Eve and Rocky1,
Thank you for showing an interest in my comments. Perhaps some good news may still come out of all of this.
I will now dissect your posts, and I will reply to both your comments (the more significant ones, that is) in the order you made them. I apologize for the lengthy discourse, but I don’t see any other way of doing this. I ask that you read it through.
“When you go through a tragedy like this, grief is suspended. You continue to cycle through a range of emotions but without closure. I did not know I had so many tears, but I have learned I had many more reliving this case. To get into the source records to see what was going on has been devastating. It is more than frightening to absorb who all was involved in some way.”
I cannot begin to tell how I feel for you. I lost a loved one only a few years back to the dreaded “C,” and still struggle to cope with it all. However, it’s not comparable to the emotional and painful rollercoaster ride you’ve been on. You are a strong-willed woman, Eve. Your resilience, dedication, and unwillingness to give up, despite all the adversities, threats, and humiliation you’ve faced along the way, is a breath of fresh air. There should be more people like you on this planet. Folks who are willing to keep digging, and digging, and digging, until they reach the mother lode, are very rare. A very rare bread indeed! I take my hat off to you. Literally!
“I continue to take the proper steps to work with proper authorities. The determination to seek justice for Joan is in the hands of a very few people. Everyone reading this should shudder at the destructive forces when authority is abused. It has had a ripple effect that has caused irreparable damage for some.”
You are right. It’s the only way to proceed forth. I know at times we’re critical and judgmental of law enforcement, in other words, the apparatus, however, without them, justice cannot be adequately served. I hope and pray that the folks you’re instilling so much trust in will ultimately deliver the results and answers you deserve. Of course, let’s not forget justice. Joan’s deserving of all the justice she can get.
“A man somehow connects with Joan. She knows him. He maneuvers her to a different vehicle. She disappears, and the lead gets buried. The whole apparatus goes after a scapegoat to shield the offender. That scenario as it played out supports premeditation. Someone with that malice would take measures not to be identified. Some sort of disguise is very reasonable to consider. However, there are some things not as easily disguised. The man’s size. The man with Joanwas not Palombo, but Palombo was involved. I think it would be more likely Palombo was in the second car. He may have been hired or bribed to go along with it. Someone suggested before he may have been present and unaware of the final outcome before it happened. Maybe he was coerced to keep quiet. Those are absolutely methods Palombo used with other witnesses. “
Very powerful statements. They do indeed support premeditation. However, there’s a bee that keeps buzzing in my ear. Please forgive me for what I’m about to say. If you find it offensive, let me know, and I will ask the moderators to delete the forthcoming paragraph. It’s not my intention to upset you further. Borrowing a line from Tim Robbins, I don’t mean to be obtuse. I continue reiterating the fact that I’m trying to provide a different way of thinking going forth, without stepping away from what you already know, coupled with the pertinent information (police records, statements, reports, FOIA documents, etc.) you have at your disposal. Everything I know and read regarding Joan’s case has been information you’ve shared on websites like the one we’re on.
Here goes:
What was so special about the person Joan Webster that her cold case runs rings around the Watergate affair, both JFK’s and Martin Luther King’s assassinations? According to all the information, I’ve read, there are more twists and turns in this cold case than on the 800 pages that make up the pathetic Watergate document. And trust me when I tell you that I’ve read it. You see Eve, that’s the little bee that keeps buzzing in my ear. Joan Webster was, and please excuse my brevity, a nobody. Although she was the daughter of wealthy CIA operatives, I can’t see her being a threat to domestic or international affairs. Was she that big a threat that she was deemed unworthy to live, get married, and have children? The three above mentioned examples exemplify the government’s attitude toward foreign invaders both domestic and abroad. Two were assassinated, one of them a president, the other a Baptist minister and activist, while the other, a Commander-in-Chief, resigned in disgrace. Joan Webster wasn’t trying to unite a racially divided United States, nor was she about to break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters. She was merely a student at one of the country’s leading universities who sought after a career in architecture. Thus, why would Palombo and all his cronies, want her dead? In a previous post, I mentioned the possibility that she knew something that could derail “a” career. Be that as it may, it was unlikely serious enough that that, or something else, was deemed necessary to be punishable by a penalty of death. There’s no denying the fact that everything about Joan’s murder alludes to a possible cover-up. However, have you ever pondered on the likelihood that it may just all be a big coincidence? Palombo or one of his partners in crime cannot without a shadow of a doubt be placed at the airport on the night of her disappearance. Palombo or one of his partners in crime cannot without a shadow of a doubt be linked to the second car that night. It’s all speculation and nothing more. The cab driver, although reportedly a credible witness, and the only witness to have provided the authorities with a description of the individual seen that night with Joan, which led to a sketch being withheld by LEA, could not provide additional information regarding the second vehicle. That sketch has since then been released to the public (I think by you), yet nobody’s been apprehended. You say it wasn’t a disguised Palombo and I agree with you. Palombo was 6’4” and according to the cab driver’s statements, the suspect 5’7”. However, by trial and error, over the years I’ve learned not to rely heavily on eyewitness accounts regarding height. There are many convoluted arguments regarding one’s height. And now is not the time or place to debate the problem. However, I will say this; if the cab driver was on the curb while the suspect on the asphalt, or vice versa, don’t you think it’s possible that he got the height wrong? Perhaps the individual was 6 feet tall. It’s not difficult to get someone’s height wrong under the latter circumstances. And during a cold and blustery night when all you want to do is get inside the vehicle as quickly as possible because of the cold weather. Thus, can any solid credence be placed on the cab driver’s height calculation? It takes a brave soul to say yes. And lastly, how can you dismiss the possibility that Joan was abducted by somebody else besides the authorities and for more trivial reasons? Not that murder is trivial. I condemn any murderous activity. We are after all talking about taking human life here. What if her murder was part of a bigger plan that not necessarily involved the CIA or law enforcement?
“As I began piecing this together, I realized if Joan knew her killer, which is more often the case, I might have known him, too. That has given me many sleepless nights. The darkerside of people will show up in other relationships. Were there other crimes? Someone has to be close enough to make those observations. If Joan knew something that threatened dark secrets, she was vulnerable to someone disconnected enough to cause her harm. A good example is Stacy Peterson. I had no knowledge at the time of anything that would put Joan in that position of risk. The brutality of her murder shows enormous rage. That seems very personal to me.”
That is the only correct FACT about this case. That’s the KEY to solving this murder. Find the man, grab hold of the twine, follow its path, and it will lead you to the responsible parties involved in her death. Joan knew her abductor. Not necessarily her killer but she knew her abductor! The chance you knew him is little. I find it highly unlikely that Joan would have confided in you who was part of her circle of friends. The abductor didn’t necessarily have to be in her immediate circle of friends. University campuses are large open places. Kids usually know a friend of a friend by sight. Perhaps that friend of a friend greeted her before but wasn’t automatically included in her “immediate” circle of friends. And that’s enough of a status quo to warrant her getting in the vehicle with the man that, unbeknownst to her, or us, was about to abduct her that fateful night. She had seen him before. Thus she was comfortable enough to trust him that night. Don’t you think if someone you’ve seen or greeted at the university campus approached you outside the airport, struck up a chat, and informed you that they were going in the same direction, and offered you a ride, that you wouldn’t accept the kind gesture? I know I would, although my father gave me $200 that same night. My closest friends have friends. Not all their friends are my friends, but I know them through their friendship. I categorically guarantee that I would get in a vehicle with any of them without blinking an eyelid. There’s a level of humanistic trust that we all find comforting when in this kind of situation. Joan was carefree and a trustworthy. It’s the reason why I find the Paradiso abduction claim ludicrous and nauseating. He stank of both old whiskey and fish. There’s not a snowball chance in hell that Joan would get in the car with him. To get in the car with him, she would have to be manhandled. If she was forced, she would scream and put up a fight. However, Joan went willingly like a lamb to the slaughter. And unbeknownst to her. Poor soul.
Blunt force trauma would undoubtedly have contributed to Joan’s demise. It does not necessarily mean enormous rage. But, the coroner’s report has been withheld. Therefore, it’s impossible to verify if she fell foul to more heinous activities, like stabbing or shooting, which are, in fact, stronger indications of rage killing. Specifically, is she was stabbed or shot multiple times. If the killer stabbed her with a short knife, it’s likely that none of her bones would be scored. Thus, the coroner would find no evidence supporting a stabbing. Strangulation is out of the question because it will never be proven. Unless the perpetrator is apprehended and reveals the sequence of events that led to her murder. Shooting is a possibility, but there would need to be some level of luck involved for the bullet(s) not to damage bones. If she was shot, it would be shown in the coroner’s report. However, thus far, it cannot be verified.
“The motive? That’s always an important question. It is hard to see into the mind of someone so evil. I stumbled across something very upsetting. There were other allegations, other possible victims. The reaction I received addressing concerns is not something I will ignore. There are some who would like me to die. Some threats were anonymous, others from identified persons.”
Motive takes me back to my earlier analogy regarding Watergate, JFK, and King. In other words, I believe there was none! Evil is all around us, sometimes under our roof. It’s not until years later that this malevolent presence is revealed. Perhaps via the police knocking at the front door. I don’t know what seems to be upsetting, but I will say, be careful. These bastards have no empathy or emotions.
Rocky1:
“Very good points. Maybe she wasn't killed that night, and the purse was disgarded a day or two later in the marsh. If that's the case, maybe the blue car started heading towards Cambridge but made a detour before it got there to another location. If that's the case, my bets are that she was killed before they found the purse, although I have nothing base that on.
On the other hand, he/they could have traveled up I 95, or Rt.1 through Topsfield to Hamilton, Spent the night burying her, drove back to Lynn the next day (if it was Polumbo) and tossed out the purse on the way back to Logan where he was working.”
Thank you for your input. You make excellent points yourself. If there was another way of getting to Hamilton that night, then it’s possible that Joan was murdered a few hours after she left the airport.
Eve:
“They can place the suitcase in the identified locker as of 9 am November 29, 1981, the next morning. The date was determined by records for the locker keys. I believe Joan was murdered soon after she left Logan. The suitcase is a good indication of that.”
Plausible but not certain. If Joan was murdered soon after leaving Logan, how was she killed? Blunt force trauma causing a 2”x 4” hole to the right side of her head requires maximum inertia. It’s impossible to swing a bat or something of that sort inside a vehicle. Therefore, was Joan perhaps strangled, shot, or stabbed? If still alive, was the coup de gras delivered at the locale? If she was wrapped in the trash bag, it indicates she was bleeding. Once again, this makes the acts of stabbing or shooting highly probable. The driver didn’t want blood in the vehicle. Blood can be forensically linked to the victim. DNA was in its infancy in the 80s, but it was available. The killer new this. Placing the suitcase in the locker the next morning doesn’t automatically indicate Joan was killed the day before. It’s likely but debatable. If there were two cars involved, and its just hearsay, which vehicle carried the bags? The car with Joan or the other?
