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

[Baddux]

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.

Oh no I wasn’t saying they are connected. I am saying there were possibly people who wished to link crimes together to create a serial killer narrative that didn’t actually exist to get public attention.

The fame surrounding the capture of real serial killers might have been irresistible to an up and coming DA looking to make a name for himself.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Baddux,

I agree that Tim Burke likes the attention. It is definitely a possible motive for his conduct. You are also correct that many people will write books that can verifiably be proven to be wrong. Burke was involved in the cases he wrote about with priveleged access to files. He was writing about real people and real cases. Source documents refute his assertions. He is influencing an open murder case. An overzealous prosecutor trying to influence an open case is obstructing justice.

 

[Baddux]

Hi Baddux,

I agree that Tim Burke likes the attention. It is definitely a possible motive for his conduct. You are also correct that many people will write books that can verifiably be proven to be wrong. Burke was involved in the cases he wrote about with priveleged access to files. He was writing about real people and real cases. Source documents refute his assertions. He is influencing an open murder case. An overzealous prosecutor trying to influence an open case is obstructing justice.

No disagreement there unless there is something entirely unknown missing. The boat thing is patently ludicrous. A decent hypothesis maybe in the beginning, but after her remains were found elsewhere I can’t believe he still tried to shoehorn the boat part in.

 

[eve carson]

Let me add another piece to the puzzle to understand why Joan's case has not been resolved. I first began to reach out to the current custodian in 2006. Because this is still an open case, authorities use that as a shield to deny access to some of the files.

I did have some success to get some records and also confirmation of records the custodian did not have in their files. Their records were grossly deficient in relevant records. That included the foundational documents for the allegations authorities promoted about Leonard Paradiso. The custodian did not have the Robert Bond written letter or the transcript of the Bond interview with the MSP. However, they did have records that confirmed the existence of those documents. Burke got them sealed in the Iannuzzi case.

On July 15, 1991, the Boston Herald published an article titled "Prosecutors conflict over 'secret' slay case files." Suffolk County, Tim Burke's office, kept secret and duplicate files in cases hiding exculpatory evidence favorable to defendants they were prosecuting. The article specifically reported that the tactics raised questions over cases handled in that office from 1980-1988. Paradiso's persecution was smack dab in the middle of this.

I noticed right away when I started to dig into this case that records were fragmented. I had to go to multiple sources to gather information. In a recent FOIA response from the custodian, the ADA responsible for records provided a truly unbelievable response. They have 9 banker's boxes full of records. I requested all records regarding the Malafemmena, Burke's alleged crime scene. I asked for witness statements, court records, police reports, insurance records, any and all documents. I have records from other sources, so I know what they should have. The only document provided was a boat registration. That is truly insulting to my intelligence to believe that is the only record they have about the crime scene Burke still maintains.

There is already evidence that Burke used the same tactics his office was exposed for. He sealed the foundational documents in another case. The current custodian was missing a lot of records I have asked for. That is part of the problem I have faced with this case. One notable obstacle is the single individual in the custodian's office that determines whether anything happens with Joan's case. That same person worked in Suffolk County with Burke at the time Burke was pursuing Paradiso and Joan's case was in the headlines. That person would also be familiar with those methods.

Dirty business.

 

[Baddux]

Let me add another piece to the puzzle to understand why Joan's case has not been resolved. I first began to reach out to the current custodian in 2006. Because this is still an open case, authorities use that as a shield to deny access to some of the files.

I did have some success to get some records and also confirmation of records the custodian did not have in their files. Their records were grossly deficient in relevant records. That included the foundational documents for the allegations authorities promoted about Leonard Paradiso. The custodian did not have the Robert Bond written letter or the transcript of the Bond interview with the MSP. However, they did have records that confirmed the existence of those documents. Burke got them sealed in the Iannuzzi case.

On July 15, 1991, the Boston Herald published an article titled "Prosecutors conflict over 'secret' slay case files." Suffolk County, Tim Burke's office, kept secret and duplicate files in cases hiding exculpatory evidence favorable to defendants they were prosecuting. The article specifically reported that the tactics raised questions over cases handled in that office from 1980-1988. Paradiso's persecution was smack dab in the middle of this.

I noticed right away when I started to dig into this case that records were fragmented. I had to go to multiple sources to gather information. In a recent FOIA response from the custodian, the ADA responsible for records provided a truly unbelievable response. They have 9 banker's boxes full of records. I requested all records regarding the Malafemmena, Burke's alleged crime scene. I asked for witness statements, court records, police reports, insurance records, any and all documents. I have records from other sources, so I know what they should have. The only document provided was a boat registration. That is truly insulting to my intelligence to believe that is the only record they have about the crime scene Burke still maintains.

There is already evidence that Burke used the same tactics his office was exposed for. He sealed the foundational documents in another case. The current custodian was missing a lot of records I have asked for. That is part of the problem I have faced with this case. One notable obstacle is the single individual in the custodian's office that determines whether anything happens with Joan's case. That same person worked in Suffolk County with Burke at the time Burke was pursuing Paradiso and Joan's case was in the headlines. That person would also be familiar with those methods.

Dirty business.

Good for you for looking into the matter.

I respect your opinion that there was a conspiracy here regarding law enforcement and the district attorney’s office. Maybe you are reading into the details too much though.

My thoughts on the situation are simple:

Burke is a guy who thinks he is a lot smarter than he is and an enormous attention seeker to boot. Why?

He wrote that book about a non-existent serial killer that nobody cares about. Take a break from the tough stuff and just search the internet. I couldn’t even find any reviews let alone any discussion. Your posts on this thread represent more discourse than the rest of the internet lol. Why?

Serial killers were hot press back then. The stories of these monsters captivated the residents of the areas affected and the nation at large. Burke wanted to be the star taking down one of these guys but since there wasn’t one, he tried to make one up.

That’s the conspiracy. Actually Finding Joan’s and potentially iannuzzi’s real killer was not his prerogative. That injustice was just collateral damage for him.

He might have gotten away with it too, but once the remains were found on land miles away from the boat almost anyone reading the story is going to think the whole idea of this serial killer is stupid.

I mean forget everything else. Our superstar, Burke, cooks up a case with the help of his cronies to cast Paradiso as a serial killer. He makes the case that Paradiso used his boat to throw her body into the sea. You touched on the weather thing so here is what we are left to believe about Joan’s murder:

Paradiso pretended to be a cabbie. Somehow that turd convinces a highly intelligent woman who is Ivy League wealth who isn’t drunk or anything to come on a crappy boat on a crappy November night. They take a cruise into the ocean for fun and he kills her. Threw her into the sea never to be found again. Except then after trumpeting the whole boat thing like an angry elephant all over the news, some years later Joan’s remains are found in the woods 30 miles north of the airport.

The casual observer would even opine: “hey I thought you said she was on a boat and cast to a watery grave?”

Burke’s answer is that he did all of the above minus disposing of her body in the sea, and instead, after he killed her on the boat, went back to shore, lugged her dead body up the dock into the parking lot into a car drove 30 miles and ditched her in the woods.

It’s stupid. I mean that is such a dumb story kids would even be like “are you serious.”

Years go by his failure and the story goes away, and because he is an attention seeker, wrote a book hoping everyone would forget what he said and did. The book is a failure.

Now the real question is who actually killed her

 

[eve carson]

Hi Baddux,

I am not going to disagree with your analysis of Burke's obsession. It was very obvious during all of this. The serial killer accusations didn't emerge for several years. So that angle was an afterthought later down the road. I totally agree that when you look at the whole situation logically and with known facts, it is a completely illogical and an absurd scenario.

Before Paradiso's boat was sunk in July 1981, it was moored to the Erie Barge at Pier 7. The boat was much lower than the barge. Hoisting a dead body, bleeding profusely, would be almost impossible for one person. The fact the boat was sunk in July 1981 makes the whole story impossible.

The most important comment you make is that the case was cooked up. That only explains Burke's possible motive for his part in it all. Burke wasn't a part of this until February 1982. There was quite a bit that took place before that. Tammaro was involved from the start. The police and the Websters had the eyewitness lead in December 1981. They suppressed it and said Joan was not seen other than a wave to a classmate at the airport. Not true. Tammaro's friend Patty Bono placed an anonymous call in January 1982 implicating Paradiso. It was the Webster meeting in February 1982 that paired Burke with Palombo to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case. Red flag. The Websters steer the investigation to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case in a meeting about their missing daughter? That's where these 2 cases got improperly entangled. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to go after Paradiso for Joan. That is obvious in the warrants that had nothing to do with Marie. And source documents support the Iannuzzi case was a wrongful conviction. But they could connect Paradiso to Marie. They had no evidence to connect him to Joan.

Paradiso's fingerprints were submitted to the FBI in November 1982 to compare in Joan's case. The results were negative. Their snitch Robert Bond was not brought in until December 1982. They kept Paradiso under wraps for a full year while they confabulated a case.

The eyewitness lead is a start to determine who was responsible for Joan's murder. I look at the contrived story the authorities promoted through Robert Bond. Tammaro 1st suggested the boat theory on August 1, 1982. Four months later he is leading a jailhouse snitch with the same story. During the interview, Bond did not know the cause of death and gave the MSP a choice. Bond's written letter came after the MSP interview and described the cause of death with correct detail more than 7 years before Joan surfaced. Other aspects of Bond's letter and interview were false on numerous points, some of which authorities would have known at the time. That is where I start to find the culprit. Tammaro and Palombo knew the correct cause of death with correct detail more than 7 years before Joan surfaced. At the time, that was information only known to the killer or someone complicit in the crime. Did they do this on their own. No, neither man was the man that maneuvered Joan to the blue car. So, they were acting on whose behalf?

 

[Baddux]

It was the Webster meeting in February 1982 that paired Burke with Palombo to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case.

So are the Webster's here Joan's parents?

 

[eve carson]

Yes

 

[Baddux]

Yes

Any idea why they went along with this and didn’t share the sketch?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Baddux,

According to the source describing the February 1982 meeting, George Webster requested the meeting. I know Geore Webster very well. He is the one that takes charge. He delegates. His influence is also evident in source documents. It is more likely those present at the meeting, and it was a packed room, were taking instruction from George. I would not say George went along with authorities.

I believe George and the police knew who the man was that maneuvered Joan to the blue car. Otherwise, it makes no sense to suppress an eyewitness lead if you are legitimately looking for your missing daughter. That suggests to me that it was the Websters that had something to hide. They were never really scrutinized, but rather George was giving directions.

An example of that was a letter I recovered from George to the FBI. In it, he was outlining the instructions he was giving to Middlesex County DAO, the office originally handling the case. At the February meeting, George got control of the case shifted to Suffolk County DAO. Middlesex only stayed active for another couple of months.

You have to think outside the norms with the Websters. I learned that the hard way. Both George and Eleanor had an intelligence background.

 

[Baddux]

I wonder if they knew the guy who killed her but did not want the investigation to

Hi Baddux,

According to the source describing the February 1982 meeting, George Webster requested the meeting. I know Geore Webster very well. He is the one that takes charge. He delegates. His influence is also evident in source documents. It is more likely those present at the meeting, and it was a packed room, were taking instruction from George. I would not say George went along with authorities.

I believe George and the police knew who the man was that maneuvered Joan to the blue car. Otherwise, it makes no sense to suppress an eyewitness lead if you are legitimately looking for your missing daughter. That suggests to me that it was the Websters that had something to hide. They were never really scrutinized, but rather George was giving directions.

An example of that was a letter I recovered from George to the FBI. In it, he was outlining the instructions he was giving to Middlesex County DAO, the office originally handling the case. At the February meeting, George got control of the case shifted to Suffolk County DAO. Middlesex only stayed active for another couple of months.

You have to think outside the norms with the Websters. I learned that the hard way. Both George and Eleanor had an intelligence background.

Maybe GW knew who killed her? He must have had some clearance if he was in Defense at ITT. Plus intelligence background.

Feds of some kind wanted it squelched because the guy was really like part of a terrorist organization or something and they didn't want to tip them off they were on the trail?

Maybe GW killed or hired someone to kill the killer? A story to keep that off the radar?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Baddux,

It is very clear from source documents that the Websters did not want people to know what really happened to Joan. They took the path to frame a man to have some explanation to offer. I think that offers a distressing insight into their character. The Websters are very emotionally detached.

The authorities were the ones who concocted a sensational story. It began with Tammaro and Palombo and later Tim Burke.

Two problems with your possible scenario. Joan knew the man that maneuvered her to the blue car and trusted him. She would not have changed vehicles otherwise. The second problem I see was the fact that Tammaro and Palombo knew the correct cause of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan surfaced.

I believe George knew who the offender was and so did Tammaro and Palombo. Otherwise, why suppress the eyewitness lead?

By shielding the offender from being identified, think about who would be left vulnerable.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve!
Besides the Webster's, do you think Joan's siblings were aware of the "plan?" What was the family dynamics like leading up to Joan's death and after?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

That is a very good question. I can only speculate. First, understand the dynamics of the family. This was a patriarchal family. What George said is what they all adhered to.

Anne was in NJ over that Thanksgiving. If there was any discord in the family, she would have known it. I was pregnant at the time. If what I discovered many years later does suggest motive, then it is not unreasonable to think Joan might have said something. I would have been the logical audience.

Whether Anne or Steve would have known the full plans at the time, I will never know. But once things were done, they would certainly follow George's lead. Even if they did not know fully at the time, I am certain they do now.

I remember having a discussion with Steve where he very smugly suggested "you have not figured this out yet." In light of everything I know now that comment is very unsettling. That conversation took place after I found the very disturbing letter.

A very revealing example is when Steve denied any knowledge of the October 1982 extortion incident. That conversation is documented. The incident was never reported in the press. It was a very dramatic event, not the kind of thing you would ever forget. I certainly remembered it and now have the documents to back me up. I suspect Steve wanted the person he was talking to to think I was off my rocker. The incident is well documented in FBI files and police reports in NJ.

The pieces of Joan's case were found in all sorts of different files. No one department had all of the facts. That is a real significant point. I am sure no one thought anyone could get to the records to sort this out.

 

[Baddux]

Hi Sweetluv,

That is a very good question. I can only speculate. First, understand the dynamics of the family. This was a patriarchal family. What George said is what they all adhered to.

Anne was in NJ over that Thanksgiving. If there was any discord in the family, she would have known it. I was pregnant at the time. If what I discovered many years later does suggest motive, then it is not unreasonable to think Joan might have said something. I would have been the logical audience.

Whether Anne or Steve would have known the full plans at the time, I will never know. But once things were done, they would certainly follow George's lead. Even if they did not know fully at the time, I am certain they do now.

I remember having a discussion with Steve where he very smugly suggested "you have not figured this out yet." In light of everything I know now that comment is very unsettling. That conversation took place after I found the very disturbing letter.

A very revealing example is when Steve denied any knowledge of the October 1982 extortion incident. That conversation is documented. The incident was never reported in the press. It was a very dramatic event, not the kind of thing you would ever forget. I certainly remembered it and now have the documents to back me up. I suspect Steve wanted the person he was talking to to think I was off my rocker. The incident is well documented in FBI files and police reports in NJ.

The pieces of Joan's case were found in all sorts of different files. No one department had all of the facts. That is a real significant point. I am sure no one thought anyone could get to the records to sort this out.

You have more time and experience than I in this case, but life experience tells me there is no room for conspiracies when there are direct attention-seeking motives and the opportunity for stupidity.

Some people are just bad parents despite not wanting to be. I see it all the time with the population I work with. You have well-meaning successful people that must just get involved in every aspect of the situation thinking they "know their person best." If GW was that kind of control freak, I bet that applies here. He sounds like one of those guys who really thinks he knows it all.

Then you get some other knucklehead with aspirations to be the mastermind of a serial killer takedown like Burke. The unctuous, self-assured idiot full of hubris who knows just enough to be dangerous.

A whole group of people more worried about being right and feeling good about themselves rather than the matter at hand, in this case Joan's disappearance. You don't need facts or evidence when you are in that type of self-aggrandizing matrix.

The evidence of my take is clear with the whole boat theory idiocy. No sane objective person can believe the mental gymnastics needed to carry on with the boat theory after her body was found on land 30 miles away years later.

These guys are not the type to be corrected. Just my $0.02

 

[eve carson]

Hi Baddux,

There is no question Burke is an opportunist. He has taken advantage of what was handed to him. He followed the practices of the Suffolk County DAO to hide exculpatory evidence. But Burke did not contrive his mess.

To really understand this case, I had to take the blinders off, that included with the Websters. I gave them many opportunities to explain the discrepancies in the source documents versus what they told me and the public. Their responses to my questions really told me a lot. They did not have an answer, so they struck out against the person who could expose the lies. George Webster wished me to die when I asked questions about Joan. The Websters could never be categorized as stupid or be deluded by a sensational story. They had the eyewitness report in December 1981. They were in contact with the DOJ during the bankruptcy case that affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. They knew full well that the Paradiso boat theory was a hoax from the start.

In the best-case scenario, the Websters were complicit in a cover-up of Joan's murder aided by the authorities. That is a great deal more concerning to me. The Websters, Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro are all accountable. They were all too locked into the boat story when Joan surfaced. They could not change gears at that point, but Burke did change his story to suit the new facts.

 

[eve carson]

There is another loose thread that needs to be considered to see the whole picture.

First, Joan was not alarmed and switched vehicles with the man at Logan. She would not have switched cars unless she knew and trusted the man.

Second, the Websters knew the man the eyewitness described. Otherwise, why would they conceal the eyewitness lead in December 1981 and go after a scapegoat instead?

Third, involved officers knew the man in the composite. In a legitimate investigation, authorities would not disregard and conceal a lead to go after someone who did not fit the description.

The relationship between the Websters, Palombo, and Tammaro is very concerning. They worked together to pin this on Paradiso. Tammaro introduced the boat theory months before he led a jailhouse snitch through the same scenario.

Another thread in this was the fact personal and identifiable items were removed from Joan, the unique gold charm bracelet, the gold signet ring, her clothing. And yet the offender left more generic jewelry that were found on the skeleton, a gold chain and gold ring with a semi-precious stone. One of the offenders knew Joan very well to know what to take. Other items were dispersed, her purse in the marshes along route 107, her suitcase at the bus terminal. Cops would know dispersed items would throw off any investigation. These things happened at the time of the murder. Burke was brought in later.

The business card in Joan's wallet with the instructions to call George Webster if found is a red flag.

Tammaro and Palombo knew the correct cause of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan's remains surfaced. That is information that was only known to the killer or someone complicit with the crime at the time.

The top three people involved in the investigation from the start, George Webster, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro, are at the center of what happened to Joan.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve...
Just curious...how did Joan's sister act during this whole horrible ordeal ?
Was there any feedback/rumors from Joan's friends, professors, or college classmates about what they think happened to Joan?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

I was only around Anne at certain times, holidays and vacation. At those times, she was like the rest of the family, very stoic, no tears or anxiety. I think that the internment of Joan's ashes in 1990 give you a good sense of Anne's attitude. She was a no show. The Websters are very emotionally disconnected. (It was illegal to cremate a body in an open investigation and the potential for judicial recourse. George Webster cremated Joan anyway.)

There was a lot of speculation about what happened to Joan. Leads were all followed up and were dead ends. It is clear to me that Joan was the intended target. This was not random as much of the speculation suggested. She knew the man with her at Logan. He maneuvered her to a different car. Personal and identifiable items were removed. When you take this out of the realm of a random act, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you have a much different view of the case. You have to start looking at those close to Joan.

My book was featured on Marilyn Meredith's blog this week. Marilyn is a member of Public Safety Writer's association.
THE 1981 MURDER OF JOAN L. WEBSTER

 

[Sweetluv]

Agreed Eve, definitely planned, not random!
So, I assume that since Joan was the only one murdered, she was the sole sibling who knew the "secret" (?) If other siblings did, why were their lives spared or were they apart of the secret that Joan possibly uncovered?
The cremation is really disturbing to me.
Also, Joan must have approached the Websters about what she uncovered for the wheels of motion to be set in place. Who do you think Joan was going to expose this information to...and how long before her murder do you think she approached the Websters?