Skigirl
Verified expert in neuroscience & psychology
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,770
- Reaction score
- 15,626
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.
There is no *lead* with her parents though. Just a bunch of insinuations and assertions about their personalities and family dynamics that may or may not be accurate, and that may or may not be relevant. By the terms of service, families of the victim are not to be sleuthed here because they are also considered victims, unless they are named as people of interest by law enforcement. Nothing of the sort has happened as far as I know, and therefore, I do not believe they are fair game.
I think the source documents are very interesting (though my own interpretation of them is quite different) and I hope that this discussion will not be shut down by virtue of violations of the terms of use of Websleuths.