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

[Toots1]

Without going into a lot of detail, the item was a business card. That does not seem unusual at all. I submitted multiple FOIA requests to the FBI which proved to be helpful. Things redacted in one set were not redacted in others. On the third request, I could identify the business card. Still, that did not cause alarm. When I recovered a police report years later, it also described the business card, but with a notation on it that does bother me. It's subtle, but significant based on things I know now.

Ask yourself who you would call if you found a lost purse and wallet. There is identification in the purse. My first reaction would be to try and contact the owner, in this case Joan. If I was unsuccessful, I might contact the police, since the purse was not found in a business or some other establishment. It was found in a marshy area along Route 107, a known dumping ground. At this time, there were no public reports Joan was missing. Police reports had only been filed the night before, late on December 1, 1981. Anthony Belmonte found the wallet on December 2, 1982, and called someone else based on the notation on the business card.

Hi Eve,
So what was the notation on the business card? Was it a crown? Or, perhaps a family crest associated with Scotland?

 

[eve carson]

Hi KEDude, Sweetluv, and Toots1,

I've taken some time to go back through former prosecutor Burke's so called true crime book to see how he characterized events, etc. It is very obvious Burke had documents that were not in the public sphere. He distorted the actual evidence to suit his premise. It is disgusting. He blatantly lied.

Joan was a sweetheart. It is hard for me to envision anyone that knew her harming her. That is why it was easy to pass off the suggestion that her murder was a random act. Seeing the source documents, and the concerted effort to push a false narrative makes the concept of random act close to impossible. Authorities had the evidence to know the offender was not Paradiso.

George was quoted in the media how excited Joan was for the high marks she received for her 11-week class project presented just before leaving for Thanksgiving. George changed that story suggesting Joan returned early to work on a class project. That storyline was also documented in quotes to the press. It's hard to think another project requiring Joan's immediate attention would have been assigned. No evidence has surfaced indicating Joan had planned to meet with classmates to work on a project early Sunday morning as George claimed. George never divulged that Joan had a planned visitor in NJ over the break. Plans definitely changed during the break.

There a couple of thoughts about Joan's early return. This is a patriarchal family; what George dictated was what the family adhered to. George travelled at some point during the weekend. I cannot pinpoint whether it was Saturday or Sunday. Knowing the family, it makes the most sense he travelled Saturday night. That would explain why other members of the family went along for the ride. Ordinarily, that would be out of character. However, his travel plans would not necessitate Joan going back to school on Saturday; she could still ride back on Sunday with her sister Anne.

The most likely reason Joan returned early was some discord in the family. It is not something I would have imagined at the time or for many years , but there are reasons to be concerned about that knowing what I know now. The family is very image conscious and have a lot of secrets. It is a complex family.

To try to answer questions about the business card, there was no crest or Scottish connection, just a handwritten note. It impacted the flow of information as the case started. Some offenders have the ability to insert themselves into an investigation to influence perceptions. Source documents show the underlying forces manipulating the story.

This was a cover-up.

 

[eve carson]

Hi KEDude, Sweetluv, and Toots1,

The description in the eyewitness report was spot on for Joan. It is unlikely this was a case of mistaken identity. The fact the lead was suppressed supports that. Saturday night at Logan would have been far less congested than Sunday after Thanksgiving. The cabbie's account of events was corroborated, also included in the report.

 

[eve carson]

Tim Burke apparently thought no one could get to the records to see the malfeasance going on. His hubris to write his account makes his book evidence in a murder case. Combined with source documents, Burke revealed who was complicit in a gross miscarriage of justice. He may have identified the killer.

 

[Sweetluv]

This bearded man must of presented himself as trustworthy..detective, agent..
Eve, this doesnt sound random. It seems like it was planned out right down to personal belongings in different locations to confuse authority. Do you suspect this was planned in advance or someone who had done this type of thing before and set their sights on Joan while casing the airport for a "victim?"
Sickens me...

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

The bearded man is key to resolving Joan's murder. The eyewitness report really revealed a lot. As I look at everything I have recovered, it is clear to me this was premeditated. The effort to conceal what really happened to Joan was deliberate, including the disbursement of items. I do not believe someone was scouting for a target to execute a very deliberate scheme; I believe Joan was the target.

Joan travelled alone, so the man was not with her until she was in the cab line. A news account on December 5, 1981, reported Joan was seen talking to a man. That report was squelched by ITT head of security, Jack McEwan. McEwan and the Websters were both in Boston when interviews were conducted during the first few days. The eyewitness lead was suppressed. That is red flag #1.

George changed the story about Joan's class project. That is red flag #2.

Here's what is known from the eyewitness report. Joan had engaged a Town Taxi and her suitcase was loaded in the trunk. She asked him to take her to Cambridge. According to authorities at the time, Joan vanished without a trace - NOT TRUE. As Burke built his case against Paradiso, he claimed Paradiso was driving the cab and Joan asked him to take her to Cambridge - NOT TRUE. Authorities had the name of the cabbie.

Joan told the cabbie someone was with her. Somewhere between the luggage carousel and the cab line, the bearded man connected with Joan. Joan appeared to know the man. The man was a middle-aged white male, under 6', and approximately 160 lbs. He had dark hair, wore glasses, wore an overcoat, and had a beard. I put descriptors in 2 categories, those that can be disguised, and those that cannot. The stature of the man would have been difficult to alter.

The man with Joan had a suitcase and appeared to be travelling. He exchanged words with the cabbie trying to load his heavy suitcase, then announced "we" don't want to take this cab, and maneuvered Joan to another car. Joan would not have changed cars with a stranger or a ride-share. She had to have known and trusted the man. The list of individuals who knew Joan's travel plans changed was very small. I don't put stock in coincidences that this person just happened to encounter Joan at Logan, and then execute a very elaborate chain of events that resulted in Joan's murder. When the man maneuvered Joan to a different car, her fate was sealed. Red flag #3.

Who had knowledge of the lead? The authorities and the Websters. Red flag #4. That would include Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo, both with the MSP and assigned to the F Barracks at Logan. According to one account by a MSP trooper, Eleanor Webster contacted Tammaro, and he took a leading role in the investigation.

Both Tammaro and Palombo knew Paradiso. Paradiso was 6'2 and over 200 pounds. The bearded man was not Paradiso. When I first saw the composite, it had an uncanny resemblance to Palombo. Both Tammaro and Palombo are big men. The bearded man was not either of these individuals. However, offenders often operate in familiar surroundings. Palombo can be connected to the known locations in Joan's case. Red Flag #5.

Patty Bono, who grew up with Tammaro, placed an anonymous call to the Saugus police to implicate Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case and Joan's disappearance on January 19, 1982, the day after the Websters announced a reward. Burke later identified her in court records. She also affirmed she placed the call.

Source documents revealed Carmen Tammaro alleged the Paradiso boat theory on August 1, 1982. He later coached state witness Robert Bond through the same story on January 14, 1983. Burke hid the foundational documents in Joan's case, the Bond letter and the MSP interview with Bond, by sealing them in the Iannuzzi case. Red flag #6.

Tim Burke claimed he received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983 - NOT TRUE.
Bond mailed the letter on January 10, 1983, after meeting with Tammaro. The letter did not arrive until after the MSP interview on January 14, 1983. Red flag #7.

There are errors in Bond's letter and interview that are not consistent with known facts in both the Iannuzzi case and Joan's case. During the interview, Bond offered a multiple choice for the manner of Joan's death, and did not know where Paradiso had previously moored his boat. He indicated he learned Pier 7 from them, Tammaro. The letter that arrived after the interview was specific about the manner of death and location of the boat. Red flag #8.

Bond learned his details from Tammaro raising the biggest concern. Tammaro and Palombo knew the correct manner of Joan's death with correct details more than 7 years before her remains surfaced. RED FLAG #9.

These officers aided and abetted the offender, the man with Joan at Logan. Burke didn't step into the case until February 1982, after the Websters called a high powered meeting at Harvard. The target of the meeting was Paradiso, based on Bono's anonymous call. They targeted Paradiso a year before authorities announced a "break" in Joan's case. Burke was manipulated.

 

[KEDude]

This bearded man must of presented himself as trustworthy..detective, agent..
Eve, this doesnt sound random. It seems like it was planned out right down to personal belongings in different locations to confuse authority. Do you suspect this was planned in advance or someone who had done this type of thing before and set their sights on Joan while casing the airport for a "victim?"
Sickens me...

Motive?

 

[eve carson]

I have tried to approach Joan's case in a very logical way, and with the blinders off. I looked at everyone. The first thing that became abundantly clear as pieces fell into place was intent. The intent of the four individuals who promoted a false explanation was to divert the investigation and implicate a vulnerable man for the crime. Authorities and the Websters had evidence back to the beginning of the case that would exclude Paradiso from suspicion.

The four individuals that maintained the Paradiso boat theory, ignoring exculpatory evidence in their possession, are: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster. Motive would be different for each of them. The system in MA at the time was very dysfunctional. Trying to get into the head of anyone who would do such heinous things is not easy.

Burke was a green prosecutor with no real prior experience in murder cases. He stepped into the case in February 1982. Burke has demonstrated over the years he liked seeing his name in print. Burke was in Newman Flanagan's office, later exposed for secret and duplicate files, hiding exculpatory evidence to gain wrongful convictions. Joan's case follows the same pattern. Burke was manipulated, but he knowingly made false representations to the courts, brought forward false witnesses, and fabricated evidence in multiple allegations against Paradiso.

Andrew Palombo was an undercover cop with the MSP. He had 4 little girls living in a small house, but had expensive hobbies. He liked motorcycles and cars.

Tammaro appears to have been covering Palombo's back. Keeping the focus off the behaviors of authorities is still apparent today with other officials.

Getting into motive of the Websters is a difficult position to be in. I have provided authorities documented and verifiable evidence of my concerns. I went back to review what was going on in the family at the time. There are two notable things: George's father RN was suffering from Alzheimers, and I was pregnant. Based on what I discovered many years later, these events could have triggered a family rift. I am not interested in airing dirty laundry, but the Websters are image conscious. If Joan was going to reveal what I discovered later, then they had motive. I am cautious because there are other victims involved.

 

[Toots1]

Not sure I want to go down this rabbit hole...but how about a disgruntled, CIA? Someone, who's identify, would have to be covered-up.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Toots1,

I do consider the CIA background of the Websters a factor in the whole scheme of this. But probably not in the way you might think.

It reflects the Websters are very intelligent people, something I can confirm. CIA process is to gather information. Source documents confirm they had exculpatory evidence supporting the innocence of Paradiso in their possession, but ignored it.

CIA mentality is secretive, certainly reinforced by my own personal experience. The intelligence community is very adept at controlling information and creating perceptions. That is what happened here.

The Websters were very well connected and could marshal whatever resources and personnel to assure justice for their daughter. If Joan’s murder was a vindictive act against the Websters, they did not protect other members of the family. I can say unequivocally, the Websters were secretive and dishonest with me about Joan’s case.

I did consider if someone lashing out at the Websters murdered Joan and the Websters sought to conceal the identity of the offender and circumstances. That scenario would not necessitate the relentless endeavor to implicate a scapegoat.

Ask yourselves what shielding an offender and falsely blaming another says about someone’s character. To me it does indicate emotional disconnection.

 

[Sweetluv]

Following..

 

[eve carson]

Researching Joan's case meant taking a deep dive into the Marie Iannuzzi case. This case was entangled with Joan's. The same prosecutor was involved, Tim Burke. The same lead officer was involved, Andrew Palombo. The same suspect was implicated, Leonard Paradiso.

There is exculpatory evidence in source documents favoring Paradiso's innocence of the Iannuzzi murder. For example, the state's witness Robert Bond placed Paradiso with Iannuzzi at the same time an eyewitness placed Paradiso and his girlfriend more than half an hour away. That is just one example, but there are many examples that support Tim Burke gained a wrongful conviction against Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi.

It's important in reviewing all of this to remember there are other victims of the malfeasance by Massachusetts authorities. Marie is another victim denied justice.

When Joan's remains surfaced in 1990, another man was put under the microscope, the husband of the witness who spotted Joan's skull. The woman ended up having a nervous break down and she lost her practice, according to a resident of Hamilton, MA.

I think it is important to remember how far reaching malfeasance impacts the lives of innocent people. There are numerous victims caused by the hoax perpetrated. Please remember them.

 

[Sweetluv]

Following...

 

[lisette]

Eve...Just curious. You don't have to answer. What is your relationship with the Webster family at this point?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Lisette,

I am divorced from Joan's brother after 25 years of marriage. I discovered a very distressing letter. Bottom line, it revealed another potential victim in the Webster family. I immediately sought help. I do not want to get into all the sordid details. I am not interested in airing dirty laundry.

The Webster family witnessed my backbone for many years. The letter, followed by Burke's book with the Webster support were the catalysts to look into Joan's case. I communicated with the family raising questions about the discrepancies I was finding in source documents. The responses I did receive were pretty stunning. George sent me an email response on 12-25-2012 wishing me to "DIE." The family is very image conscious. It became obvious they were not interested in the facts, and I posed a risk to their image.

Privacy is one thing, concealing facts and secrecy in a murder case is another. We all have heard "See something, say something." I had the opportunity to hear Paul Holes give a presentation. Holes was the detective who helped crack the Golden State Killer case. He said one of the best sources of information was ex-wives and ex-girlfriends. The reason is very simple, they have the ability to offer insight into the family.

George and Eleanor are both now deceased. My marital status has nothing to do with what is in source documents. I can't even begin to describe the pain learning what I did from source documents. The Websters had the eyewitness lead at least by December 21, 1981. They were in contact with the US Attorney about the bankruptcy case that affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. Yet they falsely maintained Leonard Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.

I won't be quiet about that.

 

[Sweetluv]

EVE...Do you think this bearded man was on the plane too or already waiting at the airport?
Personally, I feel this isn't random as well. What is your gut feeling on why Joan would have been the target? She seemed like a good person.
I apologize if any of the questions are uncomfortable. I take in consideration of your feelings...

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

The question that gnaws at me is why the Websters participated in a false explanation for Joan's murder. That suggests Joan's murder was the result of Webster secrets. The family did not want people to know what happened to Joan.

It does not seem likely the bearded man was on Joan's flight. She would have seen him in the gate area or passengers getting on the flight. The details in the eyewitness report, a report the Websters and authorities suppressed, Joan knew this individual. She trusted him to change vehicles. He had a heavy suitcase, indicating he was travelling.

Review a couple of things. Joan's plans changed over the break. Not many people would have knowledge where or when she would be arriving. That list is really narrowed to four people; George, Eleanor, Anne, and Joan. George travelled at some point over that weekend. That is not only my recollection, but also verified by a statement Eleanor made to the press. Joan flew back instead of going back with her sister Anne by car on Sunday. George's comments to the press that Joan received high marks for her class project before Thanksgiving subtly shifted. He said she went back to work on a class project.

If Joan reached out to someone when she was arriving, other things do not make sense. She had already engaged a cab to Cambridge. The man with her exchanged words with the cabbie and said "we" don't want to take this cab. Switching cars sealed Joan's fate. This was deliberate.

You do not need to blame a scapegoat unless you have something to hide or protecting someone perceived as "more important" than Joan. If this was someone Joan told about her travel plans, why would the Websters shield him? The bearded man could have been at Logan or arrived at a time that enabled him to connect with Joan. I look at the description and break the characteristics into 2 categories; features that could be altered and those that cannot. The stature of the man is not something you could camouflage easily to disguise a man 6'2" and more than 200 lbs like Paradiso.

Joan was a good person, not someone you would ever suspect could be the target of such a heinous act. I go back to the Websters behaviors in all of this to suppress evidence and divert a legitimate investigation. My instincts tell me that if Joan was about to expose family secrets, like what I discovered many years later, it would have been more than just an embarrassment for the family.

 

[lisette]

Thank you for sharing such difficult memories. You are very courageous to be so honest. I pray that you and your children are safe from any recriminations that might arise because of your revelations. I admire you for trying to right the wrongs that were done to the scapegoat. So disturbing to know that people are willing to go to such lengths, to feel that others’ lives are disposable if they’re not part of the inner circle.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Lisette,

There have been many times I have broken down sobbing over what happened in Joan's case and the far-reaching and damaging aftermath of malfeasance. When I learned the condition of Joan's remains, I could not get out of bed for two days.

Joan was found buried in a very remote and heavily wooded area more than 30 miles from the alleged crime at Pier 7. She was buried in a shallow basin sometimes flooded with water. The grave was covered with cut logs. The grave was covered with a second layer of logs at some point later in time. The level of decomposition of the logs affirmed two separate layers. This area is hard to find. The periodic flooding, animal activity, and shifting of soil contributed to Joan's skull surfacing over time.

Joan's skull had a 2" x 4" hole on the right side of the head. Blunt force trauma was the manner of death. Tr Andrew Palombo, lead officer on Joan's case, and his superior Carmen Tammaro knew the manner of death more than seven years before Joan surfaced in April 1990. Tammaro coached the state's snitch Robert Bond through this story in January 1983. The two officers running Joan's investigation are complicit in her murder. The information funneled through Bond gave correct detail. Bond himself, during the MSP interview in 1983, gave a multiple choice for the manner of death, and told Tammaro and Palombo to choose.

Joan was stripped of all clothing and none of her belongings were found in the area after an extensive search. Her other belongings were scattered all over Boston. There is no question that behavior is deliberate and diverted a legitimate investigation. Two jewelry items were found on Joan's skeleton, a gold amethyst ring and a gold neck chain, more generic type items. I believe the gold amethyst ring may have been misreported. She had a gold onyx ring.

Identifiable jewelry was missing, Joan's gold charm bracelet that was ultimately reported. Joan also wore a gold signet ring all the time. George, Steve, Anne, and Joan all wore signet rings. The signet ring was never reported missing. To me, it is significant that identifiable items such as clothing and identifiable jewelry were missing. If Joan was found, it's harder to establish identity. Ultimately Joan was identified through dental records. To strip someone and remove identifiable jewelry is deliberate. The fact other jewelry remained on the skeleton indicates at least one offender knew what items to remove. Remember, the man with Joan at Logan maneuvered her to another car. The driver of the second car means more than one person was involved.

After Joan surfaced, Eleanor told another family member, Paradiso's girlfriend had some of Joan's jewelry. Tim Burke also made this claim to the FBI, verified in FBI records. That would have been a slam dunk case. It was not true. Paradiso, nor anyone associated with him, had anything belonging to Joan. At the time, Eleanor did not tell me about any jewelry. She told me it had been too long to resolve the case.

Joan was discarded in a black trash bag. It's hard to express the pain of learning how Joan was devalued. She was further devalued by the fraud perpetrated to blame her murder on a scapegoat when the authorities and the Websters knew Paradiso did not commit the crime. They had exculpatory evidence in their possession, ignored it, and suppressed it.

My faith has truly been tested, but my core is strong. I firmly believe it has been God's hand guiding me. The letter I discovered was written to God, and He put it in my hands. There has been real damage as a result of what happened and my speaking out. The clock can't be turned back, but the truth is necessary for genuine healing. I liken it to a broken bone that does not heal properly. It can be painful, distorted, and may not function properly. The bone has to be re broken and set properly to heal. The truth in Joan's case is important.

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve....my heart goes out to you!
I am sorry about your deep rooted pain. Your fight for justice does not go unnoticed...and Joan knows that too.
I follow this thread often, and hope the truth will get unveiled.