MA MA - Joan Webster, 25, Logan Airport, Boston, 28 Nov 1981
- Thread starter eve carson
- Start date
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 732
Hi Sweetluv,
I believe the answers will come out, but there is strong resistance. I also believe Joan is watching over. The truth is very powerful and has a way of coming to the surface.
The current custodian does have some of Joan's hair. I cannot access the pathology report. That would also be helpful.
The DNA that could be tested that would be helpful is under Marie Iannuzzi's nails. Her boyfriend had some very serious scratches at the time of Marie's murder. Exposing a wrongful conviction in Marie's case would break open all the malfeasance going on surrounding Paradiso. Scrapings were never taken from Marie's nails. That is incompetency at a minimum. However, it would now require exhuming Marie's remains. That is handled in a different DAO from Joan's current custodian. It's not likely unless the Iannuzzi family forced the issue. A source close to the Iannuzzi family indicated Marie's case caused some serious family divisions. Some members of the family were threatened. That is confirmed in source documents.
This was a well-orchestrated scheme.
I believe the answers will come out, but there is strong resistance. I also believe Joan is watching over. The truth is very powerful and has a way of coming to the surface.
The current custodian does have some of Joan's hair. I cannot access the pathology report. That would also be helpful.
The DNA that could be tested that would be helpful is under Marie Iannuzzi's nails. Her boyfriend had some very serious scratches at the time of Marie's murder. Exposing a wrongful conviction in Marie's case would break open all the malfeasance going on surrounding Paradiso. Scrapings were never taken from Marie's nails. That is incompetency at a minimum. However, it would now require exhuming Marie's remains. That is handled in a different DAO from Joan's current custodian. It's not likely unless the Iannuzzi family forced the issue. A source close to the Iannuzzi family indicated Marie's case caused some serious family divisions. Some members of the family were threatened. That is confirmed in source documents.
This was a well-orchestrated scheme.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 732
Hi Sweetluv,
To answer your question, I am adding some excerpts from a document I found early on during my research.
"A human being may be killed in many ways but sureness is often overlooked by those who may be emotionally unstrung by the seriousness of this act they intend to commit. The specific technique employed will depend upon a large number of variables, but should be constant in one point: Death must be absolutely certain."
"The simplest local tools are often much the most efficient."
"A hammer, axe, wrench, screw driver, fire poker, kitchen knife, lamp stand, or anything hard, heavy and handy will suffice."
"All such improvised weapons have the important advantage of availability and apparent innocence."
"Blunt weapons require some anatomical knowledge for effective use. Their main advantage is their universal availability. A hammer may be picked up almost anywhere in the world. Baseball and [illeg] bats are very widely distributed. Even a rock or a heavy stick will do, and nothing resembling a weapon need be procured, carried or subsequently disposed of."
"Blows should be directed to the temple, the area just below and behind the ear, and the lower, rear portion of the skull. Of course, if the blow is very heavy, any portion of the upper skull will do. The lower frontal portion of the head, from the eyes to the throat, can withstand enormous blows without fatal consequences."
The simple answer is that an improvised weapon may not be identifiable. It goes along with other known facts in Joan's case, removal of clothing and identifiable jewelry, scattered belongings, concealed leads. Everything I have found points to a cover-up. Four people promoted a false explanation even though they had exculpatory evidence in their possession: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.
The blow to Joan's skull was done with tremendous force. She would have bled out quickly and died instantly. Unless you found the weapon with Joan's blood or hair on it, you might not ever know what was used, complicating investigation. It was probably something easily disposed.
Based on the known facts in Joan's case, it's easy to understand why this document stood out to me. This was contained in documents declassified under an FOIA on May 31, 1997. The estimated date of the original CIA document was December 31, 1953.
To answer your question, I am adding some excerpts from a document I found early on during my research.
"A human being may be killed in many ways but sureness is often overlooked by those who may be emotionally unstrung by the seriousness of this act they intend to commit. The specific technique employed will depend upon a large number of variables, but should be constant in one point: Death must be absolutely certain."
"The simplest local tools are often much the most efficient."
"A hammer, axe, wrench, screw driver, fire poker, kitchen knife, lamp stand, or anything hard, heavy and handy will suffice."
"All such improvised weapons have the important advantage of availability and apparent innocence."
"Blunt weapons require some anatomical knowledge for effective use. Their main advantage is their universal availability. A hammer may be picked up almost anywhere in the world. Baseball and [illeg] bats are very widely distributed. Even a rock or a heavy stick will do, and nothing resembling a weapon need be procured, carried or subsequently disposed of."
"Blows should be directed to the temple, the area just below and behind the ear, and the lower, rear portion of the skull. Of course, if the blow is very heavy, any portion of the upper skull will do. The lower frontal portion of the head, from the eyes to the throat, can withstand enormous blows without fatal consequences."
The simple answer is that an improvised weapon may not be identifiable. It goes along with other known facts in Joan's case, removal of clothing and identifiable jewelry, scattered belongings, concealed leads. Everything I have found points to a cover-up. Four people promoted a false explanation even though they had exculpatory evidence in their possession: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.
The blow to Joan's skull was done with tremendous force. She would have bled out quickly and died instantly. Unless you found the weapon with Joan's blood or hair on it, you might not ever know what was used, complicating investigation. It was probably something easily disposed.
Based on the known facts in Joan's case, it's easy to understand why this document stood out to me. This was contained in documents declassified under an FOIA on May 31, 1997. The estimated date of the original CIA document was December 31, 1953.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 732
When looking into a murder case, there are certain things everyone looks for. Certainly physical characteristics of an offender, if any are known, is an indicator.
Time and place is important.
Relationships are a factor that need to be considered.
Modus operandi is a critical piece in my opinion. For that, you need to assess the known facts.
Joan travelled alone after plans changed over the Thanksgiving break. Who had that information?
An eyewitness identified Joan and described the man with her. Who fits the description?
The man was travelling. Who was travelling at the time?
The man maneuvered Joan to a different car. Who did Joan trust?
At that point Joan vanished until her remains surfaced in Hamilton, MA in 1990. Who had familiarity with that area?
Joan's items were dispersed over a wide area. Who had knowledge of investigatory techniques?
Joan was stripped of clothing and identifiable jewelry. Who would know to take specific jewelry and leave others?
Blunt force trauma with an unknown instrument was inflicted to the right side of her skull with tremendous force. Death was instantaneous and certain.
Joan was discarded in a black plastic trash bag, devalued. Who was threatened by Joan? Who did Joan trust that was threatened by her?
False information was promoted. Who had and controlled information?
There was extensive media promoting the false narrative. Who were the sources?
I added some excepts above from a 1953 CIA training manual. It describes methods that match known facts in Joan's murder. Unknown murder instrument. The location of the blow to her head was going to be fatal. Identifiers and disbursement of items concealed the tracks.
I am adding another document I examined during my research called the ITT jewels. It can be found in records of the 1975 Church Senate Hearings, oversight of the CIA. The Senate hearings also did a supplemental report of ITT's involvement with the CIA. The point of adding this excerpt is how ITT used the media to promote disinformation. That is exactly what happened in Joan's case. This was disseminated throughout ITT.
1. We and other US firms pump money into Mercurio. (This has been started.)
2. We help get propagandists working again on radio and television.
3. Assist in support of a “family relocation” center in Mendoza or Baires (Buenos Aires) for wives and children of people involved in the fight.
4. Bring what pressure we can on US Information Services in Washington. Start moving the Mercurio editorials around Latin America and Europe.
5. Urge the key European press, through our contacts there, to get the story out of what disaster could fall on Chile if Allende & Co. win this country.
Let me be clear, I do not believe Joan's murder was a vendetta against the Websters.
I believe the focus to resolve Joan's murder centers on the four individuals who lied; Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.
Time and place is important.
Relationships are a factor that need to be considered.
Modus operandi is a critical piece in my opinion. For that, you need to assess the known facts.
Joan travelled alone after plans changed over the Thanksgiving break. Who had that information?
An eyewitness identified Joan and described the man with her. Who fits the description?
The man was travelling. Who was travelling at the time?
The man maneuvered Joan to a different car. Who did Joan trust?
At that point Joan vanished until her remains surfaced in Hamilton, MA in 1990. Who had familiarity with that area?
Joan's items were dispersed over a wide area. Who had knowledge of investigatory techniques?
Joan was stripped of clothing and identifiable jewelry. Who would know to take specific jewelry and leave others?
Blunt force trauma with an unknown instrument was inflicted to the right side of her skull with tremendous force. Death was instantaneous and certain.
Joan was discarded in a black plastic trash bag, devalued. Who was threatened by Joan? Who did Joan trust that was threatened by her?
False information was promoted. Who had and controlled information?
There was extensive media promoting the false narrative. Who were the sources?
I added some excepts above from a 1953 CIA training manual. It describes methods that match known facts in Joan's murder. Unknown murder instrument. The location of the blow to her head was going to be fatal. Identifiers and disbursement of items concealed the tracks.
I am adding another document I examined during my research called the ITT jewels. It can be found in records of the 1975 Church Senate Hearings, oversight of the CIA. The Senate hearings also did a supplemental report of ITT's involvement with the CIA. The point of adding this excerpt is how ITT used the media to promote disinformation. That is exactly what happened in Joan's case. This was disseminated throughout ITT.
1. We and other US firms pump money into Mercurio. (This has been started.)
2. We help get propagandists working again on radio and television.
3. Assist in support of a “family relocation” center in Mendoza or Baires (Buenos Aires) for wives and children of people involved in the fight.
4. Bring what pressure we can on US Information Services in Washington. Start moving the Mercurio editorials around Latin America and Europe.
5. Urge the key European press, through our contacts there, to get the story out of what disaster could fall on Chile if Allende & Co. win this country.
Let me be clear, I do not believe Joan's murder was a vendetta against the Websters.
I believe the focus to resolve Joan's murder centers on the four individuals who lied; Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.
Sweetluv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 11,400
- Reaction score
- 8,343
Eve,
Definitely sounds like someone was very worried about needing to "silence" Joan. Do you believe she may have come home early to disclose what she knew?
Do you know what that was? * Out of respect to you, I do not expect you to state that information* just wondering if you had a suspicion.
Definitely sounds like someone was very worried about needing to "silence" Joan. Do you believe she may have come home early to disclose what she knew?
Do you know what that was? * Out of respect to you, I do not expect you to state that information* just wondering if you had a suspicion.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 732
Hi Sweetluv,
The simple answer is yes. At the time, there was nothing I could have imagined. It was many years before I learned things that caused me to go back and look at just what happened in Joan's investigation.
When Joan's remains surfaced in 1990, it was hard to see how the explanation of Paradiso and the boat fit with the facts. It did not make sense. I know I was offered an explanation, it had been too long to get to the answers. After Joan surfaced, efforts to get Robert Bond to testify against Paradiso regarding Joan abruptly stopped. I still had no sense of what was missing.
When I started to dig into this, another family member told me Eleanor had offered a different explanation after Joan surfaced. She was asked why they still believed Paradiso was guilty. Eleanor said Paradiso's girlfriend had a piece of Joan's jewelry. Tim Burke told the FBI the same thing. It is documented in FBI records.
If Paradiso or anyone connected to him had any of Joan's jewelry, or any of Joan's personal items, it would have been a slam dunk prosecution. He had already been condemned in the media. Paradiso had nothing belonging to Joan. No evidence connects Joan to Paradiso or his boat.
I did discover something many years later. It really sounded alarms for me and was hard to wrap my head around. I did seek guidance. It is still a concern today that I am trying to address. If true, it is probably something Joan could have forewarned.
The simple answer is yes. At the time, there was nothing I could have imagined. It was many years before I learned things that caused me to go back and look at just what happened in Joan's investigation.
When Joan's remains surfaced in 1990, it was hard to see how the explanation of Paradiso and the boat fit with the facts. It did not make sense. I know I was offered an explanation, it had been too long to get to the answers. After Joan surfaced, efforts to get Robert Bond to testify against Paradiso regarding Joan abruptly stopped. I still had no sense of what was missing.
When I started to dig into this, another family member told me Eleanor had offered a different explanation after Joan surfaced. She was asked why they still believed Paradiso was guilty. Eleanor said Paradiso's girlfriend had a piece of Joan's jewelry. Tim Burke told the FBI the same thing. It is documented in FBI records.
If Paradiso or anyone connected to him had any of Joan's jewelry, or any of Joan's personal items, it would have been a slam dunk prosecution. He had already been condemned in the media. Paradiso had nothing belonging to Joan. No evidence connects Joan to Paradiso or his boat.
I did discover something many years later. It really sounded alarms for me and was hard to wrap my head around. I did seek guidance. It is still a concern today that I am trying to address. If true, it is probably something Joan could have forewarned.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 732
The layer of the onion I am peeling back is the complicity of authorities to cover up what happened to Joan. Peeling that back is the best chance of finally getting to the whole truth.
Massachusetts has Blood on Their Hands | Medium
Massachusetts has Blood on Their Hands | Medium
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 732
Hi Sweetluv,
An officer who was involved in Joan's case just gave me a very positive response to the article. He was one of the good guys who earnestly was looking for truthful answers. His positive reaction means a lot since I know he had knowledge about Joan's case.
An officer who was involved in Joan's case just gave me a very positive response to the article. He was one of the good guys who earnestly was looking for truthful answers. His positive reaction means a lot since I know he had knowledge about Joan's case.
Sweetluv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 11,400
- Reaction score
- 8,343
Eve,
So does it seem more reasonable that Joan cut her trip short to confront the person(s) about the secret...in which case they knew she was coming back early to do so...or, do you suspect that maybe Joan got word from someone that she was needed to cut her trip early and head back? All of which, in my opinion, had to be plotted and planned out prior. How long did Joan have this trip planned in advance?
Did the bearded man have a suitcase or just Joan? And the car they got into, I believe i read it was blue and not a cab? What kind of car ..one that could resemble an unmarked police official body type?
So does it seem more reasonable that Joan cut her trip short to confront the person(s) about the secret...in which case they knew she was coming back early to do so...or, do you suspect that maybe Joan got word from someone that she was needed to cut her trip early and head back? All of which, in my opinion, had to be plotted and planned out prior. How long did Joan have this trip planned in advance?
Did the bearded man have a suitcase or just Joan? And the car they got into, I believe i read it was blue and not a cab? What kind of car ..one that could resemble an unmarked police official body type?
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 732
Hi Sweetluv,
Joan planned to have a guest visit NJ over Thanksgiving break, a kind of meet the parents. The change in plans had to occur when she was in NJ on break. That's a small window. George and Eleanor scheduled things down to the minutia. I know I really had to get used to that. I don't think Joan initiated the change in plans.
There are a couple of points that were really out of character for the Websters, and I experienced their patterns countless times with the Websters over the years. First, George always made airport runs on his own. He did the pick up or drop off. But that night, Eleanor and Anne went along with him to drop Joan off. They had gone to two cocktail parties before heading for Newark. It would have been easy to drop Eleanor and Anne off at the house. They could have even walked home from one of the get togethers. These were small gatherings I have been to many times. What makes the most sense is that Joan changed her plans to accommodate George. He travelled that weekend. Eleanor would not drive after dark, so Anne would have been behind the wheel on the way home. That is the scenario that makes the most sense, and the pieces fit.
I don't have records of George's travel itinerary that weekend, but I do know he travelled with certainty. My recollection was corroborated by a statement Eleanor made to the press. George would have been the one to book Joan's flight. An interesting note of something I discovered early on. I recovered police reports checking the Websters' phone. The home number was provided and checked. George also had a private line in a small study upstairs. The rules of the house were not to use that phone. The upstairs study was across the hall from Joan's room. That number was not provided to the police. They would not have known it was missing if they didn't know it existed. It was a glaring omission for me.
The home line Joan would have used did not have any calls identified for Joan calling in or dialing out. I doubt Joan had any control or input in the change in plans. So then the question becomes why didn't Joan wait and go back with Anne by car the next day? Discord in the family is the most logical explanation. That's not something people on the outside would observe in the family, but there were conflicts.
Let me give you an example. On a family vacation one summer, I was reading on the beach. I had turned my chair away from the group and was deeply engrossed in a very good book. Friends of George and Eleanor joined the group. Anne and Steve, as was very typical, immediately jumped up and went over by George and Eleanor. I never even noticed. When we got back to the house, I was raked over the coals for not immediately coming over. We had cocktails at the same couple's house that evening. By that point, the Websters made me feel so awful, I apologized, even though I didn't think I had anything to apologize for. The wife said she hadn't paid any attention herself, it was no big deal. She was more interested in the book I was reading because her reading group had it on their list. No one on the outside ever saw any hint of discord in the family, but it happened behind closed doors.
The second thing that is out of character was for George to ever disrupt his vacation or holiday plans for a trip, even business. He was a senior executive with ITT and would delay or delegate any business trip.
Let me give you another example. We had a family vacation every August. George used to give me a hard time if we had to get back home ahead of his schedule. It didn't seem to register with him, we had to get back for the start of school.
Joan travelled alone back to Boston. After she collected her suitcase, she moved out to the cab line, tapped on the window of a Town Taxi, and asked to go to Cambridge. Her suitcase was loaded in the trunk. At that point, Joan told the cabbie a man was with her. The man had a very heavy suitcase. He exchanged words with the cabbie over the bag. The bearded man then turned to Joan and said "we don't want to take this cab." Joan's suitcase was removed and both of them moved to a blue car and left Logan. The cabbie's account was corroborated. I don't have a more detailed description of the car, but the cabbie said he did not identify any type of cab or livery markings. The big question is who had the ability or how did the car get into the cab line? This was the critical point for Joan. It had to be deliberate.
The interviews of the cabbies took place in the early days after Joan was reported missing three days later on December 1, 1981. There were a lot of departments involved. The composite was compiled from the cabbies description. Source documents confirmed George and Eleanor received it. They never shared that information. The description of the man does not fit with Leonard Paradiso; the bearded man was much smaller in stature.
Joan planned to have a guest visit NJ over Thanksgiving break, a kind of meet the parents. The change in plans had to occur when she was in NJ on break. That's a small window. George and Eleanor scheduled things down to the minutia. I know I really had to get used to that. I don't think Joan initiated the change in plans.
There are a couple of points that were really out of character for the Websters, and I experienced their patterns countless times with the Websters over the years. First, George always made airport runs on his own. He did the pick up or drop off. But that night, Eleanor and Anne went along with him to drop Joan off. They had gone to two cocktail parties before heading for Newark. It would have been easy to drop Eleanor and Anne off at the house. They could have even walked home from one of the get togethers. These were small gatherings I have been to many times. What makes the most sense is that Joan changed her plans to accommodate George. He travelled that weekend. Eleanor would not drive after dark, so Anne would have been behind the wheel on the way home. That is the scenario that makes the most sense, and the pieces fit.
I don't have records of George's travel itinerary that weekend, but I do know he travelled with certainty. My recollection was corroborated by a statement Eleanor made to the press. George would have been the one to book Joan's flight. An interesting note of something I discovered early on. I recovered police reports checking the Websters' phone. The home number was provided and checked. George also had a private line in a small study upstairs. The rules of the house were not to use that phone. The upstairs study was across the hall from Joan's room. That number was not provided to the police. They would not have known it was missing if they didn't know it existed. It was a glaring omission for me.
The home line Joan would have used did not have any calls identified for Joan calling in or dialing out. I doubt Joan had any control or input in the change in plans. So then the question becomes why didn't Joan wait and go back with Anne by car the next day? Discord in the family is the most logical explanation. That's not something people on the outside would observe in the family, but there were conflicts.
Let me give you an example. On a family vacation one summer, I was reading on the beach. I had turned my chair away from the group and was deeply engrossed in a very good book. Friends of George and Eleanor joined the group. Anne and Steve, as was very typical, immediately jumped up and went over by George and Eleanor. I never even noticed. When we got back to the house, I was raked over the coals for not immediately coming over. We had cocktails at the same couple's house that evening. By that point, the Websters made me feel so awful, I apologized, even though I didn't think I had anything to apologize for. The wife said she hadn't paid any attention herself, it was no big deal. She was more interested in the book I was reading because her reading group had it on their list. No one on the outside ever saw any hint of discord in the family, but it happened behind closed doors.
The second thing that is out of character was for George to ever disrupt his vacation or holiday plans for a trip, even business. He was a senior executive with ITT and would delay or delegate any business trip.
Let me give you another example. We had a family vacation every August. George used to give me a hard time if we had to get back home ahead of his schedule. It didn't seem to register with him, we had to get back for the start of school.
Joan travelled alone back to Boston. After she collected her suitcase, she moved out to the cab line, tapped on the window of a Town Taxi, and asked to go to Cambridge. Her suitcase was loaded in the trunk. At that point, Joan told the cabbie a man was with her. The man had a very heavy suitcase. He exchanged words with the cabbie over the bag. The bearded man then turned to Joan and said "we don't want to take this cab." Joan's suitcase was removed and both of them moved to a blue car and left Logan. The cabbie's account was corroborated. I don't have a more detailed description of the car, but the cabbie said he did not identify any type of cab or livery markings. The big question is who had the ability or how did the car get into the cab line? This was the critical point for Joan. It had to be deliberate.
The interviews of the cabbies took place in the early days after Joan was reported missing three days later on December 1, 1981. There were a lot of departments involved. The composite was compiled from the cabbies description. Source documents confirmed George and Eleanor received it. They never shared that information. The description of the man does not fit with Leonard Paradiso; the bearded man was much smaller in stature.
Sweetluv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 11,400
- Reaction score
- 8,343
Hi Eve,
I have a few questions....so when Joan originally had her suitcase in the cab and mentioned she had a man with her, why do you think the bearded man even let her approach that cab and not simply direct her to the other car? How did that car get into the cab line......maybe someone flashed a badge? If it was planned, which I believe, this bearded man brought a suitcase to blend in...but why so heavy, what were the contents?
I have a few questions....so when Joan originally had her suitcase in the cab and mentioned she had a man with her, why do you think the bearded man even let her approach that cab and not simply direct her to the other car? How did that car get into the cab line......maybe someone flashed a badge? If it was planned, which I believe, this bearded man brought a suitcase to blend in...but why so heavy, what were the contents?
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 732
Hi Sweetluv,
Joan travelled alone. Interviews confirmed she spoke to a couple and a priest on the plane. She waived to a friend at the luggage carousel. I don't know precisely when the bearded man caught up with her. She probably had already engaged the Town Taxi before he made the connection. Causing a fuss over the suitcase gave the bearded man the opportunity to maneuver her to the second car.
An early news article on December 5, 1981, in the Newark Star Ledger reported a witness saw Joan speaking to a man behind a counter in the carousel area. This is speculation on my part, but it seems logical she was notified someone would be meeting her. Police reports provided additional information about the source of the report, a classmate at the airport saw her at the desk. I think it is fair to say it was airport personnel or someone in an official capacity behind the desk.
Jack McEwan, head of ITT security, squelched that report. Knowing now with certainty that there were eyewitnesses that saw Joan, McEwan's dismissal is concerning. McEwan had returned to NJ from Logan with other officials who had been conducting the interviews.
There are two possibilities; either the bearded man had a suitcase to fit in, or he was travelling. I wish I knew what was in the bag. Cabbies handle suitcases all the time, so for the cabbie to comment it was very heavy is notable. I go back to the question, who knew where and when Joan would be at Logan? There was a very small window of time with the changed travel plans. The list of people who knew she was going back early is small. There are no calls on the home line of Joan making or receiving a call. George's line was not reported or checked. Who outside of the immediate family knew?
It would not be easy to get another car into the cab line. These are controlled areas requiring medallions; drivers need hack licenses. Certainly, showing a badge would give access. That has been foremost in my thoughts trying to understand how and why the blue car was there.
Sorry for the long answers. I am trying to give you my thought process and all the different pieces that come together.
Joan travelled alone. Interviews confirmed she spoke to a couple and a priest on the plane. She waived to a friend at the luggage carousel. I don't know precisely when the bearded man caught up with her. She probably had already engaged the Town Taxi before he made the connection. Causing a fuss over the suitcase gave the bearded man the opportunity to maneuver her to the second car.
An early news article on December 5, 1981, in the Newark Star Ledger reported a witness saw Joan speaking to a man behind a counter in the carousel area. This is speculation on my part, but it seems logical she was notified someone would be meeting her. Police reports provided additional information about the source of the report, a classmate at the airport saw her at the desk. I think it is fair to say it was airport personnel or someone in an official capacity behind the desk.
Jack McEwan, head of ITT security, squelched that report. Knowing now with certainty that there were eyewitnesses that saw Joan, McEwan's dismissal is concerning. McEwan had returned to NJ from Logan with other officials who had been conducting the interviews.
There are two possibilities; either the bearded man had a suitcase to fit in, or he was travelling. I wish I knew what was in the bag. Cabbies handle suitcases all the time, so for the cabbie to comment it was very heavy is notable. I go back to the question, who knew where and when Joan would be at Logan? There was a very small window of time with the changed travel plans. The list of people who knew she was going back early is small. There are no calls on the home line of Joan making or receiving a call. George's line was not reported or checked. Who outside of the immediate family knew?
It would not be easy to get another car into the cab line. These are controlled areas requiring medallions; drivers need hack licenses. Certainly, showing a badge would give access. That has been foremost in my thoughts trying to understand how and why the blue car was there.
Sorry for the long answers. I am trying to give you my thought process and all the different pieces that come together.
Sweetluv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 11,400
- Reaction score
- 8,343
Hi Eve,
I appreciate your thought process and answers...
I'm frustrated over Joan's murder, so I can only imagine your years of grief and anguish.
Seems like there are alot of working parts and key players to Joan's demise. Her returning early..and who knew that, the awaiting car, and the lies and discrepancies are baffling.
I appreciate your thought process and answers...
I'm frustrated over Joan's murder, so I can only imagine your years of grief and anguish.
Seems like there are alot of working parts and key players to Joan's demise. Her returning early..and who knew that, the awaiting car, and the lies and discrepancies are baffling.
Sweetluv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 11,400
- Reaction score
- 8,343
With the wheels turning, I even wonder if the bearded man was in disguise.
It bugs me why Joan really returned early...and why this bearded man was able to make her feel comfortable enough to talk and go with him...and not question or refuse to get into a car that was a non cab.
It bugs me why Joan really returned early...and why this bearded man was able to make her feel comfortable enough to talk and go with him...and not question or refuse to get into a car that was a non cab.