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

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

  1. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Let me see if I can get caught up today.

    "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?"

    I agree that something leading up to Joan's disappearance was the trigger for what happened. Joan was very upbeat over the break by every single account of people who saw her. Joan was her usual bubbly personality.

    In October, Joan went to Maine with a friend from school for a weekend. A picture taken on the trip was the last picture of Joan that we received. I met the friend she went with at the memorial service they held for Joan at Harvard.

    She worked to get her school project completed and present before the Thanksgiving break. This was an 11-week project designing an auditorium. She got high marks on the project.

    This may seem insignificant, but it is not to me. I was about three months pregnant leading up to Joan's disappearance. Joan did know that. She was very excited, as I was. Sadly, I miscarried on Saturday, November 28, 1981, the same night Joan disappeared. I ended up in the hospital having an emergency D & C. It was not until December 1st that we knew about Joan. It has always been something that made me feel a special bond with Joan.

    I remember exactly where I was when I learned about Joan. I was sitting on the toilet hemorrhaging. Steve ran up the stairs and came into the bathroom and announced she was missing. His mother asked for the phone number of the guy I knew who had planned to visit and meet the parents. Needless to say, my hormones were already out of whack. I cried. Steve yelled at me and said I had no right to cry, it was his sister. That really startled me. I think we have a tendency to process things like that through our own lens of experience. Steve was immature emotionally. He had two pieces of bad news back to back. At the time, that made sense to me to explain his outburst.

    Here is who I know had the composite. The Saugus PD, Harvard Campus PD, the MSP, the Glenn Ridge NJ PD, George and Eleanor Webster. I was part of the immediate family and I knew nothing about it. The composite was never made public through the media. I have no indication this was shared with classmates on campus. I learned about the composite and recovered it in 2009. I was constantly told there were no real leads until the Robert Bond allegations broke in the media in January 1983.

    I was lied to.
     
  2. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The next comments deal with the counter. I am just rendering my own speculation.

    "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."

    Back in those days, when I travelled, there was usually someone in the carousel area in the larger airports to check the tags on the bags. Most of the luggage claim carousels were down that night. Five flights were all being unloaded on the same belt. It makes sense people might be instructed to identify their bags.

    This was Saturday night. The heavy travel day after Thanksgiving is Sunday. It's late, after 10 pm. The airport was not as busy as it might otherwise be.

    The other counter that would be in the claim area is an information counter. If someone is waiting for Joan, it makes sense someone behind the counter was alerted and she was described. Perhaps her name was held up on a card she had a message. It's impossible to say how she ended up at the counter. To go back to comments in the previous post, it is possible she was told to check there when she arrived. One other thing that was going on in the family at the time was RN Webster's health. RN was George's father. He was elderly and in declining health with Alzheimer's.
     
  3. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    All of the questions and comments are really helpful. It helps to sort through what is known and go through a process of logical reasoning to understand just what happened.

    "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?"

    All of the evidence recovered so far indicates Joan did not go back to work on a project. The police questioned if calls were made from the two homes where they stopped. A pay phone seems unlikely to me. Glen Ridge is a small residential community. There would not be many payphones.

    George was not truthful about a call placed from the home line to check on supplies. He was misleading about the reason Joan returned early.

    The ticket was probably made for Saturday night. I doubt the date was changed. If Joan had returned on Sunday, she would have ridden with her sister Anne. The reservation was probably made from the private line in George's study upstairs or from his office at ITT. I have no hesitation that he made the reservation. He always took over those details. His last day in the office would have been Wednesday.

    George had his hand in the investigation right from the start. He enlisted ITT security. I don't see any indication LE challenged or verified anything he said.

    Sunday would have been more difficult. First, she would not have flown. But, if she had, that is the busy travel day after Thanksgiving. The airport would have been much busier, a higher probability something would be noticed.


     
  4. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The focus on the man that maneuvered Joan into the second vehicle is my primary focus.

    "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?"

    Joan was interested in finishing her degree before settling down. My friend said he was ready to put a ring on her finger. I know that was also the feeling of the young man she dated for a long time before she went back to grad school.

    The guy who planned to visit was in Michigan. He had already graduated with his MBA. There was no reason to go back to get away from him. He was not in the NJ or MA areas. LE never spoke to him. I doubt they even knew about the planned visit. I don't see it in records. These are the little pieces I can identify because of personal knowledge.

    He does not fit the description. I doubt he was involved much, if at all, in the investigation. He was not in the area. He was starting a new career and landed a very demanding job. It is possible his name was given as one of the young men Joan had dated, but his proximity would have crossed him off the list quickly.

    It is unlikely there was any discord that would have made Joan vulnerable to the man at the airport. She told the cabbie the man was with her and changed cars with no sign of distress. She knew him.

    "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.."

    George had the remains cremated after the autopsy or pathology testing was done. This is another point that bothers me. That was a violation of MA General Law 38 section 14. This was an unresolved homicide. I don't know if samples were preserved and properly maintained. There are some strands of her hair contained in the current custodian's files. Anything in those files has not been preserved properly.
     
  5. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I am almost caught up with the posts, comments and questions. If authorities had been so thoughtful with the questions at the time, Joan's killer might have faced justice.

    "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..."

    I believe that is the right focus, the man with Joan at the airport. Your observations are spot on. Joan acquiesced to the man's decision to change vehicles. He represented authority to her in some way.

    In general, I rule out boyfriends. Joan dated young men her own age. They do not fit the profile from the cabbie's description. If Joan had some secret paramour, an older man, it would be out of character. I won't say that could not happen, but it seems unlikely to me. With her busy schedule, I don't know when she could ever fit that in.

    Professors and classmates were interviewed. Michael Henry O'Hare was raked over the coals. He was suggested as the offender through a Zodiac theory. There is no connection, but his life was upended. O'Hare moved out to CA and now teaches at Berkeley. Those would be routine lines of investigation. Why would the Websters let someone like that off the hook?

    I don't know of anything that would suggest Joan was pregnant. Again, I would not shy away from that if there was verifiable evidence. There is none.

    However, you really have hit the nail on the head. The man feels threatened by something that could ruin his life, in his eyes. He is concerned Joan is going to tell someone and would be believed.

    Just an aside observation after digging into this for so many years. The word threatened has been thrown at me several times as if I am threatening because I am looking into the unresolved murder of a family member. I have knowledge that is threatening to some. Some of them are identifiable. I understand the position of having knowledge that others want hidden. It is very uncomfortable and frightening at times. The truth and revealing what is in recovered source documents would only be threatening to someone with something to hide. As I mentioned in a previous post, I am following the twine and documenting it carefully.
     
  6. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Getting down to the nuts and bolts.

    "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."

    I think it is fair to say we will never know fully why Joan was at the counter. Would it help? Yes, but there is no way unless a witness speaks out. Joan was not in the international terminal. It was after 10 at night. Saturday was not nearly as busy. Most holiday travelers would return on Sunday. According to the information I have, 5 flights came in within a half hour or so of each other. All of the carousels were down except one. That may have simply been due to a lack of traffic through the airport. I do not know with certainty. However, it does not seem likely all of the carousels had mechanical problems at the same time. It is more likely a smaller crew at the airport at that time on Saturday night on a holiday weekend. Luggage from the five flights were all being unloaded on the same carousel.

    That narrows an area for someone to spot Joan. Some of the passengers probably had already collected their bags and left the area.

    I cross some things off the list that would be some reason to be at the counter. Was the counter checking tags on the bags? Maybe everyone had to check and then Joan was identified. Personally, I envision this more of a larger counter than someone checking tags. The reason I say that, it stood out enough for some to notice and say something. It wasn't like she was in a line waiting to check tags.

    Why would Joan be at an information counter when she had her luggage, and she planned to take a cab in the cab line? We know these facts. There aren't many other reasons I can think of. Asking where the bathroom is only a possible reason to approach the desk. I do not believe this is the case. Joan was familiar with Logan and restrooms are well marked.

    As I mentioned in a previous post, her grandfather was ill. The family may have suggested she check at the counter for any word of his condition. I don't know. Does the family do that sort of thing? Yes. In 1984, Eleanor instructed Steve and me to go to the F barracks at Logan during a layover to meet Andrew Palombo. Steve did not want to go. I dragged him.

    When she got off the plane, she could have been told there was a message for her, to check at the information counter in the claims area. She might not have had any idea what the message was.

    Her name could have been on a sign held to check at the counter. People are often identified coming off a plane with a name held up on a placard. I do not have any information to suggest this. But I am tossing out possibilities. The possibilities are probably endless.

    The most reasonable scenario to me is that she was told there was a message for her at the counter. I do not know the name of the person behind the counter, likely an airport employee. That suggests to me Joan did not know this person. The most problematic aspect about this piece of information was the person who tried to suppress it, Jack McEwan, head of ITT security, who was involved in interviews at the airport.

    I think it is very possible the message at the counter was to inform Joan someone was waiting for her. Why? Because of what we know happened, she ended up with someone she knew that she was not seen with prior to the taxi line.

    "Correct. However, since nobody but the authorities have been fortunate enough to read the coroner’s report, you should not be jumping to conclusions."

    The manner of death is listed on her death certificate. There was also a press conference after identifying her remains. There is no speculation here. However, I have always remained open to other information I learn that can be supported. The coroner's report is only available to the next of kin by statute, or investigators handling the case. Leonard Paradiso would have been provided the autopsy if he had legitimately and lawfully been accused of the crime. He was implicated by authorities and the power of a tabloid press. There was no inquest or hearing for Paradiso after the recovery. He was never charged. In other words, George Webster and authorities maintain control of the autopsy report.

    "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."

    I think whatever Joan's relationship to the man that maneuvered her into the 2nd vehicle would be the basis for whether she trusted him to go to a different location. Joan acquiesced to the man's wishes to get into the 2nd car. He was in some position of authority as it relates to Joan. She was willing to let him be in control. There was a level of trust. I can't say if that trust extended to go to a different location. We don't know what was said. It depends who the man was.

    "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."

    I have been researching Joan's case in depth since 2006. I have thousands of pages of records that have been reviewed over and over. I knew a lot about Palombo before I ever learned where he lived at the time. I have reviewed multiple possible routes. I researched the fire and learned where the blockades were that restricted access into Lynn.

    I start with Point A, the airport, and point B, the gravesite. Those are known points. You have mentioned other known facts, where Palombo worked, and the proximity of the grave to his residence. He was also the lead cop on the Iannuzzi case and familiar with the location of Marie's body and suspect Leonard Paradiso, the scapegoat. Palombo also had an improper relationship with prime suspect David Doyle as learned through his own testimony during the Iannuzzi trial. Reviewing those records exposed a very dirty case. Yes, sometimes LE forces things to fit a predetermined outcome.

    I already knew the type of investigation Palombo conducted. The Iannuzzi case was improperly entangled with Joan's, deliberately. The trigger was an anonymous call in January 1982, placed by a friend of Palombo's superior, Carmen Tammaro.

    When I learned where Palombo lived at the time, that simply added a point on the map. Looking at his routine travel is very concerning. Here is an undercover cop involved in the investigation, is ignoring known facts to force an impossible theory. I think ignoring where he lived and the proximity to the grave, his travel routes, and his behavior is irresponsible in examining Joan's case. Here is a man that is complicit at least in diverting the investigation. Offenders often work in areas they are familiar with, a comfort zone. That is part of a mental map routinely compiled by profilers. Fortunately, I have had the opportunity to speak with several highly credentialed investigators.

    There are a couple other factors I consider. Tim Burke published an item was in police evidence. The current custodian will not reveal that information. Burke claimed it was in her suitcase. It was not, I have those records. The item was listed among belongings in her tote bag. It was a common item, not something someone would commit any crime for. However, if it was in police evidence, it connects someone with Joan after she landed at Logan and had access to place something in the police evidence locker. Remember, the tote bag and contents were never recovered.

    The final concern I will discuss in a later post in response to another comment.

    I am following the evidence.
    [SUB][/SUB]
     
  7. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    One or two more posts she have me up to speed with all of your thoughts and comments. Let me know if I missed something.

    "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."

    I am not sure I understand your thinking here to not follow a lead. The lead of the man at the airport and the composite came in December 1981, right after Joan disappeared. Someone goes missing and authorities decide not to follow a significant lead because they have determined already it will go nowhere? That does not make sense to me. Authorities were chasing down all sorts of things far less substantial than the cabbie's information.

    You don't know where someone is or if they are in danger. Responsible LE pursues everything.

    Paradiso's name was dropped into the mix in January 1982. His name was kept under wraps for a full year before authorities declared a break in the case with the Bond allegations. There are source documents that reveal Paradiso was targeted long before it was made public. I did not know anything about Paradiso until the Bond allegations went public in January 1983, a full year after he was targeted. Burke entered the picture in February 1982, after a meeting requested by the Websters.

    So, Burke is involved after the anonymous call implicating Paradiso. After the meeting, Palombo and Burke are paired to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case. Smells bad to me. Burke was green. He is someone who could be manipulated.

    "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."

    Robert Bond provided Palombo and Tammaro a multiple choice for Joan's murder, strangulation or a blow to the head. He told them to choose. That comes directly from the transcript of the MSP interview with Bond. As officers assigned to F Barracks at Logan, Tammaro and Palombo were involved in Joan's case from day 1. Bond was positioned close to Paradiso at the Charles Street Jail when he was waiting for his own murder trial. He had more than one meeting with Tammaro and Palombo before the Bond allegations were made public.

    First, it would be highly improper for an investigator to speculate on manner of death. Lucky guesses are not appropriate to make from a snitch's allegations, especially when given a choice. There was no body. If they were going to theorize, they would more likely have chosen strangulation. That was the manner of death in the Iannuzzi case. The Iannuzzi case was being entangled with Joan's, same suspect.

    The photo of Joan's skull shows the right side of her head. During the MSP interview with Bond and in the written statement that followed, Bond gave correct details indicating there was a large hole and pointed to the right side of the head. That was more than 7 years before the recovery. I don't see that as a lucky guess, not from cops that were diverting the investigation.

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

    I do not doubt your assessment of strangulation. I do believe it is possible to apply a certain amount of pressure without breaking the bones in the throat, at least enough to leave someone unconscious.

    Thank you for sharing your experience. You must have been terribly frightened. I do not know the threshold for another person to remain silent. Each person has to make that decision for themselves and the circumstances. I would add it is also loving to report someone, so they can get the help they need. It would be tragic for someone to offend again because it was never learned what they did. I am also aware of victims that remain silent because they feel threatened to speak. A victim has to resolve those questions for themselves based on their own situation.

    I have wondered in Joan's case if she had knowledge she held inside. Maybe the offender felt she was no longer willing to shield someone's behavior. Joan was credible, she would have been believed.

    "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 never once saw George and Eleanor shed a tear. They always remained composed even in the private family times. The Websters have a strong public image. Image is extremely important to them. In truth, they were not warm fuzzy people. Their reactions to things are very different from the foundation I grew up with. I am strong, but I have more tears than I ever thought possible. I don't know if they considered that a sign of weakness, but if so, they were wrong.

    The Websters were very visible in front of the media. I think most people probably assigned their own emotions, how they would feel. I know I did and I think that is a natural tendency to view things from one's own experience. They showed no emotion about Joan. On the surface, the public saw well-educated parents, they had high standing in the community, there was money and influence. The Websters are also very interesting and engaging, entertaining would be a good description. George coined a word I heard all the time, fundador. That is what they wanted others to feel when they were around them.

    Only God can see what is in someone's heart, but the outward signs that George does not want this case upended from the prevailing explanation of Paradiso on the boat is very evident.
    [SUB][/SUB]
     
  8. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    This post should get me up to date. I appreciate everything being contributed. It helps weed out fact from fiction and what reasoning makes the most sense.

    "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?"

    It sounds like you found something that suggests Joan was buried much earlier than when the remains surfaced in 1990. I would be very interested in the information. I know a lot of psychics offered information during all of this. One actually had police in a relatively close area to the actual gravesite. I tend to be a science based thinker, I like tangible facts. But, I never completely counted out psychics, especially when one had officers so close. There are some things that just cannot be explained. I don't know what you have, but I am interested to see it. Before I could offer an opinion, I would need to know what it was.

    "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."

    I am cautious to posting these names. The young man who graduated from Harvard, and planned to meet the parents, is someone you would find in a search for his business accomplishments. I see nothing to support he had any involvement.

    Glen Ridge is a small community. I knew these families very well. I saw them in NJ and went to their homes for cocktail parties. I know the scene and the environment for the cocktail parties that Thanksgiving weekend. I also saw them every year in Nantucket. The parents are all getting up there in age if they are still living. George just turned 91. Many of the contemporaries have gone on to very successful careers. Are you from that area? Is there some data base you are comparing? You can PM if you like.

    When I saw the picture of Joan's skull and learned the condition of her remains, I could not get out of bed for 2 days. Whether the Websters misguidedly wanted to shield us from painful information or they just didn't want people to know the facts, either way, it has caused greater pain learning it later. It should have come from them.

    I really appreciate your input. Do you have some LE or investigative experience?
    [SUB][/SUB]
     
  9. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    “The most problematic aspect about this piece of information was the person who tried to suppress it, Jack McEwan, head of ITT security, who was involved in interviews at the airport.”

    Is this character still alive? If so, can you share his details? I would like to contact him!

    “I think it is very possible the message at the counter was to inform Joan someone was waiting for her. Why? Because of what we know happened, she ended up with someone she knew that she was not seen with prior to the taxi line.”

    This scenario is debatable. And why? Because if Joan was told that someone was waiting for her, why would she, and according to your information, knock on the taxi driver’s window? I think it’s safe to deduce that we don’t know if Joan did, in fact, wait for the individual before speaking to the cab driver. Perhaps she did wait. Furthermore, we don’t know if she looked for him inside the airport terminal or outside. We don’t know if the individual at the counter gave her the name of the person that allegedly was waiting for her. I presume he did, otherwise how would she recognize the man? It’s unlikely that he told her “someone is waiting for you.” I don’t think Joan would have been that stupid to wait around in the middle of the night waiting for an “alleged” phantom without knowing his identity or name. We don’t know, because it has not been established, how long it took Joan to exit the terminal from the moment she gathered her luggage to heading on over to the taxi. However, the other likely scenario is that the man she knew, and the man that approached her at the taxi, the man she was told was waiting for her, was running late for some unforeseen reason. Does that explain the reason Joan approached the taxi driver? Perhaps she was sick of waiting for him? Does it further explain the reason why the man appeared out of nowhere, seemingly with the two cars behind the taxi?

    “The manner of death is listed on her death certificate. There was also a press conference after identifying her remains. There is no speculation here. However, I have always remained open to other information I learn that can be supported. The coroner's report is only available to the next of kin by statute, or investigators handling the case. Leonard Paradiso would have been provided the autopsy if he had legitimately and lawfully been accused of the crime. He was implicated by authorities and the power of a tabloid press. There was no inquest or hearing for Paradiso after the recovery. He was never charged. In other words, George Webster and authorities maintain control of the autopsy report.”

    Come now Eve, in this instance, you're somewhat naïve. Who’s the pathologist/coroner that signed the death certificate? Can I get his name? If he signed the death certificate without a thorough assessment of the sequence of events leading up to Joan’s death, and the document has not been released, I smell a rat. How many cases do you know of that involve false declarations and perjury involving documents? You have continually hit upon the subject of a cover-up. And I’ve expressed the sentiment that this case has more twists and turns than the JFK assassination. The law declares that only the next of kin or investigators handling the case have permission to read the document. That’s how document manipulation works. The law’s been created to aid and abet corrupt investigative practices. Be that as it may, I assure you that I can get my hands on several coroner’s reports from various cold cases, without being a next of kin or the current cold case detective handling the case. The coroner’s report has not been released. If there is a cover-up, it’s likely that the coroner’s report will never land in your hands. Thus, the “official” manner of death will forever remain “blunt force trauma to the head.” Are you really placing so much confidence in a plausibly choreographed press conference?

    “I knew a lot about Palombo before I ever learned where he lived at the time.”

    Are you saying that you knew Palombo before Joan’s disappearance? Can you clarify this issue?

    “I have been researching Joan's case in depth since 2006.”

    Not once have I doubted your dedication to the cause. Your work is thorough and well researched. However, at times I get the impression you’re trying to fit Palombo into the mix. Without wanting to seem dull, investigators/detectives approach crime, and in this case murder, differently from each other. There is no model or process which they can undertake to bring an investigation to a successful conclusion. There is no definite or standardized investigative model in use anywhere in the US. Detectives/investigators rely on basic knowledge and practical experience when approaching investigations. An investigation can be likened to a series of gates, at each of which specific evaluations and judgments must be made before proceeding to the next. You seem to have done that. However, what if you (Eve) do not possess sufficient experience to know how to approach the investigation? In that case, an investigative model would undoubtedly be of use to show how an investigation should be approached, don’t you agree? Law enforcement has generic forms available that help investigators along the way. It all starts at the crime scene.


    1. Where do you propose the crime scene starts? Was it at Logan or Chebacco Rd?
    2. Once at the crime scene you’d need to do a crime assessment, collect and protect evidence, and identify additional scenes. Have you (Eve) done any of that?
    3. Subsequently, begins the initial assessment stage. You’re required to identify possible witnesses and possible suspects. You need to evaluate physical evidence and conduct victim assessment. Have you (Eve) carried that out?
    4. Now begins the investigation stage. You’re required to evaluate or examine witnesses. Establish a MO or motive. You need to identify signature behaviors. You must link offenses if there are any. You’re required to utilize experts to examine the available physical evidence. Have you (Eve) done any of that?
    5. Now we enter the target stage. You must generate potential suspects from evidence. You must establish links from the crime scene to suspects.
    6. Finally, the arrest stage. You’re required to interview the offender. You MUST allow for reinvestigation of new evidence/information raised by the suspect. You MUST negative any defenses raise. Have you (Eve) done any of that?
    7. However, sandwiched between 3 and 4, we have the feedback loop. In other words, a reinvestigation stage. You MUST try gathering new or additional information. Have you (Eve) done any of that?
    If you try justifying that you have followed the investigative model, you’re traveling a dangerous road. I will, however, reiterate the point that you’re to be commended for all the hard work, dedication, and emotional duress you’ve suffered along the way. In all honesty, and forgive me for saying, you’ve relied on “research” coupled with documents/reports that could be perjured to aid and abate the guilty parties. Both you and I don’t know that. But it’s a possibility. You do not belong to a law enforcement agency; you’re not an investigator or detective. You have no authority in the matter. You are, however, a knowledgeable person who’s done her homework. And once again, should be commended.

    Think about it this way. The Portuguese explorer Vasco De Gama discovered a sea route to India in 1497. Does it mean he placed India on the map? Of course not! What I’m trying to say is something I’ve said before. It seems you’re trying to fit Palombo into the grand scheme of things because of who and what he did? It seems logical because all the avenues led to his front door, but you’re playing a dangerous game.

    “The lead of the man at the airport and the composite came in December 1981, right after Joan disappeared. Someone goes missing and authorities decide not to follow a significant lead because they have determined already it will go nowhere? That does not make sense to me. Authorities were chasing down all sorts of things far less substantial than the cabbie's information.”

    Perhaps I didn’t explain myself adequately. Hence the confusion. For that, I apologize. I know they had the lead and that the composite came into effect in December 1981. However, before I comment further, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Do you or don’t you believe that there was a cover-up? If you think there was a cover-up, why are you trying so hard to substantiate the fact that the authorities “were chasing down all sorts of things far less substantial than the cabbie’s information?” Don’t you think it’s more logical to assume that if there was a cover-up the lead would be immediately eliminated, and a new target sought? And in this case Paradiso? Thus, why would police chase down all sorts of things? I’m not saying they didn’t. What I’m saying is, they (the authorities) kept investigating the case for reasons of public perception. The aura indicated that they were doing the best they could under difficult circumstances. There was a conglomerate of law enforcement agencies involved, was there not? Thus, the “personnel” of the “’state apparatus” became homogenized into a distinct group. And that separate group was led by Palombo and Tammaro. If you believe in the cover-up theory, this is the logical way of proceeding forth.

    The man in the composite sketch has never been adequately investigated! And why? Because it would be a time-consuming affair. LE may have dedicated some time to the investigation. However, once the realization set in that they would never find the responsible party, it was time for plan B, C, D…Z. George Webster had the chief of police, and please excuse me, by the balls! The chief of police was hard-pressed to solve this case. It’s called railroading, something I’ve mentioned previously. George Webster may not have known how LE was erroneously investigating the case. It’s not hard to lie to someone else. Regardless if he belongs to the CIA or not. We all lie, particularly when under duress.

    “Professors and classmates were interviewed. Michael Henry O'Hare was raked over the coals. He was suggested as the offender through a Zodiac theory. There is no connection, but his life was upended. O'Hare moved out to CA and now teaches at Berkeley. Those would be routine lines of investigation. Why would the Websters let someone like that off the hook?”

    Why would this individual, Michael O’Hare, be raked over the coals? Can you substantiate why the Webster’s let him off the hook? In the meantime, I will research the individual and see what I can find.

    “First, it would be highly improper for an investigator to speculate on manner of death. Lucky guesses are not appropriate to make from a snitch's allegations, especially when given a choice. There was no body. If they were going to theorize, they would more likely have chosen strangulation. That was the manner of death in the Iannuzzi case. The Iannuzzi case was being entangled with Joan's, same suspect.”

    Once again, you’re contradicting yourself. You believe that Palombo was involved, right? I think you’ve previously said he was a rogue element. Thus, why would he NOT speculate on the manner of death? Regardless of it being improper or not? Honest detectives are not rogue detectives. According to you, Palombo was. To the “honest” detective, it’s “highly improper to speculate on the manner of death.” Palombo can’t be both good and bad! Thus, according to you, which one is he?

    “Bond gave correct details indicating there was a large hole and pointed to the right side of the head. That was more than 7 years before the recovery. I don't see that as a lucky guess, not from cops that were diverting the investigation.”

    I’m sorry to say, but Bond lied! The hole on Joan’s skull was on the left side of her head! Do you see the discrepancies arising? Don’t tell me that you never noticed that too? If that’s the case, then proceeding forth from the Bond investigation, everything is erroneous and a fantasy.

    “George coined a word I heard all the time, fundador. That is what they wanted others to feel when they were around them.”

    I looked up the word fundador, and it means founder. Why would George want to be recognized as a founder? Founder of what?

    “It sounds like you found something that suggests Joan was buried much earlier than when the remains surfaced in 1990. I would be very interested in the information. I know a lot of psychics offered information during all of this. One actually had police in a relatively close area to the actual gravesite. I tend to be a science based thinker, I like tangible facts. But, I never completely counted out psychics, especially when one had officers so close. There are some things that just cannot be explained. I don't know what you have, but I am interested to see it. Before I could offer an opinion, I would need to know what it was.”

    My information does not arise form psychic phenomena. I dedicate some of my precious time to investigating essential and relevant matters. Science-based thinkers can never answer my question:

    Prove to me that if you can’t prove something scientifically, it isn’t true?

    “I really appreciate your input. Do you have some LE or investigative experience? Are you from that area? Is there some data base you are comparing? You can PM if you like.”

    Thank you. I try approaching the subject matter in a loving, logical, and open-minded way. I have a list of names that I’ve investigated. It would be interesting to know if there is any correlation between the names of the people you know. Who I am, what I do or have done is not important here. What’s important is that you reach a satisfactory solution regarding your sister-in-law’s case. I assure you that if I was from the area, I would not be here discussing this sensitive matter with you in a forum. We would have sat down over a coffee reviewing the case.
     
  10. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi Frozydozy,

    There is a lot to unwrap from your last post. I believe the most accurate words to describe me are rather self explanatory. I am a victim and I am a witness. I didn't dive into this case because I am LE or investigator; I am not and do not claim to be. I have extensive knowledge of this case. Being close to a situation gives me certain advantages that LE and investigators do not have. I lived it every single day for many, many years. I saw distressing discrepancies that did not add up. Therefore, I endeavored to find answers. I found a lot of them. It has been extremely painful.

    When I started, I had no idea what I would find. I went in with eyes wide open, nothing predetermined. I had no roadmap to follow, nor did I have the example of someone else's journey. I have enlisted professionals along the way to help. I have also seen the hand of God helping me recover things I think many hoped were buried or hidden long ago. Certainly there are still questions. Those that know me well know I am a very reasoned and logical thinker, and hardly naïve. Intelligent people can be deceived, as you pointed out. I do not fault myself for being lied to.

    One problem in resolving Joan's case was the chaos, all the sensational speculation. The theories and possibilities ran the gamut. I have heard more than you can imagine. I think it is prudent not to fall into the same trap here. There are areas of Joan's case that are unknown. We might never know. I don't mind discussing possible theories like guns, knives, restraints, whatever. But unless there is something concrete to support it, it can lead people astray from what is known.

    Researching Michael Henry O'Hare is a waste of time in Joan's case. Joan was not a part of the Zodiac murders. I don't know if Jack McEwan is still alive or not. I do know his association with this case and where his leanings would be. There were a lot of people that touched this case in some way. Most of them were very dedicated and hoped to find answers. Others handled only certain things and would not have seen or known the bigger picture.

    I met Andrew Palombo once, in August 1984, after the Iannuzzi trial. At that time, I shook his hand and thanked him. It was my belief at the time he earnestly was seeking justice for Joan. He was with the MSP for a long time and probably handled many investigations to a just resolution. There are mixed opinions about Palombo among officials in MA. However, through recovered and verified documents, I saw the practices Palombo employed in allegations involving Paradiso. I have never seen anything so dirty.

    I compared a lot of images to the composite. For some time, I was concerned the bearded man at the airport was Palombo. The resemblance is pretty chilling. However, I am not stuck in a predetermined explanation. When I recovered more information about the man at Logan, I reexamined the evidence.

    Points I have given in Joan's case are facts: the airport, the gravesite, the location of the purse, the Lynn fire. Palombo's address at the time is also a verified point. The fact his address places him in proximity to the gravesite, connected to Logan, familiar with Route 107 is not speculation. To look at a cop who was involved in Joan's investigation and aggressively sought to pin this on someone else is not a small matter to overlook. That is a felony to falsely represent evidence and conceal murder. His address places him smack dab in the path from the airport to the gravesite. The only possible path? No. But, I am looking at all the things that add up, as a whole.

    I have a degree of confidence in the manner of death listed on the death certificate. I can see it. The image may not be that clear when you bring it up from the link. This is the right side of Joan's skull. If you look through the gaping hole in her cranium, you can see her eye sockets on the right side. Further description was provided by the investigator who recovered the photo and his interview with officers involved in the recovery. Is there more that could be gleaned from the coroner's report? I am sure. You have suggested you could obtain it. Please do. I do not think the forensic dentist and pathologists had any reason to lie about their findings, not at this point anyway.

    Yes, Robert Bond lied. I have met him face to face; a really unsettling experience. However, he gave the correct manner of death with correct detail years before Joan surfaced. It is very easy to see in records who he talked to, Palombo and Tammaro. He gave them a multiple choice and suggested they choose whichever f***ing one they want.

    To dig into a case this old, it is not possible to go through some of the investigative steps you describe. Witnesses were interviewed and I got every record I could get my hands on. I have been to the locations and travelled several routes. The science of examining a case in this way is called forensic sociology. Does science explain everything? Probably not. This case is not at the starting point any more. It has been advanced quite a lot.

    When you asked for some of the names, my question was if you were in the MA or NJ area where you might know the names.

    To George Webster the word fundador was meant to suggest the fun was about to begin. He never used it in the context of founder, but maybe he wanted to be considered the founder of fun. That fits.

    I have had a number of people over the last many years reach out. It has not always been so friendly. There are those who would be happier to leave this case unresolved. I know of one person in particular who is following this thread. That is one reason I am cautious about providing certain details. I have had people wish me to die. I don't like that needless to say, but it is good reason to make sure someone has the ability to help. If you have the ability for other avenues investigation, I am open to the help, but always with a measure of assurance.
     
  11. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

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

    “There is a lot to unwrap from your last post. I believe the most accurate words to describe me are rather self explanatory. I am a victim and I am a witness. I didn't dive into this case because I am LE or investigator; I am not and do not claim to be. I have extensive knowledge of this case. Being close to a situation gives me certain advantages that LE and investigators do not have. I lived it every single day for many, many years. I saw distressing discrepancies that did not add up. Therefore, I endeavored to find answers. I found a lot of them. It has been extremely painful.”

    I agree with everything you’ve said. You are a victim and a witness, have extensive knowledge of this case, and the whole experience has been overwhelming, to say the least. Rest assured that I’m not having a go at you in any way shape or form. I’m offering you a different perspective of looking at the case. Many questions remain to be answered and questions that are pertinent to finding the guilty parties in Joan’s murder. I’m a God loving and fearing man. I believe in justice for the victims of brutal crime. For God sake, I've been brutally assaulted myself to the point of death. Therefore, I know what searching for justice is all about. Albeit, my faith in Christ has helped heal the festering wound. And yes, I have forgiven my father-in-law for what took place that crazy night. Christ forgave His enemies at the cross when He cried out, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” I’m a Christian. It’s vital that I follow His teachings. It’s not my intention to turn this thread or thread replies into a religious debate. I’m purely showing who I am, and what I believe. There’s a major difference between seeking “revenge” and seeking “justice.” I don’t seek revenge because revenge is shrouded in evil. Justice, on the other hand, is a form of “fairness.” Every victim of crime and their families are entitled to some form of fairness. Without it, anarchy will run amok. That’s why corrupt practices and cover-ups within law enforcement agencies, and government institutions, are so frightening and damn right despicable.

    “When I started, I had no idea what I would find. I went in with eyes wide open, nothing predetermined. I had no roadmap to follow, nor did I have the example of someone else's journey. I have enlisted professionals along the way to help. I have also seen the hand of God helping me recover things I think many hoped were buried or hidden long ago. Certainly there are still questions. Those that know me well know I am a very reasoned and logical thinker, and hardly naïve. Intelligent people can be deceived, as you pointed out. I do not fault myself for being lied to.”

    And you should not fault yourself for being lied to. And I’m sorry for calling you naïve. You are the light that keeps shining bright amongst the darkness that’s completely covered Joan’s case. And evil doesn’t like the light! Hence all the threats you’ve received, and the malevolent creatures you keep fighting along your way. But rest assured as God made little red apples, all evil will one day be punished. Perhaps not in this lifetime but in the one to come. God is fair and just, and revenge is ultimately His.

    “One problem in resolving Joan's case was the chaos, all the sensational speculation. The theories and possibilities ran the gamut. I have heard more than you can imagine. I think it is prudent not to fall into the same trap here. There are areas of Joan's case that are unknown. We might never know. I don't mind discussing possible theories like guns, knives, restraints, whatever. But unless there is something concrete to support it, it can lead people astray from what is known.”

    Unfortunately, that comes with the territory. From the moment there’s a hint of an alleged cover-up or conspiracy, the gold-diggers, buffoons, and theorists, blood suck their way into the subject matter. It has been this way for millennia, and I’m sorry to say, will continue being. Folks like you and I who keep searching for the truth must swim in the cesspool of lies, stupidity, and corruption.

    “Researching Michael Henry O'Hare is a waste of time in Joan's case. Joan was not a part of the Zodiac murders. I don't know if Jack McEwan is still alive or not. I do know his association with this case and where his leanings would be. There were a lot of people that touched this case in some way. Most of them were very dedicated and hoped to find answers. Others handled only certain things and would not have seen or known the bigger picture.”

    Regrettably, I dedicated most of my free time yesterday to the Michael O’Hare phenomenon. There are, however, a few niggling things that I find alarming. I also watched your YouTube video regarding the subject matter.

    For the sake of anonymity, I cannot discuss my investigative techniques. Doing so would be improper. But I will say, however, that I have a plethora of resources at my disposal.


    1. One thing that immediately stood out is how Joan Webster and Michael O’Hare are LINKED through the architectural company, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
    2. O’Hare worked there in 1967, and Joan in 1978 after graduating. Both as designers.
    3. It’s also interesting to note that both Joan and O’Hare studied and graduated from Harvard Graduate School of Design. O’Hare during the period 1964-1973.
    4. The period 1971-1979, O’Hare was a professor at MIT. There’s some discrepancy regarding a Mayan book allegedly belonging to Joan linked to the MIT bookstore.
    5. Between 1979 -1981, O’Hare was a lecturer at Harvard.
    6. Over the years, O’Hare has lectured on diverse subject. The list includes architecture, public affairs, and pedagogy.

    I’m not saying that Michael O’Hare was involved in Joan’s murder. There’s no concrete evidence linking him to the case. The above is circumstantial. However, I find the evidence thought-provoking. Joan could be connected to O’Hare via any of the points mentioned above. It’s rather spooky. And why would the Webster’s not follow through on this investigation? Perhaps because at that stage O’Hare was a prominent figure in the state of Massachusetts? You’ll agree that all leads should be investigated. But why did the Webster’s negate this being done?

    According to your video, a Mr. Gareth Penn approached the Webster’s in April 1982 claiming that O’Hare was Joan’s killer. I did some more investigating, asked some questions, and find the individual rather intriguing. In the video, I saw you hold up a copy of Mr. Penn’s book, Times 17. I think the book in no longer in print. How did you get a copy? Have you read the book?

    One of my contacts directed me to an astonishing paragraph regarding Joan’s murder. In his book, Mr. Penn makes a shocking claim. According to his timeline, and as early as 1984, he revealed that Joan was in a grave. In other words, buried! I’ll upload a snippet of the paragraph in question.

    [​IMG]

    How on earth did he contrive such a remarkable announcement when the consensus all along was that Joan had been murdered on a boat? If Robert Bond’s declaration about Joan’s murder has any merit, and according to you it has, then Mr. Penn’s bewildering pronouncement should be looked at. Why as it not? Has nobody, including the authorities, noticed it?
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Gruffin

    Gruffin Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I wonder whether Joan might have had any association in her architectural career with the Construction Products Division of W. R. Grace and Company, Cambridge, MA? (They seem to make state-of-the-art construction materials.) In the April 1, 1981, Middlebury College Newsletter, it is mentioned that Hadden Clark, Sr., was recently appointed its vice president. Hadden Clark, Sr., is the father of the Hadden who murdered Michele Dorr and Laura Houghteling. The January 1, 1980, newsletter indicates that Hadden Sr. was living in Lincoln, Mass., on Chestnut Circle. Hadden, Jr., is often mentioned in association with the murder of Sarah Pryor, and one can see why, since the entrance to the neighborhood his father (and stepmother) lived at in Lincoln is essentially where Sarah Pryor was last seen alive on Concord Road. The January 1, 1982, newsletter indicates that Hadden Sr. had become the Corporate Director of Marketing and New Development at Compo Industries in Waltham (between Lincoln and Cambridge), and so Hadden Sr. probably didn't hold the position at W. R. Grace for long. I don't know exactly when in 1981 he left. I believe W. R. Grace was located off Whittemore Avenue--almost as far away from Harvard as one can be and still be in Cambridge, but still only about a 2.2 mile drive from Perkins Hall. Perhaps Hadden Jr. visited his father for Thanksgiving? Hadden Jr. didn't enter the Navy until summer of '82.

    A totally different weird coincidence that seems worth mentioning (but I suppose is just coincidence) is that in the area of Manchester, New Hampshire, Denise Beaudin was last seen alive by her family on Thanksgiving Day 1981, and was first noticed missing December 1. Her boyfriend is believed to have killed at least six. That's two very bizarre cases involving young women occurring at about the same time only an hour's drive apart.
     
  13. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    In reading the last two posts, six degrees of separation comes to mind. I am familiar with the points raised about Michael Henry O'Hare. Connections with Hadden Clark, I am not.

    First to O'Hare. Yes, I do have a copy of Times 17, and like every piece of Joan's case, I read it thoroughly. It was not an easy book to find, but it was important to look at everything. It has been awhile since I read it as well as some articles Penn published. As I recall, the grave was part of his calculations beginning with three points: the airport, location of the purse, and location of the luggage. Basically it was a mathematical, more precisely a geometrical calculation that theorized Joan was buried in Concord. I do know there were some searches out the area.

    I recovered numerous documents related to Penn's theory including letters written by George Webster. State and local authorities did not seem to follow up with Penn's suggestions or take them seriously. However, I can see that federal authorities did some follow up.

    One of the most interesting parts of Penn's efforts was the contact he had with George and Eleanor Webster. He referenced some items he received from the Websters and something Eleanor had shared after George's father died. That information rang true.

    As far as Hadden Clark connections, I am not familiar with the names of either company. If Harvard had any connection with them in 1981, it might be difficult to find that now. There might be old company records if the connection was work done by the companies for Harvard. It is always worth looking into. As the saying goes, I have not left unturned stones.

    Palombo and Burke both made a huge deal about the Maya book. The book was confiscated from Leonard Paradiso's room during the Weyant search on April 25, 1983 under the Iannuzzi search warrant. I obtained a copy of that book as well. When I looked it up I found there were multiple editions. I identified the correct version from the picture Burke published showing the publishers imprint on the spine. The book was published by Grosset and Dunlap. This edition of the book was out of print in 1975, six years before Joan's flight. It was ludicrous for Burke and Palombo to suggest this was a text book of Joan's. In 1981 it would have been pretty tough to find this book. It is fair to conclude Harvard would recommend books more readily available and something that would have had value for Joan's curriculum.

    Burke and Palombo kept submitting the book to the FBI labs as if they thought they would get a different result on fingerprints. Granted, there are different techniques, but every finding was the same. They could identify a print of Paradiso's, not surprising since it was his book. They found none of Joan's. If this weren't such a serious matter, Burke's explanation would be laughable. He claimed Paradiso wiped everything down, I guess page by page. That's nonsense.

    Among Joan's belongings, Burke claimed they found a receipt from the MIT bookstore. They probably did. However, he even said it was not for the book, but proof that she had shopped there. I am sure she probably did. At some point in time, the MIT bookstore carried the Maya book. Burke does not give the date or items on the receipt, or dates the book was in stock and which edition. To me, it is stunning Burke has a law degree. Nothing supported this was Joan's book.

    Authorities placed a target on Paradiso's back in January 1982, a year before they came out with a "break" in Joan's case, the Bond allegations. When Penn made contact with the Websters, the "patsy" was already in place. The records show names and dates and what took place. The documents support the outcome in Joan's case was predetermined. I believe the Websters used Penn as a distraction and add to the confusion.

    Thank you both for the comments and questions. Sorting out Joan's case has been an enormous task. I feel there is light at the end of the tunnel.
     
  14. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I just want to post a comment about the Golden State Killer, apprehended today after 40 years. I have had the pleasure of meeting one of the rape victims who did survive. The power of prayer and perseverance is reinforcing to someone like me. It is possible to find the answers. It may take time. Please keep your thoughts and comments coming. They all help.

    A note about the offender just arrested today; he was a cop.
     
  15. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

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

    Great news regarding the Golden State Killer. One less evil roaming our streets.


    “First to O'Hare. Yes, I do have a copy of Times 17, and like every piece of Joan's case, I read it thoroughly. It was not an easy book to find, but it was important to look at everything. It has been awhile since I read it as well as some articles Penn published. As I recall, the grave was part of his calculations beginning with three points: the airport, location of the purse, and location of the luggage. Basically it was a mathematical, more precisely a geometrical calculation that theorized Joan was buried in Concord. I do know there were some searches out the area.”

    At times you seem evasive. My question was how did you get your hands on a copy? If it was hard to find, and the book was no longer in publication when you began your investigations into Joan’s murder, the only way of getting your hands on a copy would be from the source itself, a Mr. Gareth Penn. The copy you held up appears in pristine condition. I did further investigating and discovered that as of February 2001, Mr. Penn was desk topping copies out in small quantities. Thus, not a publishing house publication. Mr. Penn independently published the book in 1987. Between 1987 and 2001, only a small batch of copies was published. Sources have revealed that according to accounts in his book, Mr. Penn’s calculations began AFTER the revelation of a grave. How do you propose explaining this unusual circumstance?

    “I recovered numerous documents related to Penn's theory including letters written by George Webster. State and local authorities did not seem to follow up with Penn's suggestions or take them seriously. However, I can see that federal authorities did some follow up.”

    I’m struggling to justify your comments regarding George Webster’s letters. As far as I’m aware, no one in their right mind copies their letters. You stated, and I quote “letters written by George Webster.” Since you’re discussing Mr. Penn, and it’s a known fact that he and George exchanged communications, I presume you are referring to letters George mailed Mr. Penn. Therefore, there are only two conceivable ways that George Webster’s letters landed in your hands;


    1. George Webster Xeroxed his communications. Which I find tremendously far-fetched and improbable. And,
    2. Mr. Penn mailed you the communications. This indicates that you and Mr. Penn have exchanged ideas regarding Joan’s murder. In other words, you and Mr. Penn have been in contact.

    I’m trained in lie detection techniques, verbal and non-verbal behaviors (and these include lexicon and linguistics), and behavioral anomalies. The goal of my training was to help me improve my cognition by developing new practices that helped me acquire knowledge easier.

    There’s hardly a time when I’m wrong about my assumptions and analysis. The reason why I delayed responding to your post is simple. Through my sources, I was directed to an online publication of Mr. Penn’s Times 17. I dedicated the middle of the night to reading sections of the book where the author discusses Joan’s abduction/murder. And, I found other pieces of material that I find troubling. I will upload the Jpeg images at the end of this post.

    I deduce that you’re fooling yourself if you believe you know everything there is to know about Joan’s abduction and murder. To me, and from what I understand thus far (I’ve only read fragments of the book) the FBI and law enforcement agencies have been conned, and don’t seem to see the forest for the trees. The rabbit hole goes deeper than any of you can imagine. There’s something macabre at play here. I find it baffling that George Webster flew to California on the weekend of Joan disappearance. Was he feeling guilty? Could he not bare staying in Massachusetts knowing that he commandeered his daughter murder? Was that the reason he flew out of the state? Was he tying up shoelaces in California?

    I find it baffling that the individual who Joan entrusted her life to that night, had a heavy suitcase. It indicates that he flew into Logan on her flight or on one of the other five flights that landed at Logan at approximately the same time. How easy do you think back in 1981 it was to falsify travel documents? Could Peter be traveling under a disguised Paul? And if you believe that George was involved in Joan’s murder, he could have arranged for the falsification of the pertinent documents. The CIA was, is, and will continue being a sinister agency.

    Now, the Jpeg images.

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    I ask that you please read the paragraph, Then, look at the map. Finally, find the sinister clue pertaining the author’s disclosure. It seems that you’ve missed because not once do you deliberate this FACT when discussing the Penn/O’Hare subject matter.

    I'm not claiming that the author was involved. I do, however, and through my indoctrination perceive that there's more to it than meets the eye regarding this book Times 17 and the author
     

    Attached Files:

  16. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi Frozydozy,

    I am not trying to be evasive. I obtained the book after 2006. I could not be more specific on the year at this point. I simply did an online search and found a couple of resellers probably under Amazon. Again, I am not 100% sure. The book was used, but in very good condition. I did not obtain the book through Mr. Penn.

    George Webster wrote two letters to the FBI regarding Penn's theory and documents he mailed to the Websters. I discovered the letters in FBI files, along with several other documents pertaining to Penn's theory. In addition, I spoke with individuals who worked in the Middlesex County DAO when they received Penn's manifesto. I have never received anything from Penn nor have I discussed his theory of Joan's murder with him.

    I have stated clearly there are aspects of Joan's case that are unknown. We may never know. What I am discussing in this thread comes from source documents. I don't see how discussing the records is delusional. I can read what is in them for myself. I have also shared documents here.

    From my recollection, Penn spoke with Eleanor to learn the three points used for his calculations. For awhile I actually believed one of the points was incorrect, the location of the suitcase. Tim Burke spread quite a bit of disinformation about the luggage. I have now obtained the police report and can see it was recovered at the Boston Greyhound bus station at Park Square. I have no problem reassessing new information as I obtain it. As far as I can tell, Penn spoke with the Websters in 1982 and into 1983. I do not know precisely when their communication stopped.

    I think it is important to be precise about George Webster's travel that weekend. George and Eleanor said George travelled to CA. Whether he did or not, I do not know. I do know he was out of town when we got the call Joan was missing. At that time, I had no reason to question what they told me. It is a very good question why George was travelling that weekend.

    The map you have uploaded is a little small to read; I wear glasses. However, I have clearer maps, photographs, and have personally been to the area. The marsh is a fairly large area. A marsh largely by definition is a low lying area, it's flat. Grasses are about the only thing that grows in there. There are businesses along Route 107 on both sides. This is not an isolated area. That includes the shuttered business where Marie Iannuzzi's body was found in 1979. Penn's description makes it sound like there is nothing in the area except a bait shop and radio tower. That is incorrect.

    It probably was not that difficult in 1981 to have a different name on the ticket. They did not check identification like they do now. No disagreement there. Did someone do that? That is an unknown.

    Apparently you believe you see something in this description and map that you consider an overlooked fact. Feel free to enlighten me.

    Penn fervently pursued his theory of Michael Henry O'Hare. There are others who believe Penn was the Zodiac and was responsible for Joan's murder. I have not found anything in source documents to support either explanation.
     
  17. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    “I am not trying to be evasive. I obtained the book after 2006. I could not be more specific on the year at this point. I simply did an online search and found a couple of resellers probably under Amazon. Again, I am not 100% sure. The book was used but in very good condition. I did not obtain the book through Mr. Penn.”

    Eve, in this instance, and I’m sorry to say, your memory fails you. Be that as it may, when discussing Joan’s case, you’re a wealth of information, an Encyclopedia Britannica. Dates and important events are reported immediately. I don’t intend being picayune, but your lack of knowledge in this instance troubles me. And you’ll realize why when I answer your next paragraph.

    “George Webster wrote two letters to the FBI regarding Penn's theory and documents he mailed to the Websters. I discovered the letters in FBI files, along with several other documents pertaining to Penn's theory. In addition, I spoke with individuals who worked in the Middlesex County DAO when they received Penn's manifesto. I have never received anything from Penn nor have I discussed his theory of Joan's murder with him.”

    I honestly hope you’ve not developed the dreaded tunnel vision. At times gumshoes call it “detectives curse.” The solution to the case is right there under your nose, but you were watching everything else.

    Now, let me see if I get this right. I’m struggling to understand your rationale. I really am, Eve!

    In 1987, a man living in the state of California publishes a 380-page book theorizing that he knew the identity of the man responsible for Joan’s murder. In his book, he began discussing the subject matter as early as 1982. A mere few months after Joan’s disappearance. Massachusetts is on the east coast, while California on the west. As the crow flies were talking about 3100 miles or 4100Kms. This man, a Mr. Gareth Sewell Penn, wrote at length about Joan’s case to the point of divulging that her suitcase was found in a locker at the Boston Greyhound bus station. Subsequently, an alert worker found the suitcase, recognized Joan’s name, and sent the suitcase to NY as unclaimed property. Hence the confusion about the matter. (Mr. Penn never disclosed the latter. I have, and now)

    Using a “mathematical basis” of going forward, and using a triangle, Mr. Penn correctly pinpointed the location of Joan’s purse. It was located somewhere along the Saugus marsh. Apparently, and from what I understand, having made some calculations myself, he was off by a measly 17Km from pinpointing the exact location of Joan’s body. I think it’s safe to assume that any closer and you’d have your man! And perhaps the authorities might have acted altogether differently. Yes, you read it right! He wrote about a “grave,” something that nobody had contemplated as early as 1984 when his announcement was made. The consensus all the while was that Joan was somewhere at the bottom of the ocean together with Paradiso’s Malafemmena! In other words, his boat. We now know that the information about Paradiso and his boat is crap! Mr. Penn was brazen enough to open contact with the victim’s parents, the Webster’s, trying to ram Michael Henry O’Hare down their throat. According to his book, he did the same thing with various law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. However, everybody dismissed him as “harmless.” They’d reached the conclusion that there was no logical explanation to Mr. Penn’s work, most of it was coincidental, and that Michael O’Hare was at the center of an evil plot perpetrated by a “harmless” man in California.” Mr. Penn contacted everybody he could find in governance. That includes the states of California, and Massachusetts, and the city of New York.

    Eve, you’ve dedicated the last 17 years of your life attempting to bring justice to Joan. According to statements you’ve previously made, you have turned and continue turning every stone you find along your way. Your repertoire is vast and unparalleled. You’ve really poured your heart mind and soul to Joan’s cause.

    I, on the other hand, dedicated four hours of my time (overnight I will add) and read a few chapters from Mr. Penn’s book regarding Joan Webster. And my inquisitiveness was immediately alerted. I found numerous red flags that deserve further investigating. One was his pronouncement about the grave. The other I will reveal when I answer your next question. There are others, but these two suffice for now.
    How do you explain your, and excuse me for saying, lackadaisical attitude toward the subject matter? In this instance, I don’t see any justification for your actions. How do you explain not once having phoned Mr. Penn asking him pertinent questions about Joan’s murder? You may choose to defend your cause, but it’s like a sieve. In other words, full of holes. Mr. Penn wrote in detail about Joan’s disappearance and murder, did he not? He made extraordinary revelations, did he not? I think it’s fair to say that anybody in their right mind would have contacted him, don’t you agree. You’ve revealed that you read his book. How on earth did you not once contemplate picking up the phone or writing Mr. Penn a letter, detailing your reservations about his theories? You’ve spoken to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, on the American soil. Why not Mr. Penn? Does he have some special dispensation from the CIA or the FBI permitting him or absolving him from interrogation? I’m confident that anybody reading this post will agree with my shrewdness.

    “From my recollection, Penn spoke with Eleanor to learn the three points used for his calculations. For awhile I actually believed one of the points was incorrect, the location of the suitcase. Tim Burke spread quite a bit of disinformation about the luggage. I have now obtained the police report and can see it was recovered at the Boston Greyhound bus station at Park Square. I have no problem reassessing new information as I obtain it. As far as I can tell, Penn spoke with the Websters in 1982 and into 1983. I do not know precisely when their communication stopped.”

    If you recognized that your assumptions were wrong, and you state they were, don’t you think you were compelled to open communication with him? Thus, why have you not? I believe you should ask him some hard and thought-provoking questions. Regardless if a mathematical triangle shrouds Penn's theories, or not, I think that YOU should phone him and ask him about his findings.

    “The map you have uploaded is a little small to read; I wear glasses. However, I have clearer maps, photographs, and have personally been to the area. The marsh is a fairly large area. A marsh largely by definition is a low lying area, it's flat. Grasses are about the only thing that grows in there. There are businesses along Route 107 on both sides. This is not an isolated area. That includes the shuttered business where Marie Iannuzzi's body was found in 1979. Penn's description makes it sound like there is nothing in the area except a bait shop and radio tower. That is incorrect.” “Apparently you believe you see something in this description and map that you consider an overlooked fact. Feel free to enlighten me.”

    And enlighten you, and your readers, I will!

    Mr. Penn lived in California, right? 4100kms to be precise. In his paragraph he states, and I quote “The only artifacts or landmarks for some distance, either than the two highways shown, are a bait shop (black rectangle) and the WRYT radio tower, on the east side of the state highway.”

    Now, go back to the map, (link to a more prominent map here: https://postimg.cc/image/au7mckwej/) and together with Mr. Penn’s account, find the inconsistency. He mentions the WRYT Radio Tower, right? The WRYT Radio Tower is clearly demarcated on the map, right? Just below the tower is the little back rectangle that Penn instructs his readers represents the bait shop. How on earth does he know that information (that it’s a bait shop) if there’s no demarcation indicating that the black rectangle is, in fact, a bait shop? I don’t particularly care how proficient one is at reading maps. You can be Christopher Columbus for all I care. That doesn’t mean that you can educate your readers with information you couldn’t possibly know. However, I’ve been able to ascertain that Mr. Penn is a trained military artillery surveyor. There’s a high level of map proficiency involved in surveying. But it still does not explain his comment regarding the black triangle being a “bait shop.” To me, the only plausible answer to the problem is that Mr. Penn’s been in the area and is familiar with the surroundings! I find it highly unlikely that it’s nothing more than happenstance. I find Mr. Penn’s explosive remarks terribly shocking. In the world I live in, function, and work every day, there’s no plausible explanation for his comments. The probability that somebody is living in California and could postulate that Joan was in a grave, pinpoint the exact location of her purse, is 17Km’s off from her burial site, and then provide detail about a bait shop without those detail being demarcated on a map, is unscientific. I declare Mr. Penn’s revelations huge red flags! And QUESTIONS MUST BE ASKED!

    “Penn fervently pursued his theory of Michael Henry O'Hare. There are others who believe Penn was the Zodiac and was responsible for Joan's murder. I have not found anything in source documents to support either explanation.”

    You’ve not found anything in source documents to support either explanation because you’re not trained to UNDERSTAND the information. Just because Eve Carson’s not found source documents indicating that Mr. Penn or Mr. O’Hare were somewhat involved in Joan Webster’s murder, it doesn’t make it improbable. Hypothetically speaking, what if Mr. Penn’s plan all along was to blame Mr. O’Hare by implicating him in his book along with his theories? Thus, deflecting attention from himself. Are you so sure that this avenue of thought is implausible? Is it an indisputable fact?
     
  18. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi FrozyDozy,

    Let me dissect some of your comments.

    "Eve, in this instance, and I’m sorry to say, your memory fails you."

    Not recalling where I located Penn's book or the date of purchase is not cause for alarm about my memory. That is a bit trite. My memory and cognitive faculties are very good, but thank you for your concern.

    "
    This man, a Mr. Gareth Sewell Penn, wrote at length about Joan’s case to the point of divulging that her suitcase was found in a locker at the Boston Greyhound bus station. Subsequently, an alert worker found the suitcase, recognized Joan’s name, and sent the suitcase to NY as unclaimed property. Hence the confusion about the matter. (Mr. Penn never disclosed the latter. I have, and now)"

    Your representation of the facts are distorted. The suitcase was found on January 29, 1982. Penn began communicating with the Websters in April 1982. The location of the suitcase was a known fact. It was public knowledge. The police report is very specific who found it and how it was identified. The bag was not sent to NYC; that is Tim Burke's disinformation. Penn had nothing to do with locating the suitcase. He published known facts after the fact.

    I am having computer problems, I will continue my post in the edit.
    [SUB][SUP]
    [/SUP][/SUB]
     
  19. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Let me try this again. I was doing the edit but time to edit expired. I lost the rest of my post.

    Let me dissect some of your comments.

    "Eve, in this instance, and I’m sorry to say, your memory fails you."

    Not recalling where I located Penn's book or the date of purchase is not cause for alarm about my memory. That is a bit trite. My memory and cognitive faculties are very good, but thank you for your concern.

    "This man, a Mr. Gareth Sewell Penn, wrote at length about Joan’s case to the point of divulging that her suitcase was found in a locker at the Boston Greyhound bus station. Subsequently, an alert worker found the suitcase, recognized Joan’s name, and sent the suitcase to NY as unclaimed property. Hence the confusion about the matter. (Mr. Penn never disclosed the latter. I have, and now)"

    Your representations of the facts are distorted. The suitcase was found on January 29, 1982. Penn began communicating with the Websters in April 1982. The location of the suitcase was a known fact. It was public knowledge. The police report is very specific who found it and how it was identified. The bag was not sent to NYC; that is Tim Burke's disinformation. Penn had nothing to do with locating the suitcase. He published known facts after the fact.

    "This man, a Mr. Gareth Sewell Penn, wrote at length about Joan’s case to the point of divulging that her suitcase was found in a locker at the Boston Greyhound bus station. Subsequently, an alert worker found the suitcase, recognized Joan’s name, and sent the suitcase to NY as unclaimed property. Hence the confusion about the matter. (Mr. Penn never disclosed the latter. I have, and now)"

    Your comment suggests Penn led to the discovery of the suitcase. The luggage was found on January 29, 1982. The employee who found it is known. When and where he found it is known. The bag was not transferred to NYC; that was Tim Burke's disinformation. What new disclosure do you feel you have added? Penn was in contact with the Websters in April 1982. That is after the recovery of the suitcase. This was public knowledge well before Penn published it.

    "Using a “mathematical basis” of going forward, and using a triangle, Mr. Penn correctly pinpointed the location of Joan’s purse."

    Penn did not correctly pinpoint the location of Joan's purse. He published public information. The wallet was discovered on December 2, 1981. The man who found it is known. Who he contacted is known. Who he returned to the location with and found the purse is known.

    "Apparently, and from what I understand, having made some calculations myself, he was off by a measly 17Km from pinpointing the exact location of Joan’s body. I think it’s safe to assume that any closer and you’d have your man!"

    I am making an assumption you are not familiar with the Boston area. Penn directed authorities to Concord, MA. That is not where Joan was found. I do not know what your frame of reference is, but 17 km is not even close to pinpointing an exact location. Hamilton, MA is where Joan was found. A psychic had investigators a lot closer than Penn did. Does that now make the psychic a suspect?

    "Yes, you read it right! He wrote about a “grave,” something that nobody had contemplated as early as 1984 when his announcement was made."

    There are multiple ways to dispose of a body. Authorities pushed the Boston Harbor theory. Some killers just dump bodies. Generally, they are found sooner because there is no concealment. No one had found Joan. She was still technically a missing person. However, she was presumed and treated as a murder victim at least by January 1983 with the Bond allegations. When someone presumed dead has not been found, it is fairly reasonable to suggest the body was buried. I imagine plenty of people contemplated it.

    Penn began researching the Zodiac crimes and his alleged suspect O'Hare well before Joan disappeared. He contacted authorities before Joan disappeared. He contacted the Websters in April 1982. There were already established facts, the purse, the suitcase, and Penn said Eleanor confirmed those locations to him. I haven't found anything to suggest he had prior knowledge before those facts were known. The information was also in the media.

    "How do you explain your, and excuse me for saying, lackadaisical attitude toward the subject matter? In this instance, I don’t see any justification for your actions. How do you explain not once having phoned Mr. Penn asking him pertinent questions about Joan’s murder?"

    You contradict yourself. I have extensive knowledge of the case, but I am lackadaisical? I did not dismiss Penn's theory out of hand. I looked at it. I compared to what I know factually. There is nothing to suggest Penn had any contact with the Websters prior to April 1982. He published known facts. His calculations missed the mark to locate Joan. There is no evidence he ever crossed paths with Joan Webster. No one can place him in MA at the time Joan disappeared. Penn and his theory were crossed of the list. I do not see a benefit of calling Penn to discuss his theory. I don't buy it. If you do, then it would more beneficial to establish verifiable facts, like Penn's location at the time, rather than assuming his publication holds some cryptic clues that were actually known facts or reasonable deductions. Judging how thoroughly I have researched this case because I don't come to the same conclusions you have is off base.

    "He mentions the WRYT Radio Tower, right? The WRYT Radio Tower is clearly demarcated on the map, right? Just below the tower is the little back rectangle that Penn instructs his readers represents the bait shop. How on earth does he know that information (that it’s a bait shop) if there’s no demarcation indicating that the black rectangle is, in fact, a bait shop?"

    This comment again suggests you lack familiarity of the area. First, how do you know Penn labeled this as a bait shop correctly? Second, there are bait shops all over the place in this area. There are probably a dozen or more on Route 107. Finally, it would not be that difficult to look up a business address. This doesn't establish Penn had been there. Why didn't he reference and identify the shuttered business where Marie Iannuzzi was found? He knew about that case. He was familiar and wrote about Paradiso and the state's theory. That location was right there in the same area.

    "You’ve not found anything in source documents to support either explanation because you’re not trained to UNDERSTAND the information."

    No, I have not found anything because there is not anything there. You are not the first to fervently believe that Penn and/or O'Hare had something to do with Joan's murder. As I said when you first posted, I don't mind your candor. It does not bother me, but it also does not persuade me this theory had any merit. You can disagree, but verified facts are what would draw my attention.

    One thing you are missing in your assessment of Joan's case is personal knowledge. I know individuals and personalities in this case including the victim. The way to "crack" this case, in my opinion, is exposing the misconduct and who was lying about what happened. The authorities and the Websters promoted a false explanation. That is the problem.
     
  20. MaryG12

    MaryG12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hi Eve:

    I am not sure if this will help, but to backtrack what I understand about Joan's disappearance:

    The one item that was never recovered was her tote back containing architectural drawings, correct?

    While she was in the Harvard Graduate program during the time she disappeared:

    Were there any reports of any other architecture students in the Harvard Graduate program who either:

    1. Abruptly left the graduate program, dropping out, or

    2. Transferred to another university graduate program?
     

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