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

eve carson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hi Eve, see my responses above in Blue

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.

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 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] 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.

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.

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.

Additional information about the alleged gun, current custodians did NOT have any records related to the gun prior to meeting with them in May 2017.


The “Evidence” – The Boat

The authorities introduced the boat theory publicly in January 1982 with the leaked allegations of the snitch Robert Bond. It broke in the papers on January 28, 1983, at the same time a “confidential source” spread the allegations to the FBI. Only 5 people were in attendance when Bond was interviewed on January 14, 1983, including Andrew Palombo and his superior officer Carmen Tammaro.

By January 31, 1983, stories in the press raised skepticism about the story. Paradiso reported the boat missing several months before Joan disappeared. A legitimate investigation would checkout the facts.

Burke instigated a federal bankruptcy case by contacting SA Steve Broce on May 3, 1983. The centerpiece of the case was the boat, the alleged crime scene. It was not listed in assets in the bankruptcy filing. The FBI specified the intent of the case to pressure Paradiso and his girlfriend. They stated the boat was a critical element to resolve both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. Note: The boat was not a factor in the Iannuzzi case. Paradiso did not own the boat in August 1979. Paradiso’s girlfriend owned the boat, purchased on May 3, 1980, in a titled state, and the registration was in her name. Insurance records affirm that.
It buried aspects of Joan’s case under different case numbers listing her as the victim of a bankruptcy filed on August 26, 1981, before Joan disappeared. Reports submitted went to the Financial and Personal Crime Units of the FBI in Boston.

There are sworn affidavits signed by Burke, Palombo, SA Broce, and AUSA Marie Buckley, prosecutor out of William Weld’s office in the DOJ, verifying contact between these individuals. Burke submitted “evidence” to the prosecutor.

In January 1985, Judge Robert Keeton changed the venue of the case because of publicity surrounding Paradiso. The case was tried from April 4-9, 1985, in the Federal District Court in RI, Judge Bruce Selya presiding. Paradiso was found guilty on 3 of 4 counts of lying on his bankruptcy filing. It is not what the prosecution argued, they argued concealment of assets. Regardless, he was found guilty on 3 counts including the boat. Sentencing took place on May 9, 1985, imposed by Selya.

Burke and Palombo maintained Paradiso reported the boat stolen. The boat was reported to numerous agencies including Liberty Mutual Insurance, the Coast Guard, and the BPD. According to testimony from Rodney Swanson, the insurance claims adjuster, the report listed the boat as missing. The claim was paid to Candace Weyant on Septemmber 29, 1981, before Joan disappeared.

There is evidence a new boat was registered, a Boston Whaler, on October 14, 1981, before Joan disappeared.

Testimony in case CR 85-010-S established Paradiso sank his own boat for the insurance.

On April 8, 1985, Judge Selya affirmed, based on undisputed evidence, the boat did not exist by August 1981 when Paradiso filed for bankruptcy. Certification, title pages, and pages 128 & 129 are added here. The alleged crime scene did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981. Testimony in other hearings affirmed the boat was stripped and sunk on July 26, 1981.
The sentencing took place on May 9, 1981. The transcript revealed influence. Three letters were submitted by the prosecutor from an individual interested in the outcome of this case.











One follower indicated they read Burke’s book. In the epilogue, he gives a brief mention of the bankruptcy case. Burke states Judge Richard Sterns [sic] imposed sentence in November 1985. Anyone looking for Burke’s case won’t find it. Judge Stearns was not appointed to the bench in MA until 1993, eight years after this case. This was a simple fact check. Sentencing was harsh, a from and after sentence, in May 1985. I feel confident in saying Burke would not want people to find this case.

After the bankruptcy case, Burke and Palombo continued to represent Paradiso raped and murdered Joan on his boat and dumped her in Boston Harbor through the media. That is impossible.

The allegations against Paradiso regarding Joan Webster were a sham. I cannot describe what it is like as a family member to find this level of misconduct and obstructed justice for Joan. Either this effort was deliberate or the team of Burke and Palombo were the most incompetent investigators in MA history.

Understanding the level of deceit during this and entangled investigations gave a fresh place to start finding Joan’s killer.

Current custodians did NOT have any records related to case CR 85-010-S, the federal bankruptcy case, until I provided them after a May 2017 meeting.

Burke brought forward FALSE witness statements.
Burke and Palombo concealed exculpatory evidence.
Burke and Palombo provided FALSE evidence to the state courts, federal courts, and the public.

False Reporting to Federal Authorities during an Ongoing Criminal Investigation

I am going to keep this post simple. The previous posts showed the lack of “evidence” the state claimed to implicate Paradiso for the murder of Joan Webster.

There was no evidence.

The previous posts highlight the use of unreliable, anonymous, and confidential sources.

Case CR 85-010-S in the Federal District Court affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.

Previous posts indicate exculpatory evidence that was withheld.

At the time of the bankruptcy case, Joan had not been found. She was still a missing person, and there was no verified crime.

On July 24, 1985, authorities submitted a report to cancel the Interpol Blue Notice. The FBI document reports the consensus of investigators in Boston have developed sufficient information indicating Paradiso murdered Joan Webster in November 1981.



Current custodians did NOT have this report prior to our meeting in May 2017.
Current custodians affirm this is an open unresolved homicide.
Current custodians claim exemptions, including investigatory, to deny access to other records in their possession based on the open status of the case.

Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo gave FALSE information to federal authorities during an ongoing criminal investigation that obstructed justice.

That is a violation of US Code and the Code of Ethics in the State of Massachusetts.


The fair question here, is this a case of justice denied to Joan Webster?

eve carson said:

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.”

Click to expand...

Hi Eve,

Well after reading your comments here, let me ask the obvious question, Did anyone ask Joan's professors if this huge book was ever assigned? And if it was why wasn't it in Harvard's own bookstore? So, Lenny Paradiso was smart enough to wipe all of Joan's prints from the book but not his own? Sorry, should I laugh here? Eve, some of the stuff I am reading brings to mind one phrase..."Let's make it up as we go along..." But, really, back to my first question, did anyone ask Joan's professors about the book?

Hi Fitzge,

A very common sense question. Keep in mind who was running the investigation. By time reports about this book surfaced as "evidence," most people lost track. Authorities didn't bother to ask about the boat, so I assume they did not ask about the book. They created a perception. If there was any such interview, it is buried in thousands of pages in the custodian's files. Burke used the "wiped down" excuse on several occasions. He made Paradiso sound compulsive.

There were opportune findings that got woven in, but when I saw what went on in the background, this was well-orchestrated. The obstacles and responses I have encountered while investigating all of this indicate I have found a stench under a rock that had not been turned. This was a deliberate diversion. Remember, Paradiso was in their sights as early as January 1982. They kept his name under the radar. They used the Iannuzzi case to dig up all sorts of things. Then they conveniently came up with a jailhouse snitch in 1983 to cement the story. I will be profiling Bond soon.

On top of the stories the state was swirling, there were other sensational theories thrown out there. I'll get into one of them that made headlines. The more chaotic this got, the harder it was to know what was real. Our basic instinct is to trust the authorities. That is certainly one reason this went so far. I will say, I found names in the records who were raising questions about this. That is the heartening part. There were genuine and dedicated individuals committed to finding the truth.

I have a couple of real curve balls coming. This case was something else to unravel. Like you, common sense goes a long way to find the truth.

Standards of Misconduct

The Innocence Project identifies misconduct in cases resulting in wrongful convictions. I have highlighted examples in the previous posts, however, there are many more examples found in recovered records. These cases are loaded, and concerns are supportable with verified documents.

Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice. Law enforcement misconduct refers to ill-appropriated conduct and or illegal actions taken by police officers in connection with their official duties.

Misconduct identified in the Iannuzzi and Webster records include, but are not limited to:

1. Selective or vindictive prosecution;
2. Providing incentives to secure unreliable evidence from informants.
3. Coercing false confessions;
4. Employing suggestion when conducting identification procedures;
5. Making improper remarks or improperly introducing evidence designed to prejudice perceptions;
6. Lying or intentionally making misleading observations;
7. Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence;
8. Presenting false or misleading evidence;
9. Deliberately mishandling, mistreating or destroying evidence;
10. Threatening, tampering or badgering witnesses;
11. Use of unreliable and untruthful witnesses and snitches; and
12. Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records.

This turned the examination of Joan’s case to focus on authorities involved during the investigation, and whether current custodians meet their delegated responsibility to the victim, public safety, and crime resolution.

Diversions

It is natural to try to figure out a baffling mystery. Joan’s case was no different. Other theories surfaced. I want to address one of them here that got media attention and still is offered as an answer in Joan’s case; there are very fervent believers. In reviewing this case, I looked at everything with thoughtful consideration.

By the spring of 1982, A CA man contacted George and Eleanor Webster. The man, Gareth Penn had studied the Zodiac murders and came up with a theory naming a suspect Michael Henry O’Hare. Penn believed O’Hare, a Harvard professor, continued his spree with Joan.

Penn sent the Websters a 118 page manifesto with his calculations and cryptanalysis. In the Zodiac crimes, the killer did leave cryptic clues. These were real crimes with specific clues to decipher.

The FBI analyzed Penn’s theory and found many forced conclusions. Penn wrote Times 17 to explain his theories. There are followers of Zodiac threads that now believe Penn was the Zodiac killer and responsible for Joan’s loss.

There is a lot of documentation related to Joan’s case. Zodiac victims were found and followed by taunting messages to authorities. Authorities did not receive this type of communication in Joan’s case, and her body was well hidden for 8 ½ years. The problem with current theorists is that they suggest cryptic clues with no verifiable connection to Joan and her case. You simply have to make too many assumptions to suggest it has any relevance.

Whoever the Zodiac killer was, I have no doubt he was capable of heinous crimes, we know that. However, just because someone was capable of a crime, does not establish the required facts to make a connection to Joan’s case. A lot of people have contacted me about the Penn theory. None of them have ever provided concrete proof Penn was anywhere in the vicinity.

Penn relied on some mathematics for his allegations. He used 3 points; the airport, the Lynn Marsh Road, and the Greyhound Bus Station. Using these points he constructed a triangle and extended the points. His calculations sent divers and searchers to Concord, MA. That is not where Joan was found. Speculation the body was moved is debunked by forensic analysis at the gravesite. Penn was 17 miles off to the west when the body was due north in a remote and heavily wooded area.

The first two points were verified and public knowledge; Joan was last seen at Logan, and the purse and wallet were found on the Lynn Marsh Road. The third point is not verifiable. There is conflicting information about the location of the suitcase. Bad input results in faulty outcomes.

Examining the Zodiac theory of Penn or O’Hare does not account for the conduct of authorities.

What struck me most with the Gareth Penn distraction was the Webster contact with him. Their contact is verifiable in FBI files. Two George Webster letters surfaced in the voluminous files released by the FBI about the Zodiac. They can be found online.

There are NO facts that support a connection between Joan Webster and the Zodiac crimes, only speculation. Problem solving and crime resolution requires verified facts.

No verifiable evidence to date supports any Zodiac theories in Joan’s case.

eve carson said:

Diversions

It is natural to try to figure out a baffling mystery. Joan’s case was no different. Other theories surfaced. I want to address one of them here that got media attention and still is offered as an answer in Joan’s case; there are very fervent believers. In reviewing this case, I looked at everything with thoughtful consideration.

By the spring of 1982, A CA man contacted George and Eleanor Webster. The man, Gareth Penn had studied the Zodiac murders and came up with a theory naming a suspect Michael Henry O’Hare. Penn believed O’Hare, a Harvard professor, continued his spree with Joan.

Penn sent the Websters a 118 page manifesto with his calculations and cryptanalysis. In the Zodiac crimes, the killer did leave cryptic clues. These were real crimes with specific clues to decipher.

The FBI analyzed Penn’s theory and found many forced conclusions. Penn wrote Times 17 to explain his theories. There are followers of Zodiac threads that now believe Penn was the Zodiac killer and responsible for Joan’s loss.

There is a lot of documentation related to Joan’s case. Zodiac victims were found and followed by taunting messages to authorities. Authorities did not receive this type of communication in Joan’s case, and her body was well hidden for 8 ½ years. The problem with current theorists is that they suggest cryptic clues with no verifiable connection to Joan and her case. You simply have to make too many assumptions to suggest it has any relevance.

Whoever the Zodiac killer was, I have no doubt he was capable of heinous crimes, we know that. However, just because someone was capable of a crime, does not establish the required facts to make a connection to Joan’s case. A lot of people have contacted me about the Penn theory. None of them have ever provided concrete proof Penn was anywhere in the vicinity.

Penn relied on some mathematics for his allegations. He used 3 points; the airport, the Lynn Marsh Road, and the Greyhound Bus Station. Using these points he constructed a triangle and extended the points. His calculations sent divers and searchers to Concord, MA. That is not where Joan was found. Speculation the body was moved is debunked by forensic analysis at the gravesite. Penn was 17 miles off to the west when the body was due north in a remote and heavily wooded area.

The first two points were verified and public knowledge; Joan was last seen at Logan, and the purse and wallet were found on the Lynn Marsh Road. The third point is not verifiable. There is conflicting information about the location of the suitcase. Bad input results in faulty outcomes.

Examining the Zodiac theory of Penn or O’Hare does not account for the conduct of authorities.

What struck me most with the Gareth Penn distraction was the Webster contact with him. Their contact is verifiable in FBI files. Two George Webster letters surfaced in the voluminous files released by the FBI about the Zodiac. They can be found online.

There are NO facts that support a connection between Joan Webster and the Zodiac crimes, only speculation. Problem solving and crime resolution requires verified facts.

No verifiable evidence to date supports any Zodiac theories in Joan’s case.

Click to expand...

Good Day Eve,

Ok, I will put the disclaimer out there, I did not read Penn's manifesto. As a layman, I know enough about the Zodiac Killer from media reports. That being said, killings that took place 3000 miles away somehow got Boston included? I cannot believe the Zodiac Killer Theory got into the mix, hey might as well throw in Bigfoot. Ironic how the author Penn got turned on by the Zodiac followers. Why LE and even the Websters spent more than 10 minutes on this is beyond me.

Hi Jgfitzge,

You are absolutely correct; there was nothing to follow here. At the time, I knew about it, but it was not really discussed. Why go chasing down rabbit holes? When I got into the records, I was surprised how much contact there was. I have some thoughts about that, but don't think it is helpful now to offer opinions. There are real paths to follow in the recovered records.

The next step as I try to unfold this in a logical way will be to look at the two other witnesses that alleged Paradiso murdered Joan and Marie Iannuzzi. You were right about needing a spreadsheet to keep track. I constructed a very detailed timeline and mapped things.

I have some family matters to attend to before I can get those posted. Review what is up here already.

eve carson said:

Hi Jgfitzge,

You are absolutely correct; there was nothing to follow here. At the time, I knew about it, but it was not really discussed. Why go chasing down rabbit holes? When I got into the records, I was surprised how much contact there was. I have some thoughts about that, but don't think it is helpful now to offer opinions. There are real paths to follow in the recovered records.

The next step as I try to unfold this in a logical way will be to look at the two other witnesses that alleged Paradiso murdered Joan and Marie Iannuzzi. You were right about needing a spreadsheet to keep track. I constructed a very detailed timeline and mapped things.

I have some family matters to attend to before I can get those posted. Review what is up here already.

Click to expand...

Eve,

I really believe the keys to solving Joan's disappearance lay at the beginning and in Hamilton. I am thinking about Harvard...have you received much cooperation from them in your inquiries? Just clarifying, she was in her 2nd year of grad school, correct? Were students interviewed? Anyone not a student asking for her in the days before Thanksgiving 1981. You know Perkins Hall is rather large, about 150 rooms with a back entrance to Oxford Street. It is close to Lesley College and a main road. If you haven't received much cooperation from them, let me stop here.

Hamilton, one thing I may have missed was where they ever able to determine an approximate time of death? Also, where the lady vet, walking her dog came upon the skull, was this a common trail or was this the first time the lady came this way? In other words, where Jane was buried, do you think it was moved there recently or was it in a remote section where it would have taken some effort to come upon it?

The Penn/O'Hare Zodiac stuff is a rabbit hole and anything connecting it to your sister's case is a dead end. Penn's theories & accusations or mind numbing & insane. You can find some docs on my site zodiackillersite.com pertaining to Joan's case including FBI files that I believe include letters written by your Father

Hi Jgfitzge,

Based on what I have recovered, I agree with your assessment. I started this research from square one. I checked everything, not making any assumptions of things I had been told. I wanted to look at things with a fresh set of eyes and reconstruct this case. One thing I found was that this case was very fragmented, compartmentalized. I had to gather information from numerous sources. Once I was able to start constructing a timeline, I could go back and see where the leads were "missed." I concur understanding this from the beginning is significant.

I also agree Hamilton is significant, but it took some time to see how. As I get more of this posted, it will make more sense. Karen Wolf was the vet walking on her property when she found Joan's skull. The home sits on a bluff and is not even visible from the gravesite. The vet was down on a lower part of her property and reached to clear a drainage ditch. What she initially thought was a soccer ball was the skull. This is not a place other people might be hiking. The road back to the site is narrow, gravel, and filled with ruts. The remains, disposed in a trash bag in a natural basin, had been buried under two layers of cut logs. Based on what I know to date, this was likely the original gravesite. I doubt this was the scene of the murder. It is too dark in there. Her body was not meant to be found. The body was not randomly dumped. All clothing was removed indicating someone with forensic knowledge. Over time and conditions in the area were really the reason the skull surfaced.

After 8 1/2 years the body was completely decomposed. Forensic testing was not as advanced as it is now. Other factors that fell into the timeline support she was likely murdered soon after she disappeared. I think that will make more sense as I get more posted. The first real lead, an eyewitness that gave a description of a man with Joan at Logan, was suppressed in December 1981.

Harvard and Harvard PD were no help. Harvard PD as part of a private institution; they do not honor FOIA requests. The officers at the time did seem dedicated to find answers. Some key pieces slipped through the cracks, one in regards to the composite. Students of course, went their own ways. There is not anyone around who really had a relationship to this case. At the time, classmates were very involved in efforts to help, passing out posters, calling, locally and all around the area.

Hi Morf13,

I am glad to have you following. Nothing in the records suggest Joan's case had anything to do with Penn's Zodiac calculations. The more you follow this, I think it will become clear where the leads actually point. The facts should eliminate Joan from the study of that case. When you can cross certain things off the list, you get one step closer.

Joan's case is solvable. The problem for a long time was the chaos and sensation caused by distractions or diversions. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

eve carson said:

Hi Jgfitzge,

Based on what I have recovered, I agree with your assessment. I started this research from square one. I checked everything, not making any assumptions of things I had been told. I wanted to look at things with a fresh set of eyes and reconstruct this case. One thing I found was that this case was very fragmented, compartmentalized. I had to gather information from numerous sources. Once I was able to start constructing a timeline, I could go back and see where the leads were "missed." I concur understanding this from the beginning is significant.

I also agree Hamilton is significant, but it took some time to see how. As I get more of this posted, it will make more sense. Karen Wolf was the vet walking on her property when she found Joan's skull. The home sits on a bluff and is not even visible from the gravesite. The vet was down on a lower part of her property and reached to clear a drainage ditch. What she initially thought was a soccer ball was the skull. This is not a place other people might be hiking. The road back to the site is narrow, gravel, and filled with ruts. The remains, disposed in a trash bag in a natural basin, had been buried under two layers of cut logs. Based on what I know to date, this was likely the original gravesite. I doubt this was the scene of the murder. It is too dark in there. Her body was not meant to be found. The body was not randomly dumped. All clothing was removed indicating someone with forensic knowledge. Over time and conditions in the area were really the reason the skull surfaced.

After 8 1/2 years the body was completely decomposed. Forensic testing was not as advanced as it is now. Other factors that fell into the timeline support she was likely murdered soon after she disappeared. I think that will make more sense as I get more posted. The first real lead, an eyewitness that gave a description of a man with Joan at Logan, was suppressed in December 1981.

Harvard and Harvard PD were no help. Harvard PD as part of a private institution; they do not honor FOIA requests. The officers at the time did seem dedicated to find answers. Some key pieces slipped through the cracks, one in regards to the composite. Students of course, went their own ways. There is not anyone around who really had a relationship to this case. At the time, classmates were very involved in efforts to help, passing out posters, calling, locally and all around the area.

Hi Morf13,

I am glad to have you following. Nothing in the records suggest Joan's case had anything to do with Penn's Zodiac calculations. The more you follow this, I think it will become clear where the leads actually point. The facts should eliminate Joan from the study of that case. When you can cross certain things off the list, you get one step closer.

Joan's case is solvable. The problem for a long time was the chaos and sensation caused by distractions or diversions. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Click to expand...

Hello Eve

Thanks for the information and your opinion on the gravesite and finding of Jones skull at the Hamilton property. So, it sounds like finding of the skull and the graveside was purely luck and an accident of time. Interesting… and based on the condition of the corpse and other factors it sounds like the murder and burial took place pretty soon after Jones disappearance. That does bring some clarity to some of my questions. I don't know if I read this and some of your statements but it sounds like the gravesite may have been visited at least once. I believe I read where some logs may have been subsequently put on top of the gravesite. Does this sound right? The other question I had was, was the plastic trash bag examined?

On the Harvard and Harvard PhD questions, I guess I am focusing a bit more on that due to Harvard's historical secrecy about such matters. In addition, I'm trying to get my head around the fact that so few people knew about her returning on that Eastern Airlines flight. So, did I also read where there were a few Harvard classmates were on that flight or on other flights but were in the baggage area and saw Joan? Do I have that right? By the way, since you mentioned that the composite drawing was suppressed, I suppose then it never got into the hands of Harvard PD? I think you see where I'm going here

Hi Jgfitzge,

Joan spoke to a priest and a young married couple on her flight. She saw at least one classmate enough to wave at the luggage carousel area. I think it is fair to say the classmate came in on another flight or was picking someone up. I am not clear how many classmates saw her. Both a classmate and a cabbie noticed Joan with someone. A cabbie likely would have seen her outside where the cabs line up.

Joan was reported missing on December 1, 1981, three days later. George and Eleanor went to Boston along with detectives from the hometown police department and the head of security form ITT. They conducted extensive interviews along with the local law enforcement including Harvard PD. They called passengers from numerous flights, interviewed airport personnel, cabbies, etc. The cabbie description was actually taken by the Harvard PD and a composite constructed. That is verified. However, MSP was in charge, so the composite was stifled by the MSP. Harvard PD created it. The lead of the classmate seeing Joan that was reported in a Newark paper was stifled by ITT security. Police records documented the contact.

Suppressing a composite or leads is very distressing for law enforcement or any other agency looking for a missing person.

An officer involved with the recovery in 1990 confirmed conditions at the gravesite. The power company occasionally thinned out trees to keep power lines clear. Cut logs were in the area. The officer affirmed he patrolled the area back when Joan disappeared and the power company had recently cut in the area. The grave was covered with two separate layers of cut logs. These did not occur at the same time. The degree of decomposition was significantly different with the two layers. Having been to the area, you can see cut logs, but they are not really stacked. There were a few logs here and there, randomly dispersed as if they were just left right where they were cut. It is not an area where you are trying to have neatly stacked wood piles. To go back to the same spot with another pile of logs isn't realistic. Two choices; either this was a remarkable coincidence, or someone came back and added more logs over the gave. If that is the case, you need someone with knowledge and access. Paradiso was in jail. It would also be someone wanting to make sure the gave remained hidden. Knowledge that weather conditions, animal activity, and nature's course could expose the site as it ultimately did.

The fact a second layer of logs was stacked right over the grave is too coincidental for my comfort. When the remains were discovered, there was a man who watched the police uncovering the skeleton. That is documented. That seemed a bit too coincidental for my comfort as well. I understand curiosity, but the area was taped off, congested with official vehicles and personnel. It would have been hard for too many others to get back in there.

After the skull surfaced, there was a weeklong grid search over a very large area before finding the grave. They collected and recorded everything and did test or examine items. Remember, forensic testing was not as advanced as today. The length of time, 8 1/2 years is also something to consider. The trash bag was a generic item available just about anywhere. The officer I spoke with believed the trash bag was necessary to contain excessive bleeding from the blow to the head. The injury to the head took considerable force.

I will be posting information on Ralph Anthony Pisa and Robert Bond this week. Both were convicted murderers and alleged Paradiso murdered Joan and Marie Iannuzzi. That is the path authorities followed.

Only 3 people connected both cases. The first was Patty Bono in January 1982. She made 10 year old allegations against Paradiso with nothing to corroborate her story. She offered no details related to either murder. Her story conveniently had a similar ring; it fueled the explanation promoted for Joan. She claimed an assault in the pier area and accused Paradiso of threatening to dump her in the ocean where no one would ever find her. The prevailing story was Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat at Pier 7 and dumped her in Boston Harbor.

Thus far, the Federal District Court of RI affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981. She was found buried more than 30 miles away in Hamilton, MA. I profiled Bono in an earlier post. She grew up with one of the officers involved in Joan's case, Carmen Tammaro. He was Andrew Palombo's superior officer at the F Barracks at Logan Airport.

It is necessary to understand Pisa's and Bond's involvement in examining Joan's case.

Profile – Ralph Anthony Pisa

Pisa was known in prison as “Death Row Tony.” Pisa was sentenced to death for the September 9, 1969, murder of security guard George Deane. Pisa and another culprit gave Deane a ride. They stopped the car and brutally shot Deane. MA got rid of the death penalty later in time, reducing Pisa's sentence. Pisa studied the law while confined and became a “jailhouse lawyer” of sorts. He helped other convicts with appeals. He also worked with and brought clients to attorney John Cavicchi. Pisa is pictured below.




Pisa met Paradiso in prison and did some work on an appeal for Paradiso’s 1974 Constance Porter conviction. They were both housed at Norfolk at the time.

Pisa submitted numerous requests for a new trial of his case, but Middlesex County continued to file objections for any relief or parole. After the Robert Bond allegations in January 1983 made Paradiso a hot topic in the news accused in Joan’s disappearance and Marie Iannuzzi’s murder, Pisa called the Middlesex DAO.

ADA Carol Ball in Middlesex called ADA Tim Burke in Suffolk County that Pisa was a witness coming forward. Pisa made several assurances that he was not interested in the Webster reward money. He testified on March 12, 1984, during the Iannuzzi pretrial, Pisa testified he made that assurance to George Webster. On April 28, 1983, Middlesex arranged a new polygraph for Pisa. He changed his story alleging he was not the shooter in the Dean murder. His new assertion contradicted witness testimony during Pisa’s trial.

Pisa indicated to authorities he would only cooperate if he was out. He was moved to a work release facility in February 1983. He was out during the day, and back in the facility at night. The day after he testified about both cases during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing, Burke appeared in a Middlesex court with an ADA from that office requesting an emergency “bail” hearing. Bail is not part of a standard procedure for a convicted felon.

Burke alleged Paradiso threatened Pisa and his family on the outside. Paradiso was incarcerated at the time awaiting the Iannuzzi trial.

Pisa testified during the Iannuzzi trial on July 13, 1984. I will go into Pisa’s story in the next post, but he alleged Paradiso confessed both murders to him.

Some members of the Middlesex DAO had a reversal of position. By January 3, 1985, Pisa was in front of the court with Tim Burke and a Middlesex counterpart speaking on his behalf. Pisa was allowed to plead down to manslaughter. His lawyer waived a new trial. The judge released Pisa for time served. He walked out a free man disregarding the distressing victim impact statements of Deane’s family.

The documents filed with the court listed two of the reasons for Middlesex’s reversal, his assistance to the state against Paradiso for the Iannuzzi case and his assistance to the state in the Webster case. The document is attached.





Take a moment to think about what happened here. A convicted killer once on death row walked out a free man. He even ran for selectman in his community. So much for the victim, the loved ones, or public safety. What opened the door for Pisa will stun you.