Audio: Hot Facts For A Cold Case Murder

News & Views on All Topics
Post Reply
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

I was out of pocket for a few days for a meeting regarding Joan's case.

One of the people I spoke with was a retired US Marshall who was familiar with the system in MA. He commented that MA is the most corrupt state concealing malfeasance. He was not surprised by the obstacles I have encountered.

Bottom line: Source documents debunk the Paradiso boat theory promoted by the authorities and the Websters. That narrows the scope of suspects to the four people who maintained the boat theory and disregarded exculpatory evidence in their possession; Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.

The only one in that group who could possibly have a personal motive is George Webster. He fits most of the criteria about the man seen with Joan at Logan, a lead George concealed.

Image
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

The latest issue of Unsolved Magazine has a summary article about Joan's case. It is also an article feature posted on the magazine website. Follow the link below.

http://unsolvedmagazine.com/joan-webster/
User avatar
Fintan
Site Admin
Posts: 8867
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm
Contact:

Congratulations Eve!!

A prestige magazine and a great article. :wink:

You managed to convey all the facts and build a
convincing picture of cover-up and concealment.

Dynamite was this:
  • the Burke letter received after the interview had no ambiguity on the
    manner of death
    . Tr. Andrew Palombo and Sgt. Carmen Tammaro of the
    MSP both knew the manner of Joan’s death more than seven years prior to
    her remains surfacing.

Ouch!
That's what they call a line of inquiry
you could pursue Mr. Essex County D.A.

Burke you destroyed in a few sentences, lol :
  • "Burke had not received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983, as claimed.
    Bond mailed the letter on January 10, 1983, after meeting with the MSP.
    Police still had not received it when they interviewed Bond on January 14, 1983.
    ADA Burke and Tr. Palombo filed false documents with the courts. "
And you nailed the four key individuals: George Webster
Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro

And you nailed the current DA!

All in all, a signature article that places Joan's case among the
leading systemic prosecutorial malfeasance cases in the USA.

[smiley=yahoo.gif]

I put it out on Twitter - FB also:



JUSTICE DENIED IN JOAN WEBSTER MURDER
AS D.A. SITS ON KEY EVIDENCE
https://bit.ly/3dITBnc
ALSO https://bit.ly/3dRFITQ

Image

JUSTICE DENIED IN JOAN WEBSTER MURDER AS D.A. SITS ON KEY EVIDENCE
READ: https://unsolvedmagazine.com/joan-webster/

On a cold Saturday, in November 1981, Joan Webster, 25, disembarked
from Eastern Airlines flight 960 at Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts,
and promptly disappeared - until her remains were uncovered nearly a
decade later.

The second-year Harvard Graduate School of Design student had waved to
classmates at the luggage carousel, but she stepped outside to the cab line
and vanished. The news of Joan’s disappearance shocked the community.
Joan, the petite student with long, dark hair and a bright smile was popular
and well-liked. Everyone wanted to know, what happened to Joan?


READ ON: https://unsolvedmagazine.com/joan-webster/
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

Hi Fintan,

Thank you for your kind words. After years of piecing Joan's case together, it became crystal clear the investigation was a hoax.

Unsolved Magazine is published by a private investigator. Everything in the article was vetted with the documents confirming every detail. There is no speculation.

I am not looking at motive at this point. No one denies there are bad actors in the system. Boston had an abundance at the time and current authorities are interested in shielding malfeasance instead of administering justice. I am focused on intent rather than motive. The intent of the four key individuals was to pin Joan's murder on a scapegoat. That is abundantly clear.

Projecting guilt is not new. Think of Susan Smith. Fintan, you also pointed to another Boston case, Carol Stuart. Her case was handled by Suffolk County, Tim Burke's office. No surprise, ADA John Dawley, current custodian of Joan's case, also had a connection to the Stuart case. Thank you for posting that article a few pages back.

Joan's case was corrupt. Then you have people like Bob Mueller overseeing aspects of Joan's case. It appears Mueller's function was to shield actions of authorities. Apparently, the system has their own mechanizations to justify anything the authorities do.

It leaves the most chilling question to answer. Why did George Webster, intend to pin the brutal murder of his daughter on someone he knew was not guilty of the crime?
User avatar
Fintan
Site Admin
Posts: 8867
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm
Contact:

eveknowsthetruth:

I am focused on intent rather than motive.

The intent of the four key individuals was
to pin Joan's murder on a scapegoat.
That's a key discrimination there: intent.

Because it would seem that regardless of the
still not prosecuted crime of the murder of Joan.....

There is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course
of justice
in the investigation by misdirecting and leading the inquiry
on an elaborate false trail.

Some of the acts committed in the course of this agenda may even
meet the threshold for accessory after-the-fact to murder. Only a
proper investigation of the perversion of justice can resolve that.

It's a separate criminal issue from the murder.

The officials can claim an insufficiency of evidence
to enable reopening the murder inquiry.

But there is no lack of evidence for the conspiracy to pervert justice.

And such an investigation might as a bonus resolve the murder.

So their stonewalling don't look so good, when the facts say that
"Tr. Andrew Palombo and Sgt. Carmen Tammaro both knew the
manner of Joan’s death
more than seven years prior to her
remains surfacing." That brings in Steven Broce and the others.

That's the sore thumb -sticking out. That's the red flag.

That fact is hard evidence of conspiracy to conceal or to murder.

These people don't have many vulnerabilities. But that's one.

You know like a tinned food can has a pull ring?

That prior knowledge is the pull ring that can draw
anybody into pulling the lid off this can of worms.
.
Last edited by Fintan on Tue May 26, 2020 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

Hi Fintan,

You hit the nail on the head. The key to resolving Joan's case is looking at the investigation itself.

Yes, conduct by authorities during the investigation should fall under the criminal code if justice is truly applied equally. Filing false documents to the courts, making false statements to federal authorities, fabricating evidence, putting forward false witnesses, and hiding exculpatory evidence are all felonies.

That makes part 2, getting the case properly reviewed, a daunting task. ADA John Dawley holds sole power. He knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. He advised I not probe so deeply. He was too late. Documents were scattered and hidden. I am sure no one thought anyone could get to the records, or make sense of them if they did. We are supposed to "trust" the authorities, and certainly who would ever challenge the Websters.

Is there complicity? Absolutely. These four individuals are persons of interest for Joan's murder, and/or an accessory after the fact. George Webster wished me to "DIE" for raising questions about the discrepancies in source documents. Dirty cops and dirty prosecutors are not unheard of. Involvement of the father of the murder victim is the most problematic for me. His intent was to blame a scapegoat for his daughter's brutal murder when he had exculpatory evidence to know the story was false.
User avatar
Fintan
Site Admin
Posts: 8867
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm
Contact:



Geoffrey Evans and accomplice John Shaw planned to rape and kill
one woman each week as they traveled around Ireland.


In August 1976, they repeatedly raped and murdered Elizabeth Plunkett, 23.
In September they beat, raped and murdered 24-year-old Mary Duffy.

On 26 September 1976, both were detained and later
sentenced to life imprisonment for the two murders.


That's the two serial killers whose twisted rape and murder spree plans
ended prematurely with my search of a forest and discovery of the shoe
of their first victim. Hours after the finding the shoe I briefed Gda. Ryan,
a fingerprint specialist on the Irish police's "murder squad" and a family friend.

That find triggered an immediate murder hunt which eventually caught
up with them just days after they had killed their second victim.

It's a quality documentary with a lot of content from Supt. John Courtney
who headed up the murder squad which caught and convicted the pair.

Life can place you somewhere when a hidden truth needs to be revealed.
My find was all that was needed to get the wheels of justice rolling fast.

And your information, Eve is all that was needed to spur justice into action.
But nothing has happened. Her murderers and their pals lived on, large.

It's incomprehensible. The vital and revealing information which you
have unearthed should have immediately unleashed the full investigation
power of the police against prime suspects.

The case should have been formally re-opened with attendant publicity.
Public appeals for information would be key - in the expectation that the
passage of time might dwell on the mind of potential sources.

Key individuals should have been interviewed and prime suspects should
have been confronted with the inconsistencies and leads you lay out so well.
Just to shake the trees and see what falls out.

These are standard tactics. Routinely used in cold cases.
But nothing happens. And nothing keeps on happening.

Joan Webster deserved justice no less than Elizabeth Plunkett or Mary Duffy.

Her blood is now on the hands of many.
On the hands of the murdering perpetrators.
And the hands of their accomplices after the fact.

It won't wash off with time.
.
Last edited by Fintan on Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

You are so right Fintan, a lot of people have blood on their hands in Joan's murder.

There is more than one crime here stemming from Joan's murder. To relive this nightmare has been more than difficult. Finding the facts versus what I was told has been absolutely numbing.

Finding the facts is very empowering. My resolve is more determined than ever.
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

On this date in 1982, the originator of the boat story was identified, Carmen Tammaro. He was not identified publicly, but it was documented. This was more than 4 months before Robert Bond surfaced and repeated the boat story.

Tammaro had knowledge of the eyewitness description of the offender that maneuvered Joan to a different car on November 28, 1981, at Logan Airport. The report was in police files.

Tammaro had verifiable connections to Leonard Paradiso, Andrew Palombo, Tim Burke, George Webster, and Robert Bond.

On January 10, 1983, Tammaro met with Robert Bond.

On January 10, 1983, Bond mailed a letter to his wife with an inner envelope addressed to Tim Burke with allegations about the boat story.

On January 14, 1983, Tammaro met with Robert Bond. The letter still had not arrived.

On January 28, 1983, the media broke the news that there was "break" in Joan's case referring to Bond's allegations that Leonard Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. This was the same story Tammaro alleged in August 1982.

Giving false information in a murder investigation is a felony. Tammaro was the source of a false story. The story was a hoax, a cover up. Source documents reveal there was nothing legitimate about the story. No Boat, fabricated evidence, hidden exculpatory evidence, false witnesses, a wrongful conviction in another case, and on and on.

So who was responsible for Joan's murder?

Any reasonable person can conclude that someone capable of such a heinous crime is going to try to avoid detection. Staying ahead of the curve of any legitimate investigation would be an advantage to the offender.

Robert Bond identified Tim Burke, Carmen Tammaro, and Andrew Palombo for making promises he relied on to tell his story. These are the individuals that met with Bond.

Bond identified another individual that sent people to see him, the man from NJ. Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammarro, the people Bond named, all worked closely with George Webster.

Tim Burke wrote a book full of falsehoods and misrepresentations, He wrote the book for the Websters with their support.

Joan's brother lied about an extortion incident documented in FBI and police records. It is important to look at other victims that might be associated with any of the individuals promoting the false boat story. There are serious allegations against Joan's brother in a letter I found.

The eyewitness description of the offender at Logan. He was much smaller in stature than Paradiso. The authorities and George Webster had this information in December 1981, and knew Paradiso was not the offender. Of the four individuals promoting the boat story, the physical description of the offender most closely matches George Webster. Joan knew the offender and willingly changed cars with him. The man had a suitcase, was travelling, The offender knew where Joan would be: her plans changed over the holiday break. There was more than one person involved, the driver of the second vehicle at Logan.

Joan had an item in her recovered belongings that may well have been a clue. On first glance, the item would not seem unusual. It is listed in FBI reports. But a police report identified what was written on the item. That is the unusual aspect. It deflected the normal course of reporting the found items. An offender wants to stay one step ahead.
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

Recovering documents was challenging. I noticed early on that documents were fragmented, not all consolidated in a single repository. That makes it difficult to follow the threads until you can assemble the pieces.

Trying to find truthful answers based on what the current custodian had in their possession was futile. Not only did they want to keep a lid on things, their files were also grossly deficient in relevant information. Trying to unravel Joan's case without other pieces is not possible.

Access to records from another source exposed some very troubling influence. The Websters went to Boston on December 2, 1981. They were later joined on December 4, 1981, by authorities from NJ. Another person was also present and was involved in interviews at Logan, passenger lists, etc. Jack McEwan was the head of ITT security, George's wheelhouse. McEwan would get his direction from George. On December 5, 1982, McEwan was specifically named as one of the people interviewing the cab pool.

McEwan did three things that stand out to me. First, after returning from Boston, McEwan contacted the local police concerned about a December 5, 1981, article in the Newark Star Ledger, that witnesses saw Joan speaking with a man at Logan. He claimed the police did not know that information. However, that turned out not to be true. Joan was seen by cabbie Fenton Allen Moore who gave a very good description. There was also corroborating information.

On December 21, 1981, Sgt Dugan in NJ received a call from Lt Murphy of the Harvard police at 10:10 am. Dugan was not in to take this call. A short time later, Dugan took a call at 11 am from McEwan. Secondly, McEwan said they would be putting together a composite based on a description from a psychic. At 11:20 am, Murphy called back with template numbers for the composite compiled from the cabbie description, an eyewitness. I am not big on coincidences, and this smells like a distraction to confuse the composite issue. The cabbie's lead was delivered to the Websters by officer Corcoran at 2 pm on December 21, 1981. Yet this lead was suppressed.

Robert Bond was the state's star witness that alleged the boat theory. Bond was the public face of the story that Sgt Carmen Tammaro alleged on August 1, 1982. Tammaro then coached the same story with Bond in January 1983 before the press reported a "break" in Joan's case on January 30, 1983. Tammaro was a central MSP figure that worked closely with George Webster, and was Tr Andrew Palombo's superior. During an interview, Bond claimed George sent people to see him.

There was corroborating evidence to support Bond's claim. Tammaro enticed Bond with the Webster reward money. George and Eleanor were both quoted touting Bond's credibility in the press. On November 24, 1982, the FBI reported negative fingerprint results for Paradiso in Joan's case. That was more exculpatory evidence ignored. Keep in mind, this was before Bond was introduced into the case. Bond did not have any contact with Paradiso at this time.

McEwan was involved again in a third concerning report. On November 30, 1982, Dugan met with McEwan for three hours reviewing Joan's case. McEwan requested a meeting with Dugan and a Webster investigator sometime in December. McEwan confirmed later that day to reserve December 8th or 9th, 1982, for the meeting. Bond was transferred from Walpole prison to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982. He was checked in and assigned to a cell on the third tier. He was later moved to a cell close to Paradiso. Again, I don't place credence in "coincidences."

These activities spearheaded by McEwan, George's facilitator, go all the way back to the beginning of Joan's case. I think I am well within justified concern that George Webster was involved in a cover up.

The final piece I will add here is an item recovered in Joan's purse. It is identified in FBI reports, and at first glance would not raise a red flag. However, a police report recovered from the current custodian a year ago added detail to the item that does seem unusual. The focus for most is what was missing from her purse, money and most likely keys. No one asked the question if something was slipped into her purse that would be found later.
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

It's been awhile since I posted, but I am still pressing to get a truthful resolve in Joan's case. The layer of the onion I am trying to peel back is the complicity of authorities to cover up Joan's murder.

https://carsonevee.medium.com/massachus ... 0c903e1095
eveknowsthetruth
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
Contact:

Joan's case was so complicated and chaotic. It was really sensation tried by tabloid. Unravelling it has been a monumental task. Sometimes it is easier to use cases currently in the news to add clarity to Joan's case.

Facts Brian Laundrie David Doyle

1. Witnesses observed scratches on the boyfriend. X X
2. Friends of the couple came forward and described a toxic relationship. X X
3. Witnesses observed a public argument between the couple. X X
4. The boyfriend claimed to try and hold the girlfriend off as if she was the aggressor. X X
5. The boyfriend's parents are an obstacle and appear to shield their son. X X
6. The girlfriend lived with the boyfriend in his parent's home. X X
7. The boyfriend took flight. X X
8. The authorities identified the boyfriend stealing. X X
9. The girlfriend's body is found in a rocky area near water, an area not easily visible to normal traffic. X X
10. The manner of the girlfriend's death is a homicide. X X
11. Cause of the girlfriend's death was strangulation. X X

This chart compares the Marie Iannuzzi murder with Gabby Petito's murder. Only a moron or a liar would deny that Brian Laundrie is a suspect, a prime suspect, the most likely suspect. During the Marie Iannuzzi trial, Andrew Palombo, the lead officer on both Marie and Joan's cases, said he didn't consider David Doyle a suspect in Marie's death. Tim Burke whitewashed, distorted, or dismissed all the circumstances pointing to Doyle as the culprit. George and Eleanor Webster sat in the courtroom and watched the whole charade. They went along with it.

The reason I emphasize Marie Iannuzzi's case is simple. This case was entangled with Joan's case: the same lead cop, the same prosecutor, the same suspect. Marie's case was the only bare thread to connect the cases based on three witnesses the state came up with. Patty Bono placed the anonymous call to the Saugus PD on or about January 20, 1982, implicating Paradiso in both crimes. She grew up with Carmen Tammaro, Andrew Palombo's superior officer. Robert Bond, the jailhouse snitch who repeated Carmen Tammaro's story that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat and dumped her in Boston Harbor. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared and she was found buried in Hamilton, MA. Ralph Anthony Pisa, once on death row, claimed two unverified conversations and claimed Paradiso confessed to both murders. Burke facilitated in getting Pisa out of jail.

Source documents support Burke gained a wrongful conviction in the Iannuzzi case. This case was a smokescreen to go after Paradiso in Joan's case. When you break the thread between the two cases, it becomes much clearer that this entire mess was on orchestrated cover up of what really happened to Joan. There is absolutely nothing connecting Paradiso with Joan.

On a second note, the recent reports now identify Alex Murdaugh as a person of interest for the murders of his wife and son. A prominent and well respected family had some serious secrets in their closet.
Post Reply