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

[eve carson]

The Ralph Anthony Pisa “Story”

On December 24, 1979, Pisa had a holiday furlough courtesy of Gov. Michael Dukakis. A convicted killer once on death row was allowed to leave his confinement to celebrate the holiday with family and friends. On Christmas Eve 1979, Pisa was at the home of attorney John Cavicchi, the lawyer he did work for. While he was there, Paradiso brought a bucket of fish to the attorney, a gift.

Paradiso had paid Cavicchi a $500 retainer to arrange a polygraph. The examination performed by William La Parl on August 28, 1979, indicated Paradiso was telling the truth; he did not murder Marie Iannuzzi. The check and polygraph report are in recovered documents.

Pisa claimed Paradiso asked him to step out on the porch at Cavicchi's home on December 24, 1979. Pisa alleged Paradiso confessed murdering Marie and wanted Pisa’s influence to get Cavicchi to represent him. There is no corroborating evidence to support Pisa’s claim. It is illogical on the surface based on known facts. Pisa said nothing about the alleged conversation at the time.

Pisa came forward after Bond allegations broke in the paper in January 1983. Paradiso was all over the news and Pisa remembered him from Norfolk.

When Pisa spoke first to Middlesex County, and then to Suffolk County, his story expanded. Pisa later testified under oath that Paradiso called him on December 18, 1981. Pisa was specific about the date; it was his birthday. Pisa was still in prison, so any calls were taken on a bank of phones. It is unclear if conversations were monitored. No evidence of the call was provided. Pisa came forward more than a year later, so any taped calls may have already been erased or taped over.

Pisa claimed Paradiso warned him to keep his mouth shut; Pisa had a family out there. Allegedly, Paradiso asked about charges if there was no body. Pisa claimed Paradiso said they only found the purse. That information was all over the news along with the Bond allegations about Joan.

According to the state’s interpretation, Paradiso confessed to murdering Joan. This was solely based on Pisa’s word with no verification. Burke touted Pisa as credible and a reformed prisoner with altruistic motives, to protect the women of Boston.

Pisa became self-educated on the law while in prison. During his testimony, he claimed Paradiso wanted to know if someone could be convicted without a body. Pisa allegedly referred to the John Webster case of 1850. This case is still cited today as a standard; the jury must determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I read through the records, the reference to the John Webster case was almost a subliminal message that kept the name Webster in front of the Iannuzzi jury.

A brief tutorial on the John Webster case. Dr. George Parkman went missing. Webster, a Harvard professor borrowed money from Parkman. The case received a lot of media attention. There was speculation Parkman was dumped in the ocean. A Harvard janitor Ephraim Littlefield found disturbing evidence in Webster’s lab. Webster had hit Parkman in the head and put dismembered pieces in the furnace. Parkman’s dental work was identified by the dentist who did the work, but there was no body. Littlefield was under suspicion for a while, but Webster was ultimately found guilty. Webster confessed in a last ditch effort to save his own neck, but Webster was hanged.

There was nothing concrete or verifiable to support Pisa’s allegations. Most people would be skeptical of a convicted murderer’s unsubstantiated story. The key point to focus on why people bought into it is evident in the records. The people we are conditioned to trust, prosecutors and law enforcement, reinforced it.

That is the question to answer. Why did authorities promote obvious confabulations? To top that off, they greased the wheels to let Pisa walk.

 

[eve carson]

The State’s “Star Witness” – Robert Bond

I have profiled two of the three people, Patty Bono and Ralph Anthony Pisa, who alleged Leonard Paradiso murdered Marie Iannuzzi and Joan Webster. It is important to understand that connection. Authorities entangled the two cases. These are the witnesses authorities “relied” on to promote the Paradiso boat theory for Joan’s loss.

The final participant making the duel allegations was Robert Bond. There is a lot of information regarding Bond. It will take several posts to profile him and detail his story. I will refer to recovered documents, however, I will refrain for the time posting images of some of the documents. I am awaiting an FOIA appeal response regarding some of these items.

Robert Bond was incarcerated for the murder of his girlfriend, Barbara Mitchell. Her unborn child also perished. Bond was married and had a history of domestic violence already. Mitchell was not his wife.

Bond met Paradiso in Walpole prison. They knew each other casually. Bond did not know the reason for Paradiso’s confinement, the Constance Porter assault conviction. That is a significant point learned through the testimony Bond gave at various hearings and the Iannuzzi trial. Paradiso did not confide in Bond.

Bond benefited from the Gov. Dukakis furlough program as well. During Bond’s pass from confinement, he met a community activist, Mary Foreman, who worked with inmates at the prison.

After Bond gained a parole for the Mitchell murder, he pursued Mary Foreman. It is not necessary to go into all of the details, but Bond murdered Mary Foreman on October 23, 1981. He shot her point blank through the temple.

On December 8, 1982, authorities moved Bond from Walpole Prison to the Charles Street Jail for the Foreman trial. Paradiso had been moved from Charles Street for a short period due to overcrowding. He was returned to the facility later in the day on December 8.

Bond was moved to a cell close to Paradiso from his original assignment on another tier.

On December 13, 1982, a jury convicted Bond for the murder of Mary Foreman. Ordinarily, Bond would have been returned to Walpole until sentencing. Instead, he remained at Charles Street near Paradiso until authorities moved him to a different facility in Concord on December 29, 1982. Sentencing took place on January 10, 1983 at the Suffolk County courthouse.

Before Bond left the courthouse, he met with members of the MSP. That meeting was acknowledged during Bond’s testimony in the Iannuzzi case on July 16, 1984. One officer known to be present was Carmen Tammaro, Palombo’s superior officer assigned to the F Barracks at Logan. Palombo was the lead officer on both the Iannuzzi case and Joan’s disappearance. Tammaro was involved in Joan’s case.

Tim Burke alleges he received a letter from Bond detailing Paradiso’s alleged confession for both the Iannuzzi and Webster murders. Burke represented in filings with the court and through the media, he received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983. Burke asserts he set up an interview between Bond and the MSP based on receiving the letter. The interview was conducted on January 14, 1983. The interview was taped.

The Bond allegations broke in the news on January 28, 1983. At the same time a “confidential source” reported Bond’s allegations to the FBI. Palombo was quoted in the press that day.

Examining the recovered records exposed serious discrepancies and problems with the Bond story.

Bond is still incarcerated today. The MA Parole Board has denied parole to date. They have labeled him deceptive and extremely dangerous. On May 9, 2017, Bond had another opportunity for parole. During his hearing he referred to his participation with the state in the Paradiso matters apparently hoping for favor helping the state.

It will take several posts to lay out the Bond allegations.

 

[eve carson]

The Robert Bond “Story”

Bond was checked into cell 68 on the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] floor of the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982. Paradiso was checked back into the facility later in the afternoon into cell 31 on a different level. PI Ray Morgan, a defense investigator, indicated the jail was in lock down that day. The two inmates would not have had an opportunity to interact. The Foreman trial began the next day on December 9, 1982, and concluded on December 13, 1982. At some point, Bond was moved to cell 36 near Paradiso.

Bond conveniently came forward with allegations in two cases, Iannuzzi and Webster. He affirmed during the Iannuzzi trial, he met with the MSP on January 10, 1983, the day he was sentenced for Mary Foreman’s murder. Recovered documents affirm topics discussed during that meeting.

Sgt. Carmen Tammaro was in attendance.

Marie’s attire was discussed during that meeting. Her attire was significant and relevant to that case. She wore a red wrap-around skirt over a matching body suit or leotard. Autopsy photos show this clothing intact.

Bond inferred Marie was screwing with her boyfriend’s cousin, Freddie Milano, at the wedding house party.

Bond described how Paradiso allegedly drove through red lights to get back to the bar to join Marie after dropping off his girlfriend on the night of the wedding.

Bond indicated when he first met Paradiso at Walpole Prison, Paradiso did not confide what he was in for. He said Paradiso said it was armed robbery. Paradiso was convicted of assault in the Constance Porter case.

Bond alleged a whiskey bottle was the weapon used to strike Joan.

Bond discussed a lot of blood all over the boat.

Bond asserted Paradiso said he had blood all over his clothes.

The Webster reward money was discussed during the January 10[SUP]th[/SUP] meeting.

Bond indicated he had written notes about alleged confessions from Paradiso.

Bond brought up the name Peter Brandon during the interview on the 10[SUP]th[/SUP]. Peter Brandon was listed on Paradiso’s parole records. Using Brandon’s address allowed Paradiso to keep his same parole officer.

Bond mentioned Eddie Fisher, the man Marie Iannuzzi was seeing while living with her boyfriend David Doyle.

Tammaro discussed a new attorney for Bond.


Reviewing documents Burke filed with the courts, the meeting on January 10, 1983 is not noted. Burke’s timeline claims he received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983. Burke asserts he set up an interview of Bond with the MSP based on the letter. That meeting took place on January 14, 1983, and is described in documents filed with the courts. The January 14, 1983, meeting was taped. PI Ray Morgan described the tape and transcript before documents were recovered. He affirmed documents recovered were the same he viewed at the time.

As I move through Bond’s allegations and the discrepancies, this meeting takes on more importance. The January 14, 1983, meeting exposes very big problems with the state’s allegations in both the Marie Iannuzzi and Joan Webster cases.

 

[eve carson]

The "Unsolicited" Robert Bond Letter

Multiple documents filed with the courts affirm the MSP interviewed Robert Bond on January 14, 1983. That was a Friday. There were five officers present and Bond. Bond was not represented by an attorney, nor was ADA Burke or any other representative from the prosecutor’s office present. Sgt. Carmen Tammaro conducted the interview. The interview was taped.

The interview covered both cases, Marie Iannuzzi and Joan Webster. Remember, Paradiso was already incarcerated for the Iannuzzi murder after the grand jury handed down a true bill in June 1982. The grand jury took place after the Webster meeting at Harvard in February 1982. The Bond interview came after MSP implicated Paradiso on March 11, 1982, in Joan’s disappearance. Burke had the cart before the horse introducing Bond.

I am going to take this a piece at a time. Bond’s testimony during the Iannuzzi case affirmed Bond met with the MSP on January 10, 1983, the day he was sentenced for the Mary Foreman murder. The interview on the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] confirms Bond did meet with the MSP prior to the taped interview.

Bond indicates he spoke with a guard at Concord the night before meeting with MSP officers, the 13[SUP]th[/SUP]. Bond was concerned the letter had not been received. Deputy Carter affirmed it had only been three days. This is very simple math. The letter from Bond detailing his allegations against Paradiso for both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases was mailed on January 10, 1983.

Tammaro goes on later in the interview to arrange intercepting the letter from Bond’s family. Tim Burke alleged Bond mailed the letter to his wife Willie Mae with an inner envelope addressed to Tim Burke. The letter was written in two parts, segregating the allegations in Marie’s case from allegations regarding Joan.

I have talked to Bond face to face with a PI. I have attended two of his parole hearings. Bond lacks the intelligence for such an orchestrated plot to keep allegations separate, a tactic that facilitated the state’s cases.

Tim Burke DID NOT receive an unsolicited letter from Robert Bond on January 5, 1983.

Tim Burke DID NOT schedule an interview with the MSP on January 14, 1983, based on the Bond letter.

Burke HAD NOT received the letter as of January 14, 1983.

Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo submitted FALSE representations in documents to the court.

Bottom line, Burke and Palombo LIED

The Bond letter was mailed AFTER the meeting with the MSP on January 10, 1983. Some topics in the letter were discussed during the January 10, 1983 meeting.

The MSP instigated the letter written by Robert Bond.

I will get into details in the letter in a later post. The January 14, 1983, interview affirmed Burke’s introduction of Bond as a legitimate witness was completely false.

 

[eve carson]

Manner of Death

Bond’s interview with the MSP on January 14, 1983, revealed discrepancies in both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. In a previous post about the Iannuzzi trial, some of the discrepancies are highlighted. Recovered documents support that was a wrongful conviction. I am now delving more in depth regarding Joan’s case, but it is important to know Bond was not credible in either case.

The interview made it clear, Bond did not have his stories straight. He got off track talking about the Iannuzzi case and talked about Joan. Tammaro asked leading questions guiding Bond’s recitation.

Initially, Bond alleged Paradiso confessed to strangling Joan Webster. According to Bond, Paradiso later told him he hit Joan with a whiskey bottle. Bond then told the MSP they could pick or choose whatever *advertiser censored**ing one they wanted.

That is a big problem; Bond gave the MSP a multiple choice for the manner of Joan’s death. Joan was still missing, so there was nothing to verify manner of death, or if she was even deceased. The manner of death in the Iannuzzi case was strangulation. This is the state's "star witness."

The interview revealed Paradiso did not confide in Bond at Walpole why he was in jail. Now, Bond alleges Paradiso is opening the flood gates of confessions about two murders from the moment they both stepped into the Charles Street Jail. That isn’t even remotely reasonable especially when you consider how many Bond assertions conflict with known facts in both cases.

Later in the interview, Bond elaborated on the blow to the head with a whiskey bottle. Bond pointed to the right side of his head indicating where Joan was allegedly struck with a whiskey bottle. He indicated she had a hole in her head. The whiskey bottle scenario was the story the MSP went with from the multiple choice.

Bond alleged Paradiso took his boat out and dumped Joan in Boston Harbor then brought the boat back to the pier. Note: Joan was found buried more than 30 miles away.

This was a critical piece of the puzzle to understand what happened to Joan Webster. Recovered documents affirm Bond’s allegations came at least as early as January 14, 1983. Joan’s remains were recovered in April 1990. That is more than eight years before manner of death was known.

 

[eve carson]

The Alleged Crime Scene

Robert Bond claimed Paradiso picked Joan up on November 28, 1981, at the airport driving a cab. Paradiso was a parolee and not able to get a hack license to drive a cab. No evidence supported Paradiso ever drove a cab. No evidence placed Paradiso at the airport that night. Bond affirmed the MSP asserted the cab was the mode of transportation Paradiso used to take Joan to Pier 7.

Bond alleged Paradiso said he had to get papers out of his “office” before taking Joan to Cambridge. According to Bond, Paradiso got Joan on his boat, made drinks, and made a pass at Joan that she rejected. Bond could not provide any explanation how Paradiso got Joan on the boat. MSP asked about a gun, but Bond did not fill in that gap in the story. Note: Burke introduced the gun later from the “confidential source” John O’Connell. O’Connell was not a credible witness, his divers found a Mercedes in the water, not a gun. O’Connell’s work at Pier 7 took place in 1980. The interview affirmed authorities needed an explanation how Paradiso got Joan on the boat.

As the MSP questioned Bond, he indicated the boat was at Pier 7. He went on to say he did not know or care where Paradiso kept his boat. If it was not Pier 7, Bond told the MSP that was on them, the MSP. The interview affirmed the source of the information Bond got about the taxi and Pier 7 came from the MSP.


Picture the conditions. It is late November 28, 1981. It’s dark out. I am adding the photo again of the mooring area. In prior years, parole notes indicated Paradiso had his boat out of the water for the winter well before the end of November. Weather conditions were very windy that night. The boat would be banging against the Erie Barge where he moored it if it had been out there. It is hard to swallow Paradiso was fixing cocktails on a dark, cold boat, banging around, and making passes at anyone. On its face, the story is absurd.

Bond alleged Joan said no to Paradiso’s advances. According to Bond, Paradiso hit Joan in the head with a whiskey bottle and raped her. He took his boat way out and dumped Joan in Boston Harbor and brought the boat back to the pier. According to Bond, Paradiso’s clothes were covered in blood.


Bond claimed Paradiso came back to the pier the next day and saw the excessive blood on the boat. He left and waited to come back the next day, Monday, take the boat out and sank it. We are to believe Paradiso left a very bloody crime scene in full view for two days.The boat was recovered right under its mooring on September 27, 1983. FBI lab results were negative for any evidence; blood, hair, fibers, items, etc that indicated the boat was the scene of a murder. No evidence connected Joan to Paradiso or his boat.

The interview revealed Bond saw photos of Paradiso’s boats tacked on his cell wall. Paradiso had several boats over the years. Bond recited serial numbers on the boats from the photos. An interior shot of the alleged crime scene showed liquor bottles on a shelf, hence the suggestion of a whiskey bottle as the murder weapon. These were undated photos. FBI lab reports indicated there were no liquor bottles or shards of glass on the boat when it was recovered.

The Bond allegations broke in the press on January 28, 1983. By January 31, 1983, news accounts reported the boat was gone months before Joan disappeared. The story soon disappeared, too. The January 14, 1983, interview with Bond affirmed the MSP were aware the boat was reported missing to numerous departments and the insurance. It would be pretty standard procedure to check out the status of the crime scene.

Instead, Burke instigated a bankruptcy fraud case with the boat being a central focus. Case CR 85-010-S in the Federal District Court in RI, Judge Bruce Selya presiding, affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist by August 1981, when Paradiso filed for bankruptcy in August 1981. Bond is the only witness on record claiming Joan was murdered on the boat. The current custodian acknowledged that during a meeting on May 1, 2017. The MA Parole Board affirms Bond is deceitful and dangerous. I agree.

Who would you place you trust in? I place my confidence in a federal district court judge who had all of the evidence in front of him. The evidence was undisputed. Bond has no credibility; authorities made promises to him right after his 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] murder conviction. The discrepancies in Bond’s story with known facts in both cases are overwhelming.

Authorities went right on promoting the boat theory in Joan’s case. I have plenty of quotes in the media and public representations to this day supporting the “credibility” of Bond.

The reason the story mushroomed was the support of the central individuals in the investigation. Is everyone following this so far?

The central players in Joan’s investigation withheld vital and exculpatory evidence.

 

[eve carson]

Three Weeks

During the Bond interview with the MSP on January 14, 1983, Bond actually corroborated a meeting Paradiso documented three weeks after his arrest for Marie Iannuzzi.

Tr. Andrew Palombo arrested Paradiso for the Iannuzzi murder on July 6, 1982. Paradiso wrote a letter on August 2, 1982, about three weeks after his arrest. The letter, probably to his attorney, recorded a meeting on August 1, 1982. Sgt. Carmen Tammaro, Palombo’s superior, came to the Charles Street Jail to meet with Paradiso. Paradiso referred to Tammaro by a childhood nickname, Buster. The two men knew each other growing up along with the anonymous caller, Patty Bono. This was more than 4 months before the Bond interview on January 14[SUP]th[/SUP]. Paradiso had not been identified publicly as a suspect in Joan’s case, but had been identified internally to other departments.

During the Bond interview on January 14[SUP]th[/SUP], Bond got confused about three weeks and what happened. The first possibility he offered was that Paradiso dropped some of Joan’s belongings off along the Lynn Marsh Road three weeks after she landed. That was factually false and is documented in files. Joan’s purse and wallet, the items found along the Lynn Marsh Road, were found on December 2, 1981, four days after Joan disappeared. That was widely reported and confirmed in documents filed with the court. Police knew this was false.

The alternative explanation Bond offered was the police met with Paradiso three weeks after he was arrested for the Iannuzzi murder. That coincides with the Paradiso letter dated August 2, 1982.

Paradiso’s letter indicated his suspicion the police really wanted him for the Webster case. Tammaro offered to “help” him if he confessed about Joan. Paradiso documented that Tammaro accused him of murdering Joan on his boat and then burning the boat. Note: The fiberglass boat was found intact on September 27, 1983 with no change to its appearance. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981.

Other elements of the letter proved to be correct with other contemporaneous activity in Boston. Tammaro leaked FBI activity about the mafia in Boston and upcoming arrests. Tammaro bragged the FBI could “make” secret recordings sound incriminating. He revealed the location of a surveillance camera. Note: This was an era where the FBI was later exposed for misconduct and shielding criminal informants such as Whitey Bulger.

Bond validates a meeting with police three weeks after Paradiso’s arrest. Paradiso’s letter at that time established the first documented evidence of the boat theory the state pushed months before officials announced a “break” in Joan’s case with the Bond allegations.

Take it a step further. Tammaro knew the woman, Patty Bono, who placed an anonymous call implicating Paradiso for both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases on or about January 19, 1982. Bono gave unverified testimony that bolstered the state’s theory. She placed Paradiso in the pier area alleging a 1972 assault. Bono alleged Paradiso threatened to throw her in the ocean where no one would ever find her. That is a comparable narrative to the explanation for Joan’s loss.

Then Tammaro meets with Paradiso and makes the suggestion of Paradiso murdering Joan on his boat. If Paradiso repeated the accusations to someone like Bond, the state jumped on it claiming he confessed. However, the boat did not exist and that was an obstacle authorities were aware of during the Bond interview on January 14, 1983.

Now Tammaro meets with Bond on January 10, 1983, and initiates Bond’s letter. It was clear in the taped interview, authorities expected the letter from Bond. It had not arrived. On January 14, 1983, Tammaro leads Bond through the scenarios they promoted for both cases. Remarkably, Tammaro is guiding Bond through the boat story Tammaro suggested to Paradiso on August 1, 1982. Bond was the conduit for the MSP story.

During the Bond interview on January 14, 1983, Bond was asked twice whether Paradiso weighed the body since a body disposed in the ocean will eventually come to the surface. Bond could not confirm that aspect of the story. Conveniently, authorities produced another witness later to fill in that gap. Charlene Bullerwell testified to chopped bodies weighted with cinder blocks dumped at sea. Review the Bullerwell post. She testified she was pressured by the FBI and refused to testify at the Iannuzzi trial.

In response to the question of a weighted body, Bond asked Tammaro if they had talked with Paradiso since they talked to him. The answer was no. Bond assured the MSP there was nothing he can’t get out of him. That says it all.

There is documented evidence the MSP manufactured boat theory. Paradiso was being set up.

 

[eve carson]

The Suitcase Mystery

Joan traveled with a dark blue Lark suitcase that was checked. She carried a red purse and a carry-on tote bag. The purse was found along the Lynn Marsh Road on December 2, 1982. The discovery was widely reported and confirmed in recovered documents. The tote bag was never recovered.

The suitcase was recovered, but a mystery still surrounds it. FBI reports indicate the suitcase was recovered on January 29, 1982. FBI reports indicate the bag was found in a locker at the Greyhound Bus Station in Boston.

Eleanor Webster reported the discovery of the bag to the Glen Ridge, NJ PD on February 2, 1982. She indicated this was not public knowledge and the bag was in the custody of the MSP. Eleanor reported the bag was found in the Greyhound Bus Station in Boston in a locker.

On February 6, 1982, the New York Times reported the discovery of the bag in a Greyhound bus terminal. According to the report, an employee noticed the tag and notified the state police. That leaves the impression the bag was found in Boston.

Boston had a major media event around the first week of February 1982 that reported the MSP recovered the suitcase from the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station in Boston.

Authorities continued to make unsubstantiated claims Paradiso used to hang out at the bus station with known child molesters. Andrew Palombo was quoted in the press making those assertions on July 22, 1984, the day Burke won a conviction in the Iannuzzi case. The defense attorney brought it up during the sentence hearing on July 25, 1984.

Keep in mind, there was an incident on January 9, 1982 that a woman received a ride from a man at the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station who was identified as an undercover cop. Palombo was an undercover officer and was positively identified giving two women a ride from Logan on December 12, 1982. This established a connection with the police and the Park Square Station, not Paradiso.

Tim Burke, Palombo’s partner in the Paradiso investigations, is a former government employee who had privileged access to reports and information others did not. Burke published an account in 2008 and stated multiple times that the suitcase was found at the Port Authority Greyhound facility in NYC. That is approximately 190 miles from the alleged location of the bag. Burke claimed it was transferred to NYC when it went unclaimed in Boston, a reasonable “sounding” explanation.

It raises red flags. Burke does not explain how a worker in NYC would call the MSP. The story was not daily headlines in NY. For the story to appear in the NY Times was probably the result of the Websters who contacted media frequently. A worker in NYC would likely call the number on the tag for an unclaimed bag which would have been the Webster home number in NJ.

In an FOIA response from the current custodian, another date was provided for the recovery of the suitcase that is inconsistent with anything previously documented or reported. There is a real big red flag here.

During the January 14, 1983, interview with Robert Bond, Tammaro asked about anything Paradiso may have said about the suitcase. Bond was asked if Paradiso ever talked about hanging out at the Greyhound Bus Station in Boston. Bond replied “No.” The only information Bond suggested about the suitcase was that the MSP had it.

Where was Joan’s suitcase found and when was it recovered?

This was a campaign of disinformation.

 

[eve carson]

The Bond Written Letter

Recovered documents indicate the Bond written allegations were received after his MSP interview on January 14, 1983. Records recovered to date indicate the letter Burke described was received on January 17, 1983.

The letter detailing Bond’s allegations regarding Joan were segregated from the Iannuzzi allegations. This demonstrates a sharp contrast with the interview where Bond got off track from one case to the other at times. The letter is more definitive in his statements underscoring the vagaries during the interview.

Two of the most glaring, Bond’s uncertainty about the location of the boat during the interview, and his multiple choice for the manner of Joan’s death. In the letter, there was no ambiguity.

MSP officers met with Bond again on January 17, 1983, to go over his statement. Sgt. Carmen Tammaro, who made arrangements on the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] to intercept Bond’s letter, was present at that meeting.

In the written statement, Bond makes the following true statements:

The boat was registered in the girlfriend’s name, Candace Weyant.

Police will not find a body on the boat.

Paradiso reported the boat gone in July 1981, he did not have the boat in November 1981.

The boat was not burned up.

Bond affirmed a meeting between the MSP and Paradiso three weeks after Paradiso was arrested for the Iannuzzi murder. That corroborates the letter written by Paradiso on August 2, 1982, documenting his meeting with Tammaro.

All police will find on the boat is a lot of mud.

Paradiso never had a hack license to drive a cab.

Bond described two boats with the registration numbers.

This is not information that supports the state theory. It is important to note authorities were aware of this information.
Bond makes another allegation in his statement that is true. It could not be verified at the time.

That statement is problematic for the central players during the investigation. I will go into greater detail about that specific point in a later post.

 

[eve carson]

The Bond Written Letter – The Problems

Bond makes statements in his written letter that do not withstand scrutiny. A legitimate investigation would have established and followed the facts.

Unverified and false statements in the written letter include:

Bond alleged Paradiso picked Joan up at the airport on November 28, 1981. The state offered no information to support Paradiso was at the airport.

Bond alleged Paradiso took Joan to Pier 7 where his boat was moored, and took her on his boat. Reports as early as January 31, 1983, right after these allegations broke in the news, indicated the boat was reported missing months before Joan disappeared. Case CR 85-010-S in the Federal District Court of RI affirmed the boat did not exist by August 1981 when Paradiso filed for bankruptcy. Bond was confused about Pier 7 during the MSP interview on January 14, 1983.

Bond describes the alleged crimes of rape and murder on the boat. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.

Bond alleged Paradiso hit Joan with a whiskey bottle and there was blood all over his clothes and the boat. FBI lab results do not support those allegations. The fatal injury Joan sustained is not consistent with this explanation. Note: At the time, there was nothing to verify Joan was deceased or the manner of death.

Bond alleged Paradiso took the boat way out and dumped Joan’s body. Officer Nick Saggese testified during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing in March 1984, the boat had a broken rudder. Police were aware of this fact on September 27, 1983, when the boat was raised. The boat was not navigable. Joan was found buried more than 30 miles away in Hamilton, MA in April 1990.

Bond alleged Paradiso returned to the boat two days later and sank it. Witness statements and evidence submitted during case CR 85-010-S affirm the boat was sunk on July 26, 1981, four months before Joan disappeared.

Bond alleged Paradiso named Peter Brandon as the snitch that informed the MSP. The anonymous call was placed by Patty Bono on or about January 19, 1982, who grew up with Tammaro. Her allegations were unverified. Bono allegedly came forward as a witness soon after the Bond allegations went public. According to Burke, she came forward in February 1983. Burke affirmed Bono placed the anonymous call during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing. Bond’s information was known to be false.

Bond alleged Paradiso hurt his hand murdering Joan on his boat. Paradiso had three deeply embedded metal splinters. He was treated at the Lynn Hospital on November 30, 1981. The injuries were not consistent with striking Joan with a whiskey bottle. Police recovered the shell Paradiso claimed was the source of the metal splinters. Authorities had ER records, but provided no information to support their assertions about the splinters or a connection to Joan. Police knew this was false. Burke massaged the explanation suggesting the splinters that showed up in x-rays could have been glass with a high lead content. He offered nothing to support that.

Bond alleged Paradiso placed some of Joan’s belongings along the Lynn Marsh Road three weeks after she disappeared. The purse and wallet were found in the marsh along the road on December 2, 1981. This was well-publicized. The police knew this was false.

Bond alleged people saw Joan getting into a cab around 10 pm. Witness accounts indicating Joan was seen at the airport were suppressed. Bond knew information only known by authorities. The composite compiled from a cabbie’s description was never released to the public.

Bond alleged the MSP told Paradiso they knew he drove a cab undercover for someone. Paradiso did not have a hack license. Authorities provided no evidence to support Paradiso ever drove a cab. The police were the source of this speculation.

Bond said Paradiso claimed he could say he was not even in the state in November and December 1981. Paradiso appeared in court on November 30, 1981, to have his bankruptcy discharged. On the same date, he was treated at Lynn Hospital for three metal splinters in his finger. Note: According to Bond, Paradiso took his boat out that day to sink it. Burke embellished that and suggested Paradiso wiped his boat down before he sank it. However, court records affirmed, the boat did not exist. He spoke with a woman over the Thanksgiving holiday who was interviewed by police affirming the boat was gone in July or August 1981. It makes no sense Paradiso would make such a claim when there were verifiable dates he was in MA. Authorities created a perception based on Bond’s word that Paradiso would lie about his whereabouts at the time of the murder.

During the Iannuzzi pretrial, Bond did not take the stand. Judge Roger Donahue sealed the letter, item #15. Paradiso was denied facing his accuser until trial. Bond’s story in both cases was embellished by the time he testified at the Iannuzzi trial, after the time he had contact with Paradiso.

There are too many problems with Bond’s written statement. Authorities already had known facts contradicting Bond’s allegations.

Authorities ignored the facts.

The biggest problem in the letter is yet to come.

 

[jgfitzge]

The Suitcase Mystery

Joan traveled with a dark blue Lark suitcase that was checked. She carried a red purse and a carry-on tote bag. The purse was found along the Lynn Marsh Road on December 2, 1982. The discovery was widely reported and confirmed in recovered documents. The tote bag was never recovered. - So, I come back to that key question, Did Joan have the suitcase when she exited the baggage claim area with the bearded man? I am making the 100% assumption she had the wallet and tote bag on her person. On the suitcase, it would be great if the cabbie or other witnesses noticed this. I want to make the assumption she did have it when she left. However, her talking to the counter person, followed by the exiting with "Mr. Beard" has me wondering whether the suitcase was an issue and she was to go with Mr. Beard. I don't know... A little more information would help in me making an assumption more solid...Did the other witnesses notice her around the baggage carousal? Were other passengers on the Eastern flight picking up the bags without delay?

The suitcase was recovered, but a mystery still surrounds it. FBI reports indicate the suitcase was recovered on January 29, 1982. FBI reports indicate the bag was found in a locker at the Greyhound Bus Station in Boston - Eve, was this reported in the media? I assume it was one of those coin operated lockers?

Eleanor Webster reported the discovery of the bag to the Glen Ridge, NJ PD on February 2, 1982. She indicated this was not public knowledge and the bag was in the custody of the MSP. Eleanor reported the bag was found in the Greyhound Bus Station in Boston in a locker. - OK, so it sounds like Boston media did not report this discovery...

On February 6, 1982, the New York Times reported the discovery of the bag in a Greyhound bus terminal. According to the report, an employee noticed the tag and notified the state police. That leaves the impression the bag was found in Boston. - Eve, when the Times report the "bag" being found, I assume we are talking about the suitcase and not the tote bag? Now I am a little confused. Was the suitcase in a locker or somewhere else in the bus terminal? And, by "tag" was it an Eastern Airlines baggage tag or a Greyhound tag?

Boston had a major media event around the first week of February 1982 that reported the MSP recovered the suitcase from the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station in Boston. - OK, so this was after the Times article, correct?

Authorities continued to make unsubstantiated claims Paradiso used to hang out at the bus station with known child molesters. Andrew Palombo was quoted in the press making those assertions on July 22, 1984, the day Burke won a conviction in the Iannuzzi case. The defense attorney brought it up during the sentence hearing on July 25, 1984. - OK, this is new one on me. Interesting...a guy like Paradiso and his MO with women...hanging out with child molesters? I don't think so. That is the wrong mix...Look, Paradiso was a bad guy, I wouldn't let him 10 miles near my daughter...but a diddler he was not...Eve, this sounds like a bit of disinformation to place him at the bus station.

Keep in mind, there was an incident on January 9, 1982 that a woman received a ride from a man at the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station who was identified as an undercover cop. Palombo was an undercover officer and was positively identified giving two women a ride from Logan on December 12, 1982. This established a connection with the police and the Park Square Station, not Paradiso. - Eve, this is most interesting...especially the date....Were these media reports or investigative or police reports? Was the suitcase checked for prints? Was anything missing?

Tim Burke, Palombo’s partner in the Paradiso investigations, is a former government employee who had privileged access to reports and information others did not. Burke published an account in 2008 and stated multiple times that the suitcase was found at the Port Authority Greyhound facility in NYC. That is approximately 190 miles from the alleged location of the bag. Burke claimed it was transferred to NYC when it went unclaimed in Boston, a reasonable “sounding” explanation. - Eve, if Joan left from Newark, if it went unclaimed why wouldn't Greyhound make the transfer to the Greyhound near Newark? That is more resonable "sounding". So, right here we have a large discrepancy...the ADA Burke saying it was found in NY, yet Boston media saying it was found in Boston?

It raises red flags. Burke does not explain how a worker in NYC would call the MSP. The story was not daily headlines in NY. For the story to appear in the NY Times was probably the result of the Websters who contacted media frequently. A worker in NYC would likely call the number on the tag for an unclaimed bag which would have been the Webster home number in NJ.

In an FOIA response from the current custodian, another date was provided for the recovery of the suitcase that is inconsistent with anything previously documented or reported. There is a real big red flag here.

During the January 14, 1983, interview with Robert Bond, Tammaro asked about anything Paradiso may have said about the suitcase. Bond was asked if Paradiso ever talked about hanging out at the Greyhound Bus Station in Boston. Bond replied “No.” The only information Bond suggested about the suitcase was that the MSP had it. - ​WOW...big discrepancy here...

Where was Joan’s suitcase found and when was it recovered?

This was a campaign of disinformation.

Hi Eve,

As I research the case the suitcase appearance and tote bag disappearance are mysterious. I made comments and/or asked questions after your points above.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge,

You continue to focus in on very important questions. I apologize for confusion using suitcase and bag. All reports refer to the suitcase. The tote was never recovered based on documents recovered to date.

The first red flag for me was locating the suitcase at a bus station. Joan took a flight. Recovered items were spread all over. The purse and wallet were found along Route 107, also known as the Lynn Marsh Road. The remains were found in Hamilton, MA. Authorities reported the suitcase found in a bus station in downtown Boston. The dispersed items suggests premeditation and forensic knowledge to avoid detection.

Joan was seen at the luggage carousel. Luggage from multiple flights were coming off on the same belt. The area would have been fairly busy. Recovered records to date do not establish if Joan had the suitcase with her. Current custodians threw a wrench into the mix. In response to an FOIA request this year, they provided an entirely different date. The location was not provided. The date was not just off by a day or two, but a significant period of time. I am waiting for a response to an FOIA appeal before I get into further detail.

Recovery of the suitcase was reported in the media, both in NY and Boston, around the same time. Again, there are vagaries. The impression from authorities was the suitcase was in a locker at the Boston station. That would be one of the coin operated bins. According to Burke, it was in a long term locker that delayed the discovery. When it was opened, it was sent to NYC. I am very skeptical of Burke’s explanation. I can’t imagine a “long-term” locker. The suitcase stays in the locker until you come back with your key to get it. This was 1981. The NY Times account indicates it was in a caged area for unclaimed bags for two months.
Boston reports were about the same time as the Times. I believe I have a Boston area report dated February 5, 1982. It has the appearance of a coordinated release of information.

By tag, I am referring to the ID tag. It would have had an Eastern tag unless it was ripped off. The suitcase was checked on the flight. There is no evidence of a bus ticket or reservation for some destination by bus. Therefore, it would not have a Greyhound tag. It makes no sense unless you consider the suitcase was at the bus station by design to divert investigation.

There is no question Paradiso had issues; past problems left him vulnerable to accusations. However, so many of the women coming forward during this period did not have verified stories. Some were definitely fabricated, such as Charlene Bullerwell. Burke is the one making assault allegations about Bullerwell. Her testimony contradicts his version. Tammaro’s friend Patty Bono is another example. Nothing supports her story that took 10 years to speak up. In no way will I overlook any legitimate issues of Paradiso. However, I am extremely offended by the investigative team falsely “beefing” up their list to diminish actual victims of any crimes.

The suitcase was sent to Quantico for testing, prints included. All results came back negative for any match. This was another example of Burke claiming Paradiso wiped things down. The suitcase was undisturbed. I take that to mean nothing was missing. Burke represents some items he said were in the suitcase. I am waiting for an FOIA appeal response to get some clarity. His descriptions about some items do not match FBI reports.

Joan left from Newark Airport, not the bus station. The bus station is really troubling no matter which city. The bigger problem is some of the documents were filed by Burke indicating the suitcase was found in Boston.

I agree, the authorities were creating a false perception to place Paradiso at the bus station to bolster their story claiming the suitcase was found there. The different MO's for the different alleged victims is also a clue. They were throwing everything on him.

Where and when the suitcase turned up is a VERY big deal.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge,

I missed answering a couple of your questions. The two incidents where women received a ride from an undercover cop are documented.

The first took place on January 9, 1982. A woman missed her bus at the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station in Boston. The woman at the ticket counter called over a man at the station to help her. He was identified as an undercover cop. His unmarked car was parked in a restricted area by the buses. He took her to the Trailway Station. People at both terminals knew him. The incident is documented in recovered police reports. This stood out to me for multiple reasons; undercover activity at the bus station, giving women a ride, and the claim Joan's suitcase was found here.

The second incident took place at Logan on December 12, 1982. Two young women were returning from a concert they attended in Florida. The undercover cop that followed two women was positively identified as Andrew Palombo. They did not know him. He probably showed them his badge to gain confidence and then gave both of them a ride. The date is significant. This happened a few days after Bond was moved close to Paradiso’s cell at the Charles Street Jail. One of the women had a connection to Paradiso. That woman did come forward and talked to an attorney about the incident. It was described as a very uncomfortable ride with the inferences Palombo made.

Reviewing the interview transcripts, Bond’s letter, and his assorted testimony, the second incident was very disturbing. It was very apparent in the records authorities fed Bond information. That makes Palombo’s shuttle service very distressing and revealing. It also indicated police at the airport likely had access to passenger information.

You are picking up on some very critical pieces of the puzzle.

 

[eve carson]

Unspeakable Abuse and Suspended Grief

As a family member, I am also a victim of violent crime. It is impossible to explain to someone who has not experienced what it is like to have a missing and/or murdered member of your family. The offender(s) have the ultimate accountability.

Authorities are tasked with the responsibility of truth, justice, and public safety. You hear public corruption and know it does exist, but to be victimized by it is unspeakable abuse. Recovering and examining records since 2006 has been excruciating. There were days the tears did not stop flowing and I could not get out of bed. There are times real fear still settles in. I have kept working through it. It matters.

I have posted for the last several weeks to help others have a better understanding, a foundation of this case. I want to be very clear that I do not think all law enforcement or prosecutors are corrupt. On the contrary, I think most are very dedicated officials who want justice served.

That said, the evidence of misconduct by authorities in Joan Webster’s investigation and other entangled cases is overwhelming. The path they chose devalued the victims of violent crime and left others vulnerable. Their actions caused irreparable harm to other innocent people and extended the list of victims. This was not human error or gross incompetence. Their actions were deliberate in the face of known facts.

This is the starting point for resolving Joan’s case. Once I understood what took place, it opened a path to the truth for Joan. Her case is solvable. In the next few posts, I will introduce what I believe are the criitical questions raised from recovered documents. Every crime has an answer, but you have to figure out the right questions. I did find answers.

I hope what I have learned will help others get answers they need. That would be a wonderful tribute honoring Joan’s life. She would like that.

 

[eve carson]

Breaking Down Joan’s Case – The Questions

The first and biggest question is obvious – Why?
Who benefits from a diverted investigation?
Was this deliberate?
Was Joan the target of a premeditated murder?
Who had reason to harbor malice against Joan?
What are the first signs of a diverted investigation?
What pulled a legitimate investigation off track?
Why was information so fragmented?
Who was involved?
Who supports the false narrative?
What was the climate in Boston?
What were the influences over a fabricated case?
What leads were obstructed or hidden?
Who obstructed or hid the facts?
What were the behavioral patterns of the participants in the investigation?
What is the disposition of current custodians of Joan’s case?
What are the obstacles to current resolution of the case?
Who are other identifiable victims?
Who fits the basic criteria and had opportunity?


A criminal investigator interested in Joan’s case laid out the criteria for a mental map of the offender. Basically, it helped establish a profile and mirrored what I was finding instinctively after reviewing documents.

On October 9, 2009, a PI joined me to meet face to face with informant Robert Bond at Shirley MCI. That was one of the most unsettling experiences during this process. Bond basically maintained his story, but a few morsels slipped into his responses that shed light on the questions above.

I corresponded with Bond a few times after the visit to see what more I could learn. The reply from the state’s “star witness” sums it up pretty well. Bond was recently up for parole. I attended the hearing. In Bond’s open statement, he reminded the board he “helped” the state in their pursuit of Leonard Paradiso. I think it is fair to say he hoped to gain favor to help his chances of parole.

Feel free to add questions or after your input for the questions above. I will start to address these questions as this thread moves forward.

This was a corrupted investigation. See Bond’s letter attached. I am not adding the envelope, but the letter is documented.

 

[eve carson]

Getting to the Real Answers


Why?

I cannot look into anyone’s heart, mind, or thoughts. This is a hard one to answer. I had to understand questions with more concrete answers first. I will come back to this. Speculation leads to more questions and requires verification.


What are the first signs of a diverted investigation?

The early signs are there. It was necessary to bring different sources of information together to see it.

1. On December 5, 1981, an individual assisting the investigation challenged the report Joan was seen at the airport. The individual, the head of ITT security, was in a position to know there was information Joan was seen. The lead was squelched.

2. Authorities suppressed the composite of a bearded man seen with Joan. The description of the bearded man was provided by a cabbie. The earliest date, in documents recovered to date, verifying the composite, is December 21, 1981. The head of ITT security placed a call within an hour of police being notified about the composite. He suggested a possible composite from a psychic’s image.

3. An anonymous call placed by a friend of an involved officer, Palombo’s superior Carmen Tammaro, to the Saugus PD on January 19, 1982, implicates Paradiso for Marie’s murder and Joan’s disappearance.

4. There is a lot of hype about the discovery of the suitcase at the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station the first week of February 1982. Discrepancies now known suggest an orchestrated event to spread disinformation.

5. Tim Burke (Suffolk County) and Andrew Palombo are assigned to the Marie Iannuzzi case, a cold case in Essex County, following the Webster meeting at Harvard in February 1982. This looks like DA shopping.

6. The Iannuzzi grand jury on March 5, 1982, named Paradiso as the target. Burke changed the name to John Doe for the next session seated on April 5, 1982.

7. Tr. Carl Sjoberg informs Paradiso’s parole officer Paradiso is a suspect for another Boston crime [Joan] on March 11, 1982.

8. Palombo retrieved boat registration information in July 1982.

9. Tammaro’s visit to Paradiso on August 1, 1982, suggesting Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.

10. Paradiso’s fingerprints are submitted in Joan’s case on November 5, 1982. Results were negative reported on November 24, 1982.

11. A meeting was requested by the head of ITT security on December 8 or 9, 1982, at the same time Bond was moved to the Charles Street Jail.

12. Moving Robert Bond near Paradiso’s cell in December 1982.

13. Palombo follows two women at Logan and gives them a ride on December 12, 1982. One of the women had a relationship to Paradiso.


This was the first year. There was a great deal going on under the radar to set up the situation that mushroomed into the Paradiso boat theory.


What pulled a legitimate investigation off track?

I think you have to look at the input of the head of ITT security as one factor. Leads were squelched. MSP also squelched a lead, the composite. The course of the investigation seemed to be cemented after the Webster meeting held after the anonymous call.


Was this deliberate?

When you look at all that was going on under the radar, it is impossible not to conclude this was well-planned. Premeditation is deliberate. In my judgment, after reviewing thousands of pages, the investigation into Joan’s disappearance was deliberately diverted. Authorities ignored and distorted facts as they were learned regarding Paradiso in multiple allegations.


Round One

 

[eve carson]

Getting to the Real Answers – II


Was Joan the target of a premeditated murder?

The evidence is there that Joan’s investigation was diverted deliberately. It began right out of the gate, not something that was concocted somewhere down the road because answers eluded investigators. That suggests Joan was the intended target and efforts began early to divert a legitimate investigation. As facts emerged, authorities concealed exculpatory evidence. The fact these efforts began so early after Joan’s disappearance support the “investigation” conducted was a cover-up of the crime. As part of the immediate family, I did not learn about Leonard Paradiso until the Bond allegations broke in the news on January 28, 1983. He had been the focus at least since January 19, 1982, after the anonymous call from Patty Bono.


Why was information so fragmented?

Fragmented or compartmentalized information is another indicator of a deliberate diversion. The Iannuzzi case was used as a smokescreen to file documents with the court to collect “evidence” woven into the explanation promoted for Joan’s loss. Palombo filed a warrant in the Iannuzzi case on April 25, 1983, that had nothing to do with the Iannuzzi case. Iannuzzi pretrial hearing testimony introduced a fake gun that is not corroborated in any other records. A gun was part of the unverified narrative in Joan’s case, and had nothing to do with Marie Iannuzzi. Current custodians did not have this “evidence” in their files. Burke and a “confidential source made false reports to the FBI about evidence they claimed connected Paradiso to Joan; a bracelet, a silk jewelry pouch, a “text” book. Current custodians do not have the records to support these assertions.

FBI records detailed an extortion incident current custodians knew nothing about. When I first raised the question about the incident to the current custodians in 2006, they did not ask any questions. When I raised it again in a meeting on May 20, 2010, I provided a report they dismissed. In a response to an FOIA request on April 2, 2017, custodians affirmed they had no reports of the incident. This was not an incident reported in the press. Apparently, describing an account of something very dramatic current custodians knew nothing nullified my credibility in their eyes. Multiple reports have now been provided to the DAO.

I am attaching one of the reports here. The October 20, 1982 report shows Oliver Revell on the distribution list, the assistant director of the FBI at the time. The report is initialed by Revell and the director William H Webster. This case reached the top levels.

There is an individual, in a position to know about the October 15, 1982, extortion incident, now on record denying any knowledge of the incident. Even if such an incident is not forefront in one’s recollection, records would refresh such a traumatic event. Without the records, it sounds sensational. With recovered documents, it is reasonable to view the denial as a deliberate lie. That is a very big problem.


Who benefits from a diverted investigation?

Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo benefited from a diverted investigation. The perception created was of a duo of relentless crime fighters. Palombo, the lead cop on both cases, had answers neatly wrapped up in one suspect. Burke got a conviction in the Iannuzzi case. Today, he is exploiting multiple victims peddling his story. I believe there are others that also benefited from a diverted investigation.

The most obvious benefactor of a false narrative was the offender who avoided detection.

Round Two

 

[eve carson]

Getting to the Real Answers – III

Correction from the last post:

The most obvious BENEFICIARY of a false narrative was the offender who avoided detection.

Who had reason to harbor malice against Joan?

Joan was a very genuine person. I cannot find any evidence that anyone harbored malice against Joan. That includes boyfriends. I do not rule out some secret association, but there is no evidence of it to date. Joan was very well-liked and respected. That made it much more plausible to suggest Joan was a victim of a random act. The investigation belies that. That raises a couple of different questions. Did Joan have knowledge that put her at risk? Did someone harbor malice against the Webster family?

Strictly looking at the documents, the first identifiable individuals squelching or muddying leads was the head of security at ITT. George Webster, Joan’s father was an executive with ITT. ITT participation was at the behest of George Webster. Is it possible someone harbored malice against the Websters. The answer is yes. Both George and Eleanor Webster had a unique background that does leave this possibility on the table. If Joan had knowledge that put her at risk, it would likely be related to the family background. My focus is the investigation conducted by authorities. I will share some insight into the family in a later post.

The investigative team of Burke and Palombo came out of the Webster February 1982 meeting. The focus initially targeted Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case, an unusual assignment from the Webster meeting about their missing daughter.


What was the climate in Boston?

To understand Joan’s case, I had to study more than the documents alone. I had to understand who these people and departments were that steered the investigation down the wrong path. The climate in Boston was a big piece of the puzzle.
The history of the Boston FBI is well documented. The Boston office was arguably one of the most corrupt in FBI history. There are several stories I found. The most notable and publicized example was the practice of the office shielding criminal informants like Whitey Bulger. This misconduct ran concurrently with Joan’s investigation. I found NO evidence Joan was a victim of the mafia and mob conflicts that infected numerous agencies and departments on all levels. However, there were some common names that turned up. Tim Burke even boasts he had a part in efforts to snag Bulger. There were leaks, some reported the MSP leaked information that allowed Bulger to slip through the cracks for many years. The Boston office of the FBI was involved in Joan’s investigation.

The Suffolk County DAO was also exposed for misconduct. In July 1991, defense counsel on a murder appeal, exposed secret and duplicate files in the DAO of Newman Flanagan. I am attaching an article. Exculpatory evidence was withheld in cases and raised questions about prosecutions conducted 1980-1988. The aggressive pursuit of Paradiso was during that same time.

I go back to the attendees at the Webster meeting in February 1982. Essex County DAO handled the Iannuzzi case, and the county where Joan’s purse were found on December 2, 1981. Harvard was within the jurisdiction of the Middlesex County DAO. Logan Airport is in Suffolk County. Tim Burke (Suffolk County) and Andrew Palombo (F Barracks at Logan) come out of the February 1982 meeting in charge of an Essex County cold case, Marie Iannuzzi. Again, there is an appearance of DA and investigator “shopping” for a desired result. That became more obvious reviewing the records and the course of the investigation.


Who was involved?

This is a list of authorities and departments involved in the Joan Webster investigation. It is NOT all inclusive, but focuses on the center of the investigation.

ADA Tim Burke – Suffolk County DAO
Tr. Andrew Palombo – MSP F Barracks at Logan
Sgt. Carmen Tammaro – MSP F Barracks at Logan
SA Steve Broce – Boston Office of the FBI
Jack McEwan – Head of ITT Security
Harvard Campus PD
Saugus, MA PD
Beverly, MA PD
Hamilton, MA PD
Newark NJ Office of the FBI
FBI Headquarters – Quantico
FBI Labs – Quantico
Interpol
Middlesex County DAO
Essex County DAO
Suffolk County DAO
Glen Ridge, NJ PD
USA William Weld – DOJ MA (later Governor of MA, and Libertarian VP candidate in 2016)
Judge Bruce Selya – Federal District Court of RI


Hard to believe all of these experienced “professionals” could not figure out it is IMPOSSIBLE to murder someone on a boat that did not exist when the victim disappeared on November 28, 1981.

ROUND THREE

 

[Spartygirl]

Marking my spot !!

Sent from my SM-T520 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Getting to the Real Answers – IV

What leads were obstructed or hidden?

Contemporary accounts reported Joan was seen talking to a man behind a counter at Logan.
A cabbie provided the description of a bearded man seen leaving the airport with Joan.
Conflicting information about the recovery date and location of Joan’s suitcase and contents.
Joan’s missing bracelet was not publicly known.
Extortion incidents were kept out of the press and not included in the current custodian’s files.
Items Joan carried in the tote bag included fragile architectural drawings. This was not known to the public.
Switching the grand jury from Paradiso to John Doe.
Implicating Paradiso to his parole office.
The relationship between Palombo and David Doyle, Marie Iannuzzi’s boyfriend.
Fingerprint testing for Leonard Paradiso and negative results on November 24, 1982.
The Bond written statement sealed by the court during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing.
Reports of the missing boat to the insurance and authorities.
Undated photos of the boat Bond saw on Paradiso’s cell wall.
Navigation equipment insured on the boat.
Broken rudder on the boat and witness testimony when the boat was gone.


What false, misrepresented, or unverified evidence was represented?

Glass shards on the boat.
Splinters in Paradiso’s finger.
O’Connell Seafood Company divers allegedly found gun in 1982.
The fake.357 magnum allegedly used to force Joan on the boat.
Photograph of Charlene Bullerwell wearing a bracelet identical to Joan’s.
The red silk jewelry pouch.
Missing jewelry from other victims.
Receipt of the Bond letter.
Implications of Paradiso driving a cab.
Tied cinderblocks to victim’s parts.
State, local, and federal authorities have developed enough evidence to conclude Paradiso murdered Joan.
An invalid boat registration with a hand written number, submitted to the Federal District Court in RI.
Representation of the bankruptcy case, CR 85-010-S.
Comingled cases.
Patty Bono 1972 assault allegations.
Janet McCarthy allegations.
Charlene Bullerwell testimony.
Allegation Paradiso threatened witnesses.
Robert Bond testimony.
Ralph Anthony Pisa testimony.
Joan disposed in Boston Harbor.


Who obstructed or hid the facts?

There are a lot of names in these records. I am not sure all of them can be faulted with intentional deception. Everything really goes back to the core team. There is more I could add more to these lists, but this is sufficient to understand this was not a matter of human error. Gross incompetence has to be ruled out based on the number agencies and departments involved.
The names below are the serious detractors from the truth. Some individuals are named in FBI reports providing false information to federal authorities during an ongoing investigation. That is a violation of federal code, a felony. Other information was falsely represented in documents filed with various different courts.

ADA Tim Burke
Tr. Andrew Palombo
Sgt. Carmen Tammaro
SA Steve Broce
ITT Security Jack McEwan
Judge Roger Donahue

Bond filed a motion on November 15, 1985, when his retrial did not go as he expected after assurances from authorities. He named names. The document is added below. I believe the fourth name, Bill, refers to Jack Gillem, a court officer present in documented meetings. None of the names Bond gives in his affidavit had anything to do with the Mary Foreman case. They had no authority to make promises or plea bargains.

Round Four