“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.” Perhaps I was a bit nasty. Or maybe I was pushing pressure points looking for a reaction. Don't beat yourself up too much; I was testing the waters. It just so happens that human perception is one of my specialties and a most interesting subject to not only study but also effectuate. Individuals always look at things and take them at face value. This common human reflex, better yet, mental reflex, is a plague that sweeps the nations of the world and is the exact reason why Joan Webster’s case remains unsolved. “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.” Before you accuse me of misrepresenting facts, please allow me a defense counsel. I believe I’m entitled to one. You have the police records; I don’t. You may have uploaded the documents onto this website, but I failed to find them. You are correct regarding the suitcase not being sent to NYC. But, according to the New York Times (February 7, 1982) (https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/07/...-is-no-help-in-search-for-jersey-student.html) an alert employee recognized Joan’s name tag and returned the suitcase to the authorities. However, nowhere in the article is it stipulated if the suitcase was handed over to police in NYC or Boston. Furthermore, the Friday, November 23, 1984 edition of the Asbury Park Press, states that an employee noticed the suitcase as he was about to ship it to an NYC warehouse. I assumed the suitcase had been sent there because there’s no indication in the article that it was not. (https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/145620554/) I accept that I was wrong thus I apologize. I have not and will not give credence to Burke’s findings. I’m aware that they’re erroneous. I’ve not read his book, and I don’t intend to. I’ve not read your book either, but I will say that I place more weight on your work. Besides the fact that the suitcase was found January 29, 1982, or that it was public knowledge, both you and I don’t know when Mr. Penn first planned to introduce the subject matter in his book. His book was published in 1987. I’m confident that you’ll agree that a 380-page book requires a lot of work and it’s not something easily done. You’re also an author, and I’m confident that your book took years of research before being published. Moreover, both you and I are unaware of this innocuous introduction because the author never once mentions when he began penciling his narrative. The book may have been years in the making (the middle to the late 70s), waiting for the final chapter to be written. And in this case, Joan’s chapter. In his narrative, Mr. Penn introduces Joan’s name on page 67. According to Mr. Penn, the date was December 10, 1981, “twelve” days after Joan’s disappearance. While discussing Joan’s disappearance, he mentions that scuba divers had searched the bottom of the Pines River. I’ve searched high and low trying to locate newspaper accounts corroborating his claim but have come up empty-handed. The only record I find substantiating his account is from Burke’s book, The Paradiso Files. And no, I’ve not read the book. I did a web search, and Google referred me to the exact passage in Burke’s book. (https://books.google.com.au/books?i...oan webster divers search pines river&f=false) Paradiso published his book in 2008, twenty-seven-years after Mr. Penn’s similar revelation. Thus, Mr. Penn could not and did not use Bourke’s book as a guide. I don’t think that you, Eve, have ever mentioned the Pines River event. If you have, please direct me to the newspaper account or report. Furthermore, I’ve failed to find newspapers reports disclosing Joan as “attractive and wealthy,” another one of Mr. Penn’s bombshells. If we presume that Mr. Penn read reports coming out of the East Coast, and no reports hint on the subject of Joan’s persona, how does he justify his declaration regarding Joan’s appearance? In fact, a few lines down (still on page 67) Mr. Penn unknowingly answers my question. He stated that he hadn’t seen anything in the California news media about Joan. Perhaps you, Eve, can be my shining light, and point me in the right direction. Alternatively, and better yet, try contacting Dan Goldfarb so he can verify Mr. Penn’s details. Mr. Penn introduces Goldfarb to the potting soil! “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.” I’m sorry, but I disagree. They don’t suggest Penn led to the discovery of the suitcase. They indicate that Penn “knew” about the suitcase. The above apology suffices when discussing the “possible” disclosure I added. I’m wrong, and I’ve recognized my mistake. Furthermore, you seem incensed by my erroneous claim. Take a deep breath Eve. It looks as if you’re annoyed. Everybody acknowledges the fact that you’re a topmost expert in this case. I’m not here to remove both your status and place on the pedestal. It’s not my intention, never has been, and never will be. Newspapers misreporting the incident misled me, and I’m partial to blame for not reading the report correctly. By the way, according to his book, Penn was in contact with the Webster’s in March 1982, and not in April. It was then that Penn claims he began receiving information about Joan via UPI, specifically the story about the suitcase. (page 109 Times 17). “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.” Wow, that’s a bit rich! If applying a mathematical theme to an exercise reveals a “truth claim,” and you regard it as incorrect, you’re making a huge statement. Purportedly, you’re calling Gauss, Newton, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Einstein, and many others, liars! If I decide to call you 102 (a mathematical theme for your name) forthwith, will you also call me a liar, or will you say I’m incorrect? Penn claimed he hadn’t seen anything in the California news media about Joan (above) thus how could he publish “public information” before the information became available to him? “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?” No, I’m not familiar with Boston. Penn did write about Concord MA. He also wrote about the Old North Bridge over the Concord River, Walden Pond, Little Goose Pond, Goose pond proper, and the Concord Turnpike. But that’s old news. In an earlier post, I indicated that you’re not trained to UNDERSTAND specific information. I believe my comment may have offended you. However, you’re about to comprehend why I made my claim! While I’m on the subject of “comprehension,” it’s necessary that I share something that I’ve picked up about you. At times you demonstrate a bit of egocentricity. Perhaps it’s because you’re a leading expert when discussing Joan’s case. I can’t fault you for that. But don’t think you know everything there is to know and that others can’t have a say in the matter. You have the facts. Well done! But I notice that there’s so much more to this case than what you’re prepared to accept. When discussing esoteric matters, something that’s repeatedly demonstrated in Penn’s book Times 17, you are way behind the eight ball. Thus, except my candor with opened arms, and embrace it for what it is. I’m trying to show you a different way of looking at the truth. Few folks are educated in esotericism, and only a few chosen ones understand it’s mystery. On page 202 of Times 17, you’ll see the town of Concord in a USGS map. Penn’s exercise is called Triangulation by Clockface. There are two lines, one points to 12:38, the other to 8.22. The line that interests me, and the one that’s relevant to this “esoteric” exercise, is the one pointing to 8:22. Here’s a task that you and your readers MUST attempt. I highly advise it! Extend the 8:22 line all the way across the map towards the right, in other words away from the arrowhead, and tell me what you find? When you’ve done, that be prepared for a WOW moment, and you’ll realize that you owe me an apology. Until you attempt that you have no say in the matter whatsoever! Then you may begin giving my investigation the credence it deserves, and you’ll finally realize that I’m not sucking things out of my ass! And lastly, no, of course, it does not make the psychic a suspect. But the psychic didn’t write about the incident a month after the event unfolded! Now, Joan Webster’s abductor or murderer went to the trouble of digging a grave and concealing her body well enough that it wasn’t found until eight and a half years later. Then he distributed two of the three items she had had in her possession in widely separated locations where they were certain to be found, the purse in a marsh frequented by weekend clam diggers, and the suitcase in a rental storage locker at the Greyhound bus station. He went to some trouble to do these things, and he must have had some reason for doing them. The individual never “dumped” the body. He buried it. He could have just driven into the same area where he buried her, dumped the body, the purse, the suitcase, and the tote bag out of his car and skedaddled. Instead, he lingered to dig a grave, exposing himself to discovery by staying longer than he needed to, and then made two other stops to dispose of Webster’s effects, exposing himself to detection by keeping incriminating evidence in his possession longer than he needed to. There had to be a payoff for the extra trouble and risk. The assumption that he was unfamiliar with the Boston area requires a further assumption — that he was from out of town. The logical principle called Occam’s Razor tells us that the best theory is the one requiring the smallest number of assumptions. The abductor or murderer knew what he was doing. Joan Webster’s murderer created three finds: one that would take years to discover, if ever, and two which were certain to be discovered. One of those finds was at a bus station. He must have known that when the rental on the storage locker expired, Greyhound employees would open it and try to determine ownership of its contents, and he must have known that there was something in or on Joan Webster’s suitcase that would identify it as her property: a luggage tag or an inscribed book, for instance. There is more Eve; there’s so much more. But at times I wonder why I keep doing all this. It brings me nothing more than aggravation and annoyance. I seldom partake in forum discussions because, for a better term, I get somewhat unnerved with folk’s lack of proper brain development in utero. Call me egocentric; I don't care. At times I have reason to be. Until you or one of your readers comes back to me with the answer to the exercise, I rest my case, and I have nothing further to say!