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

[eve carson]

The Alleged Crime Scene – Malafemmena – What I Learned Later

To back track just a bit, the press reported the boat was gone on January 31, 1983, right after the Bond allegations made headlines. Authorities already knew that and it was their responsibility to really check that out. According to the Bond story, Paradiso raped and murdered Joan on his boat, dumped her in Boston Harbor, and then came back to the pier two days later to sink his boat.

On September 27, 1983, the boat was raised from right under its mooring,

On September 29, 1983, a confidential source contacted the FBI with a woman’s name. The source claimed Paradiso lavished women with jewelry from his victims. This information was establishing an alleged modus operandi, a profile.

September 30, 1983, the confidential source contacted the FBI again with more information about the woman claiming she knew where Joan’s body was dumped. Note: Joan was technically a missing person. There was no evidence of murder at this point.

On October 3, 1983, Palombo ordered a report from marine inspector David Williams on the boat. Williams examined the boat on the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 12[SUP]th[/SUP] and filed a report.

The FBI report dated October 4, 1983, names ADA Tim Burke specifically. He claimed the woman reported by the confidential source was wearing a bracelet identical to Joan’s missing bracelet. The woman is identified from a photo confiscated in the April 25, 1983, search warrant executed by Palombo in the Iannuzzi case. This was the other item allegedly missing from Joan’s recovered purse. Current authorities do not have this photograph. To my knowledge, this bracelet was never recovered. The confidential source claimed missing jewelry in both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. There was no missing jewelry in the Iannuzzi case.

ADA Tim Burke is named in another FBI report dated October 7, 1983. After Burke instigated the bankruptcy fraud charges, SA Steve Broce executed a search warrant on a safety deposit box at the Haymarket Bank. Items confiscated on September 27, 1983 from the box jointly owned by Paradiso and his girlfriend included a silk jewelry pouch that contained a shark’s tooth. Burke claimed an unnamed source identified the pouch from a black and white photo as one like Joan kept her pearls in. Palombo claimed in contemporary news accounts that the purse was selected by an unnamed source from several similar items. Current custodians do not have this photograph.

A contemporary account by former Tr. Dave Moran, corroborated my recollection of continued searches at the pier. Moran was an assigned diver who said teams worked in the waters for the next 2 months using special equipment. Moran indicated nothing found furthered the state’s boat scenario.

During that search period, Burke took his own diver, BPD diver Nick Saggese, to a specific location at the previous mooring area. Burke claimed a confidential source indicated a gun was located in the water. Burke’s diver went down and came back up with a realistic looking replica of a .357 magnum on October 20, 1983. The recovery is recorded in testimony during an Iannuzzi pretrial hearing. The item was not submitted to FBI labs like other items from the boat and pier area. Current authorities do not have documentation regarding the gun. Burke claimed Paradiso used the fake gun to force Joan on the boat. Nothing supports the speculation.

On October 28, 1983, Burke submitted an item he described as glass with a hair attached to it to the FBI lab. Unlike other items submitted, there is no detail of where the item was located or when. The lab labeled the item Q38, debris unsuitable for testing. There were not several shards of glass on the boat as Burke and Palombo reported to the media and filed in papers with the court.

As I reviewed recovered documents, confidential, unnamed, and anonymous sources really stood out as a problem. Nothing in records substantiated speculation about “evidence items.” I will go over all of the evidence, witnesses, and sources in greater detail at a later point.

 

[dotr]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=joan...UIBigB&biw=1366&bih=659#imgrc=RrUPGx-9Pflq6M:
Joan Webster

 

[eve carson]

The 1979 Marie Iannuzzi Case – What I Knew at the Time

George and Eleanor made several extended trips to Boston in 1984. Tim Burke’s case against Paradiso for the Iannuzzi murder was moving forward. The headlines that came in the mail often made me sick.

In March 1984, Burke brought forward several witnesses during a pretrial hearing to establish a pattern of behavior. When these articles arrived, it was the first time I heard of most of these people. The accounts were harrowing.

Patty Bono alleged a 1972 assault in the pier area. She claimed Paradiso threatened to throw her in the ocean where no one would ever find her.

Janet McCarthey was hitch hiking on July 10, 1980, and alleged Paradiso picked her up. She alleged he tried to rape her but she escaped climbing over a sea wall and waving down a motorist.

Constance Porter described her encounter with Paradiso in 1973. She was hitch hiking and said Paradiso picked her up, drove to a remote area in Amherst, and tried to rape her. His account differed, but he was convicted and served time. He was paroled for the offense on May 10, 1978.

Charlene Bullerwell alleged Paradiso boasted he was a hit man for the mob, chopped up bodies, tied cinderblocks to the parts, and sank them in the ocean.

Ralph Anthony Pisa testified he had a private conversation with Paradiso on December 24, 1979 where Paradiso allegedly confided he murdered Marie Iannuzzi. He testified he received a phone call from Paradiso on December 18, 1981, allegedly confessing the murder of Joan Webster.

My perception, like everyone else reading the stories, was Paradiso was a dangerous predator who should be locked away. I learned from recovered records, perceptions are not always reality.

The Iannuzzi trial started on July 9, 1984. The Websters sat in the courtroom during the trial. Media presence reported on the case daily. First the update on the Iannuzzi case, but the stories placed greater emphasis on Joan’s alleged fate.

Eleanor sent clippings daily. The most dramatic account was the testimony of Robert Bond. Webster quotes touted his memory and detail calling him a credible witness.

On July 22, 1984, a jury convicted Paradiso of 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] degree murder and attempted rape of Marie Iannuzzi. He was sentenced on July 25, 1984.
The annual family gathering in Nantucket in August was quiet with very little discussion about Joan or Paradiso. I remember always looking down into the water and envisioning Joan. It was a horrible sense. At the end of our trip, Eleanor requested we stop at the F Barracks at Logan during a layover and introduce ourselves to Andrew Palombo. Joan’s brother Steve was not that willing to trek through the airport, but I insisted.

Palombo was clean cut when I met him. A very big man, 6’4” and 200+ pounds. I thanked him and shook his hand.

 

[jgfitzge]

Hi Eve,

You go into a lot of detail concerning the Ianuzzi case, Lennie Paradiso, Burke and Palumbo. You need an Excel spreadsheet and detailed timeline to keep track of all the LE agencies and characters!!. When I look at Joan Webster's case, as intriguing as the Paradiso/Burke angle is I feel the key to solving this are the days and weeks leading up to her disappearance. So, here it is November 1981, pre-cell phone, low tech era...Let me toss out a few questions surrounding Joan, her family, friends, etc. specifically as it pertains to Autumn, 1981.

Sounds like Joan was in a serious relationship (enough to meet the parents for thanksgiving..) Maybe I am thinking of myself, being in relationships where a girlfriend went out of town, and my friends in relationships as well, but why didn't Joan's boyfriend pick her up at the airport?? Did he know she was returning that night or was it a surprise to him? Maybe, other people are different but, if I was in a serious relationship and my "girl" was returning from out of town, I would be picking her up.

Who booked the return flight? Joan? Her parents?

When was the return flight to Boston booked? Last minute? Before she left Boston or NJ? Answers to these two questions brings me to the obvious question - Who knew Joan would be on that flight coming into Boston?

Did Joan seem distracted or troubled when she was in NJ that weekend or when anyone spoke to her that fall?

She rode down to NJ with her sister, correct? Did her sister sense any trouble? she seem OK?

Point of Confusion, Eve, you mentioned Joan presented or completed this project the Monday before Thanksgiving. If that is the case, why would she need to return a day early to "finish" the project? Was this a different project?

Have you ever spoken to her classmates who worked with her on this project? I assume it was a team project. Were they all on board and/or in agreement about getting together that Sunday to work on the school project?

Back in 1981 could a member of the public call an airline and check to see if someone (by name) was on a particular flight?

Eve, I hope you see my line questioning is key.

Oh, one more thing, Hamilton, MA...odd choice to bury or place a body...it is not one of those town "right off the highway." It is a small "blue blood" town where a stranger would stand out. It is also known as a horse town, riding and polo are big...

 

[eve carson]

Jgfitzge,

You ask very astute questions. I will answer them the best I can. I also ask for your patience as I go through the different aspects of this case. I think you will see where I am going before too long. I approached this case in a different way than it had been examined before. I got different results and found answers. There are very specific reasons to go through the surrounding circumstances that impacted this case.

The last time I saw Joan was during the family's annual gathering in Nantucket in August. Joan was a sweetheart, everyone loved her. She was excited for her 2nd year at Harvard. Joan was not interested in a serious relationship until she finished school. I knew some of the boyfriends she dated. Everyone of them wanted to marry her. All of her relationships at the time were on very friendly and positive terms, even the old beaus no longer dating her.

I found nothing to support Joan planned to meet with classmates on Sunday. She had just presented an 11-week project before the break. If there are any statements supporting that, they are locked in the current custodian's files.

The boyfriend that planned to visit lived in Detroit. He had already completed his MBA. He was not in Boston to pick her up. The fact a visit was planned, I assume the change of plans to go back early was more of a last minute decision. There is no question in my mind, George Webster would have made the reservation. He always took care of all details. This was a very patriarchal family. The flight was probably booked in NJ last minute.

Very few people would have known Joan was on that flight. The family and those her saw her that evening just prior to leaving. When we received the call Joan was missing, George was out of town on a business trip to CA. That would be unusual for him, so if a meeting came up, the rest of the family adjusted schedules to accommodate him. My educated guess is that was the reason for a change in plans.

Contemporary reports all quoted family and friends that Joan was in great spirits over the holiday. School was going well and she was very excited about the recent project. The family went to the homes of two friends on the 28th before taking Joan to Newark Airport. These were small cocktail parties with parents and their kids, the friends Joan grew up with. Police interviewed people at those parties and all reported Joan was her usual bubbly self, all positive. Joan spoke to a few passengers on her flight. Again, she was very upbeat and happy.

There was a dedication for Joan at Harvard on May 28, 1985. I met a lot of her classmates. Everyone was so stunned by her disappearance, but no one indicated she was supposed to meet them. I was not local during all of this, so it was hard to reach people.

Joan was confirmed on the flight by eyewitness and flight roster. Back then you probably could call and confirm a name on a flight, but you would have to know the airline and flight to check.

Hamilton is 30 miles north of the alleged crime scene. It made no sense at all that is where she was found. The woman who found the skull on her property was a vet. Her husband actually came under scrutiny at one point. The woman had a nervous break down and lost her practice. This case has had a very destructive impact on a lot of lives.

As I began reviewing documents, I started to look at certain individuals closely. One individual lived in proximity to Hamilton and it is reasonable he knew the area. I am stepping everyone through to get there. A criminal investigator I met at a conference helped me work through a mental map of an offender. The pieces fit.

 

[eve carson]

Reviewing the 1979 Marie Iannuzzi Murder

In order to fully understand Joan’s investigation, I had to really examine the Iannuzzi case. Joan’s case was never charged or tried. But the same prosecutor and lead cop teamed on the Iannuzzi case accused the same suspect of her murder. Three witnesses alleged Paraadiso was guilty of both crimes. This will take a few posts to lay it out clearly.

Andrew Palombo testified during the Iannuzzi pretrial and trial, he became the lead cop on the Iannuzzi case in February 1981. That is a very important point. He had the case files. Remember, Palombo was teamed with ADA Burke after the Webster meeting at Harvard in February 1982. The Iannuzzi case is a critical component to understand Joan’s case because it became the focus after that meeting based on the anonymous call from Patty Bono.

Marie Iannuzzi, 20, attended a wedding on August 11, 1979, with her boyfriend David Doyle. Doyle was the groom’s cousin. Leonard Paradiso attended the same wedding with his girlfriend Candace Weyant. The reception took place at the Ship Restaurant. The party was shifting to the groom’s parents’ home in Saugus. Doyle and Marie got into an argument in front of guests at the Ship. Doyle had ripped his pants and wanted to go home. Marie wanted to go to the party. Doyle’s mother pulled him away from the argument and David went home with his parents. Marie went on to the party in Saugus. Recovered records indicated Marie rode to the party with some of Doyle’s cousins.
Paradiso rode in his girlfriend’s car to the party.

Marie was intoxicated and the groom’s father wanted her to leave. She was making a scene. She refused a ride from the priest and declined the offer of a cab. Candace Weyant agreed to give Marie a ride. Instead of going home, Marie asked to be dropped off at the Cardinale’s Nest Bar, 2 blocks from her apartment, and half an hour away from the party in Saugus. Candace returned to the party in Saugus around 11 pm.
Paradiso and his girlfriend left the party and found some items in the car belonging to Marie. They went to the bar where Paradiso returned the items and offered Marie a ride home. She declined. When Candace and Paradiso got to his place, they found keys in the car they assumed must be Marie’s. They returned to the bar a 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] time to return a set of keys that had the name tag “Day” on them. Marie’s step siblings had the last name Day.

Marie declined a ride and said she had an appointment. She told a friend to wait, she would be back in a half hour. Marie left the bar sometime between 12:30 and 1 am on August 12, 1979. Paradiso held the door for her and watched her walk around the corner and out of sight. Candace drove Paradiso home, had a cup of tea, and then went home.


This was the account both Paradiso and his girlfriend gave authorities. Recovered documents support their account. It is not the scenario ADA brought forward through the informant Robert Bond.


Marie was supposed to go her parents’ home on the 12[SUP]th[/SUP] for her father’s birthday. She did not show up. Boaters on the Pine River found her body on a rocky embankment of the Pine River around 4 pm Sunday afternoon. Marie’s clothing was intact based on autopsy photos. Cause of death was strangulation by a garrote double knotted in the back. Rigor mortis had set in when she was found. Her hands were in a clawed position with long fingernails protruding.

Marie’s mother, driving home after a third shift on Monday morning, heard the description on the radio. She picked up Marie’s sister Jean and went to the Doyle’s house. David’s startled mother held her hands to her face and said “Oh, dear God.” The three went to the third floor to talk to David.

David went to the Iannuzzi home. The police arrived and Doyle went with Marie’s father and brother-in-law Tony Leonti to the morgue to identify the body. It was Marie.

Reviewing what happened in this case was essential to understand Joan’s investigation. The same prosecutor, lead cop, and suspect were involved. The case was entangled with Joan’s investigation in the media. I was able to learn the methods and conduct of the state’s officials to achieve an objective.

 

[eve carson]

Witness - Patty Bono

The next several posts will introduce you to some of the witnesses ADA Tim Burke brought forward in his pursuit of Paradiso.

Patty Bono grew up in the North End of Boston with Leonard Paradiso and Carmen Tammaro, an MSP officer involved in Joan’s investigation, and Palombo’s superior. Bono placed the anonymous call to the Saugus PD on or about January 19, 1982, alleging Paradiso murdered Marie Iannuzzi and Joan Webster. She testified at the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing that began on March 5, 1984.

This is the “lead” authorities pursued under the radar for more than a year. The lead they ignored was a firsthand witness that provided a description of a man with Joan at Logan.

Captain Peters of the Saugus PD affirmed the call in news accounts after the Bond allegations made headlines in January 1983, a year later. ADA Burke affirmed Bono contacted authorities in court records at a sidebar during Bono’s testimony. Bono herself affirmed she placed the call.

Bono alleged Paradiso assaulted her in 1972 in a car near the pier area. According to Bono, Paradiso pulled a gun from the glove compartment and pressed it to her head. She claimed she had broken bones in her face from the assault. Bono testified Paradiso threatened to dump her in the ocean where no one would ever find her. Bono suggests she talked her way out of a bad situation.

The story furthered the speculation authorities promoted about Joan’s fate. Bono did not provide detail of Marie or Joan’s cases.

Bono offered no corroborating information to support her allegations. No medical reports from a doctor or ER and no police reports were filed. According to Bono, she turned to some “wise guys” in the NE to settle the score. In testimony under oath, she named Tony Rome and Willie Fopiano. No one was available to testify to corroborate her story. I can’t find Tony Rome anywhere. Fopiano was a known figure in the NE. He wrote a book about his experiences. The summer Bono claims he beat up Paradiso to defend her honor, Fopiano had a serious break in his arm from a school yard scuffle with drug pushers. After surgery, he was in a cast and had a target on his back from rivals in the NE. He laid low. Fopiano detailed experiences during that time. There is no reference to Bono, Paradiso, or even Tony Rome. She didn’t come forward with any allegations until 10 years later in 1972 when Joan’s case was a hot topic in the media.

This was an era of vendettas in the NE. Nothing supports Bono’s story Paradiso threatened her within an inch of her life. The allegations were not substantiated as credible versus a recent contrivance. However, Burke and Palombo continued to represent the assertions as fact in documents filed with the court.

Patty Bono, the first person to link Paradiso to Joan, is not credible.

 

[eve carson]

Witness – Charlene Bullerwell

Andrew Palombo confiscated a photograph of Charlene Bullerwell during the April 25, 1983, search warrant executed under the Iannuzzi case. She signed it on the back apparently identifying the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] name. Palombo was the lead on the Iannuzzi case and it is reasonable to conclude he controlled the case files.

A “confidential source” informed the FBI about a woman named Charlene. The source indicated Paradiso lavished jewelry on her possibly from Paradiso’s victims. The FBI report indicated jewelry was missing in both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. Note: There was no missing jewelry in the Iannuzzi case. The identity of the source is limited by those with access to this information under Palombo’s control.

Tim Burke, partnered with Palombo, is named in the FBI report claiming the photographed woman is wearing a bracelet just like the bracelet Joan owned. Note: This was a one-of-a-kind bracelet. To my knowledge it was never recovered. The FBI report prior to locating Charlene suggests the nature of her testimony. The confidential source indicated Charlene knew where Joan’s body was dumped. Note: Current custodians of Joan's case do not have the photo.
The FBI identified and interviewed Charlene Bullerwell. Bullerwell testified on two occasions. First, she testified on February 16, 1984, in a grand jury seated for the federal bankruptcy case ADA Burke instigated. Bullerwell testified she went out with Paradiso on a handful of occasions in 1980 and 1981. She testified one time Paradiso gave her a jewelry item. She indicated Paradiso took it back to have a loop put on it so it could hang from a chain. I am not going into greater detail about the item, because I currently have an outstanding FOIA appeal that may be relevant. The item described was not the missing bracelet.

Bullerwell testified Paradiso told her about plans to sink his boat for insurance. She identified a couple of possible locations the boat might have been sunk. The boat recovered on September 27, 1983, was widely reported and the location was public knowledge prior to locating this witness. Bullerwell testified Paradiso threatened her if she told anyone about the plans to sink his boat. She had been on the boat on two occasions, the last being around Labor Day 1980. She drew a diagram of the boat for two FBI agents that came to interview her. The last time she saw Paradiso was out shopping in December 1981. It was a “hello and goodbye” kind of encounter. This was a secret grand jury session unknown to the public.

Burke and the confidential source made false representations to federal authorities about this witness.

Bullerwell testified again in March 6, 1984, during the Iannuzzi pretrial. Her testimony in front of the media was much more dramatic. SA Steve Broce was identified as one of the agents that interviewed her. The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] individual present was not identified, but Palombo indicated in numerous documents filed with the court, he worked on the insurance matter. Bullerwell testified she was pressured by the FBI. She had not told anyone about her conversations with Paradiso prior to the FBI interview, however, the report filed before she was found indicated what her testimony would be.

She did not testify she knew where Joan’s body was dumped. She testified Paradiso claimed to be a hit man for the mob, he chopped up bodies, tied cinder blocks to the parts, and sank them in the ocean. When this headline hit my kitchen table, I got physically sick. The allegations correspond with documentation of MSP interviews with Robert Bond. Allegedly, this conversation took place before she went on Paradiso’s boat with her son in the fall of 1980.

Bullerwell testified she had consensual relations with Paradiso. There was no force, no weapon, or alleged assault.

The public testimony furthered the state’s promoted boat theory that Joan was dumped at sea.

Bullerwell is on the record again on July 12, 1984, during the Iannuzzi trial. She refused to testify. In a lobby conference with Judge Roger Donahue, she indicated she had memory loss. However, she had no problem remembering the promises made by authorities of money and help moving. Burke’s attempt to seat her during the Iannuzzi trial had no relevance in Marie’s case.

Burke sharply contradicts the relationship between Bullerwell and Paradiso. He publicly represents Paradiso was aggressive slamming Bullerwell up against a wall on the boat when he could not perform. He suggests Paradiso slammed his car into other vehicles on the docks when Bullerwell was in the car with her son. Her testimony contradicts Burke’s representations of assault.

Burke’s assertions of assault, when the witness testified to the contrary, was a very big red flag. It is offensive and reprehensible to fabricate assault or sexual assault allegations. There are real victims that have to deal with those issues.

Burke put forward a pressured witness to perpetuate a false story.

 

[eve carson]

Witness – Janet McCarthy

Another witness Burke brought forward during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing on March 6, 1984, was Janet McCarthy. Janet was hitchhiking in the NE on July 10, 1980, trying to get a ride to the bars in Revere, MA. She did get into a car with someone and was driven to the edge of Winthrop where the driver tried to assault her. She escaped the car, climbed a sea wall, flagged a motorist, and filed a police report.

McCarthy and her mother heard about Paradiso on the news in February 1983. As usual, the Webster reward money was always part of the story. McCarthy contacted the police. Recovered records document Palombo interviewed the witness on multiple occasions.

During the pretrial, she identified Paradiso as the man who picked her up in a yellow 2 door car. Burke even showed her a picture obtained from Paradiso’s photo albums confiscated under the April 25, 1983, Iannuzzi s,search warrant. She claimed he drove to a spot near the water and tried to assault her. She testified she was bleeding from her lip, and had a torn dress. Under oath, she said she escaped the car and climbed the wall. McCarthy alleged, Paradiso was the first car to stop and he drove off laughing. She then allegedly got a ride from 2 motorists who took her to their place to freshen up, and then took her to the Winthrop PD.

McCarthy testified Palombo and another unnamed officer drove her right to the spot where the attempted assault took place. She did not even have to guide them. She described the plain white sea wall.

Recovered documents affirm Palombo worked with this witness and it is reasonable to assume he had access to the police report filed on July 10, 1980. The allegations fit the pattern authorities alleged against Paradiso. It added more fuel to the speculation of Joan’s fate.

Palombo also testified during the Iannuzzi pretrial. There were subtle differences in the testimony. Palombo indicated McCarthy gave him turn by turn directions to the site. This was in 1983, 2 ½ years after the incident. He said they arrived at the sea wall covered with graffiti. The location they arrived at was down the road from where Paradiso lived at the time in Revere.

Now for the actual police report filed by Det. Sgt. James Russo of the Revere PD.

Revere police were called to Winthrop and interviewed McCarthy at 1:20 am on an attempted rape. McCarthy identified the vehicle she entered as a large white 4-door, fairly new, with a dark interior and dealer plates. She escaped the car and jumped the wall. A car driven by Joseph Alvoarra, Jr. picked her up and drove her to the Winthrop Police Station. The police noted McCarthy had been drinking and there were inconsistencies in her statement.

The allegations McCarthy testified during the Iannuzzi trial, after working with Palombo, were inconsistent with the police report. The vehicle description changed to one resembling a photo found in Paradiso’s album. One individual picked her up, not two. There is no indication Paradiso was in the first vehicle that stopped, and then drove off laughing. She did not freshen up before going to the police station.

In 1986, this case went to trial. Paradiso was convicted of attempted rape and had several years tacked on to other sentences. During the trial, Russo testified the case was taken over by Palombo. He testified McCarthy was disheveled and had a scraped knee. The defense noted the prosecution handled out of Suffolk County, the same office as Tim Burke, withheld evidence about the plates on the car. A vehicle registration of one of Paradiso’s car submitted as evidence listed yellow because of the limited choices to describe a bronze colored car. Regardless, he did not own that vehicle at the time. The photo of the yellow vehicle was a picture of a car owned by Paradiso’s brother at one time. He never drive the vehicle. Palombo also testified in the 1986 trial supporting the version from the Iannuzzi pretrial.

Palombo’s “persuasion” piled other allegations on Paradiso. Altering the events was an exploitation of a victim, and obstructed putting McCarthy’s real offender behind bars.

 

[eve carson]

Iannuzzi Trial – Overview – 1984
It may not seem so quite yet, but this is very important to resolving Joan’s case.
It is not necessary to go through the Iannuzzi trial blow by blow. It is instructive however, to bring out certain significant points.
Paradiso’s attorney argued another culprit defense. David Doyle, Marie’s boyfriend was the other suspect identified in Marie’s murder. The evidence in the records pointing to Doyle were significant. Some other individuals will be profiled after this post.
The couple had a known abusive relationship. Marie was an out-of-work waitress. Marie and Doyle were both known drug users. They lived together on the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] floor of his parent’s home in East Boston.
Doyle and Marie had a heated argument in front of wedding guests at the reception on August 11, 1979. Doyle went home with his parents. Marie went to an after party in Saugus. Family and friends knew the relationship was in trouble. Marie was seeing another guy while she lived with Doyle. Doyle had a significant rap sheet; he had trouble with the law.
When a body was found, Marie’s mother and sister went to the Doyle’s home. They noticed Marie’s belongings packed before the body was identified. Doyle was out of it. He went to the Iannuzzi home while they waited for the police. Jean Day, Marie’s sister previously testified Doyle sat on his hands in the kitchen. When he stood up, she noticed long scratches across the top of both hands. Doyle initially told police a cat caused the scratches. However, another Iannuzzi sister, Cathy Leonti, previously testified the cat ran away 2 months before the murder. Doyle’s mother told police the scratches were a result of a car accident that happened in June.
During the grand jury in 1982, Marie’s uncle described the scratches as wide, deep, oozing gouges dug from the wrist to the fingers. During the trial Burke tried to argue the age of the scratches. It was incredibly offensive like he was picking scabs. However, the uncle, Benjamin Puzzo, did make a very revealing statement. He said the scratches were covered with mercurochrome. For those of you not old enough to remember that, it was an orange red antiseptic you put on fresh wounds to prevent infection.
Family members went to the apartment to pick out a dress for the wake. They noticed a drop that appeared to be blood on the steps.
After the wakes, Doyle took off and took a flight to NJ. He was arrested stealing from suitcases at Newark Airport. He was in possession of a stolen ticket from La Guardia to Boston. He gave police a false name. He missed the funeral where he was supposed to be a pall bearer.
During the trial, Doyle and his mother both gave new explanations for the scratches. His mother claimed he was working for Metro and fell off the platform. Doyle suggested he went to a bar after the wake and got into a bar brawl. The twists in the explanation really reached an absurd level.
There was a prior incident the end of May or early June 1979. Marie and Doyle had an argument and Doyle grabbed her by the neck. This was a prior act that multiple witnesses described during previous testimony. Marie had strangulation marks on her neck and went to a friend’s house for a few days. During the trial, the testimony of Christine DeLisi changed. A sworn affidavit submitted during an appeal of the Iannuzzi case from a neighbor of DeLisi stated she was threatened by the prosecutor and police. She was threatened with never seeing her children again. The judge disallowed testimony from Anna Marie Kenney about the incident.
Palombo also testified. He indicated he did not consider Doyle a suspect. He testified he met with Doyle 20-30 times in undocumented meetings. He claimed Doyle came to him to report what he heard on the street.
Burke’s argument was Paradiso was the last person seen with Marie alive. He relied on witness Christime DeLisi.whose testimony changed from the grand jury to the trial. Christine did not wait at the bar to see if Marie returned. Palombo had the police report in case files naming four individuals that saw Marie back in the bar between 1:30 am and the 2 am closing.
Bar patron Carol Seracuse read from the police report taken at the time of the incident stating she saw Marie at 1:30 am, well after Christing DeLisi saw Paradiso hold the door for Marie. Burke went ballistic objecting. The judge disallowed the police report and upheld the objection. Seracuse did not have a current recollection of the time.
Marie’s stepsister Jean Day arrived at the courthouse on July 18, 1984. She had been in hiding, authorities could not find her. In the morning, the defense investigator Dennis Slawsby interviewed her. Her testimony was consistent with her grand jury testimony in 1982. She implicated the boyfriend David Doyle. After the interview, Burke and Palombo escorted her down the hall. An hour later, she got on the stand and changed her testimony. The defense counsel stopped the proceeding, but the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution.
Burke revealed in a lobby conference Day had been assaulted. He indicated Palombo knew when and they had photos. Jean had broken bones in her face. Slawsby gave a sworn statement. Jean’s neighbor also gave a sworn statement that she was pressured by the prosecutor and law enforcement. Both were submitted to the court during the Iannuzzi appeal.
The state’s case relied largely on the testimony of two witnesses, both convicted murderers. Robert Bond was the star witness. Bond placed Paradiso at the Cardinale’s Nest Bar at 11 pm on August 11, 1979, with the victim. He placed Paradiso’s girlfriend at home in Revere. This was based on an alleged confession at the Charles Street Jail. I will profile Bond in a later post.
The defense put Vincent Milano on the stand the next day, July 17, 1984. Milano was the groom’s brother and was at his parent’s home after the wedding. He left their house in Saugus around 11 pm. He testified the crowd was thinning out. Paradiso and his girlfriend were still at his parent’s home. Marie Iannuzzi was not there. A first hand witness placed Paradiso half an hour away contradicting the state’s witness Robert Bond.
Under Gov. Dukakis, MA had a very lenient furlough policy. Pisa, a convicted killer once on death row, had a holiday pass with his family in 1979. Pisa trained himself as a jailhouse lawyer. He did some work for a Boston attorney. He knew Paradiso in prison years before. Paradiso came to the attorney’s home to bring a bucket of lobsters. The attorney had previously done work for Paradiso. Pisa claimed he had a private discussion with Paradiso on the front porch and confessed he murdered Marie. Nothing corroborated the allegation.
Candace Weyant was Paradiso’s alibi for the night in question. Burke had already charged her as an accessory. She was sentenced in contempt of court in the Joan Webster grand jury. She later received immunity. Burke implicated her in the bankruptcy mail fraud case he instigated. Burke used testimony from Joan’s grand jury to impeach her. He did not provide it to the defense during discovery. The grand jury testimony related to the boat, the alleged crime scene of Joan’s murder.
A lobby conference revealed a predetermined bias. Judge Donahue cut several exculpatory reports from the jury’s consideration.
I could go on and on in this case with the problems evident in recovered records. Evidence in the records is overwhelming ruling out human error or gross incompetence of authorities.
Recovered documents support this was a wrongful conviction.

 

[eve carson]

Iannuzzi Trial – Overview – 1984

It may not seem so quite yet, but this is very important to resolving Joan’s case.

It is not necessary to go through the Iannuzzi trial blow by blow. It is instructive however, to bring out certain significant points.
Paradiso’s attorney argued another culprit defense. David Doyle, Marie’s boyfriend was the other suspect identified in Marie’s murder. The evidence in the records pointing to Doyle were significant. Some other individuals will be profiled after this post.

The couple had a known abusive relationship. Marie was an out-of-work waitress. Marie and Doyle were both known drug users. They lived together on the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] floor of his parent’s home in East Boston.

Doyle and Marie had a heated argument in front of wedding guests at the reception on August 11, 1979. Doyle went home with his parents. Marie went to an after party in Saugus. Family and friends knew the relationship was in trouble. Marie was seeing another guy while she lived with Doyle. Doyle had a significant rap sheet; he had trouble with the law.

When a body was found, Marie’s mother and sister went to the Doyle’s home. They noticed Marie’s belongings packed before the body was identified. Doyle was out of it. He went to the Iannuzzi home while they waited for the police. Jean Day, Marie’s stepsister, previously testified Doyle sat on his hands in the kitchen. When he stood up, she noticed long scratches across the top of both hands.

Doyle initially told police a cat caused the scratches. However, another Iannuzzi sister, Cathy Leonti, previously testified the cat ran away 2 months before the murder. Doyle’s mother told police the scratches were a result of a car accident that happened in June.

During the grand jury in 1982, Marie’s uncle described the scratches as wide, deep, oozing gouges dug from the wrist to the fingers. During the trial Burke tried to argue the age of the scratches. It was incredibly offensive like he was picking scabs. However, the uncle, Benjamin Puzzo, did make a very revealing statement. He said the scratches were covered with mercurochrome. For those of you not old enough to remember that, it was an orange red antiseptic you put on fresh wounds to prevent infection.

Family members went to the apartment to pick out a dress for the wake. They noticed a drop that appeared to be blood on the steps.
After the wakes, Doyle took off and took a flight to NJ. He was arrested stealing from suitcases at Newark Airport. He was in possession of a stolen ticket from La Guardia to Boston. He gave police a false name. He missed the funeral where he was supposed to be a pall bearer.

During the trial, Doyle and his mother both gave new explanations for the scratches. His mother claimed he was working for Metro and fell off the platform. Doyle suggested he went to a bar after the wake and got into a bar brawl. The twists in the explanation really reached an absurd level.

There was a prior incident the end of May or early June 1979. Marie and Doyle had an argument and Doyle grabbed her by the neck. This was a prior act that multiple witnesses described during previous testimony. Marie had strangulation marks on her neck and went to a friend’s house for a few days. During the trial, the testimony of Christine DeLisi changed. A sworn affidavit submitted during an appeal of the Iannuzzi case from a neighbor of DeLisi stated she was threatened by the prosecutor and police. She was threatened with never seeing her children again. The judge disallowed testimony from Anna Marie Kenney about the incident.

Palombo also testified. He indicated he did not consider Doyle a suspect. He testified he met with Doyle 20-30 times in undocumented meetings. He claimed Doyle came to him to report what he heard on the street.

Burke’s argument was Paradiso was the last person seen with Marie alive. He relied on witness Christime DeLisi.whose testimony changed from the grand jury to the trial. Christine did not wait at the bar to see if Marie returned. Palombo had the police reports in case files naming four individuals that saw Marie back in the bar between 1:30 am and the 2 am closing.

Bar patron Carol Seracuse read from the police report taken at the time of the incident stating she saw Marie at 1:30 am, well after Christine DeLisi saw Paradiso hold the door for Marie. Burke went ballistic objecting. The judge disallowed the police report and upheld the objection. Seracuse did not have a current recollection of the time.

Marie’s stepsister Jean Day arrived at the courthouse on July 18, 1984. She had been in hiding, authorities could not find her. In the morning, the defense investigator Dennis Slawsby interviewed her. Her testimony was consistent with her grand jury testimony in 1982. She implicated the boyfriend David Doyle. After the interview, Burke and Palombo escorted her down the hall. An hour later, she got on the stand and changed her testimony. The defense counsel stopped the proceeding, but the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution.
Burke revealed in a lobby conference Day had been assaulted. He indicated Palombo knew when and they had photos. Jean had broken bones in her face. Slawsby gave a sworn statement. Jean’s neighbor also gave a sworn statement that she was pressured by the prosecutor and law enforcement. Both were submitted to the court during the Iannuzzi appeal.

The state’s case relied largely on the testimony of two witnesses, both convicted murderers. Robert Bond was the star witness. Bond placed Paradiso at the Cardinale’s Nest Bar at 11 pm on August 11, 1979, with the victim. He placed Paradiso’s girlfriend at home in Revere. This was based on an alleged confession at the Charles Street Jail. I will profile Bond in a later post.

The defense put Vincent Milano on the stand the next day, July 17, 1984. Milano was the groom’s brother and was at his parent’s home after the wedding. He left their house in Saugus around 11 pm. He testified the crowd was thinning out. Paradiso and his girlfriend were still at his parent’s home. Marie Iannuzzi was not there. A first hand witness placed Paradiso half an hour away contradicting the state’s witness Robert Bond.

Under Gov. Dukakis, MA had a very lenient furlough policy. Pisa, a convicted killer once on death row, had a holiday pass with his family in 1979. Pisa trained himself as a jailhouse lawyer. He did some work for a Boston attorney. He knew Paradiso in prison years before. Paradiso came to the attorney’s home when Pisa was there to bring a bucket of lobsters. The attorney had previously done work for Paradiso. Pisa claimed he had a private discussion with Paradiso on the front porch and confessed he murdered Marie. Nothing corroborated the allegation.

Candace Weyant was Paradiso’s alibi for the night in question. Burke had already charged her as an accessory. She was sentenced in contempt of court in the Joan Webster grand jury. She later received immunity. Burke implicated her in the bankruptcy mail fraud case he instigated. Burke used testimony from Joan’s grand jury to impeach her. He did not provide it to the defense during discovery. The grand jury testimony related to the boat, the alleged crime scene of Joan’s murder.

A lobby conference revealed a predetermined bias. Judge Donahue cut several exculpatory reports from the jury’s consideration.

I could go on and on in this case with the problems evident in recovered records. Evidence in the records is overwhelming ruling out human error or gross incompetence of authorities.

Recovered documents support this was a wrongful conviction.

 

[eve carson]

The Starting Point to Find Joan’s Killer

Let me recap.

1. Authorities suppress a composite in December 1981.
2. An unsubstantiated anonymous call to Saugus PD in January 1982, made by a woman that grew up with an officer involved in Joan’s investigation, implicated Paradiso for the Iannuzzi murder and Joan’s disappearance.
3. The Websters called a high powered meeting in February 1982. The offices involved Middlesex DAO (Harvard), Essex DAO (Iannuzzi case), and Suffolk DAO (Tim Burke’s office). Also present were the Harvard Campus PD, Saugus PD, Superintendent of Public Safety, MSP from each DA, and MSP from F Barracks at Logan (Palombo and Tammaro).
4. ADA Burke and Palombo were paired after the Webster meeting to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case. He is an identified suspect in the Iannuzzi case. Grand juries began in March 1982.
5. Authorities implicate Paradiso internally in Joan’s case as early as March 1982.
6. Burke gains an indictment after changing the target name in the grand jury to John Doe.
7. The state comes up with an informant several months after the Paradiso indictment to claim a “break” in Joan’s case. Conveniently, his allegations cover both cases.
8. Palombo obtains a search warrant under the Iannuzzi case only seeking items that fit the state’s allegations regarding Joan.
9. Recovered documents support a serious level of misconduct during the Iannuzzi trial.
10. Burke gains a conviction.

This is the starting point to find out what happened to Joan. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen to go after Paradiso for Joan’s loss. The level of misconduct evident in records is substantial. It is not reasonable to consider it error or gross incompetence. You will see more of what I mean as I start moving through Joan’s case in more detail. There is no reason to believe the same authorities involved in Joan’s investigation, at the same time, conducted themselves in a professional and ethical manner. In fact, the same concerning methods appeared in Joan’s investigation.

The level of misconduct I found in recovered records was staggering, and made the entire process of understanding what happened to Joan even more painful. The lack of regard or respect for a victim, loved ones, those hurt by this investigation, and public safety demonstrated no value for human life. Even one bad apple in a department puts dedicated professionals and the public at risk.

Bringing forward evidence of misconduct is a different challenge altogether than identifying the culprit. Misconduct obstructed the path to the truth. This layer had to be peeled back to get to the root of the problem. Concerns raised with current authorities are supported with verified documents. As I get deeper into Joan’s case, the obstacles will become clearer.

Joan’s murder is solvable.

 

[eve carson]

The next few entries will go over the “evidence” presented by authorities during the investigation into Joan’s loss. This information was represented to the courts, other agencies such as the FBI, and in some cases, to the media.

The “Evidence” - Maya: Monuments of Civilization by Pierre Ivanoff

Palombo confiscated a book under the Iannuzzi search warrant on April 25, 1983. The book was submitted on numerous occasions to the FBI lab for fingerprint analysis. Authorities represented the book as Joan’s textbook.

The lab did find a print of Paradiso’s in the book; no prints belonging to Joan. The FBI results were reported on November 24, 1982, before Robert Bond surfaced. Burke did not reveal this fact and claimed Paradiso wiped it down, a tedious task. Among Joan’s belongings, authorities claimed they found a receipt from the MIT bookstore. They did not disclose the date of the receipt or what it was for, just the fact that she had shopped there at some point in time. No surprise. The MIT bookstore carried the Maya book, according to Burke, at some point in time. Again, there is no specificity of the date or what edition of the book they carried.

The specific book recovered has the publisher’s imprint of Grosset and Dunlap on the spine. The book measures 9 3/4” x 13” x 1 1/4” and weighs over 8 pounds. The coffee table book was out of print in 1975, six years before Joan’s flight. In 1981, the ability to obtain this book would have been extremely difficult. Harvard was not likely to require a white elephant “textbook” that students could not find. The book has little to no architectural value. It has glossy photos of ancient Mayan culture.

The item is listed in documents filed with the courts. It is listed in FBI lab reports. The inference Burke and Palombo promoted was Paradiso was in possession of an item belonging to Joan. Obviously, if the item could be established as Joan’s, authorities had cause to indict Paradiso. This was a basic exercise in fact checking, something proper investigation had the ability to do. Current custodians do have the book in their possession.

This is misrepresented “evidence.”

 

[eve carson]

The “Evidence” – Jewelry Pouch

On July 27, 1983, SA Steve Broce executed a search warrant on a safety deposit box at Haymarket Bank. This was in connection to the federal bankruptcy charges Burke instigated. Paradiso and his girlfriend jointly held the box. Recovered items are listed in FBI reports. Authorities represented one item as Joan’s purse or jewelry pouch.

Burke reported to federal authorities that a black and white photo was identified by one of Joan’s former roommates as something Joan kept her pearls in. The supposed witness was unnamed. Joan resided in a single room at Perkins Hall. She was a dorm proctor. Roommates prior to her return to graduate school would have gone back two years when Joan shared an apartment in NYC. Prior to that, the only other roommates would have been at her sorority during her undergrad at Syracuse.

Palombo represented to the media that an unnamed witness picked the pouch out from a group of items.

Burke’s misrepresentation to federal authorities during an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of US Code.

The suggestion of a black and white photo would have concealed the color making any alleged identification unreliable unless such witness could describe it. It is unclear if Palombo suggests someone actually picked out the pouch. If the item could be identified as Joan’s, the state had cause to indict Paradiso.

In reality, the red silk pouch was part of a three piece set. The actual owner maintained the two other pieces and the box the set came in. Paradiso used the item to sheath a prized shark’s tooth he kept in the safety deposit box. Identification of the item was routine police work in a legitimate investigation.

FBI reports conducted tests on the item. The results were negative connecting this item to Joan.

Current custodians of Joan’s case do NOT have this photograph for comparison or to support Burke’s claim.


This is misrepresented “evidence.”

 

[eve carson]

The “Evidence” – The Bracelet

As a member of the immediate family, I was aware there was a missing bracelet. This was not known to the public. Allegedly, the one-of-a-kind bracelet was missing from Joan’s purse that was found on December 2, 1981. To my knowledge, the bracelet was never recovered.

Palombo recovered a photo of a woman in Paradiso’s albums during the Iannuzzi search on April 25, 1983. The photo was signed on the back. An FBI report dated October 4, 1983, documents a “confidential source” contacting the FBI to locate a woman named Charlene. The source indicates Paradiso lavished women with jewelry possibly from his victims. The report states jewelry is missing in both the Iannuzzi case and Joan. This is a false representation; there was no missing jewelry in the Iannuzzi case.

The results of a safety deposit box search on July 27, 1983, did not yield any such items.

The “confidential source” also informed the FBI about the nature of her testimony, before finding and interviewing her. The source stated the photographed woman knew where Joan’s body was dumped. I have already profiled the woman, Charlene Bullerwell. She testified to chopped buddies dumped at sea. That is not where Joan was found.

ADA Tim Burke is specifically named in the FBI report. Burke claimed Bullerwell is photographed in a bracelet that looks identical to Joan’s. False reporting to federal authorities during an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of US Code.

The report states the boat is a critical element for both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. Note: The boat is NOT an element of the Iannuzzi case. The cases were being enmeshed. Palombo was the lead officer on both cases.

Who had access to the photo? Palombo and Burke

Who had information related to the Iannuzzi case? Palombo and Burke. A fact check of the Iannuzzi files in Palombo’s possession would quickly rectify the false report of missing jewelry in the Iannuzzi case.

Who instigated the federal probe? Burke

The FBI report identifies Burke and it is reasonable to conclude the source is Palombo based on the limited number of people with access to information about the photo, and other similar representations made by a "confidential source.".

Bullerwell was not in possession of Joan’s bracelet. If that had been the case, authorities had cause to indict Paradiso. Joan was not dumped in Boston Harbor.

Current custodians do NOT have the photo of Charlene Bullerwell for identification of the bracelet.

There is a current FOIA appeal regarding documents the custodian does have related to the bracelet.

This is FALSE reporting to federal authorities during an ongoing criminal investigation, a violation of US Code.

 

[jgfitzge]

Jgfitzge,

You ask very astute questions. I will answer them the best I can. I also ask for your patience as I go through the different aspects of this case. I think you will see where I am going before too long. I approached this case in a different way than it had been examined before. I got different results and found answers. There are very specific reasons to go through the surrounding circumstances that impacted this case.

The last time I saw Joan was during the family's annual gathering in Nantucket in August. Joan was a sweetheart, everyone loved her. She was excited for her 2nd year at Harvard. Joan was not interested in a serious relationship until she finished school. I knew some of the boyfriends she dated. Everyone of them wanted to marry her. All of her relationships at the time were on very friendly and positive terms, even the old beaus no longer dating her.

I found nothing to support Joan planned to meet with classmates on Sunday. She had just presented an 11-week project before the break. If there are any statements supporting that, they are locked in the current custodian's files.

The boyfriend that planned to visit lived in Detroit. He had already completed his MBA. He was not in Boston to pick her up. The fact a visit was planned, I assume the change of plans to go back early was more of a last minute decision. There is no question in my mind, George Webster would have made the reservation. He always took care of all details. This was a very patriarchal family. The flight was probably booked in NJ last minute.

Very few people would have known Joan was on that flight. The family and those her saw her that evening just prior to leaving. When we received the call Joan was missing, George was out of town on a business trip to CA. That would be unusual for him, so if a meeting came up, the rest of the family adjusted schedules to accommodate him. My educated guess is that was the reason for a change in plans.

Contemporary reports all quoted family and friends that Joan was in great spirits over the holiday. School was going well and she was very excited about the recent project. The family went to the homes of two friends on the 28th before taking Joan to Newark Airport. These were small cocktail parties with parents and their kids, the friends Joan grew up with. Police interviewed people at those parties and all reported Joan was her usual bubbly self, all positive. Joan spoke to a few passengers on her flight. Again, she was very upbeat and happy.

There was a dedication for Joan at Harvard on May 28, 1985. I met a lot of her classmates. Everyone was so stunned by her disappearance, but no one indicated she was supposed to meet them. I was not local during all of this, so it was hard to reach people.

Joan was confirmed on the flight by eyewitness and flight roster. Back then you probably could call and confirm a name on a flight, but you would have to know the airline and flight to check.

Hamilton is 30 miles north of the alleged crime scene. It made no sense at all that is where she was found. The woman who found the skull on her property was a vet. Her husband actually came under scrutiny at one point. The woman had a nervous break down and lost her practice. This case has had a very destructive impact on a lot of lives.

As I began reviewing documents, I started to look at certain individuals closely. One individual lived in proximity to Hamilton and it is reasonable he knew the area. I am stepping everyone through to get there. A criminal investigator I met at a conference helped me work through a mental map of an offender. The pieces fit.

Hi Eve, So, if I could summarize and ask a few more questions. If , as you describe, only a few family members would have known about Joan’s flight, what happened at the airport is puzzling.

So, according to all friends, relatives, etc. Joan was in good spirits and no one noticed any trouble or distractions. And, there was no project or other students expecting to work with Joan on a school project that Sunday? So, the real reason she went back early was because her father was not going to be around on Sunday? Unless there is a different family dynamic going on with the Webster’s that doesn't ring true? I am attempting to see the motivation for leaving early.

So, first question, who was the source of the "leaving Saturday to work on a school project the next day?" Joan or her dad? You always read this in the media but no attribution. Sorry but, if it was attributed to Joan, then it was obviously false and she had another reason to leave early. If was attributed to Mr. Webster or another family member then were they just making it up or was Joan the source of the reason.

Regarding the Harvard classmates - Did Joan live on or off campus? Did she have a roommate? The answer to this will make me ask other questions…

Tough questions here - cabbie who saw Joan leaving the airport that night, did he notice whether or not she had a suit case? Can we establish her suitcase made it off the plane and was not lost or delayed by Eastern?

Did LE investigate the phone luds on the Webster house that Thanksgiving Weekend?

After reading more of your answers and blogs, I will be asking you about the relationship between Harvard U Police and MSP…

 

[Skigirl]

following

 

[eve carson]

Hi Jgfitzge,

Good questions. I was still a fairly new member of the family and had not observed the control George Webster had in the family. Although I would not have understood then changing plans to accommodate George, I do now. There were not family issues that were obvious to me, but looking back, there are certain things that raise questions. I believe there may have been some family issues. I have discussed this with current authorities and supported it with documents.

George offered the explanation Joan returned early to work on a project. Nothing supports this was a valid explanation. George is quoted in a Boston Magazine article he heard Joan's conversation with a classmate on Saturday morning before the flight to affirm they had supplies. Phone records from the house in NJ negate that assertion. However, no one challenged what George said. He was quoted initially affirming Joan presented her project Monday, before the break and was very upbeat. If there were issues in the family, the family would conceal that. They had a very strong public image and interested in preserving that.

Joan lived in a single room both years at Perkins Hall, on campus. She was a dorm proctor.

I have not been able to obtain the detailed report of the cabbie's interview. I cannot answer if he saw her with the suitcase or not. The suitcase is a very concerning item. There are serious discrepancies regarding the bag. I will go into greater detail about that later. I am waiting for an FOIA appeal that will shed light. It is doubtful the bag was lost or delayed by Eastern. This was a short flight from Newark to Logan, no stops. The bag did turn up. The questions remain where and when.

The phone record in NJ were checked. When I recovered records, something jumped out at me from those records.. The best investigator would not pick up on it unless he knew about a second line that went into the house. That number was not checked.

Keep asking. I am gradually getting pieces up on the site to step everyone through what I found. The problems become more apparent as I go along.

 

[Skigirl]

Eve,

Thank you for starting this thread. It is rare and special when we have participation from a family member, especially for cases this long ago.

I stumbled on what I have to assume is your website when poking around the internet for information about Joan. I have not read through everything yet, but I am anxious to understand what part of this terrible crime still needs to be solved.

Poor Joan. She sounds like a lovely and talented woman. What a shame that she was lost at such a young age.

-Skigirl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eve carson]

The “Evidence” – Boat Equipment - Glass Shards – Boat Registration

Boat Equipment

Authorities made several representations about Paradiso’s boat, the alleged crime scene of Joan’s murder.

During the April 25, 1983, search warrant under the Iannuzzi case, Palombo confiscated marine equipment. Paradiso owned several boats over the years. Recovered boat registrations confirm that. During the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing, a public hearing in front of the media, Burke questioned Paradiso’s girlfriend. Burke identified marine equipment recovered was manufactured by Danforth.

During the federal bankruptcy grand jury and trial, two witnesses identified equipment insured on the boat. It was manufactured by Ray-Jefferson. Palombo ordered an inspection of the boat by marine examiner David Williams. Williams submitted a report to the FBI, at the direction of Palombo, and testified during the federal grand jury, a secret session. The boat was fitted and insured for the Ray Jeff equipment. Equipment by different manufacturers were not interchangeable. The insured equipment was confirmed during the federal trial by Rodney Swanson of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company that paid the claim for the boat on September 29, 1981, before Joan disappeared.

This was a misrepresentation of “evidence” to the courts and reported through the media.


Glass Shards

Authorities raised the boat on September 27, 1983, just under its mooring. The FBI examined the boat, items from the boat, and items recovered from the pier area. Items from the boat were identified by location. Items as small as nuts and bolts were recovered underneath where the boat settled on the bottom of Pier 7.

Burke and Palombo reported in documents filed with the court and to the media, several shards of glass were found on the boat. The reports bolstered the explanation of Joan’s loss claiming Paradiso hit her with a whiskey bottle on the boat. This is a false statement. FBI lab reports show no shards of glass on the boat.

Burke submitted one item to the FBI lab on October 28, 1983. He described the item as glass with a hair attached to it. Neither the location nor date of recovery are identified with the item. The FBI lab identified the item as debris unsuitable for testing, item Q38.

This was FALSE “evidence” submitted by Burke and Palombo to the courts and the FBI.


Boat Registration

The boat in question was owned by Paradiso’s girlfriend. She held the title to the boat in a titled state. The registration was issued in her name.

During the federal bankruptcy case Burke instigated, the prosecution submitted 2 boat registrations. Court transcripts identify the source as Suffolk County DAO, Burke’s office. The 1[SUP]st[/SUP] registration matched the ID contained in the insurer’s files. The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] ID was invalid. The registrar Dante Mayano testified on April 8, 1985. Mayano identified the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] registration contained the proper seal and signature from his office, the signature of Candace Weyant, and the machine stamped registration number 683702, originally issued on May 6, 1980.

The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] ID Burke’s office submitted contained the seal and signature from his office. The ID had the same registration number 683702, but hand written and not stamped by machine. It was NOT a valid registration. Mayano affirmed members of the Suffolk County DAO came into his office when he was out sick and removed documents from his office. The supporting documents were improperly removed from the registrar’s office. The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] registration was allegedly signed by Paradiso. The item was not provided to the defense during discovery. Two images of the valid ID are added here.

Iannuzzi appeal records from November 1986 affirm Palombo obtained and/or directed the recovery of registration records.

Paradiso bought another boat after the boat in question in Joan’s murder. Paradiso used the boat for a partial payment of fees for the Iannuzzi case. An image for the registration number 729940 is added here. Registrations were transferable to other individuals. Paradiso originally obtained the 9LP registration, like a vanity plate. This registration was for another boat and signed by Cornelius Weyant, Paradiso lived in his girlfriend’s parent’s home at this time. Cornelius was Candace’s father. Note the date of issue, October 14, 1981, prior to Joan’s disappearance.

Current custodians have the valid boat registration. They do NOT have the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] invalid registration submitted to a federal court during a criminal trial.

This was FALSE “evidence” provided to federal authorities. They withheld exculpatory evidence about the existence of the boat, the alleged crime scene.