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

[:+:MrTT:+:]

Hi MrTT,

Here is how I view the incident in context with known facts. Joan traveled alone to Boston. She was still alone when she was noticed waving to a friend at the luggage carouse. There was a contemporaneous news report Joan was seen talking to a man behind a counter. Perhaps she was told someone had arrived and would catch up with her. That is purely speculation.

Joan went out to the taxi line and engaged a cab. Her suitcase was loaded. I think it is reasonable to assume the man caught up with Joan after she had the cab enlisted. Exchanging words over a heavy suitcase to get Joan moved seems like the needed distraction to move Joan to another car.

The cabbies description did not describe Joan in distress in any way. She knew the man, trusted him, and acquiesced to get into another car. His suitcase suggests he was traveling and knew her itinerary. She had engaged the cab before the man could direct her to the other car first. He needed to get her into the other car.

We know now what happened after Joan and the man got into the other car. She vanished and was found brutally murdered 8 1/2 years later. Switching cars was the critical evidence.

SWITCHING VEHICLES PROVED TO BE FATAL FOR JOAN.

This lead was suppressed, which is also critical to understanding Joan's case. From source documents, the people who knew about the lead and composite were law enforcement and Joan's parents. They had this information in December of 1981.

The cabbie described a blue car, but could not identify writing or a sign on the vehicle to identify any cab or livery service. Joan's case was widely reported in the media, and LE had a large presence interviewing people. No one came forward that Joan or the man had been a fare and dropped off someplace. The driver of the second car indicates there was more than one person involved.

By January 0f 1982, LE was targeting Leonard Paradiso, a much bigger man than the man with Joan at Logan. They knew that was false. I don't know what others might call it, but I call the Paradiso boat theory a cover up.

Ill get caught up and read again when i have more time. But after viewing your composite it reminded me of someone that i finally found. NOT imp[lying he did it. Not sure if he even drove a blue vehicle or flew around. Have not found that information yet. Just posting because of your composite. One thing interesting about him though, not long after Thanksgiving in 81 they said he disappeared abruptly like. This killer though was in NH not MA. So like I said im just posting because of the composite. Thank you fro replying back in detail. You make things much clearer. But I am still somewhat confused about that cabbie line. Ill read your responses again this weekend.

Case timeline: Killer Terry Peder Rasmussen, also known as 'Bob Evans'

 

[Gruffin]

Wow, Mr. TT, that does look like a good match of the composite with Rasmussen. For a while I've thought that Rasmussen may have named himself Bob Evans after Hollywood producer Robert Evans. Natalie Wood perished the same night that Joan Webster vanished and wood was piled on Webster's body. Natalie Wood's daughter Natasha Gregson Wagner apparently dated Josh Evans, the son of Robert Evans and Ali McGraw, for a period of seven years, I think starting in the late 80s, though. Robert Evans' movie Chinatown may well be of great significance to any killer motivated by the St. Francis dam disaster, since one of its characters, Hollis Mulwray, is modeled after William Mulholland. Chinatown premiered June 20, 1974, just four days before Margaret Ellen Fox disappeared in Burlington, New Jersey, on June 24, the anniversary of the 1971 Sylmar, California, water tunnel explosion while under construction supervised by the Metropolitan Water District, another deadly catastrophic failure in the Southern California water distribution system. The St. Francis dam disaster happened two days after James Earl Ray was born, near Saugus, CA, named after the Saugus, MA, where some of Joan Webster's belongings were found.

It creeps me out that Hollis is where Kitty Genovese had been right before she died and that Mulwray sounds like "Mowbray" and across from the Mowbray apartments is where Kitty was first attacked. Depending on how long it took for Kitty to get from Hollis to across from the Mowbray apartments, Kitty may have left the bar in Hollis at about 2:57 30" am on March 13, 1963, which would be the exact anniversary of the 11:57 30" pm, March 12, 1928 St. Francis Dam disaster after you convert to Pacific Time. (Most accounts suggest she left a little after 3am, though, maybe at 3:05 or so.) Genovese ended up being murdered that night in a second attack by Winston Moseley, in a stairwell of her apartment building off Austin Street, on the side of the apartment next to the railroad tracks. (Winston Moseley escaped from prison the same day James Earl Ray may have vacated the St. Francis Hotel on his trip east). Conductor Austin indicated that the train crash that killed 78 13 years to the day before JFK was shot happened largely as a result of his Train No. 174 speeding up (contrary to the stop and proceed at restricted speed signal aspect of the Signal C that governed his block) above 15mph restricted speed beginning when Conductor Austin in the second car was about opposite the Kew Gardens train station. So engineman Benjamin Pokorney started to excessively speed up about opposite where Kitty Genovese was murdered. The report of the official House subcomittee looking into the wreck suggests he may have there reacted to the signal for the block ahead, an unfortunate thing to do since Train No. 780 had stopped ahead of him near Metropolitan Avenue, in his block. (According to Engineman William Murphy of Train No. 780, his brakes would not release.) These eastbound trains were on Track 2, adjacent to the southernmost track (there were four tracks in all). So the train was pretty much equidistant between Austin Street and Grenfell Street, maybe a little closer to Austin Street since that street is a little closer to the railroad. One of the train crew, I think a brakeman, was so injured he had to be interviewed from Jamaica Hospital (probably about since the time Trump has become president, it has probably become part of the mummery of the recent disaster killers that Trump was born at this hospital, 71 years to the day before the horrific 2017 fire in North Kensington, London) in Richmond Hill. Wikipedia says the Kew Gardens wreck collision site actually is now in Kew Gardens but originally was in Richmond Hill (boundary changes). Hmm, it's Friday, March 13 again, just like the day Kitty Genovese was killed.

 

[eve carson]

I always ask certain questions when a suspect is suggested.

1. Does the person fit the physical stature of the man described with Joan? That would be the most difficult feature to disguise.

2. Was the person in the proximity with opportunity when Joan disappeared?

3. Would LE and the Websters shield this person from accountability?

4. Did Joan know this person?

5. Did Joan trust this person?

Another good likeness to the composite was Andrew Palombo, the lead officer on Joan's investigation. It is not him; Palombo was a much larger man.

I could not find a description of Rasmussen's height or weight. Looking at his history, I don't see any reasonable way Joan would have crossed paths or known him. Joan had to know the man at the airport. She would not have switched cars unless she knew and trusted this man.

The intent of LE and the Websters was to shift focus or blame for Joan's loss on Paradiso. Both of them had the lead information in December 1981. By January 1982, Patty Bono, friend of Palombo's superior Carmen Tammaro, implicated Paradiso. Paradiso was also a much larger man. I can't see shielding Rasmussen with his history.

The fact the composite is not Palombo, does not remove him from being complicit or even involved in Joan's murder. He matches up with the known locations in Joan's case.

1. He worked at Logan, last place Joan was seen.

2. He had a connection to Route 107 where the purse was found. He was the lead officer on the 1979 Marie Iannuzzi case, and it was a common route between Palombo's home and the airport.

3. There is documented undercover police activity at the Parkland Greyhound Bus Station in Boston where Joan's suitcase was found. Palombo was an undercover cop that worked drug cases.

4. Palombo's address at the time of Joan's disappearance was in close proximity to the grave site. Hamilton PD confirmed Palombo knew the area. The area was know to LE for criminal activity, and also a spot bikers frequented. Palombo had motorcycles and did get involved with motorcycle gangs in his undercover drug activity.

I don't believe Joan would have known Palombo, but he might have gained some confidence with a badge. However, He was not the man that maneuvered Joan to a different car. It is not unreasonable to think he had the ability to have a car in the taxi line.

SWITCHING CARS PROVED FATAL FOR JOAN.

Bad actors in the legal and LE communities were not unusual in the era when Joan disappeared. There was a lot of well-documented dysfunction. It still exists today in close knit circles that shield malfeasance. The question that causes me sleepless nights is who would the Websters shield in the murder of their daughter?

 

[eve carson]

The latest issue of Unsolved Magazine has a summary article about Joan's case. It is also an article feature posted on the magazine website. Follow the link below.

JOAN WEBSTER – JUSTICE DENIED

 

[Toots1]

Eve,
A couple questions about the Websters and Joan;

1. Did the Websters ever vacation at the New Jersey shore or have a house there? If not, where did they vacation? I read that Joan was a mother's helper in Southhampton, NY
2. Who was Joan's 2nd roommate in NYC? I read one of them was a high school friend, how about the other one, who was she?
3. What area of NYC did Joan live in? Upper East Side, West Side, etc?
4. Joan was in the Junior League, I'm assuming NYC. Any chance you have a list of other members during that time?
5. Joan went to a Picasso art show with I believe her parents. Did she go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art often? Any chance she was a docent there?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Toots1,

The Websters are a very interesting family. They have a strong public image, but knowing them on a very personal level, public perceptions were not all that I observed and experienced.

To my knowledge, the Websters never vacationed on the Jersey Shore. They did not have a house there. From the time the children were very young, the Websters vacationed in Nantucket. They rented.

Joan was a mother's helper for a couple of summers in South Hampton. This was years before I met the Websters.

I only met Joan's roommates in NYC one time in 1978. One of them is mentioned in recovered documents. I have reservations naming them. Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo both referenced Joan's roommate identifying an item they claimed belonged to Joan. Joan did not have a roommate at Harvard; she had a single room. You would have to go back to her NYC days for roommates. My reservation is Burke and Palombo gave false information to federal authorities during an open murder investigation. There was a slight variation in their accounts, but significant details were missing from both. The item is verified, it did NOT belong to Joan. This is a point I have highlighted to authorities.

Joan lived on East 81st Street, Upper East Side when she shared an apartment with roommates. It was not all that far from her grandfather's apartment in NYC, a few blocks. He lived at the Riverhouse.

Joan was a member of the Junior League. There are a lot of chapters in the area. I do not know which one she was affiliated with, and do not have a list of who belonged at the time. You would need to reach out to the Junior League organization.

Joan was very artistic in many forms. She was a good photographer. She had design skills requiring some artistic talent as well. Eleanor often took members of the family to cultural settings such as museums. I went on several of these outings myself when visiting. There is no question Joan enjoyed such excursions on a regular basis. She was not a docent, nor was Eleanor. Joan's greater passion was the theater. She loved musicals and went to the theater often when she lived in NYC. The family also made regular outings to the race track enjoying the owner's box or the owner's club. There was quite a lot of privilege.

 

[Warwick1991]

I’ve been following this thread for a while, but I haven’t had anything to add.

I had read Tim Burke’s book, and thought it was plausible until you brought out the many contradictions and possible falsehoods in the case against Paradiso. As you undoubtedly know, the Massachusetts State Police has been revealed to be an extremely corrupt organization. From reading accounts of the MSP scandal, the corruption may have originated with the MSP unit at Logan Airport, and spread outward. The airport unit was saturated with corruption, and the overtime pay inflation/pay for no shows scheme involved everyone stationed at the airport for many years. The level of corruption in the MSP led me to question Burke’s book. It easy for me to visualize a MSP role in Joan’s abduction and murder.

I'm an architect, and I had just graduated from architectural school in the spring of 1981. I went to another architectural school in New England, and had never met or heard of Joan at the time. I first read about the case by reading Burke’s book, and I found it interesting, as I’d been a female architectural student in about the same age range.

One thing in Burke’s book that caught my attention is that Paradiso had a book on Maya architecture, which was thought to be Joan’s. The book was a basic survey of the type that was often sold as a remainder in bookstores. I wasn’t convinced it was Joan’s book, although anything is possible.

The murder showed a high level of planning or improvisation, great skill at concealing evidence, and the ability to carry out a crime quickly and efficiently. I don’t think Paradiso fits the bill.

 

[eve carson]

Hi Warwick1991,

You are spot on on several points. The MA system was very dysfunctional, including corruption in the MSP. Corruption was later exposed in the Suffolk County DA's office, Tim Burke's office that handled this investigation. The FBI in Boston also was exposed for corruption during this era. All of them were involved in Joan's case.

There is no question the MSP was involved in this. Carmen Tammarro, Andrew Palombo's superior, initiated the Paradiso boat theory on August 1, 1982. Andrew Palombo can be connected to all of the known and verified points in Joan's case. Tammaro shows up again leading the interview with the state's snitch Robert Bond on January 14, 1983. It was the same story.

At this point, Palombo looks to be involved in Joan's murder. Tammaro either knew at the time or shortly after. Burke was a fledgling, easily manipulated. He was paired with Palombo. Whatever Burke may have believed at the time, he did know he was bringing forward false evidence, false witnesses, and hiding exculpatory evidence.

There were several editions of the MAYA book by different publishers. The edition Paradiso had was published in 1975, six years before Joan disappeared. The "evidence" Burke presented suggesting the book was Joan's was laughable. He said the book (unknown what edition) was once sold at the MIT canteen. He didn't even indicate when. Burke claimed they found a receipt from the MIT canteen in Joan's belongings, not for the book, but just for something she bought there. The receipt is not listed in the items recovered. This was one of several items authorities claimed were Joan's and in Paradiso's possession or someone connected to Paradiso. None of the items belonged to Joan. I don't know if I would call the MAYA book architectural. It was a glossy photo book, coffee table type book, of Mayan ruins and artifacts. This is a large heavy book, not something you would carry when travelling. She had her arms full as it was. It doesn't take a skilled sleuth to figure out if any of Joan's belongings were in Paradiso's possession or someone connected to him, Paradiso would have been tried and convicted. He was never charged.

Regardless, the accusations continued to point fingers at Paradiso. Burke had a lot of confidence to publish his book. I guess he thought people would forget and no one could get to documents. He guessed wrong. I lived with this every day. I had the advantage of knowing certain places to look for information. Burke needs to do some serious soul searching. He has caused irreparable harm to innocent and vulnerable people.

You are absolutely right. This was well orchestrated, suggesting premeditation. Paradiso, an eighth grade drop out, does not fit the bill. Paradiso had issues, but was framed for numerous accusations.

Do you remember the tragic case of Susan Smith? She claimed a black man car jacked her car with her two children. Turned out, she was the offender trying to project this onto someone else. That's what happened here.

 

[eve carson]

There are other discussions about Joan's case. That is very heartening that people do care and believe victims deserve justice. I have researched Joan's case for many years now, and as new information is recovered, I am able to fill in gaps. This post is to recap some points to make sure readers are up to speed with established facts.

Joan spent Thanksgiving break 1981 with her parents, George and Eleanor Webster, and her sister Anne in NJ. Joan's brother Steve and I were in IL over that holiday.

A guest had planned to "meet the parents" in NJ over the break. The plans changed. That individual is known and his identity known to George and Eleanor. He was a contemporary of Joan's, about the same age, and does not fit the description of the man seen with Joan at Logan on November 28, 1981.

Joan had already engaged a Town Taxi and her suitcase was loaded in the trunk before she alerted the cabbie a man was with her. The man exchanged words with the cabbie over a heavy suitcase. The man with Joan said we don't want to take this cab. He maneuvered Joan to a a different vehicle. That move proved to be fatal.

The cabbie witnessed Joan leave the airport with the man. He could not identify the other vehicle with any known livery or taxi service. The man with Joan, nor the driver of the second vehicle ever came forward.

The composite compiled from the eyewitness was never made public. Records confirm law enforcement and the Websters had this lead.

Joan's skull was discovered on April 18, 1990. After a week long search of the area, the grave was located. Joan's cause of death was determined to be blunt force trauma to the skull.

Joan's purse and wallet were found on the southbound side of Route 107, the Lynn Marsh Road, about seven miles north of the airport. It was located in a marshy area known as a dumping ground in the direction headed toward the airport. Only the cash appeared to be missing. Based on the FBI list of contents, keys were not among listed items. Joan would have had keys for her dorm room.

The suitcase was recovered on January 29, 1982 in the Park Square Greyhound Bus Station in Boston. Police records confirm that. Note: Tim Burke misrepresented this claiming the suitcase was discovered by the Port Authority in NY.

Joan also carried a tote bag. The tote bag and it's contents were never recovered. The contents included albums, playbills, and jewelry. Note: Tim Burke claimed an item from Joan's suitcase was in police evidence. FBI records affirm the item was not in Joan's suitcase. The item was listed as an item in her tote bag. It is reasonable to conclude that if that item was in police evidence, it connects the police to Joan after her arrival at Logan. Current custodians will not confirm this item.

Anonymous calls and letters have compounded the confusion in Joan's case for decades.

Media reported an anonymous letter mailed to the Middlesex DA from Cambridge, and instructed the search of a pond. A Middlesex employee who worked on Joan's case in the early days affirmed their office did not receive anonymous correspondence. They did receive correspondence from George Webster at that time. The pond corresponds with the Penn theory described below. FBI files also contain a dated envelope mailed from Cambridge on April 3, 1982, from George Webster to the Boston FBI. The lead, as reported by the media was a dead end.

The Websters also received two cards, both mailed from Boston, and discovered by the post office and police on April 21, 1982. The first card was from a known individual in the Combat Zone in Boston. It was determined that individual had no valid knowledge regarding Joan. Police indicated the second card claimed to name Joan's killer and had a phone number. Note: At this time, authorities had already targeted Leonard Paradiso. That was not information known to the public, nor was I aware.

There was another card that caught some attention. The Websters received a Santa Claus card with an article offering a reward on the outside of the envelope. This card was viewed as part of the Zodiac theory of Joan's case. I do not know the postmark date or location where the card was mailed. However, Gareth Penn was making efforts to reach out to the Websters with his Zodiac theory. Penn learned about Joan's case in December 1981 from news reports, according to Penn. Penn had previously contacted the FBI with his Michael Henry O'Hare theory, an MIT professor. Penn had associates in the East trying to promote Penn's Zodiac theory. Dan Goldfarb was in New York and Alan Neigher in Westport, CT. The article on the envelope was published on or about January 20, 1982, after the Websters announced a reward. Penn was in contact with the Websters by March 1982.

It is most likely the card was sent by Penn or one of his associates. Penn describes similar activities he engaged in trying to contact his suspect O'Hare. That is confirmed in FBI files. Penn himself sent his manifesto and a copy of the card sent to the Websters to the FBI. Penn was the individual who linked Joan's case to the Zodiac crimes to begin with. The FBI found Penn's conclusions to be forced and invalid.

I agree with a statement made that law enforcement knew who murdered Joan Webster. My focus remains on the four individuals who promoted a false story ignoring exculpatory evidence in their possession: ADA Tim Burke, Tr. Andrew Palombo, Sgt. Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.

 

[Toots1]

Thanks for the detailed information Eve. I'm hopeful a resolution can be made on this case.

 

[eve carson]

On this date in 1982, the originator of the boat story was identified, Carmen Tammaro. He was not identified publicly, but it was documented. This was more than 4 months before Robert Bond surfaced and repeated the boat story.

Tammaro had knowledge of the eyewitness description of the offender that maneuvered Joan to a different car on November 28, 1981, at Logan Airport. The report was in police files.

Tammaro had verifiable connections to Leonard Paradiso, Andrew Palombo, Tim Burke, George Webster, and Robert Bond.

On January 10, 1983, Tammaro met with Robert Bond.

On January 10, 1983, Bond mailed a letter to his wife with an inner envelope addressed to Tim Burke with allegations about the boat story.

On January 14, 1983, Tammaro met with Robert Bond. The letter still had not arrived.

On January 28, 1983, the media broke the news that there was "break" in Joan's case referring to Bond's allegations that Leonard Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. This was the same story Tammaro alleged in August 1982.

Giving false information in a murder investigation is a felony. Tammaro was the source of a false story. The story was a hoax, a cover up. Source documents reveal there was nothing legitimate about the story. No Boat, fabricated evidence, hidden exculpatory evidence, false witnesses, a wrongful conviction in another case, and on and on.

So who was responsible for Joan's murder?

Any reasonable person can conclude that someone capable of such a heinous crime is going to try to avoid detection. Staying ahead of the curve of any legitimate investigation would be an advantage to the offender.

Robert Bond identified Tim Burke, Carmen Tammaro, and Andrew Palombo for making promises he relied on to tell his story. These are the individuals that met with Bond.

Bond identified another individual that sent people to see him, the man from NJ. Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammarro, the people Bond named, all worked closely with George Webster.

Tim Burke wrote a book full of falsehoods and misrepresentations, He wrote the book for the Websters with their support.

Joan's brother lied about an extortion incident documented in FBI and police records. It is important to look at other victims that might be associated with any of the individuals promoting the false boat story. There are serious allegations against Joan's brother in a letter I found.

The eyewitness description of the offender at Logan. He was much smaller in stature than Paradiso. The authorities and George Webster had this information in December 1981, and knew Paradiso was not the offender. Of the four individuals promoting the boat story, the physical description of the offender most closely matches George Webster. Joan knew the offender and willingly changed cars with him. The man had a suitcase, was travelling, The offender knew where Joan would be: her plans changed over the holiday break. There was more than one person involved, the driver of the second vehicle at Logan.

Joan had an item in her recovered belongings that may well have been a clue. On first glance, the item would not seem unusual. It is listed in FBI reports. But a police report identified what was written on the item. That is the unusual aspect. It deflected the normal course of reporting the found items. An offender wants to stay one step ahead.

 

[deadfoot13]

I wanted to say thank you for sharing your information, as well as formatting it in a logical and clear manner. The repetition of information is really helpful in keeping facts at the forefront, and a reminder of what we know and what has been documented. I'm impressed at the amount of work you have put into investigating and organizing, and most of all, I am in awe of your backbone -- you've had to stand up to not only criticism, but threats and other nasties that would have caused a lot of other people to throw in the towel a long time ago. You've met criticism on this forum with an open attitude and grace, and remain unshaken in the conclusions you've formed. I have a ton of respect for what you've been through and your intention to see it through.

Some things that I jotted down as I was reading the thread...

I would be interested in knowing what you feel George could have said to Joan to compel her to return to school early? Why would changing his plans to travel on Sunday for business cause Joan to return to school on Saturday, but not her sister/ride? Could Joan have argued with her sister and made the decision on her own to return early to avoid an uncomfortable ride back with the sister, using the excuse of schoolwork to avoid sharing the details of her disagreement?

If Joan had waited to return until Sunday, then she would have arrived via private car instead of airplane. Would she have been taken anyways, just in a different manner?

Could George have received some sort of threat of harm to his family and orchestrated the early return with the intention of keeping Joan safe, including arranging for someone "trusted" to meet Joan to ensure she stayed safe?

Knowing that all of this took place in the days before cell phones, it really underscores the fact that it had to be pre-planned if it were not truly a crime of opportunity. Could there have been some reason (for George) to set up a scenario in which Joan is "kidnapped", in order to influence someone/thing in George's business dealings, and then things went terribly wrong and she wound up dead by mistake?

I'm very confused over the family's willingness to hold onto the boat theory after Joan's remains were found inland such a distance. I could see maintaining such a neat, tidy theory as long as no one ever knew for sure, but how do you continue to wave that flag when the info no longer supports the theory?

 

[eve carson]

Hi Deadfoot13,

Thank you for your comments and caring to learn about Joan's case. This has been a long and difficult walk for me. Living through such traumatic events involving a family member is indescribable. Being left without definitive answers leaves you in a state of suspended grief. I doubted the boat story when Joan's remains surfaced in 1990. Up to that point, I trusted information I learned from the family and authorities. When I began to dig into Joan's case, I did not know what I was going to find. I took the blinders off to look at everyone. I plotted a timeline and a map and began filling in the pieces from source documents. Reliving it has almost been more painful based on what I found in the records.

Let me try to answer your questions. Joan planned to have a guest in NJ over Thanksgiving break. I know this individual. The original plan was not going back to Boston early. This is a very patriarchal family. George controlled and his wishes took precedent over anything else. I remembered very clearly George travelled that weekend. I felt awful for Eleanor being alone when she got the call Joan was missing. I verified my recollection of George's travel from a quote Eleanor gave to the press.

What struck me as odd, and more so over the years, was the whole family driving Joan to airport. George always made airport runs himself. He didn't have others with him unless they were the ones travelling. The two houses they stopped at before going to the airport were in their town. Eleanor and Anne could have walked home from one of them. It would have been easy to drop them off before going to Newark. I can't say George travelled on Sunday. What makes the most sense is George travelled Saturday night. Eleanor would not drive after dark, so Anne would have had that detail. It was also very out of character for George to be "inconvenienced" by travelling over his holiday. He was a senior executive who would have delegated the job, or scheduled things so it would not interfere with his holiday.

The authorities and the Websters had the eyewitness description in December 1981. That is verified in source documents. The description of Joan is spot on. The description of the man with her was NOT Leonard Paradiso. The man was a much smaller stature than Paradiso. That is not something Paradiso could camouflage. Joan had engaged a cab and her suitcase was loaded in the trunk. The man with her caused a fuss over a suitcase and directed they take another car. The man with Joan maneuvered her to another vehicle. That is where she disappeared. I don't see how that can be random knowing what is known now. Joan would not have switched cars with someone she did not know and trust. Joan appears to have been the target rather than a random victim. The fact the lead was suppressed reinforces the concern. If she was the intended target, then yes, she would have faced peril at some point if she had returned by car with Anne on Sunday.

Trying to explain the mindset of the Websters is difficult. People with an intelligence background are very secretive as I learned. George was well-connected and could summon any number of resources if he had received a threat. If that had been the case, he left others at risk by keeping information secret. The family is extremely stoic. I don't try to judge how someone processes grief, but I never once saw George and Eleanor cry or get emotional. On that Christmas, George stated "Joan is gone and we have to move on," in a very matter-of-fact tone. It is not the type of reaction I experienced in my own very loving family. The Websters seemed very emotionally detached, something I observed on many other occasions.

It makes absolutely no sense, there is no logic to continue to press the boat theory. These are very smart people, and they had the exculpatory evidence in their possession. This is the story they wanted everyone to believe. Their actions effectively allowed Joan's killer to avoid detection. I can't come up with any positive explanation to do that. Secrecy can be very dangerous. I think it goes without saying, motive to murder Joan, and in such a horrible brutal fashion, is going to be a dark secret. Motive for parents to divert the investigation would arguably be a dark secret as well.

Other known facts reinforce this was premeditated. Joan was stripped of all clothing. None of her belongings were found in the area. Identifiable jewelry was missing. Keys to her dorm were missing from her purse. Items were dispersed all over causing confusion.

Here are some of the small pieces that would be hard for investigators to know even looking at information. The Websters did not provide the second phone number into the house. If you don't know it exists, you don't know it is missing. The phone was in a small study George used across from Joan's bedroom. He did not allow anyone to use that phone. However, you pull out all the stops if your daughter is missing.

After Joan's remains surfaced in 1990, Eleanor told family members Paradiso's girlfriend had some of Joan's jewelry. I found that same explanation offered by Tim Burke in FBI reports. Media only reported a very identifiable bracelet. Joan's signet ring was also missing. If Paradiso or any of his acquaintances had any of Joan's items, it would have been a slam dunk to prosecute him. There was nothing, including the boat, to connect Joan to Paradiso. Efforts to get witness Robert Bond to testify against Paradiso in Joan's case abruptly stopped after Joan surfaced.

There was an extortion incident in October 1982. I had a 2nd miscarriage at that time, hard to forget such incidents. The extortion was never reported in the papers. Joan's brother Steve is on record now saying he doesn't know about anything like that, even though he was the one who told me. The incident and others are well-documented in FBI and police reports.

It is natural to feel empathy for family that tragically lost a loved one. Unfortunately, the records show a troubling level of involvement by the family to throw off the investigation. It is a very unsettling reality I live with. Even if the family wanted to keep the circumstances surrounding Joan's murder secret, it doesn't justify the concerted effort to frame a man they knew did not commit the crime. Unfortunately, image seemed to be the guiding force.

 

[eve carson]

Recovering documents was challenging. I noticed early on that documents were fragmented, not all consolidated in a single repository. That makes it difficult to follow the threads until you can assemble the pieces.

Trying to find truthful answers based on what the current custodian had in their possession was futile. Not only did they want to keep a lid on things, their files were also grossly deficient in relevant information. Trying to unravel Joan's case without other pieces is not possible.

Access to records from another source exposed some very troubling influence. The Websters went to Boston on December 2, 1981. They were later joined on December 4, 1981, by authorities from NJ. Another person was also present and was involved in interviews at Logan, passenger lists, etc. Jack McEwan was the head of ITT security, George's wheelhouse. McEwan would get his direction from George. On December 5, 1982, McEwan was specifically named as one of the people interviewing the cab pool.

McEwan did three things that stand out to me. First, after returning from Boston, McEwan contacted the local police concerned about a December 5, 1981, article in the Newark Star Ledger, that witnesses saw Joan speaking with a man at Logan. He claimed the police did not know that information. However, that turned out not to be true. Joan was seen by cabbie Fenton Allen Moore who gave a very good description. There was also corroborating information.

On December 21, 1981, Sgt Dugan in NJ received a call from Lt Murphy of the Harvard police at 10:10 am. Dugan was not in to take this call. A short time later, Dugan took a call at 11 am from McEwan. Secondly, McEwan said they would be putting together a composite based on a description from a psychic. At 11:20 am, Murphy called back with template numbers for the composite compiled from the cabbie description, an eyewitness. I am not big on coincidences, and this smells like a distraction to confuse the composite issue. The cabbie's lead was delivered to the Websters by officer Corcoran at 2 pm on December 21, 1981. Yet this lead was suppressed.

Robert Bond was the state's star witness that alleged the boat theory. Bond was the public face of the story that Sgt Carmen Tammaro alleged on August 1, 1982. Tammaro then coached the same story with Bond in January 1983 before the press reported a "break" in Joan's case on January 30, 1983. Tammaro was a central MSP figure that worked closely with George Webster, and was Tr Andrew Palombo's superior. During an interview, Bond claimed George sent people to see him.

There was corroborating evidence to support Bond's claim. Tammaro enticed Bond with the Webster reward money. George and Eleanor were both quoted touting Bond's credibility in the press. On November 24, 1982, the FBI reported negative fingerprint results for Paradiso in Joan's case. That was more exculpatory evidence ignored. Keep in mind, this was before Bond was introduced into the case. Bond did not have any contact with Paradiso at this time.

McEwan was involved again in a third concerning report. On November 30, 1982, Dugan met with McEwan for three hours reviewing Joan's case. McEwan requested a meeting with Dugan and a Webster investigator sometime in December. McEwan confirmed later that day to reserve December 8th or 9th, 1982, for the meeting. Bond was transferred from Walpole prison to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982. He was checked in and assigned to a cell on the third tier. He was later moved to a cell close to Paradiso. Again, I don't place credence in "coincidences."

These activities spearheaded by McEwan, George's facilitator, go all the way back to the beginning of Joan's case. I think I am well within justified concern that George Webster was involved in a cover up.

The final piece I will add here is an item recovered in Joan's purse. It is identified in FBI reports, and at first glance would not raise a red flag. However, a police report recovered from the current custodian a year ago added detail to the item that does seem unusual. The focus for most is what was missing from her purse, money and most likely keys. No one asked the question if something was slipped into her purse that would be found later.

 

[Warwick1991]

Recovering documents was challenging. I noticed early on that documents were fragmented, not all consolidated in a single repository. That makes it difficult to follow the threads until you can assemble the pieces.

Trying to find truthful answers based on what the current custodian had in their possession was futile. Not only did they want to keep a lid on things, their files were also grossly deficient in relevant information. Trying to unravel Joan's case without other pieces is not possible.

Access to records from another source exposed some very troubling influence. The Websters went to Boston on December 2, 1981. They were later joined on December 4, 1981, by authorities from NJ. Another person was also present and was involved in interviews at Logan, passenger lists, etc. Jack McEwan was the head of ITT security, George's wheelhouse. McEwan would get his direction from George. On December 5, 1982, McEwan was specifically named as one of the people interviewing the cab pool.

McEwan did three things that stand out to me. First, after returning from Boston, McEwan contacted the local police concerned about a December 5, 1981, article in the Newark Star Ledger, that witnesses saw Joan speaking with a man at Logan. He claimed the police did not know that information. However, that turned out not to be true. Joan was seen by cabbie Fenton Allen Moore who gave a very good description. There was also corroborating information.

On December 21, 1981, Sgt Dugan in NJ received a call from Lt Murphy of the Harvard police at 10:10 am. Dugan was not in to take this call. A short time later, Dugan took a call at 11 am from McEwan. Secondly, McEwan said they would be putting together a composite based on a description from a psychic. At 11:20 am, Murphy called back with template numbers for the composite compiled from the cabbie description, an eyewitness. I am not big on coincidences, and this smells like a distraction to confuse the composite issue. The cabbie's lead was delivered to the Websters by officer Corcoran at 2 pm on December 21, 1981. Yet this lead was suppressed.

Robert Bond was the state's star witness that alleged the boat theory. Bond was the public face of the story that Sgt Carmen Tammaro alleged on August 1, 1982. Tammaro then coached the same story with Bond in January 1983 before the press reported a "break" in Joan's case on January 30, 1983. Tammaro was a central MSP figure that worked closely with George Webster, and was Tr Andrew Palombo's superior. During an interview, Bond claimed George sent people to see him.

There was corroborating evidence to support Bond's claim. Tammaro enticed Bond with the Webster reward money. George and Eleanor were both quoted touting Bond's credibility in the press. On November 24, 1982, the FBI reported negative fingerprint results for Paradiso in Joan's case. That was more exculpatory evidence ignored. Keep in mind, this was before Bond was introduced into the case. Bond did not have any contact with Paradiso at this time.

McEwan was involved again in a third concerning report. On November 30, 1982, Dugan met with McEwan for three hours reviewing Joan's case. McEwan requested a meeting with Dugan and a Webster investigator sometime in December. McEwan confirmed later that day to reserve December 8th or 9th, 1982, for the meeting. Bond was transferred from Walpole prison to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982. He was checked in and assigned to a cell on the third tier. He was later moved to a cell close to Paradiso. Again, I don't place credence in "coincidences."

These activities spearheaded by McEwan, George's facilitator, go all the way back to the beginning of Joan's case. I think I am well within justified concern that George Webster was involved in a cover up.

The final piece I will add here is an item recovered in Joan's purse. It is identified in FBI reports, and at first glance would not raise a red flag. However, a police report recovered from the current custodian a year ago added detail to the item that does seem unusual. The focus for most is what was missing from her purse, money and most likely keys. No one asked the question if something was slipped into her purse that would be found later.

What was the item found in the purse?

 

[eve carson]

A couple more points to add. According to Robert Bond, the Websters came to visit him during the winter of 1987. At that time, Bond was help in Somers in Connecticut. I cannot verify that claim, however, other incidents that occurred at that time that Bond described were verified in source documents. During the winter of 1987, authorities were trying to convince Bond to testify about his allegations against Paradiso for Joan's case. Bond would not cooperate. Efforts to pursue a Bond's testimony were dropped after Joan's remains surfaced in April 1990. Paradiso was never charged in Joan's case.

Eleanor Webster published a piece for Parents of murdered children. The article can be viewed at this site. Joan Lucinda Webster “Joni” 25 Years Old (pomc.org) Joan's story is on panel one. Eleanor reinforced that they believed the story they and authorities promoted for many years. Needless to say, after finding all the discrepancies found in Burke's book, it is very upsetting.

Tim Burke claimed the Websters visited him in 2005. The Websters were no doubt an influence for Burke's book; he dedicated the book to them and received their public cooperation.

 

[eve carson]

Without going into a lot of detail, the item was a business card. That does not seem unusual at all. I submitted multiple FOIA requests to the FBI which proved to be helpful. Things redacted in one set were not redacted in others. On the third request, I could identify the business card. Still, that did not cause alarm. When I recovered a police report years later, it also described the business card, but with a notation on it that does bother me. It's subtle, but significant based on things I know now.

Ask yourself who you would call if you found a lost purse and wallet. There is identification in the purse. My first reaction would be to try and contact the owner, in this case Joan. If I was unsuccessful, I might contact the police, since the purse was not found in a business or some other establishment. It was found in a marshy area along Route 107, a known dumping ground. At this time, there were no public reports Joan was missing. Police reports had only been filed the night before, late on December 1, 1981. Anthony Belmonte found the wallet on December 2, 1982, and called someone else based on the notation on the business card.

 

[KEDude]

Hi Eve, I hope you have been well.
Still following the case...

Best,
K

 

[Sweetluv]

Hello Eve,
I stumbled upon this case and have spent a few days trying to catch up. I am sorry for your loss. Joan seemed like a well rounded young woman who had her whole life ahead of her. I commend your diligence, hard work, and consistent effort!
To me, this case seems to be more calculated then "at whim."

 

[Sweetluv]

Eve,
Do you have any theories as to why Joan returned early.....since it doesnt appear that it was due to school work needing to be completed? Also, is the cabbie the only witness to Joan leaving with the bearded man? Only brainstorming....what if it wasn't Joan and a case of misidentification on the cabbies part?