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

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Yes, Joan planned to be home for Christmas. Steve and I were there. I remember getting a pair of scrimshaw earrings that Joan had already bought me for Christmas. I cried.

The heavy suitcase does stand out. For a cabbie to comment how heavy it was is unusual to me. They would have handled many heavy bags. I don't know how much of the thread you have read. The bag was not meant to carry Joan away somehow. I can only speculate what was in the man's bag.

It would have been very easy to drop Eleanor and Anne back at the house before going to Newark Airport. They were actually within easy walking distance from one of the homes. George was travelling during that time. What makes most sense to me is that George had a flight that night, hence Eleanor and Anne also rode to the airport. Eleanor did not like to drive at night; Anne would have driven home. There was never any mention of going someplace else after dropping Joan off. It was fairly late and Anne had a long drive to Boston the next day.

She had a 2"x4" hole that took out the right side of her skull. She was stripped of all clothing and none found in the area. Only the neck chain and ring were found on the skeleton. She was discarded in a black plastic trash bag. The blow to the head would have been instantly fatal and there would be an enormous amount of blood. Joan was buried in a natural basin in a heavily remote and wooded area. Cut logs were placed on top of the grave on two different occasions. Decomposition of the logs identify there were two layers.

She probably told friends at the small cocktail parties she was going back that night. She would not have given details. She travelled alone, so someone caught up with her at the taxi line.

I have heard just about everything you can imagine to explain or consider what happened to Joan. Some of it was not very pleasant to consider. I have had to develop a thick skin as I raise questions. My point is, I took the blinders off to look into her loss. Keep in mind, classmates, boyfriends, and dorm friends were her age. The man at the airport was a middle-aged white male.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve
Sorry if I'm asking things you've answered. I thought the bearded man was older but then I wondered if he was making himself look older. That's sad that she got you a christmas present it also shows she is the type of person that doesn't do things on a whim. People that buy christmas presents a month in advance are planners. I can't see her just following a random stranger.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

No worries. I am happy to answer questions. This case has been a mess to unwind. You are asking very good and logical questions. It is very heart warming to care.

I recently heard from one of Joan's classmates. He was very reinforcing as well. He believes I have found the right rock to turn over. The stench of Joan's investigation is the key to resolving her case.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve
That's good you are in touch with people that knew her. She doesn't like she get on a strangers boat. It also doesn't make sense with how she actually died. Did the fake death story have any benefits to her family? When did you believe she was dead? Did you personally hope she was okay somewhere? You don't have to answer that obviously.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Early on, I had hope Joan would show up and there was some explanation. As time went on, that hope dimmed. Joan was not the type to just up and leave and not tell anyone. It leaves you in a state of suspended grief.

I remember Christmas 1981 very well. George made a comment that really stuck with me. He said she's gone, we have to move on. That was not the image he presented to the press; George and Eleanor always expressed optimism. "Move on" was a phrase I heard a lot in the family.

You asked a really good question, did the family benefit from a fake story? Understandably, they got a lot of sympathy. It's hard to get into someone's mind, but I look at the facts to reach the conclusion that George and Eleanor felt the fake story was beneficial. Police records affirm George and Eleanor knew about the lead from the cabbie. They did not share that. News accounts quoted the Websters bolstering the credibility of state witness Robert Bond. Court records affirm they knew about the bankruptcy case. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. George and Eleanor visited the gravesite, more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene. Then they cooperated with former prosecutor Tim Burke publishing his story that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. These are smart people; they knew this story did not match up with the facts.

What were the benefits? It gave them someone to blame. The story kept people out of their closet, so to speak. The obvious affect of a fake story is diverting the investigation; the offender avoided detection. It kept people from finding out what really happened to Joan.

 

[eve carson]

There are four names to focus on, Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster. At best, all of these individuals were complicit to cover up Joan's murder. Let me take them one at a time.

Andrew Palombo:

Palombo was a MSP trooper assigned to F Barracks at Logan Airport. He worked as an undercover cop. Carmen Tamarro was his superior officer. Palombo was assigned as the lead officer in the Marie Iannuzzi murder in February 1981, many months before Joan's disappearance. He replaced Carl Sjoberg, the officer that spread speculation to Paradiso's parole officer on March 11, 1982. He was friends with the prime suspect in Marie's 1979 murder, her boyfriend David Doyle. That is verified by a Doyle family member. Palombo knew Paradiso and his vulnerabilities. Palombo was married with four young daughters and lived in Peabody, MA at the time.

Palombo was the arresting officer on July 6, 1982, charging Paradiso with Marie's murder. This is several month before the state witness Robert Bond, and three weeks before the documented meeting with Tamarro, Palombo's superior, alleging Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. Palombo would have knowledge of Joan's case from the start and was involved in matters focused on Paradiso for months before Joan disappeared. Palombo had knowledge of the Iannuzzi files, and exculpatory evidence favoring Paradiso.

Palombo would have knowledge of the eyewitness description of the man seen with Joan in December 1981. His superior was integral to suppress the lead. The description was not Paradiso. Palombo also had knowledge of the federal bankruptcy case, he is named in documents providing evidence and testimony. Judge Selya presided over the case in 1985 and affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene did not exist when Joan disappeared. Contemporaneous media reported the boat was gone when the Bond allegations first came out, but Palombo ignored it to promote the alleged crime.

Palombo filed false documents with the courts claiming Burke received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983. He claimed meetings were then arranged with the MSP based on the letter. The interview with the MSP on January 14, 1983, affirmed the Bond letter had not arrived. Palombo perpetrated a fraud on the courts to obtain warrants and continue to implicate Paradiso in numerous crimes. Palombo also collaborated with SA Steve Broce to influence the bankruptcy case involving the boat. He provided a fake boat registration along with a valid one.

Palombo was all over the place, testifying and talking to the media, making all sorts of unfounded claims against Paradiso. Palombo testified in the Iannuzzi pretrial trying to get Joan's name into the case even though there was no known similarity in the cases. Palombo was extremely aggressive on several fronts to implicate Paradiso for Joan's loss.

Palombo was involved obtaining a false statement from Bond. The written statement came after the MSP interview on the 14th. Bond provided a choice for the manner of death. The written statement gives the correct manner of death with correct detail seven years before Joan surfaced. Palombo had knowledge only known to the offender or complicit party, how Joan died.

Palombo was a very big man. He was 6'4" and weighed 240 pounds. If he showed a badge, he would be an authority figure. He had long hair and a beard. He is pictured in shades riding his motorcycle. There is no evidence Joan knew Palombo, and he is not someone she would leave the airport with. He looked like a or member of a motorcycle gang. There is no indication he was travelling. He was not the man described with Joan at Logan. There is no description of the man driving the blue car that Joan and the bearded man transferred to.

Offenders operate in areas where they are familiar and comfortable. Palombo worked at Logan, the last place Joan was seen alive. Her purse was tossed in a marshy dumping ground along Route 107. Palombo was familiar with the area. It was the same vicinity where Marie Iannuzzi's body was found in 1979; Palombo was lead cop on the case. Joan's purse was on the opposite side, southbound toward Logan. The main route to Logan from Palombo's house went down Broadway Street and turned onto Route 107 headed south. He lived just west of a 12 alarm fire that was burning in Lynn, MA from about 2:30 am on November 28, 1981, and continued for two weeks. Palombo could avoid the barricades set up because of the fire and move north in the direction of the gravesite.

There is a January 1982 police report documenting a young woman who received a ride from an undercover cop from the Greyhound Bus Station to Trailways. He was in an unmarked car parked in a restricted area, Joan's suitcase turned up at the same Greyhound Bus Station on January 29, 1982.

Joan's body surfaced on Chebacco Road in Hamilton, MA. It is a remote and heavily wooded area. The road is very rutted, narrow, and graveled getting back into this area. It was an area known for criminal activity and an area where bikers (motorcyclists) hung out. The Hamilton police chief affirmed Palombo knew this area. He lived on Lynn Road in Peabody, MA, two blocks from the on ramp to Route 128, and minutes from exit 16 that goes back into the Chebacco Road area. All the while, Joan was buried very close to Palombo's house, Palombo declared she was murdered on Paradiso's boat, contrary to known evidence, and dumped in Boston Harbor.

Palombo had knowledge of the suppressed lead in December 1981. He met with Bond to develop his statement. He had knowledge of the manner of death. Known facts in Joan's case, identifiable points, are all familiar to Palombo. He was extremely aggressive to implicate Paradiso in multiple crimes contrary to known evidence. His superior had his back. Palombo filed fraudulent documents with the courts, hid exculpatory evidence, fabricated evidence, and brought forward false witnesses.

The evidence points to Palombo being involved in Joan's murder. He did not act alone; he did not know Joan. Palombo apparently took his direction or was enticed by the bearded man with the heavy suitcase.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
Happy New Years. There seem to be more questions than answers at times. You should keep asking. Most boats are taken out of the water by November. If it's not planning to travel south or used for fishing there is no reason someone even have a boat out in the water. People pay to have their boats taken care of during the winter.
It's odd that the family would want people to move on. Especially when there was no body. There are families that hold onto hope for decades they seemed to haven given up at weeks. Could there have been a ransom they refused to pay? Stiff upper is one thing "move on" is another.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
Are any of the men that either covered up the crime or did worse still alive?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Great observations and questions. Paradiso was in the practice of taking his boat out of the water. Authorities knew that; it was documented in parole notes. The year before Joan disappeared, Paradiso had his boat out of the water on November 3rd. He stored it at the Beachmont Yacht Club. A witness stated this was a leaky boat. If the boat still existed, it would not have been in the water.

There were at least three extortion incidents I was aware of. The most dramatic was in October 1982. None of them were reported in the media. George met with known felon Harvey Martel, the caller, on October 15, 1982, in Concord, NH. SA Frank Barletto posed as his cousin. The three of them travelled across state lines to Boston, but Martel gave a bogus address. Martel was questioned by the FBI, but not arrested. That blows me away.

The Websters were in front of the press all the time, but there was never a hint of these incidents reported. Information reported in the press was controlled. Joan's brother Steve claimed he knew nothing about any such incident a few years ago. Even if it is not forefront in your mind, you don't forget an incident like this. The current custodian of Joan's files knew nothing about the incident. There were no records in their files; again, controlled information. The extortion incident was fully documented in FBI and NJ police reports. To give you a sense of how dramatic and emotionally draining this was, I had a second miscarriage shortly after this. Reward money was offered in Joan's case, but to my knowledge, nothing was ever paid out.

Carmen Tamarro is still living. Tim Burke is still living and a practicing attorney in MA. He published a graphic description of Joan being raped and murdered on Paradiso's boat in 2008 with the Webster's support. He still is out there taking bows and doing interviews touting the credibility of Robert Bond. He still asserts his allegations against Paradiso with a few adjustments to try and gloss over the facts later learned. The whole thing defies any reason and common sense.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
I'm sorry for your losses. Could the missing ring have been something that was sent as proof someone had her? How did anyone justify the difference between where her body was found and telling a story that didn't support that? Have you ever confronted Burke or Tamarro? I mean in private.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Interesting question. If someone had sent the ring as proof, it would have been sent to the Websters, most likely. They never said a word if that was the case. Authorities had knowledge of the extortion incidents. The FBI and ITT security monitored taped calls that came into the house. If the Websters had received the ring, it's fair to assume authorities would have known that as well. There is no evidence in all the recovered source documents that they received anything belonging to Joan.

So why did someone take the signet ring and leave the other ring found on the skeleton? Like the missing clothing, that was an identifiable object. With what I have uncovered to date, I think the offender tried to remove things that would help identify Joan if she was found.

Information was controlled. The current custodian was missing a lot of critical documents. It's a natural tendency to trust authorities, so they were not pressed. Keep in mind, the Websters supported this explanation.

When Joan's remains surfaced, I understood the boat theory was not plausible. It wasn't until I got into records that I understood the scenario being promoted was impossible. Tim Burke adjusted his story when Joan was found. He claimed Paradiso transported Joan from the boat and buried her more than 30 miles away. I never saw or heard those explanations until I dug into Joan's case. I won't go into all the absurdities of his twisted account. Suffice it to say, the federal case affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. The whole thing was fabricated.

Right after Burke's published account was released, I went to Boston and saw both Burke and Tamarro. I still had a long way to go getting records. Burke could not look me in the eye. It was very evident in source documents how Burke maligned witnesses that came forward with information, evidence, and testimony that contradicted his assertions. I have been the victim of the same type of harassment. There are those, including Burke and Tamarro, that want the Paradiso boat confabulation to explain Joan's loss.

I can only come to one conclusion at this point; this was a cover-up.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
If the boat existed at that time it still sounds like an out there theory. Besides being November we would have to believe Joan would get on a boat with a stranger. That doesn't seem plausible. Still pretending a boat exists - Why bury the body on land? It's not a mystery why they couldn't look you in the eye. Do you think they were paid off or were were they invested in their theories?
When you say harassment you are safe, right? Adding a boat doesn't make sense.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Absolutely correct. It was the end of November. The weather had already turned cold. Conditions were very windy that night. Joan would not go on a boat with a stranger even if you irrationally claim it was still above water and was still at Pier 7. Burke tried to explain that Joan was forced onto the boat with a gun. His story got deeper and deeper. He injected an "anonymous" source who provided information to find a gun under the old mooring of Paradiso's boat. This all played out in court and are in the transcripts.

When Burke published his account, he identified his witness, a man in a penitentiary for perjury, trying to embezzle the government. This witness was developing Pier 7 in 1980 with HUD funds. I recovered the FBI 302 of the interview with the witness. His divers found a Mercedes in the water, not a gun. This all took place before Joan disappeared anyway.

Authorities were invested in their story, but not because they believed it. They knew, based on known facts and evidence in the files, this was bogus. I had hired a PI who went with me to meet Bond face-to-face. Scary experience. He made the statement Palombo corresponded with him up to the time Joan's remains surfaced. We documented the meeting. According to Bond, Palombo instructed him not to change his story. I have looked for incentive. When Burke published his account, he mentioned Palombo was driving a shiny new Jaguar. Burke claimed it was confiscated from a dealer and the DEA provided it to Palombo. Sounds like a real stretch to me. Palombo lived in a very small house with four young children. He had expensive tastes on a cop's salary. He drove a Harley. When I consider what was so heavy in the man's suitcase, money comes to mind.

There are times I have been very nervous. Digging into a murder case when you know people are lying is unsettling. I have had threats. I am cautious and watch my back, but I feel more secure speaking out. I am not the only one who is vulnerable. I think those promoting this fish tale never thought anyone would be able to get to the information. Documents were spread out, not consolidated in one place to see the travesty of justice that took place. There is the added assurance of circled wagons, current authorities shielding malfeasance.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
I think what you are doing is important. I also believe there is safety in speaking out. Everyone that has read your posts or book can't all be killed. Do you thin cash was in the suitcase or another form of payment? Cash is traceable. If someone withdrew the amount of cash to make a large suitcase heavy, it had to come from somewhere. If they were using US currency that is a lot even if you aren't going through legal channels.

I think an undercover cop might get a fancy car if that was the role they were playing. Has Palombo's finances ever been looked into? Or his wife's or relatives? Did he stay married and are his children still around?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

I am impressed with your thought process. I can only speculate what was in the suitcase, but it was noticeably heavy. I can't rule out cash. The evidence in source documents points in a certain direction. The case was deliberately diverted. A cop is not going to get into this so deep without some incentive. It is possible Palombo received a car from the department for his undercover activity, but Burke lied about everything else in his story. I find it difficult to accept any of his explanations. The timing alone of Palombo's jaguar is suspicious.

If it was cash in the suitcase, I can think of a transaction that bypassed the banking system. I can't give a precise date, but remember something that transpired that could account for a large sum of money. It's not important to get into specifics since the suitcase contents were unknown. From my standpoint, I know a large sum of money is a realistic possibility.

To my knowledge, Palombo was never scrutinized for any of his activity. He was touted as a hero for putting Paradiso away.

I received a message today that was unexpected. It may be just the contact I needed to make. Time will tell. Exposing this case is important for many reasons. I can't even begin to describe the sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach after getting into the records. Joan's loss is the first thing that should never have happened. She should never have been devalued further with such a travesty of justice. There were also some unforeseen consequences of the fraud authorities perpetrated. There are a lot of victims. If this could happen to Joan, this can happen to anyone.

 

[mshannon]

Hi Eve, Happy new year, hope you are well. Can't wait to hear more about the unexpected message that you got.
I am getting caught up on recent posts. You mentioned that there are four people to focus on, I didn't miss George Webster did I? You haven't posted that yet? The thing I just can't understand is why there aren't more people like you in the long trail of this case that find it such a travesty that they pursue it as doggedly as you have until justice prevails. You would think someone else within the justice system would want to take this case up and expose the wrong doing. We all know now about the corruption in Massachusetts/Boston law enforcement, you would think they would want to try to clean up some of the past messes created by the corruption. To me this says it must be extremely bad, or why would there be such a huge effort to keep it so much under wraps. Very sad.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Mshannon,

I am juggling several things at one time, so no, you have not missed a post about George Webster. Authorities are not too keen on exposing the bad apples in their midst. These people all know each other. I am at a disadvantage. There is one person in the office of the current custodian who decides if anything happens in this case. He happens to know Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. He also advised me not to probe so deeply.

That is a ludicrous comment. To suggest a family member not look into what happened to a murder victim is in essence saying, just believe what we tell you and don't rock the boat. I have been bounced around like a ping-pong ball passing the hot potato and then going around in circles. MA does not have protocols in place to address this and they protect their own. There have been people threatened even if subtly, to leave this alone. There are a lot of high profile names with some connection to this case, judges, politicians, etc. The media takes their lead from the authorities in MA; an obvious source for stories. When Bulger was arrested in 2011, there was a lot of scrambling to keep misconduct hidden.

The difficulty working through the system has steeled my resolve. First, it's a damn good indicator I am on the right track. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming. Second, it makes me determined to expose this. This should never happen to anyone.

 

[Skigirl]

Hi Cherrymeg,

This is a case that had a lot of twists and turns. It has taken a long time to unwind largely because there were so many obstacles to get to records. I have reached out to the Websters for their input. The Websters a very secretive. I suppose part of that can be attributed to the intelligence background. Going through the tragedy with Joan, I did not know what I did not know. The Websters were not open and honest with me.

Joan was positively identified on the flight. The eyewitness description was spot on. I have no doubt the Town Taxi cabbie saw Joan and had her bag in his cab. I don't know what was in the heavy suitcase, but exchanging words with the cabbie tells me a lot about the bearded man's demeanor. Cabbies handle a lot of heavy bags. I do believe it was a ploy to get Joan into a different car.

Her change of plans always bothered me. George Webster said she went back early to work with classmates on a school project. That was not true. She presented her project before the break. When Joan went home for break, she did not have plans to go back early. A friend planned to go to NJ over the break, a kind of "meet the parents" visit. It was also out of character for the whole family to drive Joan to Newark. If they were coming from NYC, maybe, but they were in their hometown.

The big travel day would have been Sunday. I doubt it was that difficult to get a ticket on Saturday night. The plans were to drive back with her sister on Sunday, not fly. The phone records don't match up with some of the explanations from the family. This was a very patriarchal family; George ruled the roost. They planned things down to the smallest detail. A change in plans was likely dictated by George.

The investigation itself is the key to resolving Joan's loss.

It is very peculiar that she presented her project before Thanksgiving. Perhaps she had another project to work on for the class. Harvard has a longstanding tradition of having finals after Christmas break, unlike almost every other school in the country. Study period comes after Thanksgiving and before Christmas.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Skigirl,

In 1980, Joan skipped the Thanksgiving break because of her workload. I am not sure why you find it peculiar she would work hard to get an 11-week project done so she could enjoy her break in 1981. She presented the project on November 23, 1981 and received high marks on it. That is an established fact. I don't know if the project was the final grade in the class.

You are missing some significant points. There is no evidence recovered to date that Joan planned to meet with classmates on Sunday. Friends at school were stunned and went all around passing out missing person flyers. She wasn't reported missing until Tuesday, December 1, 1981, by a classmate. A friend did plan to visit in NJ, but those plans changed. Home phone records did not show a call to classmates.

The fact Joan went back early is an important piece of what happened. The big question is why. What was represented publicly was false.

 

[Skigirl]

Hi Skigirl,

In 1980, Joan skipped the Thanksgiving break because of her workload. I am not sure why you find it peculiar she would work hard to get an 11-week project done so she could enjoy her break in 1981. She presented the project on November 23, 1981 and received high marks on it. That is an established fact. I don't know if the project was the final grade in the class.

You are missing some significant points. There is no evidence recovered to date that Joan planned to meet with classmates on Sunday. Friends at school were stunned and went all around passing out missing person flyers. She wasn't reported missing until Tuesday, December 1, 1981, by a classmate. A friend did plan to visit in NJ, but those plans changed. Home phone records did not show a call to classmates.

The fact Joan went back early is an important piece of what happened. The big question is why. What was represented publicly was false.

What I find peculiar is that what seems to be implied that schoolwork is ruled out as a motive for her to go back to Harvard. The time between Thanksgiving and finals is a very busy one. The project she presented on 11/23 would not have been her final project because final exams were scheduled after the Christmas break. There would have been plenty of work for her to do when she got back, even if that particular project was done early, regardless of whether she had a meeting scheduled with classmates or not. I'm not missing any points.