Eve, I’ve heard you on podcasts and I appreciate the effort you have put into this case. I can’t help wondering if perhaps the reason the identity of the bearded man remains so illusive is that the woman with him was not Joan and the incident at the Cab Line had nothing to do with Joan’s murder. The woman with the bearded guy may have just been someone who bore a resemblance to Joan. I suspect that Joan took a ride with a “Gypsy Cab” and driver killed her. Paradisio probably did gypsy cabbing on occasions but plenty of other guys did it as well.
MA MA - Joan Webster, 25, Logan Airport, Boston, 28 Nov 1981
- Thread starter eve carson
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
cenazoic
Mostly pre-1960s MPs
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2015
- Messages
- 763
- Reaction score
- 3,718
Hi @eve carson - got your new book today! Excited to read it.
Idle curiosity: do you think there’s any value at all in Burke’s book? (Haven’t read it, trying to decide if worthwhile.)
Idle curiosity: do you think there’s any value at all in Burke’s book? (Haven’t read it, trying to decide if worthwhile.)
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Hi Rob 525, Sweetluv, Kemo, and Cenazoic,
Let me try to take your questions and thoughts one at a time,
Joan's purse and wallet were found on the south bound side of Route 107, in the direction heading toward Logan. It is most likely it was tossed after Joan was murdered. I imaginge every single person who follows or posts on Websleaths could think of someone capable of such a heinous crime. Would Joan be tricked by someone and think it was safe to switch cars with him. No. There was a connection between the man and Joan. Richard Haefner might seem like he was able to commit such a crime, but you have to make some connection to Joan first. Then you also have to explain why the Websters and authorities concealed the lead and instead went after a scapegoat.
George and Eleanor were in the CIA. They were very secretive about what they did, but there are some things that give insight into their mindset. Anyone working for the CIA signs a pledge of confidentiality. They are sworn to secrecy. When the Websters were with the agency in DC, there were numerous projects under an umbrella project of mind control. There is a lot that has been written about activities. I can say with certainty this would have been part of their training. People trained in intelligence in the CIA were proficient in creating perceptions and spread disinformation. There are countless examples in the CIA history. I personally do not think, based on my experiences with the family, Joan's murder was not vindictive because of something they were involved in. But there background and training is important. They are not just ordinary folks, but people who had unique training and skills.
When George was with ITT, his division was involved in covert activities with the CIA. George would have been in the middle of it with his position as the director of budget and planning with the defense group. ITT's involvements were well-documented by the Chrurch Senate Hearings, and the Senate undertook a seperate investigation of ITT itself.
Certainly, he could have been involved in activities that were unfavorable for others. If Joan was murdered in retaliation for any of George and Eleanor's activities, they did absolutely nothing to assure that the rest of us in the family were cautious. He had the connections to turn to the agency to take care of an offender who might have murdered Joan for vindication. I do not believe this is the case. It does not explain why the eyewitness lead was suppressed and why they went after a scapegoat. People that came to the house in my experience were all part of a small close knit circle of friends in the town. I don't think they would ever have someone around that was part of their CIA or ITT activities of any clandestine nature.
The description of Joan was spot on with details. Logan was not that crowded, most people came back on Sunday. Joan had already engaged a Town Taxi to take her to Cambridge. The cabbie described what she wore and what she had with her. She changed vehicles. Paradiso was a parolee and did not have a hack license, so if he ever drove a cab, he did so illegally. With reward money being flashed out there, you would think if Paradiso drove for someone, they would come forward. There was absolutely no evidence he ever drove a cab. If this was just random and Joan got into a gypsy cab with someone who had bad intentions and waiting for an opportunity, then why conceal the eyewitness lead? If you are sincerely looking for your missing daughter, you don't hold anything back. I suspect George and Eleanor knew exactly who the bearded man was. Their intent was for people not to know the truth about what happened to Joan. That is a problem. The reason the bearded man was not identified was because the police and the Websters locked it away.
Burke's book is evidence in an open murder case. I can't enumerate just how many lies and distortions Burke made in his book. I do spell it out in mine and show documents to support it. Burke's book is fiction on both Joan's case and Marie Iannuzzi. Think how disgusting that is. That explains the difficulty in getting current custodians to review Joan's case properly. They circle the wagons and protect their own.
Let me try to take your questions and thoughts one at a time,
Joan's purse and wallet were found on the south bound side of Route 107, in the direction heading toward Logan. It is most likely it was tossed after Joan was murdered. I imaginge every single person who follows or posts on Websleaths could think of someone capable of such a heinous crime. Would Joan be tricked by someone and think it was safe to switch cars with him. No. There was a connection between the man and Joan. Richard Haefner might seem like he was able to commit such a crime, but you have to make some connection to Joan first. Then you also have to explain why the Websters and authorities concealed the lead and instead went after a scapegoat.
George and Eleanor were in the CIA. They were very secretive about what they did, but there are some things that give insight into their mindset. Anyone working for the CIA signs a pledge of confidentiality. They are sworn to secrecy. When the Websters were with the agency in DC, there were numerous projects under an umbrella project of mind control. There is a lot that has been written about activities. I can say with certainty this would have been part of their training. People trained in intelligence in the CIA were proficient in creating perceptions and spread disinformation. There are countless examples in the CIA history. I personally do not think, based on my experiences with the family, Joan's murder was not vindictive because of something they were involved in. But there background and training is important. They are not just ordinary folks, but people who had unique training and skills.
When George was with ITT, his division was involved in covert activities with the CIA. George would have been in the middle of it with his position as the director of budget and planning with the defense group. ITT's involvements were well-documented by the Chrurch Senate Hearings, and the Senate undertook a seperate investigation of ITT itself.
Certainly, he could have been involved in activities that were unfavorable for others. If Joan was murdered in retaliation for any of George and Eleanor's activities, they did absolutely nothing to assure that the rest of us in the family were cautious. He had the connections to turn to the agency to take care of an offender who might have murdered Joan for vindication. I do not believe this is the case. It does not explain why the eyewitness lead was suppressed and why they went after a scapegoat. People that came to the house in my experience were all part of a small close knit circle of friends in the town. I don't think they would ever have someone around that was part of their CIA or ITT activities of any clandestine nature.
The description of Joan was spot on with details. Logan was not that crowded, most people came back on Sunday. Joan had already engaged a Town Taxi to take her to Cambridge. The cabbie described what she wore and what she had with her. She changed vehicles. Paradiso was a parolee and did not have a hack license, so if he ever drove a cab, he did so illegally. With reward money being flashed out there, you would think if Paradiso drove for someone, they would come forward. There was absolutely no evidence he ever drove a cab. If this was just random and Joan got into a gypsy cab with someone who had bad intentions and waiting for an opportunity, then why conceal the eyewitness lead? If you are sincerely looking for your missing daughter, you don't hold anything back. I suspect George and Eleanor knew exactly who the bearded man was. Their intent was for people not to know the truth about what happened to Joan. That is a problem. The reason the bearded man was not identified was because the police and the Websters locked it away.
Burke's book is evidence in an open murder case. I can't enumerate just how many lies and distortions Burke made in his book. I do spell it out in mine and show documents to support it. Burke's book is fiction on both Joan's case and Marie Iannuzzi. Think how disgusting that is. That explains the difficulty in getting current custodians to review Joan's case properly. They circle the wagons and protect their own.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Let me try to give you a sense of what this experience has been. When I first started posting this thread, someone commented it was unusual to have a family member contribute. Perhaps my experience will help to understand that.
To learn a member of your family is missing is devastating. It is more than just personal. You live it every single day. Emotions range from anger, confusion, worry, helplessness. You are suspended in grief hoping for answers. The media fanned sensational stories, an emotional rollercoaster: extortion, murder at sea, the Zodiac, and psychics to name just some of it. This went on for years before Joan surfaced. The discovery of her remains confirmed certain things, but only gave minimal closure. Who and why still went unanswwered. It added to the confusion because her recovery was not consistant with the explanations from authorities and the Websters.
A friend called me recently after listening to some of the podcasts. She remembered some of the bizarre experiences I had with the family. Those are pieces that someone trying to analyze Joan's case can't see. I don't think it serves any purpose to go into all of them, but these are factors I understand in looking at the full picture. I will give you a couple of examples. On Christmas morning 1981, George announced she [Joan] was gone and we have to move on. I had no idea the police had handed them the eyewitness lead just a few days before. On Christmas Eve 2012, I received an email from George laced with profanity and wishing me to die because I was asking questions about the discrepancies in Joan's records. Outwardly, people see an image of the Websters. Over the years, I saw a much different side of the Websters.
Discovering the letter was a real jolt. It was horrifying. I went through another wave of disbelief, anger, confusion, and unrelenting sadness. Tim Burke announced his book with cooperation and support from the Websters. That was very upsetting to me. At a minimum, the case had never been charged or tried. These were the two factors that compelled me to dig into Joan's case.
I had no idea what I would find in the records, but I hoped I would find something that justified the Websters' allegations. I did not. To the contrary, I saw George's influence all over this investigation. They had the eyewitness lead. He sat in the courtroom during the Iannuzzi trial and got assurances from unsavory witnesses. The Iannuzzi trial was a sham. He communicated with the DOJ about the bankruptcy case involving the boat. George and Eleanor knew full well that the Paradiso boat theory was bogus. IMO, this is the nucleus of Joan's case.
Some people think I had to know what was going on as a part of the immediate family when all of this happened. I found out there was a lot I didn't know. The Websters violated my trust, they lied to me and kept a lot of secrets. That has been overwhelming at times. When I first saw the picture of Joan's skull, I could not get out of bed for three days.
To speak out publicly opened me up to a lot of personal attacks. At first, they bothered me, but I learned to ignore them. I am looking and working from documents, facts. Those without facts attack the messenger. I have provided several documents to the current custodian. Their files were grossly deficient of relevant records including the bankruptcy case that affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared, and the letter and supporting documents. I would be subject to prosecution if I brought forward false information. To ignore it would weigh on my conscience and still leave some vulnerable. It is all verifiable. Apparently there is a different standard for Burke and others. The custodian knows Burke and does not focus on him.
To raise questions about the Websters put me in the line of fire from others who can't imagine the Websters could be capable of such horrible things. In the best case scenario, the Websters framed a man for the murder of their daughter/sibling. They are the ones with the secrets. That's what the evidence in the records show. Although I take incoming from all sides, I won't be any part of what the Websters did. It was a complete betrayal of Joan. Look at the Alex Murdaugh case. Once a prominent and well-respected family, but the secrets started to unravel.
There is something else that haunts me. A family member confided that they felt responsible to keep me alive. That person's behavior was not consistant with that declaration, far from it. Exposing people's dark secrets has risks. I won't speculate, but I know what I am dealing with now. There are others who are still vulnerable with some very distresssing secrets hanging over their heads.
To learn a member of your family is missing is devastating. It is more than just personal. You live it every single day. Emotions range from anger, confusion, worry, helplessness. You are suspended in grief hoping for answers. The media fanned sensational stories, an emotional rollercoaster: extortion, murder at sea, the Zodiac, and psychics to name just some of it. This went on for years before Joan surfaced. The discovery of her remains confirmed certain things, but only gave minimal closure. Who and why still went unanswwered. It added to the confusion because her recovery was not consistant with the explanations from authorities and the Websters.
A friend called me recently after listening to some of the podcasts. She remembered some of the bizarre experiences I had with the family. Those are pieces that someone trying to analyze Joan's case can't see. I don't think it serves any purpose to go into all of them, but these are factors I understand in looking at the full picture. I will give you a couple of examples. On Christmas morning 1981, George announced she [Joan] was gone and we have to move on. I had no idea the police had handed them the eyewitness lead just a few days before. On Christmas Eve 2012, I received an email from George laced with profanity and wishing me to die because I was asking questions about the discrepancies in Joan's records. Outwardly, people see an image of the Websters. Over the years, I saw a much different side of the Websters.
Discovering the letter was a real jolt. It was horrifying. I went through another wave of disbelief, anger, confusion, and unrelenting sadness. Tim Burke announced his book with cooperation and support from the Websters. That was very upsetting to me. At a minimum, the case had never been charged or tried. These were the two factors that compelled me to dig into Joan's case.
I had no idea what I would find in the records, but I hoped I would find something that justified the Websters' allegations. I did not. To the contrary, I saw George's influence all over this investigation. They had the eyewitness lead. He sat in the courtroom during the Iannuzzi trial and got assurances from unsavory witnesses. The Iannuzzi trial was a sham. He communicated with the DOJ about the bankruptcy case involving the boat. George and Eleanor knew full well that the Paradiso boat theory was bogus. IMO, this is the nucleus of Joan's case.
Some people think I had to know what was going on as a part of the immediate family when all of this happened. I found out there was a lot I didn't know. The Websters violated my trust, they lied to me and kept a lot of secrets. That has been overwhelming at times. When I first saw the picture of Joan's skull, I could not get out of bed for three days.
To speak out publicly opened me up to a lot of personal attacks. At first, they bothered me, but I learned to ignore them. I am looking and working from documents, facts. Those without facts attack the messenger. I have provided several documents to the current custodian. Their files were grossly deficient of relevant records including the bankruptcy case that affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared, and the letter and supporting documents. I would be subject to prosecution if I brought forward false information. To ignore it would weigh on my conscience and still leave some vulnerable. It is all verifiable. Apparently there is a different standard for Burke and others. The custodian knows Burke and does not focus on him.
To raise questions about the Websters put me in the line of fire from others who can't imagine the Websters could be capable of such horrible things. In the best case scenario, the Websters framed a man for the murder of their daughter/sibling. They are the ones with the secrets. That's what the evidence in the records show. Although I take incoming from all sides, I won't be any part of what the Websters did. It was a complete betrayal of Joan. Look at the Alex Murdaugh case. Once a prominent and well-respected family, but the secrets started to unravel.
There is something else that haunts me. A family member confided that they felt responsible to keep me alive. That person's behavior was not consistant with that declaration, far from it. Exposing people's dark secrets has risks. I won't speculate, but I know what I am dealing with now. There are others who are still vulnerable with some very distresssing secrets hanging over their heads.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Hi Vis 12345,
Without speaking to Joan, I can never know with 100% certainty. If a family is lying and being secretive about a missing/murdered member of the family, they have to be looked at. I am sure many of you remember the case of Susan Smith. She alleged she was carjacked with her two little boys in the car. They were later found in a lake. Smith was pointing toward someone else to divert attention when she was the guilty party.
I had a discussion with Steve at one point. He very smugly looked at me and said you have not figured this out yet. Actually, I had suspicions, but did not have the documents to support my concerns. I do now. I know the intent of the authorities and the Websters. They wanted to point in a different direction and divert any legitimate investigation from the truth. Motive is sometimes harder to define, but yes, I do believe I uncovered the motive. Joan's murder has the earmarks of a professional. Each person involved would have their own motive to be a part of Joan's murder, some at the time, and some after the fact. The man who maneuvered Joan to the blue car was the individual who probably had the motive to kill her.
If I am correct about the motive, I believe that family that were home for Thanksgiving were aware something was going to happen. All the Websters were ever concerned with was image. That is not justification for any of the chaos that followed.
Without speaking to Joan, I can never know with 100% certainty. If a family is lying and being secretive about a missing/murdered member of the family, they have to be looked at. I am sure many of you remember the case of Susan Smith. She alleged she was carjacked with her two little boys in the car. They were later found in a lake. Smith was pointing toward someone else to divert attention when she was the guilty party.
I had a discussion with Steve at one point. He very smugly looked at me and said you have not figured this out yet. Actually, I had suspicions, but did not have the documents to support my concerns. I do now. I know the intent of the authorities and the Websters. They wanted to point in a different direction and divert any legitimate investigation from the truth. Motive is sometimes harder to define, but yes, I do believe I uncovered the motive. Joan's murder has the earmarks of a professional. Each person involved would have their own motive to be a part of Joan's murder, some at the time, and some after the fact. The man who maneuvered Joan to the blue car was the individual who probably had the motive to kill her.
If I am correct about the motive, I believe that family that were home for Thanksgiving were aware something was going to happen. All the Websters were ever concerned with was image. That is not justification for any of the chaos that followed.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Let me step you through my reasoning to try and identify the bearded man and the driver of the blue car.
The state started to spread a story based on the allegations of a two-time convicted killer in January 1983. Robert Bond alleged Paradiso confessed to picking Joan up at Logan in a gypsy cab, taking her to his boat at Pier 7, hitting her in the head with a whiskey bottle, raping her, and then took his boat out and dumped her in Boston Harbor.
Point 1: Records revealed Leonard Paradiso was targeted by police by January 1982, a full year before authorities declare a break in Joan's case because of Robert Bond's allegations.
Point 2: I learned from records Sgt Carmen Tammaro first introduced the boat theory on August 1, 1982. He then led the interview with Robert Bond on January 14, 1983, after previous meetings, and Bond regurgitated Tammaro's same story about the boat. During the interview, Bond did not know the cause of death for Joan and gave the officers a choice for them to choose. Much of Bond's interview and written statement were known to be false with known facts at the time. But one element was true more than seven years before Joan surfaced. The way the story came out, what the officers chose from Bond's recitation, was a blow to the head. Bond gave correct detail, information that would only be known to the killer or someone complicit in the crime.
Point 3: I could then identify two individuals who knew the correct cause of death with correct detail: Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo. That puts these two individuals right at the top of the suspect list for involvement in Joan's murder. However, neither man fit the eyewitness description of the bearded man with Joan; they are both too big.
Point 4: The eyewitness report said Joan and the bearded man moved to a blue car at Logan. I looked at the two men above who might fit what we know about the driver of that car.
Familiar with protocols at Logan for cabs and livery services. CT - yes, AP - yes
Credentials to get into the cab line. CT - yes, AP - yes
Could blend into the cab line without drawing attention. CT - no (he was a uniformed desk sergeant), AP - yes (he was an undercover cop)
Familiar with Route 107 where the purse was tossed. CT - probably had familiarity of the Boston area, AP- yes (he was the lead officer on the Iannuzzi case, and Route 107 was the main route from his home to Logan)
Familiar with the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station. CT - yes, AP - yes (there was a police report of undercover police activity at the bus station)
Familiar with Chebacco Rd, the gravesite. CT - doubtful (this was a very remote area and CT did not live in this area, AP - yes (he lived close to the area, Hamilton police chief confirmed AP knew the area)
Point 5: The police and the Websters suppressed the eyewitness lead and instead went after a scapegoat, Leonard Paradiso.
Point 6: Knew Paradiso. CT - yes (they grew up together), AP - yes (he was the lead on the Iannuzzi case)
Point 7: Knew police methods and how to divert an investigation. CT - yes, AP - yes
Andrew Palombo is a suspect as the man driving the blue car. His superior, Carmen Tammaro, was the originator of the Paradiso boat theory funneled through Robert Bond.
A final point, Bond was interviewed by an investigator and attorney on my behalf. Bond told them that the man from NJ, referring to George Webster, sent people to see him. Tammaro, Palombo, and Tim Burke all worked closely with George Webster. For the authorities and the Websters to suppress the eyewitness lead, and the investigation took the course that it did, it is reasonable to conclude they all know who the man was. Otherwise, why hide the lead?
In the best-case scenario, the Websters framed a man for Joan's murder. It is a reasonable conclusion, they had something to hide. Simplified motive, Joan lost her life to shield the Webster's image. What is there in their background that would result in such a travesty? I believe that is what I discovered when I found the letter.
The state started to spread a story based on the allegations of a two-time convicted killer in January 1983. Robert Bond alleged Paradiso confessed to picking Joan up at Logan in a gypsy cab, taking her to his boat at Pier 7, hitting her in the head with a whiskey bottle, raping her, and then took his boat out and dumped her in Boston Harbor.
Point 1: Records revealed Leonard Paradiso was targeted by police by January 1982, a full year before authorities declare a break in Joan's case because of Robert Bond's allegations.
Point 2: I learned from records Sgt Carmen Tammaro first introduced the boat theory on August 1, 1982. He then led the interview with Robert Bond on January 14, 1983, after previous meetings, and Bond regurgitated Tammaro's same story about the boat. During the interview, Bond did not know the cause of death for Joan and gave the officers a choice for them to choose. Much of Bond's interview and written statement were known to be false with known facts at the time. But one element was true more than seven years before Joan surfaced. The way the story came out, what the officers chose from Bond's recitation, was a blow to the head. Bond gave correct detail, information that would only be known to the killer or someone complicit in the crime.
Point 3: I could then identify two individuals who knew the correct cause of death with correct detail: Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo. That puts these two individuals right at the top of the suspect list for involvement in Joan's murder. However, neither man fit the eyewitness description of the bearded man with Joan; they are both too big.
Point 4: The eyewitness report said Joan and the bearded man moved to a blue car at Logan. I looked at the two men above who might fit what we know about the driver of that car.
Familiar with protocols at Logan for cabs and livery services. CT - yes, AP - yes
Credentials to get into the cab line. CT - yes, AP - yes
Could blend into the cab line without drawing attention. CT - no (he was a uniformed desk sergeant), AP - yes (he was an undercover cop)
Familiar with Route 107 where the purse was tossed. CT - probably had familiarity of the Boston area, AP- yes (he was the lead officer on the Iannuzzi case, and Route 107 was the main route from his home to Logan)
Familiar with the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station. CT - yes, AP - yes (there was a police report of undercover police activity at the bus station)
Familiar with Chebacco Rd, the gravesite. CT - doubtful (this was a very remote area and CT did not live in this area, AP - yes (he lived close to the area, Hamilton police chief confirmed AP knew the area)
Point 5: The police and the Websters suppressed the eyewitness lead and instead went after a scapegoat, Leonard Paradiso.
Point 6: Knew Paradiso. CT - yes (they grew up together), AP - yes (he was the lead on the Iannuzzi case)
Point 7: Knew police methods and how to divert an investigation. CT - yes, AP - yes
Andrew Palombo is a suspect as the man driving the blue car. His superior, Carmen Tammaro, was the originator of the Paradiso boat theory funneled through Robert Bond.
A final point, Bond was interviewed by an investigator and attorney on my behalf. Bond told them that the man from NJ, referring to George Webster, sent people to see him. Tammaro, Palombo, and Tim Burke all worked closely with George Webster. For the authorities and the Websters to suppress the eyewitness lead, and the investigation took the course that it did, it is reasonable to conclude they all know who the man was. Otherwise, why hide the lead?
In the best-case scenario, the Websters framed a man for Joan's murder. It is a reasonable conclusion, they had something to hide. Simplified motive, Joan lost her life to shield the Webster's image. What is there in their background that would result in such a travesty? I believe that is what I discovered when I found the letter.
Forget all of this for a minute. Before the discovery of Joan’s body, being a victim of an assault on a boat was at least plausible. When her body was found in the woods, it makes no sense.
So we are to believe Pariso killed her on the boat, and, rather than using the sea as a grave, instead took her back to shore, dragged her to a vehicle and the disposed of her remains in a far away wooded area?
So we are to believe Pariso killed her on the boat, and, rather than using the sea as a grave, instead took her back to shore, dragged her to a vehicle and the disposed of her remains in a far away wooded area?
Eve, I've perused your material. A good thesis has a strong hypothesis to test. Your analysis is missing a direct argument to test. Is this your hypothesis?
ADA Tim Burke incorrectly connected several cases, including Joan Webster's, to paint Leonard Paradiso as a serial killer with the help of Tr. Anthony Palumbo.
ADA Tim Burke incorrectly connected several cases, including Joan Webster's, to paint Leonard Paradiso as a serial killer with the help of Tr. Anthony Palumbo.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Hi Bagpus,
Before Joan's remains surfaced, and without access to information authorities had, the suggestion Joan was murdered on the boat and dumped in Boston Harbor was sensational, but plausible. This was the story authorities maintained until Joan surfaced in 1990.
There were facts authorities knew before that but disregarded. When divers recovered the boat in 1983, they found the boat had a broken rudder and was not seaworthy. That is confirmed in testimony in March 1984 from diver Nick Saggese. Tim Burke acknowledged it in a quote to the press after Joan surfaced. Authorities also had the confirmation from the bankruptcy case in 1985 that the boat was long gone by August 1981, before Joan disappeared. Tim Burke instigated that case and provided false evidence to the court.
Even so, Burke published his book in 2008 with the Websters support claiming Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. His story changed because Joan had been recovered. He claimed Paradiso hoisted Joan off the boat (a challenging feat based on the position of the boat at Pier 7 prior to its sinking in July 1981) and travelled about 30 miles and buried her in Hamilton. Joan's recovery in Hamilton was the point I questioned the explanation for Joan's loss. Burke still maintains this explanation.
Tim Burke is complicit after the fact in Joan's murder for his part in the cover up.
Tim Burke was a green, novice prosecutor at the time. He was someone who could be manipulated. Paradiso was targeted in January 1982 when Tammaro's friend Patty Bono placed an anonymous call to the Saugus Police. Burke was added to the mix and paired with Andrew Palombo at the Websters February 1982 meeting. This is where the Iannuzzi case was entangled improperly with Joan's. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to go after Paradiso for Joan without a single piece of evidence. Documents support the Iannuzzi case was a wrongful conviction. Authorities began piling on and fabricating a case for a full year before enlisting Bond to make it public in January 1983.
Tammaro and Palombo knew the correct cause of death with correct detail. They withheld the eyewitness lead and went after Paradiso, someone they both knew was vulnerable to accusations. Tammaro and Palombo apparently knew what really happened to Joan, and perhaps involved. Burke became a convenient lackey to carry their water.
Just think of that for a moment. People involved in the crime running the investigation. Who was pulling the strings?
Before Joan's remains surfaced, and without access to information authorities had, the suggestion Joan was murdered on the boat and dumped in Boston Harbor was sensational, but plausible. This was the story authorities maintained until Joan surfaced in 1990.
There were facts authorities knew before that but disregarded. When divers recovered the boat in 1983, they found the boat had a broken rudder and was not seaworthy. That is confirmed in testimony in March 1984 from diver Nick Saggese. Tim Burke acknowledged it in a quote to the press after Joan surfaced. Authorities also had the confirmation from the bankruptcy case in 1985 that the boat was long gone by August 1981, before Joan disappeared. Tim Burke instigated that case and provided false evidence to the court.
Even so, Burke published his book in 2008 with the Websters support claiming Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. His story changed because Joan had been recovered. He claimed Paradiso hoisted Joan off the boat (a challenging feat based on the position of the boat at Pier 7 prior to its sinking in July 1981) and travelled about 30 miles and buried her in Hamilton. Joan's recovery in Hamilton was the point I questioned the explanation for Joan's loss. Burke still maintains this explanation.
Tim Burke is complicit after the fact in Joan's murder for his part in the cover up.
Tim Burke was a green, novice prosecutor at the time. He was someone who could be manipulated. Paradiso was targeted in January 1982 when Tammaro's friend Patty Bono placed an anonymous call to the Saugus Police. Burke was added to the mix and paired with Andrew Palombo at the Websters February 1982 meeting. This is where the Iannuzzi case was entangled improperly with Joan's. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to go after Paradiso for Joan without a single piece of evidence. Documents support the Iannuzzi case was a wrongful conviction. Authorities began piling on and fabricating a case for a full year before enlisting Bond to make it public in January 1983.
Tammaro and Palombo knew the correct cause of death with correct detail. They withheld the eyewitness lead and went after Paradiso, someone they both knew was vulnerable to accusations. Tammaro and Palombo apparently knew what really happened to Joan, and perhaps involved. Burke became a convenient lackey to carry their water.
Just think of that for a moment. People involved in the crime running the investigation. Who was pulling the strings?
So how about this:
ADA Tim Burke incorrectly connected several cases, including Joan Webster's, to paint Leonard Paradiso as a serial killer with the help of Sgt. Carmen Tammaro and Tr. Anthony Palumbo. In 1982, after Webster's disappearance, Tammaro received a tip from acquaintance Patty Bono, who alleged that Leonard Paradiso had assaulted her in 1972 and was responsible for the 1979 murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Burke sought to connect Webster's disappearance to the Iannuzzi murder to establish that Paradiso was a serial killer. During the investigation, Burke posited that Webster was murdered on Paradiso's boat and her body was thrown overboard. This narrative however, collapsed in 1990 when Joan's remains were located some 30 miles north in Hamilton, MA.
ADA Tim Burke incorrectly connected several cases, including Joan Webster's, to paint Leonard Paradiso as a serial killer with the help of Sgt. Carmen Tammaro and Tr. Anthony Palumbo. In 1982, after Webster's disappearance, Tammaro received a tip from acquaintance Patty Bono, who alleged that Leonard Paradiso had assaulted her in 1972 and was responsible for the 1979 murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Burke sought to connect Webster's disappearance to the Iannuzzi murder to establish that Paradiso was a serial killer. During the investigation, Burke posited that Webster was murdered on Paradiso's boat and her body was thrown overboard. This narrative however, collapsed in 1990 when Joan's remains were located some 30 miles north in Hamilton, MA.
Last edited:
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Hi Bagpus,
Patty Bono alleged Paradiso assaulted her in 1972. Her allegations don't hold up under scrutiny. It is strictly a "she said" allegation with no corroborating or contemporaneous evidence. In fact, the man she named in testimony as her defender gave an account of the summer if 1972 that makes no mention of defending Bono or beating up Paradiso as Bono alleged. Her account seems to be contrived.
With the known facts that authorities had the eyewitness statement of the man with Joan at Logan in December 1981, it is suspicious to me that Bono came forward with Paradiso allegations in January 1982. I don't know that Bono tipped off Tammaro or was it the other way around, Tammaro encouraging Bono to implicate Paradiso. The way this all played out, the whole scenario seems to be a set up from the start.
Patty Bono alleged Paradiso assaulted her in 1972. Her allegations don't hold up under scrutiny. It is strictly a "she said" allegation with no corroborating or contemporaneous evidence. In fact, the man she named in testimony as her defender gave an account of the summer if 1972 that makes no mention of defending Bono or beating up Paradiso as Bono alleged. Her account seems to be contrived.
With the known facts that authorities had the eyewitness statement of the man with Joan at Logan in December 1981, it is suspicious to me that Bono came forward with Paradiso allegations in January 1982. I don't know that Bono tipped off Tammaro or was it the other way around, Tammaro encouraging Bono to implicate Paradiso. The way this all played out, the whole scenario seems to be a set up from the start.
Closer? :
Despite eyewitness statements made to authorities about a man Joan Webster was seen with at Logan International Airport, ADA Tim Burke pursued a narrative that connected several cases, including Webster's, to paint Leonard Paradiso as a serial killer. Burke did so with the help of Sgt. Carmen Tammaro and Tr. Anthony Palumbo.
In 1982, after Webster's disappearance, Tammaro received a tip from acquaintance Patty Bono, who alleged that Leonard Paradiso had assaulted her in 1972 and was responsible for the 1979 murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Further investigation into Bono's 1972 assault indicated that parts of her testimony were not corroborated by witnesses she named.
Burke sought to connect Webster's disappearance to the Iannuzzi murder to establish that Paradiso was a serial killer. During the investigation, Burke posited that Webster was murdered on Paradiso's boat and her body was thrown overboard. This narrative collapsed in 1990 when Joan's remains were located some thirty miles north in Hamilton, MA.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Hi Bagpus,
You are getting closer. Bono's anonymous tip was placed to the Saugus Police, not directly to Tammaro. However, Tammaro was coordinating the various departments involved.
Keep in mind, authorities had the eyewitness description of the man with Joan at Logan. They knew it was not Paradiso. The Bono call gave the authorities the "justification" to go after Paradiso. Bono's call to the Saugus police claimed Paradiso murdered Marie Iannuzzi and was responsible for Joan's disappearance without any evidence.
As an interesting note, the first public statement I could find accusing Paradiso of being a serial killer was a statement George Webster made to the press. I found no evidence that Paradiso murdered anyone, but Burke was piling on as many as he could.
You are getting closer. Bono's anonymous tip was placed to the Saugus Police, not directly to Tammaro. However, Tammaro was coordinating the various departments involved.
Keep in mind, authorities had the eyewitness description of the man with Joan at Logan. They knew it was not Paradiso. The Bono call gave the authorities the "justification" to go after Paradiso. Bono's call to the Saugus police claimed Paradiso murdered Marie Iannuzzi and was responsible for Joan's disappearance without any evidence.
As an interesting note, the first public statement I could find accusing Paradiso of being a serial killer was a statement George Webster made to the press. I found no evidence that Paradiso murdered anyone, but Burke was piling on as many as he could.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
My apologies Baddux,
I have been responding thinking you were another poster following this thread whose screen name is Bagpus. Please excuse my error.
I have been responding thinking you were another poster following this thread whose screen name is Bagpus. Please excuse my error.
Thanks for responding.
Ok now I see what direction you are going. This has shades of Zodiac in the sense that these crimes do not appear, according to the information we have, to necessitate a serial killer scenario especially in light of the incorrect explanation that Joan was killed on the boat and her remains disposed of in the water.
Burke alleges that Paradiso was connected to seven murders. Oddly from my understanding he was only even tried for one. Despite articles about his book launch, I’ve never seen his Paradiso serial killer theory discussed online. I’m not sure it ever took off.
Is there a possibility this was an attempt to become a famous DA who took down an evil serial killer?
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Hi Baddux,
Tim Burke definitely likes media attention. However, I don't give him credit for being that smart. What person publishes a book about an open murder case that he was involved in knowing he was publishing false information that could be refuted with the actual documents? According to Burke, he began to do the book after a visit from the Websters in 2005. I imaging Burke thought no one would remember or be able to get to the records to refute him.
When I first met with the current custodian of Joan's case, his office had announced that three cold cases were being reexamined based on what Burke wrote. MSP officers handling those cases were also present at the meeting. They affirmed that other evidence crossed Paradiso off the list of suspects for those crimes.
Burke was a pawn in all of this. Maybe he justified some of his improper actions because he believed it at first. He's locked in with his explanation now. I believe Tim Burke was picked because he was someone who could be manipulated. He was not running the show.
Here's an example of what I mean. When the bankruptcy fraud case was being handled by the MA DOJ, Burke's boss, Paul Leary, spoke to RSM, who then got involved with some oversight. The number two man at the MA DOJ at the time was Robert Swann Mueller. This was handled high up on the food chain and IMO assured a specific outcome.
Burke was going to benefit from that being the front-line prosecutor going after Paradiso.
There were 26 identifiable departments or agencies involved in this investigation that I was able to verify. The best they could come up with was Paradiso murdering Joan on a boat that did not exist. They did not have one single bit of evidence to support that. However, they controlled the information. The current custodian has an obligation to Joan to set the record straight.
Tim Burke definitely likes media attention. However, I don't give him credit for being that smart. What person publishes a book about an open murder case that he was involved in knowing he was publishing false information that could be refuted with the actual documents? According to Burke, he began to do the book after a visit from the Websters in 2005. I imaging Burke thought no one would remember or be able to get to the records to refute him.
When I first met with the current custodian of Joan's case, his office had announced that three cold cases were being reexamined based on what Burke wrote. MSP officers handling those cases were also present at the meeting. They affirmed that other evidence crossed Paradiso off the list of suspects for those crimes.
Burke was a pawn in all of this. Maybe he justified some of his improper actions because he believed it at first. He's locked in with his explanation now. I believe Tim Burke was picked because he was someone who could be manipulated. He was not running the show.
Here's an example of what I mean. When the bankruptcy fraud case was being handled by the MA DOJ, Burke's boss, Paul Leary, spoke to RSM, who then got involved with some oversight. The number two man at the MA DOJ at the time was Robert Swann Mueller. This was handled high up on the food chain and IMO assured a specific outcome.
Burke was going to benefit from that being the front-line prosecutor going after Paradiso.
There were 26 identifiable departments or agencies involved in this investigation that I was able to verify. The best they could come up with was Paradiso murdering Joan on a boat that did not exist. They did not have one single bit of evidence to support that. However, they controlled the information. The current custodian has an obligation to Joan to set the record straight.
Lots of people write books about things that can demonstratively be proven false. I can’t help but wonder if the name Paradiso was just so close to the “Paradice” that is in the alleged zodiac cryptograms. There were so many sensational serial killers around that time. Burke might not be smart in your opinion, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t convincing. Didn’t you even mention some of this deluded into cryptograms with George Webster?
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 717
Hi Baddux,
Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo both knew Paradiso. He had a record and was an easy target for them to go after. He did have a connection to Marie Iannuzzi that enabled them to tie that case into Joan's.
The Zodiac spree was a string of horrific crimes. They have fascinated people for decades trying to unravel that mystery. I examined information about the Zodiac theory. I didn't leave anything out of my research. You have to connect dots that simply don't match up with known facts to make the Zodiac case for Joan.
The Zodiac theory was introduced by Gareth Penn in early 1982. He was a man in California who had theorized Michael Henry O'Hare, an MIT professor, was the Zodiac. When he learned about Joan's case, he contacted the Websters. It was a distraction and they toyed with him for quite some time. Some people today think Penn is the Zodiac. Joan's case has nothing to do with the Zodiac murders.
You would have to accept that the Websters and the authorities would cover up for the Zodiac. Joan changed vehicles with the man at Logan. She had familiarity and trusted him. The man knew where and when Joan would be there even though Joan's plans changed over the break. A car was waiting.
Tammaro and Palombo both knew the cause of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan's remains surfaced. That was not learned deciphering any cryptograms, but rather reviewing source documents. Bond did not know the correct cause of death during his interview in January 1983 and gave Tammaro and Palombo a choice. Burke was only convincing because they controlled the information. One tends to trust law enforcement and prosecutors that they are earnestly seeking justice. Unfortunately, there were bad apples in the system. Boston had more than its fair share at the time that was later exposed.
My suspicions logically turn to someone who knew information only known to the killer or someone complicit with the crime.
Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo both knew Paradiso. He had a record and was an easy target for them to go after. He did have a connection to Marie Iannuzzi that enabled them to tie that case into Joan's.
The Zodiac spree was a string of horrific crimes. They have fascinated people for decades trying to unravel that mystery. I examined information about the Zodiac theory. I didn't leave anything out of my research. You have to connect dots that simply don't match up with known facts to make the Zodiac case for Joan.
The Zodiac theory was introduced by Gareth Penn in early 1982. He was a man in California who had theorized Michael Henry O'Hare, an MIT professor, was the Zodiac. When he learned about Joan's case, he contacted the Websters. It was a distraction and they toyed with him for quite some time. Some people today think Penn is the Zodiac. Joan's case has nothing to do with the Zodiac murders.
You would have to accept that the Websters and the authorities would cover up for the Zodiac. Joan changed vehicles with the man at Logan. She had familiarity and trusted him. The man knew where and when Joan would be there even though Joan's plans changed over the break. A car was waiting.
Tammaro and Palombo both knew the cause of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan's remains surfaced. That was not learned deciphering any cryptograms, but rather reviewing source documents. Bond did not know the correct cause of death during his interview in January 1983 and gave Tammaro and Palombo a choice. Burke was only convincing because they controlled the information. One tends to trust law enforcement and prosecutors that they are earnestly seeking justice. Unfortunately, there were bad apples in the system. Boston had more than its fair share at the time that was later exposed.
My suspicions logically turn to someone who knew information only known to the killer or someone complicit with the crime.