investigators/detectives approach crime, and in this case murder, differently from each other. There is no model or process which they can undertake to bring an investigation to a successful conclusion. There is no definite or standardized investigative model in use anywhere in the US. Detectives/investigators rely on basic knowledge and practical experience when approaching investigations. An investigation can be likened to a series of gates, at each of which specific evaluations and judgments must be made before proceeding to the next. You seem to have done that. However, what if you (Eve) do not possess sufficient experience to know how to approach the investigation? In that case, an investigative model would undoubtedly be of use to show how an investigation should be approached, don’t you agree? Law enforcement has generic forms available that help investigators along the way. It all starts at the crime scene.
- Where do you propose the crime scene starts? Was it at Logan or Chebacco Rd?
- Once at the crime scene you’d need to do a crime assessment, collect and protect evidence, and identify additional scenes. Have you (Eve) done any of that?
- Subsequently, begins the initial assessment stage. You’re required to identify possible witnesses and possible suspects. You need to evaluate physical evidence and conduct victim assessment. Have you (Eve) carried that out?
- Now begins the investigation stage. You’re required to evaluate or examine witnesses. Establish a MO or motive. You need to identify signature behaviors. You must link offenses if there are any. You’re required to utilize experts to examine the available physical evidence. Have you (Eve) done any of that?
- Now we enter the target stage. You must generate potential suspects from evidence. You must establish links from the crime scene to suspects.
- Finally, the arrest stage. You’re required to interview the offender. You MUST allow for reinvestigation of new evidence/information raised by the suspect. You MUST negative any defenses raise. Have you (Eve) done any of that?
- However, sandwiched between 3 and 4, we have the feedback loop. In other words, a reinvestigation stage. You MUST try gathering new or additional information. Have you (Eve) done any of that?
If you try justifying that you have followed the investigative model, you’re traveling a dangerous road. I will, however, reiterate the point that you’re to be commended for all the hard work, dedication, and emotional duress you’ve suffered along the way. In all honesty, and forgive me for saying, you’ve relied on “research” coupled with documents/reports that could be perjured to aid and abate the guilty parties. Both you and I don’t know that. But it’s a possibility. You do not belong to a law enforcement agency; you’re not an investigator or detective. You have no authority in the matter. You are, however, a knowledgeable person who’s done her homework. And once again, should be commended.
Think about it this way. The Portuguese explorer Vasco De Gama discovered a sea route to India in 1497. Does it mean he placed India on the map? Of course not! What I’m trying to say is something I’ve said before. It seems you’re trying to fit Palombo into the grand scheme of things because of who and what he did? It seems logical because all the avenues led to his front door, but you’re playing a dangerous game.
“The lead of the man at the airport and the composite came in December 1981, right after Joan disappeared. Someone goes missing and authorities decide not to follow a significant lead because they have determined already it will go nowhere? That does not make sense to me. Authorities were chasing down all sorts of things far less substantial than the cabbie's information.”
Perhaps I didn’t explain myself adequately. Hence the confusion. For that, I apologize. I know they had the lead and that the composite came into effect in December 1981. However, before I comment further, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Do you or don’t you believe that there was a cover-up? If you think there was a cover-up, why are you trying so hard to substantiate the fact that the authorities “were chasing down all sorts of things far less substantial than the cabbie’s information?” Don’t you think it’s more logical to assume that if there was a cover-up the lead would be immediately eliminated, and a new target sought? And in this case Paradiso? Thus, why would police chase down all sorts of things? I’m not saying they didn’t. What I’m saying is, they (the authorities) kept investigating the case for reasons of public perception. The aura indicated that they were doing the best they could under difficult circumstances. There was a conglomerate of law enforcement agencies involved, was there not? Thus, the “personnel” of the “’state apparatus” became homogenized into a distinct group. And that separate group was led by Palombo and Tammaro. If you believe in the cover-up theory, this is the logical way of proceeding forth.
The man in the composite sketch has never been adequately investigated! And why? Because it would be a time-consuming affair. LE may have dedicated some time to the investigation. However, once the realization set in that they would never find the responsible party, it was time for plan B, C, D…Z. George Webster had the chief of police, and please excuse me, by the balls! The chief of police was hard-pressed to solve this case. It’s called railroading, something I’ve mentioned previously. George Webster may not have known how LE was erroneously investigating the case. It’s not hard to lie to someone else. Regardless if he belongs to the CIA or not. We all lie, particularly when under duress.
“Professors and classmates were interviewed. Michael Henry O'Hare was raked over the coals. He was suggested as the offender through a Zodiac theory. There is no connection, but his life was upended. O'Hare moved out to CA and now teaches at Berkeley. Those would be routine lines of investigation. Why would the Websters let someone like that off the hook?”
Why would this individual, Michael O’Hare, be raked over the coals? Can you substantiate why the Webster’s let him off the hook? In the meantime, I will research the individual and see what I can find.
“First, it would be highly improper for an investigator to speculate on manner of death. Lucky guesses are not appropriate to make from a snitch's allegations, especially when given a choice. There was no body. If they were going to theorize, they would more likely have chosen strangulation. That was the manner of death in the Iannuzzi case. The Iannuzzi case was being entangled with Joan's, same suspect.”
Once again, you’re contradicting yourself. You believe that Palombo was involved, right? I think you’ve previously said he was a rogue element. Thus, why would he NOT speculate on the manner of death? Regardless of it being improper or not? Honest detectives are not rogue detectives. According to you, Palombo was. To the “honest” detective, it’s “highly improper to speculate on the manner of death.” Palombo can’t be both good and bad! Thus, according to you, which one is he?
“Bond gave correct details indicating there was a large hole and pointed to the right side of the head. That was more than 7 years before the recovery. I don't see that as a lucky guess, not from cops that were diverting the investigation.”
I’m sorry to say, but Bond lied! The hole on Joan’s skull was on the left side of her head! Do you see the discrepancies arising? Don’t tell me that you never noticed that too? If that’s the case, then proceeding forth from the Bond investigation, everything is erroneous and a fantasy.
“George coined a word I heard all the time, fundador. That is what they wanted others to feel when they were around them.”
I looked up the word fundador, and it means founder. Why would George want to be recognized as a founder? Founder of what?
“It sounds like you found something that suggests Joan was buried much earlier than when the remains surfaced in 1990. I would be very interested in the information. I know a lot of psychics offered information during all of this. One actually had police in a relatively close area to the actual gravesite. I tend to be a science based thinker, I like tangible facts. But, I never completely counted out psychics, especially when one had officers so close. There are some things that just cannot be explained. I don't know what you have, but I am interested to see it. Before I could offer an opinion, I would need to know what it was.”
My information does not arise form psychic phenomena. I dedicate some of my precious time to investigating essential and relevant matters. Science-based thinkers can never answer my question:
Prove to me that if you can’t prove something scientifically, it isn’t true?
“I really appreciate your input. Do you have some LE or investigative experience? Are you from that area? Is there some data base you are comparing? You can PM if you like.”
Thank you. I try approaching the subject matter in a loving, logical, and open-minded way. I have a list of names that I’ve investigated. It would be interesting to know if there is any correlation between the names of the people you know. Who I am, what I do or have done is not important here. What’s important is that you reach a satisfactory solution regarding your sister-in-law’s case. I assure you that if I was from the area, I would not be here discussing this sensitive matter with you in a forum. We would have sat down over a coffee reviewing the case.