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

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve,
Is there any existing evidence that could be tested for DNA?

 

[eve carson]

On May 23, 2008, I overheard Joan's brother Steve tell a lawyer that they caught his sister's killer, and he died in prison. Steve was referring to Leonard Paradiso. Paradiso was in jail convicted of Marie Iannuzzi's murder. He died there soon after Tim Burke's book came out.

Steve knew that Paradiso was never charged or tried for his sister's murder. The family dropped efforts to get Robert Bond to testify again against Paradiso in Joan's case after her remains surfaced in 1990. Instead, the family and authorities just continued to accuse Paradiso. Many people still believe the case was resolved. That is completely distorted and dishonest. After getting to source documents that confirmed what her parents knew and when, it was a blatant lie.

Joan's blood kin betrayed her.

 

[eve carson]

On May 23, 2008, I overheard Joan's brother Steve tell a lawyer that they caught his sister's killer, and he died in prison. Steve was referring to Leonard Paradiso. Paradiso was in jail convicted of Marie Iannuzzi's murder. He died there soon after Tim Burke's book came out.

Steve knew that Paradiso was never charged or tried for his sister's murder. The family dropped efforts to get Robert Bond to testify again against Paradiso in Joan's case after her remains surfaced in 1990. Instead, the family and authorities just continued to accuse Paradiso. Many people still believe the case was resolved. That is completely distorted and dishonest. After getting to source documents that confirmed what her parents knew and when, it was a blatant lie.

Joan's blood kin betrayed her.

 

[Sweetluv]

Do you think, since so much time has passed, that someone will eventually speak up?
Someone knows something...maybe someone will not be (afraid) at this stage of the game and talk?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

The family cremated Joan's remains on July 13, 1990. I did not know at the time, but that was in violation of MA law. It required that authorities released Joan's remains to the family. MA disallows cremation of a murder victim when there is still potential jurisprudence. It was an unresolved homicide.

The current custodian has some hair samples. I don't know what other samples might exist. Autopsy or pathology reports are only released to the next of kin which was George Webster until he died. I do not have access to it.

I doubt DNA would provide much in Joan's case. The body was decomposed and in harsh natural elements which would contaminate any DNA if it exists at all.

 

[eve carson]

Joan's siblings are not likely to talk. Frankly, they have concerns of their own for the truth to come out. I do believe there are others who might talk. Depends if they feel enough pressure and don't want to suffer the consequences. Burke and Tammaro were complicit in the cover up. I suspect a couple of other people are vulnerable if the truth is raised to the public conscience.

That is what I have been trying to bring to the surface. For example, Marie Iannuzzi was denied justice from this sordid mess. When the perceptions are disputed with the facts, it paints a whole different picture than what everyone was led to believe.

 

[Sweetluv]

So sad...
If this only happened today, they might have been able to recover DNA the killer (s) might have left behind...on Joan or her personal items recovered.
Joan deserves justice..too young and innocent to not have the truth be known.

 

[eve carson]

I am not done speaking out. People are vulnerable when someone has lied about murder or other serious crimes. Joan deserves the truthful answers and so do other silent victims.

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve..do you feel this attack on Joan was in the works for a while? It seems like it was well planned out and executed...
Also, the bearded man seen with Joan, do you think she went with him because of something he said or who she (thought) he was?

 

[eve carson]

There is no question in my mind this was premeditated. The car was in the cab line. No question this was well planned out and executed. It happened over a holiday weekend when Joan's absence would not be noticed for a few days. The driver of the blue car was complicit. Remember, the Websters and the authorities both had this lead and suppressed it. I never knew anything about this lead or the composite until I was able to get into records.

The bearded man with Joan was the one who maneuvered her to the second car. It was late at night, she had already engaged a cab and headed to Cambridge. Joan would have not switched cars with someone unless she knew and trusted him. It would not have been some casual acquaintance. Joan was very level headed and responsible. She had been the victim of a purse snatcher in NYC before. She was aware of her surroundings. She knew the bearded man, but not necessarily the driver. The bearded man had to be the one with the motive. The driver likely had an incentive.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve,
Is it in your opinion, that Joan coming back early was apart of the "murder plot" and what do you think she was told to get her to come back early? Also, you mentioned witnesses said she was in good spirits.. so it leads me to believe, it wasn't conveyed to her that is was of an emergency status type situation, but important enough to have a last minute change made. Do you have any ideas as to the last minute change with introducing the boyfriend to the family..and possibly any connection?
So sorry about Joan death.
I commend your brave fight for truth!!

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

Very interesting questions. There is zero question in my mind that Joan returned early because of George's itinerary. The Websters planned everything down to the minutia. The planned visit to meet the parents would not have been disrupted casually.

Let me give you an example. The first time I travelled back to NJ was Thanksgiving of 1978. I got a schedule from George prior to the trip. On Thanksgiving day we went into NYC and had dinner with George's father at his club. The family did a round robin tennis before a late dinner. The schedule I received had seat assignments for who sat where in the car driving into the city. They had the ladder for the tennis all figured out. There was a seating chart for dinner. There were other details for the rest of the visit, sleeping charts, where we ate, who we visited. I was blown away when I got the letter. I was raised to be polite and respectful, and people go about things in their own ways. I dealt with this even in my own home over the years. It really was obsessive control. I attributed it to their intelligence background.

To cancel Joan's planned visitor was not something that just came up. When I got into records and some of the articles I had not seen at the time, I learned the messaging changed. Joan presented her project before the break. George even confirmed that in a quote to the papers. I knew that when I spoke to Joan on Thanksgiving. George changed the story claiming Joan went back early to work on a project. That was a plausible enough sounding explanation, but it was not true.

Why didn't Joan ride back with her sister Anne on Sunday? The likely explanation was a rift in the family. Outward facing, you would never see any discord in the family. Having been behind those closed doors, I know full well if you did something George did not like, you knew it.

Let me give you another example. On one of our family trips to Nantucket, I was sitting on the beach fully absorbed in a book. That was pretty normal for me. I even remember the book, London. Some family friends came onto the beach behind me. I had no clue they were even there. When we got back to the cottage, George and Steve raked me over the coals for not jumping up and running over to greet them. I had to really bite my tongue.

Joan went back early to accommodate George's trip, an uncustomary time for George to travel. I don't have his precise travel itinerary, but it was sometime over the Thanksgiving weekend, presumably to California. He returned home late on Tuesday, December 1, 1981. My recollection was confirmed by Eleanor in a quote to the media.

I had a miscarriage the same night Joan disappeared. She never knew that. The letter I found many years later, if true, would be something Joan would have had some awareness. Being pregnant, I would have been the likely person she would have told if she was revealing family secrets. I can't prove that, but I am trusting my instincts based on other things that support the validity of the letter. I can absolutely prove I found the letter, who wrote it, what it said, and who I reported it to for help. There is contemporaneous and corroborating evidence. Knowing now that the family lied to me about Joan and are complicit in pinning Joan's murder on a scapegoat, my gut tells me that my pregnancy was what sparked Joan's early departure back to Boston.

The other thing that was going on at the time was RN Webster's health, George's father. He was in declining health with Alzheimer's.

The source documents affirm the family had exculpatory evidence favoring Paradiso's innocence, but they continued to accuse him. The Webster family is very focused on image. The public persona is what most people see, making it hard to explain they had a controlling side. Based on the letter I found, they had some dark secrets. Often people would rather believe the best and vilify the messenger. It is obvious by the family's diversions that they wanted what happened to Joan kept secret. That is not what loving family do. How many times do you read stories in the news of upstanding members of the community, people everyone likes, have troubling things in their closet. I remind you of the Alex Murdaugh tragedies.

Everything we know now about what happened to Joan and the investigation shows this was premeditated. So yes, I believe her return trip was part of the plan.

 

[Sweetluv]

Thank you Eve for that insight!
Very eye opening into the family dynamics. Sorry about your miscarriage...
If only Joan didnt get into that cab. It's one of those moments you wish you could press pause, rewind, and do over.
But, it's like they say..the only side you have to worry about is your blindside...and Joan was blindsided.

 

[eve carson]

Facts Brian Laundrie David Doyle

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

This chart compares the Marie Iannuzzi murder with Gabby Petito's murder. Only a moron or a liar would deny that Brian Laundrie is a suspect, a prime suspect, the most likely suspect. During the Marie Iannuzzi trial, Andrew Palombo, the lead officer on both Marie and Joan's cases, said he didn't consider David Doyle a suspect in Marie's death. Tim Burke whitewashed, distorted, or dismissed all the circumstances pointing to Doyle as the culprit. George and Eleanor Webster sat in the courtroom and watched the whole charade. They went along with it.

The reason I emphasize Marie Iannuzzi's case is simple. This case was entangled with Joan's case: the same lead cop, the same prosecutor, the same suspect. Marie's case was the only bare thread to connect the cases based on three witnesses the state came up with. Patty Bono placed the anonymous call to the Saugus PD on or about January 20, 1982, implicating Paradiso in both crimes. She grew up with Carmen Tammaro, Andrew Palombo's superior officer. Robert Bond, the jailhouse snitch who repeated Carmen Tammaro's story that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat and dumped her in Boston Harbor. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared and she was found buried in Hamilton, MA. Ralph Anthony Pisa, once on death row, claimed two unverified conversations and claimed Paradiso confessed to both murders. Burke facilitated in getting Pisa out of jail.

Source documents support Burke gained a wrongful conviction in the Iannuzzi case. This case was a smokescreen to go after Paradiso in Joan's case. When you break the thread between the two cases, it becomes much clearer that this entire mess was on orchestrated cover up of what really happened to Joan. There is absolutely nothing connecting Paradiso with Joan.

On a second note, the recent reports now identify Alex Murdaugh as a person of interest for the murders of his wife and son. A prominent and well respected family had some serious secrets in their closet.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve,
Do you think the bearded man was in disguise?
If so, wouldn't Joan have questioned this?

 

[Sweetluv]

How was the family's demeanor after the skull was found?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

Good questions. There are certain characteristics that couldn't be disguised, the physical stature and race. This was a middle-aged white male, under six foot, and about 160 pounds. That is positively not Paradiso who was 6'2" and more than 200 pounds. That's where I start.

You have to look at who had this knowledge and withheld this lead, the police and the Websters. That is verified in records.

Everything points to premeditation. If someone is planning something nefarious, it is a certainty they would not want someone to identify them. No one focused on the driver of the blue car, but the bearded man would be observed. The man had a suitcase. He was travelling. That's the first advantage. He was probably not on home turf.

Joan knew and trusted the man. She acknowledged him to the cabbie. When the man exchanged words over his heavy suitcase, he did not want to take that cab. He was responsible for shifting Joan to a different vehicle. He represented some authority to Joan because she switched cars without any disturbance.

The description of the man and his demeanor is a pretty close fit to George Webster. George suppressed the lead. The only variance is the beard. George was clean shaven. The dress, glasses, and disheveled hair fit the description. George was travelling at some point that weekend. Eleanor and Anne uncharacteristically went with George to drive Joan to Newark Airport. The logical explanation was for them to drive home. Eleanor didn't drive after dark, Anne would have driven if George was no longer in the car for the return trip.

If someone else Joan knew approached her in a disguise, I would think it would have taken Joan aback. It would me. But she would not challenge her father. Remember, George and Eleanor had an intelligence background. In the 1970s, ITT was involved in some covert activities involving political outcomes in Chile. It was George's division and he was the director of budget and planning for the defense group, the DOD. He would have been in the thick of it. If you have those kind of activities in your history, presenting yourself with a different look does not seem unreasonable. Joan would understand that. She was the only child still at home during some of ITT's activity. It later came under the microscope under the Church Senate hearings.

I don't think ITT's involvements would be motive to murder Joan. I'm sure George and Eleanor did not want their image tarnished by any connection to outcomes in Chile. But time had passed and ITT's involvement was public, albeit overshadowed by Watergate. A disguise is a real possibility.

When remains surfaced in Hamilton, MA, George said everything pointed to Joan being dumped at sea. He didn't think the remains were Joan. She was positively identified by dentals. At that point, George and Eleanor couldn't avoid that fact, but Joan was not found anywhere near Boston Harbor. During a media interview on May 4, 1990, George said they still believed Paradiso was guilty. He refused to answer why they still believed that.

When pathologists were done with the remains, George had Joan cremated. In MA, that was a violation of the law to cremate a body if there is still some legal questions. This was an unsolved homicide. George did it anyway. I knew she was cremated at the time, but I did not know what the law was until I dug into the case. The only people present for the internment were George, Eleanor, Steve, myself, and Bucky, the choir director from their church. Anne was a no show.

That August in Nantucket, Anne's husband and I both questioned the premise the family represented. I still did not know about the boat, and thought the Iannuzzi case was a legitimate prosecution. I had no idea about the suppressed lead and the composite. Eleanor told me too much time had passed to figure out what happened. She told my brother-in-law that Paradiso's girlfriend had Joan's ring. That was false. We didn't hear the same thing and unfortunately did not discuss it to learn the discrepancies.

Before Joan's remains surfaced, there were several efforts to get Bond to testify against Paradiso in Joan's case. Bond was burned by promises authorities made during the Iannuzzi case so he would not cooperate. According to Bond, Palombo corresponded with him up to the time of Joan's recovery and told him not to change his story. After finding Joan, efforts to prosecute Paradiso for Joan's murder abruptly stopped.

In 2005, Burke said the Websters visited him and "wanted to know everything about Joan's killer." Burke announced his book in 2006 with the Websters public support and cooperation. In my opinion, loving parents don't endorse a false published narrative about their daughter's brutal murder. Joan's murder has something to do with Webster secrets. I am the one who found the distressing letter and sought help. I became a risk to the family image. Burke's book and the letter were the catalysts to dig into Joan's case.

 

[lisette]

Hi Sweetluv,

Good questions. There are certain characteristics that couldn't be disguised, the physical stature and race. This was a middle-aged white male, under six foot, and about 160 pounds. That is positively not Paradiso who was 6'2" and more than 200 pounds. That's where I start.

You have to look at who had this knowledge and withheld this lead, the police and the Websters. That is verified in records.

Everything points to premeditation. If someone is planning something nefarious, it is a certainty they would not want someone to identify them. No one focused on the driver of the blue car, but the bearded man would be observed. The man had a suitcase. He was travelling. That's the first advantage. He was probably not on home turf.

Joan knew and trusted the man. She acknowledged him to the cabbie. When the man exchanged words over his heavy suitcase, he did not want to take that cab. He was responsible for shifting Joan to a different vehicle. He represented some authority to Joan because she switched cars without any disturbance.

The description of the man and his demeanor is a pretty close fit to George Webster. George suppressed the lead. The only variance is the beard. George was clean shaven. The dress, glasses, and disheveled hair fit the description. George was travelling at some point that weekend. Eleanor and Anne uncharacteristically went with George to drive Joan to Newark Airport. The logical explanation was for them to drive home. Eleanor didn't drive after dark, Anne would have driven if George was no longer in the car for the return trip.

If someone else Joan knew approached her in a disguise, I would think it would have taken Joan aback. It would me. But she would not challenge her father. Remember, George and Eleanor had an intelligence background. In the 1970s, ITT was involved in some covert activities involving political outcomes in Chile. It was George's division and he was the director of budget and planning for the defense group, the DOD. He would have been in the thick of it. If you have those kind of activities in your history, presenting yourself with a different look does not seem unreasonable. Joan would understand that. She was the only child still at home during some of ITT's activity. It later came under the microscope under the Church Senate hearings.

I don't think ITT's involvements would be motive to murder Joan. I'm sure George and Eleanor did not want their image tarnished by any connection to outcomes in Chile. But time had passed and ITT's involvement was public, albeit overshadowed by Watergate. A disguise is a real possibility.

When remains surfaced in Hamilton, MA, George said everything pointed to Joan being dumped at sea. He didn't think the remains were Joan. She was positively identified by dentals. At that point, George and Eleanor couldn't avoid that fact, but Joan was not found anywhere near Boston Harbor. During a media interview on May 4, 1990, George said they still believed Paradiso was guilty. He refused to answer why they still believed that.

When pathologists were done with the remains, George had Joan cremated. In MA, that was a violation of the law to cremate a body if there is still some legal questions. This was an unsolved homicide. George did it anyway. I knew she was cremated at the time, but I did not know what the law was until I dug into the case. The only people present for the internment were George, Eleanor, Steve, myself, and Bucky, the choir director from their church. Anne was a no show.

That August in Nantucket, Anne's husband and I both questioned the premise the family represented. I still did not know about the boat, and thought the Iannuzzi case was a legitimate prosecution. I had no idea about the suppressed lead and the composite. Eleanor told me too much time had passed to figure out what happened. She told my brother-in-law that Paradiso's girlfriend had Joan's ring. That was false. We didn't hear the same thing and unfortunately did not discuss it to learn the discrepancies.

Before Joan's remains surfaced, there were several efforts to get Bond to testify against Paradiso in Joan's case. Bond was burned by promises authorities made during the Iannuzzi case so he would not cooperate. According to Bond, Palombo corresponded with him up to the time of Joan's recovery and told him not to change his story. After finding Joan, efforts to prosecute Paradiso for Joan's murder abruptly stopped.

In 2005, Burke said the Websters visited him and "wanted to know everything about Joan's killer." Burke announced his book in 2006 with the Websters public support and cooperation. In my opinion, loving parents don't endorse a false published narrative about their daughter's brutal murder. Joan's murder has something to do with Webster secrets. I am the one who found the distressing letter and sought help. I became a risk to the family image. Burke's book and the letter were the catalysts to dig into Joan's case.

Wow, Eve, this is crazy! Will you ever reveal the contents of the letter in question? Maybe you have stated before, and I missed it, but are you writing a book about this? How distressing it must be to be aware of such family dynamics, wondering how this could’ve happened to your sweet sister-in-law. I truly hope that answers will be found, and justice will happen for Joan.
If this is too personal, I understand, but did your finding the letter play a part in your divorce from Steve? Do you have contact with him now? How does he feel about your inquiries?

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve,
All of your answers to my questions are perfectly logical!
It's pieces to a puzzle, which I believe you solved! What do you think/hope will bring the truth to the forefront?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Lisette and Sweetluv,

I worked with an abuse advocate who recommended I write everything down to try and sort out my experiences with the Webster family. I did that awhile back and did make it available, but I have to admit it got very confusing to follow. Plus, I still had more documents to recover.

I am working on some things now. I am able to articulate Joan's case much more clearly now. There will be more to share in the not too distant future.

I have provided the letter to numerous authorities along with corroborating and contemporaneous evidence. If allegations in the letter are true, there are other victims associated with the Websters. I am cautious about the letter because other victims are vulnerable. However, I will be sharing more about the letter so people understand why it was so important for me to look into Joan's case. I don't think I want to get into too much here other than to say the Websters would definitely want to keep this secret. The letter most definitely was a factor ending my 25 year marriage.

Investigators do look for a suspect or offender's behavioral patterns with other relationships. However, those patterns may not be easily visible at the time, and in this case, not for many years. Every crime has a solution. Reliving Joan's case has truly been a nightmare compounded by the betrayal of trust. More nights than I can count I have sobbed into my pillow. The piece of Joan's case that I could bring to it was personal knowledge of these events, where to look for information, and I know the family dynamics. That insight helped me sort through the clutter in Joan's case. It can only be God's hand that guided me to other information.

George and Eleanor were very hostile when they learned I was looking into Joan's case. George sent me an email on Christmas night 2012, laced with profanity and wishing me to die. They are both deceased now. Steve lied about an extortion incident suggesting it never happened. I can only presume it was to suggest I was off my rocker. The incident is well-documented in FBI and police reports. Steve's denial of the incident that he told me about is also well-documented. Anne sent me 13 harassing emails identified through the IP address. I have communicated with questions. They don't have any answers for the discrepancies so they turn to personal attacks.

The question I ask myself is who was more important than Joan to want to cover up what really happened and blame a scapegoat? At a minimum, the Websters were complicit in the cover up no matter who struck the fatal blow.