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

[eve carson]

Hi Skigirl,

Thank you for your interest in Joan's case. When taken as an isolated explanation, going back to school early seems very plausible. The graduate program at Harvard was very demanding. I am putting it in context with other things known.

The original plan was to ride back with her sister on Sunday. There was a planned visit from a friend in NJ that was cancelled. No classmates came forward with statements Joan had planned to meet with them on Sunday as reported. Joan never mentioned going back early when we spoke on Thanksgiving. It is out of character for the family changing arranged plans.

The biggest factor I look at is what happened to Joan when she went back early. She tapped on the window of a Town Taxi and driver Fenton Moore put her bag in the trunk of the cab. Joan announced a man was with her. The man exchanged words with the cabbie over a very heavy suitcase. The man said "we" don't want to take this cab. Joan's bag was removed from the trunk and Joan and the man got into a blue car. That is where Joan disappeared.

She was missing for eight and a half years before her remains surfaced. She had a 2" x 4" hole in the right side of her head. She was stripped of all clothing. She was thrown out in a black plastic trash bag, and buried in a shallow grave in a remote wooded area.

To examine what happened to Joan, I am looking for the discrepancies, the nuances, things that do not make sense or are out of character. It does not make sense in the context of other things that Joan cut her break short to go back to hit the books.

 

[cherrymeg]

What I find peculiar is that what seems to be implied that schoolwork is ruled out as a motive for her to go back to Harvard. The time between Thanksgiving and finals is a very busy one. The project she presented on 11/23 would not have been her final project because final exams were scheduled after the Christmas break. There would have been plenty of work for her to do when she got back, even if that particular project was done early, regardless of whether she had a meeting scheduled with classmates or not. I'm not missing any points.

If she had made it back to her dorm and gone to class after Thanksgiving she'd hopefully still be alive be alive and we wouldn't be discussing her death. If you are murdered under mysterious and honestly questionable circumstances wouldn't you want someone digging into it? I personally would.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Thank you for your kind words. Joan can't speak for herself anymore. If you look at the long lists on this site of cold cases or missing persons, there is a need for people to care, share information or knowledge they have, and resolve some of the tragedy that impacts so many others. Suspended grief is hell.

When you peel back what is impossible, you look at what remains to find the truth.

The Leonard Paradiso/boat theory is impossible; the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.

Here's what remains, four key people in Joan's investigation continued to promote an impossible explanation for Joan's loss disregarding evidence to the contrary: Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster.

Two filed false documents with the courts, federal authorities, and the public: Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo.

Two of them are identified working with a snitch to produce a false statement: Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tamarro.

Two of them knew the correct manner of death in Joan's case more than seven years before Joan surfaced: Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tamarro.

Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tamarro all worked closely with George and Eleanor Webster. All of them made representations to the media that promoted the Paradiso/boat scenario.

In 2008, Tim Burke published a graphic description of rape and murder on a boat that did not exist supported by the family.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
That is really weird to describe a rape and murder on a boat when it couldn't have happened there. Did you read Burke's account? Did it sound like he was describing something that happened to Joan but in another setting or possibly a totally different girl. If he was getting the information second hand did it seem too detailed? Publishing all the gory details seems unnecessary.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Tim Burke's published account is more than offensive. I have read Burke's version of events, reread articles at the time, and now source documents, over and over. Burke knowingly perpetrated a fraud. The current custodian could argue ignorance for a time. This is a very large case file, but they were missing several relevant documents. They cannot argue that now.

Burke and Palombo were teamed to go after Paradiso in February 1982. Burke was fairly green. After seeing what really took place during the investigation, I feel confident in saying Burke was manipulated. It's still true; how smart can he be to publish false allegations in an open murder case. However, publishing was a catalyst to dig into this further. The story they came up with and continued to embellish was far too detailed to be even reasonable. Turned out it was not reasonable; it was impossible.

This is how ignorant Burke is. Burke published Judge Richard Sterns (sic) sentenced Paradiso on November 1, 1985 for the bankruptcy fraud case. The case took place in April 1985, sentencing on May 9, 1985, and Judge Bruce Selya presided. Judge Richard Stearns was not appointed to the bench until 1993, eight years after the case. Judge Selya affirmed, based on uncontested evidence, the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.

You asked why it is hard to get answers about a dead girl. It can only be explained the way ADA Dawley excused. "I know Tim Burke and don't want to focus on him." Current authorities are covering a serious level of malfeasance. The investigation was the key to resolving Joan's case. The whole thing was made up. That means current authorities willfully are denying justice for the victim(s).

Let me give you an example. When I first approached the current custodian, I asked about the October 1982 extortion incident. They knew nothing about it. It was never in the press. It sounds sensational without supporting documents. The current custodian did not have these records. They do now. This was very well documented in two different files, the FBI and NJ police. You can't piece together a puzzle when pieces are missing.

The scenario authorities promoted wasn't like anything else out there. I did not have the knowledge that the boat, in fact, did not exist when Joan disappeared. The public, including myself, were conditioned to believe what authorities told us.

You have two different cover ups going on here. The original investigation that deliberately diverted the investigation to pin this on a scapegoat, and then the cover up of the cover up, shielding misconduct.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
It's bold of Burke to write a book and include completely fabricated things. He is alive? Sorry I know I asked that before. If he was pressured he would be inclined to cover up for professional reasons now. It also gives him a chance to be honest. He was young and followed orders and the parents didn't dispute it. There has to be an honest person despite all the corruption.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Tim Burke is alive and a practicing attorney in MA. He was brazen to write a book about an unresolved homicide, and on top of that, knowingly publish false allegations. According to Burke, George and Eleanor visited him in 2005. He dedicated the book to them. He claimed they wanted to know everything about the man that killed Joan. The Websters cooperated with this book.

The system in MA is dysfunctional still. Since the Websters accept and support Burke's explanation, why look any further?

The Marie Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen. Source documents clearly point to Marie's boyfriend David Doyle as the offender. Doyle had a very long rap sheet and a history of an abusive relationship with Marie. Paradiso was also considered a suspect in Marie's case. He was a parolee and attended the same wedding. Tamarro and Palombo both knew that and used Paradiso's vulnerability to target him for both Marie and Joan.

Authorities ignored facts. For example, An eyewitness placed Paradiso at a house party in Saugus at the same time the state's witness Robert Bond placed Paradiso a half an hour away in a bar allegedly hustling Marie. The eyewitness was the groom's brother.

So how did these seasoned investigators lure people down the path to believe Robert Bond? They sprinkled true statements into Bond's recitation. For example, Bond claimed that Paradiso confessed he slipped on the rocks when he pulled Marie out of the car and onto the rocky embankment of the Pine River. First, that just seems like way too much detail if Paradiso really confessed. The person who slipped on the rocks was Tr. Rick Fraelich, the first officer on the scene when Marie's body was discovered. That would have been in police records and Fraelich testified to that in court. Authorities fed Bond details. Little nuggets like that made Bond's statement seem more plausible.

On December 12, 1982, Palombo followed two women at Logan. They did not know him. He approached them and offered them a ride. He gained their confidence when he identified himself as a cop. One of the young women had a connection to Paradiso. That's too much of a coincidence. She said the ride was very uncomfortable with Palombo making all kinds of accusations. The date is significant. It was just days after Bond was moved to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982, and positioned close to Paradiso. Palombo was armed with personal tidbits to sprinkle into Bond's statements making it sound more believable and like it came from Paradiso. This whole diversion was deliberate, a set up.

The investigation is the key to resolving Joan's case. It was a deliberate fraud that shielded the offender in Joan's case and denied Marie justice. When you strip this travesty away, you are left with four names central in Joan's investigation who promoted this explanation: Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster.

 

[eve carson]

Step one was stripping away what was false - Paradiso did not murder Joan on a boat that did not exist. Authorities knowingly perpetrated a fraud on the courts, federal authorities, and the public. Their actions diverted the investigation and allowed the offender(s) to avoid detection. They left people vulnerable.

There are four names to focus on, Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster. At best, all of these individuals were complicit to cover up Joan's murder. Let me take them one at a time.

George Webster:
There are things that are obvious. George knew Joan. He knew where and when she was going to be. He was an authority figure to Joan. This is a very patriarchal family and George was the person in charge. George was active in the investigation, albeit sometimes behind the scenes. He worked closely with Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tamarro. He was very influential. George often made himself available for comments to the press.

The home phone was checked for calls and is documented in police records. The second number at their home was not checked. There is no indication the number was provided.

Source documents affirm George knew about the eyewitness lead of the man at Logan seen with Joan. The lead was never made public. I do not know if Steve and Anne were ever told about the lead; I was not. After the lead was in his possession in December 1981, George continued to make public statements to the press there were no leads. To me, this is not reasonable.

Source documents affirm George was in contact with the DOJ in MA and knew about the federal bankruptcy case. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed, based on undisputed evidence, the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. After the case, the story continued to appear in the press that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.

George visited the gravesite in 1990 after Joan surfaced. The site is more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene and inconsistent with the explanation promoted. In the press conference following, George would not answer why he was convinced of Paradiso's guilt. In prior interviews, George touted Robert Bond's credibility.

When Burke announced his publication, the Websters are quoted in the press cooperating with Burke's book. Burke published a graphic description of rape and murder on Paradiso's boat with the support of the Websters.

The documents reveal what George knew and when. I cannot reconcile what he knew with what he supports as the explanation for Joan's loss.

George does fit the physical stature of the man seen with Joan at Logan. At the time, he was a middle-aged white male, under 6' and approximately 160 lbs. George had dark hair and glasses. He had different pairs of glasses. One pair was wire rims with rounded corners. George had no facial hair, no moustache or beard.

George was travelling during this time. My personal recollection was feeling terrible for Eleanor being alone when Joan's classmate called to tell her Joan had not returned to school. My recollection is corroborated by a statement Eleanor made to the press.

Of the four central figures promoting the boat scenario, George is the only one who knew Joan.

 

[eve carson]

When I started digging into Joan's case, I found a lot of documented cases in MA that were complicated or compromised because of malfeasance in the system. I do not believe that is a reflection of everyone in law enforcement or the legal system. It only takes a few bad actors to pervert justice. Current authorities deny justice to the victim(s) by circling the wagons to shield misconduct.

That's what is going on here. The key to resolving Joan's case was uncovering the deliberate diversion of the investigation. It was a cover up. This kind of misconduct destroys lives and causes irreparable harm. That is precisely what happened in Joan's case.

Of all the disturbing examples of Massachusetts dysfunctional system, one case stands out as comparable to Joan's case, Chappaquiddick. The manner of Mary Jo Kopechne's death was different from Joan's, but the system in place concealed the facts and obstructed justice. Ted Kennedy did not escape scrutiny entirely, but what took place, and the secrets still buried, were to help preserve his image. Kennedy escaped consequences for his actions.

Joan's killer has avoided detection because of the actions of a few bad actors who were in charge of her investigation.

Here are the four names central to promoting a false explanation for Joan's loss"

Tim Burke
Andrew Palombo
Carmen Tammaro
George Webster

 

[eve carson]

Stories in the news this past week really demonstrate the need to get to the facts. It is easy for people to jump on a bandwagon when they are presented with an image or information out of context or incomplete. It is very destructive.

That's what I have done in Joan's case. Through FOIA's, a private investigator, attorneys, interviews, etc, I have been able to get to information that was very fragmented and put the pieces of Joan's case together to get a clear picture of what happened in the investigation. What I bring forward is verified in source documents. The records say what they say in black and white, and they cannot be ignored. First, the investigation was deliberately diverted ignoring known facts. Now, malfeasance is shielded. The victim(s), Joan and others, were denied justice.

Justice can be administered in many ways. Nothing will bring Joan back or change things that have already happened, but abuse of authority needs to be exposed.

Two people who have some association with Joan or her case were in the national news this week. One was a friend of Joan's. The other relates to the individual Paul Leary called in July 1983. The story about Joan's friend was positive. I know this person and was happy to see the well-deserved accolades. His name did come up reviewing Joan's investigation.

The other story was about a person in a position of authority and influence who touched Joan's case. The story involving this person underscores why he was called back in 1983, his methods to gain a desired or predetermined outcome.

 

[KEDude]

Ms. Carson:
What do you believe was the motivation for murdering Joan?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Kedude,

That is a multi prong question. Motivation has to be considered for the key people who were promoting a false narrative.

Tim Burke:
Judging from the source documents, Burke was probably manipulated. Certainly, he took his direction from higher ups. Palombo was the lead investigator feeding Burke information. Maybe it was to make a name for himself, but he unquestionably knew he was making false representations to the court, federal authorities, and the public. Now, he probably wants to keep people from finding out how corrupt this investigation was.

Carmen Tammaro:
Tammaro appears to be managing the different departments to cover Palombo's back. He played a key role in getting a snitch, Robert Bond, to spew the story.

Andrew Palombo:
There is a lot in source documents to conclude Palombo had some involvement in Joan's murder. The investigation into Joan's loss infected numerous cases and Palombo had his hands in all of it. Palombo and Tammaro had knowledge of Joan's manner of death. That would only be known to the offender or someone complicit in the crime.

Nothing in anything I can find indicates Joan knew Burke, Tammaro, or Palombo prior to her disappearance. There would not be a personal motive for any of them to murder Joan. The most likely explanation or motive to be involved is incentive.

George Webster is the other name dominant in records who had knowledge of information to rule out Paradiso and the boat theory. Regardless, he maintained this was the explanation for his daughter's loss. He is the only one who knew Joan. The motive for Joan's murder has to do with Webster secrets. That is the only explanation that makes sense. He had influence over authorities and the public, and he was very involved.

The question then is did George and Eleanor have a motive to silence Joan? I don't know if I know the motive or not. I found a letter that made some serious allegations against a member of the Webster family. Is it serious enough to result in Joan's murder? If true, it is. My local FBI office did say it should have been investigated. I know I tried to get help. I do not believe it was related to "work." Personally, I won't take the chance that it is not. It certainly does explain a lot that I have experienced and observed. In other words, the pieces fit.

 

[KEDude]

Eve,
Thank you for your response.
I'm questioning the possibilities during (the moments from) the time Joan was picked up at Logan until the time her body was left in Hamilton. Any scenarios?

Kyle

 

[mshannon]

Stories in the news this past week really demonstrate the need to get to the facts. It is easy for people to jump on a bandwagon when they are presented with an image or information out of context or incomplete. It is very destructive.

That's what I have done in Joan's case. Through FOIA's, a private investigator, attorneys, interviews, etc, I have been able to get to information that was very fragmented and put the pieces of Joan's case together to get a clear picture of what happened in the investigation. What I bring forward is verified in source documents. The records say what they say in black and white, and they cannot be ignored. First, the investigation was deliberately diverted ignoring known facts. Now, malfeasance is shielded. The victim(s), Joan and others, were denied justice.

Justice can be administered in many ways. Nothing will bring Joan back or change things that have already happened, but abuse of authority needs to be exposed.

Two people who have some association with Joan or her case were in the national news this week. One was a friend of Joan's. The other relates to the individual Paul Leary called in July 1983. The story about Joan's friend was positive. I know this person and was happy to see the well-deserved accolades. His name did come up reviewing Joan's investigation.

The other story was about a person in a position of authority and influence who touched Joan's case. The story involving this person underscores why he was called back in 1983, his methods to gain a desired or predetermined outcome.

Are you not able to say who these people are? I am curious.

 

[eve carson]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been dealing with a broken pipe after the recent cold wave. Trying to get things back to normal.

Kedude,
The maneuver to shift Joan to the blue car at the airport is the critical moment for me. There are two people, the bearded man and the driver. One or both of them had familiarity with the Boston area. I do not believe Joan was murdered at the gravesite. That would have been very difficult. It is dark in the area even in daylight. Based on the condition she was found, stripped and in a trash bag, it is more likely she was taken to some discreet location first where they did not fear being discovered.

One or both also had to have familiarity with the Hamilton area, able to avoid the barriers set up in Lynn due to the fire. Andrew Palombo fits both bills. Everything I have recovered points to a premeditated crime by individuals who knew how to avoid detection. Palombo would know any vacant buildings for example.

Mshannon,
A friend of Joan's was in one news story. His name came up digging into Joan's case. He is being considered for a high level appointment in the government. He did attend Harvard Business School and met Joan when he was there, but was not living in the area when Joan disappeared. He does not fit the description. I prefer not to name him now for the sake of his privacy, but how his name comes up in Joan's case is significant.

The second news story deals with a very high profile person. He is in the news frequently and is part of the legal system. He was part of the legal system in Boston in the 1980s and had a connection to aspects of Joan's case. Because he is in the news presently, I would like to see the outcome of some of his current activities and methods before identifying him. My personal opinion of him is he works toward a desired outcome. That certainly fits with his connection with Joan's case and how that was misrepresented to the public.

 

[cherrymeg]

Sorry to hear about the pipe. The weather has been brutal.

 

[Gruffin]

Actress Natalie Wood drowned off a boat a few hours after Joan was last seen alive. The covering Joan's body with wood and the rumor about Joan's death involving a boat may partly have been some sort of attempt to make the circumstances of Joan's murder seem mystically significant (with supernatural connections to Natalie Wood) to some gullible accomplice or acolyte whom the killer was trying to manipulate or mystify, say into committing further violence.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Gruffin,

I remember Natalie Wood's death very well. I knew about her death before I knew Joan was missing. The tragedies occurred only hours apart, maybe 24, and on two different coasts. In Natalie Wood's death, the question remains whether this was an accident or foul play. All the people with her at the time are known. I doubt any of them were in Boston the day before Natalie's death.

In a baffling unresolved case, people tend to look for links that might connect one case to another. I think the explanation authorities came up with has a simpler explanation. Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo both knew Paradiso prior to Joan's disappearance. Tammaro grew up with him and Palombo was the lead officer for the 1979 Iannuzzi case. Tammaro first suggested the boat theory on August 1, 1982, months before Tammaro filtered the same story through snitch Robert Bond. If you are looking for a scapegoat, you will set him up using something people would identify with him, in this case a boat.

Why claim murder on a boat? Both officers knew Paradiso had boats, several over many years. If you are trying to come up with a story explaining why there is no body, dumping someone in the ocean makes sense. Without evidence to the contrary, how can it be disproved, and it threw the investigation way off track. Apparently, Tammaro planted the seeds of this story without checking to see if Paradiso still had a boat at the time.

Only someone involved in Joan's loss knew her body was covered by cut logs or wood until 1990 when Joan surfaced. The two layers of logs were never part of the fabricated story until much later. Even then, the detailed description of the gravesite was not highly publicized. I learned details from Paul Grant, a Hamilton police officer involved in the recovery, and police reports. It's all documented.

Here's a question that needs to be answered. Four people central to Joan's investigation promoted the Paradiso/boat theory despite having evidence to the contrary in their possession. Clearly, they were shielding someone and diverting attention to a scapegoat with a sensational story. So looking at each of these four people, who would each of them be willing to protect? Each of these four people found someone or something more important than Joan Webster.

Tim Burke
Carmen Tammaro
Andrew Palombo
George Webster

 

[eve carson]

Reviewing source documents really brought Joan's case into focus. Missing pieces changed the investigative focus how to identify Joan's killer. The list of discrepancies is very long ruling out human error or incompetence. None of Tim Burke's evidence, witnesses, or comingled cases stand up under scrutiny. I am focusing on a few significant pieces that were hidden.

1. An eyewitness identified and described the man that left Logan Airport with Joan on November 28, 1981. The lead was suppressed.
2. A friend of Carmen Tammaro, Patty Bono, placed an anonymous call on January 20, 1982, and implicated Leonard Paradiso in the murders of Marie Iannuzzi and Joan.
3. Burke falsely claimed a John Doe grand jury on March 5, 1982, in the Iannuzzi case. He targeted Paradiso.
4. Tr. Carl Sjoberg implicated Paradiso in another Boston case, Joan Webster, to other authorities on March 11, 1982.
5. Carmen Tammaro met with Paradiso on August 1, 1982 and accused him of murdering Joan on his boat.
6. Robert Bond was transferred to the Charles Street Jail and positioned close to Paradiso on December 8, 1982.
7. Palombo filed a false affidavit to the court for a search warrant claiming Burke received an unsolicited letter from Bond on or about January 5, 1983.
8. MSP met with Bond on January 10, 1983. MSP fed information to Bond about the Iannuzzi and Joan's case, including Tammaro's boat theory.
9. Bond mailed the letter to his wife with an inner envelope addressed to Burke on January 10, 1983, from Concord, and received after January 14,1983.
10. MSP met with Bond on January 14, 1983, and offered enticements including Webster reward money. Bond did not know the manner of Joan's death or the location where Paradiso had moored his boat. After working with MSP, Bond claimed Paradiso struck Joan in the head with a whiskey bottle and dumped her in Boston Harbor.
11. Burke gained a conviction in the Iannuzzi case on July 24, 1984, hiding exculpatory evidence.
12. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed on April 9, 1985, based on undisputed evidence, the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist by August 1981 when Paradiso filed for bankruptcy. The alleged crime scene did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981.
13. Burke, Palombo, and George Webster continued to make public statements claiming Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.
14. On April 18, 1990, Joan's skull was discovered in a heavily wooded and remote area in Hamilton, MA, more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene. The grave was found after a week long search.
14. Burke announced his publication on November 28, 2006, with public support from George and Eleanor Webster.
15. Burke's book was released in February 2008. He gives a graphic description alleging Paradiso raped and murdered Joan Webster on his boat, an impossible crime.
16. Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo worked with Bond to construct his statement. Bond's interview on January 14, 1983, and the letter received after that date, included the correct manner of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan surfaced. This was information only known to the killer or complicit parties. Tammaro and Palombo are complicit n Joan's murder.

It seems clear to me that the key people involved in promoting the Paradiso/boat theory were shielding the man that maneuvered Joan to a blue car on November 28, 1981, and left Logan. The Bond statement was fabricated, and Burke and Palombo perpetrated a fraud on the courts, false statements to federal authorities, and the public. This was a cover up. Source documents affirm who knew about the eyewitness description and case CR 85-010-S affirming the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.

Tim Burke
Carmen Tammaro
Andrew Palombo
George Webster

 

[eve carson]

I'm getting some very interesting feedback to the question who would Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster protect. There is already documented history of corruption during this era in Boston. It can already be established authorities in MA shielded individuals, some were known criminals. Why? The shielded individuals had influence, control, and preyed on cops on the take. Some authorities also shielded each other if someone got involved in an unsavory situation.

From my perspective after reviewing source documents, Tim Burke was manipulated. He took orders from higher ups. He was fed the stories and information from Andrew Palombo and went along with it. I learned some personal information about Burke that might reflect the "perk" Burke was receiving. I won't state it here since it is not something I can corroborate, but a tidbit that I factor in to my overall view. The information came from someone who worked for Tim Burke and something she personally encountered.

There are too many details, known facts, that point to Andrew Palombo's involvement in Joan's loss. It makes sense he would try to shift attention away from himself. He is protecting himself. I still do not see him having his own motive, but influenced, probably by the man at Logan that maneuvered Joan to another car.

Carmen Tammaro was Palombo's superior. He circled the wagon and shielded his subordinate. Tammaro and Palombo had knowledge of what happened to Joan. They guided the interview with Bond and inserted the correct manner of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan surfaced. That's information that was only known to the killer or someone complicit with the crime.

Who would George Webster shield from justice for his own daughter's murder? George was the most visible for the family's position, but the accusations extend to Eleanor, Steve, and Anne. This is a patriarchal family. Whatever George said is what the family will maintain. So, who would all of Joan's blood relatives shield instead of seeking justice for Joan? I went to source documents for my information, because this whole Paradiso/boat scenario did not make sense. I can see nothing to support the family's allegations that Leonard Paradiso raped and murdered Joan on his boat. I followed my instincts and think for myself. George and Eleanor had the information that conflicted with this explanation.

A few responses tried to come up with some justification for the Webster family to support false allegations. To me, any rationale is a stretch and does not fit with the personalities in the Webster family. There is no good reason I can think of for a parent or sibling to abandon justice for Joan, but that's what they did. The Websters secreted the lead with an eyewitness description of the man that maneuvered Joan to a different car. She ended up brutally murdered. George shielded the man seen with Joan at Logan.

The person responsible for Joan's murder is the man seen with Joan at Logan aided and abetted by the MSP. He was a middle-aged white male, under 6', and approximately 160 pounds. He is described wearing glasses and having a beard. The man was travelling, he had a very heavy suitcase. Joan knew him, she announced he was with her to the Town Taxi driver. Based on what happened to Joan after she was maneuvered to a different car, this was premeditated. That means the man at Logan knew Joan's travel plans; the plans had recently changed. The man said, "we" don't want to take this cab. He had influence over Joan. Her suitcase was removed from the trunk of the Town Taxi, and she left with the man in a blue car.