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

[eve carson]

There are some very simple and logical questions that help focus on who was responsible for Joan's loss.

1. Who had knowledge of the eyewitness description from the Town Taxi cabbie in December 1981?

Three names stand out: Carmen Tamarro and Andrew Palombo assigned to the F Barracks at Logan. George Webster received the lead in December 1981. There is no evidence Tim Burke touched this case until February 1982.


2. Why was this lead suppressed?

The logical answer is they did not want people to find this person.


3. When was Leonard Paradiso viewed as a suspect?

On or about January 20, 1982, Patty Bono placed an anonymous call to the Saugus PD implicating Paradiso in the 1979 Marie Iannuzzi murder and the disappearance of Joan? Tamarro coordinated the different departments. It is reasonable Tamarro and Palombo knew about the call. Tim Burke later confirmed his knowledge and identified Bono. He affirmed the information was communicated to George Webster. Burke would have known when he joined the team against Paradiso in February 1982. Burke was working on Paradiso related matters in February 1982.


4. Is there evidence Paradiso was being targeted by authorities?

Yes. Burke convenes a grand jury in the Iannuzzi case on March 5, 1982. The evidence implicated the boyfriend David Doyle. On March 11, 1982, a MSP officer informed Paradiso's parole officer Paradiso was a suspect in a new Boston crime, Joan Webster. Authorities did a fingerprint comparison on November 5, 1982, comparing a print in Joan's case to LP. Authorities received a negative match on November 24, 1982.


5. When was Robert Bond, the state's star witness, introduced?

Bond was transferred to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982. His cell was on the third tier, but he was moved and positioned near Paradiso. Tim Burke claimed Bond sent him an unsolicited letter on or about January 5, 1983. Based on receiving the letter, Burke claims he set up an interview with the MSP that was conducted on January 14, 1983. Burke and Palombo filed numerous documents with the court stating the letter was the basis for investigating Paradiso. Burke and Palombo perpetrated a fraud on the courts. Burke did not have a letter from Bond. The letter came after two identified meetings the MSP had with Bond on January 10, 1983, and Janaury 14, 1983. Palombo and Tamarro are identified in those meetings. The letter was mailed on January 10, 1983 and had not arrived by the meeting on the 14th.

6. Why bring in a snitch and manufacture a story a year after the authorities had Paradiso in their sights?

Simple answer, covering up what really happened and set up a scape goat.


7. Did Bond know the manner of death?

No. He offered the choice of strangulation or a blow to the head during the interview on January 14, 1983.


8. Did Bond know where Paradiso previously moored his boat?

On January 14, 1983, Bond had no clue where Paradiso moored his boat and said if he got it wrong it was on the MSP. They were the source of his information.


9. Did the interview differ from the written statement?

Yes. Bond detailed the blow to the head with correct detail as the manner of death. He was clear where Paradiso moored his boat.


10. Were promises made to Bond?

Yes. Bond was offered help to get a retrial for his murder charge, attorney of his choice, he was offered a manslaughter charge, and enticed with Webster reward money. During his retrial, Bond filed a motion naming the people who made promises he relied on: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and "Bill," (probably court officer John Gillam who was present in meetings with Bond.)


11. Who had knowledge of the bankruptcy case regarding the status of Paradiso's boat, the alleged crime scene?

Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster are identified in source documents. It is reasonable Palombo's superior, Carmen Tammaro also knew. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.


12. Who maintained the Paradiso/boat theory contrary to the evidence?

Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster all had conflicting evidence, but maintained the boat scenario.


This scenario was fabricated. To me, cover-up is the only logical explanation for the facts in the source documents. So who knew what happened to Joan? Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tamarro introduced the correct manner of death with correct detail filtered through a snitch. George Webster had knowledge of the facts such as the cabbie lead, and the status of the boat. Whether Burke figured it out or not is unknown. I believe he was enlisted and manipulated. He certainly knew he was bringing false witnesses, and fabricated evidence.


Central players to the investigation were endeavoring to cover it up and pin it on a scapegoat. I have provided my conclusions based on source documents. Feel free to offer your thought.

 

[eve carson]

There are four names to focus on; Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster. At best, all of these individuals were complicit to cover up Joan's murder. You can argue support may have been out of ignorance or being deceived. Let me take them one at a time.


Tim Burke:

Young prosecutor in Suffolk County who began handling cold cases in September 1981. The earliest indication he was part of the team targeting Paradiso was February 1982. He was married with a young child. He knowingly presented false documents, false evidence, and false witnesses to the courts. He gained a conviction of Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case with a very distorted account. Source documents support this was a wrongful conviction. He instigated the bankruptcy fraud case against Paradiso with the boat, the alleged crime scene, as a central component. He left the Suffolk County DAO in September 1985 with a very plumb contract representing the MSP and police unions.


Eyewitness descriptions can be very subjective, but there are some guidelines to help find the offender. Burke might have fit the physical size of the offender. It would be stretching it for him to be seen as middle aged, he was 31 or 32 at the time. At the time, he had a moustache and hair that came down over his eyes. Burke did not know Joan. There is no indication Burke was travelling, but he would have been with his family over Thanksgiving weekend if he had. He had brown hair and wore glasses. I can't say how much influence he had, but he would not be someone in a position representing authority to Joan.


I view Tim Burke as someone others could manipulate. His involvement began when he was assigned to the case at the Webster meeting in February 1982. He was complicit after-the-fact.

 

[Ibiz]

Glad to hear that you have made more progress in this case Eve. I hope you are having a good Christmas as well.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Ibiz,

Thank you. It is a process of elimination at this point. The holidays are difficult, but my faith is strong. Merry Christmas to you.

There are four names to focus on, Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster. At best, all of these individuals were complicit to cover up Joan's murder. Let me take them one at a time.

Carmen Tamarro:

Tamarro was a sergeant with the MSP assigned to F Barracks at Logan Airport. Tamarro was involved from the beginning. According to contemporaneous reports, Eleanor Webster contacted him, and he coordinated between the different departments that got involved in Joan's investigation. He would have knowledge of the eyewitness lead in December 1981. Tamarro knew Paradiso growing up in the North End of Boston. Tamarro also knew Patty Bono growing up in the NE. She was the woman who placed the anonymous call to the Saugus PD in January 1982, implicating Paradiso for Marie Iannuzzi's murder and Joan's disappearance. He worked closely with the Websters from the beginning.

Paradiso documented a meeting with Tamarro on August 1, 1982, at the Charles Street Jail. This was three weeks after police arrested Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Tamarro suggested Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. The date is very significant, months before the state produced a witness with the same accusations. Tamarro was Palombo's superior, the lead officer on the Iannuzzi case. The meeting three weeks after the arrest was corroborated in the statement Tamarro brought forward from the state's witness Robert Bond.

Tamarro is identified in two meetings with Bond, January 10 & 14, 1983. Bond did not know Joan's manner of death, or where Paradiso had moored his boat. The written letter was produced after those meetings, contrary to documents submitted to the courts. Tamarro guided this witness and the letter that was produced cleared Bond's confusion. The letter contained the correct manner of death with correct detail.

Tamarro is identified knowing the correct manner of death and would have been instrumental in concealing the eyewitness description.

Tamarro had dark hair, no glasses or facial hair. He was well over 6'. Nothiing indicates Joan knew Tamarro. Nothing indicates Tamarro was travelling at the time. As an officer, he would represent authority, but Joan would not transfer cars with a police officer unless she was being arrested; she was not.

Tamarro is complicit; he suppressed the eyewitness lead, he suggested his same accusation about the boat months before state witness Bond, he produced a statement filtered through Bond with the correct manner of death. He was complicit early on, but it is not certain he had knowledge prior to Joan's murder.

 

[eve carson]

Investigators looking at any case will not know things unless they are told. Even the smallest detail can pull the case together. In Joan's case, I was surprised what was missing. Now that I have a much better understanding of the investigation, I am concerned.

Joan's purse and wallet were found. The only thing missing, according to reports, was the cash. Joan's suitcase was found. The FBI lab indicated it had not been disturbed. The tote bag and contents were never recovered.

On the night Joan travelled, she was dressed up. She absolutely wore her gold charm bracelet and other jewelry items. She wore a black skirt, red print blouse, brown knee high boots, a brown Chesterfield coat, and a navy blue neck scarf. When the remains surfaced, all of the clothing was stripped. None of the clothing she wore was ever found. Not a trace.

There were two pieces of jewelry on the skeleton, a gold neck chain and a gold and amethyst ring. At some point Joan might have taken the bracelet off and put it in her purse or tote. The purse seems much more reasonable to me. It could drop out of a tote bag. The bracelet was identifiable. There was a silhouette charm with Joan's initials and birthdate. For the sake of discussion, I will assume she took it off and the offender took it from her purse or with the tote. It has never turned up.

But there is one piece of jewelry that baffled me, her signet ring. She always wore it. Since there was a ring on the skeleton, I think it's fair to say she would not have removed the signet ring. It was a small gold ring with her initials. It is another indicator to me that Joan knew the offender. A thief might take the bracelet, but why be selective to take one ring and leave a ring that had a stone? The pieces that were missing were the items that were positively identified.

When I first started to recover records, I noticed something else that was missing. Police checked calls on the home number in NJ. However, the second number into the home was not anywhere in the police records. No one checked that number. An investigator would not know there was a second number unless someone told them or did some digging with the phone company to find out.


No clothes, no identifiable jewelry, and a secreted phone number. The devil is in the details.

 

[cherrymeg]

Investigators looking at any case will not know things unless they are told. Even the smallest detail can pull the case together. In Joan's case, I was surprised what was missing. Now that I have a much better understanding of the investigation, I am concerned.

Joan's purse and wallet were found. The only thing missing, according to reports, was the cash. Joan's suitcase was found. The FBI lab indicated it had not been disturbed. The tote bag and contents were never recovered.

On the night Joan travelled, she was dressed up. She absolutely wore her gold charm bracelet and other jewelry items. She wore a black skirt, red print blouse, brown knee high boots, a brown Chesterfield coat, and a navy blue neck scarf. When the remains surfaced, all of the clothing was stripped. None of the clothing she wore was ever found. Not a trace.

There were two pieces of jewelry on the skeleton, a gold neck chain and a gold and amethyst ring. At some point Joan might have taken the bracelet off and put it in her purse or tote. The purse seems much more reasonable to me. It could drop out of a tote bag. The bracelet was identifiable. There was a silhouette charm with Joan's initials and birthdate. For the sake of discussion, I will assume she took it off and the offender took it from her purse or with the tote. It has never turned up.

But there is one piece of jewelry that baffled me, her signet ring. She always wore it. Since there was a ring on the skeleton, I think it's fair to say she would not have removed the signet ring. It was a small gold ring with her initials. It is another indicator to me that Joan knew the offender. A thief might take the bracelet, but why be selective to take one ring and leave a ring that had a stone? The pieces that were missing were the items that were positively identified.

When I first started to recover records, I noticed something else that was missing. Police checked calls on the home number in NJ. However, the second number into the home was not anywhere in the police records. No one checked that number. An investigator would not know there was a second number unless someone told them or did some digging with the phone company to find out.


No clothes, no identifiable jewelry, and a secreted phone number. The devil is in the details.

You should do a podcast. I skipped about ten pages because you had me hoping there was a clear answer and I'm impatient lol. I probably missed this but are you still on good terms with the Websters? Did you ever question if it was Joan that was identified as being with the bearded guy. Could her body have been in the large suitcase the guy was carrying and someone that looked like her was used to make people believe she got on the plane? Sorry if this has been mentioned. Her change of plans seems weird unless it was easy to exchange a ticket.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

This is a case that had a lot of twists and turns. It has taken a long time to unwind largely because there were so many obstacles to get to records. I have reached out to the Websters for their input. The Websters a very secretive. I suppose part of that can be attributed to the intelligence background. Going through the tragedy with Joan, I did not know what I did not know. The Websters were not open and honest with me.

Joan was positively identified on the flight. The eyewitness description was spot on. I have no doubt the Town Taxi cabbie saw Joan and had her bag in his cab. I don't know what was in the heavy suitcase, but exchanging words with the cabbie tells me a lot about the bearded man's demeanor. Cabbies handle a lot of heavy bags. I do believe it was a ploy to get Joan into a different car.

Her change of plans always bothered me. George Webster said she went back early to work with classmates on a school project. That was not true. She presented her project before the break. When Joan went home for break, she did not have plans to go back early. A friend planned to go to NJ over the break, a kind of "meet the parents" visit. It was also out of character for the whole family to drive Joan to Newark. If they were coming from NYC, maybe, but they were in their hometown.

The big travel day would have been Sunday. I doubt it was that difficult to get a ticket on Saturday night. The plans were to drive back with her sister on Sunday, not fly. The phone records don't match up with some of the explanations from the family. This was a very patriarchal family; George ruled the roost. They planned things down to the smallest detail. A change in plans was likely dictated by George.

The investigation itself is the key to resolving Joan's loss.

 

[cherrymeg]

Thank you @eve carson . The family dynamic is interesting. I wondered about the eyewitness statement just because people are known to make mistakes. Do you think Joan would have been put off by the bearded man's interaction with the cabbie? A lot of times girls are conditioned to be "nice". If the bearded man had been polite to her she might not have wanted to make a scene. He did draw attention to himself. The beard could have been a disguise. A clean shave and decent hair cut can make a man look unrecognizable.
That change of plans is weirder as you pointed out she was supposed to be driven back. If she didn't have to turn in a project than why say that. It would make more sense to say she wanted to get settle in and that way her sister didn't end up stuck in traffic with everyone else returning to school. I went with my friend to drop her daughter off at college it was the fall so probably more parents drive up there. We went a day or so earlier she stayed at her friends house until her dorm opened. On our way back we didn't have traffic but the road to the college was packed. Or even if her sister had something come up. Do you know how she felt about her parents. They could have had their secrets but still been affectionate people. Your first mention of a patriarchal control made me wonder if something was off.
I noticed you used past tense when saying you were married to the brother. Can I ask how long? I'm sorry if you already mention it. Did his parents seem controlling of him? Was he close to his sister. I can't imagine it was easy for him. Sorry if that is too personal. I think it's really good you are trying to get answers for Joan. I hope your holiday is going well.

 

[eve carson]

Thank you Cherrymeg,

From the outside, the Websters look like a Norman Rockwell family. They are very interesting and very entertaining. They are not warm and fuzzy or affectionate people. To the outside observer, there was harmony. From within, George ran the show, he was very controlling and so was Eleanor.

Let me give you an example. One summer on the beach in Nantucket, I was doing what I usually did on the beach, reading a good book. I didn't notice friends that had walked onto the beach. Steve and Anne popped up like corks and stood by their parents to say hello to the new arrivals. Later that evening, while I was cleaning up in the bedroom, I heard George lay into Steve about what was wrong with me not to rush by his side to greet friends. Needless to say, that did not sit well with me. There were many times George and Eleanor dismissed my boundaries to have things done their way. Steve is insecure, he would not ever dare challenge his parents. I was married to Steve for 25 years. I bit my lip often, and demonstrated enormous patience when I was around his parents. I think your choice of words, "conditioned," fits the family dynamic very well. I see it in my children.

The day we learned Joan was missing, Steve yelled at me for crying. He told me it was his sister and I had no right to cry. My take at the time was an immature person who did not know how to cope. I had a miscarriage the same night Joan disappeared and it was more than Steve could handle I thought. I only saw Steve cry once after his sister disappeared. He had molars removed and sedated. He spent the next day apologizing to people. I never saw George and Eleanor cry. My take on it at the time was being stoic, strong in the face of tragedy.

The cabbie already had Joan's suitcase in the trunk when the bearded man exchanged words. It was late. Joan already hailed a cab. Her hands loaded with all of her belongings. She already announced to the cabbie her destination was Cambridge. I firmly believe Joan would not have changed cars unless the bearded man represented authority to her. She knew her assailant. I also do not believe this was some paramour. The man described would not be Joan's type. She dated young men her own age, clean cut, and more preppy-like. However, I agree the beard could have been a disguise. Some things can alter appearance while other qualities are harder to conceal. I think it goes without saying, someone who has a malicious intent would try to conceal their identity.

Tragedy can really tear families apart. I know there is strain and disagreement in the Iannuzzi family for example. I first had doubts about the Paradiso boat theory when remains surfaced more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene. She was not dumped in Boston Harbor as claimed. I learned other facts as I got into records. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. Paradiso was targeted a year before the state came up with a snitch. Bond's statement and testimony is completely manufactured with input from the MSP. There are big problems with the investigation. So how did the cops know the correct manner of death with correct detail more than seven years before remains surfaced? That was information was only known to the offender or a complicit party.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
If I'm reading on the beach which I always did. I'm not jumping up to greet a someones friends. I get totally immersed in books. That doesn't seem natural to be standing at attention on beach to say hello to people. That is a casual setting where kids are playing or in ocean. It sounds like the Webster children were conditioned to almost anticipate their parents needs. Does your husband or ex treat you children like his dad did? Are george and Eleanor in your kids lives?
I know grief isn't a one size fits all thing. Some people might be in denial and tears for someone who is missing could make it too real for certain people. You really shouldn't dictate the emotions of your pregnant wife or even a PMSing woman. I'm sorry you went through two losses. In my experience with my son's dad, it's not a great sign when someone can only understand their own pain or feelings. I was pushing a baby out and my ex complained that I was hurting him when I grabbed onto him during each push. The nurses looked at him like he was crazy lol.
Did Eleanor seem like she listened to her husband or did they come off as being equal? I just watched a show and someone cut off their beard I was like, "who is that?". Were the kids aware of their parents backgrounds? Did Joan seem like she could rebel against them. I don't mean that negatively but if she found out something that was inhumane whether involving the CIA or their Nazi connections could she have been a threat? That could be way to dramatic.
The police things and boats don't make sense. The bearded man could have been a person that was related to a friend, someone she knew in a say hi in passing way. He also could have come off as authoritative. If she was used to being told what to do by her father a physically imposing man with an attitude that suggests he's in charge she could have fallen into an old pattern. Did you talk to her boyfriend at the time?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

I am like you, fully engrossed when I am reading a good book. I witnessed the stand to attention on so many occasions. I never fit into that mindset, but was always respectful. I also agree that people handle grief in different ways. However, seeing what is in source documents now is real concern there is an emotional disconnection. At the time, I cried at the slightest thing. I still do today. Reliving all of this and finding so many discrepancies has been overwhelming at times.

Eleanor had a lot of loss in her life before she married George. Her parents had a "shotgun" marriage. Today, no one is upset with children out of wedlock, but in her time, it was very shameful. They had a second daughter, Eleanor's sister, but her mom and dad divorced when Eleanor was 8 years old. Eleanor became estranged from her father for the rest of her life. She passed away in 2010. Her mom remarried and her new husband adopted Eleanor and her sister when she were 14. Eleanor married a WestPoint cadet, Tom Hardaway. He was killed in the Korean War just a little more than a year after they married. Her adoptive father then died. Eleanor went to work for the CIA and met George. Her mom never seemed that fond of George and spoke more than once about how she liked Eleanor's first husband, even suggested they name Steve after him.

Eleanor's relationship with George was probably more in line with their generation, but I sometimes referred to her as a "Stepford Wife." It was said in jest, no harm intended, but she catered to George. Not my style at all, but Steve seemed to want that catering. Don't get me wrong, I am always happy to do things for others, but when it was expected and without appreciation, I was less inclined.

If George had too much to drink, Eleanor hovered. Sometimes too much Scotch loosened his lips to talk about what they did in the CIA, but Eleanor immediately shut him up. Everyone in their circle of friends new they had worked for the CIA, but what they did was never discussed. I had to learn the hard way and over time, the intelligence mindset is very different. Secrecy is not conducive to healthy relationships.

Joan would not be rebellious, but she did have a moral compass. That could have raised tensions within the family. No one observing from the outside would ever see the signs. I watched that in Steve many times. It was like he had a door in his mind to shut things out and go on with the show. To the Websters, everything had to be fun and games, "fundador" to use George's word.

Joan was not likely to switch cars with someone she casually knew. It would make for too many coincidences for someone just to appear outside her terminal at the right time, switch cars that just happened to drive Joan off to some horrible fate. I spoke to Joan on Thanksgiving. There was no hint of going back early. Yes, I do still have contact with the friend who planned to visit NJ. The change in plans came over the break and not many people would knew the details.

Joan lived in NYC for awhile before grad school. She had her purse swiped in a pass by mugging. She was not hurt, but shaken. She was cautious and would not have switched cars under the circumstances. If something turned up in records to change my opinion of that, I am always open, but it is highly unlikely.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
My grandmother probably wouldn't have stayed married to my grandfather if she hadn't had an awful first marriage. She said that. If both Eleanor and George were CIA would that have made them ideal for each other. If she knew enough to shush him when he would get talkative maybe she was more important in ways he wasn't. Are you supposed to know if someone works for the CIA? Could George have mentioned something while drinking to Joan and could it have made her a target. I don't know what they did for the CIA or what the CIA does. I don't think they are trustworthy. I don't know enough about them. Torture on black sites and in other countries isn't something I support. Mostly because it doesn't work. What if the bearded man was someone Joan knew? Would CIA people have stayed in touch with the family?
It seems odd that a girl raised to be cautious and that had a good head on her shoulders would follow a total stranger into another cab. Unless the man with the beard provoked the cab driver in a way that the driver seemed to be hostile. I'm not sure how that would happen.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

I think your instincts are correct. I studied every single aspect of this I could think of. That included some in depth study of the CIA. The CIA was a young agency when the Websters were there. There was very little, if any, oversight. When you join the agency, you sign a secrecy agreement. I don't think Eleanor had any higher authority over George, but she maintained control. George drank quite a bit, sometimes starting early in the day. I never saw him out of control, but he got wobbly and perhaps Eleanor thought he might spill some secrets.

The agency brought professionals from Nazi Germany after WWII and helped them blend into all areas of American society; business, scientists, scholars, etc. Some even became part of the agency as personnel studied methods used by the "foe." There was an umbrella project in the agency during the years George and Eleanor were there. In simple terms, a lot of the focus of the agency was mind control. They studied cults, used drugs and other methods of control. The agency was very skilled in creating perceptions, in other words propaganda to influence perceptions.

They left the agency and moved to Dayton, Ohio where George worked for his father's company. Ironically, the headquarters of the business was in Waltham, MA. The family had connections in Boston. Anne and Joan were both born in Dayton. He didn't stay long. The family went back to NJ and George went to work for ITT. If someone is working for the agency covertly, it was unlikely you would know who they worked for. That doesn't mean everyone had to keep their employment completely secret. I bring that up because I cannot say whether George was still associated with the CIA or not. His division got involved as a cover firm for the CIA influencing political outcomes in Chile. It went on a long time and was very dirty business. It resulted in a coup and Augusto Pinochet came into power. The Senate conducted extensive hearings on the conduct of the CIA and ITT. The Church Hearings lasted until 1977. George was the director of budget and planning for the DOD. He would have been right in the thick of all of this.

Joan was still home during those years. There is no doubt in my mind she had some awareness even if she didn't know details. She already had to have awareness of secrets in the family. I don't want to get off track to much, but it helps to understand how the Websters think.

Joan would not have gotten into another car with the man at Logan unless she knew him and he represented an authority figure to her. The exchange the man had with the cabbie caught the attention of the dispatcher who got on the radio to see if the cabbie was all right. The cabbie was not the dominant person in the exchange, it was the man Joan left with. I do think Joan's loss has to do with Webster secrets. I don't want to suggest her murder was a result of the parent's CIA or ITT activities, but those are identifiable behavior patterns.

As I said before, this case had a lot of twists and turns and extraordinary factors to sort through.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
Would things in 81 have made Joan willing to open up about things she grew up hearing. Kids pick up things. My mom did taxes from home when I was a kid, I can still remember things and can say them even though I'm not always 100% sure I'm saying something correctly, or where it came from in my head. I'm pretty sure having boring tax phrases float around your head are better than getting killed. I don't know what CIA parents would say around a child.
Could Joan have been scared for the Taxi Cab driver? I'm trying to think of reasons you would follow someone hostile. One reason could be that you don't want to see someone else die and if you are pretty sure someone can't help you, maybe she chose to get the bearded man away from other people.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
It sounds like the parents did well for themselves. Could they have made enemies in the CIA or as they climbed the political ladder. They didn't marry and have children as a cover right? That's like too out of a spy novel. lol

 

[eve carson]

Hi Cherrymeg,

Your first question is a very good one, one I have had for a long time. Was there a trigger, something going on that would make Joan want to open up about some "secret?" From my perspective and what I have seen in the source documents, I think that is a very good possibility. I look at it based on my experiences. I discovered a letter many years later and did not keep it a secret. That did not go over well in the family. The family is very image conscious. Was that somehow related to what happened to Joan? I won't take the risk that it didn't.

I doubt Joan switched cars with the bearded man to protect the cabbie or others. They were standing outside the terminal in a public area; people were around. It is less likely for the bearded man to harm anyone out in the open. I don't know if Joan felt threatened at the time they switched cars. It probably was not long after that she knew she was in trouble.

If the Websters made enemies that put the family at risk, it was not visible. If they suspected Joan's loss was vindictive, you would think they would alert other members of the family. I was not given that impression at all. If it was some vendetta against George and Eleanor, how did that person know where Joan would be?

Four people knew where and when Joan would be at Logan: George, Eleanor, Anne, and Joan.

 

[wdmcmahan]

Eve, why do you think Joan cut her trip short? I feel like that has everything to do with her disappearance.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
Could Joan have mentioned her sudden trip to any friends? Sometimes if you tell just one person something, it gets passed on. If her family wasn't involved or connected to her murder then her life needs to be looked into.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Wdmcmahon and Cherrymeg,

I agree, the reason Joan went back early is a factor. The simple answer is that plans changed to accommodate George. One thing bothered me. All four of them went to the airport to drop Joan off. That is out of character. Eleanor never made the trip to the airport. They were not coming from the city, but from their home town. Once I knew what gatherings they had been to, it made no sense. When asked why Joan went back early, George said it was to work on a project with classmates. There is no evidence to support that, and Joan presented her project before the break. The one thing outsiders would not observe was some disruption or discord in the family during the break. Again, I go back to something triggering Joan's conscience to speak out.

Most classmates were still on break for another day. I am not sure who Joan would tell. And even if she did, it's not likely she gave every detail, flight and times. You would do that if you were arranging for someone to pick you up. She hailed a cab. The man had a suitcase. He was travelling.

Joan had a very busy schedule. She carried a full load in graduate school. She was the dorm proctor at Perkins hall. She dated a couple of very nice young men. The man at the airport was none of the young men she had dated. If Joan had some dark nefarious activity, I am hard pressed to know when she had time for it. Again, I am always open to verified information, but nothing suggests Joan had some dark side.

 

[cherrymeg]

Eve,
Did Joan plan on seeing her family over the winter/Christmas break? That usually starts about two maybe three weeks from Thanksgiving. If that is the case that seems like a weird time to do a big family send off. Is it possible her family was traveling somewhere and dropped her off on the way?
I hope I didn't imply I thought she had some dark side. I was more thinking could someone on the fringe of her social circle or even someone from her dorm or a relative like someone she felt comfortable enough to trust and travel with have found out her plans. Even if mentioned in passing like, "so and so is coming home early". If someone planned to take her was the suitcase meant for her body? The large suitcase stands out.