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

Discussion in 'Cold Cases' started by eve carson, Jun 25, 2017.

  1. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    1,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To me, someone wouldn't have had to partially strangle, tie someone up with rope, or stab, or shoot her All one would need to do is hold a gun on her, and she'd do whatever someone told her to do. Especially if there was more than one person in the car, other than her. I agree there would be heavy police presence in Lynn that night, however, I doubt they were stopping cars. They may have been directing traffic, but nobody would be stopping. I'm not so sure she would have yelled at a cop while driving by with a gun pointed in her side. That is of course if the car drove through Lynn at all. If she was killed in Hamilton that night, (which I doubt due to my theory as to why someone would place her in a plastic bag and then bury her in the same spot) they could have driven up Rt 1, or 95, instead of driving through Lynn.
    I believe she was killed someplace else. Forced out of the car by gun point at a different location and bludgeoned to illuminate the sound from a gun. That could have been at someones house in the basement. She could have stayed there for some time, (even though her suitcase was dropped off at the Bus Station the next day and her purse tossed), placed in a bag, and transported at a later date to Hamilton after the grave was dug, but before the snow storm. I would think if her arms and legs were tied, there would have been traces of rope at the crime scene. If she was shot or stabbed, I would think there would have been at least a trace of that on a bone. This is total speculation on my part, may have little bearing on solving this case, but still good discussion imo.
    As far as this being well planned in advance...
    If this is true, then whoever did this was more than just a casual acquaintance. He would have had to be close enough to know exactly when she was returning to Logan. Even if she casually mentioned in a conversation with a friend of a friend, that she was leaving town for the Holiday, I doubt she would give such details as to the exact timing of her flight back to Boston. I think it would be more vague like "I'll be back Saturday night". That to me is not enough information to have a cab/car sitting in the right spot at the exact time they would need to be.
    And what if she knew something about the mastermind of this crime that she shouldn't have? Would the police have questioned everyone she knew, and her habits and hang outs to try and determine this? Or would they skip that part, knowing the real story because they themselves were involved?

    Edit:
    Knowing if her ticket was bought round trip and her timing for her return trip not altered, as someone else mentioned previously, would be a big help.
     
  2. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi Eve,

    Allow me to reply to your comments in the order you made them.

    “I am so thankful for the kind words and support, but most importantly for the desire to find the truthful answers. I have developed a thick skin during the course of this, so I am not upset by your candor.”

    It’s my pleasure. You’re deserving of all of that and more. You’ve been through so much heartache. Both on a personal level (husband, daughters, family) and with Joan’s cold case. If I were in your shoes, I would be an emotional wreck.

    “I agree with your observations about an eyewitness description. Many factors contribute to the cabbie’s perception of the man’s height. Where each man was standing, how tall was the cabbie, posture. I don’t take the height as a hard and fast identifier. However, Palombo was 6’4” and Paradiso 6’2”. Both of them were well over 200 pounds. The man with Joan was described as approximately 5’7” and 160 pounds. The cabbie's description of Joan was very accurate, so there is some point of reference. The variance is too great.”

    I concur with your comments. The variance between 6’4”, 6’2”, and 5’7” is remarkable. However, the variance between 6’0” and 5’7” is not that great. Taking my earlier analogy into consideration is plausible that the individual was, in fact, 6’0”, and not 5’7”.

    “Joan was just a regular person. I don’t see her as a threat to national or international security. You are correct about all the twists and turns in the case. The most important thing I take away and focus on is the mentality of intelligence trained parents. There is a very different mindset. I don’t see any evidence Joan posed a threat to Palombo, or Tammaro. It is more likely she never crossed paths with them before. It is more probable they were influenced to act by the real offender, the man that maneuvered Joan into the 2nd car perhaps. I think it almost goes without saying, Joan knew something that threatened someone.”

    Why would the Webster’s want their daughter dead? Were they really such cold-hearted and evil CIA operatives? If Joan’s had credible knowledge that threatened someone, was it that great a deal that she had to die for it? I don’t think she would turn on her immediate family to the point of damaging the careers of both her parent’s. At least, that’s my opinion. There are countless cases where families harbor murder secrets without revealing them to the authorities. It’s called love. Mother’s, father’s, and children hold onto dirty secrets regardless of how painful and damaging they genuinely are. I assure you that during my adolescence I was exposed to many things that happened behind closed doors that still today family members don’t know about. And now I’m 50 years old. Have I stopped loving the guilty party? No! Did I report the guilty party to the authorities for their actions? No! And why? Because of humanistic love. Thus, I can’t see Joan turning on her family to the point that both her parents deemed it necessary to have her killed. She was their child for goodness sake. However, I’m not part of the family, and I wasn’t exposed to what took place inside their home. You are, and perhaps you know secrets that you can’t reveal.

    “I think the abduction was the calculation of the man with Joan and authorities aided and abetted. The fact authorities concealed the lead from the start and continued down an insane explanation supports their involvement. Palombo and Tammaro were involved in crafting the statement with Bond that contained the correct manner of death and correct details years before Joan surfaced. The man that maneuvered Joan into the other car is the one with the secrets and felt threatened.”

    Touché! The abduction was a calculated and methodically planned affair. We both agree on that. However, you need to understand a few things. At times the authorities refuse to release leads because they fear it may damage the case. By the spirit and the letter of the law, this case was an extremely high profile one. The young lady’s parents were ex-CIA members. In other words, her parents had a lot of gravitational pull. At a certain point in life, they worked for the government. And George was working for ITT, another high-profile company. Still, today, when detectives are pressurized to solve specific cases, they tend to fabricate a utopia that suits their needs. In other words, somebody gets railroaded, as it happened to Paradiso. The DA’s office doesn’t particularly enjoy losing criminal cases. They are prepared to win at any expense. If it means life imprisonment or the death sentence to the railroaded, so be it.

    The insane explanation doesn’t necessarily support their involvement. It supports the hypotheses that Paradiso’s had a giant target painted on his back. They were now, however, fabricating ammunition to begin the firing control system or solution ultimately. In other words, Paradiso was a dead duck. The authorities were pressed for time. They had to solve this case and quickly. The was pressure from above, and everyone was feeling it. Somebody had to go the gallows. It’s ironic that Paradiso was already there. No harm, no foul!

    You’ll be surprised to learn the level some detectives are prepared to go down to, for the sake of solving a case or railroading somebody. Don’t forget that LEA works in tandem with the DA. From personal experience, I spent five years exchanging emails with a detective, and during that time, not once did he share a piece of information regarding the criminal case. I provided him with the ammunition to place the perpetrator being bars. I gathered all my information without him sharing a single strand of information. And why didn’t he share some of the information with me? Because it was against protocol! You would think that after five years of continued email exchanges, a certain level of trust would be established, wouldn’t you? Not with this guy. And yet other detectives can’t keep their mouth’s shut, and fingers still. LEA love investigative keys. They salivate over them. It’s a critical piece of the puzzle they hold in their greasy fingers that nobody else does. It makes them feel almighty and powerful. They know a secret that you don’t. It reminds me of children playing on the playground. If LE was so bent on solving criminal cases, shouldn’t they reveal more information to the public hoping it would bring the guilty party to justice? In a perfect world, yes! But this is the government we’re talking about here. Nothing is perfect, transparent, or pretty about the government.

    A prime example of gravitational pull taking place now is the Rebecca Zahau’s 2011 murder case. Her boyfriend was Johan Shacknai, the Medicis Pharmaceutical billionaire. Read the case files and pay attention to the insane explanations provided by LEA supporting their investigation that Rebecca committed suicide. I cannot believe how negligent and unprofessional the San Diego Sherriff’s Department truly was. And why? Money and power! And why? To keep Shackani's brother away from a criminal trial. Do you see parallels to Joan’s case? I certainly do!

    “I agree Joan knew her abductor and he may not have been the one to land the blow. She had to be outside the vehicle to land a blow of that force. If Joan had been injured by another device, gun or knife, she would not have been in an upright position where it was possible to inflict the blow, and it would not be necessary. That was a full on swing. She died instantly. You can speculate she was hit when she was down, but that does not make sense to me and I believe the injury to her skull would not show the same pattern of injury on her skull. The manner of death was determined to be the trauma to her skull. The manner of death is actually a good indicator of forensic knowledge. It is difficult, if not impossible, to trace a bat, tire iron, limb, or whatever it was. It’s easily disposable. The methods are used in “professional” hits.”

    I respectfully disagree. It’s not necessary to be in an upright position to receive that kind of deadly blow. A bat can be swung sideways, vertically, or horizontally. In fact, it would be easier to create the damage on Joan’s skull if she was laying on the ground. The ground would act as a shock absorber. The impact on the head would be all the more powerful. Hence the 2”x4” hole. Knives and guns are also easily disposable. How many bodies of water are there in the state of Massachusetts? How many ponds are there around Chebacco Rd.? Are you telling me that the authorities were about to search every single body of water located in Massachusetts, looking for a bat, gun, or knife? I don’t think so! It would be a logistic nightmare. And the cost would be astronomical. LEAs work according to a budget. However, I think I read somewhere in your notes that under the directorship of a psychic they searched Walden Pond but came up empty-handed.

    “I don’t know if Joan would take a ride late at night with someone she knew casually or through a friend. She had already solicited the Town Taxi. The man with her caused some disruption over a heavy bag. I myself would not. I would say you go on, I have my ride.”

    Once again, I respectfully disagree. And I think you're a bit naïve to think so. There is no other plausible explanation regarding her readiness to get in the car. I’m not claiming that you didn’t know Joan’s customs. She was your sister-in-law. You would have some sense of her likes and dislikes. However, that does not indicate that you know everything Joan did or was prepared to do. What’s the fascinating thing about a serial killer case? The wife’s’ lived with her spouse for many years without once suspecting his murderous activities. We’re talking about spouses that share the same bed and have sexual relations. Joan was your sister-in-law, not your spouse. You can’t possibly know everything there is to know about all your family members.

    Lastly, I read somewhere that the Webster’s resigned to the fact that Joan was dead only a few days after her disappearance. Have you established or investigated the reason why they would make such an astonishing claim? Joan disappeared without a trace. People disappear every day, but it does not necessarily mean they’re dead. Some run away, while other’s go on a spiritual journey.

    When or in what year did you and other family members presume that Joan was dead? When or in what year did you and other family members assume that she’d been BURIED? These are critical questions that I need you to answer. The latter is, however, significant.
     
  3. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    1,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Snipped:

    [FONT=&amp]I absolutely am following the twine and documenting it carefully. I know who knew what and when, I can see the influence, I can see the lies, and believe the truth will come out. A lot of people, for different reasons would like to stifle it. I have had some of the most idiotic things said to me, it would make your mouth drop open in disbelief. It is insulting how condescending authorities can be to one’s intelligence, just accept what you are told without question. That came in tandem with the advice not to probe deeply.

    [/FONT]
    Can you elaborate on this more... ie who are these people saying these things? I ask only if you feel comfortable enough to share that with us.
     
  4. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Rocky1,

    I’m enjoying this discussion. Folks around here have their head screwed on the right way. Thank God! You can’t begin to imagine the kind of stupidity that plagues other forums.

    “To me, someone wouldn't have had to partially strangle, tie someone up with rope, or stab, or shoot her All one would need to do is hold a gun on her, and she'd do whatever someone told her to do. Especially if there was more than one person in the car, other than her.”

    You are correct. That’s why this discussion is so enjoyable. Quoting Cicero, “there are as many opinions as there are men.” In other words, every man is unique and has individual opinions, judgments, or ideas.

    “I agree there would be heavy police presence in Lynn that night, however, I doubt they were stopping cars. They may have been directing traffic, but nobody would be stopping. I'm not so sure she would have yelled at a cop while driving by with a gun pointed in her side. That is of course if the car drove through Lynn at all. If she was killed in Hamilton that night, (which I doubt due to my theory as to why someone would place her in a plastic bag and then bury her in the same spot) they could have driven up Rt 1, or 95, instead of driving through Lynn.”

    Cars would still need to be partially stopped, especially those heading up the 107 or A1. Officer’s would instruct drivers to turn around or find alternative routes. The fire was a major incident. Over 700 firefighters fought the blaze. That equates to approximately 140 fire units. There would be cops everywhere. If Joan had a gun pointed at her and was told to shut up, if there was the slightest possibility that she could have alerted a police officer, I think she would have done so. She was savvy and would articulate means to do so. However, if she had been strangled and bound, it wouldn’t be a major undertaking to throw a coat over her. It’s a better argument when debating police involvement or not. If they were stopped by the police for some unknown reason (it’s a hypothesis) what would be more natural? Having a terrified female in the car with a gun pointed at her, someone who at a moment’s notice could expose the abduction or a woman that was unconscious seemingly asleep, with a coat over her?

    “I believe she was killed someplace else. Forced out of the car by gun point at a different location and bludgeoned to illuminate the sound from a gun. That could have been at someones house in the basement. She could have stayed there for some time, (even though her suitcase was dropped off at the Bus Station the next day and her purse tossed), placed in a bag, and transported at a later date to Hamilton after the grave was dug, but before the snow storm. I would think if her arms and legs were tied, there would have been traces of rope at the crime scene. If she was shot or stabbed, I would think there would have been at least a trace of that on a bone. This is total speculation on my part, may have little bearing on solving this case, but still good discussion imo.”

    There’s no denying the fact that we’re having a good and healthy discussion. At times it helps solve criminal cases.
    There are all kinds of rope. Plastic cord, the type used on wash lines, has been used successfully to bind victims. Because it’s plastic there are no fibers involved. If Joan had been shot, yes, there would be visible proof when the coroner carried out his investigation. However, the report is under lock and key. Stabbing with a short knife is another kettle of fish. A knife with a 2-inch blade will kill you (slit throat, stabbed in the upper torso around the region of the heart, stabbed in the stomach, etc.) but may not leave scoring on the bones. The coroner would have difficulty clarifying this issue.

    “As far as this being well planned in advance...
    If this is true, then whoever did this was more than just a casual acquaintance. He would have had to be close enough to know exactly when she was returning to Logan. Even if she casually mentioned in a conversation with a friend of a friend, that she was leaving town for the Holiday, I doubt she would give such details as to the exact timing of her flight back to Boston. I think it would be more vague like "I'll be back Saturday night". That to me is not enough information to have a cab/car sitting in the right spot at the exact time they would need to be.”

    You are right, but we’re not privy to certain aspects of this case. We don’t know with whom Joan spoke or what Joan did in NJ while away for Thanksgiving with her parents before returning to Logan. We don’t know what phone calls she made and what she discussed. We don’t know who Joan saw in NJ while away. We don’t know what friends she had in NJ. Perhaps Eve could help us out with this information. If we find the answers to these matters, then we may begin peeling the onion, layer by layer.

    “And what if she knew something about the mastermind of this crime that she shouldn't have? Would the police have questioned everyone she knew, and her habits and hang outs to try and determine this? Or would they skip that part, knowing the real story because they were involved themselves?”

    The only plausible answer I come up with is she knew that the mastermind of this crime was involved in a previous murder. That’s the only reason I can substantiate for Joan having lost her life.
     
  5. jgfitzge

    jgfitzge It's complicated! No, It really isn't

    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    43
    OK Eve,

    It has been a while since I commented on Joan's case. So, I believe the answer (s) to this question is key, In previous posts you mentioned Joan had a serious beau at the time. The Thanksgiving weekend was supposed to be a 'meet the parents" weekend for Joan's boyfriend. Why didn't this happen? Who changed the plan?

    As best you can, walk me through the logistics...Would he and Joan come down from Cambridge together? Or would he be flying in from another city? Is this why Joan drove to New Jersey with her sister instead? Did George Webster know the boyfriend was not coming before the Thanksgiving Day weekend? I guess what I am getting at is if the "meet the parents" scenario did occur, would he have traveled back on the plane to Boston (and Cambridge) with Joan? See how this would have effected the outcome?
     
  6. jgfitzge

    jgfitzge It's complicated! No, It really isn't

    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Eve,

    I fully realize you have done a ton of work on Joan's murder investigation and I agree the supposed "facts" put out by the MSP and DA make no sense. However, like a lot of cold cases and missing people, I feel the keys are what happened in the days and month prior to Joan's November, 81 disappearance. That is is why my posts tend to focus on that time period. I would love to find out if the "bearded man" composite was ever shown around Perkins Hall or her circle of friends?? He does not look like one of Joan's circle of friends yet she appeared comfortable enough with him at the airport. Further, am I remembering this correctly but when they switched cabs, the second cab did not "look" like a cab? If that is the case, then she must have felt pretty secure with this gentleman to go from sharing a cab to Cambridge to going into a regular car?

    See I keep coming back to George Webster making those last minute flight plans...how would Mr. Beard and his driver have known to be at Logan at that terminal, at that time...
     
  7. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi Everyone,

    I was out of pocket for a couple of days. I have had a marathon week. There are a lot of comments to go back over. I will address all of them one at a time, so watch for multiple posts later today. There are some very good points to highlight.

    Reading what I missed over the past 24 hours or so brought some tears to my eyes, tears of gratitude. It means so much when people care. I pulled out a letter and cried some more. It's a reminder of why this is so important, what has given me strength. At times this has seemed insurmountable; you learn what strength is inside you. I am a person of faith that admittedly has waivered at times through all of this. When I have been down the most is when another glimmer of light shone through, another piece of the puzzle.

    As I have gone through this, my love and admiration for Joan has grown exponentially. She truly gave of herself for others. I will be back on later today and elaborate on all the discussion.
     
  8. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    OK, let me hit on some points. If I miss something over the next few posts, ask or comment again. There is a lot here.

    "I believe Joan was either strangled, stabbed, or shoot, and subsequently clubbed to death. The clubbing took place outside the vehicle. Everybody will agree that the latter is a watertight scenario. When Joan realized that the car she was traveling in was headed somewhere else besides Perkin’s Hall, that’s when all the commotion started. She began questioning what was going on, and all hell broke loose. The man sitting with her on the back seat did the dirty deed. Perhaps he strangled her, but not sufficiently enough to kill her. Joan passed out. She later awoke to find her hands and feet bound with rope. Perhaps she was also gagged. This would keep her quiet. Because of the fire, there would be a high police presence in the area. The individuals couldn’t take any chances. It’s another reason I believe that Joan wasn’t taken to another location, clubbed to death, placed in a trash bag in the boot of the car, and driven to her final resting place in Hamilton. And why? Because there were cops and firemen everywhere! And most routes were partial if not completely blocked. If they did, and if that’s precisely what materialized, they were brave men. In other word’s, they were playing a game of Russian Roulette."

    Here is what I know from various documents and reporting. Joan travelled from Newark to Logan. A few people she spoke to or waived to were identified. No reports she was with anyone. Joan retrieved her checked suitcase. Joan was seen talking to a man behind the counter. What was said is only speculation, but some things can be checked off. It wasn't about missing luggage. It wasn't to call a vehicle or get directions. Maybe she wanted to know where the bathroom was, but she was familiar with Logan. What we do know now, she was with a man at the taxi line, it's fair to consider the man behind the counter told her someone was waiting for her.

    Joan moved outside and approached the Town Taxi. She knocked on the window and asked the driver to go to Cambridge. Her suitcase is loaded in the trunk of that cab. It's late, she has her belongings. She would probably like to get back to her room without much delay. She didn't get there. Joan told the Town Taxi cabbie that someone was with her. The man had a heavy suitcase. He exchanged words with the cabbie. The man announces "WE" don't want to take this cab. Joan's suitcase is removed from the trunk of the Town Taxi. Both the man and Joan move to another car. There is no indication Joan objected or had any concern to get into another car with the man. She went willingly. I believe it is reasonable to determine at this point, Joan knew the man.

    I think we can also assume there was at least one other individual in the second car, the driver. If there were more people in the car, it would have raised alarms for Joan if they were visible. At this point, the man with Joan had taken control. Her fate was sealed whether she lived another hour, day, or few days.

    There is no question in my mind, by the sequence of known events, this was premeditated. Therefore, part of that orchestration would include where the car stopped, a house, an abandoned business, or wherever the man and driver felt were secure for dirty business.

    The official cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. If Joan was subdued in some way in the car, it is only speculation. We may never know. Nothing in recovered records indicate the use of a gun, restraints, a gag, a knife. It is certainly fair to consider how Joan was maneuvered once she was aware of her circumstances. I think that depends in part on the level of confidence she had in the man she was with.

    Tim Burke applied the same reasoning with the Paradiso boat theory. He realized it was not plausible for Joan to get on a boat without some sort of coercion. He produced a realistic fake gun to fill the gap. The source of his information was completely unreliable. The witness Burke identified had divers in the water at Pier 7 in 1980, before Joan disappeared, not after. His divers found a Mercedes not a gun. The witness was in the penitentiary for perjury. It is reasonable to conclude the gun was planted. (I won't go into all of the other details here that support that conclusion).

    Joan may also have arrived at the destination and willingly got out of the car, again, based on her level of confidence in the man. She did know him on some level.

    I am uploading a map again. Anyone driving in the Boston area was no doubt aware of the fire. The area would be avoided. There was enormous activity in the area. If a car got far enough, some official might stop it. You could not travel through certain areas north on 107 or 1A. On the map, you will see the path marked that Palombo would take from to and from Logan. I have also marked the access to Route 128 to the gravesite. You can avoid the obstructed area in Lynn following Palombo's routine travel. There are other routes heading out of Logan. It depends where was Joan was taken. To restate an obvious point, we can speculate until the cows come home, but the known points are the most important to keep a proper focus.

    [​IMG]

    The star on the map shows where Palombo lived. The black bar indicates where the barricades were in 107. I did recover reports about the fire. Palombo absolutely had awareness of the fire and what roads would be blocked.

    Keep in mind, we don't know at what point Joan felt threatened.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Next point.

    "As far as this being well planned in advance...
    If this is true, then whoever did this was more than just a casual acquaintance. He would have had to be close enough to know exactly when she was returning to Logan. Even if she casually mentioned in a conversation with a friend of a friend, that she was leaving town for the Holiday, I doubt she would give such details as to the exact timing of her flight back to Boston. I think it would be more vague like "I'll be back Saturday night". That to me is not enough information to have a cab/car sitting in the right spot at the exact time they would need to be.
    And what if she knew something about the mastermind of this crime that she shouldn't have? Would the police have questioned everyone she knew, and her habits and hang outs to try and determine this? Or would they skip that part, knowing the real story because they themselves were involved?

    Edit:
    Knowing if her ticket was bought round trip and her timing for her return trip not altered, as someone else mentioned previously, would be a big help."



    Note: I tried to do the quote in bold. I can't turn that off for my comment.

    One of the first factors that indicated premeditation for me was the deliberate efforts right out of the gate to conceal the lead. Then authorities followed down a very dark path to frame someone, ignoring known facts. The facts were covered up.

    I believe you are spot on, this took a concerted effort to have all these pieces come together at just the precise time. That does mean someone had to have knowledge where Joan would be and when. That list is short from everything I have recovered.

    The key to this is the still unidentified man that maneuvered Joan into the second vehicle. That is the person who felt threatened by what Joan knew.

    A few years ago, I spoke to SA Michael Carazza. He was an agent in the public corruption unit. His first comment was if he had been running the investigation, he would start with the family. That is pretty standard procedure for a mysterious disappearance or murder. Your comment whether authorities probed people close to Joan is the way any investigation should have been properly conducted. The family was very visible working with the authorities and supported the Paradiso boat theory. George and Eleanor were not scrutinized perhaps because authorities made certain assumptions.

    SA Carazza also was very dismissive about Burke's published account. So is the current DAO. I was told not to take it too seriously. Burke is a former government employee who had privileged access to information. He published in 2008 giving a graphic description of rape and murder on a boat that did not exist when Joan disappeared. There is a natural tendency to "trust" what authorities tell us, they must know. A bad apple with another agenda can obstruct justice. Burke's theory was written about a member of my family that was brutally murdered, an unresolved homicide. Burke would like to paint a favorable picture of himself to justify his actions not matter who it hurts. I lived through this every single day. His publication is evidence of crimes committed, a covered up murder. I tried to see if I could stop it before it came out. I could not. In hindsight, he provided some information that helps get closer to the truth.

    Joan rode to NJ with her sister Anne before Thanksgiving. There was no round trip ticket, only a one way from Newark to Logan. A friend planned to visit over the break. George provided a reasonable, but misleading explanation for Joan's early return. He said she planned to meet classmates to work on a project. Nothing supports that. Joan presented an 11-week project on Monday before the break. George claimed Joan made a call on Saturday morning to check supplies. That call is not in the phone records. The explanations diverted from whatever the real reason was for going back Saturday night. I believe with relative certainty, the flight would have been booked over the break. George would have made the reservation.
     
  10. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    1,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you Eve.
    In regards to the man behind the counter. Again, all speculation, but, unless the man somehow identified her in a crowd of hundreds of people, then motioned her over to the counter to tell her that someone was waiting for her, there must have been a reason for her to be at the counter. As you say, she knew Logan, and the restrooms would be easy to find even if she didn't. Although it may be irrelevant, and we may never know, I'm wondering just what type of a "counter" it was. There was no TSA back then . The only counters I know of, are the Ticket Counters, and the Auto Rental Counters, excluding the food services. Could there have been a counter for bus scheduling, or the "T"? I have never seen one for a Taxi, but maybe there was.
     
  11. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    1,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Snipped:

    Joan rode to NJ with her sister Anne before Thanksgiving. There was no round trip ticket, only a one way from Newark to Logan. A friend planned to visit over the break. George provided a reasonable, but misleading explanation for Joan's early return. He said she planned to meet classmates to work on a project. Nothing supports that. Joan presented an 11-week project on Monday before the break. George claimed Joan made a call on Saturday morning to check supplies. That call is not in the phone records. The explanations diverted from whatever the real reason was for going back Saturday night. I believe with relative certainty, the flight would have been booked over the break. George would have made the reservation.

    So,with no phone records of that call being made, we have to figure out if...
    1) Joan, wanted to return early for some other reason outside of the project, and told George she made the call when she really didn't.
    2) Having no cell phones back then, Joan made the call from a pay phone and nobody knew exactly who she called.
    3) George was not being truthful.
    Here's my thought.
    If this was pre-planned, why go through all the work of changing the time of the ticket home to Saturday, instead of Sunday, when in fact if she was planning on returning on Sunday, the plan could have just as easy happened on Sunday night instead? To me, if I was the detective investigating, and knowing all investigations start with the family and move outward, and I learned that the travel time was changed, and I thought this was pre-planned, red flags would be raised, with George from the start, because once again, the timing of her return would have had to be known by the killer. Why would a smart man like George raise those red flags? It wouldn't be hard to find out who made the reservations. Just check the credit card records.
    That is, of course, by changing the return time, George may have thought that LE would think it was a random act of violence, because nobody knew when she was coming back, drawing LE away from him, and sending the investigation in a different direction.

     
  12. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I am going to keep going through all the comments and give my thoughts. I hope I don't continue to have trouble with my BOLD button. LOL.

    "I concur with your comments. The variance between 6’4”, 6’2”, and 5’7” is remarkable. However, the variance between 6’0” and 5’7” is not that great. Taking my earlier analogy into consideration is plausible that the individual was, in fact, 6’0”, and not 5’7”.

    I agree. There are several factors that contribute to the cabbie's perception. I do believe the man could be in that range of height. I also think the man might have been more recognizable without the beard. It's fair to conclude that anyone wishing to cause harm does not want to be identified. Age can be a subjective guess, but it is reasonable within a range. A middle aged man has a different appearance that a college student.

    "The abduction was a calculated and methodically planned affair. We both agree on that. However, you need to understand a few things. At times the authorities refuse to release leads because they fear it may damage the case. By the spirit and the letter of the law, this case was an extremely high profile one. The young lady’s parents were ex-CIA members. In other words, her parents had a lot of gravitational pull. At a certain point in life, they worked for the government. And George was working for ITT, another high-profile company. Still, today, when detectives are pressurized to solve specific cases, they tend to fabricate a utopia that suits their needs."

    I am not shocked by much at this point. The case was high profile. The Websters wielded a lot of influence. Pressure to come up with some explanation is reasonable. However, it does not explain how Palombo and Tammaro picked the correct manner of death with correct details from Robert Bond's multiple choice. The authorities were willing to throw a lot of people under the bus to provide an answer for Joan's loss. That included denying victim Marie Iannuzzi justice.

    "It’s not necessary to be in an upright position to receive that kind of deadly blow. A bat can be swung sideways, vertically, or horizontally. In fact, it would be easier to create the damage on Joan’s skull if she was laying on the ground. The ground would act as a shock absorber. The impact on the head would be all the more powerful. Hence the 2”x4” hole. Knives and guns are also easily disposable."

    I agree someone does not need to be in an upright position to he hit with a blunt instrument. I am uploading the picture of Joan's skull again. This is the right side of her head. This was a horizontal blow that crushed the entire right side, front to back. If Joan was injured and not standing, the swing would most likely be vertical or downward. The end of the item would be the part of the weapon to strike her head, causing a different injury pattern, not front to back.

    Any type of weapon is disposable. However, there are forensics that make a gun or knife somewhat traceable if the evidence of use is there. Length of blade, serrated or straight, ballistics are some of the examples of identifying a weapon. Strangulation breaks bones in the throat. That can be determined in an autopsy. A bat, tire iron, or limb do not necessarily leave identifiable clues to the weapon used. That information comes right out an intelligence manual on assassination methods. If Joan was subdued or injured in some other way, she would likely be in a position other than standing. That means to inflict a horizontal blow across the right side of the skull, the offender had to be in the same position. If that is reclined, it lessens the leverage to inflict such a blow.

    [​IMG]


    "I respectfully disagree. And I think you're a bit naïve to think so. There is no other plausible explanation regarding her readiness to get in the car. I’m not claiming that you didn’t know Joan’s customs. She was your sister-in-law. You would have some sense of her likes and dislikes. However, that does not indicate that you know everything Joan did or was prepared to do."

    Joan was not an impulsive person. She was very mature and very intelligent. She was not a big partier. She was a very dedicated student. She was the dorm proctor at Perkins. She counseled underclassmen in the dorm. There were several quotes when she first disappeared from friends in the dorm. Joan always gave very caring and responsible advise, including not to go places alone.

    Did I know everything about Joan, who she knew, or where she might go? Of course not. But I do know what would be out of character. What seems normal or reasonable to some makes an explanation seem acceptable. That does not mean it fits for that person. Plenty of people might take or share a ride with someone they knew even casually. It was late at night. She had all of her stuff to lug around, she did not need to worry about saving a few bucks, she was still dressed from the cocktail parties in NJ. She was reasonably conscious of her surroundings. She would not take off impulsively to a party. She would have wanted to get back to her dorm, get organized and get comfortable.

    Joan had a purse snatched in NYC once. She learned to be heads up. The last summer I saw her, she was telling us about a break-in incident at a friend's home. Her friend was home at the time and had a harrowing experience. The family as a rule, had itineraries down to the minute. Nothing in the family's behavioral patterns or Joan's own experiences suggests to me she would have switched cars with someone other than someone she knew well.
    [SUB][/SUB]
    A good example of behaviors is the whole family driving Joan to the airport. For some families, that might be the routine they would have. It does not stand out as anything unusual. If they weren't right there in their own back yard, I would say it makes sense. However, that is not the behavior of the Webster family. George did the driving to and from on airport runs. Eleanor always stayed at home. Never once did that vary. Anne had a long drive the next day. Why didn't Joan go with her?

    "I read somewhere that the Webster’s resigned to the fact that Joan was dead only a few days after her disappearance. Have you established or investigated the reason why they would make such an astonishing claim? Joan disappeared without a trace. People disappear every day, but it does not necessarily mean they’re dead. Some run away, while other’s go on a spiritual journey."

    The public posture from George and Eleanor projected hope of finding Joan alive. The first time I saw George and Eleanor after the disappearance was Christmas. We went to NJ. The only person that cried over the holiday was me. The Websters were all very stoic. It's not fair to make any judgment how another person processes grief. However, it struck me, that was not at all the kind of emotional restraint I grew up with. George made a comment over Christmas that struck me. He said, Joan is gone, we will have to move on. Move on was a phrase I heard on a frequent basis in the family. I think it is fair to conclude, the family was resigned to her loss at that time.

    I can't give you a definite time when I felt Joan was dead. It was probably when the Bond allegations started to come out, January 1983. Even though she was still technically a missing person, she was discussed as a murder victim. I relied on information I learned from family and authorities about the Paradiso theory. It was alleged she was dumped in Boston Harbor. However, I knew the boat theory was implausible when Joan was found in 1990. She was buried more than 30 miles from the alleged crime. Before that, I had no awareness she was buried. Digging into the case, I learned the explanation was impossible; the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. OldSteve

    OldSteve Active Member

    Messages:
    4,935
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    36
    For me, this is a most important detail. But, sadly it does not tell us anything more. How did they know each other, for how long, etc.. What was this man's connection to the driver of the car they were going in?

    I still think it's possible that he may have gotten off some place before Joan, leaving her alone with the driver who then attacked her. A single person attack is a simpler scenario and doesn't involve the two men being accomplices. (Any why didn't he ever come forward? ... okay, good question...can't answer... but still think a one person attack was more likely)..
     
  14. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I will get through all of the comments and questions. Bear with me as I go through it carefully and give my thoughts and reasoning.

    "I absolutely am following the twine and documenting it carefully. I know who knew what and when, I can see the influence, I can see the lies, and believe the truth will come out. A lot of people, for different reasons would like to stifle it. I have had some of the most idiotic things said to me, it would make your mouth drop open in disbelief. It is insulting how condescending authorities can be to one’s intelligence, just accept what you are told without question. That came in tandem with the advice not to probe deeply.


    Can you elaborate on this more... ie who are these people saying these things? I ask only if you feel comfortable enough to share that with us."


    When I first started to dig into Joan's case, it was hard to articulate it. There were so many extraordinary aspects. About the time I got to the fact George and Eleanor had a CIA background, I could see the eyes roll. However, the fact the Websters said they worked for the CIA can be verified.

    On May 1st, last year, I met with two representatives in the Essex County DAO, the custodians of Joan's files. They were presented with certified court records from CR 85-010-S, the federal bankruptcy case help in RI. They indicated these records were not in their files. I have gone through the entire case and other testimony or witness statements regarding the existence of the boat. In the court records, Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. The boat was sunk on July 26, 1981. It had a broken rudder. It was not raised until September 27, 1983. There was no evidence linking Joan to Paradiso or the boat. The exculpatory evidence related to Joan where no charges were ever filed. It was not relevant for the case on the docket. Exculpatory evidence regarding allegations he murdered Joan remained buried in FBI files.

    ADA John Dawley made rationalizations that maybe the finding was only for this case. Dawley affirmed Robert Bond was probably the only "witness" on record claiming Joan was murdered on Paradiso's boat. That is what I conclude as well. No one else made any such claim. No evidence exists to support any suggestion the boat was still above water. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence and witness statements the boat was gone.

    I informed Dawley, Burke's false representations should be discredited; they obstruct justice. Dawley said he could not do that even if Burke's publication was complete baloney. The single person who has the determination in his hands to pursue truthful justice did not consider certified court records and all of the other documented evidence sufficient to look into the case. He knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. He has to weigh justice versus opening old wounds. The office will not correct false perceptions leaving Robert Bond, a two time convicted killer a more credible source that a federal district court judge with all the evidence before him.

    When I expressed safety concerns for vulnerable individuals, Dawley instructed me not to probe deeply. He's too late, I already have.

    During that meeting, Dawley said their files contain a summary report. Presumably, it would support what authorities knew and represented. Dawley gave some detail about the report. I requested the report through an FOIA. I can affirm the request was received. When the ADA responsible for their records went to look through the files, he said no such record could be found. That ADA was in attendance in the May 1st meeting. Either Dawley misrepresented that to me, or that record was removed. I have evidence that suggests the latter, but I prefer not to elaborate on that now.

    The MA Parole Board deems Bond deceitful and very dangerous. They refuse to let me make a public victim impact statement. I am properly certified. Why? The reason they give is that the Joan's case is unresolved. Then they tell Bond it is commendable he worked with authorities on the Paradiso matters. I have provided the Board with verified documents that discredit Bond's statements. The problem is, they name the authorities involved.

    The most distressing and insane comment involves other people. At this time, it is better not to go into it other than to say there is insufficient support for people to step forward. See something, say something is a nice catch phrase, but it is not always practiced.
     
  15. OldSteve

    OldSteve Active Member

    Messages:
    4,935
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Didn't Joan have a boyfriend at the time? How involved was he in looking for her? Is it possible they had a fight and she took off back to school to get away from him - and was in a vulnerable state of mind whereby the man with the luggage was able to approach her and appear friendly enough for her to go with him?

    If it were I, (her boyfriend), I would have welcomed someone like you Eve, so dedicated to solving what happened...
     
  16. OldSteve

    OldSteve Active Member

    Messages:
    4,935
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Oh, one last thought... with all the advances in touch and familial DNA wonder if anything that been found could be tested... though, I bet it' all been handled too much..
     
  17. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I'm getting there.

    "You are right, but we’re not privy to certain aspects of this case. We don’t know with whom Joan spoke or what Joan did in NJ while away for Thanksgiving with her parents before returning to Logan. We don’t know what phone calls she made and what she discussed. We don’t know who Joan saw in NJ while away. We don’t know what friends she had in NJ. Perhaps Eve could help us out with this information. If we find the answers to these matters, then we may begin peeling the onion, layer by layer."

    I provided some detail on the weekend a few posts back. There is a group of families in NJ that are close friends, parents and children. The younger generation were all relatively close in age. This is who they got together with. Some of the parents and younger generation, Joan's contemporaries, were interviewed after Joan disappeared. I thought all of these people were very nice. I can't envision a single one of them harboring any malice against Joan or anyone.

    On Thanksgiving Day, the family drove to PA and had dinner with Eleanor's mother at her retirement community. That would basically be the entire day.

    On Friday evening, the family went into NYC to catch a show. They would have had dinner before hand in the theater district. On the way home, I would bet money they stopped at one of George's watering holes for a nightcap and a set of an entertainer named Cosmos. George may have even gotten on the piano to play a few songs. I don't remember the name of the bar, but it was just before entering the Lincoln Tunnel for the drive home. This is pretty typical.

    During the day, it would be pretty typical for family members to go to the club and play some paddle tennis. The family friends they hung out with would all participate in those round robins. They probably did it more than once over the break.

    On Saturday, George said Joan was on the phone with a classmate checking to see if they had supplies. He said he heard the call and indicated it was placed right here. The phone that was commonly used in the house could be stretched from the kitchen, through the breakfast nook and into the library. It was a corded phone, but the distance was not all that great. George was giving an interview when he made these statements in the library area.

    That's the house line. There was another extension in George and Eleanor's bedroom. Calls were checked on the house line. The calls can be accounted for. There is not a call on the house line over the break that fits George's description. There were really not very many calls on the home line.

    There was another line into the house. The only extension was in a small study upstairs, George's office, right across the hall from Joan's bedroom. That line is not listed in records and was not checked. I don't see anything in the records suggesting they checked George's office number at ITT to check if the airline reservation was made from there.

    Saturday evening, the family probably had dinner at the club, and then went by the homes of two family friends for cocktails. Then the family drove to Newark Airport.

    During the rest of the time, activities would be pretty predictable. Eleanor and George usually set the itinerary. It would have included going by the church book stall that Eleanor managed. It might have included a trip to George's office. Every time I was out there, I felt a little like being put on parade. There really is not a place to shop right there. Either you went into the city or the mall that was quite a distance. There was a resale shop Eleanor would take us to for over stocked items. Shopping was not a big activity. They always gave the same tours or visits anytime I was there.

    A friend planned to visit over the break. Anne and Joan drove in on Wednesday. They are in PA on Thursday. It was probably the plan for the guest to come in on Friday. He did not make the trip. Something came up that altered those plans. I'll address this a bit more in an upcoming post, I know I had a question about the friend. More to come.

    That pretty much absorbs the time spent in NJ. It would be hard to fit much more into the schedule.

    "The only plausible answer I come up with is she knew that the mastermind of this crime was involved in a previous murder. That’s the only reason I can substantiate for Joan having lost her life."

    I really don't have any question anymore that Joan knew the man she left with from Logan. That is the most likely person who orchestrated her abduction. He is the one with the secrets and felt threatened by Joan's knowledge. If it was another murder, that certainly would be motive to keep Joan silent. I don't believe murder is the only crime that the man was hiding.

    I discussed motive with SA Carazza. He agreed. There are certain other secrets that would also rise to that level in a disturbed person's mind.
     
  18. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I am making progress. I am trying to take these in order. Let me know if I miss some of your questions and comments.

    "It has been a while since I commented on Joan's case. So, I believe the answer (s) to this question is key, In previous posts you mentioned Joan had a serious beau at the time. The Thanksgiving weekend was supposed to be a 'meet the parents" weekend for Joan's boyfriend. Why didn't this happen? Who changed the plan?
    As best you can, walk me through the logistics...Would he and Joan come down from Cambridge together? Or would he be flying in from another city? Is this why Joan drove to New Jersey with her sister instead? Did George Webster know the boyfriend was not coming before the Thanksgiving Day weekend? I guess what I am getting at is if the "meet the parents" scenario did occur, would he have traveled back on the plane to Boston (and Cambridge) with Joan? See how this would have effected the outcome?"


    Joan had plans for a friend to come to NJ and meet the parents. She met him at Harvard. I am not certain whether the plans were changed before Thanksgiving or during the break. My best guess is during the break. I knew this person before Joan did. I have had some input from him. He was serious about her, but she was not ready to settle down until she finished school.

    He would have Flown in from Michigan. He no longer resided in Cambridge. He had graduated and was working. I do not know if he would have gone back to MA with Joan, it depends on what his schedule was. I would not count that out, since any courtship was now long distance.

    I think it is very fair and reasonable that if those were the plans, it certainly might have thwarted and derailed what happened to Joan .

    When Eleanor called the house to tell us Joan was missing on December 1, 1981, she asked if I had this person's phone number. I did not have it handy, but I could have gotten it. She suggested Joan may have detoured to go see him. That's what makes me think plans changed for his visit late in the game, either just before Joan got home or during the break.

    I can't see Joan changing the plans. George and Eleanor ruled the roost on the itineraries. As I mentioned in past posts, when Eleanor called about Joan, George was out of town. According to their own quotes, George had a business trip to CA. He was returning home Tuesday night, December 1, 1981. A coast to coast trip in 1981 was an all day affair. Any business had to be conducted on Monday for a return on Tuesday. That leaves Saturday night through Sunday for any travel.

    This is a very patriarchal family. George's needs or wishes dictate. I remember visits in Nantucket with my girls. When we had to get back for the start of school, I would get a third degree because the school schedule interfered with George's desired vacation time, as if I had any control of that. George did not like to be inconvenienced. It is really hard for me to imagine he would cut his holiday short for a business meeting that a subordinate could probably handle. However, a trip explains the change in plans. A trip explains why Anne and Eleanor would be in the car.

     
  19. OldSteve

    OldSteve Active Member

    Messages:
    4,935
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Thinking more about the mystery man Joan was with... forget all I mentioned before about him getting off before Joan did, and the driver then committing the crime..
    Focus on the mystery man instead - and of the way Joan acted with him. She's letting him be in charge, no? She acting like she knows him, and more than if they had just met. She has no problem with his making a decision for them. Does not she fears him or that of being danger. Who would she defer to like that? - boyfriend, professor, someone she looks up to?

    Why would he kill her.
    What are the cases in which a man kills a woman where the woman allows herself to willingly be with that man? I can only think of ones in which the woman is threatening to do something to the man, for example:
    Woman is pregnant and man feel it ruin his life.
    Woman threatens to tell man's wife about their affair, and man feels it ruin his marriage or cost him financially.
    Man feels threatened by woman who likes him, yet feels obligated to reveal something that will ruin him. (Such as a professor who's plagiarized something important.)
    Okay, there must be more...
     
  20. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Eve,

    Allow me a reply to a few of your comments.

    “Joan was seen talking to a man behind the counter. What was said is only speculation, but some things can be checked off. It wasn't about missing luggage. It wasn't to call a vehicle or get directions. Maybe she wanted to know where the bathroom was, but she was familiar with Logan. What we do know now, she was with a man at the taxi line, it's fair to consider the man behind the counter told her someone was waiting for her.”

    Let’s think about this carefully and logically, shall we?

    If Joan spoke to the man behind the counter (and reports indicate she did) did she approach him, or did he call Joan over to his counter? If he called Joan over to his counter, it suggests he knew what she looked like. Perhaps he knew her personally. But from where, and how? Logan airport was bursting at the seams with international and local travelers. Logically, I find it hard to believe that HE called Joan over to his counter. It would have been virtually impossible to spot Joan among all the other travelers. It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. In other words, a great deal of luck was needed for this to have occurred. Furthermore, for this to have happened, he had prior knowledge that she was flying into Logan on that exact flight.

    Therefore:


    1. Someone had instructed Joan to the counter.
    2. But who instructed her?
    3. When was Joan instructed?
    4. How was she instructed
    5. And for what reason was she instructed to the counter?

    Unfortunately, I refute your hypothesis that Joan approached him looking for the bathroom. This wasn’t the first time Joan had traveled into Logan. You stated that she was familiar with Logan. I’m one-hundred-percent certain that Joan knew the location of the bathrooms along the way. I travel extensively around the world, and the first thing I notice when walking toward the customs counters are women making a beeline for the first bathroom they see.

    However, if somebody had instructed Joan to that specific counter, she would have had prior knowledge of the person’s name. I find it highly unlikely that she was directed over to “a” counter without knowing the name of the person she was instructed to speak to. Furthermore, if she didn’t know the person’s name, SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE KNOWN HIM PERSONALLY. But who was he? Do you have his name? Did the authorities release this information?

    “There is no indication Joan objected or had any concern to get into another car with the man. She went willingly. I believe it is reasonable to determine at this point, Joan knew the man.”

    You’re right. That’s one of the only certainties we can take away from this case. But think about the next statement carefully, and logically. If she knew the man outside, the one at the taxi line, and she didn’t approach the man at the counter looking for the bathroom, it’s possible that she also knew him. Thus, it indicates that Joan knew TWO men at Logan that night.


    “The official cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. If Joan was subdued in some way in the car, it is only speculation.”

    Correct. However, since nobody but the authorities have been fortunate enough to read the coroner’s report, you should not be jumping to conclusions. And I’m not saying this because I’m trying to push my strangulation, knife, or gun hypothesis. I’m saying to you; please keep all avenues open. Somewhere along the line, you may still be astonished by what you’ll find. There’s a reason they don’t want you or the public to read the coroner’s report. You may one day still find additional troubling information regarding Joan’s death.

    “Joan may also have arrived at the destination and willingly got out of the car, again, based on her level of confidence in the man. She did know him on some level.”

    I don’t think so! Joan’s destination that night was Perkin’s Hall. There’s no way she would have traveled anywhere else that night. Regardless of knowing or not knowing the man. For that to have happened, she would have to have been unaware of her surroundings. However, Joan was comfortable in and around Logan and its environs. I’m certain the man told her that night that he would take her to Perkins Hall. Hence the reason she felt comfortable with the situation. She knew him, and he told her he would take her home. However, the moment she became aware that he lied to her, that’s when all hell broke loose.

    “On the map, you will see the path marked that Palombo would take from to and from Logan. I have also marked the access to Route 128 to the gravesite. You can avoid the obstructed area in Lynn following Palombo's routine travel. There are other routes heading out of Logan. It depends where was Joan was taken. To restate an obvious point, we can speculate until the cows come home, but the known points are the most important to keep a proper focus. The star on the map shows where Palombo lived. The black bar indicates where the barricades were in 107. I did recover reports about the fire. Palombo absolutely had awareness of the fire and what roads would be blocked.”

    You continue trying to make the evidence fit your theory. However, ask any detective, and he’ll tell you that it’s a dangerous way of doing business! I've seen investigators come up with a theory and then try to fit the evidence into the theory. You’re doing the same thing here with Palombo. Just because he drove the route, lived near the locale where Joan’s remains were found, had airport assignment, etc., doesn’t make him the killer or the person responsible for her abduction.

    My honest opinion? The case remains “correctly” unsolved because they ignored the evidence suggesting a different path than what they wanted to go down.

    “One of the first factors that indicated premeditation for me was the deliberate efforts right out of the gate to conceal the lead. Then authorities followed down a very dark path to frame someone, ignoring known facts. The facts were covered up.”

    They concealed the lead because it led them nowhere! They weren’t prepared to waste any more time searching for ghosts. The pressure was on. When Paradiso entered the picture, the large target was immediately painted on his back. And the rest is history. Burke entered the picture with one goal in mind. Burke intended to, by hook or by crook, climb up the judicial ladder, and make money. And look where is accomplishments led him? When the railroading snowball starts traveling down the mountain, nothing stands in its way, and everything gets decimated.

    “However, it does not explain how Palombo and Tammaro picked the correct manner of death with correct details from Robert Bond's multiple choice.”

    It was sheer luck that that happened. I don’t see any reason why Palombo and Tammaro would knowingly insert themselves in the case, and verily Joan’s murder. If they had, they would be under enormous pressure to justify their claims.

    “Strangulation breaks bones in the throat. That can be determined in an autopsy.”

    You’re an intelligent lady. I was hoping you’d touch on this subject because it allows me to share a personal story.

    I’m sorry to say, but in this instance both you and forensic pathology are wrong! Strangulation DOES NOT ALWAYS BREAK BONES IN THE THROAT to render you unconscious leading to death. Leading forensic pathologist, Dr. Cyril Wecht, will verify my claims. Furthermore, strangulation is easily recognized if the body’s been recovered before it begins decaying. Joan’s body was recovered in its skeletal state. I don’t want to comment further on the subject matter because I will be here forever.

    When I was 20 years old, something happened to me that changed the course of my life. It’s one of the reasons why in a previous post I touched upon the subject of humanistic love, and the reason I never reported the person to the authorities.

    When I was 20, I weighed a mere 122 pound (55kg). I was remarkably fit because I was a passionate soccer player. One night at a wedding, through no fault of my own, I found myself in a scary and life-threatening situation. I was sucker punched in the nose and fell to the ground. The man that punched me sat on top of me and began strangling me. I fought as hard as I could but failed to remove his hands from around my neck. He was much heavier than me, which made the task of freeing myself that much harder. As God as my witness, I declare that I was at the point of losing consciousness when the individual let go. Another two seconds and I would have lost consciousness. Perhaps he felt the life draining out of me and removed his hands from around my throat. Although I had the strangulation marks around my neck, no bones were damaged. And to cut a long story the man is now my father-in-law!

    “It was late at night. She had all of her stuff to lug around, she did not need to worry about saving a few bucks, she was still dressed from the cocktail parties in NJ. She was reasonably conscious of her surroundings. She would not take off impulsively to a party. She would have wanted to get back to her dorm, get organized and get comfortable.”

    It seems that unknowingly you agree with my hypothesis about Joan wanting nothing more than to go home that night (see above). Furthermore, it validates my theory that Joan would have reacted (all hell broke loose) when she became aware that they weren’t about to take her to Perkin’s Hall. And it validates my hypothesis that she WAS PERHAPS STRANGLED AND RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS.

    “We went to NJ. The only person that cried over the holiday was me. The Websters were all very stoic. It's not fair to make any judgment how another person processes grief. However, it struck me, that was not at all the kind of emotional restraint I grew up with. George made a comment over Christmas that struck me. He said, Joan is gone, we will have to move on. Move on was a phrase I heard on a frequent basis in the family. I think it is fair to conclude, the family was resigned to her loss at that time.”

    I’ve always been astonished by parents that don’t shed a tear when losing a child, regardless of their age. As a parent myself, I could not begin to imagine how I would react if somebody were to harm one of my loved ones. I assure you that I would not be stoic, but an emotional wreck. Do parents who behave in such puzzling ways really love their children? To me, they’re nothing more than cold-hearted critters, without a soul.

    “I can't give you a definite time when I felt Joan was dead. It was probably when the Bond allegations started to come out, January 1983. Even though she was still technically a missing person, she was discussed as a murder victim. I relied on information I learned from family and authorities about the Paradiso theory. It was alleged she was dumped in Boston Harbor. However, I knew the boat theory was implausible when Joanwas found in 1990. She was buried more than 30 miles from the alleged crime. Before that, I had no awareness she was buried. Digging into the case, I learned the explanation was impossible; the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.”

    If I told you that there are indications suggesting that she was linked to a “grave,” in other words, “buried,” as early as 1984, would you believe me? Moreover, why would someone claim that Joan was in a “grave” when the consensus all along 1981-1990, was that she lay at the bottom of the ocean? In your honest opinion, what could this suggestion linking her to a grave indicate?

    “I provided some detail on the weekend a few posts back. There is a group of families in NJ that are close friends, parents, and children. The younger generation were all relatively close in age. This is who they got together with. Some of the parents and younger generation, Joan's contemporaries, were interviewed after Joan disappeared. I thought all of these people were very nice. I can't envision a single one of them harboring any malice against Joan or anyone.”

    It may be a laborious task, but can you share the names of the people you know are part of the group of families, together with the name of the person whom Joan knew from Harvard? If you don’t want to reveal this sensitive information here on this forum, please send me a personal message. I would love to scan the list looking for names that may ring a bell.

    “If Joan was injured and not standing, the swing would most likely be vertical or downward. The end of the item would be the part of the weapon to strike her head, causing a different injury pattern, not front to back.”

    Thank you for uploading the map and skull photos. I know it that it must continue to be difficult for you. The skull photo shows the massive 2”x4” hole on the left side of her head. It’s impossible to verify what position she was hit. Yes, she could be standing, but she could also be laying on the ground, and on her side. I find this hypothesis the more logical one because as I’ve mentioned before the ground would act as a shock absorber thus making the blow all the more severe. I’ve seen guys being hit over the head with a baseball bat, at maximum inertia, and the skull wasn’t crushed the way Joan’s was. In fact, when the coroner carried out the autopsy, after shaving the individual’s head, in one of the cases only a 4” long hairline fracture was found. In this case, the cause of death was a gunshot to the heart. Joan’s hit required some serious inertia. The man was likely powerful, with powerful arms and large wrists.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice