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

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge & Gruffin,

Great comments and observations.

I feel the report is solid. Irecognize the officer’s name filing the report. This report was taken by the Saugus PD department. The officer was part of a group already identified doing interviews. Rather than speculate what initiated contact with the person behind the counter, I am focusing on an eyewitness who saw Joan with a bearded man leaving the airport. The person behind the counter may or may not be related to the bearded man. Maybe it was the same person. We might never know, but we do have an identification of Joan and the bearded man.

I think it is reasonable for the bearded man to have brought his suitcase to the curb. The bearded man seemed to be impatient, maybe nervous, that the cabbie had difficulty loading a heavy bag. Joan knocked on the window of the first cab and said “Cambridge.” The cabbie was driving a Town Taxi. The exchanged words and switching cabs seems an overreaction. Many people get in the cab and don’t watch the bag loaded. For a cabbie to specifically comment on a heavy suitcase strikes me as well. They handle a lot of bags, some heavy I am sure. To stand out, it had to be unusually heavy. I think it is fair to consider, based on how things transpired, the bearded man wanted to be in a different vehicle. Maybe Joan knocked on the window of the first cab too quickly to maneuver to a different car initially.

The cabbie did not recognize the next car in line. He did not give any identifying lettering or markings, only the color. It differed from the regular cabs you described. I think the cabbie referred to the next car in the cab line outside the Eastern Terminal. I don’t think they would have driven off in the first cab regardless. That cab was checking in with a dispatcher, so there was a record.

There is some additional information about the bearded man. The cabbie estimated he was in his 40s, wireglasses, and wearing a dark overcoat. The hair was less frizzy than the composite shows and the face fuller. An officer I spoke with back in 2009 vaguely remembered a ponytail. That is not in the report. There is a bit more Iam checking with some other reports, but not ready to get into.

The appearance of the man and the age do not fit the typical guy Joan went out with. She dated young men her own age, clean cut, preppy-like, and very sharp professional type young men. Joan would not likely offer a shared ride to someone she did not know. The bearded man had to have gained her confidence. If this individual addressed her by name. Someone knowing who she was does not necessarily mean she knew him, but that would raise the question again of premeditation. Not very many people knew she was on that flight.

I agree, I think the bag was in Boston and probably put in the locker the next day, based on the police report.

I also agree it is not unusual not to call the police when the man found her wallet. She had all kinds of identification in the wallet, all intact. That is listed in FBI reports. He could have contacted Joan. The only thing noted as missing was cash. The written note may or may not be unusual. I know the name on the card. From my experience, that seems unusual for this person, and I am also looking at other behavior of that person at this time. The hand writing was not identified. I think the individual acted very responsibly.

Remember, the composite was constructed with templates, not a drawing. The hair was less frizzy, flatter. A full beard may have had limited templates to choose from. Wire glasses does not necessarily mean round. The hairline and mouth look right as well as the nose. The comparisons I have posted are all of the same person. It’s hard to say how well the cabbie could see eyes through the glasses. You can see, there are times the individual had a fuller face and different degrees of a beard. The images were striking enough to cause me some very serious concern. I would not have been able to make any identification if I had seen it at the time. I met this person later in time, but he had a very different appearance. Remember, the composite was suppressed, that in itself is a clue.

I agree, I don’t think the first cabbie was involved. The police should have been looking for the bearded man and the car they drove off in. There is no other record of any other cabbie or cab company, limo service having Joan as a fare. The fact these leads were absolutely squelched leaves me feeling chilled too. Based on what transpired, there appears to be very deliberate and nefarious activity. That is the biggest clue.Why was this derailed?

I have had serious tears when I got to certain information. When I saw Joan’s skull, I could not get out of bed for two days. When I learned of the condition how she was found, I spent the afternoon with dry heaves. When I saw the composite for the first time, I stared at it all night with chills going up my spine. I was looking at Joan’s killer or someone who knew what happened. This last information has had a similar effect.

 

[eve carson]

Where did Robert Bond get his information?

As I reviewed documents, I have found examples of allegations in Bond’s statements that were found in other places. Bond and the authorities attribute them to Paradiso, but the information is documented from other people. For example, Bond claimed Paradiso said he slipped on the rocks when he murdered Marie Iannuzzi and pulled her out of the car. The person who slipped on the rocks was Tr. Rick Fraelich, the first trooper on the scene. That is in court records and was information known to the police.

Bond claimed in Iannuzzi trial testimony, Paradiso was paranoid about one cut hair found on Marie’s clothing. That was in the autopsy report. Authorities did not even have the hair tested until they were several days into the trial. It did not match hair samples from Paradiso. That was not mentioned in Bond’s earlier statements. He was moved to a different facility on December 29, 1982. So how did Bond think Paradiso was paranoid about a single cut hair when this went to trial in July 1984? His testimony was embellished by time this went to trial. There are other examples.

With new information, I see the same pattern, tidbits of information in police files ending up in Bond’s statements. The Bond written statement was received sometime AFTER the January 14, 1983, interview with the MSP. Bond claimed Paradiso picked Joan up driving a cab. New information adds greater understanding of his statement and the source of Bond’s information. I am adding two excerpts.

The first one refers to Joan telling the cabbie her destination. The first cabbie is now identified; it was not Paradiso. Authorities claim Paradiso drove the cab with no verification. Only someone with access to the eye witness account would know Joan told the cabbie she was going to Cambridge. It was the bearded man who wanted to change "cabs." Who knows if Joan said anything to the next driver, and the state never asserted Paradiso had an accomplice with a beard. Paradiso never had a beard, and the lead of the bearded man was suppressed. Cambridge would not be the only way to identify her destination, but the same words the cabbie described was also used in Bond’s statement. Not conclusive on its own, but with the second excerpt, the source of evidence becomes clearer.

In the second excerpt, Bond alleges Paradiso tries to discredit what authorities were saying that Joan was seen getting into a cab at 10 pm. Allegedly, Paradiso said authorities were full of it claiming they [Paradiso and Joan] left the airport around 10:30. This was NOT reported, anywhere. The official line was Joan was not seen. I remember all the officials conducting interviews the first few days. It was claimed there was NO trace of Joan and NO evidence she was in any cab. That was 100% false, and only the authorities knew differently. The information Joan got in a cab and seen leaving the airport was in the report taken from an eye witness. Only those that had access or knowledge of this report could have fed Bond the information – the cops.

The authorities never placed Paradiso at the airport, never placed him driving a cab, never placed him at the pier or his boat on November 28, 1981, and never placed him in Hamilton, MA.

 

[eve carson]

Who is the man in the pictures?


A lot of questions, but not all, were answered if the man in the photos is the man in the composite.

He resided at <modsnip> Lynn St, Peabody, MA when Joan disappeared on November 28, 2017.
He was friends with David Doyle, Marie Iannuzzi&#8217;s boyfriend.
He had knowledge of the Iannuzzi case and the location on Route 107.
He knew of Leonard Paradiso.
He was familiar with the Boston area.
He was mobile.
He worked at the airport.
He was known to authorities.
He was familiar with the gravesite area on Chebacco Road.
He had forensic knowledge, how to avoid detection.
He had known communication with Robert Bond.
He had access to privileged information.
There is documented behavior after Joan&#8217;s disappearance.
He was in a position to influence the investigation.
He had a known relationship to Tim Burke.
He had a known relationship with Carmen Tammaro.

I met this individual on one occasion in August 1984 at Logan Airport. He was clean cut at the time.

The photos compared to the suppressed composite are of Trooper Andrew Palombo, an undercover cop assigned to the F Barracks at Logan.

 

[eve carson]

The Most Troubling Indicator


As I indicated in a previous post, I found a pattern of tidbits from other reports showing up in the Bond statements. They showed up in other witness testimony, too. I am adding an example here.

Charlene Bullerwell testified she was pressured by the FBI. She was offered money The testimony is verified in court records. She came out with a sensational story alleging Paradiso was a hit man for the mob, chopped bodies, tied cinderblocks to them, and dumped them in the ocean. This testimony fueled the speculation Paradiso dumped Joan in Boston Harbor. Remember, that is not where Joan was found.

A &#8220;confidential source&#8221; claimed Bullerwell knew where Joan&#8217;s body was dumped. The assertion was claimed in an FBI report prior to locating Charlene Bullerwell. The report also documented Tim Burke&#8217;s assertion Charlene Bullerwell was photographed in a bracelet that looked like Joan&#8217;s one-of-a-kind missing bracelet. Testimony in the bankruptcy grand jury on February 16, 1984, discredited the assertion. She gave the sensational testimony of a &#8220;hit man&#8221; during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing, on March 6, 1984. I have attached one of the headlines on March 7, 1984, from the Boston Herald. This story was everywhere. Let me know if you have trouble seeing these.

There was a hand written note on the report recently recovered. This report was from the eye witness account seeing Joan leave the airport with a bearded man. The description and composite resulting from the report DO NOT match up with Paradiso. The reference to a &#8220;hit man&#8221; is added. This was a very corrupt period in Boston history. The corruption was not only with the mob and mafia, but also in the legal and law enforcement community.

There is an even more damning insertion in Bond&#8217;s statement that will be in the next post.

This story was being concocted.

 

[eve carson]

Is This the Smoking Gun?


When you look at all of thee different pieces and add this fact to it, there is a person of interest for Joan's murder.
The MSP interviewed Robert Bond on January 14, 1983. That is well documented through documents filed with the court. Carmen Tammaro led the interview. Four other officers were present. The interview was taped.

PI Ray Morgan was an investigator that worked for the defense team at one point. Morgan was very firm in his conviction that Paradiso was not guilty of the Iannuzzi murder and had nothing to do with Joan. Morgan informed me about the interview in 2009. When documents were recovered, Morgan affirmed this is what he had access to when he was working for the defense.

I am adding excerpts from the interview. Bond is not clear on manner of death and tells the officers to pick whichever one they want. Remember, Bond testified during the Iannuzzi trial, he met with MSP on January 10, 1983. That was prior to this interview. The letter that Burke claims was the catalyst to set up the interview on the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] arrived AFTER the interview.

The story was, Joan turned down advances from Paradiso, Bond hit her with a whiskey bottle, then raped her. Bond alleged Paradiso took the boat way out and dumped her. That is not where Joan was found. Go back and look at the image of Joan&#8217;s skull. That is a much more severe injury than a whiskey bottle could cause in a crammed boat cabin 35 feet under water.

Bond was specific pointing to the right side of his head seven years before Joan&#8217;s skull surfaced in Hamilton, MA.

In the written letter, Bond is not as confused. Again, Bond indicates a hole on the right side of the skull from the multiple choice manner of death he gave the MSP during the interview. So I am to believe the MSP had a "lucky guess?"

Bond got his information from the cops. He gave the correct manner of death seven years before Joan surfaced and contrary to MOs alleged in other cases the state piled on.


It is a reasonable conclusion, Bond spoke with the killer or someone with specific knowledge of Joan's murder.

 

[eve carson]

Getting the Real Answers &#8211; VIII

What is the disposition of current custodians of Joan&#8217;s case?

The Essex County DAO is the current custodian of the case. I contacted the office in 2006 when some concerns came to light. The current DAO received the case in 1990 after Joan&#8217;s remains were discovered in Hamilton, MA.

In previous correspondence, the DAO denied FOIA requests claiming investigatory and privacy exemptions. The DAO advised they needed to maintain the integrity of the investigation, but always hopeful they would receive credible evidence. They expressed the need for confidentiality in part for people to have confidence to come forward. This has not been my experience.

On August 10, 2015, the Superintendent of Records ordered the DAO to provide an index of their files. The order gave the DAO 10 days. They responded in a timely fashion indicating their intent to comply, but required more time. I finally received a minimal response on January 19, 2017. Just prior to receiving the index, I requested a meeting. The meeting was held with the First ADA John Dawley and ADA David O&#8217;Sullivan on May 1, 2017. I documented the meeting. I submitted a narrowed FOIA request on April 2, 2017, for very specific documents. I received the response on April 25, 2017. It was very telling.

Twenty two items were requested. Documents responsive to two items were provided, although one item was missing &#8220;evidence&#8221; produced to a federal district court in 1985 from the Suffolk County DAO. They were not in possession of 14 items. The response was not clear whether they are in possession of records for two items. Of the remaining six items, privacy and investigatory exemptions were claimed for four items. The exemption claimed for one item for confidentiality of a victim of sexual assault was not proper. There was no sexual assault in this incident. The DAO claimed a grand jury exemption, but the requested document was not part of a grand jury. Those would be exemptions allowed by statute.

It was distressing the DAO was not in possession of critical documents relevant to Joan&#8217;s case. ADA Dawley acknowledged they obtained the files from the MSP investigators. Right there is a problem. I informed the DAO n May 1, 2017, that ADA Tim Burke removed a carton of files when he left the Suffolk County DAO in September 1985. I provided the name of a firsthand witness. They have places to look for missing files.

ADA Dawley affirmed he knows Tim Burke and did not want to focus on him. That is a conflict of interest, or at a minimum has the appearance of a conflict.
Following the meeting, I provided numerous documents to the DAO with a description for each set of documents and the significance. ADA Dawley acknowledged receipt of all documents. Unless the DAO does not consider certified court records and FBI reports as credible, documents provided to the DAO demonstrated serious discrepancies with the investigative team filed with the courts and other agencies.

I provided records documenting concerns for public safety, past and present. When expressing concerns of safety, ADA Dawley indicated probing deeply might bring things out impacting safety. I have the exact words documented. ADA Dawley indicated he had to weigh opening this up and causing painful reminders. There is nothing to weigh; the DAO is charged with the responsibility of truth, justice, and public safety.

The DAO is obligated to report concerns of misconduct and ethical standards require truthfulness.

In a recent FOIA appeal, the DAO feels requests are a burden on their office and a taxpayer expense. The taxpayers paid for a costly and gross miscarriage of justice during Joan&#8217;s investigation and comingled matters. The response also revealed a continued influence to keep a lid on this case.


The DAO is not working to resolve an unresolved homicide under their stewardship.

Round - 8

 

[LadyL]

typo in post #103 November 28, 2017 should probably read 1981?

just noticed & wanted to let you know ... I haven't read all the posts yet

 

[eve carson]

Hi LadyL,

You are absolutely correct. Palombo resided at <modsnip> Lynn Street in Peabody, MA on November 28, 1981 when Joan disappeared. Thanks for catching that. I want to have correct information posted.

 

[eve carson]

Getting the Real Answers &#8211; IX


Why?

When you think about prosecutorial and law enforcement misconduct, there are rationalizations that come to mind; looking to make a name, publicity seekers, and even sheer incompetence.

Teams of law enforcement from multiple departments conducted extensive interviews from December 4, 1981 to December 7, 1981. Calls continued beyond that, but these teams swarmed the airport in that block of time. They interviewed airport personnel, flight crews, passengers, car rentals, and cabbies among others.

I learned about the composite in 2009. The composite was suppressed. The recent report gave correct detail to identify Joan and her luggage. The cabbie provided the description of the man Joan was seen leaving with. The cabbie provided some information about the vehicle behind his cab that Joan and the bearded man left in.

Although the cabbie did not specify, I think it is reasonable to conclude there was at least one other individual driving the vehicle.

This was a concrete lead.


Going back through police reports, media reports, and FBI reports, it was repeated there were NO leads. Authorities maintained Joan simply vanished without being noticed. That is false. I was told there were no leads.

To answer the question why, the onset of misconduct goes back to day one. Burke was not involved yet for another couple months. The MSP were. Early contemporary reports indicated Carmen Tammaro, Palombo&#8217;s superior, was in charge coordinating all the different departments. Go back through the posts and see the part Tammaro played.

Joan either knew the bearded man or he gained her confidence. An undercover cop with a badge could do that.

The recovered records exposed very deliberate and improper activity. Taking this all the way to day one, suggests to me this was a premeditated crime and deliberate cover up.

You do not have to be a seasoned detective to figure out the man Joan was seen with and at least some knowledge of the vehicle they left in, that is who you should be looking for.

I can&#8217;t even describe the pain, even after all these years later, to learn authorities were NOT looking for Joan.

I am conveying my assessment of what really happened to Joan based on recovering and examining records for more than a decade. I welcome all other respectful input.

I think the question of &#8220;Why&#8221; for the current custodians becomes self-explanatory. Current authorities do not want the lid off this case. Taking the position this was deliberate, I go back to the question asked before. Who knew Joan was on that flight? What is the motive for a rogue cop to be involved? Remember, this was not a very proud period in Boston's history.


The explanation offered for Joan&#8217;s loss was a cover-up.

Round - 9

 

[eve carson]

This is where I really need input and help.


Authorities had a legitimate lead. A cabbie positively identified Joan. The cabbie positively identified Joan&#8217;s suitcase. The cabbie affirmed he loaded the suitcase in the trunk of his cab. Authorities knew the name of the cabbie, his cab#, the cab company, and dispatcher confirmation of the incident.

The cabbie provided a description of the bearded man seen with Joan. He provided some description of the bearded man&#8217;s suitcase. The cabbie said he exchanged words with the bearded man, and the man indicated they did not want to take that cab. The cabbie indicated they got in the next car in line and provided the color of the vehicle.

This information was only known to authorities. The composite was provided to the Harvard Campus police. That is confirmed. The composite was provided to a known individual on December 21, 1981. That is confirmed in recovered police reports. The composite nor the incident were made public. The public story maintained there were no leads.

Less than a month after the delivery of the composite on December 21, 1981, Patty Bono placed an anonymous call. Bono grew up with an involved officer, Carmen Tammaro. She is identified in court records. Her unverified story is consistent with the story promoted regarding Joan. However, Joan was not found in Boston Harbor.

On August 1, 1982, Tammaro visits Paradiso in jail after the arrest for Iannuzzi. Four months later the state comes up with a snitch. Tammaro leads Robert Bond through allegations for both murders on January 14, 1983. Bond&#8217;s account of Joan&#8217;s murder is consistent with Tammaro&#8217;s boat allegations. The explanation is false. The boat did not exist at the time.

Bond offers the police a multiple choice for manner of Joan&#8217;s death. Authorities pick the correct manner of death with correct detail seven years before Joan&#8217;s skeleton was found. During the interview, Bond cannot affirm Paradiso drove a cab. Paradiso was a parolee and did not have a hack license. In the written statement, Bond makes the claim Paradiso confided people were saying they saw Joan get in a cab at 10. According to Bond, Paradiso chided they left the airport at 10:30. Nobody knew Joan was seen getting into a cab except the authorities.

The authorities took a legitimate lead and projected the incident on Paradiso then concocted a sensational explanation. This story got bigger daily. They knew the first cab driver was not Paradiso. The bearded man was not Paradiso. They do not connect Paradiso driving a cab at all. They never alleged Paradiso had an accomplice. That would be the bearded man if Paradiso was driving the car they left in. The composite was suppressed.

The cops made up this story and fed it to Bond spiced with tidbits out of various police reports. Palombo gave two women a ride from the airport on December 12, 1982, when they had Bond positioned close to Paradiso at the Charles Street Jail. One of the women had a personal connection. Those would be the type of tidbits to make Bond&#8217;s information seem like it came from Paradiso.

A legitimate search was thrown off right from the start. I don&#8217;t see how it can be viewed as anything other than a cover up. I am open to other input, but I need information to verify, not speculation. There is too much misconduct in recovered records.

Current custodians hold the authority over this case. I have hit some real obstacles. This is a tight circle in Boston, and the wagons have circled.

Joan&#8217;s case is more than unresolved, it has been obstructed, justice denied. The case is solvable. The challenge is how to overcome the obstacles and abuse of power in the system. I saw a report in the Boston papers recently. Researchers uncovered relevant evidence in another cold case out of Middlesex County. They ran into the same problem. The DAO is resistant to a legitimate review of the case. The media is tough to penetrate in Boston. The DAOs are their source of information.

I hope all of you will share your thoughts and ideas to expose this case. Murder is a felony. So is covering up murder.

 

[eve carson]

Happy Birthday, Joan!

Joan was born on August 19, 1956. She would have been 61 tomorrow.

This was a beautiful young woman, inside and out.

Joan Webster deserves justice. I hope anyone who has had experience or insight dealing with the authorities in reexamining cold cases will offer any suggestions or input they think might help. This is the obstacle to overcome right now.

Remember Joan and keep her in your prayers.

 

[eve carson]

Who Knew What?

Sorting through this case required constructing a timeline. Who knew what and when did they know it? I was asked earlier in this thread if the Websters knew the Paradiso boat theory was false and went along with a scapegoat. Facts in the timeline will help determining that.

I am attaching excerpts from recovered police reports. These reports were recovered through an FOIA to the hometown police department in NJ. I do not believe the current custodian in Essex County, MA has these records.

The first excerpt is from December 4, 1981, two days after the purse and wallet were discovered along Route 107 in the Lynn marsh area on the southbound side. The NJ officer identifies Jack McEwan, head of ITT Security, as one of the principles. ITT involvement is in direct relationship to George Webster. He was an executive with ITT. Meehan is also named, the Saugus officer that took the cabbie&#8217;s identification of Joan with a bearded man.

The second excerpt indicating McEwan was involved in interviews at the cab pool at Logan.

The third clip records McEwan&#8217;s concern about an article in the Newark Star Ledger on December 5, 1981. This is the article that indicated Joan was seen talking to a man behind a counter at Logan.

The fourth clip is the sequence of calls to the NJ police department. McEwan suggests another composite. Either this was just an incredible coincidence, or muddying the waters. With all the discrepancies I uncovered in the records, I do not buy into coincidence.

The final report is the delivery of the composite of the bearded man to Eleanor Webster on December 21, 1981. The recent report I received confirms the bearded man left the airport with Joan. The description provided by a cabbie identified Joan and her suitcase. The description of the bearded man is not a description of Leonard Paradiso. Note: I did not learn about the composite until I found it in records in 2009. The public posture maintained there were no leads.

Laying out the facts. Please share your thoughts and input.

 

[eve carson]

Timing?

This is a piece in the timeline that did not make sense to me. At the family's request, an Interpol Blue Notice for a missing person was issued. That makes sense. Joan disappeared from Logan Airport. One avenue for departure from the airport was another flight, possibly international. On the surface, it looks like every possibility is being covered. The request is documented in FBI reports. Information provided by the family was submitted and the notice released.

The question I have is the delay. The Blue Notice was not issued until March 3, 1983. That is more than a year after Joan disappeared from Logan. It does not seem the Blue Notice would be effective at the late date. The FBI was involved beginning on December 3, 1981.

These are the little pieces, out of the public eye, that fill in the gaps. It is the small details that raise serious questions.

 

[eve carson]

Bringing in the FBI

The Websters were very involved with the investigation. I don&#8217;t think that would come as any surprise to anyone. I was aware they made trips to Boston on a constant basis. The Websters were also the source of my information.

An officer in NJ contacted George Bertram in the Boston office of the FBI on December 3, 1981. Tim Burke did not enter the case until February 1982, a result of the Websters&#8217; meeting at Harvard. Burke did not contact the FBI until May 3, 1983. That was after the Bond revelations and contact was with SA Steve Broce in the Financial and Personal Crime Units. Burke takes a lot of credit for bringing the FBI into the case. He did not.

The influence can be seen in the time line, correspondence, and FBI reports of what took place. The next three uploads are correspondence to the FBI from George Webster. These documents were recovered from FBI Zodiac files posted online. I can confirm this is George&#8217;s handwriting. The envelope is dated April 3, 1982. News reports an &#8220;anonymous&#8221; letter mailed from Cambridge at this time. An assistant in the Middlesex DAO at the time affirmed there was no anonymous correspondence.

The Letter dated April 12, 1982, Note the letter is copied to the Saugus PD and Harvard Campus Police. An officer in Saugus compiled the composite of a bearded man from a cabbie description. The Harvard PD provided composite templates to NJ officers who reconstructed the image and handed it to Eleanor Webster.

The second letter dated April 20, 1982, affirms meetings with George and the FBI. These letters coincided with the Penn Zodiac theory. The Websters had considerable communication with Penn for probably close to a year. It seems nonsensical to divert valuable resources to chase after this theory. There were no concrete pieces of evidence for the Zodiac theory. On the other hand, this information was communicated to offices in possession and knowledge of the bearded man lead. The tone of the letter is much like what I experienced, George was always in charge or control.

The letters correspond in time with a meeting scheduled with the BSU, FBI profilers. SA Roger DePue is the agent who came to Boston on April 14, 1982. All this time, Paradiso was under the radar to the public.

In the second report dated April 20, 1982, notice that there was no factual information to develop a profile. This was an exercise in technique, investigative practices. It was interesting to watch the time line of the different insinuations of Paradiso behavior. The profile was constructed based on the information authorities wove into the story: long dark hair, near water, stolen jewelry, use of a gun. Without the actual facts in the records, it all sounded plausible. Things were already going on under the radar indicating the target was Paradiso.

The authorities were not looking for the bearded man and the car Joan left in with him.

 

[eve carson]

Bringing in the FBI

The Websters were very involved with the investigation. I don’t think that would come as any surprise to anyone. I was aware they made trips to Boston on a constant basis. The Websters were also the source of my information.

An officer in NJ contacted George Bertram in the Boston office of the FBI on December 3, 1981. Tim Burke did not enter the case until February 1982, a result of the Websters’ meeting at Harvard. Burke did not contact the FBI until May 3, 1983. That was after the Bond revelations and contact was with SA Steve Broce in the Financial and Personal Crime Units. Burke takes a lot of credit for bringing the FBI into the case. He did not.

The influence can be seen in the time line, correspondence, and FBI reports of what took place. The next three uploads are correspondence to the FBI from George Webster. These documents were recovered from FBI Zodiac files posted online. I can confirm this is George’s handwriting. The envelope is dated April 3, 1982. News reports an “anonymous” letter mailed from Cambridge at this time. An assistant in the Middlesex DAO at the time affirmed there was no anonymous correspondence.

The Letter dated April 12, 1982, Note the letter is copied to the Saugus PD and Harvard Campus Police. An officer in Saugus compiled the composite of a bearded man from a cabbie description. The Harvard PD provided composite templates to NJ officers who reconstructed the image and handed it to Eleanor Webster.

The second letter dated April 20, 1982, affirms meetings with George and the FBI. These letters coincided with the Penn Zodiac theory. The Websters had considerable communication with Penn for probably close to a year. It seems nonsensical to divert valuable resources to chase after this theory. There were no concrete pieces of evidence for the Zodiac theory. On the other hand, this information was communicated to offices in possession and knowledge of the bearded man lead. The tone of the letter is much like what I experienced, George was always in charge or control.

The letters correspond in time with a meeting scheduled with the BSU, FBI profilers. SA Roger DePue is the agent who came to Boston on April 14, 1982. All this time, Paradiso was under the radar to the public.

In the second report dated April 20, 1982, notice that there was no factual information to develop a profile. This was an exercise in technique, investigative practices. It was interesting to watch the time line of the different insinuations of Paradiso behavior. The profile was constructed based on the information authorities wove into the story: long dark hair, near water, stolen jewelry, use of a gun. Without the actual facts in the records, it all sounded plausible. Things were already going on under the radar indicating the target was Paradiso.

The authorities were not looking for the bearded man and the car Joan left in with him.


Let me know if you have trouble seeing any of the documents. I had some problems with uploads tonight.

 

[eve carson]

Indicators of Influence in the Sequence of Events

Tony Pisa was convicted in the first degree for the 1969 murder of George Deane. Review the posting about witness Ralph Anthony Pisa. Pisa contacted the Middlesex DAO in February 1983 after the Bond allegations were plastered all over the media. Pisa had been incarcerated for close to 14 years and knew Paradiso when he was incarcerated for the Constance Porter conviction. Pisa filed numerous motions for a new trial. The Middlesex DAO opposed all motions up to this point.
Pisa initially spoke to the first ADA Tom O&#8217;Reilly. O&#8217;Reilly contacted Burke in Suffolk County and it was investigators in the Suffolk office that conducted the &#8220;investigation&#8221; Pisa&#8217;s allegations. Pisa&#8217;s story was never verified and was based on alleged conversations with no means to verify.

Pisa was not interested in reward money. He was interested in getting out of prison. He testified in the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing on March 12, 1984. He was released on his own recognizance on March 13, 1984, pending the latest motion for a new trial.

Here is the sequence:
1. Bond allegations reported in the media January 28, 1983.
2. Pisa contacts Middlesex DAO in February 1983 with allegations about Paradiso regarding Iannuzzi and Joan.
3. Middlesex contacts Suffolk County DAO February/March 1983
4. Pisa takes a new polygraph test changing his involvement in the George Deane murder, claiming he was not the shooter. That contradicts witness testimony during the Pisa trial.
5. Pisa moved to a prerelease facility February 1984. The uploaded excerpt is from Pisa testimony on July 13, 1984, during the Iannuzzi trial. He is being questioned by defense counsel Steve Rappaport.

6. MSP connected to the Paradiso matters &#8220;investigate&#8221; Pisa&#8217;s claims including allegations Paradiso murdered Joan.
7. Pisa testifies at Iannuzzi pretrial hearing on March 12, 1984. Note: Pia indicates he spoke with George Webster and made assurances he did not want the reward money.

8. Pisa is released from custody at the prerelease facility on March 13, 1984, on his own recognizance, pending the latest motion for a new trial.
9. First ADA O&#8217;Reilly from County affirmed on July 17, 1984, Pisa would not testify unless he was out of prison.

10. Pisa remained free until his appearance in Middlesex Superior Court on January 3, 1985. Middlesex removed their objection to Pisa&#8217;s motion. The motion for a new trial was negated. The court accepted Pisa&#8217;s changed plea, and sentenced for time served. A man once on death row walked out a free man. Notice points 5 & 6. The reversal would be under the directive of ADA O'Reilly.


The last two documents of the Middlesex reversal are in the list at the bottom of the post. Had problems uploading again.


Anyone seeing the problems with the state&#8217;s methods?

 

[eve carson]

In Attendance

George and Eleanor Webster attended the Iannuzzi pretrial and the Iannuzzi trial. They made regular and frequent trips to Boston. I have personal recollection of posting their very detailed itineraries on the frig. I think most reasonable people would view that as concerned parents; I know I did.

The media always found the Websters for comments at the pretrial and trial. I am attaching one of the articles published at the time in the Lynn Daily Item. All of the local media covered the stories. This example was from July 17, 1984, the day after Robert Bond testified in the Iannuzzi trial. A couple of things to note here. George Webster indicates the MSP kept him apprised of all developments. Andrew Palombo is named in the article. Go back and look at the composite comparisons.

Both George and Eleanor (Terry) commented about Bond as a credible witness. Several other news articles quoted George stating Bond said things he could have only learned from Paradiso. When I look at the full body of Bond&#8217;s statements; written, testimony, and interviews, I do not agree he could only have learned things talking to Paradiso. There are portions of his statement that only the authorities with access to records would have known. Bond also gave correct details for the correct manner of death, before Joan&#8217;s remains were recovered. That was after Bond&#8217;s multiple choice to the MSP.

I agree Bond could not have made up the story he told. I do believe Bond talked to someone with knowledge about what happened to Joan, perhaps the killer, but it was not Paradiso. Joan left the airport with the bearded man. The eye witness description does not match Paradiso. The composite was suppressed. The authorities had it and so did the Websters.

Certified court records affirm Paradiso&#8217;s boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. Although the evidence of that fact was known early in the investigation, the federal case did not take place until April 1985, after the Iannuzzi trial. The media did not cover it. The only reports were after the conviction, not the substance of the case. So it left the perception Paradiso had the boat when Joan disappeared.


The Websters presence and comments to the media certainly had an impact on perceptions.

 

[eve carson]

Three Letters &#8211; A, B & C

On May 10, 1985, Judge Bruce Selya presided over the sentencing phase of case CR 85-010-S of the federal bankruptcy case. At the end of the trial on April 9, 1985, Judge Selya affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene in Joan&#8217;s murder, did not exist by August 1981 when Paradiso filed for bankruptcy. The evidence was undisputed. I am uploading the certification and title page for the sentencing hearing. The bankruptcy was originally filed on August 26, 1981, prior to Joan&#8217;s disappearance. FBI reports listed Joan as a victim of this case. Arguments in the sentencing phase of the bankruptcy case centered on the Joan Webster case.

During the arguments, AUSA Marie Buckley submitted 3 letters from George Webster. They were marked as exhibits A, B, and C.

The appointed defense counsel Owen Walker argued the sentencing recommendations were based on speculation regarding the Joan Webster case; a case that had not been charged. Walker affirmed the Websters contact with the US Attorney in MA, William Weld. Note: William Weld went on to be governor of MA. More recently, he was the VP candidate on the Libertarian ticket in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The prosecution argued for a severe from and after sentence for the bankruptcy case based on the speculation Paradiso murdered Joan Webster on his boat. The arguments were made one month AFTER Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat DID NOT exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981.

 

[eve carson]

To those of you following this thread, take a moment to give me your thoughts. One of the questions I was asked a while back was if the Websters knew Paradiso was a scapegoat and went along with it. I would very much appreciate your thoughts and comments. What do you think? This is a very complex case and not easy to follow everything that went on. I am trying to step through things carefully and provide documents. Feel free to ask questions.

 

[jgfitzge]

To those of you following this thread, take a moment to give me your thoughts. One of the questions I was asked a while back was if the Websters knew Paradiso was a scapegoat and went along with it. I would very much appreciate your thoughts and comments. What do you think? This is a very complex case and not easy to follow everything that went on. I am trying to step through things carefully and provide documents. Feel free to ask questions.

Ok Eve, I have read just about all of your posting and documents concerning the DA, MSP, etc investigation and you definitely make a solid argument on the whole case being was bungled and corrupt from start to present day. I am still struggling with a couple of things, primarily motive. With cases like this with as many wrinkles and multiple parties I try to prevent a few things in my mind from happening...first, don't let every item cause you to see meanings that just are not there. Otherwise, every criminal mystery becomes another JFK assassination where for example, even a man wearing a derby hat crossing the street with a red book gets examined to an extreme and out of scope degree. Related to that is attaching to much credit and meaning to the whole. What I mean by that is taking all of these disparate parties and the individuals and making it work like a Swiss watch. That is why I do not believe this whole thing began and got put into play that Thanksgiving weekend. As I mentioned before, I believe the answer to the MOTIVE lies in the days, weeks, maybe even months before that Thanksgiving 1981 weekend. Based on what happened at the airport on that Saturday night people and plans had to be at the ready to be put into play. Supposedly only a few people knew about the change of plans. Well, it is obvious more than a few knew.

OK, one other thing keeps nagging at me...you have never talked about Joan's siblings, specifically her sister (s?) and their beliefs about what happened. I do not remember you describing the relationship between Joan and/or her sisters and the father. Was it close? distant? dysfunctional? Didn't Joan have a sister that lived in the Boston area, the one who gave her a ride home that weekend and was supposed to take her back. What is her take on this?