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

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

  1. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    “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!
     
  2. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that the reason Joans case has not been solved is because Individuals look at things and take them at face value". For example.
    a) Looking at a photo that clearly shows the right side of someones face bludgeoned and not only insisting it's the left side, but insisting the person that has been looking at it for the past 39 years is "mistaken and naive".
    b) Insist that somehow Joan was stabbed, shot, and hogtied, when there is absolutely no facts to base that on, however evidence to support the contrary.
    c) Insist that some author of a book, (with such poor ratings that some comments suggests surprise the book was ever published in the first place and calling it nothing but fiction) somehow didn't know basic facts that were public knowledge 6 years before the book was released.
    d) Suggests that although the author was not only 17 km. off the mark as to wear the body was located, but heading entirely in the wrong direction, somehow has the knowledge to solve the case.
    e) Instead of admitting non truths and moving on from that point, suggesting that they are "testing the waters" for some type of a reaction that has absolutely no contribution in helping to solve this case, but rather shows the lack of their"training to understand specific information".
    f) With an author taking such a wild guess that law of average says is true (ie. the body was burried) etches that in stone as gospel truth, yet with all this knowledge can't seem to quite solve the puzzle themselves.
    g) When proven wrong with the real facts, suggests somehow they are doing the world a favor by posting, although the stress is so overwhelming, they question themselves as to why they continue.
    Fozydozy. I certainly can't speak for everyone here, but I will tell you that I have no intentions on reviewing some absurd triangle that is meaningless. Anyone can come up with a formula to locate something 6 years after the world knows where it was.
    Good luck in the future whatever you do!
     
  3. ebfortin76

    ebfortin76 Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Amen!

    Couldn't say it better myself.



    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
     
  4. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi MaryG12,

    Great questions. Joan's tote bag and contents were never recovered.

    I don't know the answer to that question. It is not something I would be able to find. I know the whole community at Harvard were active in efforts to help. A group went out to different communities and spread fliers.

    I attended a dedication at Harvard on May 28, 1985. It was a very large group of Joan's classmates and professors. There was never a suggestion of any classmate under suspicion.

    It's a great question and I wish I knew the answer. But maybe since there was no hint of it with all the media coverage, including the Harvard Crimson, maybe there was no one that suddenly left school or transferred.
     
  5. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I want to go back to something I stated a few posts back. If Joan knew her killer, which I believe she did, there is a possibility I knew that individual, too. That is really frightening understanding Joan's fate.

    I have been probing into a real murder case. Stoking a killer is daunting. I have had reactions. There are some who would like me to keel over, remain a victim, hide the secrets. I don't chose to be a victim. When you live through something like this without truthful answers, you live with suspended grief. The emotions continue to cycle. Sometimes I just start to cry, other times I am angry. There have been times I just wanted to escape it all, but it lives in my heart. On a good day, I can start to laugh and smile with a beautiful memory. Very often that melts into tears. Fortunately, I grew up with a solid core, morals, and trying to live my life in a positive way. I was thrown into this tragedy not by my choosing. But I happen to be someone who was able to get to the records and have knowledge to sort fact from fiction.

    Digging into Joan's loss has been very humbling. There are nights something will hit me and I can't sleep, even now. However, knowledge is very empowering. What you see is a victim with a voice, who dug and dug deeper for the facts. Finding the answer is important for a lot of reasons. I've learned to take the swipes, because the truth is more important than what someone thinks they know about me. I am not doing this for myself. There are others that are vulnerable.

    I appreciate everyone's help and thoughts to bring a monster to light. I don't think I would have the resistance I have had from some identifiable quarters unless I was close to the truth.

    Current news this week has been very affirming. Predators who avoided detection for years, people who we would normally place in high regard, faced justice.

    Joan deserves that and so do many others.
     
    cherrymeg likes this.
  6. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keeping an open mind here, but one thing that keeps coming back to me is when Eve stated the location where Joans body was found was a hang out for bikers.
    Palumbo was also a biker. Not that it proves anything, but it is something else to add to the list.
     
  7. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Knights and not nights.
     
  8. MaryG12

    MaryG12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for your reply, Eve, I truly appreciate it.

    I have to wonder if the person who murdered Joan decided to keep the tote and the contents of it for some reason.

    I am very sorry for your loss, hopefully new leads will arise soon and lead to the one who murdered her.
     
  9. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Sadly, there are plenty of evil doers out there. The key to looking at different theories or possible suspects for me has to shift to opportunity to commit the crime. Time and place are necessary to answer. Was a suspected person in the right place at the right time when Joan disappeared? Possibilities are endless for what-ifs, but there needs to be something that raises the bar for a potential culprit to have committed the crime.

    Palombo was familiar with the Chebacco Road area. Not only were bikers known to gather there, but there was assorted crime activity known in the area. A police officer did affirm Palombo would know the area. Whoever put Joan there, knew that area. At night, it is very dark. You would have to know your way around. There may not have been a need to dig a grave. The spot where she was found was a low lying natural basin. Placing her there, and filling it in with all the debris that is right there would probably suffice. It was then covered with cut logs. Remember, there were two layers of logs. Someone went in there at some later point and added another layer of logs. This is not the kind of area where someone would neatly stack logs.

    According to Tim Burke, an item that was in Joan's tote bag was in police evidence. The current DAO is sitting on records that would confirm or deny that. If this item was logged into police evidence, that makes a connection with Joan after she landed at Logan and someone able to get an item into police evidence. The current custodian appears to be more interested in obstructing a resolution, shielding misconduct.

    There are some personal pieces that factor in when I look at different possible suspects. A letter postmarked August 23, 2008 was mailed anonymously to an individual who had some connection to all of this. It was not a nice letter. I can see where it was mailed. I also have knowledge that raises questions who was in that area at that time.

    On January 22, 2009, I had a stamped anonymous letter placed in my mailbox. It was not mailed, but hand delivered, so someone was in my area. It referenced things that give me a pretty good indication who put it there, or had someone else do it.

    On July 12 & 17, 2010, I received 13 anonymous emails to two different email addresses. I know exactly who had those two email addresses. It is a really small list. Further, I was able to trace the IP. I know exactly who sent them. They all suggested the same thing, references made in the January 22, 2009 anonymous email. And, there is a connection to the person I suspect was behind the anonymous letter in my mailbox.

    These are not the only harassing correspondence received. The fact that another individual with some connection and/or familiarity with Joan's case received one says a lot to me. I was still a long way off recovering records, but I hit a nerve.

    I realize not everyone can possibly know all of the personal components that factor into my reasoning. I also have to be careful and respectful of other victims. There are other victims and I carefully look at the circumstances if they fit into the bigger picture.

    Exposing a corrupted investigation opens the door.
     
  10. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    In the last post, I emphasized that opportunity is necessary to resolve this case.

    I am also looking at a victim set who have been impacted by Joan's case.

    Who is threatened that I am speaking out about Joan's case?

    There is evidence to support Joan knew the man at the airport and placed trust in him. He is central to the resolution. Who knew where Joan would be?

    Let me add a couple more considerations. The current custodian was missing a lot from their files, necessary records to understand what took place. They obtained those files from the MSP after Joan surfaced in Hamilton, MA. Tim Burke also removed a carton of files from the Suffolk County DAO when he left in September 1985. He quoted directly from some of the documents missing from the current custodian, Essex County DAO. Since Burke and the MSP aggressively promoted a false scenario, it is reasonable to ask the question if they removed documents.

    Who were authorities willing to shield from detection?

    The Websters had specific knowledge evidenced in records. They had the lead from the cabbie. George contacted the DOJ in MA who prosecuted case CR 85-010-S affirming the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. Yet they publicly supported Tim Burke's publication. He gave a graphic description of rape and murder on a boat that did not exist.

    Who were the Websters willing to shield from detection?

    The current custodian, the Essex County DAO, answered the question who they are shielding. ADA John Dawley knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. ADA Dawley said he had to "weigh" investigating versus opening old wounds for the Websters.

    There is clear and overwhelming evidence that Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro were the central players obstructing justice in Joan's case. They are already identified for some degree of complicity. Information about Palombo raises additional concerns about his involvement.

    The piece that is left is identifying the man at the airport with Joan.

    Profile:
    Middle-aged white male
    Dark hair
    Beard?
    Approximately 160 pounds
    Under 6” tall
    Wears glasses
    Dark overcoat
    Organized
    Professional
    Knew Joan’s whereabouts
    Influence over authorities
    Traveler?
    Demanding
    Controlling
    Unreasoning
    Joan was relaxed with him
    Joan likely knew her killer
     
  11. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that an apology is in order. Thus,

    Eve, Rocky1, and ebfortin76, I apologize for my arrogant and condescending remarks. Moderators have removed my "verbal attack," and I thank them for that.

    I hope you'll accept my sincere apologies.

    Like everyone else here, I seek justice for Joan Webster.
     
  12. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Joan's case has stirred a lot of emotion and passion for many long years. Differing opinions and perspectives can help bring a resolution if working together. I am staying focused on Joan, my love and respect for her. I may not always agree with someone's analysis, but am happy to offer my reasoning, and examine if something fits. I do appreciate the efforts to think harder and offer input. I believe Joan's case is solvable.

    Let me touch on some questions.

    Marie Iannuzzi was found on the bank of the Pine River on August 12, 1979. When Joan's purse was found, it was south and on the opposite side of Route 107. There is a lot of water in this area. During high tide, it may be that when the Pine River swells, it becomes indistinguishable where the marsh ends and the river begins. There were divers in the area after the purse was found. I am uploading a police report excerpt of the search. Divers may have been in the Pine River, but it is not specified. It could also be part of Tim Burke's manipulation of information enmeshing the two cases. Other than Joan's purse and wallet, nothing else related to Joan was found during these searches.

    [​IMG]

    I was asked if Joan wore perfume. Yes, sometimes. It would be impossible to know if she had multiple varieties at any given point in time. I do know she wore Calandre.

    I also was asked about my conversation with Joan on Thanksgiving 1981. This is one of those family calls where everyone is taking a turn getting on the phone. Joan was very upbeat. School was going very well. The family was headed to Grammy's for dinner. I was pregnant. Joan was very excited about becoming an aunt. There was no hint Joan was going back early. She didn't sound like she was under the weather or under stress in any way, and did not mention anything to that effect. Friends saw her on Saturday at the cocktail parties. They said Joan looked great and was her usual bubbly self.

    I am going to add some thoughts in the next few posts. I welcome your input.

    The first point to consider is if the man with Joan at Logan had a car waiting for him. I tend to believe that is probably the case. The vehicle they switched to was not from a standard cab company working out of Logan. It was not the standard color usually identified with Boston cabs. It just happened to be in the right place when Joan and the man switched vehicles. We know what happened after that; Joan disappeared. To me, that's too convenient to be by chance, but suggests premeditation.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for that post Eve.
    Thinking out loud, how would this second car know to pull behind the taxi, unless he knew Joan was going to go knocking at that particular cab? With Logan being as busy as it is, I don't think cabs/cars would be spaced out enough to allow others to slip in front. Especially at 10.00 PM. That is the busiest time of the day for that particular airport, and as you stated 5 flights had landed.
    That is of course unless the Cabbie knew before hand that car would be taking Joan away., and they drove and parked together in tandem.
    I'm still trying to get past how Joan would have known to knock on that particular cab's window, as well.
     
  14. ebfortin76

    ebfortin76 Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Joan didn't knock on the cab window, she knocked on the one in front. Personally I agree that it's far fetched that the cab was able to get in line and wait for Joan to get out. Especially since she tried another can and then they switched. It also tells me that the cab or other car has nothing to do with it. If it was the case, then the bearded man would have chosen the right car right away.

    Unless the car wasn't there when they got out of the airport. And he reluctantly went for a cab. And then the car arrived and he switched to it. It never made much sense to me the car switching. Why not go for the right car irght away?

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
     
  15. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just to clarify, when I mentioned "cab" I mean the cab with the markings (Town Cab) which I assume was the car in front.
     
  16. jgfitzge

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

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    43

    Hi EBF and Rocky

    You raise a few good points. I recall asking Eve, to speculate out and if Car/Fake Cab # 2 never pulled up, would Mr. Beard and Joan have taken the real cab #1 and gone onto to Cambridge (and assuming Perkins Hall??) So, I pose a couple of observations...Car/Fake Cab #2 must have been late, that is why Mr. Beard seemed cranky and probably had "eyes in the back of his head" looking for the Car/Fake Cab #2. So, when Car/Fake Cab # 2 got into position that is when Mr. Beard made the move to switch. So...I always wondered...a matter of seconds... if Mr. Beard and Joan got into real cab # 1 what would be the outcome? A fake accident along the way and transfer? Try the kidnapping another time? Who knows?

    My second observation is the way Joan goes up to real cab # 1 and says "Cambridge." So, I asked about the idea of sharing a cab and Eve didn't think Joan would do this with a stranger, and I agree. So, I am left with the impression that she felt comfortable enough with Mr. Beard to take a cab to "Cambridge." So, what circle would Mr. Beard fall into? Family circle? Harvard Circle? Friend of a Friend from Harvard Circle? He also had a suitcase, so how does this play out in Joan's mind? Both get out at Perkins Hall? With suitcases that is the assumption. Eve, that is why to me the key is the days/weeks before that Thanksgiving weekend. Based on the foregoing key questions are would the composite of Mr. Beard look familiar to any one of Joan's Harvard friends? Anyone ever see him near Perkins Hall? Would Joan's sister (the one who lived around here) recognize him? Keep asking and answering the following question to yourseld concerning Mr. Beard, all the while knowing he has a suitcase...Joan knows him from ______________fill in the blank. Then why would he and Joan, both with suitcases be going to "Cambridge?"
     
  17. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In regards to the suitcase. If it was carried into the airport as a prop to make the bearded man look like he just got off a plane, then why would it be so heavy?
    Something here doesn't add up. Unless of course he really did just get off the plane.
     
  18. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I have a busy schedule over the next few days, so bear with me in responding.

    I have played this over in my mind a thousand times. Joan travelled alone. She was not on the plane with anyone. She was alone when she collected her suitcase. She is seen talking to a man behind the counter in the claim area. We don't know what was said. We don't know if this was the bearded man, but I tend not to think so.

    Somewhere between the counter and the Town Taxi, a man appears and is with Joan. She announces he is with her to the cabbie. It may be that the man did not catch up with Joan until after she knocked on the window. She intended to take a cab back to Cambridge. The bearded man had luggage. We have to consider he was travelling. I think it is fair to assume Joan thought this person intended to go to Cambridge as well.

    Joan would not change cars with a casual acquaintance. The man was causing some disruption. She already had her cab and her suitcase was in the trunk. The bearded man assumed control and Joan trusted him.

    The second vehicle bothers me. The vehicle was in the cab line. The car was blue, not a typical color for established cab companies in Boston. The Town Taxi cabbie could not identify a cab company. This is someone who knows the cabs that are out there; he worked Logan. It would not be easy to get a car inserted into the cab line.

    If this was just a random vehicle, next in line to take a fare, it seems more reasonable to me the driver would have said something. Joan's disappearance and picture were all over the news. There were extensive interviews in the next several days. No records have surfaced to indicate a fare with another service.

    The composite was not distributed. It is doubtful classmates at Harvard ever saw it. The heavy suitcase and exchanged words worked well to maneuver Joan to a different vehicle. To me, that is significant. This is the point where Joan disappeared.

    I agree that the factors leading up to Joan's disappearance are significant. School was going really well. The planned visit in NJ to meet the parents was cancelled. Joan went back a day early instead of riding with Anne on Sunday. Friends saw her Saturday at the cocktail parties and said she was her normal bubbly self. Joan was excited to be a new aunt.
     
  19. ebfortin76

    ebfortin76 Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    The two cabs are puzzling. As I mentioned before, for me the only thing that make sense is that the blue car, aka second cab, was not there when they exited the airport terminal and that's why bearded man accepted to take a cab. There were no cell phones at that time so he couldn't contact blue cab guy. When the car arrived, he quickly switched. Joan seemed to just follow through.

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
     
  20. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That makes sense to me until these questions enter my mind.
    1) How does the blue car slip in and park behind the cab in the first place, knowing how those cabs at that airport park almost bumper to bumper in a line?
    2) How did the blue car know that Joan and the bearded man were sitting in that particular cab, as you say without cell phones?
     

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