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

[ebfortin76]

Go back to the question whether the Websters went along with authorities, or if authorities went along with George Webster. There is a lot of information posted. Let me refresh you on a couple of points. The Websters posted reward money in January 1982 and increased it in October 1982. That has the appearance of parents trying to find their daughter. However, the authorities and the Websters had a lead that was suppressed. Why would parents go to these lengths if authorities convinced or coerced them to go along with some clandestine operation? It does not make sense to me. It has the right appearance, but was not going to result in anything constructive to find Joan.

A second piece of information unsettles me. I hired a PI. He and an attorney interviewed the state's snitch Robert Bond. I am uploading an excerpt from the report I got back. The guy from NJ sent people to see him. The people that went to see Bond were Tammaro and Palombo. Burke joined in later when Bond was developed as a witness. All three worked closely with George.

Go to the next question; who knew where Joan would be? The home phone records do not reveal any calls that would offer a clue. On Thanksgiving Day, a call was placed to Eleanor's mother and a call to Steve and me. On Friday there is a 411 call to information, a call to NYC for dinner reservations, and a call to the US Chamber of Portugal. George later affirmed placing the call to the restaurant and the US Chamber of Portugal. The number was 1 digit off from the restaurant and George said he dialed a wrong number. That makes sense. On Saturday there is a call to 411 again. No other calls.

The 411 call on Friday is right before the two calls George made. There is no call following the 411 call on Saturday. George was always organized to confirm things like flights and reservations. The problem is, George and Eleanor did not provide police with the second number into the house. Neither of the 411 calls were long enough for anything other than getting a number.

Joan did not make any calls from either house where they stopped for cocktails.

If someone knew where Joan was going to be, the information had to originate from one of the Websters; George, Eleanor, Anne, or Joan.

That we know of the second phone makes it plausible that any number of person could have known Joan's whereabouts. If that's the case, then George should have told police about that second line.

Which makes me think that he did and the information was not recorded.

Also, isn't it possible that the police taught the cab was not reliable? I'm playing Devil's advocate here. It wouldn't be the first time a lead is put aside because the police doesn't believe a witness.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

It helps being devil's advocate. I go back and review what is in records to assess what is or is not possible.

The 2nd line into the house was in a small upstairs study right across the hall from Joan's room. George used this little office. I remember the 1st time I visited the house in NJ. The house rule was not to use that phone.

It's impossible to say if Steve, Anne, or Joan ever broke that rule. However, if your daughter goes missing, you would want to check everything. George and Eleanor should have provided that number.

When I recovered the NJ police reports, I found them professional and organized. There was a coherent running report with excellent detail. If the number had been provided, I believe it would have been listed and all the steps and contacts to check the calls on that line. No one would be thinking about exposing the number years later in an FOIA. Only the authorities would have it. If there was sensitivity for the number to be learned, it could be redacted. The FACT I am working with is the number is not there.

If Steve, Anne, and Joan abided by the house rule, George was the one making any calls on the line. Get it out there if you are genuinely looking for your daughter and not hiding anything. When I try to determine if anyone else used that phone, I view it through the lens of my experiences with the family.

Let me give you another example. Every summer, the family got together in Nantucket. The vacation coincided with a lot of the family friends from NJ. One of my favorite things about the trip was getting away from TV and slowing the pace of busy schedules back home. I always picked out a good book to read on the beach. I was very engrossed in a good book one summer. I even remember the book, London. Friends of George and Eleanor, Frank and Sue Leonard, walked up to the group. Steve and Anne popped up and immediately stood by George and Eleanor. I was not sitting right by the group and was turned away from George and Eleanor. I didn't see the Leonards walk up. When we were back at the house, I was upstairs cleaning up and heard George absolutely lambasting me. He was challenging Steve in a very loud voice what was wrong with me not to come over. We actually had cocktails with the Leonard's and the group that evening. I don't think I really needed to, but I excused myself to Sue Leonard and explained I was engrossed in my book and didn't see them come to the beach. She didn't even notice and was not the least bit offended. She was more interested in what I thought about the book since her book club was going to be reading it. George was very demanding and really had family jumping for appearances sake, make him look good at least in his eyes.

George is the most likely person that made any calls from the 2nd line. I don't rule out Joan, but it is hard to think she called someone that would end up causing her harm.

The number of departments and authorities interviewing at Logan in the days after Joan's disappearance was staggering. Some of the leads the authorities followed had them searching abandoned buildings, dredging ponds, talking to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who thought they might have seen Joan. There is a lead of substance, but it gets suppressed. That is not incompetence or an oversight. There were too many departments involved. That's how this witness was found, by local police. However, Carmen Tammaro is identified as the MSP officer coordinating all the different departments. MSP have the lead role in an investigation. MSP is where the buck stops.

I added an excerpt from the PI report indicating the guy from NJ sent people to see him. I am adding another excerpt from a NJ police report on November 30, 1982. Jack McEwan of ITT security was scheduling a meeting for December 8, or 9, 1982 with NJ officers. This meeting would have been scheduled at the direction of George Webster. December 8, 1982 is when Robert Bond was transferred to the Charles Street Jail and positioned close to Paradiso. That corroborates what Bond told the PI.

This is incredibly painful for me to process. It is also frightening that the family was not open and honest with me about a missing and murdered member of the family. I am sorting through it here and it helps me get other perspectives to see if something reasonably fits or justifies the Websters' behaviors. I am still struggling with whether the Websters went along with the authorities or if the authorities went along with George.

 

[eve carson]

I am uploading an excerpt again from a sworn affidavit submitted by Robert Bond on November 15, 1985. He names the individuals who made promises he relied on, Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and "Bill." The first three named worked closely with George Webster. That is well documented.

During the Bond interview on January 14, 1983, Tammaro suggested Bond would be eligible for the Webster reward money. He referenced that discussion from the earlier meeting on January 10, 1983. Bond told the PI the guy from NJ sent people to see him.

Evidence suggests Joan knew her assailant. It is possible I knew that person, too. It also means it is possible other members of the Webster family knew the assailant. There is probably even a higher probability of that.

Getting to the bottom of who killed Joan Webster means looking at everything. For me, the evidence shows Webster involvement, at a minimum shifting blame on a scapegoat. There are consequences that impact the lives of vulnerable people. Those are the ones that need the truth for genuine healing. From my perspective, it is better to err on the side of caution.

I welcome your thoughts.

 

[Coldpizza]

Dear Websleuths Members,

WE ARE MOVING!

If you have ever used the blogs on Websleuths and you want to keep what you wrote you will need to copy your blog posts ASAP. When we move to our new software the blog posts will not transfer over. I'm very sorry but there is nothing we can do. We tried but alas, you will lose your blog posts if you do not save them before we move.

Monday, May 21[SUP]st[/SUP] at around 7:00 AM Eastern Websleuths will go down for hopefully no more than 48 hours. When we come back up it Websleuths will have a brand new look!

You can discuss the move RIGHT HERE if you like.

While we are down please check the Websleuths FACEBOOK PAGE and TWITTER ACCOUNT FOR UPDATES ON THE MOVE AND INFO ON THE LATEST BREAKING TRUE CRIME.

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[eve carson]

While the site was down for upgrades, I went back and reviewed posts on this thread. Let me recap for the purpose of some direction to resolve Joan's case.

Evidence supports Joan knew her assailant.
The man at the airport took control and maneuvered Joan to a different vehicle.
This is the critical point where Joan disappeared. The identity of the man is integral to resolving Joan's loss.
Knowledge Joan would be at Logan originated with George, Eleanor, Anne, or Joan.

What is the motive? A previous post suggested Joan had knowledge that would cause serious embarrassment. That could suggest possible financial or professional ruin, marital disruption, standing in the community, or even jail. I believe that is the right train of thought for motive. The man probably felt threatened by Joan's knowledge of some closely guarded secret.

Joan's plans over Thanksgiving changed, cancelling a planned visit from a friend. That suggests to me her itinerary changed over the Thanksgiving break. I agree with a poster that in the weeks or months leading up to Joan's disappearance something triggered what happened.

I am viewing this through the lens of my personal experience and observations. My questions are based on verified documents. I believe the trigger was the fact I was about three months pregnant when Joan disappeared. I did lose the pregnancy. That may sound strange or out in left field to some of you, but I do believe there is a connection.

 

[ebfortin76]

While the site was down for upgrades, I went back and reviewed posts on this thread. Let me recap for the purpose of some direction to resolve Joan's case.

Evidence supports Joan knew her assailant.
The man at the airport took control and maneuvered Joan to a different vehicle.
This is the critical point where Joan disappeared. The identity of the man is integral to resolving Joan's loss.
Knowledge Joan would be at Logan originated with George, Eleanor, Anne, or Joan.

What is the motive? A previous post suggested Joan had knowledge that would cause serious embarrassment. That could suggest possible financial or professional ruin, marital disruption, standing in the community, or even jail. I believe that is the right train of thought for motive. The man probably felt threatened by Joan's knowledge of some closely guarded secret.

Joan's plans over Thanksgiving changed, cancelling a planned visit from a friend. That suggests to me her itinerary changed over the Thanksgiving break. I agree with a poster that in the weeks or months leading up to Joan's disappearance something triggered what happened.

I am viewing this through the lens of my personal experience and observations. My questions are based on verified documents. I believe the trigger was the fact I was about three months pregnant when Joan disappeared. I did lose the pregnancy. That may sound strange or out in left field to some of you, but I do believe there is a connection.

What do you mean Eve? Your pregnancy has a connection with the motive? Or that losing your pregnancy made you very much involved in finding her killer?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

Right from the very beginning, I felt a strong connection to Joan because of the circumstances of having a miscarriage on the same day Joan disappeared. However, that fact was not known for three days when we learned Joan was missing. In one sense, it is a connection that keeps me engaged to find truthful answers.

Many years after the tragedy of Joan's loss, I discovered a very unsettling letter. The allegations were very disturbing and I did try to get help and understanding. Joan's case was not forefront in my thinking. The letter did raise serious concerns about a member of the Webster family. The intent of the letter is not clear cut. In the best case, it would be very embarrassing to the Webster family.

When the Websters came out publicly in support of Burke's upcoming publication, the two problems intersected.

It is clear from recovered documents, the explanation authorities promoted for Joan's loss, supported by the Websters, is false. That is the big elephant in the room. The Websters had knowledge, verified in documents, of facts that debunked the public explanation. Members of the Webster family have reacted to questions about Joan's case. It is clear from documented responses, exposing the truth about Joan's loss would be embarrassing to the Webster family.

On Christmas 2012, I emailed George with questions about the discrepancies that are evident in source documents. His response is uploaded. It does not fit the image most people have of the family. A name is redacted relating to the personal attacks and smearing I have endured because I asked questions.

The letter revealed other possible victims, victims with a connection to the Webster family. If the hidden secrets deal with Webster secrets, Joan would have probably known them. My pregnancy would have been a trigger to bring those secrets to light.

 

[ebfortin76]

There is then a big chunk of the story that you know, but we don't. I understand it's delicate. But what you just said is central to the case. We need more on it.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ebfortin 76,

Let me start by giving two definitions.

Victim:

1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency,
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency.

Witness:

to see, hear, or know by personal presence and perception.

As a victim, definition two probably describes my status best. However, there has been damage. My greater concern presently is for vulnerable individuals fitting more closely into definition one.

I bring personal knowledge to my examination of Joan's case. Her loss impacted my life every day. It has been very important for me to trust my instincts to know where to look. But, my questions and concerns come directly from what is in verified documents.

I found a letter by chance. This is a written document. I took the letter to a family counselor. I am uploading just the greeting on the letter. It is signed by the counselor that received it and notarized. People were questioned about the letter.

The letter has been provided to various departments. My local FBI office indicated this should have been investigated. The letter has concerning allegations that I can neither prove nor disprove. However, the fact remains, I found this letter and sought appropriate help.

The Websters were very destructive. The letter made allegations against a member of the Webster family. The Websters are very image conscious. The letter could rise to the level of a felony depending on the intent of the letter. My experiences do factor in when considering the meaning. I prefer to stay focused on what I can support with documentation. Finding the letter is a fact and the allegations are concerning. I reacted appropriately and responsibly. As I posted previously, George Webster wished me to "Die." I take that very seriously. This is a man whose daughter was missing for years and brutally murdered.

Authorities involved in Joan's investigation are my focus. I have also provided documents of things the Websters knew that discredited the state's explanation for Joan's loss. They were not honest and open with me about a murdered member of the family. For me, that is inexcusable. That left me vulnerable. It left others vulnerable as well.

I am not on this site to attack the Websters or air dirty laundry. But I will be vocal about issues that involve murder, and other concerning and documented allegations. Those are not private family matters. If Joan's loss is the result of family secrets, others are still vulnerable. If there is something that justifies the Websters cooperating with a false narrative that framed a scapegoat, I have a mountain of documents to support them. I haven't seen it yet.

In correspondence from the current DAO, they stated George Webster did not want documents released. He did not want to "jeopardize" the investigation. That is ludicrous in a 36-year-old unresolved homicide. Let me state it again. The Websters publicly cooperated with Tim Burke's published and graphic description that Joan was raped and murdered by Leonard Paradiso on a boat that did not exist when Joan disappeared.

 

[eve carson]

A quick update. I will try to add more later.

The DAO has missed another FOIA deadline. I have zeroed in on just a few documents. Three documents relate to state witness Robert Bond. These are the foundational documents for the state's whole premise. Documents were provided to the DAO to verify these records exist. They provided verification they exist also. However, they claim they do not have them and the records are sealed in the Iannuzzi case.

Tim Burke's office was exposed in 1991 for secret and duplicate files that impacted cases from 1980-1988, the precise time when Burke's pursuit of Paradiso took place. This is how the truth gets buried. It is unreasonable that the Joan Webster files would not contain these documents unless someone removed them. Burke removed a carton of files when he left the Suffolk County DAO in 1985. He quotes directly from these documents in his published account.

The MSP turned records over to the current DAO in 1990, when Joan surfaced in their jurisdiction. Recovered documents expose misconduct by the MSP. I don't have any doubts why records are missing.

The other document requested was a summary report. ADA John Dawley stated this was in their records. When I asked for it, all of a sudden they can't find any such report. The FOIA request is well-documented. I know when it was received. I also know ADA Dawley opened the request again on a holiday when the office was closed. The ADA in charge of records opened the request a few days later and responded he could not find any such record.

ADA Dawley stated he knows Tim Burke and did not want to focus on him. He asked if the Websters agreed with Burke's theory then said he had to "weigh" opening old wounds. He told me not to probe deeply.

The DAO is shielding misconduct by authorities. The DAO is also shielding the Websters who supported a false narrative.

 

[eve carson]

What I learned from the last DAO response and now the missed deadline affirms Joan's investigation falls under the practices exposed in the Suffolk County DAO of Tim Burke. Documents were being divided and hidden to obstruct a path to the truth.

One part of crime resolution is public safety, preventing other crimes. ADA Dawley asked if I was concerned for the safety of specific individuals. I responded yes, if secrets were learned. ADA Dawley was provided the letter I found. ADA Dawley advised for me not to probe deeply, and inferred secrets will only get out if I continue and he starts to probe. It seemed to escape ADA Dawley that these secrets relate to an unresolved murder.

ADA Dawley stated it was not his "role" to get involved if former government employee Tim Burke's account is baloney. ADA Dawley went on to ask if the Websters buy into the boat theory. That is the position the Websters have stated publicly. According to Burke, he published his account for them. Apparently, ADA Dawley has no problem with blood relatives cooperating with a false narrative debunked in source documents. To me, family that is not telling the truth is a big red flag.

ADA Dawley said they are only as good as the information they have. Their files are grossly deficient. There's a reason. However, they are now ignoring information they have been provided.

I welcome your input.

 

[eve carson]

View attachment 135437
View attachment 135438

What I learned from the last DAO response and now the missed deadline affirms Joan's investigation falls under the practices exposed in the Suffolk County DAO of Tim Burke. Documents were being divided and hidden to obstruct a path to the truth.

One part of crime resolution is public safety, preventing other crimes. ADA Dawley asked if I was concerned for the safety of specific individuals. I responded yes, if secrets were learned. ADA Dawley was provided the letter I found. ADA Dawley advised for me not to probe deeply, and inferred secrets will only get out if I continue and he starts to probe. It seemed to escape ADA Dawley that these secrets relate to an unresolved murder.

ADA Dawley stated it was not his "role" to get involved if former government employee Tim Burke's account is baloney. ADA Dawley went on to ask if the Websters buy into the boat theory. That is the position the Websters have stated publicly. According to Burke, he published his account for them. Apparently, ADA Dawley has no problem with blood relatives cooperating with a false narrative debunked in source documents. To me, family that is not telling the truth is a big red flag.

ADA Dawley said they are only as good as the information they have. Their files are grossly deficient. There's a reason. However, they are now ignoring information they have been provided.

I welcome your input.

 

[eve carson]

The Paradiso boat theory was a cover story, an explanation that is still being used to conceal Joan's killer. Exposing the corruption of authorities is the layer of the onion that will expose the offender.

Step into my shoes to look at the next piece to analyze. I learned Joan was missing on December 1, 1981, after a call from Eleanor Webster. The case was highly publicized; we got news clippings almost daily from the family. This was an emotional roller coaster and a sensational story that went on for many years. I did not live in the Boston area so my information came from George and Eleanor. I doubted the boat theory in 1990 when Joan's remains surfaced. I still assumed the Iannuzzi conviction was just. I had no reason not to trust the Websters and authorities.

There were a couple of trigger points for me that prompted me to dig into Joan's investigation. Imagine being a family member of a missing and murdered person and learning you had been lied to from the start. I can't even begin to describe those emotions.

The next step for me was to try and understand Webster thinking. What I learned is they deal in perceptions. I deal in facts. Below are the possible rationales for the Websters to go along with a false explanation about Joan's loss.

1. The authorities lied to the Websters and deceived them.
a. Documents confirm the Websters knew about the lead, the man Joan left with from the airport.
b. Documents confirm the Websters knew about CR 85-010-S that affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared.
There are many more examples, but these are the first big points.

2. The Websters are delusional believing Joan was murdered on a boat that did not exist.

3. The Websters and authorities have knowledge that the boat did exist, but refuse to bring it forward. No evidence the boat existed has surfaced in an extensive search of records.

4. The authorities coerced or threatened the Websters to go along with the explanation for some perceived greater good.
a. Documents confirm the Websters were proactive to promote this explanation.
b. The Websters made numerous public statements.
c. The Websters sent people to see Robert Bond.
d. The Websters' second phone number is missing from records.
e. George Webster gave a false explanation for Joan's early return to Boston.
f. The Websters received assurances from Tony Pisa.
g. The DAO was missing documents about incidents the Websters knew about. For example, the October 1982 extortion incident involving George Webster and records from case CR 85-010-S.
I can go on, but you get the idea of the problems I see.

5. The Websters were involved or behind Joan's murder.
a. The DAO affirmed George does not want records released.
b. The Websters have been hostile to questions about Joan's case, affirmed in documents.
c. Greater concerns are raised about the letter I found.

At this point, I can't just give the Websters the benefit of the doubt. From my observations, experiences, and the records, I narrow the list to two: the Websters are delusional or the Websters were involved. Note: Delusional thinking would include the entire blood family.

I welcome and really want your input. If there is another explanation you feel should be on the list, please offer it. If there is reason to consider one of the explanations I have eliminated. please offer your thoughts. Again, put yourself in my shoes understanding how badly my trust was violated, about murder.

 

[jgfitzge]

Eve - to keep my head straight, I continue to focus on the days/weeks leading up to that November weekend. I have two inquiries -

Let me ask you about ITT's role here. What was their purpose in the investigation? Were they involved from the beginning? When did their involvement cease?

Now, let me ask you something about Joan. She was 23/24 years old when she went missing? Prior to her going missing to your knowledge was she experiencing anxiety or panic attacks in the last few years? Second, who would she confide personal matters with? her sister? you? best friend?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge,

I believe you are correct that something in the days or weeks leading up to Joan's loss will lead to understanding motive. Good questions.

ITT was involved right from the start. When the wallet was found on December 2, 1981, Anthony Belmonte called ITT to speak with George Webster. He was redirected to Jack McEwan, head of ITT security. This was the day after two missing person reports were filed. The involvement of ITT would have been at the behest of George Webster. McEwan's name disappears from records after November 30, 1982. That is when he scheduled a meeting for December 8 or 9, 1982, at the same time Bond was transferred to the Charles Street Jail. McEwan was very active up to that point. I am certain McEwan remained on the case behind the scenes, likely doing whatever George wanted. McEwan's name appears again on April 27, 1990. That is when remains were found in Hamilton, MA. Identification had not been made yet.

At the time, I thought of ITT involvement as supportive of the family. My opinion changed when I saw how McEwan actually threw confusion into the case by squelching an initial media report Joan was seen at Logan and clouding the composite issue with psychics. McEwan gave George eyes and ears right in the middle of the first reports and interviews. I don't see McEwan's involvement as proper procedure, but that is how much influence George had.

There was no outward sign of any distress, anxiety, panic, or otherwise leading up to Joan's disappearance. The Websters keep strife within the family behind closed doors. I have seen situations when there was turmoil, but then flip a switch the minute the family was in the presence of someone else. If there was a disagreement or otherwise within the family, outside observers would not see it. Everyone questioned about Joan at the time said Joan was her normal bubbly self. That was my take when I spoke to her on Thanksgiving.

Who Joan would confide is speculation on my part. I think it depends on what the issue was. If it was related to a boyfriend, she probably would confide in classmates or friends. There were no reports reflecting that. Conflict of any kind would be a family discussion. George and Eleanor inserted themselves in everything, that is based on personal experience. Problems in the family itself would be hidden claiming "privacy". It is the same thing they claim now about Joan's case and other matters.

If the stressor before Joan disappeared related to the family, I won't rule out Joan may have confided in me. If it had anything to do with concerns raised in the letter I found, I probably was the person she would talk to. She never got the chance. I was the newest member of the family and would be the only one not in the know. I was pregnant bringing children into the family.

 

[eve carson]

Members of the Webster family have commented periodically about questions I have raised regarding Joan's case. They don't like it.

The possibility the family was deceived is not plausible. I can support that in the recovered documents. I can also support it with their own words. I have uploaded a comment received in an email from Joan's sister Anne. The question becomes if they knew everything I have raised, then why did George and Eleanor go along with a false narrative?

Jgfitzge also asked the question who Joan would confide in. I am adding another excerpt from Anne's email that is revealing to me. Anne labels her brother a "chauvinist." This is a very patriarchal family and Steve is very much like his father. Something I learned dealing with the Websters is their use of words. Chauvinist carries a certain definition. That is not always the intended meaning the Websters use, but somehow one is supposed to understand the Webster meaning.

Anne suggested she and Joan sent me sympathy cards before I married Steve. I have a very good memory and that certainly would have stood out. I would have saved those cards. They never sent cards nor did they comment in any way. Personally, I found Steve very insecure, but it is not the image he projected. Like his dad, he was very controlling. Anne stated they were serious in their "sympathy," but then seems to fault me for Steve's behaviors that I encountered.

These are some of the small hidden pieces that factor in when I look at the whole of Joan's case. I was a few months pregnant when Joan disappeared. I do consider Joan felt I had a right to know certain things about the family. Based on the implications I discovered in the letter I found, the family would not want that. It is crystal clear at this point, they do not want the truth of Joan's case learned.

 

[eve carson]

I am posting the profile that emerges from recovered documents. Below each item, I am making a comparison to George Webster. He is open to the scrutiny. I have established through verified documents, George had knowledge of specific information that Leonard Paradiso was not the man Joan left Logan Airport with, and the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. Recovered documents record George's influence over the investigation. George Webster supported Tim Burke's published account giving a graphic description of rape and murder on a boat that did not exist. George opposes release of information claiming he does not want to "jeopardize" a 30+ year failed investigation. George made false statements. George had a known close relationship working with the authorities who developed the Robert Bond statement, Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro.

Profile:
Middle-aged white male
George was 54 at the time Joan disappeared. I have added a photo taken in 1980.

Dark hair
George had dark hair. George did have natural wave in his hair when not combed down with hair tonic.

Beard?
I do not know George Webster to have ever had a beard.

Approximately 160 pounds
This is accurate.

Under 6” tall
I stand 5'8" or 9". I always looked George straight in the eye. His posture was to lean in, and knees bent.

Wears glasses
The picture does not show George wearing glasses, but he did. He had a wire rimmed pair, not round, but with rounded edges.

Dark overcoat
George would have had an overcoat on that night. He attended two cocktail parties prior to the drive to Newark Airport. His typical attire for such evenings would have been a blazer, trousers, and tie. He definitely would have worn an overcoat.

Organized
George is extremely organized with attention even to the smallest details.

Professional
George was an executive with ITT.

Knew Joan’s whereabouts
George had absolute knowledge where Joan would be and when she would be there.

Influence over authorities
George's influence is throughout the recovered records.

Traveler?
George traveled at some point over that weekend as affirmed by a statement to the media from Eleanor Webster.

Demanding
Controlling
Unreasoning
I do not want to get into gray areas. I have given a couple of examples. This is a very patriarchal family. George rules the roost.

Joan was relaxed with him
Joan likely knew her killer
Obviously, Joan knew him, would yield to his wishes to change cars, and not sense imminent danger.

I welcome your thoughts. Let me know if you needs further examples or clarifications of my assessment of George compared to the profile of the man at the airport. Do you believe George should be on the list of persons-of-interest? If not, why do you think he should not be considered?

 

[eve carson]

To do a complete analysis of Joan's case, I have looked at everyone. The source documents revealed who knew what and when. Based on records, George has to be considered a person of interest in my thinking. George lied during the investigation and ignored information he and authorities already had. He actively participated in the cover-up, the fabricated boat theory. He demonstrated he does not want this case resolved.

I have uploaded an excerpt from the DAO letter dated 3-2-2015. George claimed privacy. He did not want things released. He did not want to "jeopardize" the investigation. In 2015, this was a 33-year-old failed investigation. There are other similar responses through the DAO. This statement really is troubling. In 2012, George wished me to "Die" because I was asking questions about the discrepancies. I continued to press for documents and explanations.

What I learned was the current DAO had incomplete files, missing vital documents. I learned ADA John Dawley knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. I learned Dawley had to "weigh" opening old wounds even though the blood relatives publicly supported a false explanation. Dawley told me not to probe deeply. ADA Dawley apparently is not interested in being part of the solution which by default makes him part of the cover-up.

Releasing records would hardly "jeopardize" a failed investigation under the stewardship of authorities unfamiliar with the case and missing key records. What the release of records would jeopardize is the bogus explanation the Websters publicly supported.

I realize it is a very delicate balance to raise questions about the family. That is why I have been very meticulous to raise the questions based on verified documents. I do not want to see anyone wrongly accused of crimes. One of the recent FOIA requests was a summary report ADA Dawley claimed they had. Strangely, they now claim they have no such record in their files. That's unfortunate. Dawley indicated interviews and polygraphs were taken. His description suggested that summary report was consistent with what the authorities knew at the time. That would have been positive for the Websters' position. Where is the report?

So you understand my thinking, this is what the recovered documents support. Andrew Palombo had specific knowledge of Joan's murder and proximity and familiarity to known locations. I believe Palombo was involved. Who engaged Palombo? The records and witness statements indicate George Webster sent people to see Robert Bond, the snitch the state used to promote a false narrative. Did George hire him? Was George there? It's a near perfect crime. Authorities circle the wagons to shield misconduct. Authorities are afraid to ask George and Eleanor why they lied about what happened to Joan. I feel like I was the fly in the ointment. The Websters deal with image and perceptions. I deal in facts.

I welcome your input.

 

[Rhett]

I clicked on your link and it says the site cannot be reached. Just wanted to let you know.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Rhett,

Thank you for the heads up. Are you referring to the image link in the previous post? I just clicked on it and it opened. If it is a different link, please let me know.