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

[eve carson]

Try this to see if this works. I adjusted the setting.

09071600 paul grant.mp3

 

[cenazoic]

Working for me! Thanks, Eve. Will listen later this evening.

How are things going for you?

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve,

Are you aware of any items of Joan's that were recovered after her death locked away in law enforcement storage? Only because Dave Mittelman, with Othram DNA labs, have a thread on here that I follow. They have had their hand in helping to solve so many cold cases due to DNA. Could Joan's killer/killers possibly have left DNA on an item? Just brainstorming...I would love to see justice for Joan!!!

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

I have some awareness of what the current custodians have in their files. It is mostly documentation, but they do have some of Joan's hair. I don't think there is anything that would possibly have DNA from the offender/s. The length of time before Joan was found and the conditions would likely have washed away DNA or degraded any evidence. The two items that might yield a clue would be the suitcase or Joan's purse. The purse was found in the marsh area along Route 107. The suitcase was found at the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station. Both items were handled by numerous people. I don't know if the current custodian has those items.

The evidence in documents raises concerns about Palombo. It could reasonably be explained away if his DNA was on these items. The second concern is why the Websters suppressed the eyewitness lead and went after a scapegoat. That is very distressing to me. It would not be unusual for George's DNA to be on Joan's belongings. I don't think DNA will yield the answers in Joan's case. The key for me was seeing what really was going on during Joan's investigation and entangled matters. Who knew what and when.

On a little different topic, I nearly fell off my chair on Friday. I listened to the statement from the new SC nominee. You can hear her remarks at this link: Supreme Court Nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Statement | C-SPAN.org

At about the four-minute mark, Jackson acknowledges three individuals that she clerked for. The second name was Judge Bruce Selya. I checked her resume and confirmed she did clerk for Selya in 1997-1998.

Selya was the presiding judge over CR 85-010-S, the federal bankruptcy case against Paradiso in 1985. The key component of this case was the boat, the alleged crime scene of Joan's murder. This case should have discredited Tim Burke's allegations that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. Selya affirmed the boat did not exist by August of 1981 when Paradiso filed for bankruptcy and based it on undisputed evidence.

It didn't slow Burke, authorities, or the Websters from continuing to support those allegations. That is documented. Selya did a couple of things that raise questions. He allowed an invalid boat registration, a fake ID, to be entered into evidence. He also allowed the prosecution to enter three letters from George Webster to be entered into evidence. During the sentencing hearing, the arguments surrounded the allegations that Paradiso murdered Joan, something he was never charged for. And the allegations were impossible based on Selya's own determination that the boat was long gone by August of 1981. Nevertheless, Selya imposed a very harsh sentence on a case that did not even argue the charges that were filed.

Another document in these records was an FBI 302 report. Burke claimed an informant directed him to find a gun at Pier 7. Burke claimed Paradiso used what turned out to be a fake .357 magnum to force Joan on his boat. The interview with Burke's source indicated the informant's divers found a Mercedes in the water not a gun. There is a lot more that debunks Burke's allegation, but the bottom line is that the gun appears to have been planted evidence to promote the Paradiso boat theory.

Tim Burke instigated this case. That is documented. Burke and Palombo are both on record in the media, after this case, claiming Paradiso murdered Joan on the boat and dumped her in Boston Harbor. That is not where she was found.

If any of you listened to the conversation I had with Paul Grant, there are a couple of things to point out. Grant got no cooperation after Joan surfaced in Hamilton, MA. Authorities didn't seem to be interested in resolving Joan's case. Neither did the Websters.

Burke's book was announced in 2006 with the Websters' support. Burke still claimed Paradiso murdered Joan on the boat and massaged the claim she was dumped in Boston Harbor. Important to note, Burke misrepresented the CR 85-010-S case. He claimed Judge Richard Sterns [sic] imposed sentence on November 1, 1985. That is false. Selya imposed sentence on May 10, 1985. Stearns (Burke misspelled his name in his book), was appointed to the federal bench in 1993 by Clinton, eight years after this case. I think it is fair to say, Burke did not want anyone finding these records. The records are maintained at the National Archives in Waltham, MA.

This was a cover up and still is.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve,
I understand about the DNA and agree, coverup pretty much sums this up!!

 

[jgfitzge]

Eve, going off tangent as well here, this weeks true crime podcast, Trace Evidence is doing part 1 of the Lynn Burdick disappearance of April, 1982 From Florida, Massachusetts.You probably know this but her disappearance has been linked and/or speculated to Leonard Paradiso as well. Apparently he used to go out that way on hunting trips.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge,

Tim Burke tried to tie a lot of cases to Paradiso. The facts don't support them, but I am sure Burke would promote this. In April 1982, Paradiso was already a suspect in Joan's case in the inner circles. That's confirmed in parole records. Suspicions against Paradiso started in January 1982, but that was not publicly known until January 1983. Paradiso was a parolee at that time. He had to get permission to travel from his parole officer. He did travel in April 1982. He travelled to the south and southwest as a contractor selling seafood produce. He returned from his trip on 4-15-82. He was under considerable scrutiny by the authorities. A post card from Paradiso was received on 4-20-82 from Tombstone, AZ.

I believe Lynn Burdick disappeared on 4-17-82. That makes for a difficult timeline for him to take off again two days after he got back. When he returned, the parole officer put a travel restriction in place. Remember, the MSP informed the parole officer on 3-11-82 that Paradiso was a suspect in Joan's case.

I found no evidence that Paradiso killed anyone, but there were a lot of accusations that got piled on. Paradiso was no saint, but he was the victim of a very corrupt system who exploited Paradiso's vulnerability. Paradiso seems to have been the go-to answer to a lot of cold cases without any evidence.

 

[Sweetluv]

Just checking in...
How is everything going Eve?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

Thank you for asking. I am doing fine and working diligently on a couple of things that should be pulled together in the next few weeks.

When I was able to start getting into the records, I could see glaring discrepancies right away. I lived this every single day, so certain things jumped out for me. For example, the second phone line into the Websters' home was not documented or checked.

The extortion incidents I remembered were documented. I remembered three incidents that were never made public, they were never reported to the media. That is significant now because Joan's brother Steve claims he doesn't know anything about anything like that. His comments are documented. He's the one who told me about what was going on. One of the incidents was very dramatic. It is hard to fathom he would "forget" about these incidents. He lied.

Steve now tells people they caught the guy who murdered Joan and he died in jail. That is blatantly false. These are Webster accusations that were never charged or tried. Joan continues to be a victim of the Websters' deception and she is not the only one. I am concerned about some silent victims of this travesty.

This was a very complicated and confusing investigation, chaotic. After seeing the records, I believe that was by design. It is not that complex anymore. This was a cover up that targeted a scapegoat to divert attention from the real offender/s. I am organizing records to step people through this in as logical way as I can.

I can't begin to describe my emotions learning I was lied to about a murdered member of my family. At times it has been overwhelming. Many nights I just break down and sob. Joan deserves the truth. Hopefully unravelling her case will help with my own healing and the healing of other silent victims of this travesty.

 

[Sweetluv]

Joan's death has become your life Eve...and I admire your courage and effort to uncovering what was covered up!
The emotional strain you carry must be heavy..and I do hope that your able to find peace within.
Many strangers, like myself, want justice for Joan. I pray the truth will come out....in the meantime Eve, your have our support and comfort in knowing Joan is not forgotten!!

 

[eve carson]

Thank you so much Sweetluv. You can't imagine how much that means to me. This has been an extremely difficult walk. I truly believe God's hand guided me to answers. My faith has wavered at times, but the truth allows for genuine healing. I am sure I speak for any loved one who has experienced such tragedy. The truth is necessary to cope. The betrayal of trust in Joan's case only created more victims.

 

[eve carson]

A few weeks ago, Judge Bruce Selya's name came up during the nomination of Kentanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. My brother forwarded an article this past week of another name in the news that is connected to Joan.

Thanksgiving weekend 1981, Joan had plans for a friend to visit. The young man's name was Keith, and it was a meet the parent's type of visit. Keith had already graduated from Harvard Business School and was living in Detroit at the time. When Eleanor called on December 1, 1981, to let us know Joan was missing, she asked if I had Keith's number. Looking back, with what I know now, I often wonder if the family would have tried to pin Joan's murder on Keith. Keith was a fraternity brother of my brother during his undergrad years, so I knew Keith even before Joan met him.

Keith is in the news often. He is a prominent and successful businessman. I am not giving his last name here. A couple of years ago he was nominated and held a very high-level government position. This past week, he was nominated for a Nobel award. He is very worthy of the honor. But, not willing to overlook anything, I compared Keith to the description of the man with Joan at Logan. Keith was definitely not that individual.

Hearing these names in the news are a reminder to me that Joan's story needs to have visibility. Joan touched a lot of lives, and a lot of lives were impacted by the deceptive investigation of her murder.

 

[kemo]

Eve,
I’ve been doing a Deep Dive into this case. The Big question that jumps out at me is the validity of the Cabbie’s account of the incident with the Bearded Man. This whole investigation pivots around that event.

I don’t doubt that that scene occurred. A cab drive would remember missing out on a fare on some feeble pretext and remember the guy involved; particularly if he had a distinctive appearance. The woman in that scene was pretty much a “bit player”. How certain was the cabbie that the woman was Joan?

Joan certainly traveled to Boston alone. It is possible that she met someone she knew from Cambridge at either airport and agreed to share a cab. How such a random meeting of acquaintances could result in a planned murder is hard to explain. If, as you have speculated, Beard Guy initiated contact with Joan and made the discovery that they were both going to Cambridge so suggested they share a cab in Boston, and then, he must have had a co-conspirator waiting with a blue car at the airport.

For a sexual predator seeking a random victim, this ploy seems devious but complex with a lot of moving parts. And it is expensive; a lot of plane fares. The chances of finding a suitable victim inclined to share a cab just wouldn’t be that good. This sounds like something out of Crime Fiction. Now, a professional Hit Man with a suitable budget and the right social skills could pull it off but why would anyone pay to kill Joan? It’s all pretty far fetched.

Incidentally, were the crew of Joan’s flight questioned about Beard Guy. If he wasn’t on her flight, I say forget it. If he was on the flight, he should have been identified. If the flight crew wasn’t questioned, why not?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Kemo,

Thank you for your interest in Joan's case. I believe you are correct. This is the critical lead.

Joan engaged the Town Taxi outside the Eastern Terminal. She asked the cabbie to take her to Cambridge. He loaded her suitcase in his trunk. The driver gave a very good description of Joan and her belongings. I am certain this was Joan.

After her bag was loaded, she told the cabbie to wait, someone was with her. The cabbie began to load the bearded man's suitcase into the trunk. He struggled with it because it was noticeably heavy. That is when the bearded man exchanged words and told Joan, "We don't want to take this cab." The bags were unloaded, and the man and Joan got in a blue car in the cab line. That is where Joan disappeared. Knowing what happened to Joan after this, I believe the exchange was a ruse to maneuver Joan to a different car.

The dispatcher heard the verbal exchange and radioed the cabbie if everything was all right. The incident was corroborated by the dispatcher. This incident did take place. The cabbie gave a detailed description of the man with Joan. A composite was made, but the lead was suppressed.

Let me add a little more context. There was a report in the Newark Star Ledger on December 5, 1981. A classmate reported seeing Joan talking to a man behind a counter in the baggage claim area. Joan was very familiar with Logan. She had her things and did not need any guidance for cabs or the restroom. What makes the most sense to me is that she received a message that someone was going to catch up with her.

The report in the paper got squelched pretty fast. Jack McEwan, Head of ITT Security, called to have the police check out the report and said it was information the police didn't know. That was false. The police took the report. It just so happened, McEwan was part of the group interviewing cabbies at Logan. This lead was stifled along with the eyewitness report. Authorities just kept pushing she disappeared without being seen.

The authorities had a massive presence interviewing everyone, crew, passengers, airport personnel, transportation personnel. I doubt all of them knew about the lead to ask about a bearded man. What stands out is that no one seemed to comment about anyone or anything unusual until the cabbie.

I don't think the man had to be on the same flight necessarily. He just needed to know where and when Joan was going to be where she was. That list is really small.

What is the most revealing to me is who had this information and why was it suppressed? The eyewitness report was in police files. I obtained it from the current custodian files which they received from the MSP. Police records also confirm the lead was handed to Eleanor Webster. George and Eleanor had this lead in December 1981. I was part of the immediate family and knew nothing about this lead until I started digging into the case.

It is very obvious from the detailed description that the man with Joan at Logan was NOT Leonard Paradiso. He was a much smaller man in stature, something more difficult to disguise. Yet the ones with the lead, the MSP and the Websters, ignored the evidence and came up with the Paradiso theory knowing it was not true.

 

[Sweetluv]

Hi Eve!
Two questions...did you see in the reports if the man behind the counter was ever interviewed? He would have been a great person to question.
Also, why do you think the bearded man just didnt lead Joan to the "intended" cab?
Either the bearded man was coming off another flight to meet up with Joan, or didnt take a flight at all..and rode in this "cab" along with the "cabbie" waiting for Joan's flight to arrive..suitcase could have been a prop to look like a traveler but why so heavy? Just brainstorming

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

It may be that the man behind the counter was interviewed along with a lot of airport personnel. I don't have any specific knowledge from the reports if someone was identified. What bothers me is that the person who dismissed this report was Jack McEwan. He was George Webster's liaison at ITT. There are three incidents involving McEwan that threw the investigation of track or at least muddied the water.

Joan's plans over the weekend changed and Joan went back early. I know that because she had a friend planning a visit. When I spoke to Joan on Thanksgiving, she didn't say anything about that visit being cancelled. She would have said something because I knew the friend before he ever met Joan. She knew I would be very excited about his visit.

George claimed Joan went back early to work on a project with classmates. Joan finished her project and presented it before the break. No reports and the phone logs do not support George's explanation. That was false, but something very plausible people would tend to believe coming from her dad.

There are only four people I know of with certainty that knew where Joan was going to be and when, George, Eleanor, Anne, and Joan. Phone records don't identify a call to anyone that Joan might have told. This was long before cell phones. The home line was checked. The second line into the home was never provided so it was never checked. The phone was in George's study upstairs and it was off limits for anyone to use. What father would not check absolutely everything?

For someone already in Boston to have met Joan, someone had to notify them of the changed travel plans. I have a hard time reconciling Joan told someone to meet her, but then George and Eleanor would not go after that person.

I do believe Joan was the intended target after sorting through the records. Kemo suggested a professional hit man. I do think this was premeditated and with some significant skill. Why Joan? To me it is obvious that the secrets Joan could have shared embarrassed the family. Parents don't ignore evidence and go after a scapegoat unless they have something to hide.

I have mentioned before, years later, I found a very distressing letter. I provided the letter, corroborating, and contemporaneous evidence regarding the letter to professionals and authorities seeking help and clarity. I do believe the letter casts some insight into the secrets the family wanted hidden, and possible motive. I can't prove or disprove the allegations in the letter. There has been significant evidence that raise my concern that the allegations were true. I won't take that chance. That means there are some silent victims who are very vulnerable.

Motive is sometimes hard to discern. What I can see very clearly from the records was the intent of the Websters and authorities to cover up what really happened to Joan.

 

[eve carson]

To answer your other question, why not guide Joan directly to the blue car? What makes the most sense is that Joan had engaged the Town Taxi before the man caught up with her.

God only knows what was in the heavy bag. Cabbies handle a lot of luggage. I have to believe it was extremely heavy for the cabbie to register on that or have trouble getting it loaded. It really makes me shudder thinking what was in the bag knowing what happened to Joan.

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve..was this blue car they got into a cab?
If not, do you think Joan would have questioned as to why they were moving from the one cab to a car?
And why didnt the bearded man just escort Joan to the blue car in the first place? Or , did he arrive at the original cab after Joan? If that's the case, the man behind the counter must have told Joan this man was joining her..she went to get them a cab, he showed up, and had to divert her to the "intended" vehicle.

 

[eve carson]

The eyewitness report indicated the cabbie could not identify markings that would identify a cab or livery. Someone had to have some credentials to get into the cab line. Blue was not a color for cabs, so the color stands out.
Joan had to know and trust the man. She would not have changed cars otherwise. To me that rules out a classmate or professor she might have known. She would have just let that person go on and she would have remained in the Town Taxi. This was not random. She at least knew the man at Logan, but probably did not know the driver of the blue car. There was more than one person involved in Joan's murder. That totally contradicts what the authorities promoted.
I think I answered your other question at the same time you posted. I believe she engaged the cab before the man caught up with her.

 

[Sweetluv]

I agree, Eve...definently well thought out and planned.
Joan must have felt comfortable with this person.
Very unusual one would fail to mention another phone line.
Also, the small number of inner circle people who knew Joan's whereabouts at that time, esp with her coming back earlier than planned.
It has cover up all over it...and what Joan knew and was about to unveil, must of been pretty damaging and put a few people on high alert. Whatever it was, to plot the murder of a well liked and respected young woman, must have been big.
I do think Joan arrived at the cab first....the bearded man would have taken her straight to the blue car otherwise...less drawn attention.