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

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge,

In digging into this case, personal recollections and relationships are a factor. What I have tried to do is use those as a guide to know where to look for the answers. What I bring forward is supported with documents.

Motive is a tough question.Trying to get into the mind of someone capable of such horrible things is not easy. I have discussed motive with current custodians. I have provided documents to support concerns. With all of the different players, it is hard to pinpoint each one. Andrew Palombo’s behavior and identifiable activity is very concerning. Massachusetts was very dysfunctional at the time and it permeated all levels. Involvement by someone inside the investigation certainly explains the circled wagons, then and to the present. If Palombo was involved, I look more at incentive than his own motive.

The documents recovered a couple of weeks ago were critical. I agree with your assessment, this did not just come into play that Thanksgiving weekend. Based on what was learned later about what happened to Joan, the bearded man was the key individual to find. Switching cars seems more by design. That weekend happened to be the opportunity. Motive goes back in time to have orchestrated all of this. That says to me, Joan was the target.

The number of people who knew Joan was on the flight was limited. That means looking at the ones we do know had knowledge of her travel plans. It is possible authorities had flight information, but it is pretty much of a stretch to think they would know where to look for Joan on a passenger list. That means they would have been informed or alerted by someone. To get to the root, you have to peel back the layers of the onion. There were a lot of layers in this case.

The Websters and the family dynamics are difficult to explain. To an outside observer, they look like a Norman Rockwell family. Image is important to the Websters. This is not a warm fuzzy family. George and Eleanor were very stoic. They do not show emotion and never did through any of this.

Part of that might be explained with their background; both parents have an intelligence background. That is important to know. The family is very secretive. When you are in the midst of that, you don’t realize the secrecy. You don’t know what you don’t know. Everything I learned about Joan’s case came through the family at the time. I was stunned what all I did not know when I got into records.

Joan was the youngest of three children. Her brother Steve is the oldest. Her sister Anne lived in the Boston area at the time and worked for Polaroid. Joan and Anne drove to New Jersey for Thanksgiving. Joan flew back Saturday and Anne drove back Sunday. Why Joan went back early is still an open question. The Websters hold that answer.

This is a very patriarchal family. What I did not understand early on was that George is in charge and there is no visible dissent from what George says. That was true even in the private family moments. Anne used the term chauvinistic to describe her brother. I did not see him that way. He was very insecure just like other members of the family. Being chauvinistic is a coping measure to conceal insecurity. The family is described by a family counselor as codependent.

Every one of the Websters is intelligent. George and Eleanor came out publicly cooperating and supporting the Paradiso/boat theory. Joan’s siblings will not step out of line with what George says. On the surface, the family presents a strong family image. George used the word “fundador” and that is how they are seen. They are very interesting and engaging. From the perspective inside the family, there is dysfunction. They cannot discuss things.

I am adding a comment from a detective from the Beverly PD, Gordon Richards, who tried to tell the Websters that Paradiso was not the right answer. This comment was quoted in the Beverly Times on May 4, 1990, after Joan’s remains were found more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene in April 1990. The bankruptcy fraud case, affirming the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared, took place in 1985. There were no facts to support the theory and abundant facts that debunked the explanation.

 

[Skigirl]

So, after reading all of this, I have to wonder if Joan had a boyfriend that she didn't tell her family about. Much has been written here about the "type" she favored (preppy), but perhaps being at Harvard and hanging out with a more intellectual crowd had rubbed off on her. Perhaps the bearded man in the composite was someone she wanted to see, enough to fly back early so she'd have a little time before classes resumed. Perhaps she was unlucky and he was her killer. Perhaps he was married or older, or just the type of man (maybe an academic) that her parents wouldn't have wanted to see her marry. Is there anything in the files about her professors?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Skigirl,

You raise a question I have heard a lot. The question has even come up in discussions with various authorities I have made contact with. I don’t close my mind to any possibility, but nothing has surfaced that would indicate there was an unknown boyfriend. Going through records, I learned a great deal that I did not know at the time. Many things were shocking to me that went undetected or challenged. Therefore, I won’t reject any possibility unless it can quantifiably be crossed of the list.

There are pieces of the puzzle that are known that make me question a “boyfriend” explanation. Remember, the authorities suppressed the real lead, right from the start. It makes no sense for the MSP to do that searching for a missing person unless they are shielding someone. Whether Joan had some secret paramour would not deter a legitimate search for the man described by the cabbie or the car.

In 2009 I made contact with a woman who worked on this case in two different official capacities over the years. She shed some interesting light on different aspects of the case. She was in a MSP CPAC office after this had gone on for several years. Joan’s poster was still on the wall and she commented to a trooper who was present. This officer labeled Joan Webster a wh***. That was certainly not pleasant to hear and it is not in any way reflective of the beautiful person I knew. But even if there was some hidden side of Joan, she did not deserve what happened to her.

The contact instantly named the officer who devalued Joan. No hesitation, she remembered it vividly. It is unfortunate that people in positions of trust would dare blame a victim. The contact named Tr Billie Lisano. She worked with these individuals so she knew them and their associations. What bothered me most was that she indicated Lisano was a good friend of a trooper named Bruce Latham. At the time of her conversation with Lisano, Latham had retired from the MSP and gone to work for the Websters as a private investigator.

Latham did work for the Websters; that is verifiable. The rest would be considered hearsay even though the contacts comments are documented. Something that supports the insinuations are the victims authorities tried to tie into this case and Paradiso. Some of the victims were known to police as prostitutes in the Combat Zone, the red light district of Boston at the time. Marie Iannuzzi was an unemployed waitress, a known drug user, in a known abusive relationship. The police documented family and friends statements regarding promiscuous behavior.

Patty Bono, who anonymously pointed the finger at Paradiso came forward with an unverified story that does not hold up under scrutiny. Burke fabricated sexual assault allegations regarding Charlene Bullerwell. Her actual testimony contradicts Burke’s claims.

There was more going on here than a mystery boyfriend.

 

[eve carson]

Why?

Based on what is in recovered and verified documents, I can make this statement with confidence.

The Websters are not telling the truth about Joan’s loss.

That complicates getting a truthful resolve for Joan’s murder. Even though current custodians have boxes full of records, they are not familiar enough with the case to view the whole and have a good understanding of the case. They have made numerous statements suggesting if the Websters believe the Paradiso/boat theory is what happened to Joan; that is the end of it.

When I state the Websters are not telling the truth about Joan’s loss, there has to be a reason. I am listing the possibilities I see and welcome input.

1. The Websters were lied to and repeating a false scenario.
Intelligent people can be deceived. When information is controlled and facts withheld, it shapes incorrect perceptions. Repeating false and incomplete information is not malicious.

2. The Websters have other information that the boat, the alleged crime scene existed when Joan disappeared.
If there is other verifiable information that supports the Paradiso/boat theory, it is long overdue. If it existed, then the question becomes, why wasn’t Paradiso charged and tried for her murder? Why withhold that information? Nothing in recovered and verified records support the Paradiso/boat scenario.

3. The Websters were threatened.
The Websters were well connected if they were threatened. A threat would impact everyone in the family. I was not informed of anything that might leave me or other family members at risk. However, George and Eleanor’s background with the CIA and ITT could have left family members vulnerable. Secrecy in the family becomes a concern.

4. The Websters have cognitive deficiencies.
The Websters are highly organized and intelligent people. The attention to detail in even routine activities was scripted down to the smallest detail. I am adding an article demonstrating their attention to detail. Note: In a press conference they handed out photos for media not present. The photos show the Websters in the same attire down to Eleanor’s pin and George’s tie. The reporter observed the George was confident and Eleanor rarely showed emotion. The article appeared in the Harvard Crimson on October 15, 1982.

I am not making a diagnosis. If the Websters truly believe Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat; that is delusional thinking. Note: This is a personal observation. I never saw any emotion from George and Eleanor. I never saw either of them cry. I never saw Anne cry. When Joan’s ashes were interred in July 1990, Anne did not attend. Emotional disconnection is a concern.

5. The Websters were involved.
If the Websters do not want justice for their brutally murdered daughter/sister, that is a big problem and leaves other vulnerable.


Any of these explanations are concerning.

 

[Coffee56]

Any further info on George's business trip?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Coffee56,

My personal recollection when Eleanor called December 1, 1981, was that George was out of town. I did not have enough history with the family at the time to put the trip in context.

George was a senior executive with ITT at the time. George delegated. My experience over the years was that George did not like to be inconvenienced. This was a holiday weekend with a lot of social activities on the calendar. I am adding an excerpt from an article on the Boston Magazine in the December 1984 issue.

Step back to 1981. That was a coast to coast trip. That took all day in 1981. He returned on Tuesday, meaning he was traveling most of that day. The only day for business was Monday. It is reasonable to conclude he traveled over the weekend to be at his destination for a Monday meeting. I have not uncovered anything to corroborate the CA meeting. Making a trip at this time is out of character from my experience.

On Saturday, November 28, 1981, the family went to the homes of two neighbors for cocktails. These were small gatherings in a small community. They all lived close, just minutes away from each other. I have been to both homes they went to. All of the reports about the trip to Newark Airport to catch Joan's flight list George, Eleanor, and Anne in the car. Eleanor, as a practice, never made the trip to or from the airport. George was always the chauffeur. Eleanor waited at home. It would not have caused any complication to catching Joan's flight to drop Eleanor and Anne back at the house. They could have walked from one of the homes.

Again, I did not have enough experience to put the trip to Newark Airport in context. What makes sense to me for Eleanor and Anne to have made the drive to the airport is if George was catching a flight. Eleanor did not like to drive after dark. Anne would have driven if George was not in the car.

Keep in mind, I am offering insight based on my personal experiences over many years. I do not have documents to affirm George's travel itinerary. Eleanor said she called George's secretary for his schedule. Eleanor always had itineraries posted on the frig. We most often got their itineraries, too. I have no recollection of having an itinerary for this trip.

Making a trip that cut into a holiday weekend is out of character. Eleanor and Anne accompanying George to the airport to drop Joan off is out of character. Eleanor not knowing the itinerary is out of character.

 

[Coffee56]

Thanks Eve,

Other than ITT, did George have any sort of previous relationship with those involved in the investigation? If so, what were the circumstances? I'm sure these were not dinner table discussions in the home but maybe rumors at the time.

Could George have been on a personal getaway as opposed to a business trip?

I have read the thread and if these have been answered I apologize. There's lots of info.

I believe she was targeted. Not for anything she did but maybe others.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Coffee 56,

I don’t have any knowledge that George knew Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, or Carmen Tammaro prior to Joan’s disappearance. I doubt it. However, George was very well connected in Boston. His father RN owned a company in Waltham, MA that was sold shortly before I met the family in 1977. The company was Standard Thomson; they manufactured airplane engine thermostats.

When I started digging into this case, an earlier contact with close connections to the Harvard Campus PD said it was well known George was well connected in the legal and law enforcement community in Boston. That is pretty obvious in recovered records. George had very easy access. He had access outside the boundaries of a parent of a victim. Burke, Palombo, and Tammaro would have been the legions that followed orders from higher up.

George went to Taft Boarding School, and then Yale. He ran in privileged and Ivy League circles. He would have had contacts to connect him with whomever.

George was a heavy drinker; he started spiking things early in the day. I always was stocked with beef bouillon for his midday beverages. He consumed Scotch right up to the time he went to bed. I never saw him be aggressive when drinking, but he drank a lot.

The concept of a personal getaway is interesting. George never traveled alone for pleasure that I knew about. Sometimes Eleanor did travel with him on business, sometimes not. If you are suggesting a personal getaway as a cover, I have considered that. The CA business trip just made no sense to me. It was out of character, interrupting a holiday weekend when family was in, and a lot of social activities on the calendar. I cannot even say if CA was the destination or who he met with, business or otherwise.

When I recovered one set of records, I could see right away there was a problem. Phone records showed calls coming in and going out from the home number. A trap was put on the line after Joan disappeared. The problem was, there was a second line into the house. It was located in George’s study upstairs across the hall from Joan’s bedroom. That line was not checked or tapped. The best investigator on the planet would not know the number was missing unless they knew the line existed. You don’t hold anything back when your daughter is missing.

Based on what is in recovered records, I agree, Joan was the intended victim. Based on my experiences and observations, Webster “privacy” is a problem. Motive is buried under a veil of secrecy.

 

[eve carson]

Who?

Let me step back and look at who made up the Paradiso/boat story.

On or about January 19, 1982, Patty Bono, a childhood friend of Carmen Tammaro, Palombo’s superior, placed an anonymous call to the Saugus PD and implicated Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi and Joan’s disappearance.

On August 1, 1982, Tammaro met with Paradiso at the Charles Street Jail after the arrest for the Iannuzzi murder. Paradiso documented the meeting in a letter. Paradiso indicated Tammaro suggested Paradiso murdered Joan Webster on his boat. This is August 1982 and months before Bond arrived on the scene.

Bond is moved to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982, awaiting trial for the Mary Foreman murder. He is positioned close to Paradiso. Bond was convicted on December 13, 1982 and sentencing took place on January 10, 1983.

I am uploading three excerpts. The first is Bond’s testimony during the Iannuzzi trial on July 16, 1984. Under cross examination by the defense counsel Steve Rappaport, Bond states he spoke with the MSP on January 10, 1983.

The second excerpt is from the Iannuzi search warrant submitted by Palombo to the court on April 25, 1983. Points 4 & 5 detail the state’s assertion they received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983. The letter, written in two parts, makes allegations for both the Iannuzzi murder and Joan’s disappearance. Palombo, in a sworn warrant to the courts, asserted Burke set up an interview with Bond and the MSP, based on the receipt of the letter, on January 14, 1983.

The third excerpt is from the taped interview with the MSP on January 14, 1983. Tammaro was the questioner. The MSP expected Bond’s letter, but it had not arrived. Simple math indicates the letter was mailed on January 10, 1983, coinciding with the meeting Bond had with the MSP on January 10[SUP]th[/SUP].

Remember: The MSP suppressed the composite of the bearded man seen leaving the airport with Joan. The MSP had access to the police report with the cabbie’s description. Detail in that report known only to the police ended up in Bond’s written statement. During the interview on January 14[SUP]th[/SUP], Bond offered a multiple choice to the MSP for manner of death. The written statement gives the correct manner of death with correct detail. Bond’s alleged crime scene, the boat, did not exist at the time of Joan’s disappearance.


The MSP concocted the Paradiso scenario.

 

[jgfitzge]

Hi Skigirl,

You raise a question I have heard a lot. The question has even come up in discussions with various authorities I have made contact with. I don’t close my mind to any possibility, but nothing has surfaced that would indicate there was an unknown boyfriend. Going through records, I learned a great deal that I did not know at the time. Many things were shocking to me that went undetected or challenged. Therefore, I won’t reject any possibility unless it can quantifiably be crossed of the list.

There are pieces of the puzzle that are known that make me question a “boyfriend” explanation. Remember, the authorities suppressed the real lead, right from the start. It makes no sense for the MSP to do that searching for a missing person unless they are shielding someone. Whether Joan had some secret paramour would not deter a legitimate search for the man described by the cabbie or the car.

In 2009 I made contact with a woman who worked on this case in two different official capacities over the years. She shed some interesting light on different aspects of the case. She was in a MSP CPAC office after this had gone on for several years. Joan’s poster was still on the wall and she commented to a trooper who was present. This officer labeled Joan Webster a wh***. That was certainly not pleasant to hear and it is not in any way reflective of the beautiful person I knew. But even if there was some hidden side of Joan, she did not deserve what happened to her.

The contact instantly named the officer who devalued Joan. No hesitation, she remembered it vividly. It is unfortunate that people in positions of trust would dare blame a victim. The contact named Tr Billie Lisano. She worked with these individuals so she knew them and their associations. What bothered me most was that she indicated Lisano was a good friend of a trooper named Bruce Latham. At the time of her conversation with Lisano, Latham had retired from the MSP and gone to work for the Websters as a private investigator.

Latham did work for the Websters; that is verifiable. The rest would be considered hearsay even though the contacts comments are documented. Something that supports the insinuations are the victims authorities tried to tie into this case and Paradiso. Some of the victims were known to police as prostitutes in the Combat Zone, the red light district of Boston at the time. Marie Iannuzzi was an unemployed waitress, a known drug user, in a known abusive relationship. The police documented family and friends statements regarding promiscuous behavior.

Patty Bono, who anonymously pointed the finger at Paradiso came forward with an unverified story that does not hold up under scrutiny. Burke fabricated sexual assault allegations regarding Charlene Bullerwell. Her actual testimony contradicts Burke’s claims.

There was more going on here than a mystery boyfriend.

Eve,

That interaction between your contact in the MSP and Trooper Lisano is interesting. Again, I come at things from a somewhat jaded perspective from growing up around here and seeing how things have gone down over the years. Think about it, why would he make that remark about Joan? Like any other victim, he could have just grunted, or mumbled yes, or just a short remark. No, he called her a *advertiser censored*?? Was it from a class/self-loathing perspective, like "why are we spending all these resources and time on the "rich, connected Harvard girl?" Or, is it coming from the perspective "I know things in this investigation that you don't know"....Either way, it was insulting to the victim and her family. Yet, I keep coming back to what he said and why he said it...

So, Skigirl brought up that perhaps Joan was in some type of relationship "off the radar." Based on what happened at the airport, I think not. This goes back to the composite and eye witness suppression. If it was just an ordinary Joe (Mr. Beard), well I would think the investigation be going full throttle in that direction. That is why I keep going back to the pre-Thanksgiving, 1981 time period. That is why I asked you about whether anyone saw MSP around Harvard that summer and fall. I know Mr. Beard from the composite may not fit her type, maybe there was some LEO that was "clean-cut, young and preppy looking" that came in contact with her? Eve, in the interviews with students, roommates, Harvard professors, personnel, etc..was there any indication of say off-hour rendezvous', relationship trouble, secret trips, talking to LEOs...etc...I completely dismiss any suggestion she was with Paradiso or hanging around Boston's combat zone. I am just speculating on motive...maybe she got into a situation that she needed to get out of and maybe the other party either felt threatened or wanted more...Sisters often tell each other secrets. I wonder if Anne knew anything?

Eve, just for background, a few other questions -

Joan was in Harvard grad school, did she go there as an undergrad as well? I am seeing how long she lived in the Cambridge/Boston area.

The boyfriend at the time sounds like he was from the Chicago area since that is where he went over the Thanksgiving holiday. Was it a long distance relationship or did he live in the Cambridge/Boston area most of the time?

Did Joan stay in the area during the summer or did she return home to NJ?

We may have gone over this before but did Joan ever say she needed to return early to complete a school project or did that come from someone else?

So, maybe I am completely off here but, I try to keep things simple. You are 22/23 years old, what thing is strong enough to make you cut short your Thanksgiving weekend to return (knowing your boyfriend is in Chicago)?

 

[Coffee56]

I was 10 at the time but still remember homes having multiple lines as an uncommon thing and still that way well into my teens. We had 3 phones but all on the same line. In high school one lucky family with multiple teenagers finally got 2 separate lines. It could have been so easily overlooked even in an investigation that was done properly.

Could George have had some sort of information that put him and the family in danger? I'm sure the CIA history makes this an obvious yes but anything a little closer to home? Local stuff? Not quite CIA level stuff? Did he want Joan back at Harvard earlier for a reason?(just the question I ask myself) I'm going with the positive and thinking he thought he could keep her safer there. Could he have been secretly making arrangements to keep the rest of the family safe on his business trip to CA believing Joan was still safe at Harvard?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge and Coffee56,

Joan did her undergrad at Syracuse graduating in 1978. She went to work for Owens, Skidmore, and Merrill in NYC. She began her graduate program at Harvard in the fall of 1980. At the time of her disappearance, she was in the second year of a three year program. She was an excellent student, often on the Dean’s list, and received numerous awards. She was 25.

Friends, classmates, and coworkers all gave similar statements to the media. Joan was well-liked and respected. People were shocked and heart broken. Other information they might have provided are in current custodian files and inaccessible.

Joan wanted to finish her degree before a committed relationship. When she was in NYC, she began dating Walter. Even though he was not in the Boston area and not really dating when she disappeared, he was devastated. I saw him on multiple occasions after Joan’s loss. He is currently an executive and CEO in CT. Note: I do not feel it is necessary to give last names here.

Her first year at Harvard, Joan met Keith. Keith was finishing his MBA. At the time Joan disappeared, Keith lived in Detroit and was an executive with GM. He planned to visit her in NJ over the Thanksgiving break and “meet the family.” Keith was a good friend of my brothers going back to undergraduate days. Keith was actually in my brother’s wedding and they are still in contact today. Keith is an executive and CEO living in CA.

David was a classmate and someone Joan went out with at Harvard. They took a trip to ME in October 1981. A picture from that trip is the last photo I have of Joan. He was the individual that called Eleanor Webster to say that Joan had not returned to class. He was part of a large group of classmates who distributed posters and contacted numerous departments. The police did interview him; he was the only one local, but he had not returned to Cambridge until Sunday. He currently owns his own architectural company in CT.

Nothing I have ever seen or know of these men personally suggests they had anything to do with Joan’s loss. They all took this very hard. All of these young men were in Joan’s age group.

I can’t say if there was any MSP activity around Harvard in the days, weeks, or months before Joan disappeared. I have never seen any comments to that affect. However, I agree, the root of this goes back well before the Thanksgiving weekend.

The summer before her second year began, Joan was home in NJ. She spent time in NYC. I saw Joan for the last time at an annual family trip to Nantucket. She was in great spirits and enthusiastic, just as I knew her to be. At school, she took a full work load. She lived in a single room at Perkins Hall and was a dorm proctor. Her schedule was busy. I am not sure she had much free time to get into some clandestine relationship or activity. Joan was not a big partier, but she liked social activity like going to the theater, playing tennis, and such.

When I first heard Lisano’s comment, it was like a slap in the face. Too often there is a callous attitude of blaming the victim. The way the comment was described to me was as very derogatory, not necessarily resentful of the resources pumped into the case. It’s hard to gage what someone’s tone or demeanor were unless you were there, but my contact was really shocked. The contact offered that Lisano was friends with Bruce Latham. I do not know if my contact knew Latham was working for the Websters as a PI. That is the piece that most bothers me. As I have said, the Websters are very image conscious. Did Lisano get that impression from Latham? How could any parent work with individuals devaluing your daughter?

I spoke with Joan on Thanksgiving Day. She was very upbeat. There was no indication at all she was going back early on Saturday. She talked about all the things planned over the break. She was very positive about the high marks she received for the project she presented just before the break. She was excited about my news being pregnant. George is the one that suggested Joan went back to work on a project. However, phone records on the home phone do not match up with his indication Joan called a classmate that morning about supplies. She had just finished an 11-week project and that is substantiated. I have not learned any names or seen anything to support Joan planned to meet classmates to work on a project. If that exists, it’s in the custodian’s files.

ITT had just come off some very serious matters in 1977 when I met the family. It was the subject of great scrutiny during the Church Senate Hearings. In a nutshell, ITT was a cover firm for the CIA in activities in Chile. This involved George’s division; he was in charge of budget and planning for the DOD in the telecommunications division. He would have been well aware of what was going on and his background suggests he played a part, at least on the financial side of the ledger. There was an internal ITT memo that went out called the ITT jewels. I recovered that document digging into ITT and the CIA’s relationship at the time. The result of these activities, which spanned more than a decade, was the overthrow of Chile’s democratically elected president. Augusto Pinochet took power after the assassination (or suicide) of Salvadore Allende.

I had no awareness of things like this when I met the Websters in 1977 and nothing in their demeanor made me suspect the family had these kinds of secrets. This was not a proud period in CIA history or ITT.

If the Websters were threatened by something related to Webster secrets, it does not make sense for George to only shield Joan. If that was the case, he did not do a very good job. He left town and left Anne and Eleanor behind. I was certainly not advised of any threat.

I don’t want to get off track on a political conspiracy. I am seeking documents now that might indicate if this was more of a factor. The important piece for me is the secretive nature of the family, and how George exerted control over the family. The Websters are very complex people.

 

[eve carson]

One other thought to add to the comments above. Authorities in MA would not have the in depth insight of the Webster family history, even if they knew of the CIA background. It is not likely they had awareness of CIA and ITT collaboration in the 1960s and 1970s.

So the question that remains on the table, why didn't authorities pursue the lead of the bearded man leaving the airport with Joan the night she disappeared? That is the big elephant here.

 

[Skigirl]

I feel a bit like Debbie Downer, but I very highly doubt that the CIA or George's connections to it, or ITT had anything to do with Joan's disappearance. I would be willing to bet that you can chalk up whatever inaccuracies in the police report to incompetence and then, perhaps, an attempt to conceal mistakes. I would also be willing to bet that the bearded man was someone she knew and arranged to meet with when she got back to Boston.

Keeping "secrets" is not the same time as not disclosing confidential professional information. Those of us who work with confidential information at work routinely do not speak about it with our spouses, families, or friends. That list would include many in a corporate role at a public company, anyone who is a mental health professional, physicians, clergy, attorneys and others.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Skigirl,

I agree with you. I don't think the activities of the CIA background or the CIA ITT connection were behind Joan's disappearance. However, I do think it is instructive to understand the mindset of the family. There is a different mentality dealing with those trained in intelligence. I learned that over time. As I stated, I don't want to get off on some political conspiracy.

I never pressed George and Eleanor what they did with the agency. I would not expect a breach of confidentiality. However, the Websters are secretive. That is based on many years of personal experience and the topics they will not discuss. It requires substantive facts to deal with and cope during a tragedy like this. Would you withhold a phone number to check if your child was missing? The Websters did not disclose things I learned in the records. Verified records do confirm they knew at least some of this information.

I am not sure what inaccuracy in police reports you are referring to. When you are suggesting incompetence, you are impeaching a very long list of agencies and departments involved. It is hard to imagine they were all incompetent. I don't need an investigator's license to know you cannot murder someone on a boat that did not exist when the victim disappeared. The body was found more than 30 miles from the alleged location. Joan was not dumped in Boston Harbor as claimed.

The documents recovered on August 7, 2017, are specific, and add greater information to previously obtained records. The report indicates Joan said someone was with her. She either knew that individual or he gained her confidence. In some ways it does not matter. The authorities did not pursue that lead. Authorities maintained their were no leads. That is simply not true. When you go through an experience like this, things get seared in your memory. I was told there were no leads, no record of Joan taking a cab, she simply vanished without a trace. That is also well documented through the media and official documents.

Whether Joan knew the bearded man or not, she ended up missing, and the police had an eye witness providing a description. They did not look for that individual or the car they left in. I am making a reasonable assumption there was a driver in the car they got into. So now there would be two individuals and at least a partial description of the car. The account given by the eye witness was corroborated by a dispatcher. It would be such a gross level of incompetence to think none of the law enforcement looking into the disappearance would look for the bearded man or the car and ask for the public's assistance.

If you are genuinely looking for someone you pursue every lead.

 

[Skigirl]

If George's employment with the CIA and ITT had nothing to do with Joan's appearance, and there's no insinuation that her father planned or had anything to do with Joan's disappearance, IMHO, those details are extraneous and distract from the purpose here. They also may be violations of the TOS. MOO. From what I've read, it's entirely possible that Joan knew the person who picked her up, and planned the pick-up herself.

I find the rejection of the first cab to be easily explainable without resorting to the idea that the bearded man knew the driver of the second car, so I do not consider the idea that he knew the driver of the other cab to be established fact. I also think that it's very possible that law enforcement truly did believe that she died on the boat -- wasn't there a witness statement to that effect -- and hoped that it would be true so that they could stop investigating. I doubt that they supressed the composite of the bearded man, but perhaps early on made a judgment call (wrongly or rightly) that the eyewitness was not reliable.

The nature of Joan's family, IMHO, has nothing to do with this, and it makes me super-uncomfortable to hear families of victims of a crime discussed in such a negative light.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Skigirl,

I appreciate your comments. Joan's case deserves serious discussion.

I do not believe Joan's loss was the result of some vendetta that may have resulted from CIA or ITT involvements. Followers of this thread are reasonably asking questions about the family. I am in a position to have insight into the family.

I do not know whether George Webster had anything to do with Joan’s disappearance or not. I spoke with SA Michael Carazza in the FBI Public Corruption Unit in 2012. He stated if he had been on the case, he would have started by looking at the family. That is not necessarily a negative thing. That is pretty standard for an investigation, looking at those close to the victim.

Understanding who the Websters are is an important aspect of this case just as understanding close relationships in any case is relevant. There have been no disparaging comments about the Websters, only observations that are supported with other sources. Wanting a truthful resolve for Joan’s case should be consistent with what the Websters want.

Switching cabs in and of itself may not be suspicious. However, Joan did not make it to her destination. No other records have surfaced that indicate a fare was dropped off at some other location. Now switching cabs becomes very important. I don’t know if the bearded man knew the driver of the second car or not. The description of the bearded man was not Paradiso. However, that is who authorities went after full throttle.

The MA Parole Board describes Robert Bond, the state’s witness, as deceptive and extremely dangerous. He was convicted of murder twice. Why would you have confidence in this person? His allegations broke in the press on January 28, 1983. By January 31, 1983, media reported the alleged crime scene was reported missing months before Joan disappeared. An easy answer is gross incompetence not to check out if the boat existed. Authorities did continue to press the boat to the point federal bankruptcy charges were filed. The undisputed evidence affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. Authorities ignored this and misrepresented this case to the public.

This case went on for a longtime. George and Eleanor publicly cooperated with a published explanation for Joan’s loss that gave a graphic description of rape and murder on a boat that certified court records affirm did not exist on November 28, 1981. That is a problem.

Digging into an unresolved homicide is always uncomfortable.

 

[Deleted member 189081]

I am sorry if I have missed this but please could I ask what was the subject/nature of the project handed in by Joan a week earlier to her disappearance and does anyone have a copy of it? If it was handed in then I suppose tutors/teachers would have a copy

KR
Reacher

 

[jgfitzge]

I am sorry if I have missed this but please could I ask what was the subject/nature of the project handed in by Joan a week earlier to her disappearance and does anyone have a copy of it? If it was handed in then I suppose tutors/teachers would have a copy

KR
Reacher

Hi- maybe Eve will be able to provide more details but I believe it was architectural in nature.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Reacher,

The project Joan presented was an auditorium architectural design. She presented the 11-week project on Monday, November 23, 1981. She received high marks. I do not know if a copy of the project exists. It may have been returned to the family or kept at the school. After nearly 36 years, it would be tough to track down.

I tried to find the articles I have about the project. I have recovered hundreds of news items. Some of them are in a zip file that I cannot open. I have changed computers since collecting them and updated programs. I will make a trip to the Geek Squad to see if they can help me.

One of the articles quoted classmates who recalled Joan missed Thanksgiving break her first year. The workload was heavy. She forfeited her break to get her assignments done. Classmates commented she worked hard to get the project completed so she could enjoy the break. There are no quotes from classmates indicating Joan planned to meet them on Sunday to work on a project.