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

[eve carson]

For Tim Burke, was this incompetence or a deliberate diversion of the investigation?

There are a lot of examples I can point to, but there is one that makes the malfeasance obvious. Bear with a bit of repetition. I am uploading the article on November 28, 2006, announcing Burke’s publication. Notice the highlighted area describing the gun alleged to force Joan on Paradiso’s boat. Note: Certified court records from CR 85-010-S affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.

I have uploaded the excerpt froman FBI 302 report identifying what O’Connell Seafood divers found in the water. Burke was in communication with SA Broce who initialed the report. Their communicationis confirmed in sworn affidavits by both men. Researching the activity of O’Connell’s work at Pier 7, his divers found the item in 1980, not April of 1982 as Burke claimed.

Burke presented his “find” through Officer Nick Saggese during the Iannuzzi pretrial. He sent Saggese into the water in a specific spot Burke pointed out to come up with a fake gun on October 20, 1983. Assigned divers with equipment, still searching the water at Pier 7, just happened to miss this? Not a chance. This is an example of clear and deliberate obstruction, planted evidence.

There is no conceivable explanation to confuse these two items.

Tim Burke is complicit in Joan’s murder, an accessory after-the-fact. There is no statute of limitations for murder in MA. The case is solvable; there are some in the legal or law enforcement community that knew all along who was responsible.

 

[eve carson]

I was asked why I started to get information posted publicly about Joan’s case. I knew certain things made no sense already, simply based on my own experience and observations. I started to see serious discrepancies when I began to recover records. I have attempted to work with proper authorities. Logically, that is where anyone should go with information to help resolve a homicide. Unfortunately, the authorities are part of the problem.

I received a letter from the DAO dated March 2, 2015. They listed exemptions they felt justified the denial of records. I am uploading two excerpts from the letter that are important to point out. The first clip indicates the case remains open and they are always hopeful for new credible leads. The DAO was provided with certified court records and FBI reports, documents they can obtain independently. The documents revealed misconduct by authorities during the investigation. It is hard to claim certified court records and FBI reports are not credible. It shines the light on authorities.

The second excerpt gives the DAO justification for withholding records. Note the last line. “Even materials related to an inactive investigation may require confidentiality in order to convince citizens that they may safely confide in law enforcement officials.”

The DAO was provided documents I received from both identified and anonymous individuals. I have endured personal attacks, harassment, and threats for looking into Joan’s case. The documents are verifiable. Regardless, the DAO instructed me not to probe so deeply into the unresolved murder of a family member. In addition, the DAO affirmed contact with a known individual wishing me harm. The DAO demonstrated no regard for safety, belying the comment quoted in their correspondence. Lofty words are empty; the DAO seeks to keep a lid on Joan’s case and endangering others.

This was a really dirty case. I do not want myself or others I care about to end up as one of the cases discussed on this forum trying to figure out what happened.

 

[ebfortin76]

Any news from your FOIA requests?

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

You have incredible timing. I called the Superintendent of Records today to check on the status. That office ordered the DAO to provide responsive and unredacted documents for an in camera review without delay. The order was issued on August 23, 2017. The DAO has yet to comply. Note: The Superintendent ordered the DAO to provide an index of their records on August 10, 2015, within 10 days of the order. The DAO did not respond until January 2017.

Some of the records requested contained information already recovered from the FBI. Regardless, they claim a privacy exemption. Other records I obtained through a PI are also requested in the appeal. The DAO claimed an investigatory exemption even though they admit this has not been an active investigation. The Superintendent found the DAO did not meet their burden claiming this exemption. The DAO also claimed the requested documents were exempted due to grand jury confidentiality. That is a false representation. The documents requested were not part of a grand jury which would exempt them by statute. Palombo identified the existence of the records in warrants filed with the court.

There are some different possibilities here. Maybe the DAO is missing the records. They were missing a lot in their records. Maybe Burke entered the documents during a grand jury proceeding, an effective way to hide records that did not originate from the grand jury. The final option is obstruction because of the misconduct evident in these records when examined with other recovered records.

One thing is certain, Tim Burke quotes directly from records I have recovered, but the DAO denies. Burke selectively misrepresents the documents in his public account and promote a false narrative.

While the DAO plays games hoping this will go away, I am preparing documents for the next level of appeal. I also have an article currently in press about the case. I hope to share that soon.

 

[eve carson]

I have been going back through documents to glean who was aware of the lead from the cabbie at Logan. There was a huge swarm of individuals interviewing people at Logan and flight lists. There were officers from Saugus PD, Glen Ridge, NJ PD, and Harvard Campus PD. Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo were assigned to the F Barracks at Logan.

The Websters were in Boston after Joan was reported missing. They were in Boston when many of the interviews were conducted. I am uploading entries made by Det. Tom Dugan of the GRPD.

Excerpt one is from December 5,1981. The name that stands out to me interviewing at the cab stand is Jack McEwan, head of security with ITT.

Excerpt two is on December 8, 1981. McEwan is concerned about an article that appeared in the Newark Star Ledger that indicated Joan was seen talking to a man.

The third excerpt affirms the Websters received the composite that was compiled from the description given by the cabbie. Det. Corcoran handed the composite to Eleanor Webster on December 21, 1981.

Here is another interesting piece I found in entries made by Det. R Corcoran. The Webster’s home phone had a trap on it. I remember Eleanor’s difficulty with the tape recorder. They received an extortion call on December 9, 1981.

The final excerpt is information about the call. The caller was smart enough not to stay on the call long enough for the trap to get the full number. The call came from Nutley, NJ. Note: George’s office at ITT was in Nutley. The exchange 284 is in Nutley. George was in the telecommunication division. They had expertise in tapping lines. That is well documented in activities the division was involved in during the company’s undercover involvement with Chile and their Chitelco holdings.

Why was the lead provided by the cabbie suppressed?

 

[ebfortin76]

I have been going back through documents to glean who was aware of the lead from the cabbie at Logan. There was a huge swarm of individuals interviewing people at Logan and flight lists. There were officers from Saugus PD, Glen Ridge, NJ PD, and Harvard Campus PD. Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo were assigned to the F Barracks at Logan.

The Websters were in Boston after Joan was reported missing. They were in Boston when many of the interviews were conducted. I am uploading entries made by Det. Tom Dugan of the GRPD.

Excerpt one is from December 5,1981. The name that stands out to me interviewing at the cab stand is Jack McEwan, head of security with ITT.

Excerpt two is on December 8, 1981. McEwan is concerned about an article that appeared in the Newark Star Ledger that indicated Joan was seen talking to a man.

The third excerpt affirms the Websters received the composite that was compiled from the description given by the cabbie. Det. Corcoran handed the composite to Eleanor Webster on December 21, 1981.

Here is another interesting piece I found in entries made by Det. R Corcoran. The Webster’s home phone had a trap on it. I remember Eleanor’s difficulty with the tape recorder. They received an extortion call on December 9, 1981.

The final excerpt is information about the call. The caller was smart enough not to stay on the call long enough for the trap to get the full number. The call came from Nutley, NJ. Note: George’s office at ITT was in Nutley. The exchange 284 is in Nutley. George was in the telecommunication division. They had expertise in tapping lines. That is well documented in activities the division was involved in during the company’s undercover involvement with Chile and their Chitelco holdings.

Why was the lead provided by the cabbie suppressed?

Eve, did you ever meet with Det Corcoran? He must have been surprised that they suppress the cabbie interview.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

When I began digging into this case, I noticed very quickly that information was very fragmented. The case was partitioned. No central point had all the information. That was apparent here. Early reports indicate Sgt. Carmen Tammaro coordinated all of the different departments, at least in MA.

The Saugus police took the eyewitness report from the cabbie and compiled the composite. At some point, it was provided to the Harvard Campus Police. It is verified they had the composite, but not confirmed if they had the report.

Harvard called police in NJ and provided template numbers for the composite. Below is a sequence of entries taken by Det. Dugan in NJ. Murphy was Harvard Campus police. Dugan was not available to take the initial call.

Within the hour, Dugan took a call from Jack McEwan, head of ITT security. This call really caught my attention. It seems a pretty extraordinary coincidence for McEwan to call suggesting a composite from a psychic description. There are too many coincidences in this case, and I don't put much stock in coincidence.

Dugan returned the call to Murphy and got the template numbers. He provided them to Det. Corcoran to follow up. There is no indication the eye witness report came with it. I am not sure if NJ police had the information or knowledge it was suppressed in MA.

Tammaro would be the one to suppress information obtained by Saugus PD. It was customary for someone in the MSP to be in charge of a case. The fact Harvard obtained it and provided composite templates to NJ may have been an oversight if, as it seems, this was deliberate. McEwan’s call about a psychic image clouds the issue of an eye witness report.

I have not been able to contact Corcoran. I have made contact with Det. Swain, but it has been awhile. I have not had contact since receiving the police report in August. The NJ police have very organized and detailed records. It is reasonable at this point, with what has been recovered, the NJ police did not have the report or knowledge of it.

McEwan’s early involvement is worrisome where and how it shows up.

 

[ebfortin76]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

When I began digging into this case, I noticed very quickly that information was very fragmented. The case was partitioned. No central point had all the information. That was apparent here. Early reports indicate Sgt. Carmen Tammaro coordinated all of the different departments, at least in MA.

The Saugus police took the eyewitness report from the cabbie and compiled the composite. At some point, it was provided to the Harvard Campus Police. It is verified they had the composite, but not confirmed if they had the report.

Harvard called police in NJ and provided template numbers for the composite. Below is a sequence of entries taken by Det. Dugan in NJ. Murphy was Harvard Campus police. Dugan was not available to take the initial call.

Within the hour, Dugan took a call from Jack McEwan, head of ITT security. This call really caught my attention. It seems a pretty extraordinary coincidence for McEwan to call suggesting a composite from a psychic description. There are too many coincidences in this case, and I don't put much stock in coincidence.

Dugan returned the call to Murphy and got the template numbers. He provided them to Det. Corcoran to follow up. There is no indication the eye witness report came with it. I am not sure if NJ police had the information or knowledge it was suppressed in MA.

Tammaro would be the one to suppress information obtained by Saugus PD. It was customary for someone in the MSP to be in charge of a case. The fact Harvard obtained it and provided composite templates to NJ may have been an oversight if, as it seems, this was deliberate. McEwan’s call about a psychic image clouds the issue of an eye witness report.

I have not been able to contact Corcoran. I have made contact with Det. Swain, but it has been awhile. I have not had contact since receiving the police report in August. The NJ police have very organized and detailed records. It is reasonable at this point, with what has been recovered, the NJ police did not have the report or knowledge of it.

McEwan’s early involvement is worrisome where and how it shows up.

I'm really at a loss as to how to approach this case and make it advance further. The parents doesn't want it to change. Burke, who is central, doesn't want it to change. The current organisation that has controlled the records doesn't want it to change. It's been a while and some people are now deceased. I don't see much things that can be done to force a breakthrough in this case.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

You put the problem getting to a truthful resolve in Joan’s case is a nutshell. There is no statute of limitations for murder.

Tim Burke does not want to be exposed for his complicity. The current custodians acknowledged they know Tim Burke and do not want to focus on him. That is a clear conflict of interest. They should not have control of the case. Circled wagons to shield misconduct is undoubtedly a factor here. This is a huge embarrassment for the state that would carry severe consequences. Authorities would also have culpability for other crimes resulting from their malfeasance.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened in MA. SA Dennis Condon and SA Paul Rico were involved in deliberately framing four men for murder while shielding the known killer, an informant for the FBI in Boston, Joe Barboza. Two of the convicted men died in prison. The other two finally got out after 33 years. The courts awarded the men or their families more than $100 million in damages. It took a long time, but corruption was exposed.

This type of case needs public exposure to hold authorities accountable. In effect, ADA John Dawley told me to keep my mouth shut. That kind of advice is numbing. Malfeasance is a break down in our legal system. Authorities involved in Joan’s investigation abused their authority to pick out a scapegoat and throw the whole system at him to offer the public an explanation. I don’t think anyone reading this would like to face a broken system. As a family member and victim, it is the most abhorrent behavior with no regard for Joan.

Looking at those included in your list is troubling. Were the Websters warned like I was? Were they subjected to tactics like those used against Jean Day? There is no credible evidence in the recovered records to support the Websters conviction Paradiso was guilty. When you have the triad you describe, you are describing an almost perfect crime.

I have spent the bulk of today organizing documents for the next step rebutting the state. I am only half done. I have learned a lot along the way. Every crime has an answer. There are no good answers for such a horrific loss. If public servants are allowed to control the outcome, our legal system is broken. No one should be satisfied with that kind of injustice. It can happen to anyone.

 

[eve carson]

To understand this case, I have had to go through documents over and over. As I have learned new pieces, new information sheds new light on what is in the records.

When I went through one set of records, I knew right away something was missing. An investigator would not know it was missing unless they knew it existed. As I went back through information on the extortion incidents, something I skimmed over before stood out.

The Websters received an extortion call on October 14, 1982, at 1:11 pm. This incident was never in the media. I did know about the extortion incident as part of the immediate family. The caller was later identified as Harvey Martel, a known felon, calling from NH. Eleanor reported the call to the police.

The second excerpt is what bothers me. Martel indicated he would call back later that night. The house was full of officials waiting for the call. Martel did not call that night. He called back early the next morning, October 15, 1982, when none of the officers were at the house. Eleanor went to the neighbors to call police while George was on the phone with Martel. To most any observer, this seems like what any concerned parent would do.

At 7:40 in the morning, Eleanor might not have been dressed yet, that is impossible to say. Who knows what was on the list for the day, but George had not left for his office. Ordinarily, they would both be sitting at their dinette having breakfast when the call came in. Whether she was dressed or still in her nightgown and housecoat, she went to a neighbors. My best guess is she went to the Bishops who lived right behind them on Dodd Street. Those were the neighbors they were closest friends with. That would take a minute running, then wait for someone to answer the door, ask to use the phone, and then get a hold of the police. At a minimum, that is three or four minutes at a critical time when a caller is on the line claiming Joan was alive.

This incident was very dramatic, but kept out of the press. When I asked about the incident with the current custodian, they knew nothing about it. They affirmed they had none of these reports in their files. Without documents to support my recollections, it sounds like someone coming in with another sensational story. Fortunately, I have full documentation from both police and FBI files. An individual who did know about the incident, part of the private family conversations, has since denied knowing about anything like this happening. That conversation is documented and verifiable, and the individual identified to the DAO.

The problem I have with what is in the second excerpt is the fact George and Eleanor had a second line in the house. That number was not checked according to police reports. Eleanor did not have to take precious minutes to go to a neighbors. She only had to go to another room and pick up the other line. To me, at a critical moment regarding the whereabouts of your missing daughter, you want to act as quickly aspossible.

I would like to hear any thoughts you have for this behavior.

 

[ebfortin76]

To understand this case, I have had to go through documents over and over. As I have learned new pieces, new information sheds new light on what is in the records.

When I went through one set of records, I knew right away something was missing. An investigator would not know it was missing unless they knew it existed. As I went back through information on the extortion incidents, something I skimmed over before stood out.

The Websters received an extortion call on October 14, 1982, at 1:11 pm. This incident was never in the media. I did know about the extortion incident as part of the immediate family. The caller was later identified as Harvey Martel, a known felon, calling from NH. Eleanor reported the call to the police.

The second excerpt is what bothers me. Martel indicated he would call back later that night. The house was full of officials waiting for the call. Martel did not call that night. He called back early the next morning, October 15, 1982, when none of the officers were at the house. Eleanor went to the neighbors to call police while George was on the phone with Martel. To most any observer, this seems like what any concerned parent would do.

At 7:40 in the morning, Eleanor might not have been dressed yet, that is impossible to say. Who knows what was on the list for the day, but George had not left for his office. Ordinarily, they would both be sitting at their dinette having breakfast when the call came in. Whether she was dressed or still in her nightgown and housecoat, she went to a neighbors. My best guess is she went to the Bishops who lived right behind them on Dodd Street. Those were the neighbors they were closest friends with. That would take a minute running, then wait for someone to answer the door, ask to use the phone, and then get a hold of the police. At a minimum, that is three or four minutes at a critical time when a caller is on the line claiming Joan was alive.

This incident was very dramatic, but kept out of the press. When I asked about the incident with the current custodian, they knew nothing about it. They affirmed they had none of these reports in their files. Without documents to support my recollections, it sounds like someone coming in with another sensational story. Fortunately, I have full documentation from both police and FBI files. An individual who did know about the incident, part of the private family conversations, has since denied knowing about anything like this happening. That conversation is documented and verifiable, and the individual identified to the DAO.

The problem I have with what is in the second excerpt is the fact George and Eleanor had a second line in the house. That number was not checked according to police reports. Eleanor did not have to take precious minutes to go to a neighbors. She only had to go to another room and pick up the other line. To me, at a critical moment regarding the whereabouts of your missing daughter, you want to act as quickly aspossible.

I would like to hear any thoughts you have for this behavior.

Only thing I can think of is that they wanted to make sure nobody from the police knew about the second line.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

In the early stages of the investigation, calls were checked to and from various numbers including the Websters home line. The family went to the homes of two friends before taking Joan to Newark Airport to catch her flight. Calls from those numbers were also checked to see if Joan called anyone.

The Websters’ second number was not checked. That number was missing from police reports. That bothers me a lot. I agree, the Websters did not want authorities to know about the second line. I have that number. I don’t know if it is even possible to check calls on that line now. It has been almost 36 years.

If your daughter is missing, you are going to pull out all the stops to find her. That is no time to conceal a number.

The first extortion call came less than two weeks after Joan disappeared, on December 9, 1981. That call came from Nutley, NJ, exchange 284. I am uploading the report logged on December 10, 1981, by Det. Tom Dugan. He spoke to Jack McEwan of ITT security. The report said there is nothing new on that end. That is inconsistent with the report by Det. Richard Corcoran who logged the extortion call the night before. I am surprised that is not mentioned in Dugan’s entry with Jack McEwan. Officers may have had tasks divided to handle different things, but talking to McEwan should have brought up the call. The exchange was not identified until later in the day. McEwan’s number is identified in police records. His number is in the 284 exchange.

McEwan’s name appears at numerous times when leads were suppressed or clouded, such as the composite. His name appears scheduling a meeting at the time Robert Bond was being transferred to the Charles Street Jail and positioned near Leonard Paradiso, the scapegoat.

The October 1982 extortion call is a problem. Joan’s brother Steve denies knowing anything about anything like this incident. His comment is documented. I remember at least three extortion calls. The police reports affirm my recollections. Not only does the family not want the second line known, but it seems they do not want the extortion incident known either. None of the extortion incidents were reported in the media. The October 1982 incident was too dramatic to forget. Even if it is not forefront in your memory, bringing it up would normally rekindle the experience.

 

[ebfortin76]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

In the early stages of the investigation, calls were checked to and from various numbers including the Websters home line. The family went to the homes of two friends before taking Joan to Newark Airport to catch her flight. Calls from those numbers were also checked to see if Joan called anyone.

The Websters’ second number was not checked. That number was missing from police reports. That bothers me a lot. I agree, the Websters did not want authorities to know about the second line. I have that number. I don’t know if it is even possible to check calls on that line now. It has been almost 36 years.

If your daughter is missing, you are going to pull out all the stops to find her. That is no time to conceal a number.

The first extortion call came less than two weeks after Joan disappeared, on December 9, 1981. That call came from Nutley, NJ, exchange 284. I am uploading the report logged on December 10, 1981, by Det. Tom Dugan. He spoke to Jack McEwan of ITT security. The report said there is nothing new on that end. That is inconsistent with the report by Det. Richard Corcoran who logged the extortion call the night before. I am surprised that is not mentioned in Dugan’s entry with Jack McEwan. Officers may have had tasks divided to handle different things, but talking to McEwan should have brought up the call. The exchange was not identified until later in the day. McEwan’s number is identified in police records. His number is in the 284 exchange.

McEwan’s name appears at numerous times when leads were suppressed or clouded, such as the composite. His name appears scheduling a meeting at the time Robert Bond was being transferred to the Charles Street Jail and positioned near Leonard Paradiso, the scapegoat.

The October 1982 extortion call is a problem. Joan’s brother Steve denies knowing anything about anything like this incident. His comment is documented. I remember at least three extortion calls. The police reports affirm my recollections. Not only does the family not want the second line known, but it seems they do not want the extortion incident known either. None of the extortion incidents were reported in the media. The October 1982 incident was too dramatic to forget. Even if it is not forefront in your memory, bringing it up would normally rekindle the experience.

There's always the possibility that they (the Webster) didn't want the police to know about the second line for reasons that have nothing to do with the case. Given their background in intelligence, they may not wanted to attract attention to this. Even if it's their daughter that has been abducted, it doesn't mean to lost all critical thinking for everything else.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

I would like to believe there is a justified reason why the Websters concealed the second line. I don’t know what that is. Their background certainly reflects the family mindset of “privacy.”

I learned about the phone on a visit to NJ in December 1979. There was a small study George used upstairs. I was simply instructed not to use that phone. I do have the number. The study was just a couple of steps across the hall from Joan’s bedroom.

George is quoted in a media report saying Joan spoke to a fellow student on Saturday, November 28, 1981, earlier in the day. According to George, the discussion was if they had supplies for a project. George is the one who indicated Joan went back early to work on a project. Nothing in recovered records support George’s claim. Joan presented an 11-week project just prior to the Thanksgiving break.

The excerpts are from the Boston Magazine in December 1984. In this article, George still maintains Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.

The call George described is not on the list of calls on the home line. Note: Certified court records affirm the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981. George and Eleanor were in contact with the office prosecuting CR 85-010-S. They were aware of the case.

I am a parent. When your child is in trouble of some kind, you move heaven and earth for them. No matter how “restricted” the second line was, you are going to check it in the event there is some clue to her whereabouts. Restrictions be damned.

I am bothered by the lack of disclosure under such extraordinary and life threatening circumstances.

 

[eve carson]

Thanksgiving has been a difficult time for me since Joan’s loss on November 28, 1981. In a few days, it will be 36 years. It has been increasingly difficult as I have learned about what was really going in during the investigation.

A faulty investigation is not an isolated incident. When the error is an earnest mistake, there are remedies to correct it. When it is deliberate, innocent victims are vulnerable. The wagons circle.

To answer who was responsible for Joan’s loss, you have to answer who the authorities would shield from accountability. The answer is just under the surface.

The first answer is obvious, authorities will shield their own. Any direct involvement by members of law enforcement is a reasonable concern.

The state’s “star” witness, Robert Bond, also identified an individual during a face to face meeting on October 9, 2009. It was not by name, but by a nickname that is identifiable. Other documents corroborate activity by “Nick” consistent with Bond’s assertion. Documents affirm associations with “Nick,” and what those individuals did during the investigation. There is a lot of known and verifiable information known about “Nick.”

The evidence in recovered records points to Tr. Andrew Palombo. He may have been the offender or participated. He is clearly complicit. I do not see an independent motive for Palombo. The layer I am peeling back now is if “Nick” enlisted Palombo. This was quite a web of deceit.

I hope all of you have a Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving. Take time to hold loved ones and tell them you love them.

 

[ebfortin76]

Thanksgiving has been a difficult time for me since Joan’s loss on November 28, 1981. In a few days, it will be 36 years. It has been increasingly difficult as I have learned about what was really going in during the investigation.

A faulty investigation is not an isolated incident. When the error is an earnest mistake, there are remedies to correct it. When it is deliberate, innocent victims are vulnerable. The wagons circle.

To answer who was responsible for Joan’s loss, you have to answer who the authorities would shield from accountability. The answer is just under the surface.

The first answer is obvious, authorities will shield their own. Any direct involvement by members of law enforcement is a reasonable concern.

The state’s “star” witness, Robert Bond, also identified an individual during a face to face meeting on October 9, 2009. It was not by name, but by a nickname that is identifiable. Other documents corroborate activity by “Nick” consistent with Bond’s assertion. Documents affirm associations with “Nick,” and what those individuals did during the investigation. There is a lot of known and verifiable information known about “Nick.”

The evidence in recovered records points to Tr. Andrew Palombo. He may have been the offender or participated. He is clearly complicit. I do not see an independent motive for Palombo. The layer I am peeling back now is if “Nick” enlisted Palombo. This was quite a web of deceit.

I hope all of you have a Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving. Take time to hold loved ones and tell them you love them.

I have such a hard time believing that the cop the Webster mandated to lead the investigation perpetrated the murder. My only explanation, and I already exposed it, is that he knows who killed, but they needed the guy for something else. The Webster's would understand the importance of that. Beside that, I can't compute how it is possible. How Palombo would have got away from it, how everyone around would have played along. How the Webster would push for a false narrative, multiple time debunked. It's the only explanation I can see.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

There is no question in my mind Andrew Palombo knew who was responsible for Joan’s loss. That first and foremost makes him complicit based on the path he chose to handle the investigation.

The evidence also makes him a suspect.

He worked at Logan, the last place Joan was seen.

He knew the Lynn Marsh Road where the purse was tossed. He was familiar with the area as lead officer for the Iannuzzi case. That made Paradiso a familiar name. He had an improper relationship with David Doyle in that case. He would have passed this spot regularly headed south to Logan.

There was known undercover activity at the bus station, where the suitcase turned up. Palombo was an undercover cop.

Palombo was identified following tow women at Logan and giving them a ride.

Palombo had mobility and familiar with the Boston area. He lived just west of barricades going into Lynn, MA because of the Great Lynn Fire. He lived close to the on ramp to Rte 128 and minutes away from the gravesite. As a member of law enforcement, he would be familiar with criminal activity known in this area.

He had forensic knowledge,important to avoid detection. The offender would have such knowledge based on the condition of Joan’s remains and the wide disbursement of her belongings.

Palombo was extremely aggressiveto to pin this on Paradiso, He had his fingers in numerous allegations and cases, the bankruptcy case, the Iannuzzi case, Janet McCarthy. There is evidence of pressured witnesses Palombo spoke to who changed testimony. There is fabricated or misrepresented evidence and hidden exculpatory evidence.

Palombo was paired with Burke who was pressing the legal charge against Paradiso disregarding the evidence.

Palombo’s superior, CarmenTammaro, took the lead with snitch Robert Bond to put forward a false narrative. Palombo and Tammaro both had knowledge the boat was reported gone prior to Joan’s disappearance when they interviewed Bond.

According to Bond, Palombo corresponded with him up to the time Joan’s remains were found and told him not to change his story.

Police files contained a positive ID of Joan at Logan. The composite of the bearded man and switching cars was suppressed by authorities.

Bond offered a multiple choice to Palombo and Tammaro during the interview and told them to choose. The written statement that arrived after the interview had the correct manner of death with correct detail in an otherwise false statement. That was seven+ years before Joan’s remains surfaced.

Palombo was in a position to throw the investigation. Palombo was in front of the media and spreading insinuations. Palombo submitted false warrants with the courts. Palombo was the likely confidential source to the FBI based on the information reported. The information was consistent with Burke who is named in reports, and false.

Palombo cannot be removed from the list of suspects.

George and Eleanor Websters’ background certainly make them knowledgeable of clandestine type of operations. There is no question they went along with the Paradiso story. There is also no question they had specific knowledge that conflicted with the Paradiso explanation. It is in the records. As a family member, I am very troubled by a parent who would “go along” with a false narrative to shield an informant in some other matter. In Boston’s history, that was done in the case of Whitey Bulger. But for the sake of discussion, say that they did. Were they threatened? Jean Day was; I have been subtly warned. Were they deceived? Not likely. Why continue to maintain a false story so much later? Surely, someone who was so “valuable” in the 1980s to have priority over Joan is long past the usefulness in some other matter. What purpose does it serve now to shield the real offender?

 

[eve carson]

FOIA Update

Thanksgiving is a very difficult time for me. Tuesday November 28, 2017, was the 36[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of Joan’s loss. Slowly but surely, pieces are falling into place.

On Wednesday, the 29[SUP]th[/SUP], I received a response to part of the outstanding FOIA request. A significant piece was affirmed. Burke published his account in 2008. He identified an item belonging to Joan in police evidence. He claimed the item was in the suitcase authorities recovered in January 1982 at the Greyhound Bus Station. I have the FBI report listing the contents. The item was not among other belongings. At that point, I already knew Burke lied.

Taking literary license in a book that deals with a real crime and real people is not very smart. Frankly, that’s abuse on a level that is unconscionable. Burke is a former government employee who had privileged access to records; records the current custodian keeps a lid on.

Right now, documents are trickling out. I can now affirm Joan did have this item with her when she disappeared at Logan. Burke claimed it was in her suitcase, but it was not. The location was identified in the recovered report. This item was in Joan’s carry on tote bag.

Burke was making plenty of things up, but he has placed an item verified in the tote bag in police evidence. Big problem, the tote bag and contents were never recovered. Think about this carefully. An eye witness made a positive identification of Joan leaving Logan with a bearded man. The composite and cabbie’s information were known by authorities. The lead was suppressed. You have two involved officers assigned right at F Barracks at Logan, Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro. This latest report means someone who had contact with Joan after she approached the cabbie accompanied by a bearded man. The cabbie identified her suitcase which he loaded into the trunk of his cab. He also affirmed she was carrying another bag which he did not describe in detail. The cabbie struggled with the bearded man’s suitcase. At that point, the bearded man exchanged words and moved to the vehicle behind the cabbie with Joan.

The bearded man had contact with Joan when she had the tote bag in her possession. Joan disappears and items are dispersed all over. As items are recovered they end up in police evidence; her suitcase and contents, her purse and contents. The tote bag was NEVER recovered. How did an item carried in her tote bag end up in police evidence? Obviously, someone who had contact with Joan after she landed at Logan also had access to the police evidence room. The cops are the only ones that can place evidence in police custody as far as I know. They would document where and when it was recovered and keep a chain of evidence.

This was one of the pieces that raised suspicion regarding Andrew Palombo. It is now affirmed Joan carried the item in her tote bag at the time she disappeared; the tote bag nor any other contents were recovered.

The evidence points to Palombo as a person of interest; the offender or complicit in the crime.

 

[eve carson]

The condition of Joan’sremains when they were found was very disturbing for me and suggest premeditation.

Joan had a 2” x 4” hole on the right side of her skull.
Joan had been stripped of all clothing; nothing was found in the area.
Joan was disposed in a black plastic trash bag.
She was discarded in a remote and heavily wooded area. The grave was in a natural basin sometimes flooded with water. The grave was covered on two different occasions with cut logs.

First, the offender took measures to make sure Joan was not found or at least, not for a long time. The authorities ignored leads and evidence and diverted the investigation in an entirely different direction.

Second, the offender removed identifying items like clothing and other belongings. Nothing was found during an extensive search of the area.

Third, the plastic bag was probably necessary to contain excessive bleeding from a traumatic blow to the head. That observation was shared by retired Det. Paul Grant of the Hamilton PD, part of the recovery team.

Fourth, someone covered the gravesite on two occasions based on the decomposition of the layers of logs. This is an extensive area. The random chance someone placed logs on the very same spot is highly improbable.

There were two items on the skeleton, a gold neck chain, and a gold and amethyst ring. Neither of these items were that distinct for a positive identification.

Fifth, Joan had very identifiable jewelry with her. She had a one-of-a-kind charm bracelet. She might not have been wearing it, but had it with her. It was never recovered. Burke made a false claim to the FBI that Charlene Bullerwell was photographed in a bracelet identical to Joan’s. The current DAO is missing the photo and Bullerwell’s testimony discredits Burke’s false statement to the FBI. The bracelet was never recovered.

Finally, Joan wore another ring, all the time. It was a signet ring with her initials. It was not on the skeleton. With attention paid to other details, I think it is reasonable to ask if this identifiable item was removed before Joan was disposed. It was not found in the grave or area.

Joan was not meant to be found. If she was, it would be harder to identify her with missing items. Whoever was involved in this had forensic knowledge.

 

[eve carson]

Every unresolved case has an answer. Joan’s case is no different. It should be obvious to anyone that an offender seeks to avoid detection. Recovered documents show serious discrepancies with the case authorities represented to the courts, other agencies, and the public. The problem with Joan’s case is there are people in positions of "trust" that do not want this case resolved. Justice rests in the hands of people with other agendas. There is not sufficient recourse when evidence of misconduct is present. A breakdown in our legal and law enforcement systems hurts everyone. Most of those serving in our legal and law enforcement communities are decent, hardworking, and honest players. One or two bad actors can cause serious harm.

I have submitted an article to The Journal of Forensic and Crime Investigation. My article has been through peer review and a final galley proof approved. It is currently in press. The article is available for view at the following link.

http://www.scienceinquest.com/open-...t-in-the-cold-case-murder-of-joan-webster.php

The answer to Joan’s loss is simple. Who was shielded by authorities?