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

[Toots1]

Hello Eve,
A couple of questions for you;

1) Do you know why Joan's parents retired to Whitehorse Village?

2) How involved were Joan's parents in horseracing/breeding? Did they have a farm in NJ or board their horses somewhere?

I ask because ive been researching for 3+ yrs a suspect whose NJ family raced their horses at Monmouth racetrack.

I also suspect my guy having ties to mafia and dumping his ex-wife's remains on New Years Day in Ridley Creek State Park, which is literaly at the doorsteps of Whitehorse Village.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Toots1,

George and Eleanor visited several retirement communities. I don't know what the determining factors were to select White Horse Village. One reason may have been proximity to Eleanor's sister. The Webster's moved to White Horse Village in 2000.

George's father RN owned, bred, and raced thoroughbreds. The farm was in Paris, KY. They raced everywhere, even internationally. George was somewhat involved as RN got older, but the racing was dissolved when RN passed away. If RN ever kept or bred horses in NJ, it was before my time, and no one ever shared that information.

George and Eleanor lived in NJ for many years. Other members of the family also lived in NJ at different times. George's brother John and his father RN had addresses in NJ. The strangest connection in NJ, in my opinion, was RN's address associated with the Otto Corporation. I knew RN was the CEO of Standard Thomson Corp headquartered in Waltham, MA. The family told me ST was sold to the Japanese. Only when I dug into Joan's case did I learn that was false. ST was sold to the Allegheny Corp in PA. It was an odd thing to be deceitful about.

I was never told about the Otto Corp. In October 1945, RN was named Chairman of the Board of Otto Construction, and a director of the European affiliate. The parent company was headquartered in Germany and controlled by the Nazis in WWII. They manufactured coke ovens. They also built chemical plants. The Otto Corp was the enterprise sold to the Japanese.

There were some interesting even unsettling things in the Webster history.

 

[Toots1]

My suspect had an association with the extortion call address of 8th Ave / 59th St, NY. Which I'm sure you know is right at Columbus Circle, the current Time Warner Center. Before the Time Warner Center, years ago, it was The Coliseum Building. Authorities believed it to be a bogus address. I believe the address was a clue to my suspect's father's company, which was located at that address. His Father was a CEO and Chairman of the Board of a global company. Irish, catholic. Owned horses. I wouldn't doubt the father knew RN Webster.

 

[eve carson]

Here's what I am looking at right now and a tip for digging out information.

Tip: When you are obtaining documents through FOIA requests, do more than one request. I obtained documents using different parameters. I was able to obtain the same records, but with different redactions.

I obtained a list of Joan's items recovered by law enforcement. Nothing seemed unusual. However, a couple of the descriptions were heavily redacted. The same list in the 2nd set of documents was the same. In the 3rd submission, there were fewer redactions. I was able to identify a specific item in Joan's belongings. The item still did not seem unusual to me.

Through another agency, I obtained a police report that added greater detail to one item on the list of Joan's belongings. The added information is unusual. One question I cannot answer is if the item was placed with Joan's belongings before or after she was murdered. There is no way to ever know.

The item does raise a red flag to me. It reflects a characteristic identifiable in the eyewitness description of the man with Joan at Logan. The item and the added description are being submitted in a statement to proper authorities. It very well could be the offender was in view the whole time.

 

[Toots1]

Eve, do you have any recent info on this case file being sent to Scotland authorities? My suspect also has a very close connection to Scotland.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Toots1,

You have touched on a couple of interesting points that raised questions for me.

I knew about at least three extortion incidents. The one you referred to was the second one. The Websters had a trap on their phone when this extortion call came in. The caller called more than once. Here's what strikes me as odd, the phone company and authorities were unable to identify the number. Someone was sophisticated enough to override the system and conceal the number, or there was no legitimate call made. The Websters had a tape recorder by the phone, and a tape was turned over to the police and FBI.

The second thing you touched on was international notification. The Websters requested an Interpol Blue Notice. It was submitted on March 3, 1983. The date is correct, I have the notice. This bothered me when I saw the date. That's more than a year after Joan disappeared. Joan vanished from the airport. There was no trace of her. Her parents had an intelligence background. The FBI and numerous other agencies were involved right out of the gate. But they wait more than a year before issuing a Blue Notice. The notice was finally closed on July 24, 1985, shortly after case CR 85-010-S that affirmed the alleged crime scene, Paradiso's boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. The statement issued concluded Paradiso murdered Joan Webster, a predetermined outcome based on the findings in CR 85-010-S.

The current status of the case is open, but they are not dedicating any time to it. Unfortunately, the custodian remains in control. Boston circles the wagons to conceal the malfeasance evident in this case. The procedures to pry Joan's case loose from the current custodian are unclear and do not favor the victim(s). The directive in that office appears to be keeping a lid on Joan's case.

 

[eve carson]

The number of discrepancies in the source documents is staggering. It goes well beyond incompetence or human error. The story the state promoted was deliberate to mislead. If Tim Burke could not distinguish between a hand held gun (fake or not) and a Mercedes found in the water, you have to turn your attention to those who came up with the Paradiso explanation. Who were they shielding?

The state's allegations constituted a cover up. That narrows the list of suspects considerably.

Four people continued to promote the Paradiso boat theory despite having exculpatory evidence in their possession: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.

 

[Toots1]

Was the "Man from NJ" ever identified? I'm almost finished reading your book. What can you tell me about Scotland taking Joan's case file several years ago?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Toots1,

Here is how I am approaching this case. I started by looking at the investigation itself. With the facts as I knew then, the state's explanation made no sense. As it turned out, that was the problem in resolving Joan's case. The Paradiso boat theory was a complete fabrication. There are so many discrepancies evident in source documents it made me sick.

We all know that there are over zealous prosecutors and law enforcement. A few bad apples can really taint the whole system. Boston had a big problem during that era. The simple question to answer is who benefits from a fabricated story? The answer is pretty obvious to me--the offender. It follows that how the Paradiso boat story got started is critical to identifying the offender. "The man from NJ" was behind it according to the witness interviewed by a PI. There is other corroborating and contemporaneous information in source documents to support the witness statement. The identity of that man is known to authorities.

The International Blue Notice issued for Joan in March 1983 provided identification information about Joan. I have found no evidence that case file information was provided to any international office. The delay in issuing the Blue Notice is distressing to me. It seems like an after thought to have the appearance of covering all bases.

This was a cover up.

 

[Toots1]

Hi Eve,
Do you know where Joan went to high school?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Toots1,

Joan went to Glen Ridge HS in NJ. She did her undergrad at Syracuse before entering Harvard's Graduate School of Design. She was in her 2nd year of a 3 year program when she disappeared.

I am working on a couple of things to bring more attention to Joan's case. I hope to be able to share it soon.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

Hi Toots1,

Joan went to Glen Ridge HS in NJ. She did her undergrad at Syracuse before entering Harvard's Graduate School of Design. She was in her 2nd year of a 3 year program when she disappeared.

I am working on a couple of things to bring more attention to Joan's case. I hope to be able to share it soon.

I spent an hour or more reading much of what you posted. Not every word mine you but most. I believe for now, until you say otherwise that the killer knew EXACTLY what time she would be arriving. For they had planned it in advance. around 10 pm NOT say 10 am when the airport would have been filled with travelers perhaps. But late at night when there would be few around. She trusted the killer enough not to have any worries about him. The killer may had entice her with something to have her come back early, ON THAT Saturday not the Sunday as normal. The killer had no reason to enter the airport because she knew exactly where he would be outside. The killer had her come back early because of some exciting news, event something that made her become quite excited about returning that she returned early...The suitcase at the bus station, more then likely was put there by the killer to through off the investigation to make it more confusing...This person would have had access to her inner circle. Knew of her studies her life perhaps there at the university. A serious infatuation with her. Someone whom believed/ thought a relationship with her was possible in there fantasy of her. Sort of like a fan believes they can have a relationship with a Hollywood star. This idiot in his imagination may have even proposed to her after picking her up at the airport. When it became very clear they would never be more than just friends, and now that was probably over too. This person became enrage over the rejection/embarrassment and killed her. And may have never committed another serious crime since.
The above is all moo and speculation nothing posted as being factual or applied as such.

 

[eve carson]

Hi MrTT

I agree with some of your assessment. The offender knew exactly where Joan was going to be. This was not random. The offender would have to have an inner circle connection. The only people who had knowledge of Joan's change of travel plans were George, Eleanor, Anne, and Joan Webster.

I also agree Joan knew this individual and trusted him. Joan's suitcase was loaded into the trunk of a taxi. The man maneuvered her to another vehicle.

I don't believe this was a rendezvous that went south for a variety of reasons. Why move Joan to a different car if it was prearranged to meet? There would not have been any conflict at that point. The disbursement of items was premeditated to throw off any legitimate investigation. George came out early claiming she went back early to work on a project, but Joan had just completed an 11-week project just before the break. Call records don't support George's explanation. No driver of a second car came forward having had the fare. That driver was complicit. The description of the man at Logan is not the type of guy Joan dated at all. Someone who thought they might have a chance for a relationship would not have been able to lure Joan back to Boston early on some ruse. Joan had plans back in NJ before her itinerary changed. This was too well orchestrated and concealed to have been a crime of passion at the moment.

If that had been the case, why would authorities throw this off to go after someone who did not match up with the facts?

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

Hi MrTT

I agree with some of your assessment. The offender knew exactly where Joan was going to be. This was not random. The offender would have to have an inner circle connection. The only people who had knowledge of Joan's change of travel plans were George, Eleanor, Anne, and Joan Webster.

I also agree Joan knew this individual and trusted him. Joan's suitcase was loaded into the trunk of a taxi. The man maneuvered her to another vehicle.

I don't believe this was a rendezvous that went south for a variety of reasons. Why move Joan to a different car if it was prearranged to meet? There would not have been any conflict at that point. The disbursement of items was premeditated to throw off any legitimate investigation. George came out early claiming she went back early to work on a project, but Joan had just completed an 11-week project just before the break. Call records don't support George's explanation. No driver of a second car came forward having had the fare. That driver was complicit. The description of the man at Logan is not the type of guy Joan dated at all. Someone who thought they might have a chance for a relationship would not have been able to lure Joan back to Boston early on some ruse. Joan had plans back in NJ before her itinerary changed. This was too well orchestrated and concealed to have been a crime of passion at the moment.
If that had been the case, why would authorities throw this off to go after someone who did not match up with the facts?

I am confused about the taxi event. Are you saying you suspect she left the terminal, walked out to a taxi lined up at the airport and the driver put her suitcase in the trunk of his taxi and then somehow got her into another vehicle close by? From what i have read there are no witnesses stating they seen her approach a taxi and the driver put her suitcase in the trunk of his cab. If that did occur are you saying the taxi driver left with her in another vehicle after placing her suitcase in the taxi trunk and then left the taxi there and left the area with her after getting her into another vehicle. This would make it more random then premeditated unless she knew a taxi driver that perhaps worked picking people up at the airport. Or are you saying while preparing to leave in a taxi another man approached and she left with him and left the suitcase in the trunk of the taxi. No taxi driver came forward with that occurring from what i have read.

As far as the killer not being her type. I was not implying it was someone she would have dated or had dated would date etc. Just someone she considered an associate/friend someone whom at least would not have killed her.

She was found inside a trash bag, with logs on top. TWICE from what i read about the logs. Though i am not sure how they knew it was done twice. That does show some kind of compassion in the killers mind. Placing her inside a trash bag and then weighing her down with logs. Perhaps he placed her in the bag to keep away animals and the logs were placed upon her to help keep her there in case of one of those floods that happen from time to time. He had planned on visiting the crime scene again to re live the event, and continuing to put logs on her at least twice from what i have read to keep her in place. But eventually during a flooding period the skull worked its way out of the trash bag and was later found.

I suspect, and its all just speculation and moo on my part. That after leaving the terminal and going outside she got into a waiting vehicle. The killers vehicle that was waiting on her. She died that same night. Where she was found. NOT at the sight where she was found perhaps but somewhere close by since it was kinda cold there at that time I assume. The crime could have occurred indoors somewhere close, warmer and then she was moved where found later on. Someone that knew that area where found pretty well. He probably ditched the purse and wallet on his way to the bus station to leave the suitcase. That was to make it appear she left on a bus but forgot her suitcase. Not sure if she was found before or after the suitcase, but that was to through off the investigation to make it look like she left the area on a bus and slow down the investigation to turn it into just a missing person and not possible abduction.

If I was to guess, which i am doing. I would say your killer lives around that area where she was found. A isolated place at the time, with not to many neighbors near by but spread out. A loner type with no friends, close friends or family, not wife kids etc at the time. I dont think it was a student but someone older that had ties to the school in some aspect or somehow was able to enter into her life somehow. She may had called this person at the airport before leaving for Boston too see if she could get a ride or had already made this plan in advance but told persons she would just take a cab instead of telling them whom it was that was going to be waiting for her in Boston.

And just for my own curiosity. Did Joan ever rent a car? Like a ford Grenada. Or know someone whom had a second hand auto store. Buy here pay here i think they were called back then like today.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

The hardest part about this case is the Motive. from what i have read there is not a motive behind this. What reason would one have to kidnap rape and murder this young lady. From what i have read there seems to be no certain motive as to why. Because of that one could assume that the motive was sexual assault. That a predator happened to be at the airport that night looking for a victim. A crime of opportunity if you will. She was leaving the airport and someone followed her out Abducted/kidnapped her at knife point gun point etc forced her into a vehicle and took her somewhere to assault and kill her. I myself have thought the motive behind this was the sexual assault. BUT, There are things that have not made me come to that conclusion about the motive. As far as some kind of payback from the CIA days, not seeing that. And I have no interest in the boat theory.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

The hardest part about this case is the Motive. from what i have read there is not a motive behind this. What reason would one have to kidnap rape and murder this young lady. From what i have read there seems to be no certain motive as to why. Because of that one could assume that the motive was sexual assault. That a predator happened to be at the airport that night looking for a victim. A crime of opportunity if you will. She was leaving the airport and someone followed her out Abducted/kidnapped her at knife point gun point etc forced her into a vehicle and took her somewhere to assault and kill her. I myself have thought the motive behind this was the sexual assault. BUT, There are things that have not made me come to that conclusion about the motive. As far as some kind of payback from the CIA days, not seeing that. And I have no interest in the boat theory.

ADD ON...COULD NOT EDIT
There is that chance, a slight chance but a chance nevertheless. That the killer was on the same plane as Joan when it landed in ;Boston that Saturday night around 1030PM. I mention it because at times in cold cases we have to think wayyyyyyy outside the box because nothing on the inside has worked fully. Do you happen to know if the LEOS got a list of names of ALL the passengers that was on that plane with her? If they did I wonder how many of them lived in the area where the remains were found.

 

[eve carson]

Hi MrTT,

When I started digging into Joan's case in 2006, I found an article from January 1982 that referred to a composite. It was one line near the end of the article. I never once heard about a composite and had to dig for quite some time to confirm a composite did exist. I recovered a police report in 2009 that confirmed the composite of a man believed seen with Joan at Logan the night she disappeared.

Joan traveled alone from Newark to Boston. She talked to a couple and priest on the flight. She was seen waving to friends at the luggage carousel. It is possible someone was on the flight she was not aware of. LE got lists of all flights coming in around the same time and made extensive calls to contact individuals. There was a significant LE presence from numerous departments and agencies interviewing hundreds of people.

For years, the story promoted Joan vanished without a trace, no one saw her. An eyewitness did see Joan at Logan and provided the description for the composite. The lead was busied.

I finally recovered that police report a little over a year ago. Joan moved from the terminal to the cab line outside Eastern Airlines. She tapped on the window of a Town Taxi and asked to go to Cambridge. Her suitcase was then loaded into the trunk of the cab. The description of Joan was spot on; there is no question this was Joan. I know the cab number and name of the driver.

Joan then told the cabbie someone was with her. The man had a heavy suitcase and exchanged words with the cabbie when the cabbie had trouble getting the suitcase loaded. The man told Joan "We don't want to take this cab." Joan's suitcase was removed from the trunk. The man and Joan moved to a different car in the cab line. The man's exchange with the cabbie was confirmed.
So Joan departed the airport with the man she introduced, and the driver of the second car. The Town Taxi cabbie remained at the airport for another fare.

The man was described as a middle-aged white male, approximately 160 lbs., dark hair, beard, and wearing glasses. There are some features someone could disguise, but the man's stature completely rules out Leonard Paradiso, he was a much bigger man. That means when authorities targeted Paradiso in January 1982 they knew he was not the offender. The boat theory was a complete hoax. The discrepancies in source documents are staggering.

After switching vehicles, Joan disappeared and her remains were not found for 8 1/2 years. The broad disbursement of Joan's items, suppressing the lead, going after a scapegoat, all contribute to my assessment this was premeditated and Joan was the target.

The condition of Joan's remains when found were very numbing for me. Joan was stripped of all clothing except a ring and neck chain still on the skeleton. She was too decomposed to test for rape; that is speculation. She had a 2" x 4" hole in the right side of her head, the fatal blow. She would have bled out very quickly and likely the need for the black plastic trash bag. None of Joan's clothing or belongings were found in an extensive search of the area. It is likely Joan was murdered elsewhere and brought to this spot. The grave was in a natural basin and covered with two layers of cut logs. The degree of decomposition affirmed logs were added to the site later in time.

Motive is always a hard question because you are trying to get into the mind of someone who would do such heinous things. They say if you identify the motive you will identify the killer. That may be true, but I am approaching this a little differently from motive; that could be a whole host of things. I am looking at intent. Based on what I have learned from source documents is that those promoting the boat theory intended to throw the investigation and blame a scapegoat for Joan's murder. That is a big problem.

 

[eve carson]

Hi TT,

I am trying to make sure I answer your questions. I doubt Joan ever rented any vehicles. She would not really have a need. She lived in NYC before going back to school. She really did not drive much. Her sister, who also lived in Boston, had a car. If Joan thought she needed one, she would not have to go to a buy here, pay here place. George would likely have bought her a car.

 

[:+:MrTT:+:]

I finally recovered that police report a little over a year ago. Joan moved from the terminal to the cab line outside Eastern Airlines. She tapped on the window of a Town Taxi and asked to go to Cambridge. Her suitcase was then loaded into the trunk of the cab. The description of Joan was spot on; there is no question this was Joan. I know the cab number and name of the driver.
Joan then told the cabbie someone was with her. The man had a heavy suitcase and exchanged words with the cabbie when the cabbie had trouble getting the suitcase loaded. The man told Joan "We don't want to take this cab." Joan's suitcase was removed from the trunk. The man and Joan moved to a different car in the cab line. The man's exchange with the cabbie was confirmed.
So Joan departed the airport with the man she introduced, and the driver of the second car. The Town Taxi cabbie remained at the airport for another fare.

Thank you for clarifying that. We agree on quite a bit. I have no interest in the boat either. My I assume the other car in the cab line was NOT another cabbie? Is that correct. You mentioned he had a heavy suitcase also. That sounds like a traveler. Do you suspect there were two involved instead of one? That there was another driver in the other car when they got in it. Or was he there to pick up someone else also and not just Joan? Seems Joan was not scared or concerned about her well being at this time. Or she would have done something to get away. What is confusing me at this point is this. Joan puts her suitcase in the cabbie, he trys to put his in there also but theirs a problem, then he says we dont want to take this cab. If he had a car waiting in line, why was he trying to put his suitcase in the trunk with Joan's. He had a car/vehicle waiting for him, so why do that. Both suitcases were not Joan's correct?? Joan told the cabbie someone was with her. Someone that came off the plane with her?? Someone whom was going to travel with Jane back to Cambridge and not take the car that was in line also. Which would mean there was a driver perhaps in the other car? You see why I am confused. Everything seems clear up to the point the man is trying to put his suitcase in the cab with Joans , when he already had a car waiting in the cabbie lane that they eventually took together. I wonder if they came off the plane together and she thought he was going to take the cab with her back to cambridge and was going to send away; the car that was waiting for him in line also. But since they had problem putting both in the same cab, he told her we dont need this cab and decided to take the car that was waiting.......... Something just not clear here.

 

[eve carson]

Hi MrTT,

Here is how I view the incident in context with known facts. Joan traveled alone to Boston. She was still alone when she was noticed waving to a friend at the luggage carouse. There was a contemporaneous news report Joan was seen talking to a man behind a counter. Perhaps she was told someone had arrived and would catch up with her. That is purely speculation.

Joan went out to the taxi line and engaged a cab. Her suitcase was loaded. I think it is reasonable to assume the man caught up with Joan after she had the cab enlisted. Exchanging words over a heavy suitcase to get Joan moved seems like the needed distraction to move Joan to another car.

The cabbies description did not describe Joan in distress in any way. She knew the man, trusted him, and acquiesced to get into another car. His suitcase suggests he was traveling and knew her itinerary. She had engaged the cab before the man could direct her to the other car first. He needed to get her into the other car.

We know now what happened after Joan and the man got into the other car. She vanished and was found brutally murdered 8 1/2 years later. Switching cars was the critical evidence.

SWITCHING VEHICLES PROVED TO BE FATAL FOR JOAN.

This lead was suppressed, which is also critical to understanding Joan's case. From source documents, the people who knew about the lead and composite were law enforcement and Joan's parents. They had this information in December of 1981.

The cabbie described a blue car, but could not identify writing or a sign on the vehicle to identify any cab or livery service. Joan's case was widely reported in the media, and LE had a large presence interviewing people. No one came forward that Joan or the man had been a fare and dropped off someplace. The driver of the second car indicates there was more than one person involved.

By January 0f 1982, LE was targeting Leonard Paradiso, a much bigger man than the man with Joan at Logan. They knew that was false. I don't know what others might call it, but I call the Paradiso boat theory a cover up.