940 users online (190 members and 750 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 219
  1. #166
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    What is Left of the State’s Case?

    Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo piled on alleged evidence to implicate Paradiso for Joan’s murder.

    Paradiso’s boat – alleged crime scene
    Cab – transportation Paradiso allegedly used to drive Joan from the airport
    Fake .357 magnum – gun alleged to force Joan onto the boat
    Joan’s one-of-a-kind bracelet – allegedly photographed on Charlene Bullerwell
    Jewelry pouch – allegedly identified as Joan’s in Paradiso’s possession
    The Iannuzzi case- a questionable conviction created the perception of serial offender
    Book Maya – allegedly Joan’s textbook in Paradiso’s possession

    Recovered documents and the DAO response to the April 2, 2017, FOIA request discredit the state’s theory or critical evidence is missing from the current custodian’s files.

    There is only one item left, the coffee table book. The book Paradiso had was out of print in 1975, six years before Joan disappeared. It was not a textbook or reference book. Paradiso’s fingerprints were on the book, but not Joan’s. Burke claimed Paradiso wiped everything down. Burke suggested the book was Joan’s because the MIT bookstore sold the book at one time. Burke does not support what edition the bookstore carried or when. Among Joan’s belongings, Burke claimed she had a receipt from the MIT bookstore. Note: Burke did not identify what the receipt was for or the date. If Burke actually had a receipt, it only established Joan purchased something at that bookstore at some point. You can bet if it had been for the book, Burke would have broadcast that. This was a white elephant book that would have been hard to find in 1981.

    There is nothing left of Burke’s case except witness Robert Bond and Bond’s statement contradicts verified documents. Bond has no credibility.

    In addition, the current custodian has no documents that raised serious concerns of misconduct with witnesses. The current DAO did not have documented evidence of extortion incidents that took place during the investigation. They are missing the invalid boat registration submitted to the federal court by Tim Burke’s office.

    I requested an FBI report dated July 24, 1985, in FOIA item XIX. The current custodian was not in possession of the report. I provided it after our meeting on May 1, 2017. I am uploading a copy of the report. This document is a huge problem. Guilt was predetermined without any evidence to support the state’s allegations except a white elephant coffee table book that was not verifiably connected to Joan.



    Authorities made a false representation to federal authorities during an ongoing criminal investigation. That is a felony.

    I had trouble uploading the document. Let me know if you are able to view it. I will upload it again if needed.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by eve carson; 10-03-2017 at 09:19 PM.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    Shielding Misconduct

    The Superintendent of Records ordered the current custodian to provide unredacted responsive documents to their office for an in camera review. The order required documents without delay. The current custodian has failed to comply with the order to date. Authority to require documents is found in the Code of MA Regulations 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). It is also authorized by MGL chapter 66 section 1.

    After the May 1, 2017, meeting with the DAO, I provided an email from a known individual. I received the email on December 25, 2012, Christmas night, in direct response to discrepancies found in recovered records regarding Joan’s case. The email was from a known individual. The email was very disparaging and under any circumstances would be considered harassment. The final statement in the email stated “Die.” The email has a traceable IP. Personally, I consider that threatening for bringing forward information about a murdered member of my family.

    In the DAO response to the FOIA appeal on August 8, 2017, the DAO affirmed contacting the individual who sent the email. The contact was not in an investigatory capacity. The DAO denied the request for records, responsive to the individual’s request, according to the statement provided by the DAO.

    Now the DAO is moving into the arena shielding an individual harassing and threatening a witness with both verified documents and personal knowledge of Joan’s case. This happened during the investigation with witnesses like Jean Day, Marie Iannuzzi’s stepsister.

    Time for some answers. Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    One Question

    If Joan’s case is ever going to be resolved, it will require transparency and accountability from the authorities in Massachusetts.

    I want to step back to information obtained through an FOIA in August this year.

    The Facts:
    Joan arrived at Logan Airport the night of November 28, 1981.
    Joan went to the taxi line outside the Eastern terminal with her belongings.
    Joan asked a cabbie to take her to Cambridge.
    The cabbie loaded her suitcase in the trunk of his cab.
    Joan indicated someone was with her.
    The cabbie had difficulty loading the bearded man’s suitcase; it was very heavy.
    The bearded man had words with the cabbie.
    The bearded man initiated getting into another car.
    Joan and the bearded man got into the vehicle behind the first cab.
    The first cabbie did not identify a known cab company for the second vehicle, but identified the color of the car.
    Joan did not arrive at her destination’
    Joan was missing until April 1990 when her remains surfaced in a remote wooded area in Hamilton, MA.

    Everything after the departure from the airport was wild speculation that was not supported with verified information. The cabbie provided a description to the police who constructed a composite. The composite was suppressed; it was never made public. Every report I have ever seen or heard at the time suggested Joan vanished from the airport without being noticed. Law enforcement were the departments involved in the initial days. When Tim Burke got involved after the Webster meeting in February 1982, the investigators pursued an anonymous call from Patty Bono, a childhood friend of one of the involved officers, Carmen Tammaro. The officials projected Joan’s departure in a “cab” onto their target and alleged Leonard Paradiso was the driver. The cabbie did not indicate the bearded man got into the driver’s seat suggesting there was another individual driving the vehicle behind the first cab. No one ever suggested two culprits or that Paradiso had an accomplice. Prior to the state’s story coming out, there were no reports suggesting Joan made any contact with a cab or was seen leaving in a vehicle. For that allegation to come through Robert Bond, meant his source of information was someone with access to the confidential police report. Bond’s statement also provided the correct manner of death seven years before Joan’s remains surfaced. That suggests Bond spoke with an individual with specific knowledge of Joan’s murder. Bond identified authorities he relied on. The list of four can be narrowed to the two individuals who would have been involved in the earliest stages of the case, Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro.

    The description of the bearded man was not Leonard Paradiso. It could not have been mistaken. Authorities projected known facts onto Paradiso. Paradiso was framed.

    After seeing the serious level of discrepancies throughout the records and obstacles I have encountered, I do not believe Joan’s loss is truly an unresolved case. The facts point to a cover up.

    The answer to who murdered Joan Webster can be resolved by answering one question. What person(s) did the authorities shield to avoid detection?

    I welcome your input and thoughts.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    Past and Present

    The answer to the question in the present is easier to answer based on documented statements by the current custodian. I have received several letters from the DAO and met with representatives of the DAO.

    The DAO response dated March 2, 2015, regarding an FOIA request is revealing. The words do not match the actions of the office.








    In denying the request for records, the DAO states “…this Office is hopeful, as always, that new credible leads may emerge.”
    I have provided the DAO with certified court records, FBI reports, sworn affidavits, and police reports. These are verified documents the DAO can also obtain independently. In effect, the DAO has not demonstrated they are interested in credible evidence.

    The DAO continues, “Even materials relating to an inactive investigation may require confidentiality in order to convince citizens that they may safely confide in law enforcement officials." That is lofty sounding rhetoric and has not been my experience.

    “We are in contact with Mr. Webster, and he opposes release of any information that might jeopardize the investigation…” This statement by the DAO is concerning to me. This case will be 36 years cold in November. The DAO acknowledges it is an open case, an unresolved homicide, but there is no continuing investigation on any regular basis. How do you jeopardize a basically inactive cold case investigation?

    As demonstrated in previous posts, the current DAO was missing numerous documents relevant in resolving Joan’s case. The DAO affirmed they received the voluminous files from the MSP. Where are the missing records? A name was provided to the DAO of a first-hand witness who can affirm Tim Burke removed a carton of Joan’s files from the Suffolk County DAO when he left that office in September 1985.

    The meeting with the DAO on May 1, 2017, also confirmed the DAO lacked knowledge about some evidentiary items or events that took place during the investigation. Documents were provided to them. How does the current custodian, lacking documents and knowledge of the case, find a truthful resolve?

    During the meeting on May 1, 2017, ADA John Dawley, the first Assistant DA in Essex County, affirmed he knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. ADA Dawley is shielding Tim Burke.

    ADA Dawley also said he has to weigh looking into this case. In other words, he is weighing justice for the victim versus “upsetting” Webster family members and opening old wounds. His statement suggests he is shielding the Websters from the truth.

    ADA Dawley statements are documented and verifiable.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    Who is the Bearded Man?

    To answer the question who avoided detection with the assistance of authorities at the time, the bearded man needs to be identified.
    There is information to go on provided by the cabbie interview. First we have a description. The composite, suppressed by authorities, is uploaded again here.



    The cabbie had Joan’s bag loaded in the trunk of his cab. Joan told the cabbie she had someone with her. The cabbie did not suggest Joan was distressed in any way. That says to me Joan knew the bearded man or he gained her confidence. He was described in his 40’s, so he was older than Joan. He did not fit the type Joan normally dated. The cabbie described the bearded man’s suitcase as very heavy. He had a hard time getting it into the trunk,

    The bearded man was agitated enough to exchange words with the cabbie. Perhaps he was a demanding individual or nervous. The bearded man initiated changing vehicles and had the suitcases removed from the trunk of the first car. I have added an excerpt from the police report.



    What strikes me in this statement is “we.” I am thinking out loud here. The bearded man controlled the situation. He made a decision for both himself and Joan. If they were just sharing a cab to Cambridge, I see no reason why Joan would get out of the first cab and go with someone she did not know or trust. Joan either knew this person or he presented a reason why she should be riding with him.

    The key factor for me is the authorities shielded the bearded man, covered up this trail by first suppressing the information, and then projecting this onto a scapegoat.

    Who do you think this could be?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #171
    This is quite an interesting case. I've read all the posts in a couple of days. A lot of information.

    I'm still struggling with the why of a cover up by the authorities. Why would they do that? Why would all of them pitch in this denial of justice? It's not just one person. It is several. A lot of person in the justice system could have questioned what you questioned. And yet, they didn't or it didn't went through.

    My theory is that the bearded man, or the driver or both, was a police informant. It's not the first time it would have happened. The guy is so important for some investigation that they can't allow him to go to jail.

    This would partly explain the apparent knowledge from the Webster that Palacio is not the men but they went along anyway.

    I would look into the informants that were active during that time period.

    Variation on the same thing : undercover cop. Maybe the bearded man, maybe the driver, couldn't do anything to stop the murder because it would have blown up his cover. This as well is something that happened before. And not just in movies.

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ebfortin76; 10-11-2017 at 10:05 PM.
    Using Tapatalk

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    Hi Ebfortin 76,

    Thank you for your comments and observations. You hit some points that are right on the mark.

    The fact Joan was seen and the description of an individual with her was provided by an eye witness removes any consideration authorities were grandstanding at some later point in time. This lead and information was suppressed. That is evident in court records and statements made to the public that Joan was not seen, simply vanished. Not true.

    So why would authorities cover up this crime and go to extraordinary measures to pile on Paradiso? One of the areas I dug into was understanding the climate in Boston at the time. The Boston office of the FBI was arguably the most corrupt in history. They shielded criminal informants. The most infamous during the time of Joan’s investigation was Whitey Bulger. His handler John Connolly went to prison. There are still authorities trying to cover their hind ends from the fallout.

    In 1968 SA Paul Rico and SA Dennis Condon were knowingly involved in framing four men for the murder of Teddy Deegan and protecting the guilty informant Joe Barboza. The four men wrongfully convicted spent years in prison. Two of them died there. The estates and two surviving defendants were awarded over $100 million in damages. Condon went on to serve as Superintendent of Public Safety in MA, overseeing the MSP. There was a culture of corrupt conduct.

    There is another case that sheds light. In 2010, Amy Bishop shot colleagues in Huntsville, AL after being denied tenure. Three were killed, and others wounded. She is now serving life without parole. In 1986, when Amy was 12, she shot and killed her brother with a shotgun in Braintree, MA. The Norfolk County DA swept the case under the rug and ruled it accidental. The evidence did not support that, but it seems the DA succumbed to improperly shielding the family.

    Nothing in recovered records indicate Joan’s loss had anything to do with the mob or mafia at the time, but there are common names of authorities that appear. It would be interesting to see if someone close to Joan had associations there. I have not found it and am not likely to.

    Your observation about an undercover cop is very astute. Andrew Palombo, the lead officer in cases involving Paradiso, was an undercover cop based out of Logan. Tammaro was his superior. These are the two central officers involved in developing the Paradiso/boat story with Bond. Bond’s statement is false; certified court records affirm the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. She was not dumped in Boston Harbor as Bond claimed. However, after offering the MSP a multiple choice during the interview on January 14,1983, his written statement was produced with the correct manner of death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan was found.

    Bond was talking to someone with specific knowledge about Joan’s murder. Palombo and Tammaro are the ones he was talking to. There was more than one person involved, but I do not believe everyone who played a part necessarily had knowledge.

    This case is considered an unresolved homicide. The current DAO is obstructing release of documents related to the development of the story with the MSP. However, records have been recovered from other sources. Recovered documents support some authorities knew who was responsible for Joan’s murder and may have even participated.

    The key is to understand the influence over authorities.
    Last edited by eve carson; 10-12-2017 at 09:12 PM.

  8. #173
    For me this theory explains a lot of things. It explains the meeting with the Webster where the case assignments were made. They were very influential, and from an intelligence background, so they had to come clean to them. It explains why the Webster keep pushing a narrative that is demonstrably false. It explains why the current DAO doesn't want to touch this case with a 100 feet pole. It explains a lot.

    Now the question is who. I do not believe the Webster would have pushed to assign cops that they knew murdered their daughter. So these cops were the one needing things to be covered up. But they were not directly involved. And maybe they were told, the Webster's, that justice would get to their daughter killer later eventualy. If it was my daughter, that I was being told the cops knew who did it, but they needed the guy for some important stuff. And I accepted to let them be, I would have asked for justice later. The guy may be dead right now. Maybe they used him for the time being and after the case, they just dumped him for others to do the dirty work.

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ebfortin76; 10-13-2017 at 12:09 PM.
    Using Tapatalk

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    Hi Ebfortin 76,

    There are plenty of examples of pragmatism in the intelligence community. The attitude the ends justify the means is greatly flawed. Those with that mindset are disconnected from the harm it causes others and those left vulnerable.

    Some examples are when the CIA got in bed with mafia figures in assassination attempts against Castro. The FBI got in bed with the mob to try and bring down the mafia. The Suffolk County DAO, Tim Burke’s office, turned a blind eye to the facts that denied Maria Iannuzzi justice. ITT was an undercover firm for the CIA overthrowing the presidency of Salvatore Allende. Augusto Pinochet took power in Chile leading to horrific atrocities in Chile.

    In these circumstances, a convicted killer once on death row, Tony Pisa, walked out of jail a free man. Authorities made promises to Robert Bond. He did get another trial. David Doyle, Marie Iannuzzi’s boyfriend escaped prosecution.

    Decent people were victimized. Paradiso’s girlfriend was charged as an accessory after the fact in the Iannuzzi trial and charged in a federal bankruptcy fraud case. Jean Day was assaulted and threatened with never seeing her child again. Christine DeLisi was also threatened with losing her child.

    It is one thing when officials follow a pragmatic approach when they are emotionally disconnected from the victims of their conduct. For George and Eleanor Webster, this was their daughter. Speaking for myself, I would not look at something some official considered a “greater good” when it comes to my child. If they took that posture, it is long overdue to come forward with the truth. Perhaps the fear of lawsuits for complicity to scapegoat and victimize innocent people is a consideration.

    Somebody working with Bond knew the correct manner of death. That is very unsettling for me. Why frame someone? Why not just leave it an unresolved mystery? There was an aggressive push to pile on Paradiso. Paradiso was vulnerable to accusations. He had a rap sheet and was a parolee. There were people that challenged this at the time. I learned that in records and speaking with a PI involved at the time, Ray Morgan.

    Your observation that the Websters had influence is correct. Their public statements and posture certainly impacted perceptions. The current custodian said he had to “weigh” looking into this, justice versus bringing up painful memories. It was suggested strongly that I do not probe so deeply into this case. To me, that suggests I become complicit with my silence to keep the truth of Joan’s murder buried. That is asking me to break the law and cover up the murder of a member of my family. Not a chance. That's what the authorities did to Jean Day.
    Last edited by eve carson; 10-13-2017 at 08:50 PM.

  10. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by eve carson View Post
    Hi Ebfortin 76,

    There are plenty of examples of pragmatism in the intelligence community. The attitude the ends justify the means is greatly flawed. Those with that mindset are disconnected from the harm it causes others and those left vulnerable.

    Some examples are when the CIA got in bed with mafia figures in assassination attempts against Castro. The FBI got in bed with the mob to try and bring down the mafia. The Suffolk County DAO, Tim Burke’s office, turned a blind eye to the facts that denied Maria Iannuzzi justice. ITT was an undercover firm for the CIA overthrowing the presidency of Salvatore Allende. Augusto Pinochet took power in Chile leading to horrific atrocities in Chile.

    In these circumstances, a convicted killer once on death row, Tony Pisa, walked out of jail a free man. Authorities made promises to Robert Bond. He did get another trial. David Doyle, Marie Iannuzzi’s boyfriend escaped prosecution.

    Decent people were victimized. Paradiso’s girlfriend was charged as an accessory after the fact in the Iannuzzi trial and charged in a federal bankruptcy fraud case. Jean Day was assaulted and threatened with never seeing her child again. Christine DeLisi was also threatened with losing her child.

    It is one thing when officials follow a pragmatic approach when they are emotionally disconnected from the victims of their conduct. For George and Eleanor Webster, this was their daughter. Speaking for myself, I would not look at something some official considered a “greater good” when it comes to my child. If they took that posture, it is long overdue to come forward with the truth. Perhaps the fear of lawsuits for complicity to scapegoat and victimize innocent people is a consideration.

    Somebody working with Bond knew the correct manner of death. That is very unsettling for me. Why frame someone? Why not just leave it an unresolved mystery? There was an aggressive push to pile on Paradiso. Paradiso was vulnerable to accusations. He had a rap sheet and was a parolee. There were people that challenged this at the time. I learned that in records and speaking with a PI involved at the time, Ray Morgan.

    Your observation that the Websters had influence is correct. Their public statements and posture certainly impacted perceptions. The current custodian said he had to “weigh” looking into this, justice versus bringing up painful memories. It was suggested strongly that I do not probe so deeply into this case. To me, that suggests I become complicit with my silence to keep the truth of Joan’s murder buried. That is asking me to break the law and cover up the murder of a member of my family. Not a chance. That's what the authorities did to Jean Day.
    By the way, what makes you think that Bond knew how she died? I could easily argue that he made a guess (she was hit on the right of the face) and was right on it. The probabilities are good. I don't think we can conclude with absolute certainty that he knew how she died.

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
    Using Tapatalk


  11. #176
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    Hi Ebfortin 76,

    During the Bond interview with the MSP, Bond offered up two options for Joan’s murder, strangulation or a blow to the head. In his comments he suggested to the MSP they pick whichever f***ing one they want. Strangulation was the MO for the Iannuzzi murder.

    In Bond’s written statement, which was produced later, Bond clearly suggests the manner of Joan’s death was a blow to the head. In both the interview and written statement, Bond indicates Joan had a large hole on the right side of her head. Bond claimed Paradiso hit her with a whiskey bottle, an item Bond could see in the photos of Paradiso’s boat that Paradiso had up on his cell wall.

    Court records affirm the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. There were no liquor bottles or shards of glass found on the recovered boat. Bond was a snitch placed close to Paradiso in the Charles Street Jail. He had no independent knowledge. Bond’s written statement also referred to Joan taking a cab. Only the authorities had knowledge of the cabbie’s description. All public statements to the media and court records claimed Joan vanished without a trace, no one saw her after seeing her at the luggage carousel. That’s not true.

    Bond did not know the manner of death. He gave the MSP a choice. I believe it was the MSP who knew the manner of death. Lucky guess by Bond when the written statement was produced? I doubt it. The MO was strangulation in the Iannuzzi case. The story claimed Joan was in a crammed boat cabin where there was very little room to even turn around. Paradiso was a big man. He would not have the leverage to strike a blow that hard to cause the injury. The explanation is too specific about the injury years before the remains surfaced. Bond’s information was coming from the authorities involved in developing his story, Palombo and Tammaro. I believe they knew what happened to Joan.

    The DAO is obstructing release of the Bond statement and interview. I have recovered them from another source. Bond couldn’t keep his stories straight. He fumbled providing some answers the MSP sought. Bond is not a very smart man. The documents clearly show the methods police used to come up with this story.

    Let me describe the condition of Joan’s remains. She had a 2” x 4” hole that took out the entire right side of her skull. She was stripped of all clothing and none was found in the vicinity after an extensive search. She was buried in a shallow grave covered by cut logs on two different occasions. She was thrown out in a black plastic trash bag more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene in a heavily wooded and remote area in Hamilton, MA. My information was provided by Det. Paul Grant who was part of the recovery team. The information is documented.

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by eve carson; 10-13-2017 at 09:58 PM.

  12. #177
    Maybe you're right. But I would say a major blow to the head is not uncommon. If his fake story was she got blungeoned, it's not a stretch to say that he also said "major blow to the right side of the head". Moreso if the suspect in question was right handed. But I agree it points to Bond knowing more from people that knew a hell more.

    If the theory I exposed and that you obviously thought of before is true, then it can be anyone that did that, beside the protagonists in the story, the one we know of. Who were they protecting and why? It has to be someone unstable enough that they lose control of him for some time and he commit a murder. Maybe he was accused of murder before. Who were the convicted murderers in the areas, at the time, that could have some value to the cops? It's like looking for a nail in a haystack...

    Also the theory put forth doesn't explain why Joan went back early from her trip to her family. And why she, according to witnesses, seemed like she knew the bearded man. Was there anyone around the family that did jail time years before?

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
    Using Tapatalk

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    Hi Ebfortin 76,

    A combination of things prompted me to dig into Joan’s case. I will try to dissect some of that for you in the next posts.

    I would agree that a blow to the head may not be that unusual. However, Paradiso was being profiled with an MO of strangulation. Tim Burke then tried to implicate him for other unresolved murders. Strangulation and stabbings were the causes of death in other unresolved homicides. This would be a change in his modus operandi if he had been the culprit. I have seen no evidence Paradiso was responsible for any of the murders Burke alleged. In 2008, the DAO looked into other unresolved murders Burke insinuated, but found nothing to connect Paradiso to those crimes.

    Paradiso was right handed. To inflict a blow to the right side of Joan’s skull, the offender was either behind her or left handed and facing her. If you look at the injury sustained, that blow was dealt with enormous force. The fatal blow was not inflicted with a whiskey bottle in a crammed boat cabin on a boat already 35 feet under water. Burke’s pieces never fit, but Joan had not surfaced. Speculation and wild allegations circulated unchecked, trial by tabloid.

    Palombo testified during the Iannuzzi trial in July 1984 and described his relationship and interaction with David Doyle, the victim’s boyfriend. Palombo stated he met with Doyle 20-30 times in undocumented meetings. He testified Doyle came to him with what he heard on the street. This is an improper relationship between a lead cop and a murder suspect. Palombo’s testimony can reasonably be considered the relationship between an undercover cop and an informant. Doyle was a drug user in East Boston. There was an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence against Doyle in the Iannuzzi case. This should have been a slam dunk for a prosecutor.The Iannuzzi case went cold until Joan disappeared and provided a scapegoat to take care of Palombo’s cases.

    Doyle had nothing to do with Joan’sloss. So he was not the offender being shielded for Joan’s murder. I think the pool of suspects can be narrowed by looking at who authorities would protect. In the case of Doyle, cops were willing to sink pretty low. But Joan’s case was high-profile. As you indicated before, a lot of departments and agencies were involved, so the offender had to have influence or some degree of control over officials. The offender was organized. The case was splintered or partitioned. This rose to very high levels including the director of the FBI, William Webster (no relation).

    Joan’s early return to Cambridge has always bothered me. The explanation was given by George Webster. Nothing corroborates that explanation. If it exists, it is buried in the current custodian’s files. The police report taken from the cabbie suggests to me Joan knew the bearded man or he gained her confidence. The cabbie did not describe anything that would alert him to some distress.

    The actions of the authorities were so deliberate ignoring facts and suppressing a lead, it leads me to believe, they knew the offender. The question is did George and Eleanor Webster know the offender? The Websters certainly had contacts in the Boston area. George’s father owned a company in the area for many years. The family was upper middle class, but that does not mean they did not know someone who was ever incarcerated. That’s not a question I can answer. To give you a sense of their mindset, I can describe someone their son Steve knew who was convicted for espionage, Bill Kampiles. Steve was a character witness during the sentencing phase. The mindset was pragmatic, offering explanations that justified wrongdoing. Encountering experiences like this was completely foreign to me. Personally, I am not an enabler and don't put anything ahead of my children.
    Last edited by eve carson; 10-14-2017 at 06:12 PM.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    One of the factors that prompted me to dig deeply into Joan’s case was Tim Burke’s announcement in 2006 with the Websters' support. Burke is a former government employee who had privileged access to files. This is an unresolved case. I already knew facts in the case made Burke’s explanation implausible. For example, Joan’s remains surfaced in Hamilton, MA, more than 30 miles from Burke’s alleged crime at Pier 7 in Boston. She was not dumped in Boston Harbor as originally asserted.



    The current custodian denies access to records claiming investigatory and privacy exemptions. It is now confirmed the DAO is missing numerous relevant files. They lacked knowledge of key elements of Burke’s allegations. ADA John Dawley affirmed he knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him.

    Tim Burke published his account in 2008 for the Websters. He dedicated the book to them.



    In Burke’s acknowledgements, he indicates the Websters came to him in 2005. He suggests families want to know as much as possible what happened. As a family member of a murder victim, I know I want the truth; that is part of healing. Burke goes on to claim his publication is based on actual records. The public can’t check his assertions since records are denied by the custodian. I had an advantage to know where to look for some information. Burke had a free hand to misrepresent, distort, and blatantly lie about what is in the records.



    During the May 1, 2017, meeting with the DAO, ADA John Dawley suggested he had to weigh investigating the discrepancies presented to him versus rekindling painful memories for the Webster family. Proper justice is the responsibility of the DAO.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by eve carson; 10-15-2017 at 11:33 AM.

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    157
    I want each of you to think about the loved ones in your life. Think how you would feel reading about a brutally murdered member of your family. The description is published by the former prosecutor, a government employee, tasked with the responsibility of truth, justice, and public safety.

    This is an excerpt published in2008 depicting Burke’s supposed conversation with snitch Robert Bond.






    1. The reference to picking Joan up around 10:30 is information recently recovered in a police report and information provided by an eye witness. Bond could only learn anything regarding a cab from the police.
    2. In the January 14, 1983, interview with the MSP, Bond alleged the MSP suggested Paradiso drove a cab for someone afraid to come forward. Nothing corroborates the assertion.
    3. Burke claimed Bond specified Pier 7 even though in the MSP interview, Bond said he had no clue and if it was not Pier 7 that was on the MSP.
    4. Bond is making some direct quotes from documents the current DAO has denied to in an FOIA request.
    5. Burke describes correct detail of the manner of death. However, the alleged weapon was a whiskey bottle on Paradiso’s boat.
    6. Bond’s allegations claimed Paradiso took Joan out on his boat and dumped her in Boston Harbor. Only after Joan’s remains surfaced in 1990 did the story shift to try and fit with the undeniable facts.
    7. Bond never made an assertion Paradiso buried the body.







    I have to wonder what documents Burke selected for his tome. I am uploading again the certified court records from CR 85-010-S affirming the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.

    How would you feel knowing a prosecutor had so little value for a victim? How would you feel about an authority tasked with justice exploiting the victim? What would you do?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by eve carson; 10-15-2017 at 08:47 PM.

Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast