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

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve!
Do you believe the truth will ever come out and if so, what do you think it would take to make that happen? I pray, one day, there will be justice for Joan.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

Unfortunately, the people who were in charge of Joan's case had another agenda. The problem now is that the current custodian does not want to draw attention to her case because the evidence of malfeasance is so overwhelming. I am trying to draw attention, but the sole person who has current authority was a prosecutor who worked with Burke in the Suffolk County MA office during the investigation.

That does not mean the truth won't come out. I continue to take measures to expose this case. The truth has a way of coming to the surface. I am getting positive feedback on the new book. I have really worked hard to lay this case out step by step to explain what happened.

I have done another interview about Joan's case on True Murder Podcast with Dan Zupansky.

SIMPLE, SAFE & SECRET-Eve Carson

It was a brisk April morning in 1990 when a woman walking her dog stopped cold in her tracks. She re

www.spreaker.com

 

[Sweetluv]

Great podcast..very insightful!

 

[Sweetluv]

Checking in..

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

Thank you for checking in. When something is current in the news, it is easier to explain what I discovered in Joan's case.

There is a lot of discussion about search warrants this week. The critical document you need to see to understand the justification for a search is the affidavit that is presented to a judge or magistrate. One of the documents I recovered was the affidavit for the Marie Iannuzzi search warrant in April 1983. Andrew Palombo submitted the affidavit to a magistrate. In the Iannuzzi search warrant affidavit, Palombo was looking for navigational equipment, boat paraphernalia, and Joan Webster look-alike photos. Palombo was not seeking anything that related to Marie Iannuzzi's murder. The search warrant executed at the Weyant home on April 25, 1983, had nothing to do with Marie's murder, but sought items that were woven into the narrative being spread about Joan's case. The Iannuzzi murder was a smokescreen to give authorities access. Marie was denied justice as well. Paradiso was the target all along for Joan's murder and I can say without any equivocation, he was framed.

Some readers have started to post reviews on my book. People are getting it. I am adding a link here.

Simple, Safe & Secret: The 1981 Murder of Joan L. Webster: Carson, Eve: 9781947521858: Amazon.com: Books

Simple, Safe & Secret: The 1981 Murder of Joan L. Webster [Carson, Eve] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Simple, Safe & Secret: The 1981 Murder of Joan L. Webster

www.amazon.com

On one of the interviews, I recently did, I learned about a post about Joan's case on the Mass.gov website. The post was an excerpt from a piece Eleanor Webster, Joan's mother, wrote for the Parents of Murdered Children website. Eleanor reinforced that the authorities and the Websters believed Joan's murderer was convicted in another case. Her reference is to Paradiso and the Iannuzzi case. The family then went on to support Tim Burke's book making those allegations. Let me remind you that the police handed Eleanor the eyewitness lead on December 21, 1981, describing the man that maneuvered Joan to a blue car at Logan Airport. The man with Joan was NOT Leonard Paradiso.

This was a well-orchestrated cover up.

 

[cenazoic]

Hi @eve carson - is your new book an update of your older one, or do they each cover different things?

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve!
Question for you...do you think Joan knew who the bearded man was personally or do you think it was WHO he said he was? ( cop, FBI, ect)

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cenazoic,

An abuse advocate advised me many years ago to write everything down to help me sort out my experiences with the Websters and try to make sense of them. The first book I put out there was a compilation of my experiences, things about Joan's case, and some family history. To be fair, it can get confusing to follow.

I have recovered some very critical documents since the first book so there is new information. I also narrowed this to step through Joan's case and the entangled matters. Based on feedback, the new book makes what happened in Joan's case crystal clear.

I got a call the other night from someone who had followed Joan's case from day 1, more specifically, the day we received the call Joan was missing. He had just finished the book and said it all made sense now. The pieces fit. This is not the only call or email I have received.

In the new book, I follow the timeline and documents carefully and put in a great deal of detail. I added a link to a website where I show actual documents in addition to the documents in the book.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

There is no question in my mind Joan knew the man with her at Logan. It was a very small list who knew her schedule. This wasn't random. The man maneuvered her to a car that just happened to be there that drove her to her fate? Not a chance.

When Joan lived in NYC, she was the victim of a purse snatcher. That kind of experience teaches you to be aware of your surroundings. Joan was well-travelled. She was a dorm proctor at Harvard. She counseled the younger students to be careful, walk in groups and guidance like that.

Joan already had engaged the cab. Her suitcase was already in the trunk. She told the cabbie the man was with her. The man exchanged words with the cabbie over a heavy suitcase. The man said "we" don't want to take this cab. Joan would not have switched cars with someone she did not know and trust. When she changed cars, that sealed her fate.

Another point. Someone was driving that blue car. There was more than one perpetrator. The Websters and the authorities concealed the eyewitness lead.

 

[Sweetluv]

Does that composite sketch look familiar to you? ( I understand if you want to answer that generically)
Also, do you think Joan knew ahead of time this person was going to meet her or do you think she was told at maybe the courtesy desk?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

When I first got a copy of the composite, I stared at it all night. It was very haunting. I compared a lot of pictures to it. It had a disturbing resemblance to Andrew Palombo. Later evidence proved that to be incorrect.

What I needed and recovered was the eyewitness police report. Palombo was a very big man. That ruled him out right away as the man standing with Joan by the Town Taxi. Paradiso was also a big man. The people that had this lead would know with certainty it was not Paradiso.

I think Joan stopping at the desk at Logan was probably where she was alerted. She traveled alone, engaged a cab, and planned to go back to the dorm. The man then appears next to her at the cab. She said he was with her, so was not startled.

I think you can look at a composite and "see" someone you might suspect. A good example of that is the people who believe Gareth Penn was the Zodiac killer and murdered Joan. They send me all kinds of pictures suggesting the bearded man was Penn.

I rely more on the eyewitness description. There are several things that stand out. Certain things can be disguised, others cannot. The stature of the man was important. He was under 6" and approximately 160 pounds. He wore an overcoat. That is not the attire of a student, a cabbie, or a perp randomly looking for victims. The man's demeanor is significant. He was demanding, argumentative about loading a suitcase. Those traits are all very familiar to me and do suggest someone.

The man knew where Joan would be and a car was waiting. That is not random. The cabbie did not note any distress in Joan. She changed cars willingly. The lead was suppressed. That's incriminating.

Two people knew the correct cause of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan surfaced. Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro were involved in the investigation and worked closely with George Webster. That is damning evidence.

The most frightening thing when I look at the composite are the eyes. Now, this is an image put together from templates, but the eyes are cold and vacant. I think it is fair to say, the man was emotionally detached based on what we know happened. In my own experiences, I have looked into eyes equally as cold and detached.

 

[Sweetluv]

I have no doubt Eve, you have uncovered the secret swept under the rug since Nov of 1981. Now, if only, justice could be properly served...

 

[Sweetluv]

Do you know the extent of the investigation as to employees at the Airport being questioned? Would love to know if they thoroughly searched for the employee working the desk that day seen talking to Joan.

 

[Bagpus]

Hi Sweetluv,

When I first got a copy of the composite, I stared at it all night. It was very haunting. I compared a lot of pictures to it. It had a disturbing resemblance to Andrew Palombo. Later evidence proved that to be incorrect.

What I needed and recovered was the eyewitness police report. Palombo was a very big man. That ruled him out right away as the man standing with Joan by the Town Taxi. Paradiso was also a big man. The people that had this lead would know with certainty it was not Paradiso.

I think Joan stopping at the desk at Logan was probably where she was alerted. She traveled alone, engaged a cab, and planned to go back to the dorm. The man then appears next to her at the cab. She said he was with her, so was not startled.

I think you can look at a composite and "see" someone you might suspect. A good example of that is the people who believe Gareth Penn was the Zodiac killer and murdered Joan. They send me all kinds of pictures suggesting the bearded man was Penn.

I rely more on the eyewitness description. There are several things that stand out. Certain things can be disguised, others cannot. The stature of the man was important. He was under 6" and approximately 160 pounds. He wore an overcoat. That is not the attire of a student, a cabbie, or a perp randomly looking for victims. The man's demeanor is significant. He was demanding, argumentative about loading a suitcase. Those traits are all very familiar to me and do suggest someone.

The man knew where Joan would be and a car was waiting. That is not random. The cabbie did not note any distress in Joan. She changed cars willingly. The lead was suppressed. That's incriminating.

Two people knew the correct cause of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan surfaced. Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro were involved in the investigation and worked closely with George Webster. That is damning evidence.

The most frightening thing when I look at the composite are the eyes. Now, this is an image put together from templates, but the eyes are cold and vacant. I think it is fair to say, the man was emotionally detached based on what we know happened. In my own experiences, I have looked into eyes equally as cold and detached.

Eve,

I think I can infer who you think was responsible. Just wondering if you can share a possible motive?

 

[Charlot123]

Hi Sweetluv,

When I first got a copy of the composite, I stared at it all night. It was very haunting. I compared a lot of pictures to it. It had a disturbing resemblance to Andrew Palombo. Later evidence proved that to be incorrect.

What I needed and recovered was the eyewitness police report. Palombo was a very big man. That ruled him out right away as the man standing with Joan by the Town Taxi. Paradiso was also a big man. The people that had this lead would know with certainty it was not Paradiso.

I think Joan stopping at the desk at Logan was probably where she was alerted. She traveled alone, engaged a cab, and planned to go back to the dorm. The man then appears next to her at the cab. She said he was with her, so was not startled.

I think you can look at a composite and "see" someone you might suspect. A good example of that is the people who believe Gareth Penn was the Zodiac killer and murdered Joan. They send me all kinds of pictures suggesting the bearded man was Penn.

I rely more on the eyewitness description. There are several things that stand out. Certain things can be disguised, others cannot. The stature of the man was important. He was under 6" and approximately 160 pounds. He wore an overcoat. That is not the attire of a student, a cabbie, or a perp randomly looking for victims. The man's demeanor is significant. He was demanding, argumentative about loading a suitcase. Those traits are all very familiar to me and do suggest someone.

The man knew where Joan would be and a car was waiting. That is not random. The cabbie did not note any distress in Joan. She changed cars willingly. The lead was suppressed. That's incriminating.

Two people knew the correct cause of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan surfaced. Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro were involved in the investigation and worked closely with George Webster. That is damning evidence.

The most frightening thing when I look at the composite are the eyes. Now, this is an image put together from templates, but the eyes are cold and vacant. I think it is fair to say, the man was emotionally detached based on what we know happened. In my own experiences, I have looked into eyes equally as cold and detached.

Thank you very much! Very interesting; if you don’t mind, I want to ask you a question.

It seems the cabbie provided a decent description of the man. Height, weight. Did he give the age range? This would cut off/include certain people.

(Having lived in MA, although later). Lynn and Saugus are to the North of Boston. Not difficult to get there from Logan; I lived in Lynn for 2 months. How it looks to me, however: one has to definitely know the area. MA is small, but densely populated. It almost screams, someone local, to me. Would that fit your theory?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv, Bagpus, and Charlot123,

The investigation at the airport was very extensive. There were numerous agencies involved and they interviewed hundreds of people. There is no reference to an employee behind the counter talking to Joan, at least not that I have been able to recover. What I do find concerning was the interference of Jack McEwan, head of ITT Security and George's liaison. The Newark Star Ledger published the report on December 5, 1981 from an eyewitness account. McEwan called the police to check out that report claiming things were reported that the police didn't know, Joan was seen. It is interesting to note that McEwan was part of the group interviewing cabbies on the same day the article appeared. The lead got squelched, nothing more about it.

I spoke with an agent at the FBI early on in my research. He indicated the first people to look at are those closest to the victim. That is common sense and true in any case. He said he would have looked at the family first. That was never done. If there is nothing there, you cross them off the list. There could have been some red flags. George uncharacteristically travelled that weekend. At the time, I would not have even imagined the family. Now I can see in the best-case scenario, they were complicit to cover this up. What were they hiding?

When I started to dig into Joan's case, I looked for anything that justified the Webster allegations. As I see it, there were three possibilities: the Websters were lied to and deceived by authorities, the Websters are delusional or unintelligent, or it was a deliberate diversion by the Websters. The Webster's are neither stupid nor delusional. Records affirm the Websters had the eyewitness lead and were fully aware of the bankruptcy case involving the boat, the alleged crime scene. George's hand in the investigation is very obvious all through the records. That leaves deliberate meaning it was the Websters had something to hide.

At the time, I could never have imagined that or what it would be. Many years later, I found a very distressing letter that made frightening allegations against a member of the Webster family. If true, they were allegations of a serious felony. It would have shattered the family image. I have both corroborating and contemporaneous evidence that I sought help. Is that the missing key for motive? It would have been something Joan would have had some awareness. Things I have learned later, and documented, raise a horrifying concern about those allegations. Regardless, it was a catalyst that caused me to dig into Joan's case.

The man with Joan at Logan was a middle-aged white male. The details narrow the field. Having a suitcase suggests he was traveling. He had to know where and when Joan would be there. That really narrows the field. He had to be organized to have another car waiting. Joan knew him and trusted him to change cars.

Remember, there are at least two people involved, the man with Joan and the driver of the blue car. One of them was likely local and very familiar with the areas involved in Joan's case, especially the remote wooded are in Hamilton. My best guess looking at all of this: the man who maneuvered Joan to the second car was the one with the motive and was traveling to Boston. The man driving the blue car was the local who knew the area.

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve...in referencing the above, I believe I read Joan was spotted talking to someone near the checkout counter(?) If so, I assumed that was an employee but im guessing that wasn't confirmed.
Think it's pretty clear, planned not random. And with that in mind, it was to silence Joan. Why else would a plot be executed out to murder a young and loved College student?! There clearly has to be a motive and knowledge of Joan's schedule.

 

[Sweetluv]

Also Eve, the bearded man was carrying a suitcase. Do you think he was traveling or was the suitcase a prop to blend in at the airport?
Am I correct that Joan made it to the cab first? If so, where was he?Only because if they were walking together, why didnt the bearded man just lead Joan over to the "intended" cab? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to picture the event in my mind.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

You are correct. A classmate saw Joan talking to a man behind the counter in the luggage claim area. Then she walked out to the cab line and engaged the Town Taxi. Jack McEwan squelched that lead. McEwan likely knew Joan was seen at least by the cabbie. He was part of the group interviewing the cabbies. You can be damn sure they were compiling and comparing witness statements. Five flights came in within a small window of time from each other, two from Newark. Those are just the commercial flights and does not include other aircraft.

Joan had to get there first before the man caught up with her. I agree, if he was with her before that, he would have guided her to the other car and avoided being seen by or exchanging words with the cabbie. I have considered the man's suitcase as a prop to fit in, but that doesn't make sense to me. This was a middle-aged man. That would not be someone Joan would hook up with at Boston. She had already engaged the cab for Cambridge. She was headed back to the dorm. She dated young men her own age. If she had prearranged a meeting, why need the suitcase, and she would know there was a car for them. I don't think Joan expected this person until after she landed. She probably was given a heads up by the man behind the counter. The man didn't startle her. If it had been someone already in Boston meeting her, Joan would see the suitcase as out of place. Home phone records don't show any calls that Joan would have made to arrange a meeting. It makes more sense the man was traveling and someone that would not be readily identifiable in Boston.

 

[Sweetluv]

Thank you Eve..that logic totally makes sense!
When I first read about Joan's case, I was leaning towards the bearded man wearing a disguise. But, I assume this was not the case since Joan would not have taken a cab with just anyone. But why then, when the composite came out, has he not been identified?