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 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is very important to look at the dates here. On April 9, 1985, Judge Bruce Selya affirmed in CR 85-010-S the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Paradiso filed for bankruptcy in August 1981. Joan Webster disappeared from Logan Airport on November 28, 1981. This next segment exposes the influence driving the pursuit of Paradiso.

Paradiso was back in court for the sentencing phase of CR 85-010-S on May 10, 1985. Remember, the Websters cooperated with Burke's 2008 book. In the book, Burke represents Judge Richard Stearns sentenced Paradiso November 1985. Stearns was appointed to the bench in MA in 1993. Who knew about this case and when?

Pages 4 & 5 from the transcript reveal what was going on behind the scenes. AUSA Marie Buckley presents 3 letters to the court from George Webster. Buckley was from the USA office in MA, USA William Weld was the top DOJ official in MA, and his signature is on several documents. This is one month after this court determined the alleged crime scene did not exist by August 1981.

The prosecution came forward with a harsh sentencing recommendation. Notice the referral of Joan's case, "notorious." Keep in mind, this case just debunked the notorious speculation the state of MA put forward. I have already illustrated, Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, George and Eleanor Webster continued to promote the boat theory after this trial. This excerpt is on page 11 of the court transcript. Defense attorney Owen Walker was speaking.

On page 13, Walker continues. The transcript indicates the Websters contacted Mr. Wells. There is no Mr. Wells associated with this case. It's reasonable to believe it was a typo not heard by the court recorder. Mr. William Weld was in charge of this case. For those of you not familiar with Weld, he went on and served as governor of MA. The pattern of the Websters was to reach out to the top level. Regardless, George Webster was using influence. He presumed guilt when the this case just discredited the boat theory. The facts seem to be irrelevant to George's determination of Paradiso's guilt, and the state charged forward making the same accusations.

George Webster presumed to be judge and jury. Authorities already had facts in the files before the boat that this was not a truthful explanation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Several quotes have been posted touting Robert Bond's credibility. The two-time convicted murderer was the state's star witness. George & Eleanor Webster maintain, based on Bond's statement, that Paradiso confessed and murdered Joan. They claimed Bond said things he could only have learned from Paradiso. Burke claimed other than the location, other information in Bond's statement proved true.

This statement was not proven true in any way. If it had been, Paradiiso would have been tried for her murder. Paradiso does not resemble the suppressed composite of the man with Joan at Logan.

Let me set the scene here. It is late Saturday night, November 28, 1981. Paradiso gets Joan on a cold dark boat and makes a pass? Paradiso had photos up on his cell wall. A photo was confiscated of the interior of the cabin and showed liquor bottles on a shelf. There is no date on the photo, no liquor bottles or glass were found when the boat was recovered. That is confirmed in FBI lab reports. There was no evidence Joan was raped. Her remains in 1990 would not support that speculation. The next hurdle for Burke, Palombo, and the Websters is the lack of the boat. CR 85-10-S affirms the boat did not exist on November 28, 1981.

Bond did not keep his story straight. Joan's purse and wallet were found 3 days after she disappeared. They were in the marsh along the Lynn Marsh Road, route 107. This is a large area on both sides of the road, an area Palombo was familiar with. The items were not in close proximity to Marie Iannuzzi's body location in 1979. They were found on the opposite side and down a considerable distance. The discovery of Joan's items was widely reported and in police and court records.

Bond suggests Paradiso indicated the anonymous caller was a man named Peter Brandon. That name is listed as a roommate in Paradiso's parole records. Patty Bono was the anonymous caller who came up with an unverified story. Burke affirmed this in court records, Bono has affirmed placing the call.

Notice it is the State Police making the suggestion. Paradiso was a parolee, he did not have a hack license to drive a cab. There is no evidence to support he drove one.

It is hard for me to imagine Bond and Paradiso talking about the splinters in his finger and going to the ER in 1981 unless it was baited. Palombo was out digging things up and found ER records. Paradiso was treated for splinters in his finger on 11-30-1981. They were identified as metal. Authorities suggested they were glass after hitting Joan in the head with a whiskey bottle on his boat. There was no boat and no whiskey bottles and no glass were found on the boat when it was raised. Burke's explanation, Paradiso cleaned it up before he sank it.

I met Bond face to face. This is not a smart man. Paradiso had photos of his boats on the cell wall. That is affirmed in a taped interview with MSP. Paradiso got another boat, a small speedboat, sometime after he sank the alleged crime scene in July 1981. It would not be difficult to copy down registration numbers. The speedboat was used to pay a lawyer. That's something Burke and the boys knew.

This is the "credible statement" Bond gave? This was bullshit. However, there are 2 things I will illustrate in a later post. Bond was talking to the authorities. That is well documented.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In every lie there is a morsel of truth.

It is important to look at what is true in Robert Bond's written statement. This is the statement the authorities and the Websters support as credible and the basis to implicate Paradiso for Joan Webster's murder. Burke claims he had the written statement on January 5, 1983. A taped interview with the MSP on January 14, 1983 discredit's Burke's assertion. The written statement came after the interview.

This is a correct statement. No body was found on Paradso's boat when it was recovered on September 27, 1983. There was not a single trace connecting Joan to the boat or Paradiso. FBI lab records affirm that. There was no blood, no hair, no belongings, no glass shards, no whiskey or liquor bottles, no cinderblocks and ties to weigh bodies down. There was nothing.

This is true. The boat was reported missing to the insurance and numerous agencies. When the boat was recovered, the registration number, the color, and name were clearly visible and unchanged. Case CR 85-010-S affirmed the boat was gone when Paradiso filed for bankruptcy in August 1981, based on undisputed evidence. I have identified only two sources claiming the boat was above water around the time Joan disappeared, Robert Bond, who never saw it, and John OConnell, under a federal probe by October 1981. Bond was sentenced for a second murder conviction on January 10, 1983 when he first spoke to the MSP. O'Connell was taped by the FBI in Orlando on November 24, 1981, before Joan disappeared, and convicted of perjury to defraud the government of grant money.

Bond is right again, authorities found a lot of mud and crud on the boat when it was raised. There is a lengthy list of garbage that MA authorities sent and congested FBI labs in Quantico.

This little morsel is revealing. Paradiso indicated he hurt his hand when he was polishing a 50mm shell he found on the beach. He was using a grind wheel in his girlfriend's parent's basement. That would be information available in the ER report when Paradiso had his hand treated at the hospital. Burke himself indicated they were issuing subpoenas for hospital records. The boys were digging up dirt and found this. It is important to note during the search warrant, the shell was found, actually supporting Paradiso's explanation.

The true components of Bond's statement revealed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared, there was no body and no evidence, only mud, on the boat, and authorities recovered the item described as the source of Paradiso's splinters.

How do the authorities and the Websters take the verified facts from Bond's statement and continue to promote Paradiso raped and murdered Joan on his boat? They ignore the facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Step by step to get a clear picture of what happened. Burke claimed he received an unsolicited letter from Robert Bond on January 5, 1983. That is in warrants, court records, the media, and Burke's 2008 book. That is false.

Bond testified during the Iannuzzi trial he spoke with the MSP on January 10, 1983, the day he was sentenced for Mary Foreman's murder.

This testimony was given under cross examination by defense attorney Steve Rappaport on July 16, 1984, pages 6-131 & 6-132 of the trial transcript. This clearly indicates who Bond was talking to.

A taped interview was conducted on January 14, 1983 with the MSP. Burke's misrepresentations are evident in the transcript.

This excerpt from the interview, pages 124 & 125 verify Bond saw photos of the boat on the wall, that is where he got the descriptions and registration numbers. The interior shot of the boat fueled the speculation a whiskey bottle was used to strike Joan after Paradiso allegedly got her on his boat.

Burke claims he received a letter from Bond that was the "break" in the case. The letter allegedly was the reason the interview was conducted on January 14, 1983. Not true. The interview clearly exposes the false representations authorities made to the court and the media. The letter came after the interview.

Bond asked a prison guard about the letter mailed 3 days before, after his chat with the MSP on January 10, 1983. The letter has not arrived. This is on page 27 of the interview transcript.

The plan was for Bond to mail the letter to his family with an envelope inside addressed to Tim Burke. The letter did not arrive before the interview on January 14, 1983. This is clear on pages 37 & 38 of the transcript.

Sgt Carmen Tammaro, Trooper Palombo's superior, was the questioner. They made arrangements who would pick up the letter. The story was concocted before the letter from Robert Bond. This is on page 39 of the transcript.

It only gets more incredulous. Recovered documents support a corrupt investigation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are now getting down to the finer points. My objective is identifying those responsible for Joan's murder.

This excerpt is on page 9 of the MSP interview transcript with Bond on 1-14-1983. Bond is not very smart. He was manipulated. Here he gives the MSP a choice whether the manner of death for Joan was strangulation or hit with a whiskey bottle. This interview came before of the receipt of the letter which is more decisive.

The excerpt on page 19 emphasizes the MSP were controlling this story. Bond does not know where Paradiso kept his boat. If Pier 7 is wrong, Bond says it's on you guys.

This is the reference in the written statement about hitting Joan with a whiskey bottle. Not as detailed. That is important to bring out. The interview goes into much greater detail.

This is the smoking gun, folks. Bond points to the right side of the head and indicates there is a hole. Bond's scenario all takes place on Paradiso's boat. Case CR 85-010-S affirmed the boat did not exist. Joan was not taken to Pier 7. Bond is confused about strangulation or hitting Joan giving the MSP the choice. There was no evidence of whiskey bottles or glass shards on the boat when recovered, and no evidence that was found on Joan's skull when recovered. What Bond gets correct here is blunt force trauma to the right side of the skull leaving a hole.

There is no mistake during the interview, the story was Paradiso took his boat way out and dumped Joan in Boston Harbor. That is what the media reported and the story was maintained until her remains were found buried in Hamilton, MA.

Page 31 of the interview transcript exposed what was going on. Authorities had moved Bonds cell in proximity to Paradiso. Bond was baiting Paradiso for the authorities. Interesting side note. The MSP was not able to get the suggestion of weighting the body down through Bond. That came in through Charlene Bullerwell, a witness pressured by the FBI who refused to testify at the trial.

Bond was not getting his story from Paradiso, he was talking to the authorities. Point after point was proven to be false. Except: the hole on the right side of Joan's skull. That is in the interview with MSP 7 years before Joan's remains were recovered.

Bond was talking to the killer. It was not Paradiso, that was a concocted story. I will spell it out in the next few posts. I want to leave you with the image of how Joan was found. The upper and lower jaw had broken away from the skull. This is the right side of her skull. Cherish each day you have with loved ones.

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

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Problem solving is a matter of following the facts.

Robert Bond, the state's "informant," was talking to authorities. It is documented in court records, he met with the MSP on January 10, 1983, the day he was sentenced for his 2nd murder. It is clear in the taped interview with authorities on January 14, 1983, Sgt Carmen Tammaro was one of the officers involved on the 10th. Tammaro was assigned to F Barracks at Logan Airport and Tr. Palombo's superior. Tammaro was a childhood friend of Patty Bono, the woman who placed an anonymous call to the Saugus police in January 1982, implicating Paradiso for Marie Iannuzzi's murder and Joan's disappearance. This is confirmed in court records, by the Saugus Police Chief to the papers, and by Bono herself.

Tammaro is the "questioner" in the January 14, 1983 taped interview with Bond. Palombo is present along with 3 other officers. John Gillam was sometimes referred to as Gil. Bond was talking to authorities. Correct details about Joan's death come out in the taped interview in an otherwise bogus story. The photo of Joan's skull clearly shows a hole on the right side of her head.

The boys were making promises to Bond. Bond claims they offered him manslaughter for a retrial of the Mary Foreman case. During the retrial, Bond wasn't getting the deal the boys promised. He filed a motion and affidavit naming those he relied on: Burke, Tammaro, Palombo, and Bill. I believe Bill may refer to John Gillam. The list of suspects, source for the correct manner of death is narrowed. None of these individuals had anything to do with the Foreman case, so any promises were just a manipulation.

It is not hard to zero in on the prime suspect. Look at the mental map, people function in certain ways and familiar places.

Three of them had close interaction with George and Eleanor Webster.

Three of them made false public representations to the media.

Three of them ignored facts in the files.

Two of them filed false information with the courts.

Two of these men have a verifiable connection to Logan Airport, last place Joan was seen.

Two of them were very mobile and had familiarity with the entire Boston area.

Two of them have forensic knowledge, avoiding criminal detection, Joan was stripped of clothing.

One had a verifiable connection to Rte 107 before Joan disappeared, where Joan's purse and wallet were found.

One lived in close proximity to the gravesite in a remote wooded area of Hamilton, MA, an area Hamilton officers affirmed he was familiar with.

It is likely one had activity at the Greyhound Station, where the suitcase was falsely reported found.

One of them looks like the composite of the bearded man seen with Joan at Logan Airport, suppressed by the authorities and the Websters in a missing person case.

Here is the prime suspect in the murder of Joan Webster: Andrew Palombo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sure the suggestion Andrew Palombo is the prime suspect in Joan Webster's murder raises questions.

What is the motive?

Following the facts places Andrew Palombo at the top of the list. There are a couple other factors not provided. I am still working to confirm some evidence.

First, the climate in Boston is a factor. The level of corruption is well documented throughout the system at this time. This was the era of Whitey Bulger. Again, let me emphasize, there is no relationship to Bulger or the mob regarding Joan's death. The tactics and dysfunction are the same.

Second, Joan's murder would not fall under the scope of proper law enforcement activity. Nor does the deception and investigation that followed. There is no evidence of a prior connection between Palombo and Joan. "Motive" cannot be defined in the more familiar sense. Rather, incentive makes sense with the facts.

That is where the Websters come in. They withheld evidence in the early days after Joan's disappearance, including the composite of the bearded man a cabbie described with Joan at Logan. Suppressing a lead when you are "looking" for your daughter is suspect. That is not the only evidence they withheld evident in police files.

Go back a few posts and look at the influence during the bankruptcy fraud case. George Webster was in contact with the DOJ office in MA, the office of USA William Weld. George was fully aware of the case. Weld's AUSA Marie Buckley submitted 3 letters written by George Webster. The items were marked A, B, and C by the court on May 9, 1985. The transcript of the sentencing phase reflects the intent to skewer Paradiso for Joan's loss. There were no charges, and none were ever filed. The facts were irrelevant. At the conclusion of the trial, April 9, 1985, the court affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. This case drove a nail through the story being circulated.

Burke, Palombo, and the Websters continued to promote the boat theory. The Websters cooperated with Burke's 2008 published explanation giving a graphic description of Paradiso raping and murdering Joan on his boat. Impossible.

This was a collaborative effort.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8095

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a series of a 7 posts since 28 Feb 2016!!!

There is no doubt that in any normal jurisdiction, the clear
evidence of foreknowledge of the nature and position of
the fatal injury to Joan Webster (ahead of the discovery
of her body years later)
would render former Mass. State
Trooper Andrew Polombo immediately subject to formal
arrest on suspicion of involvement in her murder

Furthermore, the involvement of the others named above
- in the construction fraudulent evidence to deflect law and
prosecution away from Trooper Polombo is jaw-dropping,
prima facie evidence of a collaborative effort by the prime
players named in posts above - to pervert the
course of justice

With the facts as outlined, and a brief summary of the case
any competent prosecutor could secure from a judge, search
for the dwellings and offices of the parties named.

Following on from that a competent prosecutor - having then
marshaled all the facts would arrest the named parties and
convey to them all his/her intent to lay said charges against
them for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The objective of such mass arrests would be to impress upon
those arrested that they were now certainly facing such charges
re perversion of justice - with a high likelihood of conviction, and
that further charges in relation to involvement in the murder of
Joan Webster
would follow.

The tactic would be to see if the certainty of conviction on the
perversion of justice charges would encourage one or more of
those arrested to cut a deal before murder charges were laid.

Eve, you have posted all of the evidence - in detail- to enable
successful prosecutions in this case - but the information in the
last half a dozen posts is concise, condensed and goes right to
the heart of the core issues.

As I say, any competent prosecutor and alert judge would easily
be in a position to understand and act on it immediatley.


Would you briefly outline for the general readers unfamiliar
with the case in detail - who is alive and in the jurisdiction
in respect of this case - and the disposition and role of the
relevant prosecutors?

Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.

Last edited by Fintan on Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Fintan. When you follow the facts, you will find answers. For those who have followed this thread, you have watched me go through a process of recovering records and public statements. It took a fresh set of eyes, or possibly the right set of eyes to make sense of the information. I was close to this situation, part of the immediate family from day one.

To bring you up to date, here is the status of some of the key participants in the case, and the case status.

Former Suffolk County prosecutor Tim Burke is a practicing defense attorney in MA. When he left the DAO in September 1985, he was handed a contract to represent the MSP. According to Burke's published account, he met with George and Eleanor Webster in the summer of 2005. What followed was his book with their cooperation. Burke gives a graphic description of rape and murder an Paradiso's boat, a crime scene that did not exist when Joan disappeared on November 28, 1981. Burke is not very smart, he wrote a book with false representations about an open murder case.

Tr Andrew Palombo is deceased, killed in an unusual motorcycle accident July 4, 1998. This was at low speed in Lynn, MA, familiar turf for Palombo. He hit an oil slick, a method used by Bulger. The time was consistent with the exposure of corrupt officials tied to Whitey Bulger activities. Burke published he met Palombo in a Bulger related event and indicated Burke was involved in a Bulger warrant. My PI had his license subtly threatened in May 2010, when questions were raised about Palombo's accident.

Carmen Tammaro is currently head of security for a hotel and waterfront enterprise in Boston. He is a key person to question. He knew Paradiso going back to their childhood in the NE. Tammaro met with Paradiso on August 1, 1982. A letter documented the meeting and indicated Tammaro suggested the boat scenario.

SA Steve Broce involved in the bankruptcy fraud case appears to be located in CA now. SA Broce was involved in the bankruptcy fraud case that affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. SA Broce provided Burke with the report that Burke represented led to the discovery of a gun used to force Joan onto the boat. Divers for O'Connell Seafood Company discovered a Mercedes in the water when they were working at the location in 1980. Big difference. A colleague, Lt Col John Parkinson, blew the whistle on Broce for misconduct in 2013. The whistleblower lost his position.

FBI Whistleblower

Eleanor Webster is deceased. She passed away on June 15, 2010 from breast cancer. She was handed the composite on December 21, 1981 from Det. R Corcoran of the Glen Ridge, NJ police. The Websters were broadcast all over the Boston area in a pre taped appeal for information on Christmas Day 1981. Regardless, the Websters neglected to share a lead in the search for their missing daughter. The composite was never released publicly.

George Webster is now just shy of 89, his birthday is this week. Despite public statements wanting justice for their daughter, George ignored the facts and continued to allege Paradiso murdered Joan. A reminder, when asked about discrepancies in recovered documents, George Webster emailed a vile email with the last line wishing me to die. I would think that would be pretty obvious to an earnest prosecutor or investigator. George Webster is harassing and threatening the single individual closest to them during this entire situation. I was part of the immediate family. In the meantime, he has made countless public statements and cooperated with a false published explanation for his daughter's murder. It is important to remember, George and Eleanor both had an intelligence background.

The Essex County DAO is current custodian of Joan's files. They have had charge of the case since the remains were discovered nearly 26 years ago in Hamilton, MA. First Assistant District Attorney, John Dawley, is in charge of public corruption investigations. It is at the discretion of the DAO whether to press charges in a case. My experience is the system is still dysfunctional and authorities circle the wagons to protect their own instead of the victims.

Fintan got slightly ahead of me. I have an update on the case status and what is happening. I think it will drop some jaws just how corrupt a system can be. I think it is helpful to refresh the condition of Joan's remains when recovered. The description was provided by Det. Paul Grant, now deceased, part of the recovery team with the Hamilton, MA police. I assure you, this information is verifiably documented.

Joan was found in a shallow grave in a heavily wooded, remote area of Hamilton, MA. The skull had surfaced. The photo clearly shows the 2" x 4" hole in the right side of the skull. Joan was stripped of all clothing. None of Joan's belongings were found during an extensive search of the area except a gold neck chain and gold ring still on the skeletal remains. Joan was discarded in a black plastic trash bag. The gravesite was covered twice with cut logs. The different level of decay indicates the site was covered on more than one occasion.

I will post later this week when I have pulled the appropriate documents to support concerns regarding this case and the current status. This is an open unresolved case. I guarantee it is worth checking back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am going to step through the process with the Essex County DAO of Jonathan Blodgett, custodian of Joan's files since remains were recovered in their jurisdiction in April, 1990.

A second FOIA request was submitted to their office on December 28, 2014. The previous request and appeal were denied claiming the investigation was reopened based on Tim Burke's representations. A news article in the Boston Globe on September 6, 2008 affirms Burke's contact with ADA John Dawley. They renewed investigations into other unresolved cases. If anyone wants to see the article, I am happy to post it. Joan's name was noticeably missing, but 3 known prostitutes from the Combat Zone, Boston's red light district, were named. None had any similarity in victimology, or manner of death to Joan or even the speculation of Joan's death. Burke claims Paradiso was responsible for all of these crimes. Note: No connection has been made between Paradiso and these victims since the inquiries in 2008.

The DAO responded on June 1, 2015, to the appeal with the Superintendent of Records in the Secretary of State's office. They requested my appeal be denied. They cited numerous exemptions. Some do apply by statute, others do not apply.

The response demonstrates the complexity of the case. There are 8 banker's boxes filled with material. Note that other cases are included in the file, "solved" and unsolved. It is fair to conclude the DAO assumes the "solved" cases are just convictions. Top of the list is the Marie Iannuzzi case. Burke's conviction does not withstand scrutiny based on recovered documents. They have piled in other victim information without a foundation to verifiably confirm any relationship or similarity to Joan's case. I have not asked for records regarding unrelated cases.

This is a key point. The DAO contacted George Webster. In a meeting with my PI, Groob, on May 20, 2010, ADA John Dawley affirmed they do not know the Websters and have only spoken by phone. I have known the Websters since 1977.

A couple of very important points here. First, the DAO argues to shield attorney work product, regardless that verifiable documents discredit the public representations. They are circling the wagons. The second point is critical.

"The public has a keen interest in maintaining the dignity of private persons whose lives have been upended through no choice of their own"

The DAO is "shielding" the Websters who cooperated with a false published account of their daughter's murder. They are assuming the Websters are not involved. Based on what, public image? This is an unresolved crime.

There is a definite public interest when a DAO and representatives of the state promote false allegations in a murder case, or any crime. I am part of the public and so are my children.

This is round one, more to come.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first DAO response to the second FOIA request on December 28, 2014 came on March 2, 2015. This should gone up first, my apologies. The DAO reveals the mindset handling this case.

I first approached the DAO in 2006. At that time, I did not have too many pieces of the puzzle or know even what I was looking for. The simple fact was I was holding a very distressing letter written by my daughter, family behaviors were inconsistent with the public image, the family supported a bogus story, and I became the second victim to "disappear" from the Webster family under disturbing circumstances.

I previously described 3 victims the DAO now jumbled in with Joan's records. This coincided with the release of Burke's book in 2008. This effectively buries and clouds investigations for all of the victims. They have an administrative mess.

This is very telling. The DAO has acquiesced to George Webster. No consent is required to request or obtain public records. That will be affirmed in a later post. Notice in the previous post, George Webster does not want information released to me.

There is no statute of limitations for murder, that is correct. The DAO is disingenuous in the statement they are hopeful new credible leads may emerge. The DAO has received certified court records that the crime scene, the boat, did not exist when Joan disappeared. Verifiable records have been provided exposing MA authorities of misconduct and false information during the investigation and after. Certified court records are credible and relevant evidence in the resolution of an unresolved homicide under their stewardship.

The DAO is describing how it "should" work. A witness should not fear coming forward. This is not practiced in the Joan Webster case by the Essex County DA or other authorities in the state of MA. Not only have I been the target of disparaging and false personal attacks, I have been blocked from making victim statements publicly, and the father of the victim, George Webster, would like me to die.

This exposes the collaboration and who is dictating this case. This is suspect on the surface. A father that is not pressing for truthful answers about his daughter's brutal murder?

"We are in contact with Mr. Webster, and he opposes release of any information that might jeopardize the investigation..."

This is a 34-year-old unresolved murder. No charges were ever filed. Paradiso had a trial by tabloid. There was no inquest against Paradiso when the body was found. Websters improperly cremated the remains. The Websters met with Burke in 2005, and came out publicly cooperating with a false explanation about his daughter's murder published by Burke in 2008.

George Webster does not want to "jeopardize" the story that's out there. There is more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 461

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sorry for my absence the last several days. My Mother passed away a few days ago. God rest her soul. The issues with the family had very far reaching effects. Her loss was not unexpected, but hard with the estrangements caused by all of this. My full attention is now very focused to get truthful resolve for another member of my family, Joan.

Now I want to turn to the response from the Superintendent of Records in the MA Secretary of States Office.

The SOS gave their response on August 10, 2015. It is clear this has been a continuing process.

Very important, the requester, my circumstances or status, is not a determining factor for records. I do not need any approval from George Webster or anyone else to request records and be entitled to acquire public records.

The DAO gave generic responses to deny a request and relied on an older determination. A record is not considered public if it is restricted by statute. That applies to some of the documents. It does not apply to all of the records in the DAO.

The June 1, 2015 response from the DAO is posted above. They added additional objections to deny the FOIA request. The SOS advised the DAO needs to provide substantive responses.

Some documents are restricted by statute. CORI or criminal information records are not public records. Although I have obtained some through other sources, the DAO would not release that information. Records pertaining to sexual assault victims is also protected by statute. The DAO can rightly deny that information from their files. However, their records include other cases that are unrelated. There were witnesses who made public accusations against Paradiso. Their allegations were not verified or corroborated, such as Patty Bono. Burke represented Charlene Bullerwell as a victim, but her own testimony, after pressured by the FBI, did not match Burke's insinuations in a published account.

There is undoubtedly medical information in the files that is unrelated to Joan's case. I have not requested that even though the DAO sees fit to dump everything together in their files. The pathology report on Joan's remains is controlled by the next of kin, George Webster. Medical reports in that file, and the condition learned from Det Paul Grant, are not consistent with the speculation promoted.

This is very important. The DAO claims exemption of attorney work product. This is an open, unresolved homicide. They have failed to show cause for an exemption. Bottom line, they have circled the wagons to shield officials involved in the representations made in the case.

Again, very important, the DAO has failed to demonstrate there is any ongoing investigation. If you go back to a previous post, George Webster opposes release of records that might jeopardize the investigation. There is no investigation.

The SOS has indicated they have the authority to require an index be provided. One hopes there are procedures to follow to hold authorities accountable.

The SOS ordered the DAO to provide an index of their files to facilitate a narrowed FOIA request. The SOS indicated after redactions it might not be of benefit to me. They are not in a position to make that determination for me. The index will be very instructive.

The DAO office response will be my next post.
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 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46  Next
Page 42 of 46

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.