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

[vls12345]

I read the first few pages of this thread and this last page, so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned re: the second phone line....

Since George and Eleanor Webster worked for the CIA, was this second line dedicated for work calls only? If so, I would assume the line might be monitored (constantly or occasionally?) because of that (esp. given George's/ITT's machinations in Chile). Regardless, if a true/honest investigator happened upon the fact of the second phone line, perhaps that person was threatened/told not to look into that line for national security reasons or similar. Or, if nobody knew of it because the Websters did not reveal it, perhaps it was because their oath to the CIA was stronger than care for family.

I guess what I am saying is that I think the "ownership" of the second line might have been considered the CIA's territory and was therefore not mentioned or resulted in being told to back off/forget you ever knew about this to state/town/local level investigators.

Could the phone line have provided info or been used in some way relating to Joan's murder? Yes. But I think the link to the CIA made it untouchable from investigation by any other person or group.

 

[Sweetluv]

I would love to see cold case detectives take a look at this case with fresh eyes. It would be interesting if employees could be found that were working at that time/day to see if they remember anything....travelers and cabbies too. 1981 was quite sometime ago and details of events fade, but if one persons memory could be jogged by something they saw or heard. How much publicity Eve, was given to Joan's case initially?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Vis12345 and Sweetluv,

The second phone line has always bothered me. It was in George's small study upstairs in a room across the hall from Joan's bedroom. Steve and I were in Glen Ridge in December 1979 for the holidays. I remember being told the phone was off limits. No one was supposed to use that line.

At the time, George was the Director of Budget and Planning for the Defense Group at ITT. He had responsibility for the Department of Defense. Certainly, there would be sensitive information in his area. I took it at face value. It is possible George still had some connection to the CIA, but officially, he had left the agency in 1955 when they moved to Dayton, OH.

The intelligence community is a very secretive world as I have learned. They do sign an oath of secrecy. I will never know whether this was an ITT line or otherwise.

But, if your daughter is missing, protocol be damned. He would have provided the number to check. Any record of the number or checked lines would have been confidential in police records. I don't believe they provided the number. Records I obtained through FOIA could have redacted any confidential or sensitive information.

The Websters' received an extortion call on October 14, 1982. When the caller called back the next morning, Eleanor went to a neighbor's house to call the police instead of using the line upstairs.

I do think there could have been pertinent information on that line such as a call booking Joan's flight. George could have placed other calls as well.

Steve had the number presumably in case of emergency. I would say a missing daughter is an emergency.

To add a bit more context as to why I believe they withheld the number, George and Eleanor received the eyewitness lead on December 21, 1981. They kept this information under wraps too. I did not know about this lead until I started digging into Joan's case.

The custodians of Joan's case do not have a cold case unit and they are none too willing to seek assistance. The evidence of malfeasance is overwhelming. They can't investigate themselves and will protect their own. In other words, they aren't the least interested to resolve Joan's case. However, I have made contact with some individuals who had knowledge of Joan's case at the time. I have provided information they did not have.

This case was very fragmented, information was in various departments, not fully consolidated in one place. That made it difficult to gather all the pieces to put it together. Having lived with this tragedy, I knew where to look for information that others had not considered. I can add insight into the family. Other information I found came purely by the hand of God.

 

[vls12345]

I wonder if you could get a true-crime podcast interested in doing a show, hoping to get more media exposure or pressure for Joan's case?

It must be entirely stressing and upsetting that the case has not been resolved, there are multiple clear cases of malfeasance, no cold case team, nor any real hope of oversight or investigation into the initial investigation. Sending you my condolences and sympathies.

 

[vls12345]

Do you feel like George and Eleanor were somehow directly involved in what happened? Or do you think of them more as hindering the investigation by not revealing all they knew (such as the second phone line, George saying she went back early to work on a group project, etc...)?

If they did have some type of involvement (directly or indirectly), do you think they know or have a good guess as to what really happened and why?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Vis12345,

I did a podcast last fall that went live in October. I think I added the link here. They had a few subtle mistakes, but overall, it was well done. The Criminology Podcast is one of the best true crime podcasts out there. I am working on more visibility as well.

I did some interviews early on before I had as much information as I do now. This case was so complex, it was hard to get it all in, people got lost. Sometimes the interviewer got derailed with some of the other speculation that was out there. I have Zodiac enthusiasts that have gotten downright hostile because I disagree this case had anything to do with those crimes.

This case was highly publicized. Some of the publicity has spanned decades. I started to dig into this case when former prosecutor Tim Burke announced his book in 2006 with George and Eleanor's support. When I began, I looked for anything to support the Websters' assertion that Paradiso murdered Joan. Or, hoped to find they were misled. Unfortunately, that is not what I found. George was very involved with the investigation and exculpatory evidence favoring Paradiso that he ignored.

At one point, I spoke to an agent in the Boston office of the FBI. He said if he had handled the case, the family would be the first place he would look. That's not unusual in any homicide to look at the people closest to the victim. That was never done here. Unfortunately, the agent didn't pursue it further. The Boston office was heavily involved in this case. Their own records uncovered malfeasance.

The Websters were involved to some level. They ignored evidence and participated framing a scapegoat. What a betrayal of Joan. The eyewitness lead of the man with Joan was not Paradiso. The boat was 35 feet underwater when Joan landed at Logan, no evidence connects Joan to Paradiso. Recovered documents support more malfeasance in the Marie Iannuzzi case entangled with Joan's. It was a dirty case. Understanding that case helped me understand Joan's. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to go after Paradiso for Joan's murder.

Do I think the Websters' knew what really happened? Yes, I do. If you don't know what happened to your missing daughter, you don't hide information and ignore evidence. You don't try to pin a crime on a patsy unless you are hiding the truth. I won't try to sit in judgment on anyone, but their behaviors were not those of loving parents. Lying about a murdered member of the family just is simply not OK and does put them on the list of suspects.

 

[vls12345]

Thanks for the clarifications, Eve.

If you do think the Websters were involved, do you have any indication or information as to why Joan's murder would have happened?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Thanks for the clarifications, Eve.

If you do think the Websters were involved, do you have any indication or information as to why Joan's murder would have happened?

I don't want to speak for Eve, but if you scroll up a few posts, she seems to imply there were family secrets that maybe Joan was aware of/ready to share. Eve, if my interpretation of your previous post is wrong, please feel free to correct me.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Vis12345,
At the time, I couldn't imagine the family having any involvement. There was nothing visible to me that I could point to. I think back to that first Christmas right after Joan disappeared. Steve and I went to Glen Ridge for Christmas. Christmas morning, George was very matter of fact. He said Joan was gone and we have to move on. No one in the family cried at all except for me. People handle grief in different ways. I attributed their stoic demeanor to their background. I look at that much differently now.
I believe the letter I found in 2001 does shed light on possible motive. Again, I can't prove or disprove the allegations in that letter, but if true, it would raise an alarm of other victims. If true, these were criminal allegations against a member of the Webster family. What I experienced after finding the letter was a side of the Websters most people don't see. There is substantial corroborating and contemporaneous evidence documented that I discovered the letter, sought help, and the author of the letter. Things documented regarding the letter leave me to believe the allegations are true. I trusted my instincts after the letter and the announcement of Burke's book. I felt Joan's case could provide answers and it most definitely did. Finding the seriousness of discrepancies and strong evidence of the malfeasance, I would be foolish to disregard the letter as unrelated. It only elevated the concern over the allegations.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Begginersleuth,

The background of the Websters' lends itself to a secretive mentality. I learned the hard way this family was full of secrets. For example, I was told George's father had sold his company to the Japanese. Why would I not trust what they said? It turned out, that was not the case. Another company RN was involved with was sold to the Japanese. The parent company had some serious ties with Nazi Germany. RN Webster became Chairman of the Board of one of the subsidiaries right after WWII.

That may seem off topic or what does it matter? Really, it is not. Those kinds of connections might have cast a negative shadow on the family name. This is a family consumed by appearances. It also demonstrated the family was disingenuous about a lot of things they told me.

If the allegations in the letter are indeed true, it is likely something Joan would have been aware of.

 

[eve carson]

I am going to give you some timeline points. The dates are derived from source documents. Then I will ask what to me are very logical questions. This case requires some common sense, a trait that seems to be in short supply these days.

12-21-1982: The Websters receive the eyewitness report of the cabbie that saw Joan with a man at Logan.

1-18-1982: The Websters make a public appeal for information and offer a reward.

1-19-1982: Sgt Tammaro's childhood friend Patty Bono places a call to the Saugus Police and alleged Paradiso murdered Marie Iannuzzi and was responsible for Joan's disappearance.

Late 2-1982: A contemporaneous account indicated the Websters held a high-powered meeting regarding Joan at Harvard. Burke and Palombo were paired to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case.

3-5-1982: Burke seats the grand jury for cause #038655 Commonwealth v. Leonard Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Testimony implicated Marie's boyfriend, David Doyle.

3-11-1982: Tr Carl Sjoberg notifies Paradiso's parole officer that Paradiso is a suspect in a new Boston crime.

4-5-1982: Burke seats another grand jury for cause #038655 John Doe Investigation for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. He changed the name for the same cause number.

7-6-1982: Tr Palombo arrests Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi.

8-1-1982: Sgt Tammaro meets with Paradiso at the Charles Street Jail and accuses Paradiso of murdering Joan on his boat.

11-5-1982: Paradiso's fingerprints submitted to the FBI for comparison in Joan's case.

11-24-1982: FBI reports negative fingerprint comparison in Joan's case.

11-30-1982: Jack McEwan of ITT, George's liaison, schedules a meeting with Glen Ridge Police Officer for 12-8 or 9-1982 in NJ.

12-8-1982: Robert Bond transferred to the Charles Street Jail awaiting trial for the murder of Mary Foreman. Bond was initially locked up in cell 68 on the 3rd tier. He was then moved to cell 31 in close proximity to Paradiso in cell 36.

12-12-1982: Palombo trailed two young women at Logan. Although they did not know him, he ended up giving them a ride. One of the passengers was related to Paradiso.

12-29-1982: Bond was moved out of the Charles Street Jail to another facility in Concord.

1-10-1983: Bond is sentenced at Suffolk Superior Court.

1-10-1983: Bond meets with the MSP at the Suffolk County Courthouse. Sgt. Tammaro is identified as one of the officers.

1-10-1983: Bond mails a two-part letter from the prison in Concord. The outer envelope was addressed to his wife. An inner envelope was addressed to Tim Burke. One part of the letter made allegations against Paradiso for the Marie Iannuzzi murder. The second part made allegations about the Joan Webster murder. (Joan was still listed as a missing person.)

1-14-1983: MSP interview Robert Bond about both Iannuzzi and Webster cases. Tammaro was the lead interrogator and Palombo was present.

After 1-14-1983: Authorities receive letter from Bond.

Burke and Palombo both filed warrants and briefs with the court stating Burke received a letter from Bond on January 4th or 5th, 1983. Burke asserts he scheduled the interview between Bond and the MSP, held on January 14, 1983, based on receipt of Bond's letter. Documents filed with the court were submitted under the pain and penalty of perjury.

1-28-1983: A source reported to the Boston Office of the FBI that a fellow inmate identified Paradiso as the offender in the Iannuzzi and Webster murders. The story also broke in the media. Tammaro claimed this was the "break" in Joan Webster's case. Bond alleged Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat, just as Tammaro alleged on August 1, 1982, and dumped her in Boston Harbor.

Take some time to digest this timeline. I am not even going into the circumstances regarding the boat, the alleged crime scene. I will post my questions shortly.

 

[vls12345]

Eve, the first date on your list should be 1981 I think?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Vis12345,

Thank you for catching that. You are correct. The first entry should be

12-21-1981: The Websters receive the eyewitness report of the cabbie that saw Joan with a man at Logan.

Now, here are the questions.

1. How is it that Tr Carl Sjoberg alleged Paradiso was a suspect in a new Boston crime on 3-11-1982 when authorities supposedly had not identified him until Bond's statement in January 1983?

2. Why did the Webster February meeting result in Burke and Palombo teamed to go after Paradiso for the Iannuzzi case?

3. Why does Burke change the grand jury from the Commonwealth v. Leonard Paradiso to a John Doe Investigation?

4. Why were Paradiso's fingerprints submitted in the Joan Webster case before authorities supposedly knew about Paradiso from Bond's statement, and ignored negative results?

5. Why did they arrest Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case before they had a witness (Bond) that put forth the boat theory?

6. How did Tim Burke arrange an interview between the MSP and Bond, based on Bond's letter, when the letter was not received until after the interview?

7. Is it a coincidence that Tammaro's friend Patty Bono placed the anonymous call implicating Paradiso in both crimes?

8. Is it a coincidence that a Webster meeting was scheduled in NJ coinciding with Bond's transfer to the Charles Street Jail, and he was repositioned in close proximity to Paradiso?

9. Is it a coincidence Tammaro guided Bond through the interview making the same allegations Tammaro made almost 6 months before?

10. And the biggest question, instead of going after someone who fit the eyewitness description, why was the lead suppressed, and Paradiso targeted?

 

[eve carson]

Here is how I answer these questions. Feel free to share your thoughts.

Burke did not schedule an interview between the MSP and Bond based on Bond's letter. Sjoberg did not allege Paradiso was a suspect in a "new" Boston crime (Joan) on 3-11-82 based on Bond allegations on 1-14-1983. Authorities did not submit Paradiso's fingerprints in Joan's case on 11-5-1982 based on Bond allegations. The catalyst for these activities was the anonymous phone call from Tammaro's friend Patty Bono on 1-19-1982.

The Bono call was the trigger for the Webster meeting in February. Paradiso was obviously discussed. The result of the meeting was Burke and Palombo paired to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case. There was no evidence to connect Paradiso to Joan, but Paradiso was considered in the Iannuzzi case. Paradiso and Iannuzzi attended the same wedding. Arresting Paradiso for Marie's murder opened the door for authorities to construct a case against Paradiso for Joan. That is evident in court filings. Burke and Palombo both broke the law submitting false evidence to the courts to justify going after Paradiso for both Marie and Joan's murder.

Seeing the problems in the Iannuzzi case, that prosecution was nothing more than a smokescreen. Burke changed the grand jury title. On 3-5-1982 it was the Commonwealth v. Leonard Paradiso. On 4-5-1982 it was John Doe Investigation. In the first hearing, the evidence implicated David Doyle. Burke did not want an indictment against Doyle. That would sever the link the authorities were trying to make for Joan's case.

You have to ask if Paradiso was a legitimate suspect in Joan's case, why fabricate a story to justify going after him. Obviously, the authorities lied. The real purpose behind all of this was Joan. Authorities arrested Paradiso before they had their witness.

I am not big on coincidences. Tammaro plays a big part in the set up. His childhood friend called the police and implicated Paradiso. Tammaro visited Paradiso in jail on 8-1-1982 and accused him of murdering Joan on his boat. The Websters just happen to schedule a meeting that coincided with Bond's transfer to the Charles Street Jail and positioned close to Paradiso. Bond told my PI and attorney "the guy from NJ sent people to see him," referring to George Webster. Tammaro was the lead interrogator during the Bond interview on 1-14-1983. He met with Bond earlier in the week on 1-10-1983. The letter had not been received by time of the interview but was expected. Bond mailed the letter on 1-10-1983. Bond just happens to regurgitate the same story about the boat that Tammaro came up with.

The authorities and the Websters suppressed the eyewitness lead from the cabbie. You don't do that if you are looking for the offender in earnest. Paradiso was set up. This was a coverup involving the authorities and the Websters. That is a damn near perfect crime.

I have not gone into the timeline on the boat here, but Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat was long gone by August 1981 during the bankruptcy fraud case on April 9, 1985. Burke instigated that case and provided fake evidence to that court. George Webster's letters were submitted into the record during the sentencing on 5-10-1985. Stating the obvious, Paradiso did not murder Joan on a boat that was 35 feet underwater four months before Joan disappeared.

 

[eve carson]

As I have indicated, I have been working on a couple of things to bring greater awareness to Joan's case. A new book has gone live today. Some documents are included in the book, but I also include a link providing supplemental information. If someone wants to see something that is not as easy for me to provide here, I can add it to that site.

Since many of you have been following this thread, you have some awareness of what I have learned in Joan's case. If you read the book, please share your feedback in the review section.

I have really worked hard to present this case logically and step by step. It has not been an easy case to unravel. It is time Joan's case gets the justice she deserves. I welcome everyone's input.

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

 

[eve carson]

The Joan Webster case is discusssed on True Crime Twins Podcast released today. I am adding the YouTube link, but the podcast is available on multiple platforms, however you listen to podcasts.

 

[Sweetluv]

Thank you for sharing Eve! I listened to it twice...fascinating and insightful.

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve, do you suspect ALL of Joan's immediate family members knew of this "plot" against Joan? How do you think the "orchestrator " approached the other family members and got them to rally around it?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Sweetluv,

The Webster family marches in lock step. Whatever George said is what the family adhered to. Honestly, I think Steve and Anne were afraid of their dad. I don't know if they knew right away, but I am sure they know now. I witnessed some very unusual things all the years with the family. They make more sense to me now. All they seemed to worry about was image.

Joan's case is not that difficult to unravel now. When you remove all of the distractions, entanglements, and sensational stories, there are some basic facts that remain.

The prosecutor, Tim Burke, and the MSP involved in the investigation, Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro, promoted a theory based on the statements of a jailhouse snitch, Robert Bond. Bond alleged Paradiso picked up Joan at Logan, took her to his boat at Pier 7, hit her in the head with a whiskey bottle, raped her, and took his boat out and dumped her in Boston Harbor. This explanation is verifiable false with source documents.

Tim Burke concealed the foundational documents in Joan's case in the entangled case of Marie Iannuzzi. The current custodian of Joan's records did not have these documents in 2017. I obtained these records from a different source and provided them to them. When Burke published his book in 2008, it was obvious he had these records. His story changed in his book to claim Bond said way out to mean Paradiso took Joan's body way out and buried her.

Certified court records, witness statements, and insurance records confirm the boat was sunk in July 1981, months before Joan disappeared. Current custodians of Joan's files did not have these records. They are public records maintained at the National Archives in Waltham, MA. Joan was found buried in Hamilton, MA on April 18, 1990. She was a long way from Boston Harbor.

The critical piece of evidence I recovered from the current custodian was the eyewitness description given to the Saugus Police in December 1981 of the man seen leaving Logan with Joan in a blue car. This lead was concealed just like the foundational documents. That description is not Paradiso. Joan told the cabbie the man was with her. She had already engaged a cab to Cambridge. The cabbie did not describe any force or coercion. For Joan to voluntarily switch cars with the man, she knew and trusted him. This was not a random act. It also implicates a second individual involved, the driver of the blue car. This also discredits the assertion that Paradiso picked her up at Logan.

You have to use some common sense with the Websters. Either they were deceived by authorities, they were delusional, or they deliberately diverted the investigation. Police records confirm that the Websters were in possession of the eyewitness lead in December 1981. Court records confirm the Websters knowledge of the bankruptcy case affirming the boat did not exist. They were not deceived. These are very intelligent people. I am sure they could not honestly believe Joan was murdered on a boat that did not exist. To this day, members of the family allege Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat, even supporting Tim Burke to publish his false account.

This only leaves one reasonable conclusion that the Websters deliberately obstructed justice for their daughter or sibling. I can't even describe the range of emotions I have gone through. If the Websters had been deceived, I would gladly provide the records and support them. I have offered countless times. Their responses have not been consistent with a family looking for truthful answers. Family members that lie about murder have to be the focus of any legitimate investigation.

As far as the current custodian, they had the eyewitness description in their files all along. They ignore evidence in verified source documents. They don't give a damn about justice for Joan. They provide no evidence to support allegations that are still publicly suggesting Paradiso was the culprit. This was and remains a cover up.

I have another interview lined up in the next few weeks.

 

[eve carson]

I thought you might be interested to see a review of Tim Burke's book that was posted in 2008, shortly after the book was released. I am not the only one who understood Burke's allegations were bogus. The reviewer made reference at the end of someone who posted and suggested you should only focus on the book and not the cases. That contributor seemed to miss the fact that these were real cases, they impacted real people, and publishing false assertions in an open murder case obstructs justice. It is also noteworthy that Burke published his book with the support of the Websters. For Joan's parents to encourage publishing a false account of their daughter's murder is really distressing. I have learned even more damning evidence against Burke and his allegations since this review.



Kevin O'Mahoney
1.0 out of 5 stars No Charges/Only a Book
Reviewed in the United States on May 7, 2008

The Paradiso Files is a compelling read. The writing isn't as bad as some have claimed. It does get a little nauseating having Burke describe himself in such glowing terms. Burke is not the white knight he claims to be. Let me first say that I know many of the people in this book (many of the defense lawyers, judges, etc.) and I've been a criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge/Boston for almost two decades. Burke prosecuted Paradiso for the murder of Marie Ianuzzi, claims that Paradiso is a serial killer and that he murdered Joan Webster. I have read the police reports, transcripts and other documents in the Ianuzzi case. The evidence pointed almost exclusively at Ianuzzi's boyfriend (he had previously strangled her, they had fought the night she was murdered, he had scratches on his arms the following day for which he gave three inconsistent explanations, he confessed to a friend that he killed her, and Ianuzzi's blood was found on the stairway leading to the boyfriend's apartment -- yet Burke prosecuted Paradiso. There was no physical evidence linking Paradiso to Ianuzzi's murder. It was a sham prosecution.

And, on the surface, the case against Paradiso for the murder of Joan Webster seems plausible, particularly if you believe Paradiso murdered Ianuzzi. Unfortunately, if you think about it, Burke's contention that Paradiso murdered Webster is all theory and no substance. There's no physical evidence linking Paradiso to the murder, no witness sees Paradiso with Webster, and none of Webster's belongings are found in Paradiso's possession (Burke claims a book seen at Paradiso's home seemed like something Webster would have owned, but that's pretty thin). Burke's case against Paradiso for the Webster murder hinges almost exclusively on Robert Bond's claim that Paradiso confessed to him. Bond was headed for a life sentence on a murder rap and wanted to plea to manslaughter. Since Bond had already murdered another woman, no prosecutor was going to allow him to plead guilty to a lesser offense unless he had something valuable to trade. Sounds a little suspicious. If the evidence against Paradiso was so compelling (and a competent prosecutor can secure an indictment against anyone with almost no evidence), why was Paradiso never charged with the Webster murder? In a trial, theories, "facts" and allegations are tested. If you release a book, you can trot out a theory unchallenged, leave out inconvenient facts, and blacken an individual's reputation who has no means to defend himself. If Paradiso, a north end guy, murdered Webster, why did he bury her body in the wealthy town of Hamilton (20 miles north of Boston), when he could have taken her out to sea on his boat? In fact, Burke claims Paradiso murdered Webster on that boat. Why then would Paradiso risk carrying her body to a car, driving the body 20 miles north to Hamilton, digging a grave, and burying her -- all without being seen? Why would Paradiso store Webster's luggage in a bus terminal in Boston? If Bond was so credible, why did Burke renege, after Bond testified against Paradiso at the Ianuzzi trial, on his plea agreement with Bond?

One reviewer has commented that a reviewer should limit himself to critiquing the book, rather than the case against Paradiso for the murders of Ianuzzi and Webster. The book is about these murders, and it's always good to raise questions about a theory and to call a writer on his shannigans. With regard to the jury verdict against Paradiso for the murder of Ianuzzi, let's remember that innocent men and women are convicted every day in this country for crimes they did not commit. Overzealous prosecutors are the least credible people working in the criminal justice system and should be challenged.

Again, it's a good read, but it belongs listed under fiction.