FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: Hot Facts For A Cold Case Murder
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 41, 42, 43  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no question Trooper Andrew Palombo has to be considered a suspect. He was one of very few people obtaining a false statement from the informant Robert Bond that did contain the correct manner of death with correct detail. He continued to submit affidavits to the court diverting the investigation to the harbor and Paradiso's boat despite evidence that they had gathered to exclude him.

I do not believe Palombo would have acted on his own. Then you have to consider why he would be involved. It is highly unlikely Joan was involved in activities that intersected with the drug enforcement and undercover work of Palombo. I also doubt she observed something so damning on the short flight from Newark. This was planned out.

That leaves Palombo in a position involved with someone else who felt threatened by Joan Webster. That's why I am examining who supports the published theory, who lied, who has something to gain with this theory being promoted.

Burke benefits, but he wasn't involved in the case when Joan disappeared.
Tammaro benefits and became involved supporting his subordinate. We know he had interests and involvement with the FBI efforts to dismantle the mafia.
Right now the state benefits covering up aggregious misconduct on so many levels it's sickening.
The Webster's support it and refuse to look at anything else. George Webster lied about a phone call the morning before Joan's flight. He lied about a point explaining why Joan was in the place where she disappeared. That is significant.

I will try to pick this apart more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Great Lynn Fire on 11-28-1981 is a factor that was really brushed over. This was an enormous fire and made going north difficult. There were 95 engine companies, 25 ladder companies, 2 ambulance/rescue units, and 10 civil defense fire departments called to the 10 alarm fire. Roads were blocked. Routes 1A and Route 107, where the purse was found on 12-2-1981, were blocked going into Lynn, MA. And yet the body was dumped north and east of the airport. Below is a map showing the route between Trooper Andrew Palombo's house and the gravesite. I believe Joan was taken someplace else before taken to Hamilton, but you needed to have someone who knew how to get through there and would know these areas.



The distance is about 14 miles. Palombo could easily get home, clean up, and then head south on Broadway. That road cuts over to 107 south of roadblocks and gives him access to the area on his way to the airport. The bag could have been dropped off early that morning or he may have worked undercover there the next day. Authorities claimed to have determined when the bag was put in a Boston locker. This is despite the confusing revelation in Burke's book now claiming the bag was recovered in NY. Knowing first hand it was put there is about the only way I can think of for authorities to determine that. If someone has any other thoughts, I would live to hear them.

Palombo's house was only 2 miles from 128. Now you have someone related to the case, making false statements to the court, in the press, and to other agencies who has access that night and is in proximity to know this area. Here is a photo of 128 headed east toward exit 16.



Turning off on exit 16, it is only a mile or so to the gravesite. It is still daylight in this picture, but it is dark and dense.



Joan was seen at the airport with a bearded man with long hair. That was known to authorities and the Websters. It was suppressed from the public except for a couple of lines that got out. It was never pursued and faded into the perception she wasn't noticed. Paradiso did not ever have any facial hair.


Andrew Palombo

His boss Sgt Carmen Tammaro takes over controlling investigation between different agancies and just happens to have a friend who placed anonymous calls in January 1982 implicating Paradiso in both murders and gave unverified testimony at the pretrial. One of those calls went to the Websters. That was a full year before the "break" in the case with Robert Bond.


Carmen Tammaro

ADA Tim Burke is added to the mix in February 1982. As soon as they get the conviction in the Iannuzzi case, authorities are reporting they have gathered enough evidence to conclude Paradiso raped and murdered Joan Webster. That report is 7-24-1984, the day before sentencing. They had a stack of exculpatory evidence to exclude him.


Tim Burke

This group took a statement from Robert Bond that had information that was already known to be false. It contained the correct manner of death with detail. It maintained a theory explaining no body and keeping investigation diverted. The statement was twisted to change the order of events. I don't think it's too hard to figure out why the state is running such interference for records to be reviewed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A critical piece in looking at all of this is knowing who knew what and when. One has to assume experienced law enforcement can make certain determinations based on information they gather.

The document below contains the last 2 paragraphs of the searh warrant obtained on 9-28-1983, the day after the boat was raised. It specifies what they were looking for based on their informant's assertions Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. The recently published theory by the former prosecutor maintains this was the crime scene.



This was submitted by Trooper Andrew Palombo. Going through the list it is impossible to conceive Palombo, Burke, and Tammaro continued to maintain Joan was ever on the boat and that was the murder scene.

Broken whiskey bottle: NEGATIVE
Bottles and/or instrumentalities of criminal activity: NEGATIVE
Broken glass: One item was submitted that Burke called glass. The lab called it debris and said it was unsuitable for testing
Strands of hair of Joan Webster: NEGATIVE
Traces of blood: NEGATIVE
Personal effects of Joan Webster: NEGATIVE
Clothing fibers of Joan Webster: NEGATIVE
Jewelry (Item known only to authorities): NEGATIVE
Books and phonoghraphs albums: Authorities had privileged information the missing tote bag contained architectural drawings NEGATIVE
Evidence that the "Mala Femmena" had been deliberately sunk: The toilet had been pulled up and 2 fittings pulled out. There was nothing to determine the boat was sunk after 11-28-1981 as claimed. There was documentation and witness information that the boat was sunk by 7-26-1981, 4 months before Joan's disappearance.
Fingerprints of Joan Webster: NEGATIVE
Body of Joan Webster: NEGATIVE
Traces of bodily fluid: NEGATIVE
Any personal effects belonging to Joan Webster: NEGATIVE
Any evidence to show that Joan Webster was aboard the Chris Craft boat Mala Femmena marine reg number MS9LP: NEGATIVE

Trooper Palombo, Sgt Tammaro, and Tim Burke had this information. Despite that, they continued and continue to this day to represent Joan was murdered on this boat. Until her remains were found, they continued to keep investigation focused on the harbor and that Joan was dumped in the ocean. In addition they had the marine report in October 1983 ordered by Trooper Palombo that the rudder was broken on this boat and it could not have been taken out. They lied to the court and the media.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In looking for the truth, I took a very simple approach. I have looked for who lied. Warrants were submitted to the court by Andrew Palombo on 3 seperate occassions. These are sworn statements. In each of them Palombo states ADA Tim Burke had received a letter from the informant Robert Bond on 1-5-1983. That is information that was repeatedly given to the press. The statement made allegations in the Iannuzzi and Joan Webster cases. The interview conducted with Robert Bond on 1-14-1983 by authorities clearly refutes the contention that Burke had received the letter. Sgt Tammaro made arrangements to try and get the letter from Bond's family. Palombo was present in that interview. He knowingly made a false statement to the court to obtain search warrants.

Out of the first one they came out with a book they alleged was Joan's. Nothing ever corroborated this was Joan's book. It was out of print 6 years before her flight. They had other information where the book had come from. Fingerprints of Paradiso and others were found on the book, but not Joan's, meaning it was not wiped down as Burke alleged. It was a book that would have been heavy in her tote bag and authorities had the privileged information the tote contained architectural drawings. They also came away with navigational equipment that was not the same make as what was insured for on the missing boat. It did not match the fittings on the recovered boat. They came away with photographs that were used to locate a witness pressured by the FBI who provided sensational testimony that was not verified. They also found the ammunition shell that Paradiso claimed was the source of splinters in his finger corroborating his claim. This search warrant was executed on 4-25-1983 under the Iannuzzi case. They came away with nothing trying to establish a connection to Marie. It all centered around Joan.

The first paragraph in each warrant starts the same. Palombo identifies himself. It gives some relevant information that can't be overlooked. He was a veteran officer and he establishes his connection to Logan. He identifies himself as an individual involved in drug enforcement at the time. There were 2 opposing aspects of drug activities in Boston. His activites centered on informants in EB where Doyle lived and the center of mafia activity. It is now recorded history that Bulger was protected by the FBI and his activities flourished at this time. Below is a copy of the first paragraph in one of the warrants.



The final sentence is very telling.

"I AM FAMILIAR WITH MANY PROCEDURES CRIMINALS USE IN ATTEMPTS TO AVOID DETECTION."


I would say lying to the court, misrepresenting evidence, and throwing off an investigation would be considered a way to avoid detection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7639

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

The Next Level Show - 9th December, 2009

Hot Facts For
A
Cold Case


http://joanwebstermurder.yolasite.com


LISTEN:
Broadband Mp3 Audio
http://BreakForNews.com/audio/BeautifulTruth-09-12-09-dsl.mp3
Click to Play or Right-Click to 'Save As' and Download.

Dialup Mp3 Audio
http://BreakForNews.com/audio/BeautifulTruth-09-12-09-dialup.mp3
Click to Play or Right-Click to 'Save As' and Download.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3170
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Weird. I was thinking at work tonight about how maybe this needed another audio or at least that SOMEONE should respond to this information. I'm about to listen. Cheers to both of you for covering this so thoroughly. Keep on Eve.


Edit:

The new website is well done. Loads of information there and easier to navigate than the google group.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Bri and thank you Fintan. There are new things being loaded onto the site daily. At the moment some areas are blocked while legal avenues are exhausted. I am a lot closer than I ever imagined I could be. The google site will remain as a work space where multiple people have contributed and brainstormed trying to sort through everything.

I am lining up a couple more interviews and meeting with an attorney tommorow. When authorities want something covered up, there aren't many options where a regular person can go. I have definitely hit nerves and made progress. There is no question this was the place that needed to be examined in this case.

I have been subjected to some smearing. I understand that to be the only avenue when the facts can't be debated. Sadly I can also determine the root. When people feel cornered that is also a time when mistakes are made. Victims should never be victimized all over again by the kind of conduct that went on here and still continues related to this case. The truth is coming out in the case and hopefully pave the way for others who have dealt with such heinous misconduct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To back track slightly to point something out in the list of items in the search warrant. A gun is not listed in the items sought in the search warrant. According to Burke, Bond alleged Paradiso used a gun, later claimed to be a realistic fake, to coerce Joan onto his boat. Bond does not make this claim. When asked, he said no and then back peddled to say he didn't say he didn't use one either. This was a noticeable parsing on multiple questions. Burke introduced the suggestion of a gun later knowing there would have to be some sort of force to make Joan get on the boat. No one would buy it otherwise. I'll get into the gun in more depth later and see if I can pinpoint exactly where that first comes out in the press.

I want to touch on who knew Joan was going back early. David Duncan was her current boyfriend at school. It is reasonable to conclude he didn't know. He called the Webster house on 12-1-1981 when Joan didn't show up for class on Monday according to the inital police report. No names ever came to light of any classmates she was supposedly going to meet on Sunday. George Webster fabricated a detailed explanation claiming Joan made a call on Saturday morning. That was not the case. If there had been an arranged meeting on Sunday, it is somewhat confusing there was no call on Sunday to ask where she was, or Monday at the latest. All the students quoted were surprised and shocked commenting that Joan often advised others to let people know where they were going as a matter of safety. No students were identified knowing she was going back early.

The Websters attended 2 cocktail parties on Saturday evening. They went to the Jack Wittpenns and the Leonard Joys. These cocktail parties in NJ were small gatherings. They were close friends with parents and kids around the same age. This is a small community. These friends lived very close. Walking distance to the Joys. It would only be a few minutes to drop Anne and Eleanor back at the house. Newark was about a half hour away. But all 3 took Joan to the airport. It really doesn't make that much sense. Anne was driving back to Boston the next day. Obviously, the family knew she was going back.

It is certainly reasonable for Joan to have said something about going back at the cocktail parties. These were just prior to taking her flight. These people would have known at that time she was going back early. I can't imagine any of the people I know having any malice toward Joan and they would have had to have had knowledge enough in advance to do something about it. I really cross any of the individuals I know in those circles off the list. I don't know if there were other guests I didn't know, but they would have been with someone I did. I would leave a question mark still there, but a very slight one.

Palombo and Tammaro could have seen her name on a flight list if they were looking for her. If something had been predetermined from their standpoint regarding Joan I don't think they would have been acting independently and I don't think Joan was invovled in anything "threatening" to them independent of someone else.

The only absolutes on the list of people who knew she was going back early are George, Eleanor, and Anne. That makes the contrived phone call very upsetting. George didn't tell the truth about why Joan was in the very place she disappeared and then they don't place a safe arrival call. It's 3 days before anyone determines she is gone.

The Websters have itineraries and schedules that are really unbelievable. They detail every point conceivable. They did call frequently. The first Thanksgiving I spent with the family, they sent schedules out in advance of the seating in the car for a trip into NYC. We got tennis round robin ladders in advance. Nothing was left to impulse or what the moment might dictate. Not calling for 3 days was out of character. In Burke's book, he described Eleanor calling George's secretary to get his return flight schedule on 12-1-1981 from CA, the day they got the call from David Duncan. That's not a point that might stand out to someone, but it does to me. We had mega schedules mailed out to everyone and posted on the frig. Eleanor would not have had to call.

The facts surrounding Joan's case really suggest a premeditated crime. The condition of her remains, the disbursement of her belongings, and the confusion of the investigation aren't the behaviors of a random crime or one of opportunity which would have been what the Paradiso theory was. To get Joan out of the airport easily also suggests she either knew the person or they knew her and gained her confidence easily. Having clothes stripped removed identifiers. That's someone who thought this through. It is important to note her bag was undisturbed when recovered. If she were meeting someone, she would have had it with her and had it opened if she willingly was removing clothing. Burke claimed Bond told him some of the contents of the bag ala Paradiso's confession. He gets one item completely wrong. It's not in the bag. Bond also didn't provide any information about the bag. Burke also suggests the bag was placed in the bus terminal locker by 9:30 the next morning in the same paragraph where he claims the bag was recovered in NY. How would they determine that?

In comparison to Joan being stripped of clothing, Burke alleged Paradiso somehow removed Marie Iannuzzi's pantyhose without disheveling, tearing, or removing clothing. That's visible in autopsy photos. And then proceeds to suggest Marie was raped. That's his only motive, and one Paradiso was vulnerable to with a previous assault conviction. There is no relationship or similarity between these crimes at all.

There is only one article that also states the bag was recovered in NY. That was in 1990 after remains were found. What makes the most sense for it to come out then is that different investigators were now on the case and answering questions to the press. Palombo and Tammaro were not in charge. Palombo didn't say much to the Hamilton investigators and referred them to Burke. Burke was changing his story at that time saying the Bond statement didn't really mean way out in the ocean on a closer reading, but only way out. The Websters should have been all over that. Burke's contention to fit his case to the facts is blatantly false. They also had said on numerous occassions the only reason Paradiso wasn't prosecuted was because they didn't have a body. They told the DOJ/FBI they had enough evidence to conclude Paradiso was guilty right after they got the Iannuzzi conviction. It's insane to believe this knowing what they knew.

It is imperative to look at who knew Joan was going back when she did versus riding back with her sister or flying back on Sunday and enjoying her full break. That list is real small.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3170
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edit: Recycling disinfo for space Cool

Last edited by bri on Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gareth Penn has maintained Michael O'Hare is the Zodiac and responsible for Joan's murder. A large number of Zodiac sleuths think Penn is the Zodiac and also murdered Joan. I didn't do any in depth study of his Zodiac theory. Frankly, Times 17 can give you a headache trying to follow all of his algorithms and shifting codes to decipher the case. What I have looked at very closely was his communication with the Websters and his knowledge surrounding Leonard Paradiso.

Mike Martin's paper was presented in October of this year at a criminology conference in Indiana. I am referred to in his piece under a pseudonym. I am not entirely sure, but believe Martin may have some inclination to believe Penn is the Zodiac himself. Martin focused on the anonymous letter that led investigators to search Walden Pond. Neither Penn nor O'Hare can be placed in Boston or key locations at the time of Joan's disappearance. I am looking at facts and documents not someone's cryptograms.

George and Eleanor Webster communicated with Penn. That is a certainty that can be verified. Penn also had considerable knowledge about the Iannuzzi murder trial and demonstrated good logic about the circumstances in that case and the other suspect David Doyle. He knew far more about it than I did at the time. He just tried to fill in the answer of who without anything concrete to support it. Penn's assertions were looked at.

One of George Webster's letters that ended up in FBI Zodiac files has a clue of how this crime may have been perpetrated. There are records that need to be viewed in relationsip to that. I think it is possible Joan's case can be resolved. I am not going to elaborate at this point what is there until issues surrounding the DA in Massachusetts can be addressed more completely. It makes no sense for law enforcement to keep investigation diverted and make false representations if there was something to pursue in Penn's theory. The same holds true for Burke's theory, if it had merit, they would support it with documents.

I am not some theorist or some amatuer sleuth looking at just some fascinating case. I am a family member who lived through this on a personal level. My information came from the family. I observed people involved and had no basis not to trust the sources at that time. There were unusual things, but I processed them from my own base of reference. For example, Steve really raged at me for crying about Joan when he told me she was missing. He said it was his sister and I had no reason. I was coming off of a miscarriage and I processed it as his immature emotions and dealing with back to back emotional strife. The fact is no one in the family ever cried that I saw except Steve's one time break down when he was under sedation to have wisdom teeth removed. I accepted the Webster's stoicism as a condition of their background and always keeing their emotions in check.

I have not gotten into too much of the personal side of this. There are two very disturbing situations that leave me very fearful. At the time there seemed to be another explanation. In light of what I have experienced and uncovered in Joan's case, I have to look at them with much more concern. I have been very devalued and discredited. The source of that is troubling. I am looking at one avenue to address that and have meetings coming up this week. I am the one who seems to be "threatening" to the family. Their behaviors have been very destructive. The truth is only threatening to someone who doesn't want the truth known. I am working off of actual documents, individuals involved in the cases, and personal knowledge.

My recollection of the 10-15-1982 extortion attempt was not reported or published anywhere. I asked the DA about that back in 2006. They knew then I had knowledge. I had reached a point where I thought the incident was fabricated just to make me look like I was crazy when I repeated it. My ex is on record saying he doesn't know what I am talking about. It is in the files. I now have the names, dates, locations, what transpired and no charges were pressed. One copy of the incident was initialled by William Webster who was the Director of the FBI at the time. This went very far up, but the FBI involvement was really minimized in perceptions. Burke credits himself with their involvement beginning in 1983. There was a whole lot more and this was a corrupt office.

I have reread a document that lends further support that Trooper Andrew Palombo may have been the FBI confidential source. I will get documents pulled to get that posted in the next few days. The FBI was provided false information.

I don't like to jump to conclusions, but have every reason to ask the questions. When I find information that allows something to cross off the list, I do it, and correct any misperceptions along the way. I am interested in the truth, not implicating anyone wrongfully. Too much of that is evident in the case as it was handled and I have been a victim of that as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see any point for any further elaboration about Gareth Penn and his Zodiac theory. He has never provided anything concrete to support his claims against Michael O'Hare and no one has ever provided anything concrete to support he murdered Joan. If someone does, I'll listen. Enough said.

The gun and the boat are 2 things that deserve further evaluation. The boat was reported missing on July 26, 1981 and reported to the Coast Guard, police, and Liberty Mutual Insurance. When the boat was found in September 1983, it was recovered where it had been moored. The color had not been changed. The name and the registration numbers were still clearly visible on the boat. The claim was paid on 9-29-1981 and Paradiso was later acquitted of insurance fraud 2-18-1985. It is reasonable for the insurance company to have done some due diligence to assure the boat was gone. The boat was not altered and found right where he kept it. That would not be too smart for someone the prosecution is presenting as a hit man for the mob.

FBI SA Steve Broce swore in a statement the FBI spoke to a confidential source on 8-12-1983 indicating where to look for the boat and passed that information to Tim Burke on 8-15-1983. Burke identifies a source that the FBI spoke to and then he did. That man's name was John O'Donnell, a developer at Pier 7 who was in the penitentiary for perjury. The source was not Bond as claimed in the papers. He had stated he didn't know or care where Paradiso kept his boat. It was not Charlene Bullerwell as Burke claims in his book because she wasn't found until after the boat was recovered. O'Donnell is the most likely to have provided information prompting divers to look there.

The gun is not mentioned in the papers until 1-17-1985 when Burke was trying to have splinters forcibly removed from Paradiso's finger alleging they were connected to Joan's murder. It did come out in the Iannuzzi pretrial in March 1984 in the testimony of Officer Nick Saggese. The reporters for some reason didn't pick up on it I guess. The first I ever learned about a gun was when I read the article announcing Burke's book on 11-28-2006.

During Burke's motion to the court regarding the splinters, Trooper Palombo filed a report indicating a confidential source provided information to find the gun in October 1983. It was found by a select group of divers Burke took to the Pier. Trooper Dave Moran published in his 1987 book Trooper that the divers searched the area with special equipment for the next 2 months after the boat was recovered, but found nothing to support allegations against Paradiso. Right in the middle of this time frame Burke tells a diver where to find it and he comes right back up with it. Burke explains in his book that O'Donnell had divers at the pier. Allegedly they found the gun and brought it to him. He told them to throw it back. He supposedly drew a diagram for Burke. The gun was found right under where Paradiso moored his boat. Burke sent everything you can imagine to the FBI labs, but he did not send this gun.

In the hearings to try and surgically remove splinters, they were initially identified as 3 metal splinters deeply imbedded in his left index finger. That is consistent with working with the ammo shell on a grind wheel. It is not consistent with a blow from a whiskey bottle and broken glass, even small shards. It is not consistent with striking someone with the butt of a metal gun. Explanations morphed and went from metal splinters to either being metal splinters or glass with high lead content. There was force used on Paradiso to obtain X-rays, but no splinters remained in his finger.

All of this took place after the Iannuzzi conviction. The boat and the gun appear to be part of a fabricated story that the authorities in charge continued to press. Again, it provided an explanation to keep the investigation focused on Paradiso and the harbor instead of where Joan was actually found. It explained why there was no body. Burke has been obsessed to pin this on Paradiso, but I have to wonder how much excuplatory information he had to see before he could get it through his head this was not the guy.

There were all kinds of deceptive tricks used. The Bond statement made claims that Paradiso had asked to talk with his girlfriend's mother the night Marie was murdered and then the girlfriend supposedly took a cab over to his place. There were no cab records produced. The parents were subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury and offered testimony regarding the claim in Bonds statement. The trickery was that they were called before the Joan Webster grand jury. Paradiso wasn't charged with that crime and could not obtain those transcripts. The defense seems to have been derelict and people were intimidated in all of this. They still are. The Iannuzzi case was nothing more than the vehicle to condemn Paradiso for Joan because they had exactly zero that connected him to the case. He could be connected to the Iannuzzi case.

One possibility I had considered was an overzealous group fabricating a story to look like heros in finding the answers for the Websters. The diversions began too soon for that to be realistic. Palombo and Tammaro were in charge of the case in the first days. They kept Paradiso under wraps for a full year before Bond. The Websters knew that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 420

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The departure on Saturday 11-28-1981 needs more scrutiny as well. That is particularly important in light of George's false claim Joan made a phone call that morning to a classmate. The records clearly show she did not. So why did he embellish or fabricate some story to suggest this was the reason for Joan's return. It is important to understand people's habits and behaviors to make some sense of why she went back early.

George usually picked up arrivals at the airport and took people back for flights. These were not family affairs where everyone went along for the ride. The family typically used Newark Airport whenever possible. It was far easier to access than LaGuardia, but this was also in proximity for flights as well as Kennedy. It just depended on where you were going.

Eleanor would never be the one driving to the airport unless it was absolutely the only option. The Joys lived on the very same street. They could have actually walked, but probably didn't because of the time of year. Anne and Eleanor would have more likely been dropped off at home before taking Joan to the airport unless there was some other reason for them to go along. If they were coming from someplace else and it was out of the way to take them home it would be reasonable. They most likely had dinner at their club which was 2 blocks from the house and both cocktail parties were right there.

George Webster was returning from CA on Tuesday 12-1-1981, the day they received a call from Joan's classmate that she hadn't returned. When I learned this, it seemed a bad time for a meeting for an executive to have to make. He had to have travelled that weekend as well. A coast to coast trip would have been a full day of travel. It seems an intrusion on an executive to have them cut their holiday short as well. I have nothing that indicates when he left. It also is a very short turn around for the trip.

It makes sense for Eleanor and Anne to have been along if George was flying out as well. Eleanor would not have wanted to drive back alone. It also makes sense with their need for convenience. I'm sure Joan could have been encouraged to fly back then to accommodate George's schedule and not necessitate a second trip to the airport. It fits with their modus operandi how they thought and did things.

If that was the case, it makes no sense to make up some other excuse to explain why Joan went back when she did and was at the place and time where she disappeared. It makes no sense otherwise for this to have been a family excursion. If George did take a flight that night and they made up rationales for Joan to be going back, it just indicates to me they didn't want people to know George travelled then. According to the account, Eleanor called his secretary to see when he was due back on Tuesday. That means his flight was scheduled and his trip wasn't cut short because of the news about Joan.

It's important to understand my position in all of this. I was the only person married into the immediate family during this tragedy. I had a very unique perspective. I had 5 miscarriages during the ups and downs of this case before my children were born. This was very emotionally draining.

I almost compare my current situation as if I had been part of a mafia family. I say that from the perspective of family affairs being kept quiet. This is an extremely secretive family. Any break in the ranks is a threat to their "privacy." It's a very patriarchal family system. I didn't understand that and am a very open person. As I try to discuss things now, I find myself the subject of terrible slurrs. When a victim speaks out they often become the target. Think of cases where victims are really the ones put on trial.

I have continued to inform the family there is significant information relevant to Joan's case. I do so in a vein this is a positive thing and things to be discussed. Their heels have dug in quite deep and they are the root of some of the destructive smears. These are the same people wielding influence over my children. The family publicly came out supporting Burke's book and declare privacy for files that should support the allegations if they had merit. A family counselor stated my daughter expressed concern about this case coming to light. She wasn't even born. Something is not right here. My other daughter had sent an email during a moment of conscience apologizing for the way she treated me and the lies. She said we would never be able to sit down and talk about this and basically she could never have a normal life if I was in it. These children have been burdened with family secrets. This family eliminated me completely and have vilified me to the same stature as the man they accuse of murdering Joan. There are too many victims here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 41, 42, 43  Next
Page 15 of 43

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.