735 users online (78 members and 657 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 198
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    Iannuzzi Trial – Overview – 1984

    It may not seem so quite yet, but this is very important to resolving Joan’s case.

    It is not necessary to go through the Iannuzzi trial blow by blow. It is instructive however, to bring out certain significant points.
    Paradiso’s attorney argued another culprit defense. David Doyle, Marie’s boyfriend was the other suspect identified in Marie’s murder. The evidence in the records pointing to Doyle were significant. Some other individuals will be profiled after this post.

    The couple had a known abusive relationship. Marie was an out-of-work waitress. Marie and Doyle were both known drug users. They lived together on the 3rd floor of his parent’s home in East Boston.

    Doyle and Marie had a heated argument in front of wedding guests at the reception on August 11, 1979. Doyle went home with his parents. Marie went to an after party in Saugus. Family and friends knew the relationship was in trouble. Marie was seeing another guy while she lived with Doyle. Doyle had a significant rap sheet; he had trouble with the law.

    When a body was found, Marie’s mother and sister went to the Doyle’s home. They noticed Marie’s belongings packed before the body was identified. Doyle was out of it. He went to the Iannuzzi home while they waited for the police. Jean Day, Marie’s stepsister, previously testified Doyle sat on his hands in the kitchen. When he stood up, she noticed long scratches across the top of both hands.

    Doyle initially told police a cat caused the scratches. However, another Iannuzzi sister, Cathy Leonti, previously testified the cat ran away 2 months before the murder. Doyle’s mother told police the scratches were a result of a car accident that happened in June.

    During the grand jury in 1982, Marie’s uncle described the scratches as wide, deep, oozing gouges dug from the wrist to the fingers. During the trial Burke tried to argue the age of the scratches. It was incredibly offensive like he was picking scabs. However, the uncle, Benjamin Puzzo, did make a very revealing statement. He said the scratches were covered with mercurochrome. For those of you not old enough to remember that, it was an orange red antiseptic you put on fresh wounds to prevent infection.

    Family members went to the apartment to pick out a dress for the wake. They noticed a drop that appeared to be blood on the steps.
    After the wakes, Doyle took off and took a flight to NJ. He was arrested stealing from suitcases at Newark Airport. He was in possession of a stolen ticket from La Guardia to Boston. He gave police a false name. He missed the funeral where he was supposed to be a pall bearer.

    During the trial, Doyle and his mother both gave new explanations for the scratches. His mother claimed he was working for Metro and fell off the platform. Doyle suggested he went to a bar after the wake and got into a bar brawl. The twists in the explanation really reached an absurd level.

    There was a prior incident the end of May or early June 1979. Marie and Doyle had an argument and Doyle grabbed her by the neck. This was a prior act that multiple witnesses described during previous testimony. Marie had strangulation marks on her neck and went to a friend’s house for a few days. During the trial, the testimony of Christine DeLisi changed. A sworn affidavit submitted during an appeal of the Iannuzzi case from a neighbor of DeLisi stated she was threatened by the prosecutor and police. She was threatened with never seeing her children again. The judge disallowed testimony from Anna Marie Kenney about the incident.

    Palombo also testified. He indicated he did not consider Doyle a suspect. He testified he met with Doyle 20-30 times in undocumented meetings. He claimed Doyle came to him to report what he heard on the street.

    Burke’s argument was Paradiso was the last person seen with Marie alive. He relied on witness Christime DeLisi.whose testimony changed from the grand jury to the trial. Christine did not wait at the bar to see if Marie returned. Palombo had the police reports in case files naming four individuals that saw Marie back in the bar between 1:30 am and the 2 am closing.

    Bar patron Carol Seracuse read from the police report taken at the time of the incident stating she saw Marie at 1:30 am, well after Christine DeLisi saw Paradiso hold the door for Marie. Burke went ballistic objecting. The judge disallowed the police report and upheld the objection. Seracuse did not have a current recollection of the time.

    Marie’s stepsister Jean Day arrived at the courthouse on July 18, 1984. She had been in hiding, authorities could not find her. In the morning, the defense investigator Dennis Slawsby interviewed her. Her testimony was consistent with her grand jury testimony in 1982. She implicated the boyfriend David Doyle. After the interview, Burke and Palombo escorted her down the hall. An hour later, she got on the stand and changed her testimony. The defense counsel stopped the proceeding, but the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution.
    Burke revealed in a lobby conference Day had been assaulted. He indicated Palombo knew when and they had photos. Jean had broken bones in her face. Slawsby gave a sworn statement. Jean’s neighbor also gave a sworn statement that she was pressured by the prosecutor and law enforcement. Both were submitted to the court during the Iannuzzi appeal.

    The state’s case relied largely on the testimony of two witnesses, both convicted murderers. Robert Bond was the star witness. Bond placed Paradiso at the Cardinale’s Nest Bar at 11 pm on August 11, 1979, with the victim. He placed Paradiso’s girlfriend at home in Revere. This was based on an alleged confession at the Charles Street Jail. I will profile Bond in a later post.

    The defense put Vincent Milano on the stand the next day, July 17, 1984. Milano was the groom’s brother and was at his parent’s home after the wedding. He left their house in Saugus around 11 pm. He testified the crowd was thinning out. Paradiso and his girlfriend were still at his parent’s home. Marie Iannuzzi was not there. A first hand witness placed Paradiso half an hour away contradicting the state’s witness Robert Bond.

    Under Gov. Dukakis, MA had a very lenient furlough policy. Pisa, a convicted killer once on death row, had a holiday pass with his family in 1979. Pisa trained himself as a jailhouse lawyer. He did some work for a Boston attorney. He knew Paradiso in prison years before. Paradiso came to the attorney’s home when Pisa was there to bring a bucket of lobsters. The attorney had previously done work for Paradiso. Pisa claimed he had a private discussion with Paradiso on the front porch and confessed he murdered Marie. Nothing corroborated the allegation.

    Candace Weyant was Paradiso’s alibi for the night in question. Burke had already charged her as an accessory. She was sentenced in contempt of court in the Joan Webster grand jury. She later received immunity. Burke implicated her in the bankruptcy mail fraud case he instigated. Burke used testimony from Joan’s grand jury to impeach her. He did not provide it to the defense during discovery. The grand jury testimony related to the boat, the alleged crime scene of Joan’s murder.

    A lobby conference revealed a predetermined bias. Judge Donahue cut several exculpatory reports from the jury’s consideration.

    I could go on and on in this case with the problems evident in recovered records. Evidence in the records is overwhelming ruling out human error or gross incompetence of authorities.

    Recovered documents support this was a wrongful conviction.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    The Starting Point to Find Joan’s Killer

    Let me recap.

    1. Authorities suppress a composite in December 1981.
    2. An unsubstantiated anonymous call to Saugus PD in January 1982, made by a woman that grew up with an officer involved in Joan’s investigation, implicated Paradiso for the Iannuzzi murder and Joan’s disappearance.
    3. The Websters called a high powered meeting in February 1982. The offices involved Middlesex DAO (Harvard), Essex DAO (Iannuzzi case), and Suffolk DAO (Tim Burke’s office). Also present were the Harvard Campus PD, Saugus PD, Superintendent of Public Safety, MSP from each DA, and MSP from F Barracks at Logan (Palombo and Tammaro).
    4. ADA Burke and Palombo were paired after the Webster meeting to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case. He is an identified suspect in the Iannuzzi case. Grand juries began in March 1982.
    5. Authorities implicate Paradiso internally in Joan’s case as early as March 1982.
    6. Burke gains an indictment after changing the target name in the grand jury to John Doe.
    7. The state comes up with an informant several months after the Paradiso indictment to claim a “break” in Joan’s case. Conveniently, his allegations cover both cases.
    8. Palombo obtains a search warrant under the Iannuzzi case only seeking items that fit the state’s allegations regarding Joan.
    9. Recovered documents support a serious level of misconduct during the Iannuzzi trial.
    10. Burke gains a conviction.

    This is the starting point to find out what happened to Joan. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to go after Paradiso for Joan’s loss. The level of misconduct evident in records is substantial. It is not reasonable to consider it error or gross incompetence. You will see more of what I mean as I start moving through Joan’s case in more detail. There is no reason to believe the same authorities involved in Joan’s investigation, at the same time, conducted themselves in a professional and ethical manner. In fact, the same concerning methods appeared in Joan’s investigation.

    The level of misconduct I found in recovered records was staggering, and made the entire process of understanding what happened to Joan even more painful. The lack of regard or respect for a victim, loved ones, those hurt by this investigation, and public safety demonstrated no value for human life. Even one bad apple in a department puts dedicated professionals and the public at risk.

    Bringing forward evidence of misconduct is a different challenge altogether than identifying the culprit. Misconduct obstructed the path to the truth. This layer had to be peeled back to get to the root of the problem. Concerns raised with current authorities are supported with verified documents. As I get deeper into Joan’s case, the obstacles will become clearer.

    Joan’s murder is solvable.
    Last edited by eve carson; 07-06-2017 at 06:39 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    The next few entries will go over the “evidence” presented by authorities during the investigation into Joan’s loss. This information was represented to the courts, other agencies such as the FBI, and in some cases, to the media.

    The “Evidence” - Maya: Monuments of Civilization by Pierre Ivanoff

    Palombo confiscated a book under the Iannuzzi search warrant on April 25, 1983. The book was submitted on numerous occasions to the FBI lab for fingerprint analysis. Authorities represented the book as Joan’s textbook.

    The lab did find a print of Paradiso’s in the book; no prints belonging to Joan. The FBI results were reported on November 24, 1982, before Robert Bond surfaced. Burke did not reveal this fact and claimed Paradiso wiped it down, a tedious task. Among Joan’s belongings, authorities claimed they found a receipt from the MIT bookstore. They did not disclose the date of the receipt or what it was for, just the fact that she had shopped there at some point in time. No surprise. The MIT bookstore carried the Maya book, according to Burke, at some point in time. Again, there is no specificity of the date or what edition of the book they carried.

    The specific book recovered has the publisher’s imprint of Grosset and Dunlap on the spine. The book measures 9 3/4” x 13” x 1 1/4” and weighs over 8 pounds. The coffee table book was out of print in 1975, six years before Joan’s flight. In 1981, the ability to obtain this book would have been extremely difficult. Harvard was not likely to require a white elephant “textbook” that students could not find. The book has little to no architectural value. It has glossy photos of ancient Mayan culture.

    The item is listed in documents filed with the courts. It is listed in FBI lab reports. The inference Burke and Palombo promoted was Paradiso was in possession of an item belonging to Joan. Obviously, if the item could be established as Joan’s, authorities had cause to indict Paradiso. This was a basic exercise in fact checking, something proper investigation had the ability to do. Current custodians do have the book in their possession.

    This is misrepresented “evidence.”




    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by eve carson; 07-07-2017 at 07:42 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    The “Evidence” – Jewelry Pouch

    On July 27, 1983, SA Steve Broce executed a search warrant on a safety deposit box at Haymarket Bank. This was in connection to the federal bankruptcy charges Burke instigated. Paradiso and his girlfriend jointly held the box. Recovered items are listed in FBI reports. Authorities represented one item as Joan’s purse or jewelry pouch.

    Burke reported to federal authorities that a black and white photo was identified by one of Joan’s former roommates as something Joan kept her pearls in. The supposed witness was unnamed. Joan resided in a single room at Perkins Hall. She was a dorm proctor. Roommates prior to her return to graduate school would have gone back two years when Joan shared an apartment in NYC. Prior to that, the only other roommates would have been at her sorority during her undergrad at Syracuse.

    Palombo represented to the media that an unnamed witness picked the pouch out from a group of items.

    Burke’s misrepresentation to federal authorities during an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of US Code.

    The suggestion of a black and white photo would have concealed the color making any alleged identification unreliable unless such witness could describe it. It is unclear if Palombo suggests someone actually picked out the pouch. If the item could be identified as Joan’s, the state had cause to indict Paradiso.

    In reality, the red silk pouch was part of a three piece set. The actual owner maintained the two other pieces and the box the set came in. Paradiso used the item to sheath a prized shark’s tooth he kept in the safety deposit box. Identification of the item was routine police work in a legitimate investigation.

    FBI reports conducted tests on the item. The results were negative connecting this item to Joan.

    Current custodians of Joan’s case do NOT have this photograph for comparison or to support Burke’s claim.


    This is misrepresented “evidence.”
    Last edited by eve carson; 07-08-2017 at 09:14 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    The “Evidence” – The Bracelet

    As a member of the immediate family, I was aware there was a missing bracelet. This was not known to the public. Allegedly, the one-of-a-kind bracelet was missing from Joan’s purse that was found on December 2, 1981. To my knowledge, the bracelet was never recovered.

    Palombo recovered a photo of a woman in Paradiso’s albums during the Iannuzzi search on April 25, 1983. The photo was signed on the back. An FBI report dated October 4, 1983, documents a “confidential source” contacting the FBI to locate a woman named Charlene. The source indicates Paradiso lavished women with jewelry possibly from his victims. The report states jewelry is missing in both the Iannuzzi case and Joan. This is a false representation; there was no missing jewelry in the Iannuzzi case.

    The results of a safety deposit box search on July 27, 1983, did not yield any such items.

    The “confidential source” also informed the FBI about the nature of her testimony, before finding and interviewing her. The source stated the photographed woman knew where Joan’s body was dumped. I have already profiled the woman, Charlene Bullerwell. She testified to chopped buddies dumped at sea. That is not where Joan was found.

    ADA Tim Burke is specifically named in the FBI report. Burke claimed Bullerwell is photographed in a bracelet that looks identical to Joan’s. False reporting to federal authorities during an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of US Code.

    The report states the boat is a critical element for both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. Note: The boat is NOT an element of the Iannuzzi case. The cases were being enmeshed. Palombo was the lead officer on both cases.

    Who had access to the photo? Palombo and Burke

    Who had information related to the Iannuzzi case? Palombo and Burke. A fact check of the Iannuzzi files in Palombo’s possession would quickly rectify the false report of missing jewelry in the Iannuzzi case.

    Who instigated the federal probe? Burke

    The FBI report identifies Burke and it is reasonable to conclude the source is Palombo based on the limited number of people with access to information about the photo, and other similar representations made by a "confidential source.".

    Bullerwell was not in possession of Joan’s bracelet. If that had been the case, authorities had cause to indict Paradiso. Joan was not dumped in Boston Harbor.

    Current custodians do NOT have the photo of Charlene Bullerwell for identification of the bracelet.

    There is a current FOIA appeal regarding documents the custodian does have related to the bracelet.

    This is FALSE reporting to federal authorities during an ongoing criminal investigation, a violation of US Code.
    Last edited by eve carson; 07-08-2017 at 02:27 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by eve carson View Post
    Jgfitzge,

    You ask very astute questions. I will answer them the best I can. I also ask for your patience as I go through the different aspects of this case. I think you will see where I am going before too long. I approached this case in a different way than it had been examined before. I got different results and found answers. There are very specific reasons to go through the surrounding circumstances that impacted this case.

    The last time I saw Joan was during the family's annual gathering in Nantucket in August. Joan was a sweetheart, everyone loved her. She was excited for her 2nd year at Harvard. Joan was not interested in a serious relationship until she finished school. I knew some of the boyfriends she dated. Everyone of them wanted to marry her. All of her relationships at the time were on very friendly and positive terms, even the old beaus no longer dating her.

    I found nothing to support Joan planned to meet with classmates on Sunday. She had just presented an 11-week project before the break. If there are any statements supporting that, they are locked in the current custodian's files.

    The boyfriend that planned to visit lived in Detroit. He had already completed his MBA. He was not in Boston to pick her up. The fact a visit was planned, I assume the change of plans to go back early was more of a last minute decision. There is no question in my mind, George Webster would have made the reservation. He always took care of all details. This was a very patriarchal family. The flight was probably booked in NJ last minute.

    Very few people would have known Joan was on that flight. The family and those her saw her that evening just prior to leaving. When we received the call Joan was missing, George was out of town on a business trip to CA. That would be unusual for him, so if a meeting came up, the rest of the family adjusted schedules to accommodate him. My educated guess is that was the reason for a change in plans.

    Contemporary reports all quoted family and friends that Joan was in great spirits over the holiday. School was going well and she was very excited about the recent project. The family went to the homes of two friends on the 28th before taking Joan to Newark Airport. These were small cocktail parties with parents and their kids, the friends Joan grew up with. Police interviewed people at those parties and all reported Joan was her usual bubbly self, all positive. Joan spoke to a few passengers on her flight. Again, she was very upbeat and happy.

    There was a dedication for Joan at Harvard on May 28, 1985. I met a lot of her classmates. Everyone was so stunned by her disappearance, but no one indicated she was supposed to meet them. I was not local during all of this, so it was hard to reach people.

    Joan was confirmed on the flight by eyewitness and flight roster. Back then you probably could call and confirm a name on a flight, but you would have to know the airline and flight to check.

    Hamilton is 30 miles north of the alleged crime scene. It made no sense at all that is where she was found. The woman who found the skull on her property was a vet. Her husband actually came under scrutiny at one point. The woman had a nervous break down and lost her practice. This case has had a very destructive impact on a lot of lives.

    As I began reviewing documents, I started to look at certain individuals closely. One individual lived in proximity to Hamilton and it is reasonable he knew the area. I am stepping everyone through to get there. A criminal investigator I met at a conference helped me work through a mental map of an offender. The pieces fit.
    Hi Eve, So, if I could summarize and ask a few more questions. If , as you describe, only a few family members would have known about Joan’s flight, what happened at the airport is puzzling.

    So, according to all friends, relatives, etc. Joan was in good spirits and no one noticed any trouble or distractions. And, there was no project or other students expecting to work with Joan on a school project that Sunday? So, the real reason she went back early was because her father was not going to be around on Sunday? Unless there is a different family dynamic going on with the Webster’s that doesn't ring true? I am attempting to see the motivation for leaving early.

    So, first question, who was the source of the "leaving Saturday to work on a school project the next day?" Joan or her dad? You always read this in the media but no attribution. Sorry but, if it was attributed to Joan, then it was obviously false and she had another reason to leave early. If was attributed to Mr. Webster or another family member then were they just making it up or was Joan the source of the reason.

    Regarding the Harvard classmates - Did Joan live on or off campus? Did she have a roommate? The answer to this will make me ask other questions…

    Tough questions here - cabbie who saw Joan leaving the airport that night, did he notice whether or not she had a suit case? Can we establish her suitcase made it off the plane and was not lost or delayed by Eastern?

    Did LE investigate the phone luds on the Webster house that Thanksgiving Weekend?

    After reading more of your answers and blogs, I will be asking you about the relationship between Harvard U Police and MSP…

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,017
    following

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    Hi Jgfitzge,

    Good questions. I was still a fairly new member of the family and had not observed the control George Webster had in the family. Although I would not have understood then changing plans to accommodate George, I do now. There were not family issues that were obvious to me, but looking back, there are certain things that raise questions. I believe there may have been some family issues. I have discussed this with current authorities and supported it with documents.

    George offered the explanation Joan returned early to work on a project. Nothing supports this was a valid explanation. George is quoted in a Boston Magazine article he heard Joan's conversation with a classmate on Saturday morning before the flight to affirm they had supplies. Phone records from the house in NJ negate that assertion. However, no one challenged what George said. He was quoted initially affirming Joan presented her project Monday, before the break and was very upbeat. If there were issues in the family, the family would conceal that. They had a very strong public image and interested in preserving that.

    Joan lived in a single room both years at Perkins Hall, on campus. She was a dorm proctor.

    I have not been able to obtain the detailed report of the cabbie's interview. I cannot answer if he saw her with the suitcase or not. The suitcase is a very concerning item. There are serious discrepancies regarding the bag. I will go into greater detail about that later. I am waiting for an FOIA appeal that will shed light. It is doubtful the bag was lost or delayed by Eastern. This was a short flight from Newark to Logan, no stops. The bag did turn up. The questions remain where and when.

    The phone record in NJ were checked. When I recovered records, something jumped out at me from those records.. The best investigator would not pick up on it unless he knew about a second line that went into the house. That number was not checked.

    Keep asking. I am gradually getting pieces up on the site to step everyone through what I found. The problems become more apparent as I go along.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,017
    Eve,

    Thank you for starting this thread. It is rare and special when we have participation from a family member, especially for cases this long ago.

    I stumbled on what I have to assume is your website when poking around the internet for information about Joan. I have not read through everything yet, but I am anxious to understand what part of this terrible crime still needs to be solved.

    Poor Joan. She sounds like a lovely and talented woman. What a shame that she was lost at such a young age.

    -Skigirl


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    The “Evidence” – Boat Equipment - Glass Shards – Boat Registration

    Boat Equipment

    Authorities made several representations about Paradiso’s boat, the alleged crime scene of Joan’s murder.

    During the April 25, 1983, search warrant under the Iannuzzi case, Palombo confiscated marine equipment. Paradiso owned several boats over the years. Recovered boat registrations confirm that. During the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing, a public hearing in front of the media, Burke questioned Paradiso’s girlfriend. Burke identified marine equipment recovered was manufactured by Danforth.

    During the federal bankruptcy grand jury and trial, two witnesses identified equipment insured on the boat. It was manufactured by Ray-Jefferson. Palombo ordered an inspection of the boat by marine examiner David Williams. Williams submitted a report to the FBI, at the direction of Palombo, and testified during the federal grand jury, a secret session. The boat was fitted and insured for the Ray Jeff equipment. Equipment by different manufacturers were not interchangeable. The insured equipment was confirmed during the federal trial by Rodney Swanson of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company that paid the claim for the boat on September 29, 1981, before Joan disappeared.

    This was a misrepresentation of “evidence” to the courts and reported through the media.


    Glass Shards

    Authorities raised the boat on September 27, 1983, just under its mooring. The FBI examined the boat, items from the boat, and items recovered from the pier area. Items from the boat were identified by location. Items as small as nuts and bolts were recovered underneath where the boat settled on the bottom of Pier 7.

    Burke and Palombo reported in documents filed with the court and to the media, several shards of glass were found on the boat. The reports bolstered the explanation of Joan’s loss claiming Paradiso hit her with a whiskey bottle on the boat. This is a false statement. FBI lab reports show no shards of glass on the boat.

    Burke submitted one item to the FBI lab on October 28, 1983. He described the item as glass with a hair attached to it. Neither the location nor date of recovery are identified with the item. The FBI lab identified the item as debris unsuitable for testing, item Q38.

    This was FALSE “evidence” submitted by Burke and Palombo to the courts and the FBI.


    Boat Registration

    The boat in question was owned by Paradiso’s girlfriend. She held the title to the boat in a titled state. The registration was issued in her name.

    During the federal bankruptcy case Burke instigated, the prosecution submitted 2 boat registrations. Court transcripts identify the source as Suffolk County DAO, Burke’s office. The 1st registration matched the ID contained in the insurer’s files. The 2nd ID was invalid. The registrar Dante Mayano testified on April 8, 1985. Mayano identified the 1st registration contained the proper seal and signature from his office, the signature of Candace Weyant, and the machine stamped registration number 683702, originally issued on May 6, 1980.

    The 2nd ID Burke’s office submitted contained the seal and signature from his office. The ID had the same registration number 683702, but hand written and not stamped by machine. It was NOT a valid registration. Mayano affirmed members of the Suffolk County DAO came into his office when he was out sick and removed documents from his office. The supporting documents were improperly removed from the registrar’s office. The 2nd registration was allegedly signed by Paradiso. The item was not provided to the defense during discovery. Two images of the valid ID are added here.



    Iannuzzi appeal records from November 1986 affirm Palombo obtained and/or directed the recovery of registration records.

    Paradiso bought another boat after the boat in question in Joan’s murder. Paradiso used the boat for a partial payment of fees for the Iannuzzi case. An image for the registration number 729940 is added here. Registrations were transferable to other individuals. Paradiso originally obtained the 9LP registration, like a vanity plate. This registration was for another boat and signed by Cornelius Weyant, Paradiso lived in his girlfriend’s parent’s home at this time. Cornelius was Candace’s father. Note the date of issue, October 14, 1981, prior to Joan’s disappearance.



    Current custodians have the valid boat registration. They do NOT have the 2nd invalid registration submitted to a federal court during a criminal trial.

    This was FALSE “evidence” provided to federal authorities. They withheld exculpatory evidence about the existence of the boat, the alleged crime scene.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by eve carson; 07-08-2017 at 06:59 PM.


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by eve carson View Post
    Hi Jgfitzge,

    Good questions. I was still a fairly new member of the family and had not observed the control George Webster had in the family. Although I would not have understood then changing plans to accommodate George, I do now. There were not family issues that were obvious to me, but looking back, there are certain things that raise questions. I believe there may have been some family issues. I have discussed this with current authorities and supported it with documents. -

    Ok, thanks, this is helpful. So, I am going to make a few calls here, 1. the whole "public" reason for Joan going back early to finish a school project with classmates was BS. 2. Joan had no good reason (ex. lover, work, sex, money, etc...) to be going home to Harvard that Saturday night. 3. Her normal, usual behavior, evident to classmates, friends and family was on full display. Nothing seemed to be amiss in her life. It was business as usual. Therefore, what occurred at Logan Airport was unexpected and not on the agenda. In other words, she would have just gotten into a Town Taxi outside the terminal and been back to Harvard in about 20 minutes.

    George offered the explanation Joan returned early to work on a project. Nothing supports this was a valid explanation. George is quoted in a Boston Magazine article he heard Joan's conversation with a classmate on Saturday morning before the flight to affirm they had supplies. Phone records from the house in NJ negate that assertion. However, no one challenged what George said. He was quoted initially affirming Joan presented her project Monday, before the break and was very upbeat. If there were issues in the family, the family would conceal that. They had a very strong public image and interested in preserving that. OK, it sounds like Mr. Webster was the catalyst for the early departure and not Joan. So, it goes to my point that there was no "driving force" on her part making her return early

    Joan lived in a single room both years at Perkins Hall, on campus. She was a dorm proctor. - OK, good, first question, any incidents with Harvard U police? Second , would there be any reason for a member of the MSP to be on campus in 1981?

    I have not been able to obtain the detailed report of the cabbie's interview. I cannot answer if he saw her with the suitcase or not. The suitcase is a very concerning item. There are serious discrepancies regarding the bag. I will go into greater detail about that later. I am waiting for an FOIA appeal that will shed light. It is doubtful the bag was lost or delayed by Eastern. This was a short flight from Newark to Logan, no stops. The bag did turn up. The questions remain where and when. - OK, so, lacking the detailed report we do not know if she had the suitcase or not. The reason this is important is why would she go to an Eastern (?) checkout counter (as reported)?? As I mentioned before, in my way of thinking (keep it simple...) why would you go to an airlines counter upon arrival home? The top two reasons to me, has to do with luggage or directions.Since she was familiar with the Logan Airport routine, I am thinking a question regarding her luggage. (ex. I am missing my bag, etc.) But, since it sounds like she went over there soon after arriving, I am thinking she may have been called over there...again, speculation on my part.

    The phone record in NJ were checked. When I recovered records, something jumped out at me from those records.. The best investigator would not pick up on it unless he knew about a second line that went into the house. That number was not checked. - I will not press you on this...

    Keep asking. I am gradually getting pieces up on the site to step everyone through what I found. The problems become more apparent as I go along.

    Hi Eve, see my responses above in Blue

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    Hi Jgfitzge,

    I think your assessment is spot on. That's why it was so easy for people to accept a random act as the explanation for her loss. When you are close to a tragedy like this, it is sometimes hard to make sense of things. There are some things that become seared in your memory. That was a starting point for me. It is not really evidence since it is my recollection, but it guided me so I could find the information in records. I understood what I was looking at.

    What prompted Joan to go to the counter is not known with certainty. It could be any of a number of reasons. Maybe she wanted to find the nearest bathroom. All but one luggage carousel was down that night when she arrived. She may have been trying to find out where her bag was coming off. Because of the single carousel, bag tickets may have been checked. She may have been called over. I had to work through all of these possibilities, but as I was able to get into more detail about the case, I feel she was called over. The fact these early leads were stifled weighs heavily in that direction.

    As I have gone through the records, it became very clear to me Joan's loss was not random. Someone could have been watching for her. That makes it very critical the few people who knew she would be on that flight.

    There is some very unique background in the Webster family. I will share some of that at a later point, but suffice it to say, they are very secretive. That may not make sense with a family that made themselves available to the media. It is part of what I had to digest in all of this.

    Joan was a model student, friend, and employee before she went back to school. She was definitely not the type to get in trouble. She was somewhat of a mother hen with the younger students in her dorm. Joan was an all around good person. Eleanor Webster contacted Carmen Tammaro first at the F Barracks at Logan. According to contemporary reports, he took charge of the different departments involved. That means Tammaro probably made the call to suppress the composite. That made no sense until I learned more. They were looking for a missing person. I am not aware of any specific activity of the MSP at Harvard prior to Joan's disappearance.


    Skigirl,

    Thank you for your nice comments. This was a difficult process to look at this case. I did not recover information in order and not all at once. I am still obtaining records 11 years after I first contacted the DAO with concerns. What I did was reconstruct the investigation. That's how I found answers and piece by piece started to fill in the blanks.

    For a long time it was two steps forward and 10 steps back, a lot of tears, and sleepless nights. Now I can make sense of it. There are answers to every crime. This one is no different. The pieces fit. Keep following the posts.

    Joan's case is solvable.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    A quick clarification on the boat registrations. Identification of Palombo as the individual obtaining registration records appeared in the prosecution's brief opposing Paradiso's appeal in November 1986. The footnote the search for registration records was conducted in July 1982.

    The “Evidence” – 3 Splinters

    ADA Burke obtained ER records allegedly for another cold case he worked on. It is unclear if he made a 2nd request for ER records and found a record for Paradiso. Paradiso was treated at the Lynn Hospital on November 30, 1981. The x-rays showed 3 metal splinters deeply embedded in his left index finger.

    Paradiso told the attending doctor he was polishing a munition shell he found on the beach on a grind wheel when it went off. Other witnesses corroborated the story. Palombo recovered the shell during the search warrant executed under the Iannuzzi case on April 25, 1983. The find corroborated Paradiso’s explanation. Upon a return visit to the ER on December 22, 1981, a second x-ray showed 2 of the splinters had worked their way out; one splinter remained.

    Burke continued to maintain informant Robert Bond’s allegations that Paradiso hurt his hand when he struck Joan with a whiskey bottle on his boat.

    Burke and Palombo both filed documents with the court. Beginning in January 1985, Burke petitioned the court to allow for an x-ray and surgical removal of the splinter. Burke argued it may be the only evidence connecting Paradiso to Joan’s murder, despite other items Burke and Palombo alleged. Judge James McGuire ordered an x-ray February 13, 1985, and authorized force if needed. The x-ray taken the next day showed no splinter remained in Paradiso’s finger.

    Burke’s petition went into great detail of the surgical procedure needed to remove a splinter. Further x-rays were denied. Burke asserted the splinter was either from glass with high lead content or from a fake .357 magnum. I will detail the gun in a later post.

    Burke obtained a court order to allow a doctor to examine Paradiso’s finger. ME Douglas Dixon examined Paradiso’s finger in court on March 20, 1985, and indicated he found a puncture wound. The suggestion is illogical that Paaradiso had the means to remove a splinter when Burke detailed to the court the surgery required. The exam conducted in a court room suggests a puncture wound more than a month after the x-ray ordered by the court.

    The ME did not comment on an existing injury to Paradiso’s finger during the courtroom exam. Trial transcripts from the federal bankruptcy case that Burke instigated beginning in April 1985, revealed a six-week old fracture that needed medical attention. The age of the injury coincided with the date of the court ordered x-ray authorizing force.

    Burke and Palombo misrepresented “evidence” to the court, introduced misleading testimony from a medical examiner in court, and court records revealed potential police brutality.
    Last edited by eve carson; 07-09-2017 at 09:08 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    The “Evidence” – The Fake .357 Magnum

    The boat, the alleged crime scene, was raised from the bottom of Pier 7 on September 27, 1983. One of the involved divers from the BPD described the method of raising the boat during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing on March 7, 1984. Nick Saggese described how divers dug the area around the boat and carefully put straps underneath. There was no suction when the boat came up.

    The officer described the boat intact. The color was unchanged and the registration number and name of the boat clearly visible. He did not notice any marine equipment on the boat. The boat had a broken rudder. It was not navigable, which contradicts the state’s promoted theory that Paradiso took the boat out and dumped Joan’s body in Boston Harbor. Note: That is not where she was found.

    FBI lab reports indicate divers recovered even small nuts and bolts from under where the boat rested. Divers continued to search the pier area with special equipment for the next two months according to an account by an assigned MSP diver Dave Moran. They found nothing that bolstered the state’s theory. FBI lab reports confirm that.

    According to Burke, a “confidential source” informed authorities there was a gun in the water at Pier 7. The source was later identified as John O’Connell, a business owner that did renovation work at Pier 7. He will be profiled in a later post.

    Officer Saggese testified he dove at the pier at Burke’s direction on October 20, 1983, when assigned divers were still searching the area. Sagggese came up quickly with a .357 magnum. Upon inspection it was a realistic replica with the serial number scratched off. The gun was located directly under Paradiso’s previous mooring. Burke alleged the gun belonged to Paradiso and used the gun to force Joan onto is boat. As you will see in an upcoming post, this is false.

    The gun was not submitted to the FBI like other items. Nothing supports Burke’s claims the gun belonged to Paradiso or was used in the commission of a crime, Joan or otherwise.

    Burke and Palombo both filed documents with the courts claiming the gun was “evidence” in Joan’s disappearance. The next post is very important and will profile John O’Connell.

    After Joan’s remains were found in 1990, Burke is quoted in the media he was aware of the broken rudder when the boat came up in 1983. Burke withheld information that contradicted the promoted theory Paradiso took his boat out and dumped Joan’s body in Boston Harbor. The story shifted when remains surfaced in Hamilton, MA, however, the boat was still the alleged crime scene. Burke still maintains that explanation.

    This was unsubstantiated evidence recovered under questionable circumstances.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    143
    Confidential Source – John O’Connell

    John O’Connell owned the O’Connell Seafood Company located at Pier 7. On January 31, 1980, O’Connell submitted a grant application to renovate Pier 7. The $2.1 million grant was awarded by HUD on April 8, 1980. Work was done at the pier and funds paid out through the end of the year of 1980.

    O’Connell, his lawyer, and a coconspirator in Jacksonville, FL devised a scheme to defraud the government of grant funds. By October of 1981, before Joan disappeared, O’Connell was under a federal probe by the FBI. Company records were subpoenaed. The coconspirator turned government witness. He taped conversations he had with O’Connell and his lawyer. The FBI secretly videotaped O’Connell and the coconspirator in Orlando, FL on November 24, 1981, before Joan disappeared. Portions of the videotape were shown during the federal trial against O’Connell. O’Connell faced serious penalties and was convicted and served time in a federal penitentiary.

    O’Connell also faced drug trafficking charges. His boat was stopped entering a Maine port with 30 tons of marijuana.

    Two FBI agents interviewed an individual from the O’Connell Seafood Company. The name is redacted from the 302 report recovered from certified court records. The witness described the conditions at Pier 7, the depth of the water, and very murky conditions. The report initialed by SA Steve Broce, Burke’s contact for the federal bankruptcy case, probably helped divers locate the submerged boat.

    Burke claimed O’Connell had divers in the water at Pier 7 in the spring of 1982. This is not reasonable since work was done in 1980 and O’Connell was in serious trouble by October 1981, before Joan disappeared. Burke alleges O’Connell Seafood Company divers found a gun near Paradiso’s mooring. Burke claimed O’Connell instructed his divers to throw it back in the water where they found it.

    The O'Connell Seafood Company witness interviewed by the FBI reported an item found by company divers. It is reasonable to conclude they found the item when they worked at the pier in 1980. The divers found a Mercedes in the water.



    I am not a lawyer or a trained investigator, but I have no problem distinguishing between a 2+ ton vehicle and a handheld firearm.
    The reported item is included here. A comparison image of facsimile items is uploaded to show the dramatic difference between what Burke alleged and what the facts are.




    Burke and Palombo both falsely reported the gun as “evidence” to the courts.
    The gun is fabricated “evidence.”
    Burke falsely represented the statement of a witness.
    Attached Images Attached Images

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Found Deceased NY - Marco Montante, 80, Webster, 21 Jan 2013
    By blondiex420 in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-23-2013, 08:43 AM
  2. MA Andrew Amato (4) - Webster MA, 1978
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum Missing Children in America - A Profile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 12:30 AM

Tags for this Thread