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

[Sweetluv]

Following....
Always in thought and prayers for justice!

 

[eve carson]

Thirty one years ago today, a veterinarian walking her dog discovered Joan's skull. Her remains surfaced more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene at Pier 7.

Authorities effectively shielded the findings in the Federal District Court of RI on April 9, 1985, that the boat was long gone before Joan landed at Logan on November 28, 1981. So, maybe the public still believed the boat theory.

It was very widely reported the skeleton was discovered a long way from Boston Harbor. She was not dumped at sea like authorities claimed. The state's star witness Robert Bond gave false testimony.

Tim Burke told reporters at the time that they knew Paradiso's boat had a broken rudder and was not navigable. Authorities knew when the boat was raised that the story they promoted was false. But they kept spreading it. Burke spun Bond's allegations. Instead of claiming Paradiso took his boat way out and dumped Joan's body in Boston Harbor, now Burke claimed "way out" meant Paradiso removed Joan from the boat, took her way out, and buried her. It was insane.

I was inundated with news clippings that presumed Paradiso's guilt in Joan's murder. Eleanor Webster sent a steady stream of articles. It was at the time of Joan's recovery that I doubted the scenario. I think any reasonable person had to have doubts.

When I asked, Eleanor told me it had been too long to get the answers. She told Anne's husband Paradiso's girlfriend had Joan's ring. That was false. Burke made the claim to the FBI that Charlene Bullerwell, a woman who occasionally went out with Paradiso, was pictured wearing a bracelet identical to Joan's missing bracelet. That was false.

If Paradiso or anyone associated with him had any jewelry or any other verified item belonging to Joan, authorities would have had a slam dunk case against him. They had nothing. After exhuming Joan's remains, authorities abruptly stopped trying to convince Robert Bond from testifying again against Paradiso in Joan's case.

Keeping Joan's case in an open unresolved status shielded her records from scrutiny. Sadly, current custodians do not want Joan's case resolved.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve,
Have you or have you ever considered a local Private Investigator? Might stir up some publicity...maybe since some time has passed, people might want to talk...

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

I hired a PI and attorney in Boston when I started digging into Joan's case. They helped me recover a lot of documents I might not have reached otherwise.

The PI went with me to meet the current custodian and three members of the MSP. One of the officers, Norman Zuk, subtly threatened the PI's license.

Joan's case is like stepping on the 3rd rail. The state apparently does not want Joan's case resolved. It is a huge embarrassment, and exposes them to serious malfeasance.

I approached another PI in MA and asked him to attend a meeting with me. At first he agreed, but then pulled back because he knew some of the people involved. There are some very tight knit circles in MA, and they circle the wagons. That includes the media.

It has been extremely frustrating to say the least. You would think court records affirming that the alleged crime scene did not exist when Joan disappeared would be enough to look into the case. The boat is only one piece of the problems found in the investigation.

This was a cover up, and still is.

 

[Sweetluv]

Yes, it sounds to me like many people would like to, "act like it never happened."
I can understand your frustration...hopefully, there will be justice for Joan.

 

[Toots1]

Whoever did this had a serious problem with the CIA, and/or was a disgruntled worker of the CIA. Too much of a coincidence of both George and Terry being former CIA, then George "rolling over" on theories not making sense. My guess is MSP was told at a much higher level to cover it up.

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve...Happy Mothers Day to you...

 

[Sweetluv]

The Sept 2012 Totally Botched article for Crime Magazine is fascinating...had to read twice.

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve...you haven't posted in a while....hope your doing well.
Joan is in my thoughts!!

 

[eve carson]

I am posting two quotes. The first one was a quote from former prosecutor Tim Burke earlier this year, 2021.

"Paradiso openly bragged about killing both Marie Iannuzzi and Joan Webster while awaiting trial for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Mr. Paradiso provided details of how he committed both murders to two individuals." Tim Burke

The two individuals Burke relies on were both convicted killers who were in prison at the time. Robert Bond alleged Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat and dumped her in Boston Harbor. Both are false claims. Certified court records affirm the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. Joan was found buried in Hamilton, MA. Bond said the guy from NJ (George Webster) sent people to see him. Other evidence in source documents corroborate that claim.

Tony Pisa alleged Paradiso confessed both murders in two conversations that were not and could not be verified. "He said" statements are not evidence. Pisa made assurances to George Webster verified in testimony. Pisa, once on death row for his crimes, walked out of jail a free man after participating with authorities to nail Paradiso.

I found no evidence that Paradiso ever "confessed" to the murder of Marie Iannuzzi or Joan Webster. To the contrary, Paradiso maintained his innocence for both crimes. It is also important to note that Tim Burke, in his recent comment, offers no evidence to connect Paradiso with Joan Webster - NONE. He threw a lot of things out there at the time, but none of his so called evidence held up.

The second quote is from Eleanor Webster, Joan's mother, shortly after Joan's remains surfaced in 1990. It can be found on the Parents of Murdered Children website, Murder Wall Panel One.

"In February 1983, through the combined effort of Assistant District Attorney Timothy Burke of Suffolk County (Boston) and the report of a prison inmate’s bragging, it was learned that Joan had been raped and hit over the head. ADA Burke subsequently prosecuted Joan’s assailant (who was out on parole for an earlier attempted rape) for another murder.

Joan’s body was found in April 1990 in a shallow grave in a wooded area in Hamilton, Massachusetts. Her skull showed trauma with a blunt instrument. Her case has never been prosecuted because of scanty (and hostile) witness information and a belief by her family and law enforcement officials that her murderer is already serving a long sentence for other crimes."

First, there was no evidence Joan was raped. Second, source documents revealed exculpatory evidence supporting Paradiso's innocence for Both Marie Iannuzzi and Joan's murder and other allegations. The evidence supports Paradiso was framed for these crimes. "Scanty" witness information is all they claim, claiming Paradiso bragged about committing both crimes. Eleanor names who they worked with, Tim Burke. George and Eleanor cooperated with Burke's false book. Their public statement of support for Burke's book was made to the Boston Herald on November 28, 2006.

This raises two critical questions for me. Remember, these were intelligence trained people. Where is the evidence that connects Joan to Leonard Paradiso? If the family and authorities were convinced of Paradiso's guilt, why didn't they prosecute? Efforts to get Bond to testify abruptly stopped after Joan's remains surfaced.

A final question. Were Joan's parents in cahoots with Burke, Palombo, and Tammaro to put out disinformation and a false explanation for Joan's murder? It looks like the individuals interested in covering up what happened to Joan were the ones in charge of the investigation.

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve...with all the "corruption," do you think Joan's murder will ever get justice!?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

I started sounding the alarm with proper authorities going all the way back to 2006. I did not know a fraction then of what I know now. What happened in Joan's investigation was not human error or incompetence. There were way too many discrepancies in the source documents. The obstruction was deliberate indicating this was a deliberate cover up.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, but since my questions started, I have been harassed, falsely maligned, and threatened. Some has been "anonymous" and others positively identified to the source. Fortunately, I have documented everything.

Let me start with the lead that was suppressed. Joan was seen at Logan with a man. The eyewitness described a man that is NOT the man the authorities went after. That is definitive. The man was a much smaller stature than Leonard Paradiso. This lead was concealed by the police and the Websters. That is a big problem.

The suggestion of Paradiso and his boat was introduced by Sgt. Carmen Tammaro, an officer who grew up with Paradiso, on August 1, 1982. That's 39 years ago today. Four months later, Tammaro is coaching a jailhouse snitch, Robert Bond, with the same story. Tammaro was part of the inner circle working with George Webster along with his subordinate Andrew Palombo and Tim Burke.

The alleged crime scene, Paradiso's boat, was sunk on July 26, 1981. Substantial and unrefuted evidence was submitted in court for case CR 85-010-S in 1985. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981. FBI lab reports bolster the fallacious explanation. No evidence connects Joan to the boat or Paradiso.

Tim Burke maintains Paradiso is guilty. He claims Paradiso bragged about Joan's murder to two convicted killers. Tony Pisa testified he made assurances to George Webster. His testimony asserted Paradiso confessed two murders in unverified and unverifiable conversations. Robert Bond said the "guy from NJ" (George Webster) sent people to see him. Bond alleged Paradiso drove Joan from Logan, murdered Joan on his boat, and dumped her in Boston Harbor. This is all verifiably false based on source documents. The man that maneuvered Joan to a different car was much smaller than Paradiso, court records affirm the boat was 35 feet underwater when Joan disappeared, and Joan's remains surfaced on April 18, 1990, buried more than 30 miles away in Hamilton, MA.

It doesn't take a seasoned detective to figure out the explanation for Joan's murder is blatantly false. This was a cover up, pinning Joan's murder on a vulnerable scapegoat. Looking at the investigation itself was the stone to turn over to resolve Joan's case. ADA John Dawley is the current custodian of Joan's case. He alone decides whether to dig into her case and/or prosecute. His career started in the Suffolk County DA's office with Tim Burke, and Joan's case was in the headlines every day. A few years later, Dawley was the attorney for Charles Stuart, a man who murdered his pregnant wife Carol and tried to point the finger at a vulnerable scapegoat. Charles brother Matthew blew the whistle on his brother, but Dawley declined to share information with the victim's family after Charles committed suicide. Dawley claimed that ethics prevented him from sharing healing closure for loved ones. What a crock. This is called CYA and the same thing is happening in Joan's case. These people circle the wagons.

A lot of departments share culpability, and to date they obstruct justice for Joan. The malfeasance is still being covered up, but I still have a voice.

 

[jgfitzge]

Eve,

Quick question, have you ever approached any of the true crime podcasts to see if they would be interested in Joan’s case? I don’t believe I’ve ever seen Jones case published by podcast. There is certainly enough material to do even a multi episode series.

I find it curious her case has never been on any of the true crime podcasts

 

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge,

It has been quite some time since I have done an interview. There are many more avenues and interest now in such cases. Early on, I did not have enough of the pieces to make sense of Joan's case, but I have persisted to recover source documents to fill in the gaps. I will be bringing more out in the not too distant future, including some podcasts. This was really an extraordinary case to untangle. It has much broader reach than just those caught up in it at the time. It raises a serious flag about bad apples in our legal and law enforcement systems. People were left vulnerable and victimized further. The negligence of current authorities exacerbates the problem.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve...Joan is very fortunate to have you as her voice!
With phenomenal DNA labs of today, like OTHRAM, was any samples taken or found that were not Joan's that could be tested today?

 

[2manyhorses]

Hello Eve,
Based on the information you have uncovered, the one person who is a part of every aspect of this case right down to genetics, and the extremely worrisome note you came upon which you consulted I believe a/the counselor about I wonder who went through all the belongings of Mr. and Mrs. Webster after their passing. That note would be more threatening to the family, if authentic, than any CIA secrets.
It seems the signet rings were important to Mr. Webster. They had "sentimental" value. I would be curious if perhaps a certain missing signet ring was ever found in any of the decedent's belongings. Maybe in a lock box or a bank safety deposit box. Not that the information would be relayed to you if it was, but I feel like that is the sort of sentiment a Webster might have, given the information we have now. Do you think if that had shown up somewhere after the parent's death it would be shared or disposed of to send all hope of a definitive answer down the drain.

Just pondering. Not making any accusations. Simply curious if you think, had something like that been found, the knowledge would be shared. Or even acknowledged.
MOO just thinking out loud. Wondering.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv and 2manyhorses,

I don't know that DNA testing would be helpful. I cannot gain access to the forensic reports, they are controlled by the next of kin. The family has not been too willing. Any samples recovered from the body were likely tainted and the length of time before Joan's remains surfaced.

The letter I found is very problematic for the family. It would have been for George and Eleanor, but also other members of the family still living.

I have wondered myself if the signet ring or charms from the bracelet ever showed up. It would be very informative what was in George and Eleanor's things after they passed away. At this point, I feel confident in saying the family would not tell me. The family has been extremely hostile about questions about Joan. Once I got into the records, I could see why. In the best case scenario, George and Eleanor were complicit in concealing what really happened to Joan and framing a vulnerable scapegoat.

There is contemporaneous and corroborating evidence regarding the letter I found. The letter is authentic and the author positively identified. Some would argue about its meaning. I was not quiet at the time, and will not be now. There are things I discovered later that raised the concerns higher. That includes the family lied to me about Joan's investigation. Whether Joan was going to share concerning family secrets or not, it would be motive. I was pregnant at the time and a likely person Joan would have shared that kind of information with.

It's sad, but the only thing the family is concerned about is image.

 

[eve carson]

I am going to list evidence in a case and then add some commentary.

1. Witnesses observed scratches on the boyfriend.
2. Friends of the couple came forward and described a toxic relationship.
3. Witnesses observed a public argument between the couple.
4. The boyfriend claimed to try and hold the girlfriend off as if she was the aggressor.
5. The boyfriend's parents are an obstacle and appear to shield their son.
6. The girlfriend lived with the boyfriend in his parent's home.
7. The boyfriend took flight.
8. The authorities identified the boyfriend stealing.
9. The girlfriend's body is found in a rocky area near water, an area not easily visible to normal traffic.
10. The manner of the girlfriend's death is determined to be a homicide.

The pieces of verifiable evidence above pertain to Brian Laundrie, boyfriend of murder victim Gabby Petito. I think the instincts of most reasonable people is that Brian Laundrie is the prime suspect for Gabby's murder. I think most reasonable people are appalled by the lack of cooperation from the Laundrie parents. The stealing in Brian's case refers to the improper transactions on someone else's debit card.

The Laundrie lawyer advised his clients not to say anything. I would not be surprised when Brian Laundrie is caught that the lawyer's defense will be to suggest someone else committed the murder. If the parents know something about where their son is, what happened to Gabby, or helped Brian avoid detection, they could be accessories to murder after the fact. Common sense tells me Brian was involved in the crime.

I bring this case up for a specific reason. Every item listed above applies to another murder case, Marie Iannuzzi. Each point I referenced was known evidence against David Doyle, Marie's boyfriend. Her case inexplicably went cold until Joan Webster disappeared. Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro stepped in and said Leonard Paradiso murdered Marie. Why? They were going after Paradiso for Joan's murder. They had no evidence connecting Paradiso to Joan. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to make those allegations. This was a cover up that denied both victims real justice.

 

[eve carson]

Trying to explain Joan's case has not been easy. The case was very chaotic and improperly entangled in other matters. Looking at it now, it seems the drama was by design to distract from what really happened and who was responsible.

It helps to describe Joan's case when there are current situations people are more familiar with that parallel Joan's case. The 10 points listed above in the Petito case are all facts that were known against David Doyle in Marie Iannuzzi's murder. Tim Burke was absolutely shameful how he spun the facts to diminish the facts against Doyle. He portrayed Doyle as someone to be pitied. He described taking flight as Doyle's need to get away because he was under so much pressure at the time. Burke out and out lied about a plane ticket in Doyle's possession when he was arrested. Burke described deep gauges that were dug and pulled from the wrist to the fingers as cuts and bruises from a bar fight no one knew about at the time. Doyle and his mother gave four explanations for the scratches. Burke described Doyle's substance abuse as understandable after his girlfriend was murdered and ignored Doyle's habitual use, Doyle was using when Marie was murdered.

The sidebar and lobby conferences during the Iannuzzi trial were much more revealing than what the jury heard in the courtroom. The judge disallowed some of the critical evidence from going back with the jury for deliberations. Why? The obvious answer to me is that Burke needed the conviction against Paradiso to add credence to the allegations that Paradiso murdered Joan. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen. The evidence in source documents support this was a wrongful conviction.

There is another case currently in the news that has some parallel to Joan's case for me. I have taken a lot of hits for raising questions about the Websters. Source documents prove they had exculpatory evidence to know that Paradiso was not the culprit in Joan's case. Yet, they continued to promote the theory publicly. They are complicit in a cover up of their own daughter's murder. Why? The simple answer is image. That is what the Websters care about.

Public image can be very deceptive. A current case in the news that demonstrates that very clearly is the Murdaugh circumstances. Prominent and wealthy family who were no doubt highly respected in the community. The public perception was false. Some troubling secrets have begun to emerge. Authorities now question other circumstances surrounding the family; the murder of Alex Murdaugh's wife and son, the death of the housekeeper, the upcoming trial for a fatal boating accident, the death of the older son's friend. Dark secrets have come out about Alex Murdaugh's substance abuse and embezzlement. Are any of these circumstances related? Time will tell. Certainly, all of the questions now do dispel the family image.

The Webster family was not truthful with me about Joan. I found a very distressing letter that would dispel the family's public image.

In some family systems, family members enable or shield one another for wrongdoing. That is evident in the Petito case, the Iannuzzi case, the Murdaugh case. The Websters have that mindset. I do not, and the Websters knew that very well. Anyone who threatens that image is vulnerable.

 

[Sweetluv]

Following...