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

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

  1. ebfortin76

    ebfortin76 Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    For one I thought about it and there only thing I can see is that they were at the end of the line. I don't know. I agree it's a difficult question to answer.

    For two of my recollection is good they never sit in the cab. They were still outside dealing with the luggages.

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
     
  2. ebfortin76

    ebfortin76 Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I think, considering the importance of that moment with the two cabs, we should try to find the guy and invite him on that forum. It's far fetched but why not at least try?

    Eve, what info do you have on him?

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
     
  3. frozydozy

    frozydozy New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Joan Lucinda Webster, this post is dedicated to your memory. You’re the only person that honorably deserves justice.

    In a previous post, I indicated not to post again until somebody uploaded a solution to my “map clue” regarding Gareth Penn’s knowledge of your final resting place. No solution, as far as I’m aware, as hitherto been forthcoming! Conversely, barriers were immediately erected by people, mitigating “why” somebody living on the West Coast of the United States “could not” and “did not” have conceivable knowledge relating to your disappearance. These mitigating circumstances were raised because Mr. Penn’s book, Times 17, received, and wait for it, “bad reviews” on the Amazon platform. Subsequently, I raised my concerns about intellectual dishonesty appealing for transparency in the matter. Thus far regarding the latter, it suffices to say that things are quieter than the proverbial church mouse.

    Furthermore, it’s alleged that the entire LE brotherhood hasn’t found a single piece of evidence suggesting that Mr. Gareth Penn, or his suspect, a Mr. Michael Henry O’Hare, were at Logan airport on the night of your disappearance. It’s remarkable that nobody’s pondered on the possibility, or asked the question, could either party have traveled under an alias? Joan, I lie! Someone did raise the alias question. Your father, George Webster! In a later he mailed the FBI on April 29, 1982, your father asked them to investigate the “alias” avenue. No one would know for sure if the FBI followed through with your father’s request. No reports substantiating this lead have been forthcoming. Could this explain why the man seen with you Joan, had a heavy suitcase? Did he fly in on the same night?

    Be that as it may, Mr. Gareth Penn published his book in 1987. Individuals “contend” that he had ample time to include “known” facts about your disappearance in his narrative. Explicitly, because in April 1982 he “initiated” communication with your parents, Terry and George, and also because the media on the East Coast reported on your disappearance. With the latter, perhaps pigeon post was an effective way of carrying messages from one side of the mainland to the other. The talk around the campfire is that media institutions from both the East and West Coast barely share editorial reports. I should say in fairness to him that in Times 17 he “alleges” having “networks” on the East Coast who kept him up-to-date with what was transpiring in Massachusetts.

    Now, Joan, you vanished on the night of November 28, 1981. Between 1981 and 1987 - with 1987 being the year Times 17 was published - the whole world supposed you lay at the bottom of the ocean. There was no indication whatsoever that your final resting place was somewhere near the end of a trail leading off Chebacco Rd, in Hamilton, Massachusetts. However, I strongly disagree! It’s a big call, but I’m prepared to back my claim, and not shout it out from the rooftops! In this instance, unlike others, I’ve researched the subject matter, and the ensuing result, as fate would have it, designate that I’ve been handed the trump card. I’ve discovered something unknown to everybody else except the dealer and me.

    Your final resting place was revealed in April 1990, when a veterinarian found your skull purportedly near a drain. Subsequently, the authorities discovered your skeletal remains nearby. It’s recorded that your skull showed trauma with a blunt instrument causing your death. Unfortunately, only you and the criminals know the truth. I mull over the issue why two of your ribs we also found to be broken. Folks claim that “there are two sides to every story.” In your case, however, I believe there are three sides! Your side, conjecture, and the truth!

    In Times 17 Mr. Penn enlightens his readers that Delphic utterances are and have been part of life since antiquity. People who’ve read the book (and not reviews) will validate my claim. Unmistakably, the Oracle of Delphi (possibly in a trance-like state when uttering his revelations) although gifted in the supernatural, was also a highly intelligent being.

    When I replied in kind to objections made by fellow posters about my epigrammatic style, my retort was promptly removed. In other words, according to forum rules, regulations, and guidelines (which by the way I’ve read and agreed with) my response created perpetual discontent and agitation. I found out the hard way that my lexicon did not conform with regulatory measures. I’ve since apologized for my actions. Only one person was courteous enough to accept my apology. It doesn’t matter. No harm no foul!

    Therefore, and fearing to have further posts deleted, henceforth my utterances will be Delphic. It will, I believe, conform to forum rules and guidelines, and I think that I will not be encroaching on them. Furthermore, I hope my preferred choice of the narrative will henceforth halt the humanistic temptation of pressing the delete button on the designated computer device.

    Ambiguity is the key to being Delphic. People can mislead without departing from the truth, something that LEA, FBI, CIA, and other governmental institutions, are quite capable of accomplishing. There are however different ways of describing this kind of deception. For instance, an author, and not exclusively Gareth Penn, may choose to allow their audience to deceive itself into thinking that it has the whole story when further work on their part would reveal the whole. Therefore, I need to be careful with my ensuing utterances. Not wanting to seem picayune about definite “rules and regulations,” when members utter “Amen,” a “religious exclamation,” to validate their opinion, it’s entirely okay. In other words, it seems to comply with the stipulated rubrics. I believe in fairness for all and not just a selected few. In other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander! However, as previously mentioned, no harm no foul! Please note that I’m not criticizing anyone but merely stating a fact. I believe it falls well inside the allowed parameters of this forum.

    This brings me to my next point.

    To some extent, I think that people participate in forums because they feel that they are the cynosure of all eyes. I also believe that to some degree forum participation is an indication of loneliness. It took great courage and perseverance to join this forum. I prefer sitting on the boundary line examining people’s discussions and having thought experiments. These cost nothing and are extremely rewarding. Ask Einstein about them. I joined the theatre because I believe that I’ve uncovered “truths” regarding your case that nobody else knows. You’re not the only one I’m doing this for. There’s another. But you’re in Heaven so you should know that, right?

    There are two groups of people in the world. The “great pretenders” (it has nothing to do with Freddy Mercury’s song) people who blend in with their surroundings so convincingly that they are nearly impossible to investigate thus pretend to offer a wealth of expertise and experience when, in fact, their work is a never-ending merry-go-round. Few ever produce solid “evidence” corroborating their claims. They chose however to criticize those who can and those who can back their declarations with solid proof. The latter in other words, those who put their money where their mouth is, are the “achievers.” I believe that I fall into that category. I’m not sure about others.

    Reports uploaded to this forum (together with a book and additional websites) suggest that members of your family may have conspired in your demise. If that’s proven accurate, your loved ones could not be trusted.

    Thus, who can we trust?

    Should surviving members of your family be trusted? Ex-CIA operatives in the family circle are both an alarming and mysterious status quo. But then again George Webster was an administrator at the CIA, not an agent. He had no operational connection with either intelligence acquisition or intelligence analysis.

    Who’s telling us the truth, and who’s not? Who’s evil and who’s not? Why were you killed? If your parents were involved, why? What secrets did you know that it was decided to terminate your life? If any? Was your murder part of a bigger scheme that didn’t necessarily involve your family? Is there still a scheme in place, and one that consists of several entities? Where you at the wrong place at the wrong time and your parent’s links to the CIA, or secrets, were irrelevant to your fate? These are the central questions that remain to be answered.

    As I previously mentioned, there’s your side of the story, conjecture, and the truth! It’s left to us mere mortals to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

    Below is the map in question. It’s the map that veils the clue to your final resting place in Chebacco Rd., Hamilton. In other words, it’s a Delphic utterance. It’s found on page 203 in Times 17.

    [​IMG]

    To the untrained eye Joan, the map seems harmless enough not to warrant further investigation. I provided the clue to solving this mystery when I informed everyone that by extending the axis of 8:22 line all the way across the right-hand-side of the map in an ENE direction, something interesting would be revealed. However, not a single soul attempted my exercise but instead decided to mitigate reasons for their lack of judgment and apparent nescience apropos the subject matter.

    Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to find an exact copy of Mr. Gareth Penn’s map. He used a USGS map of the Concord area. Thus, I had to make due and relied on the accuracy of Google maps to help me along. I assure you that my exercise is solid, and the same result will be achieved when using Mr. Penn’s USGS map. I took great care when attempting the exercise and requested the assistance of a qualified surveyor living in my complex. Initially, he was skeptical about the exercise. We made several enlargements of both maps (Mr. Penn's copy and Google’s) and extrapolated the position of both apexes on my Google maps copy using Mr. Penn’s reference as a starting point. Furthermore, to deem the exercise foolproof, I placed a red rectangle demarcating Chebacco Rd’s entry to the north (rectangle left side) and exit to the south (rectangle bottom). The blue piece inside the rectangle is the full extent of Chebacco Rd.

    [​IMG]

    When I explained the reason for this exercise, and after seeing the results, the surveyor was left speechless. In his professional opinion, this exercise could not be possible unless Mr. Gareth Penn used his Artillery Surveying qualifications to guide him along. He indicated that the likelihood that two arbitrary lines positioned on a USGS map of the Concord area resulting in one of the lines intersecting directly over Chebacco Rd. in Hamilton being a random happenstance is impossible. And he indicated that the rectangle validates my claim because there’s a high degree of accuracy involved. In other words, if Mr. Penn had placed both arrows (x like format) another 10° higher or lower, the extension of the 8:22 line in an ENE direction would have missed Chebacco Rd. completely. Using Mr. Penn’s analogy, it’s like firing a 155mm Howitzer shell, and landing it on a dime!

    I challenge any qualified surveyor, either military or public, reading this post to disprove my claim and exercise!

    However, there are further Delphic utterances that indicate Mr. Penn was aware of your resting place long before your body was discovered. Recapitulating, ambiguity is the key to being Delphic, and people can mislead without departing from the truth.

    Below is a copy of a paragraph taken from page 290 in Times 17.

    [​IMG]

    Once again Joan, to the untrained eye, it reads nothing more than gobbledygook. The author describes what someone named Charlie found in the middle of the woods behind Fenn School, in Concord, Massachusetts. Proceeding forth, remind yourself of what Delphic utterances are all about. Mr. Penn is correct when he claims, and I quote “that scenario didn’t make much sense…” What the heck was a boat, a balsam tree, and 329 pieces of paper inside a manila envelope doing in the middle of the woods in Concord? Unless the boat stayed there after the waters receded immediately after the Great Flood, when God told Noah to build the ark, there’s no conceivable explanation to corroborate the find. And 329 pieces of paper inside a manila envelope? Yeh, right! I can live with the balsam tree because there’s evidence suggesting that they’re found in the state of Massachusetts. But, there’s more to the mystery about a “young” balsam tree whose parents were nowhere to be seen, then meets the eye.
    Research is paramount when investigating sensitive matters. Without it, you’re up S creek without a paddle!

    Here’s a question I want to ask everyone who’s dedicated “valued” time to your cause, Joan. Before asking the question, I’m prepared to bet everything I own that not a single soul attempted the exercise. Two have, but not the others. If you’re reading this, and you’ve followed Joan’s case, irrespective of when you began your journey, do you know the meaning of Chebacco? Have you ever opened a dictionary looking for the meaning of the word? Have you perhaps Googled the word? Thomas Jefferson once said, and I quote “honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” Be honest with your evaluation of the problem. Don’t worry about researching the subject matter. It’s too late now. I’ll save you some time.

    The Merriam Webster dictionary defines Chebacco as a narrow-sterned BOAT formerly much used in Newfoundland fisheries.

    I find it astonishing that good old Charlie found a “misplaced boat” in the middle of the woods in Concord. And a boat that has direct links to Chebacco. Both words are an interwoven lexicon. Wow, it seems that the principles of Delphic utterances are evidently at work here, don’t you agree? However, it’s imperative that we test our theory making sure that boat/Chebacco wasn’t a quirk of nature.

    What could 329 pieces of paper mean? According to Mr. Penn, perhaps they were “garbage.” And I tend to agree with him. They are garbAGE! Wow, has the author uttered another Delphic announcement that nobody’s understood? Until now, that is? Is he misleading people without departing from the truth? Garbage is an anagram for BRAG AGE. In other words, “bragging about age.” But how could he possibly “brag about age” using Delphic pronouncements? And whose age was he bragging about? That’s the $329 question! The secret lies within the manila envelope!

    Why squares of paper? And why 329? Do yourself a favor and peek at a calendar you may have nearby. How are the days of the year depicted? Yes, you’re correct, in little “squares.” And back in 1981, what day of the year was represented by the “329[SUP]th[/SUP] square of paper?”

    Day 329 fell on November 25, (11/25) of that calendar year (1981). If I’m correct with my analogy, and I believe that I am, Joan you disappeared in November (11) 1981, and you were twenty-five years old (25) at the time of your disappearance, right? I believe I don’t need to say anything else about the 329 squares of paper. I’ve made my point and provided the solution to the exercise.

    What do we know thus far?

    Boat = Chebacco

    329 squares of paper = 11/25 (month and age of your disappearance)

    Balsam tree =?

    There’s the little problem surrounding the little balsam tree. How did the oracle mislead without departing from the truth? Using the same device, he utilized when uttering the word “garbage.” In other words, an anagram.

    Balsam = lambsa, and,

    LAMB SA = LAMB(SA)CRIFICE

    Here, allow me to show you what I mean. Reread the following sentences;


    1. “What I had was a young balsam tree, a boat, and a manila envelope stuffed with little squares of paper.”
    2. “…then slid the envelope under this boat sitting out in this clearing next to a young balsam tree whose parents were nowhere to be seen.”

    Now read them again but with the solutions to the Delphic utterances.


    1. “What I had was a young lamb sacrifice (balsam tree), a Chebacco (boat) and a manila envelope stuffed with 11/25 (329 square of paper)
    2. “…then slid the envelope under this boat sitting out in this clearing next to a young lamb sacrifice (balsam tree) whose parents were nowhere to be seen.”

    And that’s how Delphic pronouncements are made!

    Finally, below is an image comparing the withheld sketch (guy seen with Joan) and Mr. Gareth Penn.

    [​IMG]

    If this post hasn’t raised the air on the back of your necks, I don’t know what will. Furthermore, there’s no hocus-pocus at work behind my solutions. They’re logical and presented in an easy to understand way. They prove without a shadow of a doubt that there’s more to this case than what most people are prepared to accept. Neglect these facts at your peril. I can’t be held responsible for choices you may or may not make.

    I’m doing this for Joan.

    I rest my case!
     

    Attached Files:

  4. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I'm back and will get caught up.

    Joan knocked on the window of the Town Taxi and asked to go to Cambridge. The man she was with maneuvered her to the 2nd car. That car cannot be identified as a cab. Maybe it was a gypsy cab or hired driver. The 2nd vehicle does matter. Joan disappeared after getting into that car.

    We can only speculate why Joan knocked on the cab window. Maybe the man had not caught up with her, maybe the 2nd car was not there yet or he didn't see it. That's why I asked the question if the bearded man had ordered a car.

    How does a driver get into the cab line? That would have to be someone that had some authority to do so, possibly with a badge. No other records have been found to support the 2nd car had taken a fare.

    The facts are my focus. Joan's luggage was in the trunk of the cab. She identified someone was with her. The man exchanged words over a heavy suitcase. He said "we" don't want to take this cab. Joan switched cars with the man. She disappeared and was murdered.

    To me, I am not as concerned about the what ifs. We can only speculate if the car did not show up and they took the cab, what would have happened. I am following the facts.

    We know the facts, we do not know all the details how it transpired.
     
  5. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    1,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think another explanation could be that the "unmarked cab" may have been described to Joan as a "Limo Service".
    I use a Limo Service at times to travel to Logan, and it's not always a "Limousine" that picks me up. Sometimes it is a full size sedan. None are "marked" with the exception of a "Livery" license plate mounted at times only in the rear, depending if Massachusetts decides to issue one or two plates during a particular time frame.
    I think another thing to keep in mind is, imo, as cautious as Joan may have been, I don't think anyone anticipates they are going to be murdered in advance and walks around paranoid about every move they make. The bearded man may have told her it was a Limo Service, and Joan may have never thought twice about it.
     
  6. ebfortin76

    ebfortin76 Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I don't think it's just unimportant speculation about the second car. Analysis can give us an indication if the driver was involved or not. If the car wasn't there and arrived late and then they switched, is a lot different than taking the next car whatever it is.

    In investigations, to the best of my knowledge, people speculate and make educated guess. And if the data collected afterward come and validate the hypothesis, then it becomes facts. But we can't just wait for undisputed facts to find a way to resolve this.

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

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I have spent the last several days making some very good contacts, individuals with the skills and connections to help in a case like this.

    There are a myriad of theories I have heard over many years. If a killer leaves cryptic clues to a mystery like the Zodiac killer did, then cryptanalysis may help solve the mystery. However, certain components must be present to place someone on a suspect list. I have discussed one of them, opportunity. The next step is to find the components, the facts, that make someone viable.

    I received a great deal of affirmation for my progress in Joan's case. The first standard is motive. Motive is not always easy to find or identify, but there always is one even if it is in the distorted world view of a criminal mind. Identify the motive and you will identify the killer. Someone raised a point a few posts back. Did Joan have knowledge that would have caused the man embarrassment? It may have threatened his image, public standing, marriage, money, whatever.

    The 2nd point emphasized was behavior. Behavior is what I instinctively started looking at without knowing what I would find in the records. Behaviors are very revealing.

    Victimology is another component. Are there other victims that are connected in some way? The answer to this question is yes, but to what degree is still an open question.

    In 1983, Robert Bond was interviewed by the MSP and gave a written statement. In the interview he gave a multiple choice for the manner of death. In the written statement that came later, he gave the correct manner of death with correct detail 7 years before finding Joan. The rest of his statement was false. Who did Bond work with developing the statement? Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro. These 2 officers were in a position to suppress the lead and composite from the cabbie. A badge would help insert the vehicle into a cab line. These 2 cops knew what happened to Joan. Their behaviors are well documented in this thread. Palombo's connections to the various points known in Joan's case raises a red flag of opportunity. Final component here is who had the influence over these cops for them to shield the bearded man?

    These pieces have to be there to find the correct solution.
     
  8. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Very good points about the 2nd car. Deductive reasoning and educated guesses are part of unraveling a case.

    If the 2nd car just happened to be there when the switch was made, I struggle with no one coming forward and no records of the fare. It is a combination of facts we do know that lead me to believe the 2nd car was intentional. If this was just a random car they switched to, why wasn't that information all over the news? This information was suppressed. Joan's departure from the airport was misrepresented, claiming she was not noticed. After the switch, Joan disappeared. She was brutally murdered. Items dispersed. Why wouldn't a random driver by chance come forward when Joan's picture and description were all over the news? Numerous departments were interviewing everyone around the airport and flight manifests.

    A limo would be a ride that is arranged. Back to my question if the bearded man had a car waiting for him. Joan did not; she knocked on the window of the Town Taxi.

    The last summer I saw Joan, she told us about an incident of a friend who was a victim of a break in. It was pretty horrifying. Joan was a victim of a purse snatching in NYC. One summer, Joan lived at her grandfather's apartment on the upper east side in NYC. This is a very nice address with doormen and security. Joan would not get into a car even described as a limo with someone she did not know well. There was some level of trust and authority.

    Most people do not live their lives paranoid that the next breath might be their last. However, Joan had enough experience and maturity to always be mindful of her surroundings. She was not a rash impulsive person.
     
  9. ebfortin76

    ebfortin76 Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Maybe the information was not all over the news exactly for the same reason they found a scapegoat and pursed it : they didn't want that info to go out. They being the police. The bearded man picture was not all over the news either. And it's even more connected to Joan's death.

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

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi Ebfortin 76,

    You are correct to clarify the lead of the bearded man and the blue vehicle they left in were not in the news. Joan's picture, description, and report of a missing person were all over the news. In addition, multiple agencies were interviewing cabbies, airport employees, passengers, etc. If the driver of the 2nd car was not involved in Joan's disappearance, then why didn't he come forward? It makes sense someone in that position would say, "Hey, this girl may have been in my car. She was with a man. I took them to such and such place." To date, there is no evidence to support that possibility.

    Now, I want to pose another thought. Did Joan know some individual that authorities would protect? The answer to this is yes, but Joan may not have realized it. Then I have to contemplate what category of person that would be. Who would authorities shield?

    During this era, authorities shielded criminal informants. That is a known and well-documented fact. I do not see Joan having any associations that fall into that category, not knowingly for sure.

    Authorities protect their own. That is still very present today. Current custodians are shielding misconduct.

    An important or influential person. The bearded man wore an overcoat, more professional attire. He took control to direct Joan and switch vehicles.

    A person of means that paid off or bribed authorities. The bearded man had a very heavy suitcase. He was agitated how the Town Taxi driver handled it.

    Give me your thoughts about what type of person authorities would shield.
     
  11. Rocky1

    Rocky1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    1,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Snipped:
    Give me your thoughts about what type of person authorities would shield.
    Given the timeline, that list is long.
    1) State Police.
    2) FBI where John Connolly worked.
    3) The Angiulo Brothers.
    4) The Patriarca Crime Family.
    5) Whitey Bulger and The Winter Hill Gang.
    6) Boston Police.
    7) Many business owners that owned clubs in "The Combat Zone" along Washington St.
     
  12. ebfortin76

    ebfortin76 Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I think I follow better now your line of thoughts. Essentially, the other car had to be complicit, given the circumstances.

    Were you able to locate the cab driver (first car)? Do you have a name?


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

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Rocky1 was able to give a glimpse in a short list that is not all-inclusive how complicated this has been to sort out. The system in MA, state, local, and federal, was dysfunctional. Some people could get away with murder, literally. Diving into the climate in MA at the time was part of my examination of Joan's case.

    There is overwhelming evidence in the files of misconduct. That conduct obstructed justice at the time. It continues to be an obstruction. The current DAO is not interested in exposing their flank.

    I have found nothing that suggests any connection with any figures in organized crime. Unless I see something otherwise, I think it is reasonable to cross those personalities off the list. I am always open minded if there is anything that turns up.

    The cases authorities tried to entangle with Joan's case were cases of known prostitutes. Again, it does not fit with the person I knew, and nothing in the records support that. It was a devaluing blanket excuse to blame the victim.

    The offender had the influence to avoid detection.

    Ebfortin 76 zeroed in on my concern that the 2nd vehicle was involved in Joan's loss. It is the lead of the bearded man and the blue car that evaporated into thin air, not Joan. The name of the Town Taxi cabbie was Fenton Allen Moore. The only person I can find with that name is listed in his 90's and contact information was not available. Even contacts in Boston have not found him. He may be deceased.

    Now, let me add another aspect to consider. It is not difficult in MA history to identify categories or specific people the authorities would shield. The offender had influence. However, authorities are not the only ones promoting the boat/Paradiso theory that diverted the investigation. What person or category of people would the Websters shield?

    I welcome your thoughts.
     
  14. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I think it is fair to say, it is tough for any reasonable person to imagine who would take a higher priority than Joan for her parents.

    Ebfortin 76 suggested the police knew who it was, but shielded him because he served some perceived greater purpose, someone like an informant.

    If that's the case, the Websters were coerced or convinced to go along with authorities. I have some nagging questions if that is the explanation. The Websters were not passive when authorities were pushing the Paradiso/boat narrative. They supported the explanation right up to their public support for Tim Burke's 2008 publication. They were hands on, but behind the scenes. That is very evident in recovered records.

    Even if they went along with some clandestine operation that denied justice for their daughter, why drag everyone down other rabbit holes? A good example was the extortion incident in October 1982. Paradiso had already been targeted in January 1982. A lot of valuable resources in other departments were sucked up chasing false leads. All the distractions kept earnest authorities from getting to the truth.

    This is a tough question, but one I live with. Did George Webster go along with authorities or did authorities go along with George Webster?

    I welcome your thoughts.
     
  15. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Joan announced to the Town Taxi cabbie that the bearded man was with her. The bearded man exchanged words with the cabbie struggling with a heavy bag. The bearded man said I don't think "we" want to take this cab. Joan's bag was removed from the trunk of the Town Taxi. Joan and the bearded man moved to another vehicle.

    This sequence of events suggests Joan knew the bearded man. He took control. Joan trusted him to change vehicles. She viewed him with some authority. As I said before, if Joan knew this man, there is a possibility I knew him, too. That possibility also applies to all of the Websters.

    The authorities and the Websters both suppressed the lead from the Town Taxi cabbie. It is a tough question. Did George Webster go along with authorities or did authorities go along with George Webster?

    I welcome your thoughts.
     
  16. Gruffin

    Gruffin Member

    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think it is more likely that George Webster went along with authorities. People tend to be broad in what emotionally makes them feel violated. Having had you daughter kidnapped and likely murdered is the sort of thing that can make you feel violated and as if you shouldn't trust your feelings. Occasionally parents of victims decide to try to forget and find it difficult to think about the matter at all. There is the tendency of some who have lost someone to crime to put lots of trust in respected authority and the people who by normal tradition and duty are supposed to deal with the matter (the justice system). Similarly, there may have been a tendency to rely on existing support structures, such as the intelligence community of which Mr. and Mrs. Webster was a part, which by what it is tasked with may be presumed to have at least some expertise in dealing with similar mysteries. That said, police often presumably like to please the family of victims, which I suppose might be especially rewarding in the greater political scheme that partly controls police appointments, etc., if the family have some social prominence.

    To me the main question about the investigation indeed is Why was the eyewitness testimony and description from the Town Taxi cabbie squashed and not made public? Partly it could be that the Websters were influenced by the culture of secrecy of which they were a part. The members of any class will tend to have excess faith in the particular skills and choices made by that class. The CIA works in secrecy. People in that organization may be expected to, on average, have more faith in secrecy than most people, just as artists tend to believe in feelings compared with logic more than mathematicians do.

    But I would think that the police departments in the Boston area would be much more down-to-earth and straightforward than the CIA, and I would expect in the investigation of Joan's death for police to have had more power and influence than the Websters and their associates. Notwithstanding the Websters were CIA hush-hush, it's still surprising that a lead which would be so obviously useful to publicize would have been squashed. One explanation is sheer incompetence and failure to communicate between agencies. Another explanation could be, e.g., what I quite blindly speculate as the most plausible skulduggery, namely that elements of law enforcement were allowing certain individuals special access to the taxi line notwithstanding the individuals didn't have the proper licenses, in, say, exchange for a consideration of some sort. Maybe those elements of law enforcement were discouraging any line of investigation that might lead other investigators to look more closely at the mechanics of the taxi line and what gives certain taxis precedence over others there. If law enforcement corruption be involved, I think petty corruption is a less drastic more plausible assumption than extreme corruption (intentional collusion with homicidal maniac).

    As for improper mixing of Joan Webster's case with that of Marie Ianuzzi, I don't know if that necessarily is cause for extreme concern. Many people are such that once they feel quite certain someone is a despicable rapist, they want him put away, and if it means not being quite as legalistically proper as possible, well, they will take matters into their own hands. Perhaps that is what was being attempted with Paradiso. They wanted to throw as much dirt at him as possible to give him the longest term in jail possible because they hated him. Somehow it feels like that sort of thing might be more likely to happen in major urban areas where resource constraints and a high unsolved-crime/victim ratio along with a more savage environment makes it feel less wrong and more right.
     
  17. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

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

    Thank you for your input. These are difficult considerations to unravel Joan's case.

    Let me address the Iannuzzi case first. These cases were entangled from the start, long before it was made public. Patty Bono, who knew both Paradiso and Carmen Tammaro (MSP) since childhood, made the anonymous call to the Saugus police in January 1982. That is verified. She implicated Paradiso for both Iannuzzi and Joan. The Websters held a high powered meeting in February 1982. Burke and Palombo were paired at the Webster meeting to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case. You have the same prosecutor, same lead cop, and the same suspect. Burke convenes a grand jury in the Iannuzzi case in March 1982. Days after the first session, a MSP officer implicated Paradiso in Joan's case to Paradiso's parole officer. This was about Joan, not Marie Iannuzzi. The Iannuzzi case was a smokescreen. A lot was going on under the radar before Paradiso was made public in January 1983. For example, his fingerprints were submitted to the FBI in Joan's case in November 1982, with negative results.

    Examining the Iannuzzi case revealed the tactics and methods Burke and Palombo used to gain a conviction. It was dirty. Recovered documents support this was a wrongful conviction. These two cases were fused by authorities. It would not be a thorough examination to understand what went wrong in Joan's case to discount the Iannuzzi case.

    Paradiso had a rap sheet and was a parolee from an assault conviction in the Constance Porter case. The perception of Paradiso as a serial rapist was fueled by authorities. I could not find any conclusive evidence Paradiso ever raped anyone. What I did find were at least three cases of false or very questionable allegations of sexual assault or abuse. Authorities used the media to tie the two cases together.

    Patty Bono - the woman who dropped the dime on Paradiso made allegations of a 1972 assault and attempted rape. There was nothing to support her accusations. There was an account written by the man she said settled the score, Willie Fopiano. He had other things going on when Bono claimed he defended her. This story was a contrivance.

    Janet McCarthy was an assault victim on July 10, 1980. She escaped and there is a police report. After working with Palombo, her testimony changed significantly from the police report recorded at the time. Her testimony does not match up with Palombo's. Actual records support Paradiso was not her assailant.

    This example offends me the most. Charlene Bullerwell dated Paradiso a handful of times. She testified she was pressured by the FBI. She testified to a consensual relationship. Her federal grand jury testimony was dramatically different than the public hearing during the Iannuzzi pretrial. She refused to testify during the Iannuzzi trial. Burke published a nauseating account which contradicts Bullerwell's own testimony. Burke made up an allegation of sexual assault. Burke damaged the ability of victims with legitimate claims or concerns of sexual abuse.

    I agree that overzealous authorities were willing to break the rules to put someone away that they had labeled a serial rapist. They did so trying to add Joan to that list with zero evidence and hidden exculpatory evidence.

    I do not want to minimize anything that Paradiso may have verifiably done. All of the things that came out during Joan's investigation were bogus and the state piled on in ways any regular citizen should be afraid of. It is an abuse of authority.

    I will address some of your other points when I have an opportunity to get back on.
     
  18. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

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

    I want to address some of the other points your raised. You correctly assessed the Websters are secretive. During Joan's investigation, I didn't know what I didn't know. My information came from the Websters and authorities. The Websters like to claim privacy, but it is more accurate to describe them as secretive.

    People process grief in different ways. The Websters are not warm fuzzy people. I never saw emotion from them during all of this. Some might say that is stoic, but there are some personal experiences that show an emotional disconnection. Perhaps that is a result of their background.

    I would agree that victims do sometimes block out trauma or try to. This investigation and entangled matters went on for many years. This was not a matter of blocking things out or a state of denial to shut down. George and Eleanor were very influential during this entire travesty. It goes right back to the beginning when they didn't provide the second phone # into the house. George enlisted ITT security and the head of that department added confusion during the early critical days. Those actions weren't part of some clandestine operation of MA authorities.

    The FBI was alerted by December 3, 1981. Intelligence groups were involved, not just local and state officials. There is support for your assessment of poor communication between departments. There were so many departments and agencies involved I lost count. The list is long. I do agree that authorities wanted to "please" the parents.

    The persons that hurt loved ones are those responsible for Joan's loss and covering it up. I can't imagine police suppressing evidence to find the missing daughter of a prominent family to conceal improper favors to get into a taxi line. It is also difficult for me to believe authorities covered for someone, and convinced the parents to go along and frame someone for Joan's loss. Ask yourself what you would do as a parent and your daughter went missing. Would you go along if authorities told you that this was a big fish, more important than Joan. We have this guy we suspect of all of these other offenses. We'll add Joan to the list. And on top of that ask the parents to help them set the guy up.

    There is a tendency to show empathy for the family of a missing or murdered person. We all know how we would feel. When I started digging into this, I had to set aside how I would feel or react, not project my emotions on someone else, and look at everyone critically. That includes the Websters. They were not honest or open with me. If they were deceived or coerced, I have a mountain of documents to support finding justice for Joan.

    The thought the Websters went along with the false explanation is a red flag to me that the truth about what happened to Joan is embarrassing for the Websters. Maybe their behaviors were after the fact of an embarrassing situation, maybe not. As I have indicated before, the Websters are very image conscious. In a previous post, it was suggested the offender may have been afraid of damaging secrets. Based on what the family did, not necessarily whether they went along with police or not, was George the person afraid of what the truth exposed?

    Another piece I am factoring in are other victims. Were there other victims? Are there victims that have some connection to Joan or the Websters? The answer is yes if only because the Websters went along with a false scenario.

    Parents that are not telling the truth about what happened to their daughter is a very big problem for me.
     
  19. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Switching to the 2nd car was the point where Joan disappeared. The lead was suppressed. No second driver came forward. The 2nd car is involved in Joan's abduction whether it was by design or not.

    Joan was not with anyone on the flight. She was not with anyone at the luggage carousel. Witnesses affirmed seeing her. She spoke with a man behind a counter. We don't know what was said. Joan moved outside the Eastern terminal to the taxi line and knocked on the Town Taxi window. She asked the cabbie to go to Cambridge. Her suitcase was loaded into the trunk. This is the point where we know someone was with Joan. She told the cabbie someone was with her.

    The man had a heavy suitcase. It is reasonable to consider he was travelling. The man exchanged words with the cabbie making a fuss over handling the suitcase. The man announced, "We" don't want to take this cab. The man had some authority over Joan. Joan trusted the man and switched to a car that was not identifiable as a regular cab. The lead was suppressed. We know what Joan's fate was.

    As I look at the whole picture, the chain of events seems premeditated. Joan knew this person. The Town Taxi cabbie was the one glitch in the plan that gives us information to find the offender(s). Joan knew the man; this was not random.

    So, who knew where Joan would be? Joan went back on Saturday night. Most people travel on Sunday after Thanksgiving. She could have gone back with her sister Anne on Sunday by car. George said she went back early to work on a project with classmates. There is no evidence to support that. Joan presented an 11-week project before the break. George said Joan spoke to a classmate earlier on Saturday from NJ to check if they had supplies. The home phone records do not support that. Joan planned to have a friend come to NJ to meet the parents over the break. Those plans changed. In my experience with the family, George was the one that dictated those decisions.

    Let me give you a personal example from Christmas 1997. Steve, Joan's brother, told me Anne wanted to bring her boyfriend Dave for Christmas at our house. I was told it was my decision. The problem for me was that Anne was married to someone else and so was her boyfriend Dave. Anne's marriage was dissolving, but I was uncomfortable with the situation in front of my very impressionable girls. I compromised. I offered to do a brunch the day after Christmas and Dave could come then.

    George and Eleanor arrived before Anne. George sat at the dinner table and announced Dave was coming on Christmas. Needless to say, I was not happy being usurped and manipulated. The weekend was very uncomfortable. I won't go into all the details.

    If plans changed for Joan's friend to visit, George was the one in control. George also would have been the one who booked Joan's flight.

    Joan disappeared from the airport with someone she knew. Who knew where Joan would be? There are 4 people who knew with certainty where Joan was going to be.

    George Webster
    Eleanor Webster
    Anne Webster
    Joan Webster

    I welcome your thoughts.
     
  20. eve carson

    eve carson Verified Family - Joan Webster

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Go back to the question whether the Websters went along with authorities, or if authorities went along with George Webster. There is a lot of information posted. Let me refresh you on a couple of points. The Websters posted reward money in January 1982 and increased it in October 1982. That has the appearance of parents trying to find their daughter. However, the authorities and the Websters had a lead that was suppressed. Why would parents go to these lengths if authorities convinced or coerced them to go along with some clandestine operation? It does not make sense to me. It has the right appearance, but was not going to result in anything constructive to find Joan.

    A second piece of information unsettles me. I hired a PI. He and an attorney interviewed the state's snitch Robert Bond. I am uploading an excerpt from the report I got back. The guy from NJ sent people to see him. The people that went to see Bond were Tammaro and Palombo. Burke joined in later when Bond was developed as a witness. All three worked closely with George.

    [​IMG]

    Go to the next question; who knew where Joan would be? The home phone records do not reveal any calls that would offer a clue. On Thanksgiving Day, a call was placed to Eleanor's mother and a call to Steve and me. On Friday there is a 411 call to information, a call to NYC for dinner reservations, and a call to the US Chamber of Portugal. George later affirmed placing the call to the restaurant and the US Chamber of Portugal. The number was 1 digit off from the restaurant and George said he dialed a wrong number. That makes sense. On Saturday there is a call to 411 again. No other calls.

    The 411 call on Friday is right before the two calls George made. There is no call following the 411 call on Saturday. George was always organized to confirm things like flights and reservations. The problem is, George and Eleanor did not provide police with the second number into the house. Neither of the 411 calls were long enough for anything other than getting a number.

    Joan did not make any calls from either house where they stopped for cocktails.

    If someone knew where Joan was going to be, the information had to originate from one of the Websters; George, Eleanor, Anne, or Joan.
     

    Attached Files:

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