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 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 45, 46, 47  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: 462

PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the winter of 1987, George and Eleanor Webster visited Robert Bond in the prison at Somers, Connecticut. I have gone back through what was going on at this time. Joan's remains had not yet been discovered. Authorities and the Websters were still promoting the allegations that Paradiso had murdered Joan on his boat and dumped her way out in the ocean.

The grand jury had rejected Burke's so called evidence in 1983. It is incredible he didn't get an indictment. It wouldn't have taken much and Paradiso was so vilified people were ready to lynch him for anything despite conflicting facts. That proved to be the case. In 1985 there was a push by authorities again to come up with evidence to link Paradiso to Joan. They forcibly had X-rays taken of his left index finger hoping to remove splinters and connect them to the boat or the crime they alleged. There was again an enormous amount of sensational media coverage. It was also concurrent with other proceedings the Feds were bringing in the bankruptcy case. The pile on had to have been overwhelming for attorneys and any defense. Burke and his boys were unsuccessful in their splinter effort.

In 1986 Paradiso was tried for the assault of Janet McCarthy, the witness that came forward when reward money was flashed with his face in January 1983. This witness worked with Trooper Palombo and had testimony in the Iannuzzi pretrial that differed from the police report. Reading her testimony and Palombo's in that hearing, you get a different picture of who was leading who to come up with her story. Palombo also testified in her trial and Suffolk County ADA James Larkin gained a conviction despite conflicting facts. Larkin tried to question Paradiso about the Joan Webster case before sentencing. This was all about Joan and pressuring Paradiso for this crime.

Bond was approached at least twice to testify in the Joan Webster case. He had already done so in grand juries. The Websters were already familiar with the allegations that made up Bond's story about what happened to Joan. It doesn't make much sense they would visit to find out what happened to their daughter according to Bond. They had this story down pat. It doesn't make sense they just went for a social visit and thank Bond. This man is a cold blooded murderer and had all kinds of run ins in prison through the years. The only thing that makes sense is the Websters wanted Bond to testify and bring a case against Paradiso for Joan's murder. Despite conflicting evidence, the climate was ripe to Lynch him. It is also apparent in recovered records how evidence was hidden and manipulated. There is no reason to think it would have been any different here. If you have the authorities manufacturing cases you have little chance for any justice.

The question is did the Websters genuinely believe the story and want to take this to trial. They amassed the largest group to investigate imagineable. There are certain facts I can determine they absolutely knew that pointed away from Paradiso. It is hard to imagine they were deceived about others with their level of involvement most significantly the FBI findings surrounding the boat. But they chose to "believe" the Bond story. They were former intelligence and believed a story that became more and more sensational, but without concrete evidence to support it.

In the same time frame that the Websters visited Bond, Joan's story hit the media again. Two broadcasts interviewed them, Burke, and Palombo still promoting the same explanation. There was no evidence Joan had ever been on the boat and proof the rudder was broken making it impossible for the boat to have ever been taken out. The public didn't know that and neither did I as part of the family. The book was a diversion and the purse wasn't Joan's. The splinter was not consistent with the scene they described. What they described in the media about what was found on the boat was a false representation.

Bond was stabbed by fellow inmates in June of 1988. One of those involved was a man named Kenneth Crawford. He made a statement that Bond had framed Paradiso for the murders of Iannuzzi and Joan Webster and was a dangerous man. His attack was a preemptive strike so to speak. Shortly after this incident, Bond was moved into the Federal prison system. This was not the customary place to incarcerate someone for murder. Trooper Palombo maintained a correspondence with Bond all through this. That to me is extremely suspect and I would even describe it as paranoid behavior. The story that was being put forth by authorities and supported by George and Eleanor Webster does not hold up when you are able to look at the actual records.

There is no question the Websters influence people to believe this whether they believe it themselves or just want to control information. They publicly have supported Burke's book and presently through the DA declared privacy denying access to records. That to me is paranoid and controlling behavior.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to wish all of you a Merry Christmas and holiday season. It is a very difficult time of year for me. I have spent the last several days getting some things done for my girls.

I went to the house last night to deliver a gift to them. The family wasn't expecting me. George and Eleanor Webster are in town. I had already seen George through the window, but he proceeded to move out of sight perhaps thinking I didn't see him. I heard both of my girls behind the door. They both moved to the basement and there was a long delay as I'm sure they tried to figure out what to do.

Steve finally answered the door keeping it only partially open. He looked terrible. He insisted the girls didn't want to come to the door, which is no doubt true, and that I should give the gifts to him to give to them. Control.

This family appears to be paranoid to face someone who knows them. I am sure the discussion today will be just what to do about me. I have documents that are extremely damaging to the family image, both on a personal level and regarding Joan's case. They don't seem to like someone with the backbone to stand up to them.

I have never been charged or accused of anything to my face. When I sorted out just what went on during very tumultuous years with my girls, my vulnerabilities were attacked. This family used my children and destroyed bonds. That's conflicting with people who should understand the trauma of having a child torn out of their lives. And yet this family eliminated me and did so with very destructive gossip creating impressions. I see the same patterns in the circumstances surrounding Paradiso.

They continue to support Burke's theory. Instead of discussing discrepencies in the documents, they are declaring privacy. One version is OK, put it out there, but no transparency with files they suggest would support it. More gossip is now coming out of Boston and the root has to be the family. It would seem the effort is to discredit.

These are pathetic people. As I have experienced it, they are not able to withstand the scrutiny and don't want others to see a different side of them. It was a very long time before I saw or understood many things about them. In solving any case, looking for other victims and patterns is standard procedure. Sadly, there is a stack of victims out of the Webster family.

I did get a Christmas blessing yesterday. The family has never allowed me to have copies of photos of my life and my children. The cruelty is unexcusable. I was looking for something yesterday and came across a box with some photos I didn't realize I had. My sister and brother have also tried to get copies to me of pictures they have. I felt like I had found the Holy Grail and just sat and cried. There is another telling piece in all this. It's not just me they have torn from my children's lives, but my entire side of the family. Apparently, the Websters feel good, decent, and honest people are a bad influence for my children. I am blessed to have had my family rock solid behind me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The other day I came across some additional verification of some dates I have in the timeline. They further strengthen the reasonable conclusion that Palombo was the confidential FBI source.

In December 1984, Burke and Palombo pressed further with Paradiso to try and link him to Joan. They knew from hospital records they had retrieved that Paradiso had been treated in Lynn Hospital on 11-30-1981. He had his left index finger xrayed and 3 metal splinters were discovered deeply imbedded. There was no discussion of cuts, bleeding, stitches, bruising, or broken bones that could be expected with being struck by a whiskey bottle or butt of a gun.

Paradiso explained his injury as the result of polishing an ammo shell on a grind wheel. The shell was live and went off shooting splinters into his finger. The injury described is consistent with that explanation and the shell was found in the search warrant. According to Paradiso he described the circumstance to the attending physician and described the shell going off like a cherry bomb. It makes sense again it would make some noise. I do not know how that was transcribed, but the injury was not consistent with a cherry bomb going off in his hand. There is no metal in a cherry bomb.

Burke solicited ER records in or around July 1982. In his book he states this is for another case, but the practice is established. It's not certain that is when he retrieved Paradiso's record, but they were already working to establish him as the suspect in Joan's case.

In the December 1985 warrant to search Paradiso's finger, Palombo submits a sworn statement that corroborates information from another source.



In paragraph 14 of the warrant, Trooper Palombo affirms he went to Lynn Hospital to look at the xrays between April and September 1983. I have found 2 dates in documents where Palombo went to view xrays; April 12 and September 27, 1983, the day the boat was raised. His statement to the court verifies information from another source.

Two days after the boat was raised, where Palombo was deeply involved, a confidential source called the FBI. The following is an FBI report dated 10-4-1983. You will notice a lot of redactions, but there is condsiderable information in the rest of the report and other sources to fill in most of the gaps.



The first redacted portion is most likely about the splinters in Paradiso's finger. It is concurrent with Palombo's review of xrays and it's the only piece of the case missing from the discussion of the report. The source had already provided information that there was jewelry missing in Joan's case and the Iannuzzi case. Only a small number of people had tied Paradiso to both crimes and there was no jewelry missing in the Iannuzzi case. Burke also had told the FBI the small silk pouch in the safety deposit box searched by the Feds had been identified as something Joan might have had. That's not an ID. An old roommate was shown a black and white photo. Later, Palombo represents to the press it had been identified and described a selection from a lot of similar bags.

I have conclusive evidence, that wasn't Joan's purse. If I can find it half the country and more than a quarter century from the crime, it's reasonable to believe seasoned investigators could have learned it wasn't hers. Eleanor Webster told a member of the inner circle Paradiso's girfriend had some of Joan's jewelry when questioned why she still believed Paradiso was guilty after the body was found. When asked later after learning the contents of the safety deposit box, that individual stated it could have been jewelry bag. Regardless, had Paradiso or his girlfriend had anything that could have been determined to be Joan's, he would have been fried. I don't think Eleanor Webster, former CIA, was that ignorant not to know that.

The second section with redactions identifies Charlene Bullerwell. This is the woman pressured by the FBI who testified she never told anyone before meeting with the FBI what she testified to on the stand. But in the report written before the interview, it is indicated they know what the nature of the information is. Testimony revealed she was found from a photo and SA Broce's affidavit states he received items from Palombo. She also testified she was interviewed by 2 men, but only one was identified, Broce. Palombo can be connected to Jean Day and evidence supports she was threatened and harrassed by the police. She was beaten in the same time frame Bond's statement was coming out and her testimony changed from the grand jury to the trial. I think it is reasonable to consider Palombo was the 2nd man interviewing Bullerwell. The boat yielded nothing to support her testimony that Paradiso cut up bodies and tied cinderblocks to them. Nothing substantiated her testimony at all, but her testimony reflects information the MSP tried to question Bond about on 1-14-1983. He said no, but he didn't say he didn't either. Palombo was in that interview.

False information was being fed to the FBI, to the media, and the court. Right after the Iannuzzi conviction, information was provided that claimed the authorities had evidence to determine Paradiso had murdered Joan. The authorities would have been led by the chief investigating officer, Andrew Palombo and the prosecutor's office represented by Tim Burke.

Palombo makes another interesting statement in his sworn warrants. Paragraph 18 in the same December 1984 warrant for the splinters is something I think is revealing.



Palombo states there were details that could have only been known by the murderer. That would include the correct manner of death with correct detail. I don't think I'm the least bit afield to suspect Trooper Andrew Palombo had direct knowledge and /or involvement in Joan Webster's murder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There have been several accounts I have heard about mistreatment. I have seen documents where Paradiso was put in isolation without cause. I have also seen a report where a cell was searched and a report filed that Paradiso had a concealed razor blade in his cell. The problem was it was not Paradiso's cell searched. I had to go back and forth between documents to find concrete evidence of physical abuse, but it's there.

There are 2 affidavits of police and prosecutor's harrassing and threatening witnesses, Jean Day and Christine DeLisi. Both changed their testimony in the Iannuzzi case from the grand jury to the trial. Court transcripts affirm Jean Day, the victim's step sister was assaulted leaving her with a broken bone in the face. This occurred during the time the Bond statement was coming out. Charlene Bullerwell testified she was pressured.

On 2-21-1985, Tim Burke submitted an affidavit to the court in his continued effort to have a splinter surgically removed. Prior warrants on the motion by both Burke and Palombo asked for force if necessary. Judge McGuire granted the motion for an xray of Paradiso's left index finger on 2-13-1985, and taken on 2-14-1985. No splinter was found in the finger. The following paragraphs are from Burke's statement that force was used and his denial of any mistreatment as Paradiso had alleged.



Six to seven weeks later Paradiso was in Rhode Island where the Federal Bankruptcy case was being tried. Mr Walker was Paradiso's attorney in that proceeding. Burke was the one who instigated this action and Palombo worked with the FBI SA Steve Broce. This case was out of the media spotlight until the Boston papers plastered a guilty verdict. There was no knowledge of an incident that took place. On the first day of the trial, 4-4-1985, Paradiso requested medical attention. It was granted. The following is pg 103 from the Federal case on 4-4-1985.



The finger was looked at and the court was informed the next morning the doctor recommended further treatment to be administered on Good Friday, 4-5-1985, the second day of the trial. The following is from the Federal case, day 2 pages 114 and 115.




Paradiso told the doctor in RI that the finger had been looked at in MA and there was a recommendation to rebreak the finger. Paradiso was xrayed later that day and the finding was reported back to the court on the record. The following is still from day 2 on page 181.



The xray showed a prior fracture requiring some attention. The MA facility had recommended treatment 6 weeks prior and Paradiso refused. It was invisible to the public and the press, but 6 weeks prior, Paradiso was contending with Burke and forceful treatment to have his finger xrayed for the splinter.

Burke at the time, and in his book, lauds himself for breaking new ground in MA for body searches of some fashion. I would say it was more like breaking bones than ground.

There is no justification for what went on here. Paradiso had not been charged with any crime relating to Joan and Burke and his boys had an abundance of exculpatory evidence. They had nothing to connect him to Joan. Imagine being put through all of this knowing you aren't guilty of the crimes you are accused of in public opinion. This is no better than the Third Reich.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some deductive reasoning is important to really comprehend what was taking place. The warrant Trooper Andrew Palombo submitted to the court on in December 1984 is a critical document especially understanding what investigators already knew.

There were 5 individuals who interviewed Robert Bond on 1-14-1983 after the assertion ADA Tim Burke had received a letter from Bond on 1-5-1983. The individuals in that room were Sgt Carmen Tammaro, MSP and Palombo's boss, Trooper Andrew Palombo, chief investigator on both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases, Trooper Jack O'Rourke, MSP, Sgt Robert Hudson, Boston PD attached to Suffolk County, Officer Gillam, an officer with the correctional institution. Tammaro was the interviewer and the meeting was taped. There is a transcript of that meeting.

To refresh your memories, below is a link to part of the interview where it is clear the letter had not arrived. The arrangement was that Bond sent his letter in an envelope enclosed in an envelope mailed to his wife. She was to then forward it on to Tim Burke. This is not the only discussion regarding the letter, but this makes it very clear it has not been received 9 days after Burke claimed to have it. The letter is critical and was the basis for both the Iannuzzi and Webster cases, both under the supervision of Andrew Palombo and Tim Burke.

Bond Interview 1-14-1983

That makes statements made in Palombo's sworn affidavit problematic. Right now I am just looking at the letter from Bond. Below are paragraphs 3 and 4 from the sworn warrant submitted in December 1984 when Burke and Palombo were seeking to have Paradiso's finger xrayed and go surgically fishing for a splinter.




First, the statement Burke had received a letter on 1-5-1983 from Bond is false based on the interview authorities held with him on 1-14-1983. The interview is confirmed. Palombo also confirms additional written material from Bond.



In paragraph 8 of the same document, Palombo states Burke received "notes" in the mail. There are some things that make this illogical. First, Bond has already had difficulty with his letter being received. To go back to his cell and mail out something else makes little sense. It would not be possible to have mailed something with the same arrangement going to his wife first and have it arrive on the 17th. Bond stated he didn't want a letter seen going out to the DA for fear of repercusions from other inmates for being a snitch. The 14th was a Friday and the 17th the next Monday. In addition, arrangements were made for Bond to meet with Tammaro the following week and arrangements made for a polygraph. Again, it makes no sense he would mail something more out when he would be meeting with them anyway.

Burke also confirms the date in a document during the December 1984 hearings to go after the splinter. It does seem reasonable he received something that day. The written Bond statement recovered was clearly written after the interview on the 14th. Vagaries and questions are cleared up in the letter. It is conceivable, Burke received the letter that was originally sent out and expected by 1-5-1983. According to Burke's book it was quite detailed and conveniently written in 2 segments so that there would be no complications submitting them as evidence in either case. Bond would not have been so clever to segregate the cases. The more logical explanation comes later in the warrant in paragraph 10.



On the same day Burke allegedly gets another letter from Bond, Bond meets with Tammaro, Palombo and Sgt Hudson to "go over" his statement. The statement recovered is much more precise, multiple choices had been selected, and the statement contained false information based on irrefutable evidence authorities already had. The lead investigator would have known that, but the allegation served a purpose to tie Joan to the Iannuzzi case. That was the place where they could make a connection to Paradiso and that is where they had to build their case.

In addition it was wrong regarding where Joan was found years later, she was not dumped in the ocean. When this warant was submitted in 1984, they had results from the boat that clearly debunked Joan ever having been on board, they knew the boat had a broken rudder and could not have gone out, and they had no evidence to support the boat had been seen after it was reported missing in July of 1981, 4 months before Joan disappeared.

These authorities were hell bent to pin this on Paradiso and ignored the evidence they had in their files. I have never approached this looking to exonerate Leonard Paradiso, but I have a very serious stake in who murdered Joan. The problem again with the Bond statement is that it was knowingly false to authorities who presented it to the court, media, and other agencies. But, it contained the correct manner of death with correct detail abandoning the MO they were developing for Paradiso. They aggressively maintained an implausible boat theory ignoring facts in their files and therefore providing an explanation why a body wouldn't be found. It kept legitimate investigation diverted and focused on one man and the harbor. The order of events is twisted to imply Joan was raped and then hit in the head before she was dumped in the ocean when the statement is reverse claiming she was hit and then raped. Knowing the injury she sustained to the head is not possible as described, it defies the laws of physics, and would have created such an enormous flow of blood it is unimaginable anyone would have committed an act of rape after she was struck.

The boys in blue didn't just come up with a lucky guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Despite the efforts with the splinter, it was continually emphasized that not having a body was the reason Paradiso wasn't taken to trial. Things shifted when the remains were found in 1990. They no longer had that excuse to hide behind. Condition of the remains was kept confidential and there was no apparent interest in further investigation except from the Hamilton PD. Higher ups didn't want it.

There were multiple articles at that time and the case now became the responsibility of Essex County and DA Kevin Burke. He was the DA that turned over the Iannuzzi case to Suffolk County claiming the case was Marie was murdered elsewhere and then dumped in his jurisdiction. That is not at all the case Tim Burke presented.

The following article is an excellent example of the neglect in this case. This is from the Beverly Times on 5-4-1990 after Joan's remains had been identified. The excerpt below it is very telling.





Kevin Burke indicated that a close examination of Pisa's statement may not have meant way out and dumped in the ocean. There are multiple problems with that statement. First, there is no question Bond came forward alleging Paradiso confessed to dumping Joan in the ocean. Authorities went to extraordinary lengths to come up with a witness, Bullerwell, to describe bodies weighted with cinder blocks and dumped in the ocean. Tim Burke said that was Paradiso's MO in court and that he did not bury bodies, when he tried to get Bullerwell's testimony at trial.

The pretrial was full of unverified accounts of women claiming Paradiso assaulted them and the common link was that it was near water and/or he threatened to dispose of them in water. George Webster is quoted he didn't attend those hearings. Not only did they attend, they were flashing money for more witnesses like that to come forward.

The biggest problem with the quote is their "close examination" of the statement. This was Bond's statement, not Tony Pisa. Pisa only implicated Paradiso in Joan's case claiming he received a phone call. That was never verified. It's tough to swallow they looked at all if they can't even get the correct witness. Current investigation learned Kevin Burke's office was not supportive of investigation when the remains were found. Apparently the Webster's didn't want it either, but that wasn't something that could be supported with a document. It can be supported with a document today and their avoidance of transparency in the case. This is at the same time they have publicly supported Burke's version of events. Control.

Kevin Burke is currently the Secretary of Public Safety in MA. It would seem the only ones kept safe are authorities that fabricated a case. I have no problem seeing why the state is vehemently covering this up. Why are the Websters?

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



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have sorted through all of this, I have had the perspective of personal experiences with the family that others do not have. It might be helpful to understand them better.

Over the holidays in 1979, I met Eleanor's mother, Georgia Selsam for the first time. This was just before Steve and I got married. We were on the stairway together and I introduced myself saying Steve had told me a lot about her. Her comment was unusual and I wasn't sure just how to respond. She said if I heard it from Steve it would not be anything good. In retrospect, this was probably a very telling statement.

Over the years, whenever I saw Grammy, I spent time and talked to her. I showed her respect. I had had a wonderful relationship with my own grandparents and did the same with her. I often tried to tell Steve he needed to appreciate her more for the person she was and not be as neglectful as he seemed to be and favor his dad's father.

Georgia did not like George Webster. I never could quite understand why. George is a very charming and entertaining type of personality and from what I could see, he was very generous doing things for her. This included paying for trips she could not otherwise have taken.

Eleanor was illegitimate. This was undoubtedly a scarring stigma in that generation. Georgia did marry her father Clayton Piggott and they had another daughter. I believe they seperated when Eleanor was around 8, and again it was vague what brought that about. Eleanor was estranged from her father for the rest of her life as far as I know and he was seldom mentioned. Clayton Piggott lived in Beverly, MA, a community very near where Joan's remains were found.

Eleanor and others always told me over the years how much Grammy loved me. When Georgia died in October of 1997, it was almost as if it was only a passing comment to tell us. Eleanor made no effort to include us or anyone in any kind of memorial. Death is something no one in the family deals with in a traditional sense of grieving. I nderstand it now to be emotional disconnection. I learned shortly after that Georgia had left a letter for Eleanor to be read after her death. It was a scathing letter that Eleanor gave to me to read one time. I didn't. I was terribly sorry for Eleanor and could not understand why a mother would do that. I had never been enlightened to any specific issue or strain between them. It wasn't visible.

In hind sight, I wish I could ask Georgia what bothered her so much. This is a picture of Eleanor's mother Georgia Selsam. She was a very kind lady and one of the family who reciprocated the respect and love I extended to them. God rest her soul.

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



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Below is a picture of Joan's head stone. Notice there is no date of death. Eleanor Webster made quite an issue asking me about a date. My position was that we lost Joan on 11-28-1981 and that seemed to be the proper date to put on the stone, but it was not my place to make that decsion. Although, I didn't know it at this time, investigators in Hamilton, MA who were involved with the recovery felt the body had been put there that night and not a later date.



Joan was buried later in May 1990. I don't recall the exact date, but remember the medical examiners seemed to have the remains for a long time. The body was cremated. I don't know what the law was in MA or NJ at the time, but it is illegal in many places to cremate a body when there is an ongoing murder investigation. In MA, at least according to the rhetoric, there was a renewed investigation going on. Cremation eliminated the chance of anyone going back to reexamine the body. It is absolutely impossible for me to conceive the Websters would not be informed, and likely view, the condition of the remains. That was not information that was shared with me. An individual who was part of the inner circle had no knowledge the entire skeleton and a grave had been found until I told him this year. He was left to believe that part of the skull and only a few bones were found.

At this point I had doubts regarding the informant's statement. I still believed the Iannuzzi conviction was a just prosecution and didn't know what I didn't know. It was often like walking on eggshells with the Websters on bringing things up. The subject was usually changed all through the years.

There were only 5 people at the service to interr Joan. Again, this is an oddity with the family, only mentioned in passing. There didn't seem to be any expectation for anyone to come. I insisted and Steve and I went. I don't think he would have gone otherwise. Anne didn't go. She did not come to bury her own sister after the draining years of this ordeal. This is a family that wants to represent such closeness that George, Eleanor, and Anne would all make the trip to Newark to see Joan off on what would seem a routine flight. In addition, Anne lived in the Boston area and could have seen her frequently. They had also just spent the last several days together. Anne didn't bother to go to the funeral. The 5th person present was Bucky, an elderly choir director from the church. It was strange. No service in the church, no friends, just the 5 of us at the cemetery.


Anne Webster


Steve Webster

At this time they knew there was nothing that connected Joan to the boat and a grand jury had rejected Burke's theory. They knew the informant's statement was false. Now there was physical evidence that the injuries didn't add up with the explanation. The condition of Joan's remains were:

The skeleton was completely stripped of all clothing

The fatal blow to the head was a hole roughly 2" x 4" that took out the entire right side of Joan's head and more consistent with a full swing of a baseball bat or pipe

She was disposed in a black plastic trash bag
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interpol was brought into the case and a Blue Notice for missing persons was issued sometime around 2-8-1983. There is a considerable delay in submitting this being more than a year since Joan's disappearance from Logan. The information was provided by the Websters.

It is helpful to trace certain timelines and see where Joan was. Joan was born in Dayton, Ohio at 9:15 PM on 8-19-1956. This is where the family lived at that time. I recall an unusual experience Steve relayed to me when they lived there. He told me there was what he described as a gas explosion in the house that occurred when a light bulb was swithced on. He would have been very young and not likely to have his own recollection, although it was a dramatic event and he might have. It is likely his account was what he heard from his parents over the years. I will point out that he has stated he does not remember anything like the extortion call I had asked about. That event is documented.



In 1957 the family moved to NJ and George went to work in the telecommunication division of ITT in Nutley, NJ. ITT has a very questionable history that has been researched extensively for it's relationships during WWII. It later was the subject of Federal probes for their involvement with the CIA and activities in Chile. These activities took place during George's time with the company and involved an area where he had responsibility. Below is the house the family moved into.



The family moved just a few blocks away in a very small town in 1965. They remained at this address until George and Eleanor moved into a retirement community in 2001. This was the house I was very familiar with. The picture is hard to see, but it is a 2 story red brick Georgian style house.



There is something redacted at this point in the Interpol notice relating to Joan's addresses. I know all of the locations above and do not know what would be redacted. In 1974 Joan went to Syracuse University. She lived in a sorority there and below is a picture of the house. She graduated in 1978.



Joan went to work after graduation in NYC. She worked for Skidmore, Owens, and Merrill, a prestigious architechtural/design firm. She lived in the city with 2 roommates at the Eton Apartments, on the upper east side. I visited her there. She lived there until she decided to go back to school in 1979.



The summer after her first year in the Graduate School of Design at Harvard, Joan lived at her grandfather's apartment in NYC. He was sick with Alzheimers and stayed in Florida. It is a very nice address on the upper east side next to the East River. This is the address Henry Kissenger applied to live at, but was rejected. He was very involved in the activities that took place in Chile during the Nixon years.




RN Webster

At Harvard, Joan lived at Perkins Hall. She had a single room and was a dorm proctor. She never returned to her room after the flight on 11-28-1981. When the campus police came to her room after a missing person report was filed, they found Anne there making calls. Nothing was ever checked to my knowldge to see if anyone had entered her room, but it would have been compromised if there had been any breach. Nothing indicates that there was that I can see from recovered documents, but everything has to be explored when someone is missing.



I am trying to give everyone a feel for the family, where Joan lived, and other factors I have personal knowledge of. The thing that stood out to me the most is the redaction in the Interpol notice for Joan's addresses prior to going to Syracuse. I do not know what that would be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I listened to a radio program last weekend discussing cold cases. The 2 local officers being interviewed said it was the very small details that helped them resolve cases that sat dormant or baffling for years. That is the point I am at right now, digging into the very small details that are not instantly decipherable or understandable until multiple sources are reviewed.

The Interpol Blue Notice and surrounding documents are revealing as to what authorities were saying about Joan's case. One document states authorites were able to determine Joan's suitcase was placed in a Greyhound Bus locker in Boston sometime before roughly 9:30 the next morning. Trooper Palombo was the lead investigator leading me to the conclusion he was the one claiming this was the case. I have no idea how anyone could determine that unless they had specific knowledge.

The suitcase was reported found in Boston for years. Only one article in 1990 when the remains were found stated the bag had been transferred and then recovered in NY. That is not the only way a bag might end up there and at this point there is nothing to support Burke's claim this is what happened.

Burke came out in his book and states the bag was recovered in NY. He states this multiple times and gives specific detail indicating this was not some typo. It is a logical path for an unclaimed bag and there was no challenge to where authorities claimed the bag was found. If this was the path of the bag, only busline employees and authorities would know this is what happened to a bag.

Lockers in a place like the bus station in 1981 would not be very sophisticated. Drop in your coin and open it up, place your items, and remove the key. I don't see how any time frame could be determined. There also were no cameras back then. The bus station was a logical place for an undercover cop in the climate of the times and a police report supports undercover cops worked it.

Palombo was making statements to the press that Paradiso used to hang out at the bus station. There was zero to support it. They were effective creating the impression just like they were effective suggesting Paradiso drove a cab. There is nothing that supports it except what the authorities were spreading.

The Blue Notice documentation also makes the claim that authorities have gathered enough evidence to conclude Paradiso had tken Joan onto his boat and murdered her. This was first documented on 7-24-1984, immediately following the Iannuzzi conviction. Again, the lead investigator was Palombo and would have been a primary source making that determination along with Burke in the DA's office. The claim was that the only reason they were not prosecuting was they lacked a body. They kept the focus on the harbor. They had way too much evidence that Joan was never on the boat and that the boat was in fact already submerged when Joan landed. Authorities continued to push this despite evidence they had to exclude it.

There is no question in my mind that this case was intentionally being thrown from the inside and authorities were looking for someone to pin Joan's murder on. The question is why. I am going to start to look at what would have motivated such misconduct. The resistance to make this case transparent after all these years and published allegations is very telling. An article appeared as recently as yesterday touting Burke's continued obsession to nail Paradiso. Serving up scapegoats and persecution are not justice. A lot of people have a lot to answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is valid to take the position that the authorities responsible for Joan's investigation were intentionally throwing this case off after reviewing documents. The state's current position in the case manipulates the law to serve their own purpose and cover up the misconduct in this case and others. The present method to deflect questions appears to be the same as it was at the time, devalue and discredit, then refuse to face issues. That is precisely what happened in the Salem witch trials and some in Boston didn't seem to learn from history.

There are some different possibilities for what or why authorities would behave in such a disgraceful dereliction of their responsibilities. For the time, I am going to just take them one at a time and apply reason and facts to sort out what makes the most sense. Obviously, I can't read minds, so those involved would have to tell the truth. I don't think that's too likely until they can really be confronted.

I am working behind the scenes here continuing to pursue all the options and exhaust every avenue. This matters a great deal. First, a member of my family was murdered. Misconduct left others vulnerable by not holding the right people accountable. Whether my children and I were added to the list of victims is dependant on who murdered Joan. It demands further inspection why the family continues to support a very contrived explanation for Joan's loss and why they are an obstruction to an independent review. I have frequently conveyed there are serious discrepencies in documents that have surfaced.

The first possibility to explain the conduct of authorities is that they sincerely believed Paradiso was guilty. I think there were a lot of good and decent officials involved in this case who simply did not have enough of the facts to sort through this. They were involved at different times and on different aspects. It's amazing how the case began to make sense when pieces were pulled together. You can't fit a puzzle together when pieces are held all over the place and not brought together.

I don't believe it is reasonable to give the lead investigators a pass on being duped. Palombo and Tammaro were seasoned cops and knew the ropes. If they truly looked at all of the evidence and believed Paradiso was the guilty party for Marie and Joan's murder, they should have turned in their badges. There was blatant disregard for what they already had in their files on both cases.

On the other hand, I do think Burke was that stupid or gullible to believe Paradiso had murdered Joan. Perhaps he convinced himself the methods didn't matter as long as he was put away. I think Burke justified his misconduct in the Iannuzzi case to determine Paradiso had to be locked away for Joan. Playing the judge and God were not his job. No respectable lawyer with a good case has to play the games. Coercing witnesses, hiding evidence, and making up others is not any part of justice or a legitimate case.

Burke has acknowledged his own self doubt in the Iannuzzi case and that there was no real evidence linking Paradiso to Joan. One has to wonder what possessed him to write a book and bill it as true crime and the basis to solve other crimes. He has committed himself to what he has published and it is unquestionably distorted, filled with gaps as glaring as the Nixon tapes, and blatantly false. He had a couple of insurance policies to cover his arrogance to publish such allegations; Paradiso had been vilified. Authorities continue to obstruct denying any transparency of records. The Webster's influence this is what happened.

The first possibility that the core group of authorities were truly deceived is not realistic. This is scratched off the list.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eveknowsthetruth



Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The second possibility for the misconduct of authorities was potentially pressure of some sort to provide a solution in Joan's case. The Websters were very involved and requested some very high powered meetings and attention. They were every bit a part of the investigation as the legal and law enforcment entities. It is not outside the realm of possibility that officials could have felt pressure from the higher ups, the political machine in MA, and the Websters them selves.

Cops may have wanted to look good solving a highly visible case and the DA would certainly have his eye on re election and wanting his constituents believing he was getting the bad guys off the street. I do think this was certainly part of it, but under whose control is the key question.

The first problem is how early diversions in the investigation can be determined. The case started at a disadvantage with a 3 day delay before it was known Joan was missing. Whether the Webster's lack of a safe arrival call can be viewed as something more than unfortunate or thoughtless behavior isn't as relevant as the effect it had. The offender had ample time to cover tracks, create confusion, and possibly even be gone from the area.

The recovery of Joan's purse and wallet came immediately after filing a missing person report. Enormous resources were utilized for the next few days after the discovery; search groups, divers, helicopters, sniffing dogs, and even a back hoe. They were expending man hours and resources in a place where nothing was going to be found. This got the media involved right away and the press played an integral part in what happened in Joan's case.

Within those first few days the Websters are quoted that Joan was coming back on Saturday night to meet with classmates to work on a project on Sunday. That is not mentioned in either of the two initial reports filed I have seen. The reason for the classmate's call was that Joan didn't return for class on Monday. George Webster was later quoted giving specific details to bolster the explanation this was why Joan was at Logan on Saturday night. He claimed Joan made a call to a classmate she was meeting and making sure they had the materials they needed. Phone records do not support the claim. Again, this had the effect of diverting resources to interview classmates more than they might have otherwise.

The first few days also included extensive interviews at the airport that yielded a decription of a bearded man. It is verifiable the Websters knew about the description. It may have been authorities that kept the picture from being released to the public, but the Websters should have been screaming bloody murder to get everything out there.

It was less than two months when Sgt. Carmen Tammaro's friend Patty Bono made an anonymous call to the Websters implicating Paradiso. That call was soon followed by a meeting called by the Websters where Burke was assigned with Palombo to two cases, Iannuzzi and Webster. The wheels were set in motion to get an indictment in Marie's case and the vehicle used to build a case against him for Joan.

To consider this case was a response to pressure for answers in the case doesn't explain why the Websters weren't jumping up and down when things didn't fit the scenario authorities were "developing." It doesn't explain why seasoned cops like Palombo and Tammaro didn't broadcast the description and immediately raise flags when things didn't add up in the first weeks.

Then we are back to where the suitcase was found. If it followed the path Burke alleged in his book and was transferred to NY where it was discovered, why wasn't it reported that way? The bag was turned over to the police, that would be Palombo and Tammaro. The Websters might have been kept in the dark about where the bag was found, but that is hard to imagine. Even if the officials were constructing a story to satisfy the case and serve someone up to the Websters, why not give them and the press the same story they are suggesting now? It was a week before the bag was reported found. It seems the authorities wanted to keep the focus on Boston, and maybe they hadn't come up with the explanation when it first came out.

It does make sense that there was a lot of pressure to come up with some solution in this case. Who was behind that pressure is important to consider what their motives might have been. Having someone to blame benefited the DA's office, the MSP, and the Websters. From the Webster's standpoint, if that person is found not to satisfy the case, there should have been more pressure to get the right person(s).

The key players in the investigation seem very determined to find someone to pin this case on. They overlooked or ignored too much information and continued to press this explanation. It seems more logical that their involvment to construct a case was more than some dictate from higher ups and that they were intentionally throwing this case off.
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 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 45, 46, 47  Next
Page 16 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.