Eve,
Allow me a reply to a few of your comments.
Joan was seen talking to a man behind the counter. What was said is only speculation, but some things can be checked off. It wasn't about missing luggage. It wasn't to call a vehicle or get directions. Maybe she wanted to know where the bathroom was, but she was familiar with Logan. What we do know now, she was with a man at the taxi line, it's fair to consider the man behind the counter told her someone was waiting for her.
Lets think about this carefully and logically, shall we?
If Joan spoke to the man behind the counter (and reports indicate she did) did she approach him, or did he call Joan over to his counter? If he called Joan over to his counter, it suggests he knew what she looked like. Perhaps he knew her personally. But from where, and how? Logan airport was bursting at the seams with international and local travelers. Logically, I find it hard to believe that HE called Joan over to his counter. It would have been virtually impossible to spot Joan among all the other travelers. Its like looking for a needle in a haystack. In other words, a great deal of luck was needed for this to have occurred. Furthermore, for this to have happened, he had prior knowledge that she was flying into Logan on that exact flight.
Therefore:
- Someone had instructed Joan to the counter.
- But who instructed her?
- When was Joan instructed?
- How was she instructed
- And for what reason was she instructed to the counter?
Unfortunately, I refute your hypothesis that Joan approached him looking for the bathroom. This wasnt the first time Joan had traveled into Logan. You stated that she was familiar with Logan. Im one-hundred-percent certain that Joan knew the location of the bathrooms along the way. I travel extensively around the world, and the first thing I notice when walking toward the customs counters are women making a beeline for the first bathroom they see.
However, if somebody had instructed Joan to that specific counter, she would have had prior knowledge of the persons name. I find it highly unlikely that she was directed over to a counter without knowing the name of the person she was instructed to speak to. Furthermore, if she didnt know the persons name, SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE KNOWN HIM PERSONALLY. But who was he? Do you have his name? Did the authorities release this information?
There is no indication Joan objected or had any concern to get into another car with the man. She went willingly. I believe it is reasonable to determine at this point, Joan knew the man.
Youre right. Thats one of the only certainties we can take away from this case. But think about the next statement carefully, and logically. If she knew the man outside, the one at the taxi line, and she didnt approach the man at the counter looking for the bathroom, its possible that she also knew him. Thus, it indicates that Joan knew TWO men at Logan that night.
The official cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. If Joan was subdued in some way in the car, it is only speculation.
Correct. However, since nobody but the authorities have been fortunate enough to read the coroners report, you should not be jumping to conclusions. And Im not saying this because Im trying to push my strangulation, knife, or gun hypothesis. Im saying to you; please keep all avenues open. Somewhere along the line, you may still be astonished by what youll find. Theres a reason they dont want you or the public to read the coroners report. You may one day still find additional troubling information regarding Joans death.
Joan may also have arrived at the destination and willingly got out of the car, again, based on her level of confidence in the man. She did know him on some level.
I dont think so! Joans destination that night was Perkins Hall. Theres no way she would have traveled anywhere else that night. Regardless of knowing or not knowing the man. For that to have happened, she would have to have been unaware of her surroundings. However, Joan was comfortable in and around Logan and its environs. Im certain the man told her that night that he would take her to Perkins Hall. Hence the reason she felt comfortable with the situation. She knew him, and he told her he would take her home. However, the moment she became aware that he lied to her, thats when all hell broke loose.
On the map, you will see the path marked that Palombo would take from to and from Logan. I have also marked the access to Route 128 to the gravesite. You can avoid the obstructed area in Lynn following Palombo's routine travel. There are other routes heading out of Logan. It depends where was Joan was taken. To restate an obvious point, we can speculate until the cows come home, but the known points are the most important to keep a proper focus. The star on the map shows where Palombo lived. The black bar indicates where the barricades were in 107. I did recover reports about the fire. Palombo absolutely had awareness of the fire and what roads would be blocked.
You continue trying to make the evidence fit your theory. However, ask any detective, and hell tell you that its a dangerous way of doing business! I've seen investigators come up with a theory and then try to fit the evidence into the theory. Youre doing the same thing here with Palombo. Just because he drove the route, lived near the locale where Joans remains were found, had airport assignment, etc., doesnt make him the killer or the person responsible for her abduction.
My honest opinion? The case remains correctly unsolved because they ignored the evidence suggesting a different path than what they wanted to go down.
One of the first factors that indicated premeditation for me was the deliberate efforts right out of the gate to conceal the lead. Then authorities followed down a very dark path to frame someone, ignoring known facts. The facts were covered up.
They concealed the lead because it led them nowhere! They werent prepared to waste any more time searching for ghosts. The pressure was on. When Paradiso entered the picture, the large target was immediately painted on his back. And the rest is history. Burke entered the picture with one goal in mind. Burke intended to, by hook or by crook, climb up the judicial ladder, and make money. And look where is accomplishments led him? When the railroading snowball starts traveling down the mountain, nothing stands in its way, and everything gets decimated.
However, it does not explain how Palombo and Tammaro picked the correct manner of death with correct details from Robert Bond's multiple choice.
It was sheer luck that that happened. I dont see any reason why Palombo and Tammaro would knowingly insert themselves in the case, and verily Joans murder. If they had, they would be under enormous pressure to justify their claims.
Strangulation breaks bones in the throat. That can be determined in an autopsy.
Youre an intelligent lady. I was hoping youd touch on this subject because it allows me to share a personal story.
Im sorry to say, but in this instance both you and forensic pathology are wrong! Strangulation DOES NOT ALWAYS BREAK BONES IN THE THROAT to render you unconscious leading to death. Leading forensic pathologist, Dr. Cyril Wecht, will verify my claims. Furthermore, strangulation is easily recognized if the bodys been recovered before it begins decaying. Joans body was recovered in its skeletal state. I dont want to comment further on the subject matter because I will be here forever.
When I was 20 years old, something happened to me that changed the course of my life. Its one of the reasons why in a previous post I touched upon the subject of humanistic love, and the reason I never reported the person to the authorities.
When I was 20, I weighed a mere 122 pound (55kg). I was remarkably fit because I was a passionate soccer player. One night at a wedding, through no fault of my own, I found myself in a scary and life-threatening situation. I was sucker punched in the nose and fell to the ground. The man that punched me sat on top of me and began strangling me. I fought as hard as I could but failed to remove his hands from around my neck. He was much heavier than me, which made the task of freeing myself that much harder. As God as my witness, I declare that I was at the point of losing consciousness when the individual let go. Another two seconds and I would have lost consciousness. Perhaps he felt the life draining out of me and removed his hands from around my throat. Although I had the strangulation marks around my neck, no bones were damaged. And to cut a long story the man is now my father-in-law!
It was late at night. She had all of her stuff to lug around, she did not need to worry about saving a few bucks, she was still dressed from the cocktail parties in NJ. She was reasonably conscious of her surroundings. She would not take off impulsively to a party. She would have wanted to get back to her dorm, get organized and get comfortable.
It seems that unknowingly you agree with my hypothesis about Joan wanting nothing more than to go home that night (see above). Furthermore, it validates my theory that Joan would have reacted (all hell broke loose) when she became aware that they werent about to take her to Perkins Hall. And it validates my hypothesis that she WAS PERHAPS STRANGLED AND RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS.
We went to NJ. The only person that cried over the holiday was me. The Websters were all very stoic. It's not fair to make any judgment how another person processes grief. However, it struck me, that was not at all the kind of emotional restraint I grew up with. George made a comment over Christmas that struck me. He said, Joan is gone, we will have to move on. Move on was a phrase I heard on a frequent basis in the family. I think it is fair to conclude, the family was resigned to her loss at that time.
Ive always been astonished by parents that dont shed a tear when losing a child, regardless of their age. As a parent myself, I could not begin to imagine how I would react if somebody were to harm one of my loved ones. I assure you that I would not be stoic, but an emotional wreck. Do parents who behave in such puzzling ways really love their children? To me, theyre nothing more than cold-hearted critters, without a soul.
I can't give you a definite time when I felt Joan was dead. It was probably when the Bond allegations started to come out, January 1983. Even though she was still technically a missing person, she was discussed as a murder victim. I relied on information I learned from family and authorities about the Paradiso theory. It was alleged she was dumped in Boston Harbor. However, I knew the boat theory was implausible when Joanwas found in 1990. She was buried more than 30 miles from the alleged crime. Before that, I had no awareness she was buried. Digging into the case, I learned the explanation was impossible; the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.
If I told you that there are indications suggesting that she was linked to a grave, in other words, buried, as early as 1984, would you believe me? Moreover, why would someone claim that Joan was in a grave when the consensus all along 1981-1990, was that she lay at the bottom of the ocean? In your honest opinion, what could this suggestion linking her to a grave indicate?
I provided some detail on the weekend a few posts back. There is a group of families in NJ that are close friends, parents, and children. The younger generation were all relatively close in age. This is who they got together with. Some of the parents and younger generation, Joan's contemporaries, were interviewed after Joan disappeared. I thought all of these people were very nice. I can't envision a single one of them harboring any malice against Joan or anyone.
It may be a laborious task, but can you share the names of the people you know are part of the group of families, together with the name of the person whom Joan knew from Harvard? If you dont want to reveal this sensitive information here on this forum, please send me a personal message. I would love to scan the list looking for names that may ring a bell.
If Joan was injured and not standing, the swing would most likely be vertical or downward. The end of the item would be the part of the weapon to strike her head, causing a different injury pattern, not front to back.
Thank you for uploading the map and skull photos. I know it that it must continue to be difficult for you. The skull photo shows the massive 2x4 hole on the left side of her head. Its impossible to verify what position she was hit. Yes, she could be standing, but she could also be laying on the ground, and on her side. I find this hypothesis the more logical one because as Ive mentioned before the ground would act as a shock absorber thus making the blow all the more severe. Ive seen guys being hit over the head with a baseball bat, at maximum inertia, and the skull wasnt crushed the way Joans was. In fact, when the coroner carried out the autopsy, after shaving the individuals head, in one of the cases only a 4 long hairline fracture was found. In this case, the cause of death was a gunshot to the heart. Joans hit required some serious inertia. The man was likely powerful, with powerful arms and large wrists.
