MA MA - Joan Webster, 25, Logan Airport, Boston, 28 Nov 1981
- Thread starter eve carson
- Start date
New Posts
-
IA IA - David Schultz, 53, Wall Lake, 21 November 2023 #3
- Latest: Warwick1991
Charlot123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,346
- Reaction score
- 56,495
Sorry, one more question. Apologize if I missed it in the thread. In one article, you mentioned the fingerprints not matching those of Paradiso. My question is, if there were fingerprints, where were they lifted?
Fingerprints are important. Depending on the method used, there is a chance to lift at least partial DNA from some archived fingerprints
nij.ojp.gov
Again, sorry if I misunderstood what you said.
Fingerprints are important. Depending on the method used, there is a chance to lift at least partial DNA from some archived fingerprints
DNA at Our Fingertips
One of the most common types of evidence collected at crime scenes is latent fingerprints, which are typically lifted using transparent adhesive tape and then placed on a paper card. Now, with support from an NIJ grant, forensic scientists at Virginia Commonwealth University have explored...
nij.ojp.gov
Again, sorry if I misunderstood what you said.
Charlot123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,346
- Reaction score
- 56,495
Another question, if you don’t mind. While some people describe Burke’s book as “absolute garbage”, and, as you state, there are many indications that it was David Doyle who was the real culprit in the murder of Marie Ianuzzi (and it seems that evidence points at it), why did Burke go against the principle “to look at the family”?
Was there any specific reason to protect Doyle?
Was there any specific reason to protect Doyle?
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 624
Hi Sweetluv and Charlot 123,
It is important to use some logic analyzing the eyewitness description and composite. I broke things up into two parts.
There were things you could not disguise. This was a white male, under 6" and approximately 160 lbs. The man's suitcase was described with some detail, and it was heavy. The demanding demeanor of the man was witnessed. Joan told the cabbie he was with her. there was familiarity. The man obviously knew where she would be and she willingly changed cars with him. I knew Joan. She would not change cars with someone she did not know and trust. These are not variables.
There are other features you can disguise, some easier than others depending on how much time there was. You can add glasses, tussle hair, add a beard or wig, clothing. This took place in a public place, the cab line at Logan Airport. If you are planning something nefarious, and there is a possibility of being seen, you would want to make sure someone cannot give a detailed description that might identify you. An out of towner at the airport would make it more likely you could get away without being identified. If you are flying in following Joan, there was probably not a lot of time for dramatic changes before meeting up with Joan at the cab line. Adding a beard would be a quick disguise that concealed quite a bit and becomes a central focus people look at. I do believe to avoid detection, there was probably a disguise.
I have to look at all of the factors together.
I was asked the other day if Joan would have been startled seeing someone she knew with some disguise. First, it depends on who it was. Second, growing up in a patriarchal family and parents with an intelligence background, your experiences are very different than an average family. I learned that the hard way. Steve, Anne, and Joan were raised in an environment of secrecy and never questioning authority.
There was no description of the man driving the blue car. However, there are some clues as to who it might be. It had to be someone with identification to get into the cab line. It would have to be someone that blended in. The various locations in Joan's case add further clues, location of Joan's purse and wallet, the location of her remains, who had easy access to the bus station to stash the suitcase. Who was lying about the case or had knowledge about the cause of death with detail? These things narrow the field for the likely driver.
Paradiso's fingerprints were first submitted on November 5, 1982, to compare with Joan's belongings. It is important to note that this was before authorities claimed a "break" in Joan's case and brought forward the snitch Robert Bond. There were negative results reported on November 24, 1982. They submitted prints for analysis numerous times on numerous items. Paradiso's fingerprints were never found on anything of Joan's and Joan's fingerprints were never found on anything related to Paradiso. Even if they could test DNA on any prints in the case, I doubt it could provide any answers. Things were handled way too much, by numerous people and/or authorities. When Joan finally surfaced, the area had been degraded by weather, animal activity, and flooding in the area. The remains at that time were skeletal.
What you have is a case where the people who were spreading false stories, with some agenda to divert the investigation or cover up the crime, were the ones who were running the investigation. That's a damn near perfect crime.
It is important to use some logic analyzing the eyewitness description and composite. I broke things up into two parts.
There were things you could not disguise. This was a white male, under 6" and approximately 160 lbs. The man's suitcase was described with some detail, and it was heavy. The demanding demeanor of the man was witnessed. Joan told the cabbie he was with her. there was familiarity. The man obviously knew where she would be and she willingly changed cars with him. I knew Joan. She would not change cars with someone she did not know and trust. These are not variables.
There are other features you can disguise, some easier than others depending on how much time there was. You can add glasses, tussle hair, add a beard or wig, clothing. This took place in a public place, the cab line at Logan Airport. If you are planning something nefarious, and there is a possibility of being seen, you would want to make sure someone cannot give a detailed description that might identify you. An out of towner at the airport would make it more likely you could get away without being identified. If you are flying in following Joan, there was probably not a lot of time for dramatic changes before meeting up with Joan at the cab line. Adding a beard would be a quick disguise that concealed quite a bit and becomes a central focus people look at. I do believe to avoid detection, there was probably a disguise.
I have to look at all of the factors together.
I was asked the other day if Joan would have been startled seeing someone she knew with some disguise. First, it depends on who it was. Second, growing up in a patriarchal family and parents with an intelligence background, your experiences are very different than an average family. I learned that the hard way. Steve, Anne, and Joan were raised in an environment of secrecy and never questioning authority.
There was no description of the man driving the blue car. However, there are some clues as to who it might be. It had to be someone with identification to get into the cab line. It would have to be someone that blended in. The various locations in Joan's case add further clues, location of Joan's purse and wallet, the location of her remains, who had easy access to the bus station to stash the suitcase. Who was lying about the case or had knowledge about the cause of death with detail? These things narrow the field for the likely driver.
Paradiso's fingerprints were first submitted on November 5, 1982, to compare with Joan's belongings. It is important to note that this was before authorities claimed a "break" in Joan's case and brought forward the snitch Robert Bond. There were negative results reported on November 24, 1982. They submitted prints for analysis numerous times on numerous items. Paradiso's fingerprints were never found on anything of Joan's and Joan's fingerprints were never found on anything related to Paradiso. Even if they could test DNA on any prints in the case, I doubt it could provide any answers. Things were handled way too much, by numerous people and/or authorities. When Joan finally surfaced, the area had been degraded by weather, animal activity, and flooding in the area. The remains at that time were skeletal.
What you have is a case where the people who were spreading false stories, with some agenda to divert the investigation or cover up the crime, were the ones who were running the investigation. That's a damn near perfect crime.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 624
Hi Charlot 123,
David Doyle had a relationship with the lead officer Andrew Palombo. Locals have shared that Doyle was a snitch for Palombo on the drug scene. I can't prove that, but quite a bit in the records support that type of relationship. There is no question they were friends, and it was inappropriate for Palombo to be on that case.
The purpose in Marie's case was never to find justice for Marie Iannuzzi. That case was used as a smokescreen to go after Paradiso for Joan. Tim Burke probably was a green prosecutor that could be manipulated. He was disgraceful during the Iannuzzi case.
This was a very disgraceful and dysfunctional era in Boston's history. There was a lot of corruption. Judging from Joan's case, they still have some remnants that need to be cleaned up.
As recently as last year, Burke made a statement that he relied on the convicts that came forward and claims he is certain Paradiso was guilty of Marie and Joan's murders. I won't go into all of the details that prove him wrong, but Robert Bond's allegations should be enough. Bond alleged Paradiso picked Joan up at the airport, took her to his boat at Pier 7, hit her in the head with a whiskey bottle, raped her, and dumped her in Boston Harbor. Palombo's superior Carmen Tammaro was the first one to suggest that story, and then led Bond through an interview claiming the same thing. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared and she was found buried in Hamilton, MA, a long way from Boston Harbor.
This whole thing was contrived from the start.
David Doyle had a relationship with the lead officer Andrew Palombo. Locals have shared that Doyle was a snitch for Palombo on the drug scene. I can't prove that, but quite a bit in the records support that type of relationship. There is no question they were friends, and it was inappropriate for Palombo to be on that case.
The purpose in Marie's case was never to find justice for Marie Iannuzzi. That case was used as a smokescreen to go after Paradiso for Joan. Tim Burke probably was a green prosecutor that could be manipulated. He was disgraceful during the Iannuzzi case.
This was a very disgraceful and dysfunctional era in Boston's history. There was a lot of corruption. Judging from Joan's case, they still have some remnants that need to be cleaned up.
As recently as last year, Burke made a statement that he relied on the convicts that came forward and claims he is certain Paradiso was guilty of Marie and Joan's murders. I won't go into all of the details that prove him wrong, but Robert Bond's allegations should be enough. Bond alleged Paradiso picked Joan up at the airport, took her to his boat at Pier 7, hit her in the head with a whiskey bottle, raped her, and dumped her in Boston Harbor. Palombo's superior Carmen Tammaro was the first one to suggest that story, and then led Bond through an interview claiming the same thing. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared and she was found buried in Hamilton, MA, a long way from Boston Harbor.
This whole thing was contrived from the start.
Charlot123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,346
- Reaction score
- 56,495
Dear @eve carson,
I have many questions about the beard. (Why was it even necessary?). But mostly, given the weather at Logan on Nov 28, 1981, that evening was not too convenient to put the beard on. (As you have mentioned, the weather that day was miserable).
However, I would agree that the case demands answers. (What a wonderful job you do, keeping the memory of Joan alive. She must have been a very special person).
You mentioned that Joan dated men of her age. However, given that a man close to her did not come to her house on Thanksgiving, one wonders if there was something no one knew about Joan’s life, another relationship? From your description, Joan comes across as mature; indeed, such a woman would not get into a car with unknown men. But - her BF (fiancé?) did not arrive to her house for a planned Thanksgiving visit. A big thing, IMHO. Especially if a mature girl promised her family she’d not be alone. From the photos, she looks very attractive. Could someone else, some mentor, be involved? I wonder if this angle has ever been discussed/considered. It would be interesting to know what her BF that failed to appear in her parents’ house say.
I agree that it would make no sense for anyone to take Joan to the boat, even if it existed, kill, and then drive north. Whoever picked her up, drove straight North. That person had some habits of serial killer, IMHO, because to return and put more sticks on her shallow grave was quite a behavior.
Hopefully, this case will have a closure.
I have many questions about the beard. (Why was it even necessary?). But mostly, given the weather at Logan on Nov 28, 1981, that evening was not too convenient to put the beard on. (As you have mentioned, the weather that day was miserable).
However, I would agree that the case demands answers. (What a wonderful job you do, keeping the memory of Joan alive. She must have been a very special person).
You mentioned that Joan dated men of her age. However, given that a man close to her did not come to her house on Thanksgiving, one wonders if there was something no one knew about Joan’s life, another relationship? From your description, Joan comes across as mature; indeed, such a woman would not get into a car with unknown men. But - her BF (fiancé?) did not arrive to her house for a planned Thanksgiving visit. A big thing, IMHO. Especially if a mature girl promised her family she’d not be alone. From the photos, she looks very attractive. Could someone else, some mentor, be involved? I wonder if this angle has ever been discussed/considered. It would be interesting to know what her BF that failed to appear in her parents’ house say.
I agree that it would make no sense for anyone to take Joan to the boat, even if it existed, kill, and then drive north. Whoever picked her up, drove straight North. That person had some habits of serial killer, IMHO, because to return and put more sticks on her shallow grave was quite a behavior.
Hopefully, this case will have a closure.
Thank you @eve carson for your responses.
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 624
Hi Charlot 123 and Bagpus,
Remember that this is a 40-year-old case. There has been speculation about everything conceivable. I approached this case differently by looking at the investigation itself. It made no sense the Paradiso boat story continued, and still continues, to be the promoted theory.
Let me address a couple of things. Adding a beard makes perfect sense to me. If you are planning nefarious activity, you would not want someone to be able to give a description that could identify you. When people look at the composite, the comments and the thing that stands out is the beard. If that is not how the man usually looked, the beard had the desired effect. I focus not on the beard, but the stature, the demeanor, Joan's familiarity with the man, and deliberately maneuvering her to another car.
The public was not aware Joan had planned for a friend to visit over the break. It was more or less a "meet the parents" kind of visit. The young man was a graduate of the Harvard Business School, and at the time, lived in Detroit. For those plans to change was really unusual. The Webster family plans everything down to the minutest detail. When I spoke to Joan on Thanksgiving Day, the visit was still planned. I knew this young man even before Joan met him, he did his undergrad at Purdue and was a fraternity brother of my brother's. He did not fit the eyewitness description of the man with Joan.
Is there a logical answer for the plans to change? Yes, there was. George made business trip, allegedly, to CA. He would have had to travel over the weekend. Family plans would have been shelved to accommodate George. The public was also not aware that George traveled that weekend. On the surface, this really seems innocuous, but when you start to see the discrepancies in the records, it raises questions. Over the years, I learned the George did not interrupt his plans for anything. He would delegate if needed. So, what was so important that he disrupted the family's holiday weekend? The trip was out of character.
There is a key question to answer about any suspect someone might consider. Would George and Eleanor, and Joan's siblings, cover up for that individual? That is what they did. They had the eyewitness lead in December 1981, and still went down the Paradiso path.
The offender/s had some extraordinary skills and execution. That further narrows the list.
A new podcast about Joan's case just went live yesterday. We actually discussed some of these questions.
Remember that this is a 40-year-old case. There has been speculation about everything conceivable. I approached this case differently by looking at the investigation itself. It made no sense the Paradiso boat story continued, and still continues, to be the promoted theory.
Let me address a couple of things. Adding a beard makes perfect sense to me. If you are planning nefarious activity, you would not want someone to be able to give a description that could identify you. When people look at the composite, the comments and the thing that stands out is the beard. If that is not how the man usually looked, the beard had the desired effect. I focus not on the beard, but the stature, the demeanor, Joan's familiarity with the man, and deliberately maneuvering her to another car.
The public was not aware Joan had planned for a friend to visit over the break. It was more or less a "meet the parents" kind of visit. The young man was a graduate of the Harvard Business School, and at the time, lived in Detroit. For those plans to change was really unusual. The Webster family plans everything down to the minutest detail. When I spoke to Joan on Thanksgiving Day, the visit was still planned. I knew this young man even before Joan met him, he did his undergrad at Purdue and was a fraternity brother of my brother's. He did not fit the eyewitness description of the man with Joan.
Is there a logical answer for the plans to change? Yes, there was. George made business trip, allegedly, to CA. He would have had to travel over the weekend. Family plans would have been shelved to accommodate George. The public was also not aware that George traveled that weekend. On the surface, this really seems innocuous, but when you start to see the discrepancies in the records, it raises questions. Over the years, I learned the George did not interrupt his plans for anything. He would delegate if needed. So, what was so important that he disrupted the family's holiday weekend? The trip was out of character.
There is a key question to answer about any suspect someone might consider. Would George and Eleanor, and Joan's siblings, cover up for that individual? That is what they did. They had the eyewitness lead in December 1981, and still went down the Paradiso path.
The offender/s had some extraordinary skills and execution. That further narrows the list.
A new podcast about Joan's case just went live yesterday. We actually discussed some of these questions.
Episode 115 Joan Webster
25 year-old Joan Webster was a second year architecture student at Harvard University Graduate School of Design in 1981 and had a bright future ahead of her. But on November 28th of that yea…
themurderinmyfamily.com
Hi Charlot 123 and Bagpus,
Remember that this is a 40-year-old case. There has been speculation about everything conceivable. I approached this case differently by looking at the investigation itself. It made no sense the Paradiso boat story continued, and still continues, to be the promoted theory.
Let me address a couple of things. Adding a beard makes perfect sense to me. If you are planning nefarious activity, you would not want someone to be able to give a description that could identify you. When people look at the composite, the comments and the thing that stands out is the beard. If that is not how the man usually looked, the beard had the desired effect. I focus not on the beard, but the stature, the demeanor, Joan's familiarity with the man, and deliberately maneuvering her to another car.
The public was not aware Joan had planned for a friend to visit over the break. It was more or less a "meet the parents" kind of visit. The young man was a graduate of the Harvard Business School, and at the time, lived in Detroit. For those plans to change was really unusual. The Webster family plans everything down to the minutest detail. When I spoke to Joan on Thanksgiving Day, the visit was still planned. I knew this young man even before Joan met him, he did his undergrad at Purdue and was a fraternity brother of my brother's. He did not fit the eyewitness description of the man with Joan.
Is there a logical answer for the plans to change? Yes, there was. George made business trip, allegedly, to CA. He would have had to travel over the weekend. Family plans would have been shelved to accommodate George. The public was also not aware that George traveled that weekend. On the surface, this really seems innocuous, but when you start to see the discrepancies in the records, it raises questions. Over the years, I learned the George did not interrupt his plans for anything. He would delegate if needed. So, what was so important that he disrupted the family's holiday weekend? The trip was out of character.
There is a key question to answer about any suspect someone might consider. Would George and Eleanor, and Joan's siblings, cover up for that individual? That is what they did. They had the eyewitness lead in December 1981, and still went down the Paradiso path.
The offender/s had some extraordinary skills and execution. That further narrows the list.
A new podcast about Joan's case just went live yesterday. We actually discussed some of these questions.
Episode 115 Joan Webster
25 year-old Joan Webster was a second year architecture student at Harvard University Graduate School of Design in 1981 and had a bright future ahead of her. But on November 28th of that yea…themurderinmyfamily.com
I hope you get some movement in this case. You've worked so hard.
Sweetluv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 11,110
- Reaction score
- 7,171
Hi Eve..
This potential damaging information that you uncovered, that may be the reason for Joan's murder, are you aware of anyone else in the family who might have known that information and do they ( family) know you stumbled upon it?
This potential damaging information that you uncovered, that may be the reason for Joan's murder, are you aware of anyone else in the family who might have known that information and do they ( family) know you stumbled upon it?
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 624
Hi Bagpus and Sweetluv,
It is really important on many levels and for many reasons that the record is corrected about Joan's case. When an offender gets away with a crime, it leaves others vulnerable.
What I discovered was in writing, this was not just something I heard. There is corroborating evidence documented, and contemporaneous evidence. I sought help. A police report was filed, and documents provided. After this discovery, I learned pretty quickly to document everything.
Members of the family either knew about it or the propensity for such behavior. My concerns were reinforced when my former brother-in-law, also expressed similar concerns. Members of the family most definitely knew about my discovery. Members of the family were confronted with it.
Their reactions did not fit the image of the Websters that most people would see. All of that has been very well documented as well. There were a lot of denials. I never jumped to conclusions, but it was not something I was going to ignore without finding answers. I won't go into all of the different responses of the family except for the email I received from George Webster on Christmas night 2012. It really says it all. I received an email laced with profanity from George. He wished me to "Die." A little unsettling from a man whose daughter was murdered. I have made that email public and traced the IP address identifying the computer it was sent from. I am a very reasonable person. If they wanted to convince me the allegations were not what they seemed, they went about it the wrong way.
The experiences surrounding this letter and the Websters' support of Tim Burke's book were the catalysts to dig into Joan's case. I have most definitely found answers and believe my concerns about the letter are warranted.
It is really important on many levels and for many reasons that the record is corrected about Joan's case. When an offender gets away with a crime, it leaves others vulnerable.
What I discovered was in writing, this was not just something I heard. There is corroborating evidence documented, and contemporaneous evidence. I sought help. A police report was filed, and documents provided. After this discovery, I learned pretty quickly to document everything.
Members of the family either knew about it or the propensity for such behavior. My concerns were reinforced when my former brother-in-law, also expressed similar concerns. Members of the family most definitely knew about my discovery. Members of the family were confronted with it.
Their reactions did not fit the image of the Websters that most people would see. All of that has been very well documented as well. There were a lot of denials. I never jumped to conclusions, but it was not something I was going to ignore without finding answers. I won't go into all of the different responses of the family except for the email I received from George Webster on Christmas night 2012. It really says it all. I received an email laced with profanity from George. He wished me to "Die." A little unsettling from a man whose daughter was murdered. I have made that email public and traced the IP address identifying the computer it was sent from. I am a very reasonable person. If they wanted to convince me the allegations were not what they seemed, they went about it the wrong way.
The experiences surrounding this letter and the Websters' support of Tim Burke's book were the catalysts to dig into Joan's case. I have most definitely found answers and believe my concerns about the letter are warranted.
Charlot123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 8,346
- Reaction score
- 56,495
I wonder if anyone has considered an alternative version, not yours and not Paradiso’s one?
Also, her returning to Boston for the weekend looks mysterious. She said, to work at the project. You said, her project was finished. My first thought is, maybe for a clandestine rendezvous? The “project” is a giveaway. People don’t want to lie fully. Maybe that early return was somehow related to a person helping her with the project, counseling her, or grading it? And she wanted to keep it a secret, because we don’t know the person’s situation?
Or, it could be someone she met closer to Harvard, in a Museum or Symphony Hall?
(While Paradiso doesn’t look like the man from the sketch, no one else does, either).
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 624
Hi Charlot 123,
There have been so many "theories floated out there over the years, it's hard to keep track. Joan presented an 11-week project on Monday before the Thanksgiving break. She got high marks on her presentation. George Webster even was quoted in the press confirming that.
Speculating without any substantiated facts only perpetuates the problem that will not lead to a resolve. The facts I am looking at are the eyewitness lead and the bankruptcy case involving the boat. Recovered documents affirm the Websters had that information. In the best case, the Websters ignored the evidence, kept it hidden, and framed a man for the murder of their daughter. I don't think parents of a missing or murdered child are going to cover up for a boyfriend, classmate, mentor, counselor, professor, or whomever. That is a glaring problem.
I would welcome some other verified explanation, but with the mountains of documents I recovered, it hardly seems like anything can support the Websters' allegations. What parent cooperates with a former prosecutor writing a book that you know to be false about your murdered daughter?
You have to answer the most obvious question, who was more important than Joan for the family to protect?
There have been so many "theories floated out there over the years, it's hard to keep track. Joan presented an 11-week project on Monday before the Thanksgiving break. She got high marks on her presentation. George Webster even was quoted in the press confirming that.
Speculating without any substantiated facts only perpetuates the problem that will not lead to a resolve. The facts I am looking at are the eyewitness lead and the bankruptcy case involving the boat. Recovered documents affirm the Websters had that information. In the best case, the Websters ignored the evidence, kept it hidden, and framed a man for the murder of their daughter. I don't think parents of a missing or murdered child are going to cover up for a boyfriend, classmate, mentor, counselor, professor, or whomever. That is a glaring problem.
I would welcome some other verified explanation, but with the mountains of documents I recovered, it hardly seems like anything can support the Websters' allegations. What parent cooperates with a former prosecutor writing a book that you know to be false about your murdered daughter?
You have to answer the most obvious question, who was more important than Joan for the family to protect?
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 624
Let me point out a couple of things that are important not to lose sight of. Two people are on record giving the correct cause of Joan's death with correct detail more than seven years before Joan surfaced. That is information known only to the killer or someone complicit in the crime. Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro have a known connection to Joan's case.
The offender/s had a skill set and modus operandi that allowed them to avoid detection. This was well-orchestrated. Evidence was scattered over a wide area. This was someone who likely knew methods of investigation in order to divert any legitimate effort. Authorities used the media to really execute a trial by tabloid. In researching Joan's case, I found records very fragmented. By that I mean information was not consolidated in one place. The current custodian was missing very relevant records.
The list of suspects is very narrow with what is known now. And remember, there was more than one person involved.
The offender/s had a skill set and modus operandi that allowed them to avoid detection. This was well-orchestrated. Evidence was scattered over a wide area. This was someone who likely knew methods of investigation in order to divert any legitimate effort. Authorities used the media to really execute a trial by tabloid. In researching Joan's case, I found records very fragmented. By that I mean information was not consolidated in one place. The current custodian was missing very relevant records.
The list of suspects is very narrow with what is known now. And remember, there was more than one person involved.
I have not read all of the posts. I am working my way through. My first thought was possibly a professor at Harvard? Maybe someone that she knew vaguely but was still familiar with? Could this have been a random meeting with a guy that had a terrible reaction to being rejected after they got in the car? But, if that is the case, why the cover up?
Sweetluv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 11,110
- Reaction score
- 7,171
Hi Eve...
Why was the Zodiac Killer even considered?
Also, I guess it was impossible to determine time of death(?)
Not to be too descriptive, but is there a theory as to why a blunt objective was used vs. let's say a gun?
Why was the Zodiac Killer even considered?
Also, I guess it was impossible to determine time of death(?)
Not to be too descriptive, but is there a theory as to why a blunt objective was used vs. let's say a gun?
eve carson
Verified Family - Joan Webster
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 624
Hi Rob 525 and Sweetluv,
Boyfriends, professors, secret paramours have all been suggested over the years. So has the concept of a random encounter even with someone Joan might have known. They have been crossed off the list for numerous reasons, but I would always welcome any verified evidence. Thus far, people have only speculated.
The young men Joan dated were known. She had a very demanding schedule with a full load at school and her dorm duties as proctor. It's hard to find time for a mystery suitor. Joan had her belongings and engaged a cab already. It was late at night. For Joan to switch cars at the man's request, she knew and trusted him. A casual acquaintance would not fit that bill. If it had merely been the bearded man involved, the driver of the blue car would likely have come forward. Joan's picture was all over the papers, flyers were posted, and they even had billboards all over town. The fact the car was right there is a big clue. Based on what we know happened, that was premeditated. No driver came forward and said hey I had that girl in my cab and dropped her off at such and such place. Remember, the eyewitness lead was suppressed.
Rob 525, you identified the biggest problem with these scenarios. The eyewitness lead was suppressed by the police and the Websters. They are the only ones that had that information that a cabbie did identify Joan and she had engaged a cab. But that little morsel ended up in the allegations made by the jailhouse snitch, Robert Bond. It also ended up in Tim Burke's book. Whoever someone suggests was the offender, has to pass the test of someone that the police and the Websters would cover up for.
I made contact with a woman in Boston a few years ago. She had worked on different aspects of Joan's case. She had some firsthand knowledge. I was appalled by how she said the MSP described Joan. It was repugnant. A false and disgusting image of Joan was being spread internally.
The Zodiac theory was introduced by a man named Gareth Penn. His Zodiac suspect was an MIT professor in Boston. He tied Joan's case in. Over the years, Zodiac hunters even think Penn was the Zodiac and murdered Joan. I found two of George' Webster's letters in the Zodiac files. The Websters "toyed" with Pen for quite a while. There are diehards that still are convinced and get downright hostile that I don't agree with them. Joan's case had nothing to do with the Zodiac crime spree, and I am working from actual documents, actual evidence.
Joan's suitcase was placed in the bus station locker sometime before 9:30 am on November 29, 1981. I think it is fair to assume the time of death was between leaving Logan and the suitcase in the locker. I don't know what the pathology report showed. That is restricted information.
The modus operandi is an interesting point. A gun or knife, even a rope, can leave traceable evidence. The officer who was part of the recovery said the trauma to Joan's skull was inflicted with tremendous force, and was probably a bat, or limb, or tire iron. An item like that is easily accessible, hard to trace, and easily disposable without drawing any attention. This was well-planned by someone who knew how to kill and get away with it. Those factors also contribute to the unlikely scenario it was a more casual acquaintance or random. Her belongings were dispersed. It was only a lucky circumstance that the clammer found Joan's purse and wallet. There was going to be a delay before the suitcase turned up.
Joan's birthday would have been this coming Friday. She should be here with us.
Boyfriends, professors, secret paramours have all been suggested over the years. So has the concept of a random encounter even with someone Joan might have known. They have been crossed off the list for numerous reasons, but I would always welcome any verified evidence. Thus far, people have only speculated.
The young men Joan dated were known. She had a very demanding schedule with a full load at school and her dorm duties as proctor. It's hard to find time for a mystery suitor. Joan had her belongings and engaged a cab already. It was late at night. For Joan to switch cars at the man's request, she knew and trusted him. A casual acquaintance would not fit that bill. If it had merely been the bearded man involved, the driver of the blue car would likely have come forward. Joan's picture was all over the papers, flyers were posted, and they even had billboards all over town. The fact the car was right there is a big clue. Based on what we know happened, that was premeditated. No driver came forward and said hey I had that girl in my cab and dropped her off at such and such place. Remember, the eyewitness lead was suppressed.
Rob 525, you identified the biggest problem with these scenarios. The eyewitness lead was suppressed by the police and the Websters. They are the only ones that had that information that a cabbie did identify Joan and she had engaged a cab. But that little morsel ended up in the allegations made by the jailhouse snitch, Robert Bond. It also ended up in Tim Burke's book. Whoever someone suggests was the offender, has to pass the test of someone that the police and the Websters would cover up for.
I made contact with a woman in Boston a few years ago. She had worked on different aspects of Joan's case. She had some firsthand knowledge. I was appalled by how she said the MSP described Joan. It was repugnant. A false and disgusting image of Joan was being spread internally.
The Zodiac theory was introduced by a man named Gareth Penn. His Zodiac suspect was an MIT professor in Boston. He tied Joan's case in. Over the years, Zodiac hunters even think Penn was the Zodiac and murdered Joan. I found two of George' Webster's letters in the Zodiac files. The Websters "toyed" with Pen for quite a while. There are diehards that still are convinced and get downright hostile that I don't agree with them. Joan's case had nothing to do with the Zodiac crime spree, and I am working from actual documents, actual evidence.
Joan's suitcase was placed in the bus station locker sometime before 9:30 am on November 29, 1981. I think it is fair to assume the time of death was between leaving Logan and the suitcase in the locker. I don't know what the pathology report showed. That is restricted information.
The modus operandi is an interesting point. A gun or knife, even a rope, can leave traceable evidence. The officer who was part of the recovery said the trauma to Joan's skull was inflicted with tremendous force, and was probably a bat, or limb, or tire iron. An item like that is easily accessible, hard to trace, and easily disposable without drawing any attention. This was well-planned by someone who knew how to kill and get away with it. Those factors also contribute to the unlikely scenario it was a more casual acquaintance or random. Her belongings were dispersed. It was only a lucky circumstance that the clammer found Joan's purse and wallet. There was going to be a delay before the suitcase turned up.
Joan's birthday would have been this coming Friday. She should be here with us.
I noticed a couple more things. I agree that there was more than one person involved. The purse was found in a direction away from Logan airport that would not be a route taken to Harvard, no? So she would have realized something was amiss right away. Another thought was could she have been duped into thinking that a guy she was talking to was a professor? Someone highly intelligent that could easily pull of such a charade? Admittedly, when I was reading this I thought about Richard Haefner. Not saying that I think he is a suspect, but he seems the type of guy that could have done this. Extremely intelligent and talented in his field but also a guy that has extremely bad reactions to rejection. I wonder where he was from 1975 until 2002 when he died?
Sweetluv
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 11,110
- Reaction score
- 7,171
Hi Eve...I never understood the theory of the Zodiac Killer as the responsible party of Joan's death either. IMO, this was definitely plotted and planned out from the cabbie/blue car encounter to the suitcase at the terminal.
Due to the family's FBI connection, could this have been a kidnapping and killing as a retaliation to the the Websters? Sending a message if you will...
I do believe the Websters handled this investigation as a bit fishy and suspicious for sure...but could this be because they knew Joan was a casualty for something they had done and were trying to cover their tracks?
Due to the family's FBI connection, could this have been a kidnapping and killing as a retaliation to the the Websters? Sending a message if you will...
I do believe the Websters handled this investigation as a bit fishy and suspicious for sure...but could this be because they knew Joan was a casualty for something they had done and were trying to cover their tracks?