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 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 45, 46, 47  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The two primary cops involved in Joan's case were Trooper Andrew Palombo and his boss Sgt Carmen Tammaro. These officers were heavily involved in drug enforcement. Witnesses in the Iannuzzi case were reinterviewed as the case was being prepared against Paradiso. This was done so under the direction of Sgt Carmen Tammaro of the Suffolk County Narcotics Unit. I want to keep there faces visible.

Trooper Andrew Palombo

Sgt Carmen Tammaro

There were two opposing elements of organized crime and drug activity in Boston at this time; the mafia and the mob. Palombo's undercover activity took place in EB, the center of mafia activity. Tammaro indicated he was involved in efforts against the mafia. This has these men aligned with the Boston FBI and in opposition to state efforts at the time. The conflict between the two groups is well documented. The FBI's activities served to help the mob.

There have been multiple attempts to elicit a confession from Paradiso over the years that are accounted. The day Paradiso was arrested for the Iannuzzi case, 7-6-1982, Tammaro met with him and tried to convince him he could help him get a deal if he confessed to Iannuzzi. When that didn't work, Tammaro tracked down Paradiso's attorney, James Cipoletta in a hospital, to try to make some deal.

Tammaro met with Paradiso again about 3 weeks later. He was again trying to gain a confession, but this time for Joan Webster. This was nearly 6 months before Tammaro worked with Robert Bond to get a statement. Bond claims the authorities didn't know the connection between Paradiso and Joan until he came forward. They had linked Paradiso's name to Joan in January 1982 with an anonymous call placed to the Websters by Tammaro's friend, Patty Bono.

In November 1984, Paradiso was subjeccted for disciplinary action. An incident report was written claiming Paradiso had a weapon in his cell. The problem was, the cell searched was not Lenny's. There are other accounts of forceful treatment and isolation that apparently were without cause. This is Gestapo.

Another incident is documented trying to get a confession. In March of 1985, Paradiso encountered Anthony Manni, convicted for cocaine trafficking. Burke and Palombo had been unsuccessful in their attempts in Dec 1984 to Feb 1985 to have a splinter removed from Paradiso in an effort to link it to the boat, fake gun, or whiskey bottle. Tammaro made promises to Manni for lessened sentences to gain a confession from Paradiso. Manni had a stiff sentence facing him. The encounter was arranged and Paradiso was taken to a place where he was not expecting to be at that time.

In August of 1986, Paradiso was at trial for the Janet McCarthy case. Again the prosecutor out of Suffolk County, James Larkin, had a very questionable conviction. Police reports and testimony did not all match up. Trooper Palombo testified in the case as he did during the Iannuzzi pretrial with this witness. Comparing the testimony subtle discrepencies are apparent. Prior to sentencing, Larkin tried to talk to Paradiso about the Joan Webster case. Paradiso declined to talk to him.

Tammaro has a pattern of dealing with the unsavory to reach an objective.

Then there is the recent incident at the time of Burke's book conducted by the state.

This was all about nailing Paradiso for Joan. The indicators suggest to me this has to do with the drug trafficking at this time and officers involved with a corrupt FBI office.

I have a strange personal recollection with George Webster. I thought it was odd at the time, but give it more significance now in light of everything I have learned about Joan's case and how the CIA operates. Steve and I were going to the theater in NY. The typical thing we did was to have dinner at one of the little restaurants in the district that catered to theater goers. George had dinner with us that night which was strange because he wasn't going to the show. I'm not sure how the topic turned to drug use, but it was like two on one and the tone of "you can tell me." They both were pressing if I had ever used drugs. Did I ever experiment in college and that sort of thing. I am from a very conservative family and my dad was very outspoken about drugs early on. He was a pharmacist and very knowledgable about substances at the time. I didn't get tangled into drug issues. Steve said he had dabbled in college and then George even confided he had tried things himself. Now I look at it as an attempt to have things to use against me, something my children documented when I was enduring a real living hell. I am sensitive to it now knowing about the drug use, "escape" of one of my children now. The family has been very enabling and dismissive of the problem.

This family has secrets and label everything as privacy issues. If there were secrets of the magnitude or associations that cost Joan her life, the parents were the ones with the background for such things. There is absolutely no basis in records to support believing Paradiso was involved in Joan's murder. On the contrary, there was an abundance to exclude him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are multiple factors that indicate Joan's murder was a premeditated crime.

1. She left the airport with little detection

2. The belongings recovered were dispersed and misleading for investigation

3. Hundreds of man hours and multiple agencies were unable to find conclusive evidence about what happened

4. The state was involved in misconduct manufacturing a scapegoat

5. The condition of her remains

6. Obstruction for any transparency all these years later despite published representations from what would be considered an official source

7. The involvement of a corrupt FBI office later exposed for protecting criminal informants and knowingly framing individuals for wrongful convictions.

8. Protected FBI informant

The CIA is involved in this case as well by virtue of George and Eleanor's background. I found an interesting link that posted pages released by the CIA from their "assassination" manual.

The link is on the site of the Frank Olson Project. Olson was an Army scientist who worked with the CIA in the post WWII environment of the Cold War. He was slipped LSD unbeknownst to him during an experiment of the MKULTRA program in 1953. This was the umbrella project during the time the Websters were officially part of the agency. Olson died after a fall from a NY hotel room window. Ironically he died on November 28th. The CIA covered it up for years and called it suicide. It took Olson's family 22 years to gain an acknowledgement that the CIA was responsible for his death.

CIA Assassination Manual

I am not making any conclusions here, but have copied excerpts from the manual for comparison in Joan's case.

Joan's murder would have been classified:
SIMPLE - victim was unaware
SAFE - individual responsible would escape without harm
SECRET - the murder would be concealed

When the decision to assassinate has been reached, the tactics of the operation must be planned, based upon an estimate of the situation similar to that used in military operations.

Joan's murder appears premeditated with a great deal of attention paid to throwing any investigation off.

...the simplest local tools are often much the most efficient means of assassination. All such improvised weapons have the important advantage of availability and apparent innocence.

The fatal blow to Joan's head required a great deal of leverage and a full and powerful swing. Death was certain as prescribed in the manual. Identifyiers like clothing were removed.

...blunt weapons require some anatomical knowledge for effective use. Their main advantage is their universal availability...nothing resembling a weapon need be procured, carried or subsequently disposed of...
Of course, if the blow is very heavy, any portion of the upper skull will do.

It's pretty chilling to read a document like this and realize this was training in the CIA. Another comment in the manual states:

But assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it.

Whoever murdered Joan certainly falls into this category of person.
Joan's murder was

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am adding the link to the Boston Magazine article again. I want to highlight another quote George Webster made in this interview. It may or may not seem like a small point, but it continues to illustrate what I came to learn too late about the reliability of what the Websters say.

Boston Madazine Interview 12-1984

"In the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing-which we didn't go to-there were women coming forward to testify, a series of people, about attacks on them, and some of these cases had never been brought to trial...And if he had been caught and convicted of some of these other things-he might have been-this might never have happened to Joan."
George Webster 12-1984 Boston Magazine

George states they did not attend the Iannuzzi pretrial. I knew they had gone, but hit a point where they had me doubting myself. Not only were they there, they positioned themselves in front of the media who were there to follow their story, not Marie Iannuzzi. They wielded a great deal of influence how this case was perceived. That included with at least some family. They were dangling the reward money out there appealing for more stories like the ones Burke purt on the stand that week. The only one that had any validity was Constance Porter and Paradiso had served time for that offense. I don't want to minimize that, but it doesn't justify fabricating stories to pin on him. The following article verifies the Websters were in the courtroom for these hearings and likely got first run editions of the sensationalized stories hot off the press.


What I learned was that things the Websters say have to be verified. They are conviincing, but they weren't telling the truth time and again. The discovery of the extortion call a few months ago illustrates it clearly. Steve is on record saying he didn't know what I was talking about. I don't know how you forget something like that. It's more likely they are trying to discredit. They are controlling information. They are quoted supporting Burke's book, but don't want their privacy violated for an independent review in an open investigation for the murder of their daughter. They want it both ways.

I'll give another example and something begun from the time I first met them. George's father owned a company called Standard Thomson. George worked for him for a brief time before accepting a position with ITT. In essence, he gave up a profitable company he would have inherited. The company was sold in 1974. This year was the climax of CIA ITT activites in Chile and only a short time before I met the family. I was told the company was sold to the Japanese. Why would I doubt that? It wasn't until I started looking into all of this and examining a family with very conflicting behaviors to the public image that I learned the company was sold to the Allegheny Corporation in PA. It makes no sense for them not to be truthful.

These examples are all through this case and my personal experience.

The previously cited fabrication that Joan called a classmate in Boston on Saturday morning is very troubling to me. Of the very few who would have known she went back early, they are on the list without dispute. Even her boyfriend didn't know. They fabricated a reason to explain it. You don't do that if you're looking for your daughter. They stated they tried to think of something that might have happened that week that might have upset her or prompted her return. There was something, but not the kind of thing that would stand out unless there was knowledge of family background.

Whether it's intentional or out of ignorance, the Websters are part of the obstruction to get to the truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am down to the level of looking at very small details. One thing I know about the Websters was their attention to detail. Everything was scheduled down to the most insignificant point. I suspect that comes from their background.

There were a great many anonymous calls and letters associated with the case. The source for some has been identified, others have not. The ones we know are cause for concern because of how they are connected to the case. The biggest example is Patty Bono, friend of Carmen Tammaro. She was the first to implicate Paradiso to both murders in January 1982 to the Websters. She gave unverified testimony at the Iannuzzi pretrial in March of 1984.

In April of 1982, The Middlesex DA received an anonymous letter claiming Joan was in a bag at the bottom of the legendary Walden Pond. Based on the articles and documents available, the best date that can be determined for the letter was around the 4th or 5th of April. The following link is one article that emphasizes the areas searched and the resources involved. This kept the investigation diverted.

Walden Pond 4-1982

There are two significant points here. One is the timing. The document below will illustrate what I mean. The second is the reference to Joan being in a bag. This was indeed the case, but not known until remains were recovered in 1990. There was a black trash bag with her remains. It is also known from documents that the anonymous letter was mailed from Cambridge.

The following letter was mailed to the FBI in Boston. There is absolutely no question this is George Webster's handwriting. Several agencies are referenced in correspondence including the Middlesex DA. This was recovered through FOIA records from the FBI relating to the Zodiac murders. There were multiple letters and not all pages were released. The number of places I have had to look has been mind boggling.

The image may not be clear enough in this image, but the postmark is from Cambridge and dated April 3, 1982. The Websters almost took up residence in Cambridge at the Sheraton. This was only a couple of days before the 2nd grand jury session convened. The first was on 3-5-1982 in the Comm vs Paradiso for Marie Iannuzzi's murder. The second began on 4-5-1982 and had been changed to a John Doe. Burke woud likely have gotten an indictment in March against Doyle, but they were targeting Paradiso with Joan's case in mind.

I am bothered by the the timing and place of letters knowing the things I do now. Too much was being done to confuse and throw this case off. There is also some history of anonymous letters in the family, not to mention I got one earlier this year when the questions started digging too deep. There are so many coincidences, too many.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The shifts in Joan's case were hard for the public to detect. Joan's purse and wallet were found in Saugus, MA on 12-2-1982, the day after she was reported missing. This was the first diversion in the case. It was not disposed with the body or any other of Joan's belongings. If tossed from a moving vehicle headed in the direction of the airport, it may indicate there were 2 people in the car, someone on the passenger side. There was an enormous amount of manpower expended to search this area in the first few days. It threw things off.

Bond's statement claims Paradiso disposed of Joan's items in Saugus 3 weeks after Joan's disappearance. Even if the public couldn't keep track, the authorities in charge of the case would know this. Bond's statement was immediatley false. The Websters would also know this was false. This statement was given in January of 1983. Paradiso had already been implicated in Joan's case in January 1982, a year before. The anonymous caller, later identified to be Patty Bono, friend of Sgt Carmen Tammaro, also implicated Paradiso for the Iannuzzi murder. Authorities knew he was a suspect in the case. The Bond statement made the connection the case needed to tie Joan's case to the Iannuzzi case and therefore Paradiso. Authorities could never make a connection between Joan and Paradiso so they had to tie him in some other way.

When I started the process to understand this case, I had no problem remembering exactly when her purse was found without the benefit of articles or anything else. You don't forget major events when dealing with a missing or murdered loved one. I consider that when I review the changes in testimony of the Iannuzzi family from the grand jury to the trial. Events get seared in your mind. I had to understand what happened in that case before realizing this was all a complete hoax designed to have someone to pin Joan's murder on.

The investigators involved, Sgt Carmen Tammaro and Trooper Andrew Palombo were seasoned and experienced. It's unreasonable to believe they were fooled by all of this. The diversions to legitimate investigation were thrown off from the inside and by the actions of these men.

When the Bond statement was being leaked to the press in late January 1983, the reports were inaccurate with the timing of when Joan's things were found. Now it was reported they were found 2 or 3 weeks after Joan was reported missing. It's irrelevant if authorities fed this to the media or negligently allowed the reports without correction. They knew this was not correct, but it was consistant with the statement they then presented to the court. They knew it was false. This was an indisputable fact.

They carried that story all the way through. When Burke came out with his book and tries to suggest Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat and then took the body 30 miles north to bury it in Hamilton, MA, his story changes. Now he claims the purse was discarded that night. He alleges Paradiso travelled up route 107 and had to turn around because of an enormous fire in Lynn, MA that night. It's at this point he says Paradiso discards the purse. That's ludicrous. And it makes all of the representations made to the court false. The fire was a major event and it would have been difficut and extremely stupid to go near that area that night. It's likely only official vehicles could get through and possibly local traffic. It had been raging since 2 in the morning on the 28th. It would have been well known by later that night. Palombo lived in Lynn and certainly was familiar with the area from his status on the Iannuzzi case. In addition this was a well known dumping ground as indicated by information given to the FBI. This was a well known and travelled route, not some obscure road like the location in Hamilton where Joan was buried.

Technically, the first impediment to the case was the delay in notification for 3 days. On it's own, the family wouldn't be criticized perhaps. Joan was 25. It is terribly troubling for me with everything else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The authorities wanted this case to be wrapped up. There were continued efforts to try and find something to connect Paradiso to Joan, but no connection was ever found. The following document was written immediately following the conviction of Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case on 7-21-1984. He was sentenced on 7-25-1984.

State, local, and Federal authorities determined they had established evidence that Paradiso had abducted and murdered Joan Webster? This statement appeared in another document on 9-23-1984, the week following Tim Burke resigning from the DA's office. My instincts tell me the obsessed lawyer was asked to leave. He was pressing for something to link on Paradiso and it's doubtful the state wanted there to be a case. If Paradiso's defense had been successful obtaining records they would have been entitled to, he would have not been convicted and it would have exposed the misconduct in the Iannuzzi case.

At the time of this statement, here is what authorities had established:

1. Paradiso was not in Maine when Joan Webster disappeared
2. He was in bankruptcy court on 11-27-1981 and did not claim his boat or that a claim was filed with insurance
3. He had 3 metal splinters in his hand that were x-rayed on 11-30-1981.
4. Authorities knew the boat had a broken rudder and there was no evidence on the boat connecting Joan Webster or any violent criminal act
5. They had a book that could not be connected to Joan
6. They had a jewelry pouch that could not be connected to Joan
7. There was an anonymous call made by the friend of Sgt Carmen Tammaro that implicated Paradiso in 2 murders
8. They had a false informant's statement implicating Paradiso in 2 murders
9. They had a second murderer testify claiming unverified calls and confessions in 2 murders
10. They had no blood, hair, fingerprints, fibers, bodily fluids, items connecting Paradiso to the crime
11. They had no verifiable witnesses placing Paradiso in any known or alleged locations or in the proximity of Joan Webster
12. They had a pressured FBI witness making unverified claims Paradiso was a mob hitman
13. They had sensationalized media coverage
14. They had just obtained a very questionable conviction in the Iannuzzi case which did not resemble the allegations in Joan's case
15. They had other cases piled on that Paradiso had still to contend with
16. They had a protected FBI informant

This statement is from the Department of Justice. There wasn't anything resembling justice in this case whatsoever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I made a significant connection tonight.

Andrew Palombo was killed 7-3-1998 in a freak motorcycle accident after hitting an oil slick. There apparently was rumor on the street, speculation whether this was an accident, suicide or made to look like an accident. It is something I discussed with the investigator. Bulger had a car that dropped oil to cause accidents. I am not saying this happened, but think it is something that is interesting to know in light of all of this. Palombo had approached a woman in 1997 as if he wanted to talk to her and saying something to the effect things were coming apart. That is the time frame when Bulger's organization was unraveling.

I was reviewing Palombo's Iannuzzi trial testimony tonight. Palombo arrested Paradiso on 7-6-1982. His partner was with him, Trooper Bill Johnson. I recognized that name and had it on the timeline as involved with the arrest, but hadn't placed where I had heard it. It dawned on me tonight. I had heard it from the investigator when we discussed how Palombo died. Trooper Johnson had been involved in stopping Bulger at the airport with bag full of money. Troopers were required to come forward at some point because there was question about the cops and having their hands in Bulger's till. The money was confiscated in this incident, but Bulger either walked or got away. I am still doing some digging. Johnson refused to submit to the scrutiny.

In 1998 Johnson committed suicide, a disgraced officer who had been involved in the corruption at the time. I'll get some articles up as soon as I can retrieve them. Seems Sgt Tammaro had quite a crew at the airport. This was Palombo's partner during a significant time in Joan's case and the FBI efforts to dismantle the mafia which benefited Bulger. There is a major source of leaks here considering some of these boys were working with Burke who was writing the warrants to wiretap Bulger.

It makes no sense to me that Joan would have been involved with this kind of activity. Equally senseless would be for these men to act on their own, but this is definitely the area that fits the known facts in the crime. The question is who were these individuals covering for?

I can see why the state is vigorously covering this mess up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wanted to get this posted as soon as I was able. Whenever I come across something, I do my best to find the facts and make sure things are represented properly and fairly. My initial impression of Trooper Johnson is different after reading more about his case. I believe it is equally significant. Joan's case was based on misperceptions, and that can't be the way it is solved. I think it is important to understand who this individual was and what happened to him.

He was indeed Trooper Palombo's partner and involved in Paradiso's arrest on 7-6-1982. He was assigned to F Barracks at Logan Airport.

In 1987, he had an encounter at Logan with Whitey Bulger. Bulger had tried to board a plane to Montreal with a bag full of money. Bulger was able to get the money out of there through an associate, but he was stopped by Johnson. Ultimately, Bulger was released. Johnson did the right thing.

9-8-1987 Encounter Between Trooper Johnson and Bulger

Bulger had made similar trips with money successfully. Obviously others at the airport did not do their jobs like Johnson apparently did. The weight and power of the higher ups under the thumb of Bulger's brother Billy, president of the state senate, was what happened to this officer. That's also what happened to sweep Joan's case under the rug.

Trooper Bill Johnson Suicide

The significance of this individual shouldn't be overlooked. This is a clear example of authorities turning a blind eye, if not providing assistance, to Bulger and his operations. Two right at the heart of this were Trooper Andrew Palombo and Sgt Carmen Tammaro. This is how the system worked and a lot of people were drawn into the corruption. They may have been active participants or controlled by the powers that be to do nothing. This officer apparently did the what he should have and suffered terribly for doing the right thing.

It would be nice to think Boston cleaned house and rooted out corruption, but the authorities are still covering up Joan's murder and protecting their own for aggregious wrong doing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are two Iannuzzi witnesses that had encounters where there is an unknown individual involved. Both made important contributions to the trial. Examining what happened to these women sheds light on what kind of case this was.

Jean Day was the victim's sister. Her grand jury testimony implicated Doyle. This obviously was something the defense wanted. They had difficulty locating this witness and moved to enter her grand jury testimony if they couldn't find her. According to trial transcripts Palombo was also looking for this witness prior to trial.

In January or early February 1983, at the time officers were developing Bond's statement, Jean Day was assaulted. This also is in court records. Burke claims it was caused by Paradiso, but he was in jail. She received calls and a break in at her home. She was assaulted and received a broken bone in her face. No wonder she "lost" herself. She did show up at the courthouse and was interviewed by the defense investigator. Her statements were consistent with her grand jury statements. After the interview, she went down the hall with Burke and Palombo. Her testimony changed an hour or so later. It is fair to assume there was some intimidation or pressure to go along with Burke's story. I also think it is something to consider that Palombo may have been an "influence" back in early 1983. He was working with witnesses that somehow didn't match the facts in documents. I am posting some documents that reflect what happened to her. These were posted before, but are relevant in who was behind the outcome of these cases.

Investigator Slawsby Affidavit

Tontodonato Affidavit

The 2nd witness was Charlene Bullerwell who was found by the FBI and gave pressured testimony. She was the woman who talked about chopped up bodies tied with cinderblocks dumped at sea. Nothing ever verified that story, but it was splashed all over the press. She was located a week after the boat was recovered, but Burke published she was the source that helped them find it. She refused to testify at trial and their were promises made that she indicated weren't honored. Two men interviewed her. One was SA Steve Broce of the FBI. The other wasn't identified. She was located from a photo seized by Palombo in the 4-25-1983 search of the home. Palombo worked with Broce and provided items to him. Palombo was present in the Bond interview on 1-14-1983 when his boss Sgt Carmen Tammaro tried to solicit that Paradiso had weighted Joan's body. Bond responded no. I think it is a reasonable conclusion that Palombo may have been the 2nd interviewer.

Bullerwell Pretrial Testimony

Bullerwell Refusal to Testify

Information was provided by a confidential source, still protected, to the FBI in the corruption of that time and office. Information provided included the same scenario learned from Bond, implicating Paradiso in both murders, missing jewelry in Joan's case, and missing jewelry in Marie's case. Missing jewelry in Joan's case was confidential to authorities. Palombo would know that and so would the offender. There was no missing jewelry in Marie's case. Palombo would know that as the lead investigator in that case since February 1981. It was provided at the time the Feds were seeking a search warrant for the safety deposit box. Palombo was working with Broce at that time. Palombo also had another avenue to the FBO by virtue of his work with informants in EB, the mafia center. It is reasonable to conclude Palombo was the FBI source and influenced the case. It then makes sense his boss stepping into this and working with Bond to get the false incriminating statement.

There is a big problem if the individuals in charge of the case have reason to cover it up. What did this man do and what did he know?

The problems again with Bond's statement:

1. Authorities maintained the boat theory long after they had information that clearly refuted it. It explained not having a body and kept investigation diverted.

2. Authorities abandoned the MO they were developing for Paradiso and the correct manor of death was given with correct detail.

3. Authorities reversed the order of events of their own witness's story to the media and the courts. They claimed Joan was raped, then hit in the head, and then dumped at sea. Documents were sealed and no one was the wiser. Bond stated Joan was hit, then raped before being dumped in the ocean.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a very difficult day for me. It's the 28th anniversary of Joan's disappearance. There is no question her loss deserves answers.

I have posted a map. I have marked 3 locations on it. The airport, the location of the Great Lynn Fire that was raging that night, and the location where remains were found in 1990.

There was a great deal of discussion at the time Joan's remains were recovered about access to that area. It is an extremely remote spot, but not far off route 128 at exit 16. Driving along there you would never know this area is back there. It was a known dumping ground and area where there had been criminal activity. When I was there, the few people I saw were hikers and people on motorcycles or bikes. It was described in one article as a biker hang out. In warmer weather there might be people accessing a nearby boat ramp to one of the lakes. No one would be driving along 128 and decide that was a good place to dispose of a body unless they were familiar with this area. It's a miracle Joan was ever found. I want to add I was not knowledgable of the area or questions raised by earnest investigators at the time. This has all been new discovery for me.

I will be adding maps as soon as my editor is available again. The site is down unfortunately. I will mark where the purse was. It was tossed on the southbound side of 107 headed toward the airport. That was reported and even expressed by Inspector Gordon Richards of the Beverly PD to have been a diversion. A random crime or crime of opportunity would have not had items so dispersed.

I will mark where the Greyhound bus station was. That is presumably where the bag was left even though Burke has now published it was recovered in NY. Reports state that authorities were able to determne the bag was left in a locker within 12 hours from when Joan disappeared. This was 1981 without cameras or technology we have today. I don't know how they would determine that unless they had specific first hand knowledge of it being put there. It's not something they would figure out 2 months later when the bag was found. Bond knew nothing about the bag. If it was placed there and transferred to NY like Burke suggests, only bus personnel and authorities would know it would be moved if it wasn't claimed.

I learned an address last night. That will get marked on the map as well. Then I will go through and add who can be positively attached where.

Seeing the whole thing visually really makes it clear who should be looked at.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is map 2.

The bus station is just to the left of the airport. It's not reasonable to think Paradiso would have gone home and cleaned up then travel back down to this area to deposit a bag. Whoever did put it here, if indeed they did, had to have cleaned up. They would have been dirty from burying Joan's body in Hamilton and perhaps covered in blood.

The purse is the red item along route 107. This was a main route between the airport and the Lynn area. That road was blocked a little further north of this area that night because of the fire. All routes to the east of this headed toward Lynn were also blocked. The fire was in the downtown area. There were 90+ emergency vehicles and much of the downtown area was destroyed. This was a massive fire.

Because access was restricted and this fire raged all day, it's not logical Paradiso travelled right toward it. This fire would have been visible from miles away and there woud have been knowledge to avoid the area by 10PM that night. Burke suggests Paradiso travels right for it with a dead body he has taken off his boat miles away. He suggests Paradiso turned around when he saw flashing lights and tossed the purse that night. That contradicts the informant's statement which was incorrect about the time when items were dropped here. He claimed they were tossed there 3 weeks after Joan's disappearance. Authorities would have known this was wrong immediately.

I'll have to go back through articles, but it was reported that another Walden Pond was searched. I'm not clear what tip suggested that, but there is another Walden Pond aside from the one searched in Concord. A closer zoom in of the area shows a Walden Pond in the green knoll area just to the left of where the house has been marked. The house is just to the north and west of the fire. Residents in that area could turn off route 107 and travel up Broadway to reach their homes. The address is only blocks from route 128 that led to the burial site.

The distance from the airport to the gravesite is approximately 30 miles. Then you have someone depositing items in different, misleading locations. The key word there is misleading. Someone intentionally knew to throw things off. This was not the behavior of someone committing a crime of opportunity. This was too well thought out. Burke's story just gets too out of control to believe. Following the papers also shows how the story was shifted to suit when new facts became known.

The condition of Joan's remains also do not lend themselves to a crime of opportunity. The skeleton was stripped of all clothing. That removed identifying items. She was disposed in a black plastic trash bag. The head wound would have had excessive bleeding. The fatal hole in her head was 2" x 4" taking out the entire right side. This was no whiskey bottle in a crammed space. Experienced investigators would know this wasn't possible. Those in Hamilton that recovered the body knew this and said so. Whoever was responsible would have had to get cleaned up before going anyplace, like a bus station, where they would have been seen. Again, the location of the house is important.

The state of Massachusetts is still actively blocking the truth in this case. This is being covered up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Map number 3 really puts it in perspective. The final point added was the fact that ties things together in light of other information learned from files recovered. The map now shows Trooper Andrew Palombo and locations where he can be positively placed.

Trooper Andrew Palombo can be positively located at:

1. The airport where Joan disappeared. An authority showing ID could gain the confidence of someone without disruption. Palombo was known to have long hair and beard.

2. The Lynn Marsh Road or Route 107. He was the lead investigator on the Iannuzzi case from February 1981 and her body was found in the same vicinity. This is also a route from the Lynn area to the airport.

3. The address indicated on the map is 247 Lynn Street Peabody, MA. This was Palombo's address. Residents in this area were not close enough to the fire to be evacuated that night. Road blocks were on many of the roads, but a resident and one with a badge could have gotten through to this area. The address is close to Route 128 which leads to the burial location. An individual involved in the recovery indicated Palombo would have known this area. That is reasonable for multiple reasons; it was not far from his residence, an officer knowing a crime dumping ground area, he was a biker and this was described as a biker area.

4. The individual at the Greyhound location is in red. Palombo has not been determined to be at that location. There is a report on 1-9-1982 of a NH woman being given a ride from this location by an individual introducing himself as an undercover cop. Undercover work in drug enforcement makes this a logical place for a cop in this role. It would be surveyed in the same way the airport was for the same reasons was an entry/exit area of transport. Authorities reported the time was determined when the bag was placed in a locker there. How would this be determined?

Other connections that can be made to Trooper Palombo:
1. Sgt Carmen Tammaro, his superior. Tammaro's friend made the anonymous calls in January 1982 implicating Paradiso in the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. Tammaro continued to pressure for confessions from Paradiso.

2. Witnesses who changed testimony or gave unverified testimony in the Iannuzzi case:
Jean Day
Patty Bono
Janet McCarthy
Charlene Bullerwell
Christine DeLisi

3. Relationship with prime Iannuzzi suspect David Doyle reflective of an informant

4. Drug enforcement activities in EB center of mafia operations

5. Connection to the FBI, an office still not exposed for corruption with protected crimnal informants

6. Informant Robert Bond who provided a false statement that included an explanation why there was no body, gave the correct manner of Joan's death with correct detail, and reversed the order of events as described by their witness

7. False statements to the court, media, and other authorities

8. Misrepresented "evidence" alleging a connection to Joan Webster

9. Defamatory statements to the media vilifying Paradiso in public opinion without supporting evidence

The state of Massachusetts is covering up this murder. There is no question this individual desrves scrutiny.
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 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 45, 46, 47  Next
Page 14 of 47

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.