Thank you Fintan,
Certain experiences in life are branded into memory. You don't forget them. They are as vivid as if they were yesterday. In digging into Joan's case, I can see the strings controlling the investigation and who was pulling them.
I have a follow up on the current FOIA appeal. The responses I receive from the current custodian have taken a hostile tone. I am not surprised. They can't make excuses to explain away what is in front of them. Cornered dogs growl.
I am waiting to see how some current events end to bring some additional information to light. Bottom line is how much control a handful of individuals have to keep victims silent. MA is as corrupt now as it was when Joan's investigation was front page news.
When faced with adversity, you find out what you are made of. I have a backbone of steel, but more tears than you could ever imagine. The pieces all fit. Exposing the fraud Tim Burke perpetrated will bring the house of smoke and mirrors crashing down down.
Audio: Hot Facts For A Cold Case Murder
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
The key to resolving Joan's case is the investigation itself. It was sensational and chaotic. Source documents helped clear the smoke. But it leaves the question, what in the hell were authorities doing?
The Leonard Paradiso boat theory was a diversion. Why? Simple answer, it was a cover-up. How do you identify the offender(s)? The first step is identifying who had knowledge of the real evidence, but continued to promote a false explanation?
Start with the eyewitness description of the man who left Logan with Joan.
Here's the profile and what is known from the eyewitness report:
Middle-aged white male
Under 6'
Approximately 160 pounds
Dark hair
Wore eyeglasses
Beard
Carried a suitcase - travelling
Controlling - Exchanged words with cabbie
Joan knew the man
He was an authority figure to Joan
He knew where and when Joan would be at Logan
Had influence over authorities
Second, who were the individuals who continued to promote the boat theory, but had conflicting information?
The four identifiable individuals are Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tamarro, and George Webster.
Feel free to ask questions.
The Leonard Paradiso boat theory was a diversion. Why? Simple answer, it was a cover-up. How do you identify the offender(s)? The first step is identifying who had knowledge of the real evidence, but continued to promote a false explanation?
Start with the eyewitness description of the man who left Logan with Joan.
Here's the profile and what is known from the eyewitness report:
Middle-aged white male
Under 6'
Approximately 160 pounds
Dark hair
Wore eyeglasses
Beard
Carried a suitcase - travelling
Controlling - Exchanged words with cabbie
Joan knew the man
He was an authority figure to Joan
He knew where and when Joan would be at Logan
Had influence over authorities
Second, who were the individuals who continued to promote the boat theory, but had conflicting information?
The four identifiable individuals are Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tamarro, and George Webster.
Feel free to ask questions.
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
There are some very simple and logical questions that help focus on who was responsible for Joan's loss.
1. Who had knowledge of the eyewitness description from the Town Taxi cabbie in December 1981?
Three names stand out: Carmen Tamarro and Andrew Palombo assigned to the F Barracks at Logan. George Websteer received the lead in December 1981. There is no evidence Tim Burke touched this case until February 1982.
2. Why was this lead suppressed?
The logical answer is they did not want people to find this person.
3. When was Leonard Paradiso viewed as a suspect?
On or about January 20, 1982, Patty Bono placed an anonymous call to the Saugus PD implicating Paradiso in the 1979 Marie Iannuzzi murder and the disappearance of Joan? Tamarro coordinated the different departments. It is reasonable Tamarro and Palombo knew about the call. Tim Burke later confirmed his knowledge and identified Bono. He affirmed the information was communicated to to George Webster. Burke would have known when he joined the team against Paradiso in February 1982. Burke was working on Paradiso related matters in February 1982.
4. Is there evidence Paradiso was being targeted by authorities?
Yes. Burke convenes a grand jury in the Iannuzzi case on March 5, 1982. The evidence implicated the boyfriend David Doyle. On March 11, 1982, a MSP officer informed Paradiso's parole officer Paradiso was a suspect in a new Boston crime, Joan Webster. Authorities did a fingerprint comparison on November 5, 1982, comparing a print in Joan's case to LP. Authorities received a negative match on November 24, 1982.
5. When was Robert Bond, the state's star witness, introduced?
Bond was transferred to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982. His cell was on the third tier, but he was moved and positioned near Paradiso. Tim Burke claimed Bond sent him an unsolicited letter on or about January 5, 1983. Based on receiving the letter, Burke claims he set up an interview with the MSP that was conducted on January 14, 1983. Burke and Palombo filed numerous documents with the court stating the letter was the basis for investigating Paradiso. Burke and Palombo perpetrated a fraud on the courts. Burke did not have a letter from Bond. The letter came after two identified meetings the MSP had with Bond on January 10, 1983, and Janaury 14, 1983. Palombo and Tamarro are identified in those meetings. The letter was mailed on January 10, 1983 and had not arrived by the meeting on the 14th.
6. Why bring in a snitch and manufacture a story a year after the authorities had Paradiso in their sights?
Simple answer, covering up what really happened and set up a scape goat.
7. Did Bond know the manner of death?
No. He offered the choice of strangulation or a blow to the head during the interview on January 14, 1983.
8. Did Bond know where Paradiso previously moored his boat?
On January 14, 1983, Bond had no clue where Paradiso moored his boat and said if he got it wrong it was on the MSP.
9. Did the interview differ from the written statement?
Yes. Bond detailed the blow to the head with correct detail as the manner of death. He was clear where Paradiso moored his boat.
10. Were promises made to Bond?
Yes. Bond was offered help to get a retrial for his murder charge, attorney of his choice, he was offered a manslaughter charge, and enticed with Webster reward money. During his retrial, Bond filed a motion naming the people who made promises he relied on: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and "Bill," (probably court officer John Gillam who was present in meetings with Bond.)
11. Who had knowledge of the bankruptcy case regarding the status of Paradiso's boat, the alleged crime scene?
Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster are identified in source documents. It is reasonable Palombo's superior, Carmen Tammaro also knew. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.
12. Who maintained the Paradiso/boat theory contrary to the evidence?
Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster all had conflicting evidence, but maintained the boat scenario.
This scenario was fabricated. To me, cover-up is the only logical explanation for the facts in the source documents. So who knew what happened to Joan? Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tamarro introduced the correct manner of death with correct detail filtered through a snitch. George Webster had knowledge of the facts such as the cabbie lead, and the status of the boat. Whether Burke figured it out or not is unknown. I believe he was enlisted and manipulated. He certainly knew he was bringing false witnesses, and fabricated evidence.
Those central to the investigation were endeavoring to cover it up and pin it on a scapegoat. I have provided my conclusions based on source documents. Feel free to offer your thought.
1. Who had knowledge of the eyewitness description from the Town Taxi cabbie in December 1981?
Three names stand out: Carmen Tamarro and Andrew Palombo assigned to the F Barracks at Logan. George Websteer received the lead in December 1981. There is no evidence Tim Burke touched this case until February 1982.
2. Why was this lead suppressed?
The logical answer is they did not want people to find this person.
3. When was Leonard Paradiso viewed as a suspect?
On or about January 20, 1982, Patty Bono placed an anonymous call to the Saugus PD implicating Paradiso in the 1979 Marie Iannuzzi murder and the disappearance of Joan? Tamarro coordinated the different departments. It is reasonable Tamarro and Palombo knew about the call. Tim Burke later confirmed his knowledge and identified Bono. He affirmed the information was communicated to to George Webster. Burke would have known when he joined the team against Paradiso in February 1982. Burke was working on Paradiso related matters in February 1982.
4. Is there evidence Paradiso was being targeted by authorities?
Yes. Burke convenes a grand jury in the Iannuzzi case on March 5, 1982. The evidence implicated the boyfriend David Doyle. On March 11, 1982, a MSP officer informed Paradiso's parole officer Paradiso was a suspect in a new Boston crime, Joan Webster. Authorities did a fingerprint comparison on November 5, 1982, comparing a print in Joan's case to LP. Authorities received a negative match on November 24, 1982.
5. When was Robert Bond, the state's star witness, introduced?
Bond was transferred to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982. His cell was on the third tier, but he was moved and positioned near Paradiso. Tim Burke claimed Bond sent him an unsolicited letter on or about January 5, 1983. Based on receiving the letter, Burke claims he set up an interview with the MSP that was conducted on January 14, 1983. Burke and Palombo filed numerous documents with the court stating the letter was the basis for investigating Paradiso. Burke and Palombo perpetrated a fraud on the courts. Burke did not have a letter from Bond. The letter came after two identified meetings the MSP had with Bond on January 10, 1983, and Janaury 14, 1983. Palombo and Tamarro are identified in those meetings. The letter was mailed on January 10, 1983 and had not arrived by the meeting on the 14th.
6. Why bring in a snitch and manufacture a story a year after the authorities had Paradiso in their sights?
Simple answer, covering up what really happened and set up a scape goat.
7. Did Bond know the manner of death?
No. He offered the choice of strangulation or a blow to the head during the interview on January 14, 1983.
8. Did Bond know where Paradiso previously moored his boat?
On January 14, 1983, Bond had no clue where Paradiso moored his boat and said if he got it wrong it was on the MSP.
9. Did the interview differ from the written statement?
Yes. Bond detailed the blow to the head with correct detail as the manner of death. He was clear where Paradiso moored his boat.
10. Were promises made to Bond?
Yes. Bond was offered help to get a retrial for his murder charge, attorney of his choice, he was offered a manslaughter charge, and enticed with Webster reward money. During his retrial, Bond filed a motion naming the people who made promises he relied on: Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and "Bill," (probably court officer John Gillam who was present in meetings with Bond.)
11. Who had knowledge of the bankruptcy case regarding the status of Paradiso's boat, the alleged crime scene?
Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster are identified in source documents. It is reasonable Palombo's superior, Carmen Tammaro also knew. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.
12. Who maintained the Paradiso/boat theory contrary to the evidence?
Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster all had conflicting evidence, but maintained the boat scenario.
This scenario was fabricated. To me, cover-up is the only logical explanation for the facts in the source documents. So who knew what happened to Joan? Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tamarro introduced the correct manner of death with correct detail filtered through a snitch. George Webster had knowledge of the facts such as the cabbie lead, and the status of the boat. Whether Burke figured it out or not is unknown. I believe he was enlisted and manipulated. He certainly knew he was bringing false witnesses, and fabricated evidence.
Those central to the investigation were endeavoring to cover it up and pin it on a scapegoat. I have provided my conclusions based on source documents. Feel free to offer your thought.
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
There are four names to focus on, Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster. At best, all of these individuals were complicit to cover up Joan's murder. Let me take them one at a time.
Tim Burke:
Young prosecutor in Suffolk County who began handling cold cases in September 1981. The earliest indication he was part of the team targeting Paradiso was February 1982. He was married with a young child. He knowingly presented false documents, false evidence, and false witnesses to the courts, He gained a conviction of Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case with a very distorted account. Sourcee documents support this was a wrongful conviction. He instigated the bankruptcy fraud case against Paradiso with the boat, the alleged crime scene, as a central component. He left the Suffolk County DAO in September 1985 with a very plumb contract representing the MSP and police unions.
Eyewitness descriptions can be very subjective, but there are some guidelines to help find the offender. Burke might have fit the physical size of the offender. It would be stretching it for him to be seen as middle aged. At the time, he had a moustache. Burke did not know Joan. There is no indication Burke was travelling, but he would have been with his family over Thanksgiving weekend if he had. He had brown hair and wore glasses. I can't say how much influence he had, but he would not be someone in a position representing authority to Joan.
I view Tim Burke as someone others could manipulate. His involvement began when he was assigned to the case at the Webster meeting in February 1982. He was complicit after-the-fact.
Tim Burke:
Young prosecutor in Suffolk County who began handling cold cases in September 1981. The earliest indication he was part of the team targeting Paradiso was February 1982. He was married with a young child. He knowingly presented false documents, false evidence, and false witnesses to the courts, He gained a conviction of Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case with a very distorted account. Sourcee documents support this was a wrongful conviction. He instigated the bankruptcy fraud case against Paradiso with the boat, the alleged crime scene, as a central component. He left the Suffolk County DAO in September 1985 with a very plumb contract representing the MSP and police unions.
Eyewitness descriptions can be very subjective, but there are some guidelines to help find the offender. Burke might have fit the physical size of the offender. It would be stretching it for him to be seen as middle aged. At the time, he had a moustache. Burke did not know Joan. There is no indication Burke was travelling, but he would have been with his family over Thanksgiving weekend if he had. He had brown hair and wore glasses. I can't say how much influence he had, but he would not be someone in a position representing authority to Joan.
I view Tim Burke as someone others could manipulate. His involvement began when he was assigned to the case at the Webster meeting in February 1982. He was complicit after-the-fact.
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
There are four names to focus on, Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster. At best, all of these individuals were complicit to cover up Joan's murder. Let me take them one at a time.
Carmen Tamarro:
Tamarro was a sergent with the MSP assigned to F Barracks at Logan Airport. Tamarro was involved from the beginning. According to contemporaneous reports, Eleanor Webster contacted him, and he coordinated between the different departments that got involved in Joan's investigation. He would have knowledge of the eyewitness lead in December 1981. Tamarro knew Paradiso growing up in the North End of Boston. Tamarro also knew Patty Bono growing up in the NE. She was the woman who placed the anonymous call to the Saugus PD in January 1982, implicating Paradiso for Marie Iannuzzi's murder and Joan's disappearance. He worked closely with the Websters from the beginning.
Paradiso documented a meeting with Tamarro on August 1, 1982, at the Charles Street Jail. This was three weeks after police arrested Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Tamarro suggested Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. The date is very significant, months before the state produced a witness with the same accusations. Tamarro was Palombo's superior, the lead officer on the Iannuzzi case. The meeting three weeks after the arrest was corroborated in the statement Tamarro brought forward from the state's witness Robert Bond.
Tamarro is identified in two meetings with Bond, January 10 & 14, 1983. Bond did not know Joan's manner of death, or where Paradiso had moored his boat. The written letter was produced after those meetings, contrary to documents submitted to the courts. Tamarro guided this witness and the letter that was produced cleared Bond's confusion. The letter contained the correct manner of death with correct detail.
Tamarro is identified knowing the correct manner of death and would have been instrumental in concealing the eyewitness description.
Tamarro had dark hair, no glasses or facial hair. He was well over 6'. Nothiing indicates Joan knew Tamarro. Nothing indicates Tamarro was travelling at the time. As an officer, he would represent authority, but Joan would not transfer cars with a police officer unless she was being arrested; she was not.
Tamarro is complicit; he suppressed the eyewitness lead, he suggested his same accusation about the boat months before state witness Bond, he produced a statement filtered through Bond with the correct manner of death. He was complicit early on, but it is not certain he had knowledge prior to Joan's murder.
Carmen Tamarro:
Tamarro was a sergent with the MSP assigned to F Barracks at Logan Airport. Tamarro was involved from the beginning. According to contemporaneous reports, Eleanor Webster contacted him, and he coordinated between the different departments that got involved in Joan's investigation. He would have knowledge of the eyewitness lead in December 1981. Tamarro knew Paradiso growing up in the North End of Boston. Tamarro also knew Patty Bono growing up in the NE. She was the woman who placed the anonymous call to the Saugus PD in January 1982, implicating Paradiso for Marie Iannuzzi's murder and Joan's disappearance. He worked closely with the Websters from the beginning.
Paradiso documented a meeting with Tamarro on August 1, 1982, at the Charles Street Jail. This was three weeks after police arrested Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. Tamarro suggested Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. The date is very significant, months before the state produced a witness with the same accusations. Tamarro was Palombo's superior, the lead officer on the Iannuzzi case. The meeting three weeks after the arrest was corroborated in the statement Tamarro brought forward from the state's witness Robert Bond.
Tamarro is identified in two meetings with Bond, January 10 & 14, 1983. Bond did not know Joan's manner of death, or where Paradiso had moored his boat. The written letter was produced after those meetings, contrary to documents submitted to the courts. Tamarro guided this witness and the letter that was produced cleared Bond's confusion. The letter contained the correct manner of death with correct detail.
Tamarro is identified knowing the correct manner of death and would have been instrumental in concealing the eyewitness description.
Tamarro had dark hair, no glasses or facial hair. He was well over 6'. Nothiing indicates Joan knew Tamarro. Nothing indicates Tamarro was travelling at the time. As an officer, he would represent authority, but Joan would not transfer cars with a police officer unless she was being arrested; she was not.
Tamarro is complicit; he suppressed the eyewitness lead, he suggested his same accusation about the boat months before state witness Bond, he produced a statement filtered through Bond with the correct manner of death. He was complicit early on, but it is not certain he had knowledge prior to Joan's murder.
Absolutely clear.
This is a great format.
Laying it all out step by step.
No escaping the rational conclusions.
Leaving nowhere for the guilty to hide.
Building a solid line of argument to ID the perp,
and a compelling case for the cover-up.
Bring it on, Eve.
This is a great format.
Laying it all out step by step.
No escaping the rational conclusions.
Leaving nowhere for the guilty to hide.
Building a solid line of argument to ID the perp,
and a compelling case for the cover-up.
Bring it on, Eve.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
They only function when open.
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
Investigators looking at any case will not know things unless they are told. Even the smallest detail can pull the case together. In Joan's case, I was surprised what was missing. Now that I have a much better understanding of the investigation, I am concerned.
Joan's purse and wallet were found. The only thing missing, according to reports, was the cash. Joan's suitcase was found. The FBI lab indicated it had not been disturbed. The tote bag and contents were never recovered.
On the night Joan travelled, she was dressed up. She absolutely wore her gold charm bracelet and other jewelry items. She wore a black skirt, red print blouse, brown knee high boots, a brown Chesterfield coat, and a navy blue neck scarf. When the remains surfaced, all of the clothing was stripped. None of the clothing she wore was ever found. Not a trace.
There were two pieces of jewelry on the skeleton, a gold neck chain and a gold and amethyst ring. At some point Joan might have taken the bracelet off and put it in her purse or tote. The purse seems much more reasonable to me. It could drop out of a tote bag. The bracelet was identifiable. There was a silhouette charm with Joan's initials and birthdate. For the sake of discussion, I will assume she took it off and the offender took it from her purse or with the tote. It has never turned up.
But there is one piece of jewelry that baffled me, her signet ring. She always wore it. Since there was a ring on the skeleton, I think it's fair to say she would not have removed the signet ring. It was a small gold ring with her initials. It is another indicator to me that Joan knew the offender. A thief might take the bracelet, but why be selective to take one ring and leave a ring that had a stone? The pieces that were missing were the items that were positively identified.
When I first started to recover records, I noticed something else that was missing. Police checked calls on the home number in NJ. However, the second number into the home was not anywhere in the police records. No one checked that number. An investigator would not know there was a second number unless someone told them or did some digging with the phone company to find out.
No clothes, no identifiable jewelry, and a secreted phone number. The devil is in the details.
Joan's purse and wallet were found. The only thing missing, according to reports, was the cash. Joan's suitcase was found. The FBI lab indicated it had not been disturbed. The tote bag and contents were never recovered.
On the night Joan travelled, she was dressed up. She absolutely wore her gold charm bracelet and other jewelry items. She wore a black skirt, red print blouse, brown knee high boots, a brown Chesterfield coat, and a navy blue neck scarf. When the remains surfaced, all of the clothing was stripped. None of the clothing she wore was ever found. Not a trace.
There were two pieces of jewelry on the skeleton, a gold neck chain and a gold and amethyst ring. At some point Joan might have taken the bracelet off and put it in her purse or tote. The purse seems much more reasonable to me. It could drop out of a tote bag. The bracelet was identifiable. There was a silhouette charm with Joan's initials and birthdate. For the sake of discussion, I will assume she took it off and the offender took it from her purse or with the tote. It has never turned up.
But there is one piece of jewelry that baffled me, her signet ring. She always wore it. Since there was a ring on the skeleton, I think it's fair to say she would not have removed the signet ring. It was a small gold ring with her initials. It is another indicator to me that Joan knew the offender. A thief might take the bracelet, but why be selective to take one ring and leave a ring that had a stone? The pieces that were missing were the items that were positively identified.
When I first started to recover records, I noticed something else that was missing. Police checked calls on the home number in NJ. However, the second number into the home was not anywhere in the police records. No one checked that number. An investigator would not know there was a second number unless someone told them or did some digging with the phone company to find out.
No clothes, no identifiable jewelry, and a secreted phone number. The devil is in the details.
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
There are four names to focus on, Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster. At best, all of these individuals were complicit to cover up Joan's murder. Let me take them one at a time.
Andrew Palombo:
Palombo was a MSP trooper assigned to F Barracks at Logan Airport. He worked as an undercover cop. Carmen Tamarro was his superior officer. Palombo was assigned as the lead officer in the Marie Iannuzzi murder in February 1981, many months before Joan's disappearance. He replaced Carl Sjoberg, the officer that spread speculation to Paradiso's parole officer on March 11, 1982. He was friends with the prime suspect in Marie's 1979 murder, her boyfriend David Doyle. That is verified by a Doyle family member. Palombo knew Paradiso and his vulnerabilities. Palombo was married with four young daughters and lived in Peabody, MA at the time.
Palombo was the arresting officer on July 6, 1982, charging Paradiso with Marie's murder. This is several month before the state witness Robert Bond, and three weeks before the documented meeting with Tamarro, Palombo's superior, alleging Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. Palombo would have knowledge of Joan's case from the start and was involved in matters focused on Paradiso for months before Joan disappeared. Palombo had knowledge of the Iannuzzi files, and exculpatory evidence favoring Paradiso.
Palombo would have knowledge of the eyewitness description of the man seen with Joan in December 1981. His superior was integral to suppress the lead. The description was not Paradiso. Palombo also had knowledge of the federal bankruptcy case, he is named in documents providing evidence and testimony. Judge Selya presided over the case in 1985 and affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene did not exist when Joan disappeared. Contemporaneous media reported the boat was gone when the Bond allegations first came out, but Palombo ignored it to promote the alleged crime.
Palombo filed false documents with the courts claiming Burke received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983. He claimed meetings were then arranged with the MSP based on the letter. The interview with the MSP on January 14, 1983, affirmed the Bond letter had not arrived. Palombo perpetrated a fraud on the courts to obtain warrants and continue to implicate Paradiso in numerous crimes. Palombo also collaborated with SA Steve Broce to influence the bankruptcy case involving the boat. He provided a fake boat registration along with a valid one.
Palombo was all over the place, testifying and talking to the media, making all sorts of unfounded claims against Paradiso. Palombo testified in the Iannuzzi pretrial trying to get Joan's name into the case even though there was no known similarity in the cases. Palombo was extremely aggressive on several fronts to implicate Paradiso for Joan's loss.
Palombo was involved obtaining a false statement from Bond. The written statement came after the MSP interview on the 14th. Bond provided a choice for the manner of death. The written statement gives the correct manner of death with correct detail seven years before Joan surfaced. Palombo had knowledge only known to the offender or complicit party, how Joan died.
Palombo was a very big man. He was 6'4" and weighed 240 pounds. If he showed a badge, he would be an authority figure. He had long hair and a beard. He is pictured in shades riding his motorcycle. There is no evidence Joan knew Palombo, and he is not someone she would leave the airport with. He looked like a thug or member of a motorcycle gang. There is no indication he was travelling. He was not the man described with Joan at Logan. There is no description of the man driving the blue car that Joan and the bearded man transferred to.
Offenders operate in areas where they are familiar and comfortable. Palombo worked at Logan, the last place Joan was seen alive. Her purse was tossed in a marshy dumping ground along Route 107. Palombo was familiar with the area. It was the same vicinity where Marie Iannuzzi's body was found in 1979; Palombo was lead cop on the case. Joan's purse was on the opposite side, southbound toward Logan. The main route to Logan from Palombo's house went down Broadway Street and turned onto Route 107 headed south. He lived just west of a 12 alarm fire that was burning in Lynn, MA from about 2:30 am on November 28, 1981, and continued for two weeks. Palombo could avoid the barricades set up because of the fire and move north in the direction of the gravesite.
There is a Janusry 1982 police report documenting a young woman who received a ride from an undercover cop from the Grehound Bus Station to Trailways. He was in an unmarked car parked in a restricted area, Joan's suitcase turned up at the same Greyhound Bus Station on January 29, 1982.
Joan's body surfaced on Chebacco Road in Hamilton, MA. It is a remote and heavily wooded area. The road is very rutted, narrow, and graveled getting back into this area. It was an area known for criminal activity and an area where bikers (motorcyclists) hung out. The Hamilton police chief affirmed Palombo knew this area. He lived on Lynn Road in Peabody, MA, two blocks from the on ramp to Route 128, and minutes from exit 16 that goes back into the Chebacco Road area. All the while, Joan was buried very close to Palombo's house, Palombo declared she was murdered on Paradiso's boat, contrary to known evidence, and dumped in Boston Harbor.
Palombo had knowledge of the suppressed lead in December 1981. He met with Bond to develop his statement. He had knowledge of the manner of death. Known facts in Joan's case, identifiable points, are all familiar to Palombo. He was extremely aggressive to implicate Paradiso in multiple crimes contrary to known evidence. His superior had his back. Palombo filed fraudulent documents with the courts, hid exculpatory evidence, fabricated evidence, and brought forward false witnesses.
The evidence points to Palombo being involved in Joan's murder. He did not act alone; he did not know Joan. Palombo apparently took his direction or was enticed by the bearded man with the heavy suitcase.
Andrew Palombo:
Palombo was a MSP trooper assigned to F Barracks at Logan Airport. He worked as an undercover cop. Carmen Tamarro was his superior officer. Palombo was assigned as the lead officer in the Marie Iannuzzi murder in February 1981, many months before Joan's disappearance. He replaced Carl Sjoberg, the officer that spread speculation to Paradiso's parole officer on March 11, 1982. He was friends with the prime suspect in Marie's 1979 murder, her boyfriend David Doyle. That is verified by a Doyle family member. Palombo knew Paradiso and his vulnerabilities. Palombo was married with four young daughters and lived in Peabody, MA at the time.
Palombo was the arresting officer on July 6, 1982, charging Paradiso with Marie's murder. This is several month before the state witness Robert Bond, and three weeks before the documented meeting with Tamarro, Palombo's superior, alleging Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. Palombo would have knowledge of Joan's case from the start and was involved in matters focused on Paradiso for months before Joan disappeared. Palombo had knowledge of the Iannuzzi files, and exculpatory evidence favoring Paradiso.
Palombo would have knowledge of the eyewitness description of the man seen with Joan in December 1981. His superior was integral to suppress the lead. The description was not Paradiso. Palombo also had knowledge of the federal bankruptcy case, he is named in documents providing evidence and testimony. Judge Selya presided over the case in 1985 and affirmed the boat, the alleged crime scene did not exist when Joan disappeared. Contemporaneous media reported the boat was gone when the Bond allegations first came out, but Palombo ignored it to promote the alleged crime.
Palombo filed false documents with the courts claiming Burke received an unsolicited letter from Bond on January 5, 1983. He claimed meetings were then arranged with the MSP based on the letter. The interview with the MSP on January 14, 1983, affirmed the Bond letter had not arrived. Palombo perpetrated a fraud on the courts to obtain warrants and continue to implicate Paradiso in numerous crimes. Palombo also collaborated with SA Steve Broce to influence the bankruptcy case involving the boat. He provided a fake boat registration along with a valid one.
Palombo was all over the place, testifying and talking to the media, making all sorts of unfounded claims against Paradiso. Palombo testified in the Iannuzzi pretrial trying to get Joan's name into the case even though there was no known similarity in the cases. Palombo was extremely aggressive on several fronts to implicate Paradiso for Joan's loss.
Palombo was involved obtaining a false statement from Bond. The written statement came after the MSP interview on the 14th. Bond provided a choice for the manner of death. The written statement gives the correct manner of death with correct detail seven years before Joan surfaced. Palombo had knowledge only known to the offender or complicit party, how Joan died.
Palombo was a very big man. He was 6'4" and weighed 240 pounds. If he showed a badge, he would be an authority figure. He had long hair and a beard. He is pictured in shades riding his motorcycle. There is no evidence Joan knew Palombo, and he is not someone she would leave the airport with. He looked like a thug or member of a motorcycle gang. There is no indication he was travelling. He was not the man described with Joan at Logan. There is no description of the man driving the blue car that Joan and the bearded man transferred to.
Offenders operate in areas where they are familiar and comfortable. Palombo worked at Logan, the last place Joan was seen alive. Her purse was tossed in a marshy dumping ground along Route 107. Palombo was familiar with the area. It was the same vicinity where Marie Iannuzzi's body was found in 1979; Palombo was lead cop on the case. Joan's purse was on the opposite side, southbound toward Logan. The main route to Logan from Palombo's house went down Broadway Street and turned onto Route 107 headed south. He lived just west of a 12 alarm fire that was burning in Lynn, MA from about 2:30 am on November 28, 1981, and continued for two weeks. Palombo could avoid the barricades set up because of the fire and move north in the direction of the gravesite.
There is a Janusry 1982 police report documenting a young woman who received a ride from an undercover cop from the Grehound Bus Station to Trailways. He was in an unmarked car parked in a restricted area, Joan's suitcase turned up at the same Greyhound Bus Station on January 29, 1982.
Joan's body surfaced on Chebacco Road in Hamilton, MA. It is a remote and heavily wooded area. The road is very rutted, narrow, and graveled getting back into this area. It was an area known for criminal activity and an area where bikers (motorcyclists) hung out. The Hamilton police chief affirmed Palombo knew this area. He lived on Lynn Road in Peabody, MA, two blocks from the on ramp to Route 128, and minutes from exit 16 that goes back into the Chebacco Road area. All the while, Joan was buried very close to Palombo's house, Palombo declared she was murdered on Paradiso's boat, contrary to known evidence, and dumped in Boston Harbor.
Palombo had knowledge of the suppressed lead in December 1981. He met with Bond to develop his statement. He had knowledge of the manner of death. Known facts in Joan's case, identifiable points, are all familiar to Palombo. He was extremely aggressive to implicate Paradiso in multiple crimes contrary to known evidence. His superior had his back. Palombo filed fraudulent documents with the courts, hid exculpatory evidence, fabricated evidence, and brought forward false witnesses.
The evidence points to Palombo being involved in Joan's murder. He did not act alone; he did not know Joan. Palombo apparently took his direction or was enticed by the bearded man with the heavy suitcase.
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
Step one was stripping away what was false - Paradiso did not murder Joan on a boat that did not exist. Authorities knowingly perpetrated a fraud on the courts, federal authorities, and the public. Their actions diverted the investigation and allowed the offender(s) to avoid detection. They left people vulnerable.
There are things that are obvious. George knew Joan. He knew where and when she was going to be. He was an authority figure to Joan. This is a very patriarchal family and George was the person in charge. George was active in the investigation, albeit sometimes behind the scenes. He worked closely with Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tamarro. He was very influential. George often made himself available for comments to the press.
The home phone was checked for calls and is documented in police records. The second number at their home was not checked. There is no indication the number was provided.
Source documents affirm George knew about the eyewitness lead of the man at Logan seen with Joan. The lead was never made public. I do not know if Steve and Anne were ever told about the lead; I was not. After the lead was in his possession in December 1981, George continued to make public statements to the press there were no leads. To me, this is not reasonable.
Source documents affirm George was in contact with the DOJ in MA and knew about the federal bankruptcy case. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed, based on undisputed evidence, the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. After the case, the story continued to appear in the press that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.
George visited the gravesite in 1990 after Joan surfaced. The site is more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene and inconsistent with the explanation promoted. In the press conference following, George would not answer why he was convinced of Paradiso's guilt. In prior interviews, George touted Robert Bond's credibility.
When Burke announced his publication, the Websters are quoted in the press cooperating with Burke's book. Burke published a graphic description of rape and murder on Paradiso's boat with the support of the Websters.
The documents reveal what George knew and when. I cannot reconcile what he knew with what he supports as the explanation for Joan's loss.
George does fit the physical stature of the man seen with Joan at Logan. At the time, he was a middle-aged white male, under 6' and approximately 160 lbs. George had dark hair and glasses. He had different pairs of glasses. One pair was wire rims with rounded corners. George had no facial hair, no moustache or beard.
George was travelling during this time. My personal recollection was feeling terrible for Eleanor being alone when Joan's classmate called to tell her Joan had not returned to school. My recollection is corroborated by a statement Eleanor made to the press.
Of the four central figures promoting the boat scenario, George is the only one who knew Joan.
- There are four names to focus on, Tim Burke, Carmen Tamarro, Andrew Palombo, and George Webster. At best, all of these individuals were complicit to cover up Joan's murder. Let me take them one at a time.
There are things that are obvious. George knew Joan. He knew where and when she was going to be. He was an authority figure to Joan. This is a very patriarchal family and George was the person in charge. George was active in the investigation, albeit sometimes behind the scenes. He worked closely with Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tamarro. He was very influential. George often made himself available for comments to the press.
The home phone was checked for calls and is documented in police records. The second number at their home was not checked. There is no indication the number was provided.
Source documents affirm George knew about the eyewitness lead of the man at Logan seen with Joan. The lead was never made public. I do not know if Steve and Anne were ever told about the lead; I was not. After the lead was in his possession in December 1981, George continued to make public statements to the press there were no leads. To me, this is not reasonable.
Source documents affirm George was in contact with the DOJ in MA and knew about the federal bankruptcy case. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed, based on undisputed evidence, the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. After the case, the story continued to appear in the press that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.
George visited the gravesite in 1990 after Joan surfaced. The site is more than 30 miles from the alleged crime scene and inconsistent with the explanation promoted. In the press conference following, George would not answer why he was convinced of Paradiso's guilt. In prior interviews, George touted Robert Bond's credibility.
When Burke announced his publication, the Websters are quoted in the press cooperating with Burke's book. Burke published a graphic description of rape and murder on Paradiso's boat with the support of the Websters.
The documents reveal what George knew and when. I cannot reconcile what he knew with what he supports as the explanation for Joan's loss.
George does fit the physical stature of the man seen with Joan at Logan. At the time, he was a middle-aged white male, under 6' and approximately 160 lbs. George had dark hair and glasses. He had different pairs of glasses. One pair was wire rims with rounded corners. George had no facial hair, no moustache or beard.
George was travelling during this time. My personal recollection was feeling terrible for Eleanor being alone when Joan's classmate called to tell her Joan had not returned to school. My recollection is corroborated by a statement Eleanor made to the press.
Of the four central figures promoting the boat scenario, George is the only one who knew Joan.
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
When I started digging into Joan's case, I found a lot of documented cases in MA that were complicated or compromised because of malfeasance in the system. I do not believe that is a reflection of everyone in law enforcement or the legal system. It only takes a few bad actors to pervert justice. Current authorities deny justice to the victim(s) by circling the wagons to shield misconduct.
That's what is going on here. The key to resolving Joan's case was uncovering the deliberate diversion of the investigation. It was a cover up. This kind of misconduct destroys lives and causes irreparable harm. That is precisely what happened in Joan's case.
Of all the disturbing examples of Massachusetts dysfunctional system, one case stands out as comparable to Joan's case, Chappaquiddick. The manner of Mary Jo Kopechne's death was different from Joan's, but the system in place concealed the facts and obstructed justice. Ted Kennedy did not escape scrutiny entirely, but what took place, and the secrets still buried, were to help preserve his image. Kennedy escaped consequences for his actions.
Joan's killer has avoided detection because of the actions of a few bad actors who were in charge of her investigation.
Here are the four names that promoted a false explanation for Joan's loss:
Tim Burke
Andrew Palombo
Carmen Tammaro
George Webster
That's what is going on here. The key to resolving Joan's case was uncovering the deliberate diversion of the investigation. It was a cover up. This kind of misconduct destroys lives and causes irreparable harm. That is precisely what happened in Joan's case.
Of all the disturbing examples of Massachusetts dysfunctional system, one case stands out as comparable to Joan's case, Chappaquiddick. The manner of Mary Jo Kopechne's death was different from Joan's, but the system in place concealed the facts and obstructed justice. Ted Kennedy did not escape scrutiny entirely, but what took place, and the secrets still buried, were to help preserve his image. Kennedy escaped consequences for his actions.
Joan's killer has avoided detection because of the actions of a few bad actors who were in charge of her investigation.
Here are the four names that promoted a false explanation for Joan's loss:
Tim Burke
Andrew Palombo
Carmen Tammaro
George Webster
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
Stories in the news this past week really demonstrate the need to get to the facts. It is easy for people to jump on a bandwagon when they are presented with an image or information out of context or incomplete. It is very destructive.
That's what I have done in Joan's case. Through FOIA's, a private investigator, attorneys, interviews, etc, I have been able to get to information that was very fragmented, and put the pieces of Joan's case together to get a clear picture of what happened in the investigation. What I bring forward is verified in source documents. The records say what they say in black and white, and they cannot be ignored. First, the investigation was deliberately diverted ignoring known facts. Now, malfeasance is shielded. The victim(s), Joan and others, were denied justice.
Justice can be administered in many ways. Nothing will bring Joan back or change things that have happened, but abuse of authority needs to be exposed.
Two people who have some association with Joan or her case were in the national news this week. One was a friend of Joan's. The other relates to the individual Paul Leary called in July 1983.
The story about Joan's friend was positive. I know this person and was happy to see the well-deserved accolades. His name did come up reviewing Joan's investigation. His planned trip to visit Joan in NJ over Thanksgiving was cancelled.
The other story was about a person in a position of authority and influence who touched Joan's case. The story involving this person underscores why he was called back in 1983, his methods to gain a desired or predetermined outcome. His actions reflect what I found in source documents, pressure and intimidation tactics to get the story they wanted. Again, this individual ignored the facts.
The pressure applied to Paradiso was overkill to implicate him for multiple crimes. Known facts and evidence were ignored for a desired outcome. The bottom line in Joan's case is to uncover who was responsible for the investigation going off track. That is the offender ultimately responsible for Joan's loss.
Four names pushed the false narrative:
Tim Burke
Carmen Tammaro
Andrew Palombo
George Webster
That's what I have done in Joan's case. Through FOIA's, a private investigator, attorneys, interviews, etc, I have been able to get to information that was very fragmented, and put the pieces of Joan's case together to get a clear picture of what happened in the investigation. What I bring forward is verified in source documents. The records say what they say in black and white, and they cannot be ignored. First, the investigation was deliberately diverted ignoring known facts. Now, malfeasance is shielded. The victim(s), Joan and others, were denied justice.
Justice can be administered in many ways. Nothing will bring Joan back or change things that have happened, but abuse of authority needs to be exposed.
Two people who have some association with Joan or her case were in the national news this week. One was a friend of Joan's. The other relates to the individual Paul Leary called in July 1983.
The story about Joan's friend was positive. I know this person and was happy to see the well-deserved accolades. His name did come up reviewing Joan's investigation. His planned trip to visit Joan in NJ over Thanksgiving was cancelled.
The other story was about a person in a position of authority and influence who touched Joan's case. The story involving this person underscores why he was called back in 1983, his methods to gain a desired or predetermined outcome. His actions reflect what I found in source documents, pressure and intimidation tactics to get the story they wanted. Again, this individual ignored the facts.
The pressure applied to Paradiso was overkill to implicate him for multiple crimes. Known facts and evidence were ignored for a desired outcome. The bottom line in Joan's case is to uncover who was responsible for the investigation going off track. That is the offender ultimately responsible for Joan's loss.
Four names pushed the false narrative:
Tim Burke
Carmen Tammaro
Andrew Palombo
George Webster
-
eveknowsthetruth
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm
- Contact:
I was asked what I think was the motive for Joan's murder.
That is a multi prong question. Motivation has to be considered for the key people who were promoting a false narrative.
Tim Burke:
Judging from the source documents, Burke was probably manipulated. Certainly, he took his direction from higher ups. Palombo was the lead investigator feeding Burke information. Maybe it was to make a name for himself, but he unquestionably knew he was making false representations to the court, federal authorities, and the public. Now, he probably wants to keep people from finding out how corrupt this investigation was.
Carmen Tammaro:
Tammaro appears to be managing the different departments to cover Palombo's back. He played a key role in getting a snitch, Robert Bond, to spew the story.
Andrew Palombo:
There is a lot in source documents to conclude Palombo had some involvement in Joan's murder. The investigation into Joan's loss infected numerous cases and Palombo had his hands in all of it. Palombo and Tammaro had knowledge of Joan's manner of death. That would only be known to the offender or someone complicit in the crime.
Nothing in anything I can find indicates Joan knew Burke, Tammaro, or Palombo prior to her disappearance. There would not be a personal motive for any of them to murder Joan. The most likely explanation or motive to be involved is incentive.
George Webster:
George Webster is the other name dominant in records who had knowledge of information to rule out Paradiso and the boat theory. Regardless, he maintained this was the explanation for his daughter's loss. He is the only one who knew Joan. The motive for Joan's murder has to do with Webster secrets. That is the only explanation that makes sense. He had influence over authorities and the public, and he was very involved.
The question then is did George and Eleanor have a motive to silence Joan? I don't know if I know the motive or not. I found a letter that made some serious allegations against a member of the Webster family. Is it serious enough to result in Joan's murder? If true, it is. My local FBI office did say it should have been investigated. I know I tried to get help. I do not believe it was related to "work." Personally, I won't take the chance that it is not. It certainly does explain a lot that I have experienced and observed. In other words, the pieces fit.
That is a multi prong question. Motivation has to be considered for the key people who were promoting a false narrative.
Tim Burke:
Judging from the source documents, Burke was probably manipulated. Certainly, he took his direction from higher ups. Palombo was the lead investigator feeding Burke information. Maybe it was to make a name for himself, but he unquestionably knew he was making false representations to the court, federal authorities, and the public. Now, he probably wants to keep people from finding out how corrupt this investigation was.
Carmen Tammaro:
Tammaro appears to be managing the different departments to cover Palombo's back. He played a key role in getting a snitch, Robert Bond, to spew the story.
Andrew Palombo:
There is a lot in source documents to conclude Palombo had some involvement in Joan's murder. The investigation into Joan's loss infected numerous cases and Palombo had his hands in all of it. Palombo and Tammaro had knowledge of Joan's manner of death. That would only be known to the offender or someone complicit in the crime.
Nothing in anything I can find indicates Joan knew Burke, Tammaro, or Palombo prior to her disappearance. There would not be a personal motive for any of them to murder Joan. The most likely explanation or motive to be involved is incentive.
George Webster:
George Webster is the other name dominant in records who had knowledge of information to rule out Paradiso and the boat theory. Regardless, he maintained this was the explanation for his daughter's loss. He is the only one who knew Joan. The motive for Joan's murder has to do with Webster secrets. That is the only explanation that makes sense. He had influence over authorities and the public, and he was very involved.
The question then is did George and Eleanor have a motive to silence Joan? I don't know if I know the motive or not. I found a letter that made some serious allegations against a member of the Webster family. Is it serious enough to result in Joan's murder? If true, it is. My local FBI office did say it should have been investigated. I know I tried to get help. I do not believe it was related to "work." Personally, I won't take the chance that it is not. It certainly does explain a lot that I have experienced and observed. In other words, the pieces fit.