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

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

Very good question. A legitimate investigation does not need to frame anyone. An honest investigation is searching for truthful answers. The obvious answer is framing someone diverted the investigation away from the truth.

I first look at the lead from the cabbie that was suppressed. Who knew about it? The MSP at Logan Airport had this knowledge. Two officers assigned to the F Barracks at Logan were Tr Andrew Palombo and his superior officer Sgt Carmen Tammaro, two officers involved in Joan's case. It is reasonable to conclude they did not want the man with Joan at Logan identified.

Joan's case was going to get attention; Joan was a graduate student at Harvard. If you are covering for someone, it is reasonable to offer an explanation that would divert attention from the offender. So, the next question is who to go after? Palombo and Tammaro both knew Paradiso. Tammaro grew up with him in the NE. Palombo was the lead officer on the 1979 Iannuzzi case since February 1981.

I talked to a lot of people in the area. One thing I learned was that there was friction or animosity between some members of the MSP and Paradiso. That is not verifiable evidence, but seemed to be fairly common knowledge. It seems Tammaro and Paradiso were rivals at times over romantic interests. When the two were in high school, there was a party on a boat cruise that turned into a major brawl. Tammaro was arrested when the boat arrived back at the dock. The NE was an area in an era when rivalry turned into full blown vendettas.

Paradiso had a record and had been named as a suspect in the 1979 Iannuzzi case. There was not enough evidence to arrest or charge him according to parole records. He was not the prime suspect and there is exculpatory evidence in the records. However, because Paradiso had a record, he was vulnerable to accusations, and there was a case to go after him.

Patty Bono grew up with Paradiso and Tammaro in the NE. She was also on the boat when the brawl broke out in high school. She placed the call in January 1982 that implicated Paradiso for both cases. Paradiso was indicted by a grand jury and he was arrested for Iannuzzi. A meeting was documented. Tammaro visited Paradiso in jail for Iannuzzi, but accused him of murdering Joan on his boat on August 1, 1982. All of this was long before witness Robert Bond. Tammaro would definitely know Paradiso had boats and was a shellfish merchant. He probably did not know the boat in question was gone at the time Joan disappeared. Tammaro had already come up with the story.

The story had some advantages for someone hiding the truth. It sent investigation way off base and explained not having a body. Tammaro directed the activity of the various departments involved in the early investigation. It was a year after Bono made the anonymous call before Paradiso was publicly identified. The news broke with the allegations of Robert Bond in January 1983. Tammaro and Palombo were involved in getting his statement that was remarkably similar to the story Tammaro alleged in August 1982, when he met with Paradiso,

News accounts came out after the Bond statement questioning the boat theory, but information was controlled by the individuals running the show; Tim Burke, Palombo, and Tammaro. Authorities blatantly disregarded witness statements and other evidence that the boat did not exist. The bankruptcy fraud case did not go to trial until April 1985. By that time, people forgot early accounts, and the story had taken on sensational proportions. The bankruptcy case involving the alleged crime scene took place in RI and did not have the media coverage. What accounts did come out were spun to suit.

There were a lot of strings being pulled. The most recent evidence was the Paul Leary phone call on July 13, 1983. Regardless the evidence, there was a predetermined outcome.

Why go to such lengths to pin this on a scapegoat? Keep in mind, Palombo and Tammaro worked with Bond to come up with his statement. There is information that they already knew was factually false in his written statement, even if you don't consider the boat. However, Palombo and Tammaro produced a statement from Bond with the correct manner of death with correct detail. Bond had given them a multiple choice. From the suppressed lead where they probably knew the man with Joan at Logan to the correct manner of death in an otherwise false witness statement points to Palombo and Tammaro having specific knowledge what happened to Joan.

Their involvement makes it pretty clear why they were overzealous to condemn a scapegoat.

One final point. Records were not all consolidated in one place. I had to hunt and dig for records from multiple sources. That is another strategy to block a path to the truth. I suspect none of them ever thought anyone could get to the records, especially when other authorities would shield misconduct. They were wrong.

 

[eve carson]

Not too much to update today. The status of the FOIA continues to be in appeal mode, somewhat like a bouncing ping pong back and forth. The most obvious conclusion regarding the DAO actions is a tactic of delay and deflect.

In past correspondence with the DAO, they expressed they remained hopeful for credible information in Joan's unresolved case. I would think certified court records, FBI and police reports fall into that category. The problem that I see, having seen those records, is what is contained in them and who it implicates in malfeasance. Individuals exposed for complicity in a diverted investigation that denied Joan justice are being shielded by current authorities.

As a family member of a murder victim in a very complicated case, I can only express the sickening experience I have had. The few individuals that maintain control of this matter have no regard for the truth, the victim(s), and the unforeseen consequences of what took place. The law enforcement and legal systems in MA are as dysfunctional now as they were exposed to be at the time.

I won't back down.

 

[eve carson]

In MA, submitting an FOIA request follows a process. The record holder is obliged to either provide documents or provide an exemption to withhold a record. Some documents fall under statutory provisions and may be withheld. MA law favors transparency unless a statute applies. If the record holder claims an exemption, they must provide an explanation why the exemption is applicable.

The current custodian of Joan's files is in a quandary. The last response from the custodian did not follow the above procedures. The latest FOIA is under appeal. It was resubmitted after the last appeal because the current custodian claimed to the Superintendent of Records that the response to the custodian was not submitted to the proper individual in charge of records. They are playing games. Affirmation that the proper individual was notified was submitted with the latest appeal.

In addition, the current custodian did not provide exemptions to withhold most of the records requested. They claimed no such record could be found or diverted to another agency to obtain others. That's problematic for the custodian. After going back and forth with the custodian, my records affirm the custodian is in possession of all records requested.

There are two problems that stand out from the custodian's response. The first is shielding the malfeasance of authorities evident in requested documents. The second is ignoring other identifiable victims. The current custodian is betraying the mandate of the office, justice for the victim(s) and public safety.

I am getting there, but with a lot of resistance. That tells me a lot.

 

[eve carson]

Here is the latest order from the Superintendent of Records.

The law favors disclosure. The deadline is approaching, but we'll see. I can't imagine how they respond to try and deflect the FOIA again.

Keep you posted.

 

[eve carson]

On February 13, 2018, the current custodian provided a few documents that Tim Burke filed with the court on March 2, 1984. This was during the Marie Iannuzzi pretrial hearing. The important fact I take from this is that these documents were in the possession of the current custodian and contained in Joan's files.

Included in the documents obtained from the custodian is Tim Burke's sworn affidavit. I am uploading it here. It is important because it verifies the Bond written letter and the interview c0nducted with the MSP on January 14, 1983, the foundational documents for Burke's cases (plural). The redacted name in the document is Marie Iannuzzi.

The Bond letter and the transcript of the Bond interview with the MSP are sticking points for the current custodian and FOIAs. I have verification the custodian is in possession of all documents requested in the latest FOIA. The office is obligated to provide an exemption based in law and why it applies if they deny a request. The order to the custodian is straightforward.

Something I have experienced during an examination of Joan's case was reflected in the last response from the custodian on August 13, 2018. I saw it all through the records going back to the beginning of the investigation of Joan's disappearance. Any challenge to the promoted theory is resisted, attack the messenger. Put yourself in the shoes of family who have tragically and needlessly lost a loved one and then learn the victim(s) are so devalued, the authorities deny them justice.

I will not back down.

 

[Toots1]

Eve,
Can you tell me why some believe of a connection between the Zodiac killings and Joan Webster's murder?
I've been researching a POI for the past 2 years and this year I gave my research to a retired Sergeant police of a major city who does cold case work. The Sergeant said that my research was legit and they sent it to the FBI ViCap unit. My theory in my research is that my Zodiac suspect researched strangers that had names (first, middle or last) that had a connection to either his name or his relatives. Recently I learned of Joan Webster and the connection of James Whitey Bulger and John Connolly.
My suspect's last name is Connolly. My suspect moved from NCal to New Jersey in 1980. I also believe my suspect committed arson several times. I'm aware of the Lynn, MA fire.

I also believe my POI killed John P. Wheeler, III, a former aide to 3 Presidents. My suspect's brother-in-law was a regular at the same bar as Wheeler in New Castle, DE.
My suspect's sister was on flight TWA 800, and I feel he had something to do with manipulating the CIA/FBI with false terrorist info.
I reported this tip to the FBI last year and feel I was harassed for several weeks by high level gov types.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Toots1,

The theory that Joan's case was part of the Zodiac murders started with the theories of Gareth Penn. Penn's suspect was a professor named Michael Henry O'Hare. Penn had been studying his theory prior to Joan's disappearance, had contacted the FBI, and worked with a group in NE trying to put his theory forward. He reached out to the Websters by April of 1982. Penn bases a lot of his theory on calculations and cryptanalysis more than facts.

The Websters communicated with Penn for some time. The theory also got some media attention. When you have a baffling case, speculation and imagination can run rampant. There are still some who fervently believe Joan's murder was at the hand of the Zodiac killer. Others have come to believe Penn was the Zodiac and murdered Joan. I have not found anything in source documents to support either.

The story got fueled even more by Paradiso. Penn communicated with him and Paradiso was certainly grateful for the support. The evidence did not support Paradiso as the culprit and this was the other story circulating.

I can relate to harassment from authorities. I have experienced that myself speaking out on Joan's case. When they can't answer the questions and can't ignore what is in black and white, it is not uncommon to shoot the messenger. If your research is examining the Zodiac crimes, I applaud you. It is a complex murder spree. But Joan is not a part of the Zodiac crimes; she should not be factored into your analysis.

Joan's investigation took place during the era of Whitey Bulger. Law enforcement and legal circles were very dysfunctional. There was a lot of corruption. John Connolly is a prime example, once a respected FBI agent, he fell in disgrace when his conduct was exposed. I don't see any connection to Bulger in Joan's case. The only similarity are common names of some of the authorities. By Tim Burke's own admission, he and Andrew Palombo had some fringe involvement with Bulger. Burke touts it for accolades as a do gooder. He does not deserve to pat himself on the back.

Source documents do point to specific people. There is concrete evidence in Joan's case to resolve her loss.

 

[Toots1]

Thanks Eve,
I agree, I also don't see any connection to Bulger in Joan's case.
But the common names associations of the Zodiac case and Joan's case with my suspect defies statistical probability. My suspect was extremely self-righteous and an expert researcher. You hit the nail on the head when you say that Joan's investigation took place during a lot of law enforcement corruption. This, I believe, is why Joan was targeted, bec/ of her CIA parents. My suspect had 6 friends on Facebook, one was the CIO of Unisys.

Below is some of my name association research.
Gareth Penn was on the right track, in terms of library research. But he had the wrong suspect in Mr. O. I believe Zodiac initially researched his victims using libraries, newpapers and school yearbooks. In the 80's, I believe he turned his self-righteousness against the military/government. He was also a Vietnam Vet.

Homicide Name Association Coincidence
Vern C. Smith - 6/2/63 Accomplice was J.C. Reed, Jr. JFC’s father was called J.C.
Johnny Ray Swindle - 2/5/64 JFC was called Johnny
Cheri Josephine Bates - 10/30/66 JFC’s mother and sister’s name was Josephine
Lake Herman Rd, Hunter, Robert Connelly was eyewitness – 12/20/68 JFC’s last name is Connelly
Cecelia Shepard - 9/27/69 JFC’s mother’s middle name was Cecelia
John Franklin Hood - 2/21/70 JFC’s first name is John
Judith Hakari - 3/7/70 JFC’s sister’s name was Judith. Hakari lived in the Arden neighborhood.
Kathleen Johns - 3/22/70 JFC’s first name was John
Thomas Victor Dolan, Thomas Hayes - 7/4/70 JFC’s brother’s name was Thomas
Donna Lass - 9/6/70 JFC’s ex-wife was a native Scot, a “Lass”, a young women
Nancy Bennallack - 10/25/70 Bennallack lived in the Arden neighborhood Arden. JFC grew up on an Arden Rd.

 

[eve carson]

Ho Toots1,

I started like most people trying to resolve a crime; generally one tries to get into the mind of a killer. That is not easy to do for rational and decent people.

In the Zodiac murders, there is actual evidence, but nothing authorities could follow to a just resolve. Part of the Zodiac's modus was to taunt authorities and leave cryptic clues. I have not studied the Zodiac crimes in depth. Penn was the researcher who tied Joan to this spree. I did study his analysis.

When trying to understand the Zodiac, people try to get into his head, how does he think? I have seen several methods: numerology, dates, cryptanalysis, name association, etc. If you dig into any case, it's possible to find something that fits the particular pattern.

I began with a clean slate and open mind. I looked at everything very seriously. There are fundamental pieces missing from all of the countless theories I have heard. Opportunity. The offender had to be in the area, had to know where and when Joan would be, have extensive knowledge of the Boston area. The offender was known to authorities and to Joan.

The source documents do provide substantial evidence. An eye witness provided a description of the offender and his demeanor. The lead was suppressed. I think it is fair to say, Whitey Bulger wasn't the only criminal element shielded by authorities. Source documents identify individuals who are now complicit in diverting the investigation: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro.

I believe Joan was the intended victim. However, if Joan was the target as a result of George and Eleanor's CIA background, all of us would have been endangered. Their intelligence background concerns me for this reason. The Websters were very smart people, very meticulous and organized. They were not the type of people to be duped or coerced. They are secretive.

Joan's case does not fit into a pattern of crimes even though Burke attempted to make some very weak connections to pin it on Paradiso. Efforts to view Joan's case as part of the Zodiac crimes relies on analysis that is not evidence based. When I recognized the investigation went off the rails from the start, it was the investigation that needed scrutiny.

Source documents support Joan was the intended victim and it was an isolated murder.

 

[eve carson]

Delay seems to be the tactic with the current custodian. They are not in compliance with the Public Records Law.

It seems they are hoping to wait me out and hope I go away. Not a chance. Selective excerpts from requested documents have already been published by Tim Burke, a former government employee. Hiding behind the status of an open case is a misapplication of the Public Records Law.

What this amounts to is further obstruction of justice. It is a willful denial of justice for the victim(s). The Center for Public Integrity rated MA with and "F" for transparency. I can certainly understand why. There is a lack of accountability or a desire for justice. No victim should ever be devalued.

In future posts, I will go into greater detail why I requested the documents in the latest FOIA, and what the custodian's obstruction reveals.

 

[eve carson]

I am reposting the FOIA list under current appeal. The current custodian has failed to comply with an order to respond. They are in violation of the MA Public Records Law. My records indicate the custodian is in possession of all of these records.

I will take these documents by groups starting at the bottom of the list.

Items IX and XI are news articles, public information. The current custodian did acknowledge awareness of these articles. The first article exposed malfeasance in the Suffolk County DAO, Tim Burke's office. It brought cases prosecuted between 1980-1988 into question, covering the time of Joan's investigation. The second article spews Tim Burke's boat theory supported by George and Eleanor Webster.

Items X, XII, and XIII are documents that reveal victimization. The current custodian has acknowledged these documents. Corroborating and contemporaneous evidence was provided. It was important for the current custodian to understand there are other victims. Thus far, the current custodian has demonstrated a blatant disregard for victims. The responsibility of that office is justice and public safety. So much for their oath of office.

There are many more documents that could have been requested, but these few suffice to demonstrate the problem in resolving Joan's case and preventing future tragedy. I will elaborate on other requested documents in a future post.


I. Saugus PD report
A. Report from eyewitness Fenton Allen Moore signed by Neil Meehan
B. Composite from witness description
C. Any other reports related to witness Fenton Allen Moore

II. Marie Iannuzzi grand jury
A. Page 1 dated March 5, 1982 cause # 038655
B. Page 1 dated April 5, 1982 cause # 038655

III. Leonard Paradiso parole officer notes entry dated March 11, 1982

IV. FBI fingerprint report for Leonard Paradiso
A. Submission for comparison in Joan Webster case dated November 5, 1982
B. FBI results dated November 24, 1982

V. State Witness Robert Bond
A. MSP interview with Bond
B. Bond written letter regarding Joan Webster murder
C. Bond motion and affidavit dated November 15, 1985

VI. FBI report regarding boat theory dated August 5, 1983

VII. Case CR 85-010-S in the Federal District Court in RI, Judge Bruce Selya presiding
A. Certification
B. Title pages Vol I
C. Title Pages Vol II
D. Pages 128 & 129 from Vol II
E. Title pages sentencing

VIII. FBI consensus report dated July 24, 1985

IX. Boston Herald article dated July 15, 1991 “Prosecutors Conflict over Slay Case Files”

X.

Webster letter to

XI. Boston Herald article dated November 28, 2006 “Tome Seeks to Close Book on Murder”

XII. George Webster email response to Eve Carson dated December 25, 2012

XIII. Anonymous letter and envelope sent to Eve Carson received December 11, 2014

 

[eve carson]

The current custodian has failed to comply with the order for the FOIA appeal. They continue to be in violation of the MA Public Records Law.

The custodian did provide items for item I. A & B. That is significant. The current custodian had a lead that conflicts with the representations involved during Joan's investigation. This was suppressed exculpatory evidence. The description does not come close to Leonard Paradiso.

The current custodian claimed an exemption for Item II in the August 13, 2018 response. Grand jury records are exempted by statute. The current custodian did not acknowledge or deny having these records. I have verification they do have them. This was a simple example that Tim Burke lied. Burke claims the grand jury he convened on March 5, 1982, was a John Doe grand jury in the Iannuzzi case. The representation is blatantly false. Burke initially held a grand jury on March 5, 1982, the Commonwealth v. Leonard Paradiso. Testimony in that proceeding implicated Marie Iannuzzi's boyfriend David Doyle. The grand jury was changed to a John Doe for the next grand jury convened on April 5, 1982, with the same cause number. Burke attempted to conceal his intended target.

Tim Burke claimed the break in Joan's case came in January 1983 with the Robert Bond allegations. That is false. Item III requested the parole notes for date March 11, 1982, just following the first Iannuzzi grand jury. The current custodian responded on August 13, 2018, this record could not be found. I have verification the custodian is in possession of this record. They are lying. This record identified a MSP trooper informing Paradiso's parole officer LP was a suspect in a new Boston crime as well as the allegations for Marie Iannuzzi. As this played out, it is easy to identify the new Boston case as Joan's disappearance.

Burke is further discredited with Item IV., fingerprint submission and results for Paradiso in the Joan Webster investigation. The submission and negative results were prior to Robert Bond allegations. The current custodian acknowledged these records.

Authorities had clearly targeted Paradiso long before the state introduced Robert Bond. Source documents go all the way back to January 1982, when a friend of an involved officer, Carmen Tammaro, placed an anonymous call to the Saugus Police implicating Paradiso for both Iannuzzi and Joan. Burke identified Patty Bono as the caller during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing. Bono has affirmed placing the call and the call was also confirmed by Chief Peters of the Saugus PD.

The current custodian has the documents in their files that a former government employee falsely represented the investigation. ADA Dawley stated on May 1, 2017, he knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. The mishandling of Joan's investigation is the key to resolving her loss.

 

[Toots1]

Eve,
What do you think of Whitey Bulger being killed last Tuesday?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Toots 1,

When I started to dig into Joan's case, I was not really familiar with Whitey Bulger. I am not from the area and news I received was limited to news clippings that did not reflect the climate in Boston. That was one of many aspects I researched in Joan's case; what else was going on at the time.

Learning about Bulger was an important aspect to understand Joan's case. It exposed the corruption in the system in Boston. There were dirty players on all levels in MA dysfunctional political, legal, and law enforcement communities. It infected the FBI, MSP, state and local departments, prosecutors both state and federal. Bulger's own brother Billy influenced the political environment. In a word, MA was "dirty."

When Bulger was captured back in 2011, there were a lot of people standing in quick sand, so to speak. One of my contacts was a retired FBI agent from the Boston office. He said a lot of people were nervous about who Bulger would expose. The wagons circled exposing the tendency to shield authorities, same problem I have now.

To think Bulger and associates were the only ones that led officials down a corrupt path is a bit naïve. This was a system that did not work. Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo are two of the common names that surfaced in a review of Bulger and Boston.

From what has been reported about Bulger's demise last Tuesday, one has to wonder. How did Bulger end up alone? Where were the guards and cameras? It seems the identified suspects had knowledge about Bulger's transfer. Attempts to gauge eyes and cut out his tongue are classic retaliation for rats. How did the individuals get to Bulger?

I am not surprised Bulger was a target. However, as it played out, it seems authorities turned a blind eye to let it happen. That is simply my opinion, but I am sure a lot of officials in Boston slept a bit easier Tuesday night.

 

[eve carson]

The documents listed below center on the core issues with Joan's case. I received a response from the current custodian yesterday. Suffice it to say for now, the response did not conform to the Public Records Law or the order from the Superintendent.

Item IV is exculpatory and establishes that Paradiso was targeted before the state brought in Robert Bond and declared a "break" in Joan's case.

Item VII is also exculpatory. Court records affirm the alleged crime scene did not exist when Joan disappeared.

Item VI reinforces the boat theory was reported to the FBI declaring the information cam from an inmate, Robert Bond. Obviously, this making false statements to the FBI since the boat did not exist.

Item VIII states state, local, and federal authorities consensus that enough evidence had been developed to determine Paradiso murdered Joan. This document was generated shortly after case CR 85-010-S affirming the boat did not exist. Again, this is a false statement to federal authorities. Joan's case remains open today.

Item V is the clincher. These documents expose Burke and the MSP.

The current custodian of Joan's records have shown themselves to be incapable of dispensing justice. That is of interest to the public.

IV. FBI fingerprint report for Leonard Paradiso
A. Submission for comparison in Joan Webster case dated November 5, 1982
B. FBI results dated November 24, 1982

V. State Witness Robert Bond
A. MSP interview with Bond
B. Bond written letter regarding Joan Webster murder
C. Bond motion and affidavit dated November 15, 1985

VI. FBI report regarding boat theory dated August 5, 1983

VII. Case CR 85-010-S in the Federal District Court in RI, Judge Bruce Selya presiding
A. Certification
B. Title pages Vol I
C. Title Pages Vol II
D. Pages 128 & 129 from Vol II
E. Title pages sentencing

VIII. FBI consensus report dated July 24, 1985

 

[eve carson]

The current FOIA is now under another appeal. It is reasonable to conclude the current custodian wants to keep the documents I have brought to their attention under wraps. The facts are not on their side and the responses demonstrate that. It became evident early on that their files were grossly deficient in critical documents. Once those documents were brought to their attention, it can only be considered an effort to sweep Joan's case further under the rug. I have been very patient, and will see what comes next.

I am uploading a news clip from the Harvard Crimson dated October 15, 1982. This article caught my attention because it described Webster behavior that I have tried to describe. The Websters a very meticulous and pay attention to the most minute details. They don't miss things. They passed out press releases with the latest leads and details of the investigation. I have not seen those releases, but I can say with certainty, the Websters did not disclose leads and the status of the investigation. There was no hint of Leonard Paradiso as a suspect even though he had a target on his back since January 1982. That is very evident from all the media reporting around this time. There was no disclosure of the anonymous call placed by Patty Bono to the Saugus PD. Bono was a friend of involved officer Carmen Tamarro. There was no disclosure of the lead describing the man seen with Joan at Logan. George, Eleanor, and the authorities had all of this information. The reporting remained Joan vanished without a trace other than waving to a friend at the luggage carousel. The Websters only provided what they wanted the public to believe.

It can be argued, authorities did not want to tip off an offender. However, a month later, authorities positioned Robert Bond near Paradiso. Paradiso did not fit the description of the man at Logan. He came out with a story that was provably false on key points based on what authorities already knew. Generally speaking, if you are looking for a missing person, and you have an eyewitness, you seek the public's help to find them. Supposedly, they had nothing, but that was false. They had a lead and suppressed it to go after a scapegoat.

The news clip also really nailed how the Websters pay attention to even the smallest details. They had photos of themselves to pass out that matched their attire during the press conference. Your daughter is missing. Who takes time to focus on what you are wearing and have photos to hand out that were taken prior to the press conference? Organized is an understatement. This was thought out well in advance. That is how the Websters do things; everything is orchestrated to the minutia. These are not people who miss or misunderstand the evidence already learned about Joan.

 

[eve carson]

Do any of you remember the ad where a small domino is tapped setting off a chain reaction? The dominos get larger as they continue to fall. At the end a very large domino is toppled. It's easy to pick up the first domino and grasp it. The last domino was too big to even budge without force.

That's where I am in Joan's case. Through source documents, I can trace back to the first domino that started the forces that derailed Joan's investigation. It caused everyone to look at the chips fall instead of seeing the obvious; the offender avoided detection by distraction.

The suppressed lead was the correct path to resolve Joan's case. The method of distraction is well-documented through source records and the names Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo are attached to them. The key to unravelling it was found in documents that were hidden by authorities. Fortunately, those documents were recovered and verified by Tim Burke's published account. He's not very smart.

Another clue was what I consider a slip. Eleanor Webster was quoted in an article. Her comment affirmed my own recollection at the time. Right now, I am trying to budge the oversized domino that continues to obstruct justice.

 

[eve carson]

Joan's plane landed about this time 37 years ago tonight. Within the hour, the man in the uploaded image maneuvered Joan from the Town Taxi cab to a blue car. This man is the key to understanding who was responsible for Joan's murder.

Thirty seven years ago tonight. Please remember her and say a prayer for Joan and all the victims impacted by this case.

 

[eve carson]

I just got an update that an arrow went across the bow. At the same time, I am waiting for a response in the continuing request and appeal for records. I would say there is pressure mounting on those trying to keep a lid on what transpired in Joan's investigation. A cornered dog growls, and there has been some growling.

I am waiting for some current events to come to their conclusion before revealing a couple of details, such as the July 13, 1983 call from Paul Leary. Standing up to the system is not easy when it is the system that has the secrets to hide.

 

[eve carson]

The key to resolving Joan's case is the investigation itself. It was sensational and chaotic. Source documents helped clear the smoke. But it leaves the question, what in the hell were authorities doing?

The Leonard Paradiso boat theory was a diversion. Why? The first step is to identifying who had knowledge of the real evidence, but continued to promote a false explanation?

Start with the eyewitness description of the man who left Logan with Joan.
Here's the profile and what is known from the eyewitness report:

Middle-aged white male
Under 6'
Approximately 160 pounds
Dark hair
Eyeglasses
Beard
Carried a suitcase - travelling
Controlling - Exchanged words with cabbie
Joan knew the man
He was an authority figure to Joan
He knew where and when Joan would be at Logan
Had influence over authorities

Four individuals close to the investigation maintained the boat theory and had knowledge of conflicting or exculpatory evidence. They are Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tamarro, and George Webster.