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

[eve carson]

Getting to the Real Answers – V


What were the behavioral patterns of the participants in the investigation?

The behavioral patterns of the core group are troubling. Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo are quoted continuously in the press making assertions that were NOT supported in actual documents. They continued to make assertions even after facts debunked the notions. I am attaching comments made by Burke and Palombo during a TV segment done in November 1985. The interviewer was Brad Willis on Channel 4 WBZ TV. Note: Remember the timeline. Case CR 85-010-S was in April 1985, affirming the boat did not exist. A report submitted to federal authorities on July 24, 1985, said state, local, and federal investigators had developed sufficient evidence to determine Paradiso murdered Joan in November 1981. They had NO evidence.

Recovered documents affirm Palombo worked with numerous witnesses in comingled investigations. Witnesses then changed their stories and testimony. Witnesses with changed testimony include: Jean Day and Christine DeLisi. Documents also exposed these women were pressured by the prosecutor and law enforcement, threatened with never seeing their children again, and Jean was assaulted. Others include David Doyle, Tony Leonti, Rosemarie Doyle.

Recovered records show witnesses that received enticements or favors from authorities. Witnesses include: Robert Bond, Ralph Anthony Pisa, and Charlene Bullerwell received promises. Bullerwell testified she was pressured by the FBI.

Tim Burke is on record claiming Paradiso was threatening witnesses including Bond, Bullerwell, and Day. Paradiso was incarcerated at the time.

Burke was in multiple courtrooms all over town on entangled matters centering on Paradiso. There was a real pile-on. Palombo appeared in multiple courts, too, testifying against Paradiso in multiple allegations.

Burke and Palombo put forward witnesses with false or unverified stories. They hid exculpatory evidence and put forward fabricated or misrepresented evidence. Burke and a "confidential source" made false assertions to federal authorities.

Palombo testified to a relationship with the other Iannuzzi suspect, David Doyle that was improper between an officer and a murder suspect. Burke sanitized the evidence against Doyle during testimony in a truly offensive way.

Judge Roger Donahue presided over the Iannuzzi hearings and trial. Court records show he disallowed exculpatory evidence going back to the jury. He cut police reports naming witnesses that saw Marie AFTER she was seen leaving the bar through a door held by Paradiso. He disallowed testimony that incriminated the other culprit suspected, the boyfriend, David Doyle.

All during the Iannuzzi case, Burke and Palombo fueled speculation about Joan’s case. Joan’s name, alleged evidence, and allegations were interspersed throughout unrelated hearings and trials.

Authorities demonstrated an aggressive and predetermined bias for a desired outcome.


What were the influences over a fabricated case?

Without question, Burke and Palombo, with the backing of the legal and law enforcement system, influenced the direction of Joan’s investigation. Recovered documents clearly show their conduct during entangled proceedings. The Iannuzzi case was a mockery of our justice system driven by Joan’s disappearance.

The media was very instrumental in driving the state’s narrative. This was a highly publicized and sensationalized case. The media created perceptions with the public, and we are conditioned to “trust” authority. People put blinders on not wanting to think our officials will obstruct justice. That is what happened here.

ITT was an influence over this case, but it was under the radar. Jack McEwan distracted attention from the first leads.

Sadly, even George and Eleanor Webster did influence perceptions. They were quoted in the media frequently. During the Iannuzzi trial, they touted Robert Bond’s credibility. Paradiso was convicted in the Iannuzzi case more for the perception he murdered Joan than seeking real justice for Marie. Assurances were made to the Websters by Pisa. The Websters visited Bond in 1987 at the Somerville prison during a push to take Joan’s case to trial.

During case CR 85-010-S, George was verifiably in contact with William Weld’s office, the US Attorney prosecuting the bankruptcy case. During the sentencing phase of the trial on May 9, 1985, the AUSA handling the case, Marie Buckley submitted three letters written by George Webster. The fact is in certified court records. The irony was this was a month AFTER Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene did NOT exist when Joan disappeared.

Other letters George wrote to officials were recovered. Two letters written to the FBI were in released files. George Webster requested the February 1982 meeting that put the team of Burke and Palombo together on Paradiso matters and started the wheels in motion in the Iannuzzi case.

In trying to understand the Websters, it is important to know a little about their background. Both George and Eleanor have an intelligence background. This is a very secretive family. Their employment in the CIA during the 1950s was not a secret at least in close circles. Whatever they were involved in with the agency was secret. When I met them, George worked for the telecommunications division of ITT. He was the director of Budget and Planning for the Defense Group, the DOD. George’s division was involved in clandestine collaboration with the CIA in the 1960s and 1970s that had a bad outcome. It involved undermining political efforts in Chile to nationalize ITT’s Chitelco.

I have added Eleanor’s obituary to confirm the CIA relationship. Note: The obituary lists John Paul Selsam as Eleanor’s father. She was adopted by Selsam when she was 14, her mother’s second husband. Eleanor was estranged from her real father from the age of 8. An example of the secretive nature. It was years before I learned her father’s real name, Clayton Piggott. Piggott lived in Beverly, MA at the time on Joan’s disappearance and investigation. He was a local printer.

There is a basis to scrutinize whether Joan’s murder was related to Webster secrets.

Round Five

 

[Skigirl]

Getting to the Real Answers – V


What were the behavioral patterns of the participants in the investigation?

The behavioral patterns of the core group are troubling. Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo are quoted continuously in the press making assertions that were NOT supported in actual documents. They continued to make assertions even after facts debunked the notions. I am attaching comments made by Burke and Palombo during a TV segment done in November 1985. The interviewer was Brad Willis on Channel 4 WBZ TV. Note: Remember the timeline. Case CR 85-010-S was in April 1985, affirming the boat did not exist. A report submitted to federal authorities on July 24, 1985, said state, local, and federal investigators had developed sufficient evidence to determine Paradiso murdered Joan in November 1981. They had NO evidence.

Recovered documents affirm Palombo worked with numerous witnesses in comingled investigations. Witnesses then changed their stories and testimony. Witnesses with changed testimony include: Jean Day and Christine DeLisi. Documents also exposed these women were pressured by the prosecutor and law enforcement, threatened with never seeing their children again, and Jean was assaulted. Others include David Doyle, Tony Leonti, Rosemarie Doyle.

Recovered records show witnesses that received enticements or favors from authorities. Witnesses include: Robert Bond, Ralph Anthony Pisa, and Charlene Bullerwell received promises. Bullerwell testified she was pressured by the FBI.

Tim Burke is on record claiming Paradiso was threatening witnesses including Bond, Bullerwell, and Day. Paradiso was incarcerated at the time.

Burke was in multiple courtrooms all over town on entangled matters centering on Paradiso. There was a real pile-on. Palombo appeared in multiple courts, too, testifying against Paradiso in multiple allegations.

Burke and Palombo put forward witnesses with false or unverified stories. They hid exculpatory evidence and put forward fabricated or misrepresented evidence. Burke and a "confidential source" made false assertions to federal authorities.

Palombo testified to a relationship with the other Iannuzzi suspect, David Doyle that was improper between an officer and a murder suspect. Burke sanitized the evidence against Doyle during testimony in a truly offensive way.

Judge Roger Donahue presided over the Iannuzzi hearings and trial. Court records show he disallowed exculpatory evidence going back to the jury. He cut police reports naming witnesses that saw Marie AFTER she was seen leaving the bar through a door held by Paradiso. He disallowed testimony that incriminated the other culprit suspected, the boyfriend, David Doyle.

All during the Iannuzzi case, Burke and Palombo fueled speculation about Joan’s case. Joan’s name, alleged evidence, and allegations were interspersed throughout unrelated hearings and trials.

Authorities demonstrated an aggressive and predetermined bias for a desired outcome.


What were the influences over a fabricated case?

Without question, Burke and Palombo, with the backing of the legal and law enforcement system, influenced the direction of Joan’s investigation. Recovered documents clearly show their conduct during entangled proceedings. The Iannuzzi case was a mockery of our justice system driven by Joan’s disappearance.

The media was very instrumental in driving the state’s narrative. This was a highly publicized and sensationalized case. The media created perceptions with the public, and we are conditioned to “trust” authority. People put blinders on not wanting to think our officials will obstruct justice. That is what happened here.

ITT was an influence over this case, but it was under the radar. Jack McEwan distracted attention from the first leads.

Sadly, even George and Eleanor Webster did influence perceptions. They were quoted in the media frequently. During the Iannuzzi trial, they touted Robert Bond’s credibility. Paradiso was convicted in the Iannuzzi case more for the perception he murdered Joan than seeking real justice for Marie. Assurances were made to the Websters by Pisa. The Websters visited Bond in 1987 at the Somerville prison during a push to take Joan’s case to trial.

During case CR 85-010-S, George was verifiably in contact with William Weld’s office, the US Attorney prosecuting the bankruptcy case. During the sentencing phase of the trial on May 9, 1985, the AUSA handling the case, Marie Buckley submitted three letters written by George Webster. The fact is in certified court records. The irony was this was a month AFTER Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene did NOT exist when Joan disappeared.

Other letters George wrote to officials were recovered. Two letters written to the FBI were in released files. George Webster requested the February 1982 meeting that put the team of Burke and Palombo together on Paradiso matters and started the wheels in motion in the Iannuzzi case.

In trying to understand the Websters, it is important to know a little about their background. Both George and Eleanor have an intelligence background. This is a very secretive family. Their employment in the CIA during the 1950s was not a secret at least in close circles. Whatever they were involved in with the agency was secret. When I met them, George worked for the telecommunications division of ITT. He was the director of Budget and Planning for the Defense Group, the DOD. George’s division was involved in clandestine collaboration with the CIA in the 1960s and 1970s that had a bad outcome. It involved undermining political efforts in Chile to nationalize ITT’s Chitelco.

I have added Eleanor’s obituary to confirm the CIA relationship. Note: The obituary lists John Paul Selsam as Eleanor’s father. She was adopted by Selsam when she was 14, her mother’s second husband. Eleanor was estranged from her real father from the age of 8. An example of the secretive nature. It was years before I learned her father’s real name, Clayton Piggott. Piggott lived in Beverly, MA at the time on Joan’s disappearance and investigation. He was a local printer.

There is a basis to scrutinize whether Joan’s murder was related to Webster secrets.

Round Five

I have to take exception to the characterization of Eleanor, or at least to using the mention of her step- rather than birth father in her obit. She had been estranged from her father since the age of 8. Eight year olds rarely become estranged from a father without very good reason. They listed the person she considered her father. There is absolutely nothing wrong with or sneaky about it and I think it's an unfair insinuation. It also sounds like it wasn't a secret at all that they worked at the CIA. Otherwise it wouldn't be in a publicly available obit.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Skigirl,

Thank you for your comment. In looking at a 35-yeaar-old murder, I looked at everything. I am not making a negative inference. Eleanor considered John Selsam her father, and I have no problem with that. No one ever discussed why she was estranged from her father, and I did not ask. These are simply facts to help understand the circumstances surrounding Joan.

Eleanor was a very insecure person. She grew up in an era when certain things beyond her control, branded someone unfairly with shame. I don't fault Eleanor with that at all. However, that carried over. The Websters are very image conscious. When your child is missing, those things need to be set aside.

Let me give you an example. George's father RN owned a company, Standard Thomas, headquartered in Waltham, MA. The company was sold shortly before I met the family. I was told the company was sold to the Japanese. The company was actually sold to the Allegheny Corp in PA. RN did sell a company to the Japanese, the Otto corporation. RN became CEO of part of the company in 1945, just after WWII. The parent company had concerning ties to Nazi Germany. That would not have fit a desirable image. The Websters never even told me about the company.

The Websters' background in the CIA was known in close circles. Their activities were not. CIA history has some very concerning periods. The point is, these are very intelligent people. It is not likely, in my opinion, that the Websters were deceived. I won't rule it out if someone has knowledge to the contrary. It has been my position if the Websters were lied to, there is abundant verified documents for them to go after the state and federal authorities. If they were more concerned about something that might be embarrassing, that is a problem. A lot of people's lives were upended by this case.

You have to take the blinders off and look at everything about the investigation to get to the truth. I have had to develop a thick skin. This case took on enormous proportions, and a list of involved departments and agencies that was staggering. George and Eleanor Webster were very involved. That is simply a fact. That's what I am trying to bring forward here.

 

[Skigirl]

<snip>

The Websters are very image conscious. When your child is missing, those things need to be set aside.

<snip>

The point is, these are very intelligent people. It is not likely, in my opinion, that the Websters were deceived. I won't rule it out if someone has knowledge to the contrary. It has been my position if the Websters were lied to, there is abundant verified documents for them to go after the state and federal authorities. If they were more concerned about something that might be embarrassing, that is a problem. A lot of people's lives were upended by this case.

You have to take the blinders off and look at everything about the investigation to get to the truth. I have had to develop a thick skin. This case took on enormous proportions, and a list of involved departments and agencies that was staggering. George and Eleanor Webster were very involved. That is simply a fact. That's what I am trying to bring forward here.

RSBM

I just want to be sure I understand your position. It's basically that the Websters knew what happened to their daughter, and that they knew that someone was framed for her murder and to keep up appearances, they went along with the story? Is that it in a nutshell?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Skigirl,

The Websters are highly organized people. They plan things down to the smallest detail. They are very intelligent.

George and Eleanor publicly cooperated with Burke's boat theory in 2006. That was concerning with what I knew about the case.

There are four possibilities I see:

1. The Websters were deceived.
2. The Websters are in denial.
3. The Websters are not grasping reality.
4. The Websters went along with a scapegoat.

None of these are very good possibilities. I have the personal experience and observations to cross off at least two of these. They are not delusional and I don't believe they were deceived. Recovered records support those conclusions. However, I was, so I leave that possibility on the table.

What I do believe after reviewing extensive records and the obstacles I have encountered is that Joan's murder has to do with Webster secrets. I have provided documentation to current custodians to support my questions.

As I go through the next few posts, I think you will get a clearer picture. I am stepping through this very carefully. I have named an individual to authorities based on the evidence in the records.

I lived this tragedy every day. I trusted the information I was told. If the Websters were lied to or threatened, I want to see them get the justice Joan deserves. If Joan's loss was a result of the Websters' secrets, that put other family at risk. That includes my children.

That's why I dug into this case.

 

[eve carson]

Getting to the Real Answers &#8211; VI


Who supports the false narrative?

Tim Burke certainly supports his boat theory. He still maintains publicly Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. MSP officers showed in fairly big numbers for Burke&#8217;s book signing. It is fair to assume they support the narrative as well.

The current custodians have not supported the boat theory privately. They affirm the case is still open and unresolved. However, they have been an obstacle to reconcile records. There are serious discrepancies in recovered records that raise questions about misconduct of authorities involved in the investigation.

PI Ray Morgan, Det. Gordon Richards of the Beverly PD, and Hamilton police officers did NOT believe the narrative and said so to the Websters. That is corroborated in recovered documents.

Reporters who followed the case are mixed. Some have supported Burke and the boat theory and even helped with his book. Others have expressed to me that they had serious doubts. The current climate of the media is largely influenced by their source of criminal matters, the DAO. It&#8217;s fair to conclude, current authorities have an interest to keep a lid on a scandal of misconduct that adds to an already lengthy list from that era.

George and Eleanor (Terry) Webster came out publicly when Burke first announced his 2008 book. They cooperated with the book in a public statement made to the press on November 28, 2006. The article is attached and there are other examples.

Who are other identifiable victims?

This case left a trail of victims. Joan is an obvious victim. Family, friends, and loved ones are also victims of a dysfunctional system. Anyone who was lied to were victims. My children are my greatest concern on that list. They were not born during many of these events.

Marie Iannuzzi and her family and friends are victims, denied justice. Recovered documents support this was a wrongful conviction.

Witnesses that come forward in multiple allegations against Paradiso. One was charged as an accessory and federal charges during the bankruptcy case. One witness was assaulted. Two witnesses were threatened with never seeing their children again.
Dedicated legal and law enforcement are victims. As an example, some were sent into very dangerous conditions diving to recover the boat. It only takes one bad apple to spoil a barrel. Current authorities put their own reputations on the line shielding misconduct.

The public was also victimized. Public servants are responsible for public safety. During Joan&#8217;s investigation, public safety was not the priority. As an example, Tony Pisa, once on death row, walked out a free man. David Doyle, Marie&#8217;s boyfriend escaped prosecution when the overwhelming and verifiable evidence pointed in his direction.


What are the obstacles to current resolution of the case?

I have encountered obstacles.

The tendency is to feel empathy for the family. Even today, people acquiesce to what the Websters believe. As a family member of a murder victim, that is unkind and abusive. No answer in a murder case is pleasant, but only the truth allows for genuine healing. The family supports the theory Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. That is an impossible scenario; the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. Be clear, I am not making judgments.

Why the Websters support the narrative is another discussion. The authorities have a responsibility for truth and justice.

In response to an FOIA request on April 2, 2017, current authorities affirmed they do NOT have several items in voluminous records to support Burke and Palombo&#8217;s documents filed with the courts and reported to other agencies. They are missing records from the bankruptcy case CR 85-010-S affirming the boat did not exist. They do not have evidence supporting the fake .357 magnum. The files are missing evidence to support Burke&#8217;s claim about Joan&#8217;s bracelet. The custodian&#8217;s files are missing corroborating evidence about Burke&#8217;s claim about the red silk jewelry pouch. Their files were missing records about a very traumatic extortion incident. The custodian&#8217;s records are missing the invalid boat registration Burke submitted to the Federal District Court of RI. They do not have any of the records in the comingled case of Marie Iannuuzzi that introduced alleged evidence in Joan&#8217;s case.

On May 1, 2017, I met with the Essex County DAO. ADA John Dawley affirmed he knows Tim Burke and did not want to focus on him. That is a conflict of interest. ADA John Dawley indicated he had to weigh whether to bring up old wounds looking into this case. In a properly functioning DAO, there is nothing to weigh; you seek truth and justice in an open homicide under your stewardship. I expressed concern for vulnerable individuals. ADA Dawley indicated their safety is impacted if I continue to probe so deeply. I have paraphrased the comment, but can quote him precisely. I asked for clarification of the comment. The comment concerns me since I was there bringing forward verified documents in an unresolved homicide. No victim or witness should be encouraged to remain silent. That happened all throughout Joan&#8217;s investigation and entangled cases. ADA Dawley affirmed Bond is probably the only individual on record claiming Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. Bond is not credible. The DAO argues exemptions to release other documents to reconcile with documents obtained properly from other sources. An appeal is ongoing. The DAO, just as in prior efforts, is stonewalling. ADA Dawley indicated the CIA conducted an investigation. I have not been able to confirm that. The CIA is not too forthcoming with records. ADA Dawley indicated they obtained the boxes of records from the MSP investigators in 1990, after Joan&#8217;s remains were discovered. Those records are missing critical pieces. Burke also removed a box of documents when he left the Suffolk County DAO in September 1985. Records are not to be removed from a DAO.


It does not surprise me there are missing records.

The next posts will start to dissect who fits the criteria of the offender(s)


Round Six

 

[eve carson]

Crime Scene Path

I am attaching three maps. This is to give you a visual of the path of Joan's murder.

The first map shows several points: the airport, location of the purse and wallet, the location of the Great Lynn Fire, and the gravesite. These are known and confirmed points. The map also shows points indicated by authorities investigating Joan's disappearance: location of the boat, location of the fake .357 magnum, and location of the suitcase.

The second map cancels the points on the map based on discrepancies with the alleged crime.

1. Case CR 85-010-S affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981.
2. Recovered documents support the gun was fabricated evidence. Divers for Burke's "confidential source" John O'Connell found a Mercedes, not a gun.
3. Numerous discrepancies leave the date and location of the recovery of the suitcase in question.

These are not legitimate points on the map.

The third map marks the most direct path from the airport to the gravesite. Note: Roadblocks were set up going into Lynn, MA on Route 107, the Lynn Marsh Road, and east. The whole area was blocked with a 12-alarm fire that began around 2:30 a.m. on November 28, 1981, hours before Joan landed, and burned for two weeks. The offender had to divert to the west to continue north.

Broadway Street angles off of Route 107 and goes north through Peabody, MA. There is only one way heading north to get to the gravesite, that is off Route 128. The blue dotted line follows that route.

[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB][SUB][SUP][/SUP][/SUB][SUB][SUP][/SUP][/SUB]This is the most probable path of the crime.

 

[jgfitzge]

Eve, I am reading this and all I can say is wow...first off..sounds like he is either discouraging you or at worst..putting out a "veiled or soft" threat.. The obvious question...why doesn't he let another ADA handle the case?

"On May 1, 2017, I met with the Essex County DAO. ADA John Dawley affirmed he knows Tim Burke and did not want to focus on him. That is a conflict of interest. ADA John Dawley indicated he had to weigh whether to bring up old wounds looking into this case. In a properly functioning DAO, there is nothing to weigh; you seek truth and justice in an open homicide under your stewardship. I expressed concern for vulnerable individuals. ADA Dawley indicated their safety is impacted if I continue to probe so deeply. I have paraphrased the comment, but can quote him precisely. I asked for clarification of the comment. The comment concerns me since I was there bringing forward verified documents in an unresolved homicide. No victim or witness should be encouraged to remain silent."

 

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge,

I am not the only one "discouraged " from digging into this case. I think it is fair for residents of MA to understand how their public servants operate. Dawley is the First Assistant DA in Essex County. He's the one with the control over what happens in this case. Based on the meeting May 1, 2017, I do not have much confidence. The case needs exposure.

I have recovered some very damning documents. The DAO is currently stonewalling to respond to an order from the Superintendent of Records.

There are some stunning revelations yet to come.

 

[eve carson]

Developing a Mental Map of the Killer

I had the good fortune to discuss this case with a criminal investigator who participated in a forensic conference where I presented Joan's case. Once I saw what was in recovered records, I instinctively started looking at the course of the investigation. The criminal investigator laid out certain criteria to look at to identify an offender. I already had gathered the information that develops a profile or mental map.

Based on the known facts in the case and learned in recovered documents, the following list is the criteria to identify an offender. Please add to this if there are factors you identify.

1. The culprit had transportation and mobility around the Boston area.
2. Criminals tend to operate in a comfort zone, familiar areas where they feel they will not be discovered. For example, they will conduct nefarious activities in places they know like work or home locales.
3. The culprit blended into the surroundings without drawing attention.
4. The culprit was able to gain confidence without causing alarm.
5. The culprit was organized. It is reasonable to conclude based on recovered records that this was premeditated, well planned.
6. The culprit had forensic knowledge, the knowledge to avoid detection. For example, Joan was stripped of all identifiable clothing and discarded in a secluded area.
7. The culprit intended the outcome. The injury was substantial, not accidental.

I have added a photo of Joan's skull discovered on April 18, 1990. The view is the right side. If you look closely, you can see the eye sockets on the right. Hair remained attached to the skull. The jaw, upper and lower, was dislodged from the skull. Most of the dentals were recovered. Note: The skull is the second hardest bone in the human body. The elbow is the hardest. This injury took enormous force and would be instantly fatal.

8. Identify associates or colleagues of the offender.
9. Identify behaviors of the culprit.

I will begin to break this down. Anyone who thinks the injury sustained was caused by a whiskey bottle on a boat 35 feet underwater is not dealing with reality.

 

[eve carson]

Applying the Criteria or Mental Map to the Investigation

Recovered documents support the explanation for Joan&#8217;s loss was deliberate. I go back to the first question, why. Before I could try to identify who committed such a horrific crime, I had to understand the group throwing the investigation off track. Unfortunately, there are plenty of bad actors who were capable, but what accounts for the core group throwing the investigation off the scent?

I grew up with a lot of common sense. The first piece for me was looking at the investigators for some of the answers. Five officers were named working with informant Robert Bond and came up with a false statement. Three of them were MSP, one was a BPD sergeant, and one was a court officer.

1. Four of the officers likely had ready transportation and easy mobility around the Boston area.
2. Two of them were assigned to the F Barracks at Logan, the last place Joan was seen alive.
3. A uniformed officer would blend in most any surrounding. An officer out of uniform might be noticed.
4. A badge easily gains confidence. That&#8217;s who we seek if there is trouble.
5. Law enforcement is necessarily organized. Organization was necessary to divert the investigation.
6. It goes without saying, law enforcement have forensic knowledge.
7. Recovered documents support authorities achieved the desired outcome of the investigation.
8. Robert Bond named four individuals that made promises he relied on. These are the associates or colleagues involved in the investigation. Three of them were the core of Joan&#8217;s investigation: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro. SA Steve Broce worked with Palombo and Burke regarding the boat. Judge Roger Donahue cut exculpatory evidence from going back to the jury.
9. The behaviors of this team have been detailed in previous posts. To summarize: they promoted false or misleading evidence. They concealed exculpatory evidence. They piled on allegations. They put forward witnesses with unverified stories or accusations known to be false. They enticed some witnesses. They coerced or threatened other witnesses. Donahue judged himself and the conduct in his courtroom on two new trial motions for the Iannuzzi case. Burke and Palombo filed documents with the court and other agencies that were false.

Not a very good scorecard. Recovered documents support excessive misconduct in Joan&#8217;s investigation and comingled allegations surrounding Paradiso.

Applying the criteria or mental map to the core team made this an area for further examination.

Who were they shielding?

 

[eve carson]

Who did authorities shield?


I considered the core group were out to make a name for themselves. That answer really did not address the level of misconduct evident in the records. One factor supporting this is a case of misconduct is the level of resistance from current custodians. They keep objecting to release of records that show police &#8220;methods.&#8221;

There is a notation in recovered police reports on December 8, 1981. The lead Joan was seen at the airport talking to a man behind the counter was deflected.

Recovered police reports also had an entry on December 21, 1981, identifying template numbers for a composite of a bearded man seen leaving the airport with Joan. A cabbie provided the description. &#8220;Coincidentally,&#8221; another call came in within the hour suggesting another composite based on a psychic&#8217;s vision muddying the water. The composite from the cabbie&#8217;s description was suppressed. I did not learn about the composite until 2009 until I recovered records.

The diversions began very early. Was this simply human error? In hindsight and the benefit of seeing what is in the records, I believe it was deliberate. When you have a witness who was able to provide a description, you don&#8217;t suppress that information when you are looking for a missing person.

That was the person to identify.

During the research into this case, I identified an address. The address is 247 Lynn Street, Peabody, MA. I mapped the location. I am attaching the previous map with the address marked. I made slight adjustments from the address to the gravesite. There was a shorter distance to enter Route 128.
This was late at night; traffic would have been light. However, moving north toward Beverly to get on Route 128 would have had stop lights and slower speeds. It made more sense to get on a highway as soon as possible given the address. Driving from the address to the gravesite took me about 15 minutes during a busier time of day. The map is attached.

The location of the gravesite is not someplace one would just happen upon. In the dark of night, you would have to know your way around. The location is another indicator this was premeditated. This was not a random disposal like other murder victims authorities assigned to Paradiso.

It is reasonable from the location, the offender intended Joan would not be found.

 

[eve carson]

Getting the Real Answers &#8211; VII


Who fits the basic criteria and had opportunity?

The address identified was not just a random address. It was the address of a known individual with a verifiable interest in Joan&#8217;s case.

He grew up in the Boston area and was familiar with the area.

He was well connected in the Boston area.

The individual worked at the airport the last place Joan was seen alive.

A common route to the airport from the residence goes southbound on Route 107, the location of Joan&#8217;s purse and wallet.

The address is west of the barricades headed north toward Lynn on November 28, 1981, due to the Great Lynn Fire.

He was described as a friend of David Doyle, Marie Iannuzzi&#8217;s boyfriend, by a Doyle family member.

He was familiar with the Iannuzzi murder. Some Iannuzzi family members have indicated this individual spread a lot of bad stories about Paradiso to Iannuzzi family members. There are public statements.

He liked to ride a motorcycle. The area on Chebacco Road, the gravesite, was known to law enforcement for criminal activity, and a recreational area for motorcyclists, hikers, and such.

Former Hamilton Police Chief Walter Cullen indicated to my PI this individual would be familiar with the gravesite area.

He was known to authorities.

He was a very big man, 6&#8217;4&#8221; and 240 lbs. He played high school football with Paul Cavanagh. Cavanagh became an undercover agent in the Boston FBI office. He infiltrated the mafia under the alias Joe Fitz.

He had a beard.


Significant and verified points in Joan&#8217;s investigation, the airport, Route 107, and the gravesite are all familiar places for this individual.

This is a person of interest meeting criteria that fit the offender.

Round 7

 

[eve carson]

A Concerning Connection for the Person of Interest


On October 9, 2009, the PI accompanied me to Shirley Prison to meet face to face with Robert Bond. Mr. Bond revealed a few morsels even though he maintained his Paradiso story. He indicated the Websters came to see him the winter of 1987. There was a push at that time to take Paradiso to trial for Joan&#8217;s loss. This visit is not confirmed. Bond did have nickname for George Webster he used during our meeting.

Bond indicated he was taken to Lemuel Shattuck Hospital in early February 2008. He said authorities told him he was there for treatment of prostate cancer. He said he was not sick and knew nothing about it. He was taken up to the floor and room where Leonard Paradiso was dying of bladder cancer. Paradiso was not very lucid at that time. The timing was suspicious. Burke&#8217;s book was about to be released. Possibly fishing for a &#8220;deathbed&#8221; confession supported by authorities who facilitated the visit. This visit was confirmed. There was no confession.

Bond also indicated he corresponded with someone; his pen pal was the same person that lived at 247 Lynn Street, Peabody, MA on November 28, 1981, when Joan disappeared. According to Bond, the man corresponded with him up to the time Joan&#8217;s remains were recovered. The recovery was in April 1990. According to Bond, the man instructed him not to change his story.

The meeting was documented to verify the statements he made. Anything Bond says needs to be verified. He is not credible and the MA Parole Board finds him deceitful and extremely dangerous. Current custodians would have to do their job to investigate and verify if the two corresponded. It is possible to establish the veracity of Bond&#8217;s claim.

However, it has been verified through recovered documents, these two men, Bond and the person of interest, did have contact, and had contact at a relevant time during Joan&#8217;s investigation.

Bond is not a terribly smart individual. A lawyer who assisted with the PI stated Bond may be the least intelligent person he had ever met. That is a pretty stunning statement from a defense attorney. That makes it important to pay attention to the little morsels that came out. He probably didn&#8217;t think those tidbits were important. Whether the letters are a fact is not established. Bond volunteered the information; it was not a follow up on some previously known contention.

In Bond&#8217;s written statement, many details are known to be false. However, there is one correct detail that supports Bond spoke with the killer or someone who knew what happened to Joan. Authorities claimed Bond learned his info from Paradiso. Too many allegations were false in both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases to support that assertion. He also spoke to the person of interest.


Verified documents affirm contact between Bond and the person of interest, a troubling connection.

 

[eve carson]

A Sleepless Night


During the course of researching this case, certain pieces of information have caused sleepless nights. It is very unsettling to go through this. Tonight will be such a night.

I received new information today. The pieces are filling in a bit at a time. I learned more about Joan&#8217;s departure from the airport today. She knocked on a cabbie&#8217;s window and asked him to take her to Cambridge. Her suitcase was loaded in the trunk. I can now answer the question if she had her luggage with her. Yes. There was a man with her. He also had a suitcase. The cabbie gave a bit of a description of that suitcase and said it was extremely heavy. The cabbie had trouble loading it. The bearded man was unhappy with that and exchanged words with the cabbie. He indicated they (Joan and the bearded man) would take another cab. They got in the next vehicle in line outside the Eastern terminal.

The cabbie described the man to compile a composite. This composite was suppressed by authorities. So all the reports that came out that said Joan just vanished were bogus. She was seen. The cabbie could not identify the &#8220;cab&#8221; or "taxi company" behind him, but specified the color of the vehicle. These are concrete leads that were ignored or deliberately hidden. There are other details in the report that police had in their files.

The description and the composite DO NOT match Leonard Paradiso. The description of the incident suggests there were at least two people in the vehicle with Joan, the bearded man and the driver. The dispatcher called the first cabbie to see if he was OK. She confirmed the cabbie had some difficulty, but could handle it. Incident confirmed.

The discovery of the wallet and purse was confirmed. My information was correct about the individual who found them. The man did not call police. He called the number hand written on a business card, if lost call this number. I do know the name on the card. It is strange to me there would be a note to call the number if found.

More was learned about the suitcase recovery. According to the report, it was in a locker at the Park Square Station in Boston for 30 days. When opened it was placed in a caged area for another 30 days before the name on the tag was noticed. Why did Burke publish the luggage was found at the Port Authority in NYC? The timing would place the suitcase in the locker on November 29, 1981, the day after Joan disappeared. The name on the tag was noticed on January 29, 1982, 2 months after Joan disappeared.

There is a hand written note on one of the reports that struck me as odd. It refers to something that a witness claimed about Paradiso in sensational testimony. Go back and review the witness information about Charlene Bullerwell. That is too much of a coincidence for my comfort. Nothing corroborated her claim.

The report also corroborates something Bond indicated in his written statement. It is something only authorities would know if they had access to this eye witness report from the cabbie. Paradiso would not know it to &#8220;confess&#8221; to Robert Bond.

It is a reasonable conclusion that new information continues to support.

This was deliberate. This was a cover-up.

 

[eve carson]

Who is the bearded man?

The bearded manis the lead that was critical. In fact, with the latest information, it is now confirmed Joan left the airport with him. When I started getting into the records, my instincts told me more than one person had to be involved in Joan&#8217;s murder. Certainly there were multiple people involved in diverting the investigation. Now evidence points to a second person at the airport, the driver of the vehicle behind the witness.

Back to the lead from an eye witness, the bearded man. I am posting four comparisons to the composite. I welcome all of your comments and input.

The fact there was an identified individual and a vehicle is really upsetting. How did the other vehicle or &#8220;cabbie&#8221; just vanish? If it was a legitimate cab, someone would have come forward with all the publicity. It does not support authorities were looking for Joan.

This looks very premeditated.

 

[jgfitzge]

A Sleepless Night


During the course of researching this case, certain pieces of information have caused sleepless nights. It is very unsettling to go through this. Tonight will be such a night.

I received new information today. The pieces are filling in a bit at a time. I learned more about Joan’s departure from the airport today. She knocked on a cabbie’s window and asked him to take her to Cambridge. Her suitcase was loaded in the trunk. I can now answer the question if she had her luggage with her. Yes. There was a man with her. He also had a suitcase. The cabbie gave a bit of a description of that suitcase and said it was extremely heavy. The cabbie had trouble loading it. The bearded man was unhappy with that and exchanged words with the cabbie. He indicated they (Joan and the bearded man) would take another cab. They got in the next vehicle in line outside the Eastern terminal.

The cabbie described the man to compile a composite. This composite was suppressed by authorities. So all the reports that came out that said Joan just vanished were bogus. She was seen. The cabbie could not identify the “cab” or "taxi company" behind him, but specified the color of the vehicle. These are concrete leads that were ignored or deliberately hidden. There are other details in the report that police had in their files.

The description and the composite DO NOT match Leonard Paradiso. The description of the incident suggests there were at least two people in the vehicle with Joan, the bearded man and the driver. The dispatcher called the first cabbie to see if he was OK. She confirmed the cabbie had some difficulty, but could handle it. Incident confirmed.

The discovery of the wallet and purse was confirmed. My information was correct about the individual who found them. The man did not call police. He called the number hand written on a business card, if lost call this number. I do know the name on the card. It is strange to me there would be a note to call the number if found.

More was learned about the suitcase recovery. According to the report, it was in a locker at the Park Square Station in Boston for 30 days. When opened it was placed in a caged area for another 30 days before the name on the tag was noticed. Why did Burke publish the luggage was found at the Port Authority in NYC? The timing would place the suitcase in the locker on November 29, 1981, the day after Joan disappeared. The name on the tag was noticed on January 29, 1982, 2 months after Joan disappeared.

There is a hand written note on one of the reports that struck me as odd. It refers to something that a witness claimed about Paradiso in sensational testimony. Go back and review the witness information about Charlene Bullerwell. That is too much of a coincidence for my comfort. Nothing corroborated her claim.

The report also corroborates something Bond indicated in his written statement. It is something only authorities would know if they had access to this eye witness report from the cabbie. Paradiso would not know it to “confess” to Robert Bond.

It is a reasonable conclusion that new information continues to support.

This was deliberate. This was a cover-up.

Hi Eve,

OK, this answers a question I posed before. So, assuming you believe this information is solid, Joan did pick up her checked-in suitcase and left the airport terminal with that suitcase. OK, so I can eliminate asking about baggage as a reason for talking to the counter person. So, it could be nothing, just an innocent, quick query or on the other end it could be a query about someone she was supposed to meet...not sure about this...Mr. Beard in all likelihood didn't need to involve an airline or airport employee to pull his scam off.

Now, a couple of things don't make sense...in those few minutes Joan was the one who tapped the window of that first available cab, and Mr. Beard just about had the suitcase in the trunk. So, if Mr. Beard's heavy suitcase (btw, how did that suitcase just show up...) got into the trunk and the cabbie went into the cab would they have driven off in that first cab?? Eve, I am making an educated assumption that since Joan took the lead in getting the cab, at that point, (seconds) the destination was Harvard....So, that gets me thinking what was said or what did Joan think that would make her go with a bearded man back to Harvard?? That is why I previously inquired about any MSP presence around Harvard in the days/weeks before Joan's disappearance. Or maybe it was simply the following exchange,Mr. Beard "I am unsure but, Do you know if Boston cabs drive to Cambridge? I am returning to Harvard..." Joan, "sure, they don;t have to be Cambridge cabs, Boston cabs go there." Coincidentally, I am going to Harvard also? Mr. Beard, "In that case, since we are both going to the same place, are you up for splitting a cab fare?" Joan, "sure, let's go..."

Then, that second "cab" or other vehicle...why did the first cabbie think it was a cab? Were there markings or lettering? special lights? I recall pretty much all Boston cabs (80-90%) were the following colors: Yellow, White and Brown, White and red..It would have been rare to see a black cab or gray cab...


I am also going to make the call that the suitcase never ended up in NY. It sound like it ended up at the Greyhound bus station that same weekend or that Monday.

 

[jgfitzge]

"The discovery of the wallet and purse was confirmed. My information was correct about the individual who found them. The man did not call police. He called the number hand written on a business card, if lost call this number. I do know the name on the card. It is strange to me there would be a note to call the number if found."

Eve, just my two-cents here, If it was me, if I found a wallet, purse, cell phone, etc...my instinct would be to call the owner, not the police. I would only contact the police if all else fails. The man not calling the police to me is perfectly normal. On number hand-written on the business card, was the writing on the business card Joan's? Was the business card in the wallet or the purse? Did it look current or aged?
Let me ask you, putting aside the business card, If I found the wallet would I be able to get it back to Joan? In other words was there a license, credit card, blood donor card, or some type of ID. So, this person called the number on the business card instead of doing a little due diligence? You know, I think, he acted normal. He took the quickest way to get the items back to the owner. I also think it is a "generational" thing, I recall my nana, older aunts, etc..having these "if found contact..notes" in or on their luggage.

 

[jgfitzge]

OK Eve, I will give you my opinion on the composite comparison -

I give a lot of weight to the face shape...you cannot easily disguise that. I also think the the composite got the nose right. On the other hand, the composite has a bit more hair, longer, fuller beard, and the eyes are narrower and look "sleepy" like Robert Mitchum's. Did the witness (s) describe height? weight? gait? voice (low, booming, etc.)

 

[Gruffin]

Your description, Eve, of what happened at the airport is chilling. Sounds to me like some sort of carny trick from hell. Manipulate her into thinking you are rescuing her from a bad cabby so you make her feel the gratitude clean females tend to feel toward rescuers, and then before she fully recovers her wits, cast her into a fake cab driven by the evil incarnate overlord or demonic associate that has been watching you bring her to him for destruction as he decreed, and hop in along side her to help him out. And by not wanting to lift heavy suitcase, encourage her to think you are too weak to hurt her. I wouldn't be surprised if the first "cabby" was involved too, but mostly I think not, even though if the first cabby was at the last kind of obviously creepy the con perhaps would work more certainly by making Mr. Beard seem more of a rescuer type.