This is off subject of why authorities obstructed the investigation, but I found something very interesting yesterday. Again, I learned that I was told so many things over the years that weren't the case. This is another one that makes no sense at all why I would be misled in the same way I was about who RN Webster sold Standard Thomson to.
Eleanor Webster married a man named Thomas Hardaway on 6-17-1949. He had been a West Point cadet and served in the Korean War. They were married just a little over a year when he was killed in action on 9-8-1950. They had no children.
Thomas Gray Hardaway
I read a very moving eulogy for him. I know those often are very positive about the individual, but this was a very strong tribute recognizing this man's character. Eleanor's mother Georgia Selsam very much liked this man and spoke of him often. I think I can rely on her judgment to be a good measure of the man. At the time I often felt uncomfortable for Eleanor when Georgia would bring his name up thinking it was insensitive and showed decided favoratism. I am not sure what Georgia knew or sensed, but she was not a fan of George and probably one of very few that wasn't, at least from my scope of view.
Here's the odd little twist I found. Eleanor goes by the nickname Terry. Steve had told me his father had given her the nickname and it was a character's name from a play. Perhaps that is what he had been told and he really believed it, or he had no clue and made it up. No one ever corrected my perception, not that it is that relevant of a point where someone gets a nickname. I would have asked her myself if he didn't know. She went by Terry going back to the time she dated Tom Hardaway. What continues to plague me is that I'm not sure what was the truth in things I was told. That doesn't necessarily raise a concern with what his mother was called, but it does with a lot of other things. Here is something I have to wonder, why lie or make something up. If that is what he was told and believed it then he was lied to. Anne thought they were only married for 6 months. In fact it was almost 15.
At one point when my family was falling apart, I began to hear some of the rumors. My children were very hurt by things they believed. Steve had told them I had accused him of killing one of our dogs. That wasn't true. They said I hated men and was racist because I locked my car doors driving through certain parts of town. They seemed to belief I thought they had ruined my life, which hurt me as much as them for them to believe such a horrible thing. My children and their friends walked in on Steve with a woman half his age and he lied right to their faces while the person nearly knocked them down trying to run away. I didn't swing golf clubs or take a Loraine Bobbitt approach, I got the counselors lined up right away. Shortly after this I heard the gossip that I was screwing around. That has never happened.
On the recommendation of counselors, that I now realize were manipulated, I moved out to give my girls some space, and try to hold on to myself with the barage of blows. I sent a letter to the house that my girls opened. I had listed all the various rumors I had heard, which weren't even the real damaging ones yet. I stated clearly that none of these things were true about me at all and asked why my children seemed to believe them. The next thing I heard was from one of the counselors Steve had run to complaining how I upset the girls. He plays a very good victim. I was criticized by counseling for mailing a letter to the house and standing up for myself. Again, I remember my first meeting with Georgia Selsam saying if I had heard about her from Steve it wouldn't be good. All the while, Steve was glowing to my face and in front of others when I was presentt. That was the feedback I expected knowing myself.
This is what was happening and I had no ability to defend myself. By that time, I was very beaten down and confused. There is a term for it called "gaslighting." As I go through the documents surrounding Joan, I see this was precisely the kind of tactic used to vilify him. I'm human, but I have a very strong core. One counselor had told George and Eleanor I am a very principled person. My children observed me time and again stand up and be able to confront isues. That quality seems to threaten this family based on my knowledge of events.
The information I found yesterday helps narrow the time when Eleanor went to Langley. It was between Tom Hardaway's death on 9-8-1950 and when she married George on 5-16-1952. This was right at the time the agency was becoming very involved in cold war tactics. I have done more research on that today. The agency was in it's early years and there really were no constraints. Looking at some of the agency's history and what they did is very apalling on moral, ethical, and legal grounds. This is no run of the mill family and the standards one applies to family are not really the same here despite appearances. I figured that out way too late.
I am getting a little help courtesy of the Senate elections in MA. Martha Coakley has been contacted more than once for her office to investigate this case. She has responsibility and is supposed to be the resource when questions are raised.
MA AG Martha Coakley
A relationship between Tim Burke and Martha Coakley was already known. Burke's practice today represents the state police. In addition he is suing the state for past compensation relating to these cases. He is also a plaintiff on a suit to claim private land rights to beach area in Marshfield, MA. He no doubt spent warm summer nights in his summer home once owned by drug trafficker and Bulger associate, Frank LePere, writing his so called true crime book. Coakley was involved in some off the radar dealing with these plaintiffs to give away the public rights to te beaches. It is still in land court.
Former LePere property
The article that appeared yesterday in the WSJ shows the corruption in this state. The case is unrelated to Joan Webster or anything surrounding Paradiso, but is relevant about the kind of jurisprudence that was taking place. It also demonstrates the continued misconduct of officials to obstruct the truth. This case took place in the same time period, the 1980's. The Middlesex DA was the office involved and one of the 3 that was involved in Joan's case. The use of false witness testimony to manufacture a case is precisely what is evident in recovered documents pertinent in Joan's case. Especially repugnant is the use/abuse of children to perpetrate a fraudulant case. I can relate to that on a personal level. Coakley had the ability to see the lack of evidence in the case and chose to turn a blind eye to protect her cronies. That's going on today in Jonathan Blodgett's office in Essex County denying transparency in Joan's files. Coakley adds an extra layer obstructing justice. Authorities used every dirty trick in the book to perpetuate the hoax they were taking offenders off the streets. That's what is apparent in recovered documents in Joan's case.
Burke has taken his exploitation a step further publishing a book that makes false representations in an open case and the legal machinery continues to block information from coming forward. The truth finds a way to come out.
There is a context for the Joan Webster case detailed in this topic thread, and in our interviews with Eve Carson. It is a context of corruption of the judicial system by ambitious prosecutors. Senate election candidate, Martha Coakley is such a prosecutor. The abuse of justice detailed here below, validates Eve Carson's questioning of so-called "facts".
John Stossel on the Amirault case
Article on 14th Jan, 2010
in the Wall St Journal:
Martha Coakley's Convictions
The role played by the U.S. Senate candidate in a
notorious sex case raises questions about her judgment.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
WALL STREET JOURNAL - JANUARY 14, 2010, 10:35 P.M. ET
The story of the Amiraults of Massachusetts, and of the prosecution that had turned the lives of this thriving American family to dust, was well known to the world by the year 2001. It was well known, especially, to District Attorney Martha Coakley, who had by then arrived to take a final, conspicuous, role in a case so notorious as to assure that the Amiraults' name would be known around the globe.
The Amiraults were a busy, confident trio, grateful in the way of people who have found success after a life of hardship. Violet had reared her son Gerald and daughter Cheryl with help from welfare, and then set out to educate herself. The result was the triumph of her life—the Fells Acres school—whose every detail Violet scrutinized relentlessly. Not for nothing was the pre-school deemed by far the best in the area, with a long waiting list for admission.
All of it would end in 1984, with accusations of sexual assault and an ever-growing list of parents signing their children on to the case. Newspaper and television reports blared a sensational story about a female school principal, in her 60s, who had daily terrorized and sexually assaulted the pupils in her care, using sharp objects as her weapon. So too had Violet's daughter Cheryl, a 28-year old teacher at the school.
But from the beginning, prosecutors cast Gerald as chief predator—his gender qualifying him, in their view, as the best choice for the role. It was that role, the man in the family, that would determine his sentence, his treatment, and, to the end, his prosecution-inspired image as a pervert too dangerous to go free.
The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults' prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.
Gerald, it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury. Violet had tied a boy to a tree in front of the school one bright afternoon, in full view of everyone, and had assaulted him anally with a stick, and then with "a magic wand." She would be convicted of these charges. Cheryl had cut the leg off a squirrel.
Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.
Gerald was sent to prison for 30 to 40 years, his mother and sister sentenced to eight to 20 years. The prosecutors celebrated what they called, at the time "a model, multidisciplinary prosecution." Gerald's wife, Patricia, and their three children—the family unfailingly devoted to him—went on with their lives. They spoke to him nightly and cherished such hope as they could find, that he would be restored to them.
Hope arrived in 1995, when Judge Robert Barton ordered a new trial for the women. Violet, now 72, and Cheryl had been imprisoned eight years. This toughest of judges, appalled as he came to know the facts of the case, ordered the women released at once. Judge Barton—known as Black Bart for the long sentences he gave criminals—did not thereafter trouble to conceal his contempt for the prosecutors. They would, he warned, do all in their power to hold on to Gerald, a prediction to prove altogether accurate.
No less outraged, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein presided over a widely publicized hearings into the case resulting in findings that all the children's testimony was tainted. He said that "Every trick in the book had been used to get the children to say what the investigators wanted." The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly—which had never in its 27 year history taken an editorial position on a case—published a scathing one directed at the prosecutors "who seemed unwilling to admit they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes that had never occurred."
It was clear, when Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999, that public opinion was running sharply against the prosecutors in the case.
Violet Amirault was now gone. Ill and penniless after her release, she had been hounded to the end by prosecutors who succeeded in getting the Supreme Judicial Court to void the women's reversals of conviction. She lay waiting all the last days of her life, suitcase packed, for the expected court order to send her back to prison. Violet would die of cancer before any order came in September 1997.
That left Cheryl alone, facing rearrest. In the face of the increasing furor surrounding the case, Ms. Coakley agreed to revise and revoke her sentence to time served—but certain things had to be clear, she told the press. Cheryl's case, and that of Gerald, she explained, had nothing to do with one another—a startling proposition given the horrific abuse charges, identical in nature, of which all three of the Amiraults had been convicted.
No matter: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of "a primary male offender." According to Ms. Coakley's scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.
Before agreeing to revise Cheryl's sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults' attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.
In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor's Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald's sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence. Still more newsworthy was an added statement, signed by a majority of the board, which pointed to the lack of evidence against the Amiraults, and the "extraordinary if not bizarre allegations" on which they had been convicted.
Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board's findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board's ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.
On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald's commutation.
Gerald Amirault spent nearly two years more in prison before being granted parole in 2004. He would be released, with conditions not quite approximating that of a free man. He was declared a level three sex offender—among the consequences of his refusal, like that of his mother and sister, to "take responsibility" by confessing his crimes.
He is required to wear, at all times, an electronic tracking device; to report, in a notebook, each time he leaves the house and returns; to obey a curfew confining him to his home between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. He may not travel at all through certain areas (presumably those where his alleged victims live). He can, under these circumstances, find no regular employment.
The Amirault family is nonetheless grateful that they are together again.
Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was "formidable" and that she was entirely convinced "those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants."
What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.
If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.
Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal's editorial board, is the author of "No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusations, False Witness And Other Terrors Our Times" (Free Press, 2003)
In 1966, at age 42, Violet Amirault -- abandoned to raise her two children -- took herself off the welfare rolls by starting a small daycare service in the basement of her home in Malden, Massachusetts.
This grew to the thriving Fells Acres Day School, which soon occupied the whole house (plus an addition) and served over 70 students at a time. For 18 years, the school cared for thousands of youngsters and gained community respect. No one ever made an accusation of abuse or impropriety.
In 1984, when the troubles began, Violet no longer taught but was the school's principal. Her son Gerald didn't teach (his wife Patti did) but did odd jobs -- driving, cooking, repairs and the like. Violet's daughter Cheryl taught one toddler class.
In April of 1984 a four-year-old, new to the school, wet himself during a nap. Gerald, at the teacher's request, changed him into spare clothes kept on hand for such common accidents, put the wet things in a plastic bag, and sent them home with the boy.
The boy who wet himself had behavioral problems: bed wetting, lying, baby talk, and hostility. His parents were in the midst of a difficult breakup. Around the time of the wetting incident, the mother discussed with the boy the alleged sexual abuse of her brother. During the summer, the boy was discovered in sex play with a cousin. This led to his being interrogated by the uncle, the mother, and a therapist at Children's Hospital. The boy told the uncle that Gerald had taken the boy's pants down. On the eve of Labor Day, 1984, the boy told his mother that every day at preschool, Gerald blindfolded him, took him to a "secret room" with a bed and golden trophies, and performed various sex acts. The mother called a hotline and accused Gerald of sexual abuse.
Thank you so much Fintan, for showing the importance of this article and the case it exposes. A 28 year old unresolved murder may not have seemed all that important to some at first, but the effects of this kind of corruption are far reaching, enduring, and attack the very principles of our legal system. The WSJ entry only brings to the forefront the power these individuals abuse and their efforts for greater power. Anyone who gets caught in the cross hairs as I have, forget it. Well, I am speaking out and getting closer to genuine justice for Joan and other victims hurt by the tyranny of corrupt officials.
I have endured enormous personal attacks for quite some time. It's a hard challenge to defend oneself behind smears delivered behind the back. Not a single official in MA has had the courage to address the conflicting documents and Joan's files are guarded to dispel any challenge. It is a difficult line questioning the Webster's resistance to an independent review. This was their daughter and the case is unresolved. There is nothing more serious than the crimes involved. Whether it is ignorance, or intentional, they are an obstacle to learning the truth. I will repeat, if the case had merit, they would be trotting out the documents to support it. I have the moral authoritiy to want answers from authorities and the Websters, this was a member of my family and I lived on a daily basis with this hell. The discrepencies sink it into greater depths of concern of what really happened. Who murdered Joan Webster? Who was left at risk because of the aggregious conduct of the state and FBI?
I'll get back on point in my next post looking at the possible motivation to perpetrate such a fraud. This case will not go away, and neither will I.
Just a quick note. I just watched the YouTube video Fintan found about the Amirault case. One of the prosecutors was pictured, Laurence Hardoon. This case took place in 1984, the same time Pardiso was being tried for the Iannuzzi murder. Laurence Hardoon's name appears in this case as well. He was involved in the release of Tony Pisa, convicted murderer, once on death row. Pisa was one of the informants who came forward with the unverified allegation Paradiso had called him on the prison payphones and made a confession of sorts. He walked out of jail the day after his pretrial testimony in the Iannuzzi case. Tim Burke was very instrumental in helping him gain a release and infused hmself in those very questionable proceedings. This is a cesspool.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:10 am Post subject: Martha Coakley still crazy after all these years?
I really do not want to see a Republican in the seat held so capably by Teddy Kennedy. I believe that Coakley is barely qualified to hold it, but that the Republican money flowing into the state campaign is not for the greater good of the people of Massachusetts, but is a strong power play to return the Congress back to a Republican majority, full of holy rollers and warmongers with hypocrisy dripping from their jaws.
Be that as it may, Coakley's beady-eyed Irish Catholic take on Puritanism really alarms me.
More recently, she was instrumental in hounding a young woman student from MIT who had gone into Logan Airport to pick up her boyfriend wearing a blinking light pin with suspicious wires dangling from it that was taken to be the accouterment of a suicide bomber (she is black, so you know, possibly a Muslim). When she approached a desk to ask about the flight he was coming in on, all hell broke loose. Rather than to admit they had over-reacted, the airport security sought prosecution and Coakley was all for putting the gal on probation for doing absolutely nothing but failing to anticipate hysteria in others. This was only two years ago. Coakley has a few other things wrong as well, in that she is fond of finding political meaning in criminal acts. I think her statement about Mr. A in the Fells Acres case is instructive - he must have dominated the females in his life, like that indomitable little mother of his, why? Because males have some kind of edge due to social injustice of our society, and so they always dominate in a given case.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:19 am Post subject: More on my view of Coakley
The odd thing about the fashionable ritual abuse cases is that they all arose around the time women had decided to return to the work force (persuaded of course by many things) while still having small children. I believe that the story has yet to be told, of all the fears that engendered. Nowadays, of course, mothers are being sent to Afghanistan with young children sometimes actually being put in foster care. Motherhood has hit harder times. But Coakley was there to exploit the mood of unease all right. Providing a professional shoulder to cry on, and scapegoats to help deal with the inner feelings that you were abandoning your kids for the purpose of getting ahead financially.
The interesting thing is that people like Judge Barton almost cut through the bull, but a bit too late for the Amireaults. When the hysteria is on, there are those who ride it like big-time surfers, and have no compunction in doing so. Coakley, I am afraid, has shown herself to be one of those. I should probably "recuse" myself from voting for her. The student she persecuted was my husband's, and I don't think he is going to show up to vote for her either. But a Republican? Naw.
There is no intent here to make a political endorsement. I think there s enough corruption and hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum and the spaces in between to make everyone shudder.
Coakley is a continuation of the legal system in MA that had no respect for victims or the true meaning of justice. Her actions with the MIT student illustrate that very well. You don't look to prosecute someone just so that airport personnel don't look incompetent. You also don't turn a blind eye to misconduct in legal issues when the evidence doesn't support it to back the cronies who prosecuted these cases. Playing God with people's lives has devastating effects. She has been responsible for that oversight in past and current positions.
What she was busy doing was cutting a deal with attorneys for the Rexhame Terrace Trust in Marshfield, MA. She took it upon herself to try and give away the public's rights to beach property there. The current list of plaintiff's is still being clarified, but it had included the Frank LePere family trust, former drug trafficker with ties to organized crime. The list also includes the Rodericks of the Big Dig, and former prosecutor Tim Burke. This case has been in the legal system for more than 10 years and involves multimillion dollar real estate.
It doesn't matter if there is an R or a D behind someone's name. When they are entrusted with protecting people, truth, and justice, they should not be rewarded for failing to do so. In the 1980's many were wrongfully persecuted if they had an Italian name. Now there is a rush to wrongful judgment if the argument is made someone might be Muslim. Even more shameful, is if the investigation surrounding Joan's case crucified innocent people to serve someone up to explain it. Joan would never have wanted the injustice that hurt so many. That is disrespectful to her memory and the good person that she was.
In my experience and opinion, Martha Coakley has abused the trust of people who put her in a position of authority. It's a continuation of a problem that existed when Joan was lost. It is still relevant today because there is a continued mentallity to defend the indefensible actions of authorities. That's not the job description.
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:57 pm Post subject: Well put about Coakley
I wince when I think about giving her my vote, but then I examine the Republican record. True, people in MA are fed up with being patronized by Dems with Washington ambitions. The best thing about Teddy was that he was so maimed and scarred by life in the bigtime that he was humble enough to do the "all politics is local" thing when you asked him for some service that as a citizen you were entitled to. You got "white glove service" from his well-staffed office. Coakley is never going to deliver that kind of thing because she moves through life as an idealogue, without adequate respect for facts.
Brown belongs to a class of pretty boy we've all seen before. A smidge of military experience, membership in a fundie evangelical sect, natural ability to spoon in the silverware drawer with all the top-drawer Republicans and whatever it is they value (hint: wealth and power).
I don't want Martha to be too powerful, but I do want some of the same things she and other Dems want. And yes, I consider her tone deaf to the human voice. It will be hard to deal with her, but she's only going to last two years. A better Dem can be found to unseat her incumbency. At least I hope so.
I will ask Star Simpson (the student) someday if she voted for her. Horribly enough, she probably had to, but I cannot speak for her without asking her first. The Republicans do not offer a viable alternative to the denseness of some Democrats. People in their own party need to curb their excesses and they will be better positioned to do that.
I remember the Joan Webster case always wondered what had become of her. My first instinctual take was that this beautiful woman had wound up with a bad cab driver who exercised the option that someone in such a position of power might have over another. But an instinct is not a fact. Coakley should learn that too. You have to prove things. Perhaps she was unable to pursue the evidence because it was too corrupt by the time she heard the story. I admit I have not read your whole posts here, but I will do so. One thing we must all realize: even though some suspect is plausible and we think we know, facts are stubborn things. Whatever happened, happened. It may not come out by itself, but we are dependent on actual evidence. Sadly, the show Cold Case is a fantasy. No one puts that kind of resources into running down the truth, unless it catches the public interest and has a deeper meaning.
Thank you musings for your very thoughtful post. As citizens there are times our options are only bad or worse. For many years, I believed the explanations offered in Joan's case. That happened for 2 reasons; human nature to trust individuals in a position of authority to be trustworthy, and the information I received.
When Joan's remains were found in 1990, I had doubts, but didn't know what I didn't know. I have made it a point to find out all that I could. I am half the country away and more than a quarter century from the crime, and what I have learned has been devastating. I have no vote in the MA Senate race today. Where I have been impacted has been by cases allowed to be swept under the rug and wrongful persecutions in order to have the appearance there was a legitimate investigation. There wasn't. Don't misunderstand that to mean I think everyone was involved in misconduct. There were some wonderful people who earnestly looked for the truth. I have been fortunate to be able to speak to some. Others had some self serving motives and that is the layer I am peeling back. The problem is why.
On this site, I have brought some documents and information forward. There is a great deal more that hasn't been disclosed yet. I have taken some very personal attacks for asking questions. It is very troubling where those appear to be coming from. Common sense has escaped a lot of people when there are serious efforts to discredit, that should be the very place to look. It has not deterred me, but only strengthened my resolve.
I have gone through the proper channels in the MA legal system trying to bring things forward. The state wants this case left alone. Far too many have dirty hands with respect to Joan's and related cases. Unfortunatey, Martha Coakely became part of the obstruction. Adding the article the other day was further reinforcement that this was the kind of misconduct going on when we lost Joan. When I first contacted the DA, I asked about an unpublished account. They should have realized at that moment they were dealing with someone who had knowledge of the case. I contacted them later without giving my name or case, but discussed the nature of information I had. I was encouraged to bring it forward. When I did, and the case was learned, I was shocked by the response. They would hang up the phone, and not return inquiries. FOIA requests were made and they have hidden behind legal technicalities to deny access. Now, instead of addressing very conflicting documents, I am the subject of some very ugly and destuctive smearing. I know the root of it.
The reactions gave me the direction to look. That's where answers are coming. There are some real shockers in these pages. It has been an enormous amount to deal with. I can empathize with Star's situation. To be wrongfully accused and harrassed is a terrible situation and having people creating perceptions in order to justify their actions is destructive. Standing firm is a lesson I was fortunate to have learned early with a solid upbringing in the midwest. I have no qualms telling the truth, and there are very painful things to be revealed. If the state wants to justify their allegations, they need to support it with the documents. They will have trouble doing that based on what I have recovered.
The FBI was brought into Joan's case on December 3rd, 1981. Burke's self serving claim he brought the FBI in to pursue Federal bankruptcy charges in May of 1983. Documents show this case was a means to facilitate the state with the Iannuzzi and Webster cases with avenues not available to the state. The FBI and state collaborated inappropriately on these cases.
This joint effort is a third area of possible explanations for the misconduct evident in documents. The FBI had not yet been exposed for misconduct and protecting informants. The state's focus in Boston's organized crime was Bulger's operation. Burke was invovled in writing warrants to bug operations. All of them were compromised and failed. The FBI focus against organized crime was breaking up the mafia. The 2 crime groups competed and so did the 2 groups of authorities.
Palombo was an undercover cop working in EB with informants. This was the mafia's turf and it is reasonable he gathered information helpful to the FBI objectives. David Doyle, prime suspect in Marie Iannuzzi's murder, was interviewed 20-30 times in undocumented meetings. This would in no way be considered standard procedure for dealing with a murder suspect. It does describe the relationship a cop would have with an informant. Doyle was a drug user and self admitted dealer. He would have been able to provide information beneficial to the FBI operations. That would certainly make Palombo a source for the FBI. Protecting Doyle would be protecting a source that benefitted cops. They looked good to the public. Palombo's superior, Carmen Tammaro also acknowledged involvement in the activities to bring the mafia down. The FBI was protecting Bulger and his group, the very ones the state and MSP sought to dismantle. Palombo and Tammaro were at odds then with others in their own agency.
It appears their association was with an FBI office that was later exposed for corruption. That office was provided information in the Iannuzzi and Webster cases. There was a known exchange of information between SA Steve Broce and Palombo. Other information in FBI reports was knowledge Palombo would have had being assigned both cases. Some of that information was false, but being promoted through the informant's statement and the press.
The FBI already had a history of aiding willfully in wrongful convictions. The following is from a Wiapedia entry. There are numerous articles surrounding this case, but emphasizes how this office operated.
Tameleo was a long time participant in organized crime and is considered one of the founding fathers of the Patriarca family. in 1967, Tameleo, Raymond L.S. Patriarca, and Jerry Anguilo were charged with the murder of bookmaker Willie Marfeo . Before the trial's conclusion, on March 12, 1965, Tameleo, Peter Limone, Louis Greco, Wilfred Roy French, Ronald Cassesso and Joseph Salvati were indicted for the murder of hoodlum Edward "Teddy" Deegan . In 1968, all six men were found guilty of the Deegan murder in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Tameleo, Limone, Greco and Cassesso were sentenced to death by the state, with Salvati and French receiving life sentences. The death sentences were later reduced to life in prison, where Tameleo died in 1985.
By 2000, all charges had been dismissed against Tameleo and the other accused men amid accusations of a government frame-up and cover-up extending over thirty years. In 2007, a federal judge in Boston awarded damages of $101.7 million to the four men who were wrongly convicted in the 1965 Deegan murder. It was proved that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents H. Paul Rico, Dennis Condon, John Morris, and John Connolly withheld evidence of the defendants' innocence in order to protect FBI informants Vincent "Jimmy the Bear" Flemmi and Joseph Barboza. Out of this settlement, $13 million went to the estate of Enrico Tameleo, specifically his son, Saverio, as administrator of the Tameleo estate, and Tameleo's wife Jeanette.
The FBI developed a pattern of protecting informants, even from very violent crimes. They withheld exculpatory evidence for individuals that were knowingly framed for the crimes. The most important point was the FBI was protecting their own sources, to meet their objectives of breaking up the mafia. The ends justified the means apparently and innocent men paid the price.
In the Iannuzzi case, Doyle appears to have gotten a pass. His information gave Palombo the knowledge to make him a source to the FBI. Joan's case comes along and the FBI is heavily involved, but outside of the public awarenenss. The MSP and the state were misrepresenting evidence, falsifying documents submitted to the court, withholding exculpatory evidence from Paradiso, and acquired a false informant's statement.
There is no question Palombo was a source to the FBI. The informant's statement to implicate Paradiso in 2 crimes was false based of verifiable facts the authorities already had. They promoted it anyway. They continued to press a boat theory and therefore have an explanation for no body. They abandoned the MO being developed and brought forward a statement that had the correct manner of death with correct detail. Palombo and Burke both twisted the order of events to represent Joan was raped, hit in the head with a whiskey bottle, and then dumped in the ocean. This reversed the order given in their witness's statement.
The question of misconduct by authorities has to look at what other things these individuals were involved in. Since the FBI already had set the precedent of protecting informants, the question has to be asked here as well. Was the FBI protecting one of it's sources justifying in their minds pinning a crime on an innocent person? Then it has to be asked if Palombo was the source they were protecting? Was there anyone else the FBI would have been protecting in this case?
It all leads up to why would Joan's murder need to be covered up? Why would cops be throwing it off and what would Joan have to do with what the FBI was involved in, or these cops? This is how the pieces fit and some of the reasons for the misconduct are becoming more clear. There is a lot of resistance for any transparency in this case. Looking at where that resistance is coming from offers the best place to get the answers as to why. I am looking at who came up with this theory, who lied, and who continues to support it.
During all of my digging, I have learned there are people who had a darker side, secrets, and behaviors I would not have imagined a few years ago. I point that out because in expressing any opinion now, I am always open if something concrete is learned that challenges or dispels it.
I can't imagine Joan used or had any involvement in the drug culture. There were no signs of it at all, in fact she wasn't much of a partier at all. Friends and boyfriends I met didn't fit that type either. These were clean cut, hard working individuals. No hint of a double life has ever come out in all of this.
Her workload didn't make it too likely she had some secret lover and most importantly, not one that had associations like the mob or mafia. And yet there are facts that indicate this was a premeditated murder, and one with the same level of brutality and execution of someone involved in those activities.
The involvement of the FBI and their conduct protecting informants raises the flag in examining this case. I don't think Joan could have blown the whistle on leaks that were tipping off Bulger and messing up Burke's office. It's doubtful Joan knew Palombo or Tammaro, their involvement in drug enforcement, or undercover activities that would have blown their cover. But these were the individuals responsible for this elaborate explanation. The FBI was involved in withholding exculpatory evidence that should have crossed Paradiso off the list. Information and evidence was hidden under multiple case file numbers. Burke and Palombo misrepresented findings on the boat in trying to press the case further. The FBI could have nixed that right away. The FBI was protecting someone.
Palombo is the most obvious individual who would have been a useful source to the FBI. There is also evidence his boss Tammaro was involved in efforts to bring down the Angiulo family, the mafia. These 2 were a part of Joan's case from the start and both involved in acquiring the false Robert Bond statement.
Considering this possibility and the facts that make this murder appear premeditated means Joan was a threat to someone with knowledge she had. It did not necesarily have to be about the drug/mafia activities. I don't believe Palombo or Tammaro would have been involved independently. They were too low on the totem pole and it makes no sense Joan would have any knowledge about them. Burke was manipulated. My instincts tell me he believed Paradiso was guilty of Joan's murder in the beginning and a justification in his mind to nail him wrongfully in the Iannuzzi case. He is still trying to justify it today trying to promote Paradiso as a serial murderer and guilty of other crimes, ignoring any concrete evidence to connect him to other murders.
Joan had to have knowledge of some very serious, dangerous secrets, to threaten someone to the point of taking her life, and the complexity of the scheme. The person had to have had enough clout to pull strings with the higher ups to cover up this murder. That person could have been a part of the organized crime that corrupted so many at this time, or part of the corrupt system, or someone else able to enlist their assistance.
The Websters do fall into the category of having the clout and connections. That should have been the resource to get answers in the case. Instead it is unresolved, they support the false theory published by Burke, and claim privacy for an independent review. The other aspect of the Websters is their background and secrecy surrounding this family by virtue of what they did. If Joan had knowledge of serious secrets, the family was one place that was never examined and should have been.
They had a background that is hard to pin down with specificity. They sign a lifelong pact of secrecy, form 368. They were very closed mouth about what they did. The same patterns exist today with my children. The Websters have not been forthcoming and there are now things they represented that have been learned not to be true. They are more likely to have made enemies and had associations and/or secrets that could prove lethal. Professional courtesy from the FBI to cover this up? Perhaps. This is the area to dig into precisely because there is so much resistance to review this, there is overwhelming documentation to refute it, and it isn't normal behavior not to want to know what happened to your daughter.
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