eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
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.
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.
Last edited: