Audio: Hot Facts For A Cold Case Murder

News & Views on All Topics
Post Reply
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

Current affairs can sometimes be a window into past history. I experienced that this week.

The Mueller report was highly anticipated. I took some time to absorb the report. It was a bit of a deju vu experience for me.

Here are my take-aways from the report.

1. The report had a definitive finding of no collusion, the underlying basis for the investigation.

2. The second part of the report enumerated negative perceptions. In my opinion, a prosecutor's job is to determine if there is evidence to indict or not, not to swirl speculation to sway public opinion. Mueller's team seemed to follow the latter to vilify their target. The bottom line is they did not have evidence to indict on obstruction.

When authorities play ball this way, they put their thumbs on the scale of justice. Such abuses or impartiality will be evident in other known conduct of such authorities. Real justice means the underlying root of the investigation needs exposure, in my opinion.

You are probably wondering how this has anything to do with Joan's investigation.

1. Case CR 85-010-S affirmed Paradiso's boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. It is a matter of law. Paradiso did not murder Joan on his boat. Authorities involved in Joan's investigation had knowledge of this case.

2. Deja vu for me was reading a court transcript following the findings in case CR 85-010-S. The report enumerated negative perceptions, citing unverified assertions. Authorities continued to maintain Paradiso's guilt.

There are red flags. I go back to the July 13, 1983, call Paul Leary made. There was no basis for the call other than influence. I saw the same tactics in Joan's case that are evident in current affairs. Source documents in Joan's case identify the Paul Leary call and the individual contacted. There is a connection between players that touched Joan's case and current events, even all these years later.

To understand what really happened to Joan means getting to the root of the lies. Where did this start, and who was the instigator? There is evidence to identify a suspect.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

When you strip away all of the impossible speculation, you are left with a harsh reality. Four people promoted a false explanation for Joan's loss; Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.

Getting to the root of the hoax will unmask the offender. Follow the trail.

1. The eyewitness description of the offender given to the police was concealed. Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster had this information in December 1981. The description is not Leonard Paradiso. The unidentified man seen leaving Logan with Joan was shielded. He is the offender; aided and abetted by Tammaro and Palombo.

2. In January 1982, Patty Bono, who grew up with Carmen Tammaro and Paradiso, placed an anonymous call implicating Paradiso in Joan's disappearance. She gave a 10-year-old unverified claim of assault against Paradiso, and no information supporting new allegations. Carmen Tammaro and Andrew Palombo were both familiar with Paradiso prior to Joan's disappearance. It is reasonable to conclude Tammaro and Palombo picked the target, Paradiso.

3. The following excerpt was published by a MSP trooper who was involved in aspects of Joan's case. He sometimes partnered with Andrew Palombo, and the two men co owned a sailboat. He is a reliable source for this information:


The take-away here is George Webster called this meeting. This was about Joan. This was February 1982. Following the meeting, Burke and Palombo went after Paradiso for the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. The motive to go after Paradiso for Joan was concealed until January 1983.

4. Tammaro met with Paradiso on August 1, 1982, after his arrest in the Iannuzzi murder. This meeting is corroborated in another witness statement developed by Tammaro and Palombo. Tammaro alleged that Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat in August 1982.

5. State witness Robert Bond was transferred to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982, awaiting trial for the murder of Mary Foreman. He was positioned in close proximity to Paradiso.

The development of the Bond allegations will be covered separately. This is a key component to unravel who was responsible for a fabricated story about Joan's loss.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

Robert Bond was the state's star witness. He is a two time convicted murderer still in prison in MA. The parole board has found him deceitful and extremely dangerous. So just how is he considered credible by the four people who promoted the story?

Bond's written allegations and his interview with the MSP are the foundational documents for Joan's case. Tim Burke got these documents sealed in the Marie Iannuzzi case. This was a dirty prosecutorial tactic. We are supposed to rely on what Burke says. It's unreasonable to think he had the only copy of the documents sealed with the court. Burke quotes directly from them in his so called true crime publication.

The interview confirms Burke lied. Authorities did not have an unsolicited letter from Bond. That was produced AFTER at least two meetings with the MSP. Palombo and Tammaro can now be identified knowing the correct manner of Joan's death with correct detail more than 7 years before Joan surfaced. That was information only known to the killer of complicit in the crime.

It is a reasonable conclusion Palombo and Tammaro were the culprits to confabulate this story and target a patsy. They are named in source documents. They both knew Paradiso and that he was vulnerable. They concocted a story that explained not having a body. Why?

This was so complex and took a lot of orchestration. It is unreasonable Palombo and Tammaro cooked this up on their own, for their own purposes. The effect of their conduct shielded the offender, the man seen leaving Logan with Joan. The eyewitness description did not fit either Palombo or Tammaro, they were much bigger men.

The four people promoting this were Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster.

The focus is who was behind soliciting a false story from Bond. There is evidence for the who in source documents. Tim Burke also identified the offender in his tome, even though he may not realize that he did.

Next step is examining the evidence to identify the man at Logan. That can be accomplished by identifying who was behind the false story funneled through an unreliable snitch.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

Who benefits from a fabricated story? The obvious answer - the offender(s).

Andrew Palombo and Carmen Tammaro worked with Robert Bond to confabulate and promote the Paradiso boat story. Tim Burke was brought in and ran with it.

George Webster was the fourth person to promote this explanation. It is a given, George worked closely with Burke, Tammaro, and Palombo during the investigation. All of them were in possession of evidence contradicting their story. Where does George Webster fit into this scheme?

1. Source documents confirm the Websters knew about the eyewitness lead in December 1981. The description was NOT Leonard Paradiso.

2. Tammaro's friend Patty Bono placed the anonymous call on or about January 20, 1982, implicating Paradiso for the 1979 Marie Iannuzzi murder and Joan's disappearance.

3. A MSP trooper involved in aspects of both cases, described a meeting called by the Websters at Harvard in February 1982. Burke and Palombo were paired to go after Paradiso in the Iannuzzi case. Note: This meeting would have been about Joan.

4. Robert Bond was moved to the Charles Street Jail on December 8, 1982, and positioned close to Paradiso.

5. Source documents confirm Tammaro and Palombo met with Bond. A letter was solicited. The letter was mailed after a meeting with Tammaro on January 10, 1983. The letter had not arrived when the MSP interviewed Bond on January 14, 1983.

6. Tammaro dangled the Webster reward money in front of Bond.

7. George Webster was quoted frequently in the papers touting Bond's credibility.

8. Source documents confirm George Webster knew about case CR 85-010-S, affirming the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. There was evidence of high level supervision influencing this case.

9. According to Robert Bond, the Websters visited him in prison during the winter of 1987.

10. Authorities attempted to bring Paradiso to trial regarding Joan. Bond would not cooperate. When Joan surfaced in April 1990, efforts stopped to try the case.

11. George Webster had Joan cremated on July 13, 1990, violating Massachusetts General Law, MGL, Chapter 38, Section 14. A body can only be released for cremation only when no further examination or judicial inquiry is necessary. This is an unresolved homicide.

12. The Websters made public statements supporting the Paradiso boat explanation. Some examples:
a. Parents of Murdered Children
b. Garden of Peace ... da-webster
c. Boston Herald November 28, 2006

13. Burke announced his tome after a visit from the Websters during the summer of 2005 and dedicated it to the Websters. The Websters were unquestionably an influence to publish this explanation.

14. George Webster replied to my email on December 25, 2012. I asked questions about the discrepancies in source documents. At the end of a very hostile rant, George wished me to "Die."

There is zero question the Paradiso boat theory was the explanation George wanted the public to believe.

I have a report in my possession of a meeting between a PI, attorney, and Robert Bond. Bond made a stunning revelation; George Webster sent people to see him. Bond statements need corroborating evidence. The above list supports George's interest to promote the Bond allegations ignoring evidence to the contrary in his possession. Source documents contained a police report scheduling a meeting that coincided with Bond's transfer to the Charles Street Jail. The entry in the police records is prior to the transfer and prior to any allegations attributed to Bond.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

It is a reasonable conclusion, the man seen maneuvering Joan into the blue car at Logan was the offender involved and/or responsible for Joan's murder. That is the person to look for.

Source documents exposed things about the investigation I did not know at the time. Actions of the authorities and the blood family are inexplicable to me in any effort to seek justice.

I substituted the man seen with Joan at Logan for the identified individuals in source documents. The question is would the man seen with Joan at Logan behave in the same way in an effort to avoid detection.

George Webster and the MSP concealed the eyewitness description of the man seen with Joan at Logan. The offender would conceal a lead that would expose his identity.

The Webster reward money and other enticements were dangled for Bond to cooperate with the state's story. The tactic is called projection, blaming someone else for crime. The man seen with Joan at Logan would support efforts to divert attention and avoid detection.

Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster were all frequently quoted in the media supporting the Bond allegations and Bond's credibility. The man seen with Joan at Logan would support a false narrative to avoid detection.

George Webster wrote multiple letters to the DOJ in MA regarding case CR 85-010-S, the case affirming the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. The letters were entered as evidence during the sentencing hearing. The man seen with Joan would use any influence available to him to perpetuate a false narrative,

According to Bond, the Websters visited him in prison during the winter of 1987. This was during the time authorities made several attempts to urge Bond to cooperate in taking Paradiso to trial for Joan's murder. Source documents support other claims Bond made during this same time frame. The man seen with Joan at Logan would encourage a snitch making allegations that would help him avoid detection.

Authorities and the Websters stopped all efforts to prosecute Paradiso after Joan's remains surfaced. I don't think a loving parent would ever stop looking for the truth and justice. The man seen with Joan at Logan would pull back from allegations against a scapegoat out of concern the fraud would be uncovered.

George Webster had Joan's remains cremated violating MGL, chapter 38, section 14. The man seen with Joan at Logan would dispose of evidence that
contradicted the fraudulent explanation.

The Websters made numerous public statements after Joan's recovery still supporting the Paradiso boat theory. The man seen with Joan at Logan would continue to support a false narrative.

The Websters influenced Tim Burke to publish a graphic description of rape and murder on a boat that did not exist when their daughter disappeared. The man seen with Joan at Logan would support a published confabulation that would help him avoid detection.

George Webster wished me to "Die" in an email on Christmas night 2012. The man seen with Joan at Logan would vilify and devalue any potential witness who could expose a fraudulent story.

There are a lot more examples of behaviors that are very distressing coming from the authorities and the parents investigating Joan's loss.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

I have endured a lot of personal attacks because I have raised legitimate questions about Joan's murder. I have received anonymous letters, emails, and harassment. I have also been harassed by identifiable individuals. There has been a concerted effort to derail justice for Joan Webster. The tactics are familiar - shoot or smear the messenger, a witness that can expose the malfeasance and those responsible for Joan's loss.

This is a broader problem. I am posting a letter that was mailed anonymously in 2009, as I was beginning to get to documents. This letter was not mailed to me, but a recipient in MA who knew the Paradiso boat theory was a fraud. I did block out anything that might identify this person. The harassment in Joan's case has gone on for a long time and far reaching. Some are still vulnerable.

I have also added the post mark. The town is about 15 miles from Philadelphia, PA, the area where George and Eleanor Webster lived in a retirement community at the time.



It is really important to resolve Joan's case.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

"which permitted him to go on killing innocent women,
who trusted him enough to get into his car or cab
whichever he was driving at the time.
What an interesting comment to make.

Considering that the question of whether Joan would travel
in a cab or take a car was a key issue in her disappearance.

As if the writer -under the cover of this anonymous attack-
is trying to bolster the case in the mind of the recipient of the
anon letter that Paradiso must be the perp in Joan's murder.

The anon letter author is saying:

"If anybody is thinking about whom Joan would have trusted,
then a fake cab driver fits the bill. Ok. It could have been anyone,
but let's not go there - this Paradiso guy has a matching MO!"

"He's the guy.
A slime ball who abused her trust to murder her.
Imagine that, he abused her trust to murder her."

Yes she could have trusted someone close
But that doesn't apply. He broke her trust.
It's him.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

Hi Fintan,

Let me give you a little background about this letter. You can see from the date and postmark, the letter was sent in late August 2008. I had just started to dig into Joan's case. I had recovered some documents, but still had a long way to go. Regardless, the discrepancies were obvious even in the early stages of researching this case. A few people knew I was looking into Joan's case, but I don't think it was too widely known.

The recipient of this letter might have been a source of documents and/or information. However, I did not obtain anything from this person. Even this letter was obtained from another source who knew I was asking questions about Joan's case.

This letter was mailed from South Jersey, NJ, very near Philadelphia. This area did not have all the publicity about Joan's case. The publicity at the time was in Boston, New England, and the NJ area that was close to NYC. The anonymous author seemed to be a fervent supporter of Burke and his theory nevertheless. The post mark was very concerning to me; George and Eleanor lived in a retirement community on the Philly area.

Did they mail it? I doubt it. The pattern in the family was to get someone to do a task for them. I experienced this many times, including an incident mailing a letter for Steve, Joan's brother, that I later learned was an anonymous smear against a co worker. I can make a reasonable guess who mailed it based on the date and location it was mailed, and the tone of the letter.

I received an anonymous letter the following January 2009. It was hand delivered to my mailbox. That means it was delivered by someone in my vicinity who knew where I lived, either by the anonymous author or someone on their behalf. The tone of that letter mirrored gossip spread by a known individual.

In 2010, I received a string of anonymous emails. They were delivered to an email address I used exclusively to communicate with George and Eleanor. They made the same insinuation as the January 2009 letter. I was able to trace them and know exactly who generated them, Anne Webster, Joan's sister. That is verifiable.

Then in 2012, on Christmas night, I received the very demeaning email from George Webster wishing me to "Die." It was in a response to an email I sent a few days before requesting to discuss the discrepancies in Joan's files in a proper setting.

I believe the letter posted above was a form of intimidation, don't talk or share records. The recipient of this letter knew the Paradiso boat theory was a fraud. The sender may not have known that if influenced by the Websters. There is an abundance of evidence that the Websters supported Burke's explanation despite having evidence to the contrary in their possession.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

The bankruptcy fraud case was part of what appears to be an "insurance policy" to maintain a false narrative. The case was instigated by Tim Burke. Source documents confirm that. Source documents confirm the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. Source documents also expose someone who supervised or had influence over this case at a high level.

Part I is the transcript of the case itself, CR 85-010-S, in the Federal District Court of RI. Judge Bruce Selya affirmed, based on undisputed evidence, the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. The crime promoted by Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster did not happen. Leonard Paradiso did not murder Joan on his boat. Paradiso did not match the eyewitness description of the man with Joan at Logan.

Part I of the recent Mueller report reminds me of Part I in Joan's case. It is a legal document, the evidence is presented, It is conclusive. Allegations were a fraud perpetrated on the courts and the public.

Part II is the transcript of the sentencing hearing for CR 85-010-S. That presentation continued to promote Paradiso murdered Joan. The prosecutor submitted three letters from George Webster. Allegations against Paradiso were presented as fact such as the allegations from Patty Bono. This was innuendo, "she said" with no corroborating evidence to support her accusations. Evidence that conflicts with her allegations has been uncovered. The 1984 conviction in the Iannuzzi case was brought forward to influence Paradiso's guilt. Court records exposed hidden exculpatory evidence, false witnesses, and support a wrongful conviction. The transcript goes on and on about Joan, and Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster continued to promote the Paradiso boat theory.

Part II reminded me of Part II of the Mueller report. A lot of "he or she said" statements that are subject to interpretation. There was no indictment. However, the impression or perception of guilt is left to fester.

Paradiso was never charged with Joan's murder, but the perceptions were left dangling while the facts were kept hidden. After Joan's remains surfaced, any effort to take Paradiso to trial was abruptly dropped.

This began with a fabricated story to wrongfully go after Paradiso and deflect attention away from the offender. The eyewitness description of the offender was hidden shielding him from detection, The boat, the alleged crime scene did not exist when Joan disappeared. Authorities influenced perceptions with high level oversight. Efforts to prosecute the man they accused of Joan's murder stopped when her remains surfaced.

Who is the offender(s)? It is a matter of going back to the origin of the fabricated story. It's obvious that Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, and Carmen Tammaro were instrumental crafting Robert Bond's allegations. They were the ones in the front line and filling in details, including the correct manner of death. It is pretty hard to fathom, they did this on their own initiative and were able to pull it off without getting found out. The man with Joan at Logan was the one shielded, the beneficiary of a false story.

Is there evidence of influence in the investigation? Yes, George Webster's name is visible on several fronts. I cited one example above with his letters influencing perceptions of CR 85-010-S. Is there evidence of George Webster involvement in the Bond statement? The answer is yes.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

In the previous post, I made some comparisons between source documents in Joan's investigation and the Mueller report. I have a very specific reason to make a comparison.

On July 13, 1983, first ADA Paul Leary placed a call to the DOJ in MA. Leary was the #2 in the Suffolk County DAO, a high level position. His call was regarding the bankruptcy fraud investigation the DOJ was conducting against Paradiso. A central component of the case was the boat, Tim Burke's alleged crime scene. Leary did not call the prosecutor who was handling the case, Marie Buckley.

Tim Burke instigated this case contacting SA Steve Broce on May 3, 1983. The tactic reminded me of how the special counsel forwarded cases outside his jurisdiction to other offices. Suffolk County had no authority to go after a bankruptcy fraud case. However, there was an interest in the outcome since Burke claimed Paradiso murdered Joan on the boat listed in the case.

Part I, the trial transcript affirms the alleged crime that Joan was murdered on Paradiso's boat, did not happen. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared.

Part II, the sentencing hearing, spewed all the unverified innuendo alleged against Paradiso. The prosecutor presented three letters from George Webster. The transcript reveals the push to accuse Paradiso of murdering Joan. Tim Burke, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tammaro, and George Webster continued to promote Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat.

The Leary call indicates a high level of influence for a desired outcome. The person he called is identified by his initials. And the prosecutor gathered information from Burke and reported back. This document was contained in certified court records.


Note: The USA in MA at the time was William Weld, yes the same Weld that went on to be governor, and more recently a presidential candidate. The #2 in the office in 1983, was RSM, Robert Swan Mueller. It looks like the Paradiso/boat gang wanted an insurance policy to influence perceptions. Need I say more.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

Malfeasance is obvious in the source documents. Innocent people have been harassed and threatened. One obstacle is the mindset of current authorities to shield misconduct. Their agenda denies justice for Joan.

Now I want to look at another obstacle, the Websters.

On October 15, 1982, George Webster was involved in a dramatic extortion incident. I knew this as part of the immediate family. Joan's brother Steve told me about this.


This incident was never reported in the media. The current custodian knew nothing about this incident. They did not have any of the records in their files. It is a very good example of how information in this case was fractured.

Below is an audio clip. The second speaker is Joan's brother Steve Webster. Steve denies anything like this happened. The conversation continued suggesting the incident is my imagination, that I'm delusional. Telling someone what they experienced is their imagination is certainly controlling. There is a term for it, gaslighting. Other people might call it brainwashing. Steve used this tactic in other incidents I will go into later. ... nt_mp3.mp3

Joan's case was very sensational. This incident did not help find Joan. The importance of this is how family members are trying to discredit. There is a two page FBI report below. This incident was viewed at a very high level. The report is initialed by the Director of the FBI in 1982, William H Webster. It is also initialed by the #2 in the FBI, Oliver Revel. This was not my imagination.



The final excerpt is from a police report documented by an officer who was involved in this incident. George Webster was indeed wired, as well as the vehicle they travelled in with known felon who is identified in other reports. His name was Harvey Martel.


Members of the Webster family still promote Leonard Paradiso murdered Joan on his boat. That is an impossible crime; the boat did not exist when Joan disappeared. Steve Webster lied about an incident surrounding his missing sister. That's a problem.
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:52 pm

There is another documented incident of gaslighting, telling someone their experience was their imagination.

Joan's brother Steve was in Hilton Head with our girls. They caught him in very bad behavior. He lied about it even as the woman almost ran over them leaving the condo. My girls called me to tell me about it. Steve called in at the same time accusing them of making up stories. He continued to lie about it in counseling when they got back. I had not recovered the written accounts of the incident to help sort it out at the time.

The first clip is just how painful and damaging this was for my girls.


The second clip is very distressing. Joan's brother Steve is telling his children something they witnessed is their imagination. The next line is even more upsetting that the harassment incident was their imagination. This relates to a letter I found that had very serious allegations. I sought help, but our system is very deficient. Instead I got pummeled.


The final clip is the mantra of the Websters, "dont't tell." My child was afraid of consequences just for witnessing something Steve wanted hidden. After this episode, things got very chaotic. I ended up in the hospital near collapse. The Websters only concern was image. Even George and Eleanor got into the act sitting down with family counselors and painting me as a bad person.


This does relate to Joan's case. This shows behaviors of the Websters. The Websters have been very hostile toward me for the questions raised by the source documents. They have actively and destructively suggested it is none of my business, and incidents I knew about were my imagination.

You have to understand my experiences to see why I am so concerned.
Post Reply