View this page "BULLETS"
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
dib'struth
Jul 24, 2008, 9:56:27 PM7/24/08
to Joan Webster Murder
Timeline being developed please advise anydates that should be noted
this page will be updated frequently and include Ianuzzi information.
If Paradiso was not the offender in the Ianuzzi case, there is nothing
in actual documents that links Paradiso to Joan Webster. Paradiso was
maligned in the press surrounding the Webster case and for reasons
unknown the Webster's were quoted as maintaining their confidence in
the credibility of Bond. His statement was known to be false when
Joan's remains were found.
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/bullets
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.
this page will be updated frequently and include Ianuzzi information.
If Paradiso was not the offender in the Ianuzzi case, there is nothing
in actual documents that links Paradiso to Joan Webster. Paradiso was
maligned in the press surrounding the Webster case and for reasons
unknown the Webster's were quoted as maintaining their confidence in
the credibility of Bond. His statement was known to be false when
Joan's remains were found.
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/bullets
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.
dib'struth
Jul 25, 2008, 12:46:32 PM7/25/08
to Joan Webster Murder
<myz...@gmail.com>
To: joan-webster...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:37:03 AM
Subject: Re: [joan-webster-murder:114] View this page "BULLETS"
WHY ?That is the top question.
What happened with the press coverage? Why didn't they explain the
issue of her being found inland?
Who had the most to lose? Kevin or Tim Burke, Tammaro, or possibly
Newman Flanagan??
Who would be found to be at fault now that SHE WAS FOUND INLAND?Who
flushed the case quickly?
At the time when the remains were found there were many missing women
who were looked at.
Maybe it wasn't Joan at all, I read some where on here her remains
were cremated.
WHY would a grieving family have her cremated? Unless it wasn't her
and they had a plausible scapegoat as this woman had a head injury.
If it were my child I would save her as found so in time when science
advances the proper testing can be done. What did the family know or
allow to happen?
So many unanswered questions, lies, and implausible reasons. Who could
mastermind such a concoction?
Any one care to respond? come on give it a shot.
To: joan-webster...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:37:03 AM
Subject: Re: [joan-webster-murder:114] View this page "BULLETS"
WHY ?That is the top question.
What happened with the press coverage? Why didn't they explain the
issue of her being found inland?
Who had the most to lose? Kevin or Tim Burke, Tammaro, or possibly
Newman Flanagan??
Who would be found to be at fault now that SHE WAS FOUND INLAND?Who
flushed the case quickly?
At the time when the remains were found there were many missing women
who were looked at.
Maybe it wasn't Joan at all, I read some where on here her remains
were cremated.
WHY would a grieving family have her cremated? Unless it wasn't her
and they had a plausible scapegoat as this woman had a head injury.
If it were my child I would save her as found so in time when science
advances the proper testing can be done. What did the family know or
allow to happen?
So many unanswered questions, lies, and implausible reasons. Who could
mastermind such a concoction?
Any one care to respond? come on give it a shot.
dib'struth
Jul 25, 2008, 9:57:10 PM7/25/08
to Joan Webster Murder
I'll try to give you my thoughts on why , but first address some of
your other questions.
The press reported information they were fed. The more sensational,
the better their circulation. People wanted someone to blame for Joan
Webster. It was easy to attack the vulnerabilities of Mr. Paradiso
and how could he defend himself?
When new facts came to light discovering the remains buried in
Hamilton, people originally involved in the case reappeared to be part
of the investigation. Burke moved his "bullseye" to adjust the Bond
statement that was reported for years. That had been fed to the press
by Burke, Tamarro, and Palombo, if you go back to the articles at the
time. Now all of a sudden Bond didn't really mean he took Joan way
out on his boat and dumped her overboard at sea. Instead he just
meant "way out" and that's supposed to explain finding her in
Hamilton.
Kevin Burke had some difficulties from earlier. What is the
explanation that his office failed to prosecute david Doyle with all
the evidence against him? If Paradiso was such a strong suspect, why
wasn't he arrested and tried well before Joan Webster disappeared?
Tim Burke was under the tuteledge of Newman Flanagan, a DA known for
wrongful convictions and duplicate files out of his office. It seems
his modus operandi was to provide the public with a sacrificial lamb.
It didn't seem to much matter whether it was the truth.
Tamarro and Palombo knew the Joan Webster case from the beginning.
They also would have had knowledge of the Ianuzzi case. Why did they
let Doyle off the hook? Did Doyle have something on these officers?
Police investigators should have seen through Bond's statement from
the beginning. It was false. So why were they so readily available
to leak it to the press? We only have what is recorded in the press,
supplied by them, to go on. Is there something in the statement Bond
made that we don't know that points to Paradiso without doubt? The
Websters seemed certain of Bond's credibility even after the remains
were found in Hamilton. I don't think these were stupid or gullible
people. They were closely involved and surely read the letter. Just
what does it say?
The cremation issue is a good question. What is the law in MA or NJ
about cremating remains of a murder victim especially where there is
still an investigation going on? You don't know if you will need
further evidence from the body at a later time? A good example of
that is DNA under Marie Ianuzzi's nails that likely matches up with
Doyle's scratches. The police investigation into her murder was
completely derelict to resolve that case properly.
Here are my thoughts on why. Doyle was off the hook for some reason
and was not going to be prosecuted for Marie's murder. The EB area
all knew Paradiso had been questioned in this case. They knew he had
had trouble with the law. He was a perfect scapegoat for what
happened to Joan, but there wasn't anything they could connect or
indict him on that case. Hence they nailed him for Marie. In
addition, Paradiso had a boat. That provided an explanation why
Joan's body would not be found. Where she was eventually found was
indication no one thought she would be. By the time she was, Paradiso
had been so villified it just did not seem to matter. People had
already accepted he murdered Marie and did not look for the
possibility that he was framed for this murder to provide someone to
blame for Joan. Has anyone really tried to reenact Burke's
suggestions of what happened to Joan? You would have to be somewhat
of a Houdini to pull that off.
The most troubling part to me is that Bond's statement apparently did
predict the manner of Joan's death, a blow to the head. This is
despite Burke's alleged profile that Paradiso strangled his victims.
I go back to the people involved in interviewing Bond to get his
statement. Tamarro and Palombo are present for this, as well as being
spokesmen who fed the press.
JOAN WEBSTER CASE FILES NEED TO BE OPENED.
Truth
On Jul 25, 12:46 pm, "dib'struth" <dibstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <myzt...@gmail.com>
your other questions.
The press reported information they were fed. The more sensational,
the better their circulation. People wanted someone to blame for Joan
Webster. It was easy to attack the vulnerabilities of Mr. Paradiso
and how could he defend himself?
When new facts came to light discovering the remains buried in
Hamilton, people originally involved in the case reappeared to be part
of the investigation. Burke moved his "bullseye" to adjust the Bond
statement that was reported for years. That had been fed to the press
by Burke, Tamarro, and Palombo, if you go back to the articles at the
time. Now all of a sudden Bond didn't really mean he took Joan way
out on his boat and dumped her overboard at sea. Instead he just
meant "way out" and that's supposed to explain finding her in
Hamilton.
Kevin Burke had some difficulties from earlier. What is the
explanation that his office failed to prosecute david Doyle with all
the evidence against him? If Paradiso was such a strong suspect, why
wasn't he arrested and tried well before Joan Webster disappeared?
Tim Burke was under the tuteledge of Newman Flanagan, a DA known for
wrongful convictions and duplicate files out of his office. It seems
his modus operandi was to provide the public with a sacrificial lamb.
It didn't seem to much matter whether it was the truth.
Tamarro and Palombo knew the Joan Webster case from the beginning.
They also would have had knowledge of the Ianuzzi case. Why did they
let Doyle off the hook? Did Doyle have something on these officers?
Police investigators should have seen through Bond's statement from
the beginning. It was false. So why were they so readily available
to leak it to the press? We only have what is recorded in the press,
supplied by them, to go on. Is there something in the statement Bond
made that we don't know that points to Paradiso without doubt? The
Websters seemed certain of Bond's credibility even after the remains
were found in Hamilton. I don't think these were stupid or gullible
people. They were closely involved and surely read the letter. Just
what does it say?
The cremation issue is a good question. What is the law in MA or NJ
about cremating remains of a murder victim especially where there is
still an investigation going on? You don't know if you will need
further evidence from the body at a later time? A good example of
that is DNA under Marie Ianuzzi's nails that likely matches up with
Doyle's scratches. The police investigation into her murder was
completely derelict to resolve that case properly.
Here are my thoughts on why. Doyle was off the hook for some reason
and was not going to be prosecuted for Marie's murder. The EB area
all knew Paradiso had been questioned in this case. They knew he had
had trouble with the law. He was a perfect scapegoat for what
happened to Joan, but there wasn't anything they could connect or
indict him on that case. Hence they nailed him for Marie. In
addition, Paradiso had a boat. That provided an explanation why
Joan's body would not be found. Where she was eventually found was
indication no one thought she would be. By the time she was, Paradiso
had been so villified it just did not seem to matter. People had
already accepted he murdered Marie and did not look for the
possibility that he was framed for this murder to provide someone to
blame for Joan. Has anyone really tried to reenact Burke's
suggestions of what happened to Joan? You would have to be somewhat
of a Houdini to pull that off.
The most troubling part to me is that Bond's statement apparently did
predict the manner of Joan's death, a blow to the head. This is
despite Burke's alleged profile that Paradiso strangled his victims.
I go back to the people involved in interviewing Bond to get his
statement. Tamarro and Palombo are present for this, as well as being
spokesmen who fed the press.
JOAN WEBSTER CASE FILES NEED TO BE OPENED.
Truth
On Jul 25, 12:46 pm, "dib'struth" <dibstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <myzt...@gmail.com>
dib'struth
Jul 26, 2008, 7:24:56 PM7/26/08
to Joan Webster Murder
I received some private comments regarding these observations. They
are important to bring out.
The Bond statement as it was reported in the press is included in the
pages of this site. Reviewing the news articles, also now available
on this site, information was provided by Palombo, Tamarro, Burke, and
unnamed sources close to the case. Bond's circumstances have also
been discussed and affidavits that there were promises made that
Burke, Tamarro, Palombo, and White represented, but were not kept.
There is nothing in reports of the Bond statement that Bond could not
have learned from police and authorities associated with the Ianuzzi
or Webster cases. The representations are of detail it is
unreasonable to have been learned from Paradiso.
The Bond statement was found to be false when Joan's remains were
found in Hamilton. The question remains if there were details that
would have indicated the statement was false at an earlier point in
time. The Webster family maintained a known murderer was somehow a
credible witness even after the remains were found buried. The
question was raised if the remains even belonged to Joan. The remans
were cremated, eliminating any possibility of learning more from them
at a future time. A contribution was also made to this site that
there is no date of death on Joan's head stone. Did the family have
reservations and take measures that would in effect stop further
investigation? Was the family ever questioned about Joan's murder and
what explained their certainty quoted in the press?
Marie's death was by strangulation and evidence clearly pointed to
Doyle. That was supported by the testimony and police reports of the
Ianuzzi family. There is now evidence that testimony and police
reports changed implicating Paradiso. This did not happen until the
Joan Webster case was sensationalized in the press and large rewards
were offered. The pattern of behavior Burke tries to lay out for
Paradiso is one of someone who strangles. Even Bond's false statement
gives a much different scenario for Joan. That does not make sense.
The people who worked with Bond to obtain a statement need to be
looked at. What were their motives to frame Paradiso for the Ianuzzi
murder and consequently have someone to blame for Joan?
JOAN'S FILES NEED TO BE OPENED
Truth
> > Any one care to respond? come on give it a shot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
are important to bring out.
The Bond statement as it was reported in the press is included in the
pages of this site. Reviewing the news articles, also now available
on this site, information was provided by Palombo, Tamarro, Burke, and
unnamed sources close to the case. Bond's circumstances have also
been discussed and affidavits that there were promises made that
Burke, Tamarro, Palombo, and White represented, but were not kept.
There is nothing in reports of the Bond statement that Bond could not
have learned from police and authorities associated with the Ianuzzi
or Webster cases. The representations are of detail it is
unreasonable to have been learned from Paradiso.
The Bond statement was found to be false when Joan's remains were
found in Hamilton. The question remains if there were details that
would have indicated the statement was false at an earlier point in
time. The Webster family maintained a known murderer was somehow a
credible witness even after the remains were found buried. The
question was raised if the remains even belonged to Joan. The remans
were cremated, eliminating any possibility of learning more from them
at a future time. A contribution was also made to this site that
there is no date of death on Joan's head stone. Did the family have
reservations and take measures that would in effect stop further
investigation? Was the family ever questioned about Joan's murder and
what explained their certainty quoted in the press?
Marie's death was by strangulation and evidence clearly pointed to
Doyle. That was supported by the testimony and police reports of the
Ianuzzi family. There is now evidence that testimony and police
reports changed implicating Paradiso. This did not happen until the
Joan Webster case was sensationalized in the press and large rewards
were offered. The pattern of behavior Burke tries to lay out for
Paradiso is one of someone who strangles. Even Bond's false statement
gives a much different scenario for Joan. That does not make sense.
The people who worked with Bond to obtain a statement need to be
looked at. What were their motives to frame Paradiso for the Ianuzzi
murder and consequently have someone to blame for Joan?
JOAN'S FILES NEED TO BE OPENED
Truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
dib'struth
Jul 27, 2008, 2:26:37 PM7/27/08
to Joan Webster Murder
Another important question was brought to my attention.
When you read the account Burke gives us in his book of Bond's
statement, the shear volume of what Paradiso allegedly confided in
Bond is suspect. It's important to remember that if people are
concocting a story, it is reasonable to expect embellishments to make
the story sound more convincing. Things can also be taken out of
context and twisted to fit. Explanations can be fabricated to explain
the next degree of deception when facts surface that challenge the
confabulation.
An example of that is the suitcase. For years this was reported as
being found in Boston's bus station. It was only reported once as
being found in NY in an article that came out when the remains were
found in 1990. Dissect that for a minute. An explanation is offered
by Burke that when the bag went unclaimed it went to NY. That sounds
perfectly reasonable and company policy may have been just that. But
it has not been established that is what happened here, nor does it
really make sense to me in this case. First, if the unclaimed bag is
identified in Boston, the police would be called and it would not have
been sent on. Second, if the bag was found in NY, the police would be
called and why all the media to suggest it was found in Boston.
Wherever the bag was found, the police, ie: the Troopers at Logan who
were collecting the evidence, were the ones to probably get the call.
The were the ones out front giving information to the press. They can
indicate the bag was found anywhere they say it is. Why the deception
if the bag followed the path that Burke suggests? Discovering the bag
in NY changes the dynamics of the story being built and would
certainly not point to Paradiso. We can't just accept the explanation
offered because why cover those facts up for so many years if that was
indeed the truth of the bag's journey?
When Bond's story comes out, leaked by the Logan troopers, it isn't
known by the public that this "break" connecting the 2 cases was
actually from a different source, Patty Bono in January 1982. She has
a grudge against Paradiso, but one that is not verified. Tamarro grew
up in the same neighborhood as both Bono and Paradiso. The Websters
received that information from her before Burke was ever on either
case. Burke tells us he breaks the sad news to the Websters in April
1983? My question is when did they break it to him?
The embellishments Burke alleges came from conversations Bond had with
Paradiso don't ring that true. They strike me as an effort to put so
much detail in to make it sound like it, but elements of the statement
were absolutely false. Why would we believe anything then that comes
out of a convicted murderer? We don't think he's capable of lying and
making things up? I also believe he had help constructing his plot
line. The visits and interviews with the troopers were numerous and
we have Bond's affidavit that they reneged on promises they made to
him.
Another example that comes to mind about incredible stories everyone
was swallowing is the account of Bullerwell. Bond's statement has
already been leaked to suggest Paradiso took Joan way out on his boat
and dumped her at sea. They get Paradiso's albums from a search
warrant. They probably find Bullerwell from some source like that,
someone he dated a handful of times. She is interrogated by the FBI
and then testifies at the pretrial. Her wild story suggests Paradiso
cuts up bodies and weighs them down with cinderblocks and dumps them
at sea. Think about it, the middle of night the end of November and
the weather was bad. Documents showed Paradiso had put his boat up
well before that time of the year in the past. Insurance claims and
reports had been filed that the boat was gone in July 1981 and no one
is identified that Burke can bring forward who saw it after that
time. When the boat is found it's discovered to have a broken
rudder. That boat wasn't going anywhere. It was already underwater.
The person(s) helping Bond with his story knew there was a boat. They
just didn't know it was gone before they started leaking the story.
But they have a problem so have to add another layer of lies to
explain Paradiso having Joan on his vessel.
Why is the FBI interrogating Bullerwell? They are not involved in the
Ianuzzi case. They would be brought in because of Joan Webster.
There was nothing to indicate her story was anything more than
complete fabrication or embellishing some distorted braggadocio. It
served the authorities though to bolster the notion that Bond was
spewing that Paradiso dumped Joan way out at sea. The only ones I see
as getting the coooperation of the FBI are the Websters. Bullerwell
was slated to testify at the Ianuuzi case and the real effort was
basically to fuse these 2 cases together. It's interesting to note,
and I will get documents posted soon, that Bullerwell didn't testify
at the trial. She did not want to and said she "couldn't remember."
She also indicated promises had been made to her, but once again what
she got fell far short of expectations she was led to believe. Again,
it didn't matter because the press rushed out the door from the
pretrial to call their late edition newsrooms to make sure her story
made the evening headlines. The press was there because of Joan, not
Marie.
It takes some peeling back of layers to unravel all the lies,
distortions, disinformation, and everything else involved to confuse
the public into believing the bull that was heaped. That includes all
the "convincing" details in Bond's statement or attributed to him by
way of Burke's book that served to spice it up in a way that you doubt
your own senses and get sucked into the fraud being perpetrated.
When you start to reallize you have been handed a story and that you
know pieces are false, consider the source and recognize the whole
damn thing was made up. You can't pick out what's not contaminated if
anything because the whole thing has become infected. There is also
no doubt in my mind that Bond needed help getting all of this sorted
in his mind. The troopers were the ones that had access to him.
Truth
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
When you read the account Burke gives us in his book of Bond's
statement, the shear volume of what Paradiso allegedly confided in
Bond is suspect. It's important to remember that if people are
concocting a story, it is reasonable to expect embellishments to make
the story sound more convincing. Things can also be taken out of
context and twisted to fit. Explanations can be fabricated to explain
the next degree of deception when facts surface that challenge the
confabulation.
An example of that is the suitcase. For years this was reported as
being found in Boston's bus station. It was only reported once as
being found in NY in an article that came out when the remains were
found in 1990. Dissect that for a minute. An explanation is offered
by Burke that when the bag went unclaimed it went to NY. That sounds
perfectly reasonable and company policy may have been just that. But
it has not been established that is what happened here, nor does it
really make sense to me in this case. First, if the unclaimed bag is
identified in Boston, the police would be called and it would not have
been sent on. Second, if the bag was found in NY, the police would be
called and why all the media to suggest it was found in Boston.
Wherever the bag was found, the police, ie: the Troopers at Logan who
were collecting the evidence, were the ones to probably get the call.
The were the ones out front giving information to the press. They can
indicate the bag was found anywhere they say it is. Why the deception
if the bag followed the path that Burke suggests? Discovering the bag
in NY changes the dynamics of the story being built and would
certainly not point to Paradiso. We can't just accept the explanation
offered because why cover those facts up for so many years if that was
indeed the truth of the bag's journey?
When Bond's story comes out, leaked by the Logan troopers, it isn't
known by the public that this "break" connecting the 2 cases was
actually from a different source, Patty Bono in January 1982. She has
a grudge against Paradiso, but one that is not verified. Tamarro grew
up in the same neighborhood as both Bono and Paradiso. The Websters
received that information from her before Burke was ever on either
case. Burke tells us he breaks the sad news to the Websters in April
1983? My question is when did they break it to him?
The embellishments Burke alleges came from conversations Bond had with
Paradiso don't ring that true. They strike me as an effort to put so
much detail in to make it sound like it, but elements of the statement
were absolutely false. Why would we believe anything then that comes
out of a convicted murderer? We don't think he's capable of lying and
making things up? I also believe he had help constructing his plot
line. The visits and interviews with the troopers were numerous and
we have Bond's affidavit that they reneged on promises they made to
him.
Another example that comes to mind about incredible stories everyone
was swallowing is the account of Bullerwell. Bond's statement has
already been leaked to suggest Paradiso took Joan way out on his boat
and dumped her at sea. They get Paradiso's albums from a search
warrant. They probably find Bullerwell from some source like that,
someone he dated a handful of times. She is interrogated by the FBI
and then testifies at the pretrial. Her wild story suggests Paradiso
cuts up bodies and weighs them down with cinderblocks and dumps them
at sea. Think about it, the middle of night the end of November and
the weather was bad. Documents showed Paradiso had put his boat up
well before that time of the year in the past. Insurance claims and
reports had been filed that the boat was gone in July 1981 and no one
is identified that Burke can bring forward who saw it after that
time. When the boat is found it's discovered to have a broken
rudder. That boat wasn't going anywhere. It was already underwater.
The person(s) helping Bond with his story knew there was a boat. They
just didn't know it was gone before they started leaking the story.
But they have a problem so have to add another layer of lies to
explain Paradiso having Joan on his vessel.
Why is the FBI interrogating Bullerwell? They are not involved in the
Ianuzzi case. They would be brought in because of Joan Webster.
There was nothing to indicate her story was anything more than
complete fabrication or embellishing some distorted braggadocio. It
served the authorities though to bolster the notion that Bond was
spewing that Paradiso dumped Joan way out at sea. The only ones I see
as getting the coooperation of the FBI are the Websters. Bullerwell
was slated to testify at the Ianuuzi case and the real effort was
basically to fuse these 2 cases together. It's interesting to note,
and I will get documents posted soon, that Bullerwell didn't testify
at the trial. She did not want to and said she "couldn't remember."
She also indicated promises had been made to her, but once again what
she got fell far short of expectations she was led to believe. Again,
it didn't matter because the press rushed out the door from the
pretrial to call their late edition newsrooms to make sure her story
made the evening headlines. The press was there because of Joan, not
Marie.
It takes some peeling back of layers to unravel all the lies,
distortions, disinformation, and everything else involved to confuse
the public into believing the bull that was heaped. That includes all
the "convincing" details in Bond's statement or attributed to him by
way of Burke's book that served to spice it up in a way that you doubt
your own senses and get sucked into the fraud being perpetrated.
When you start to reallize you have been handed a story and that you
know pieces are false, consider the source and recognize the whole
damn thing was made up. You can't pick out what's not contaminated if
anything because the whole thing has become infected. There is also
no doubt in my mind that Bond needed help getting all of this sorted
in his mind. The troopers were the ones that had access to him.
Truth
Message has been deleted
dib'struth
Jul 31, 2008, 9:19:39 PM7/31/08
to Joan Webster Murder
Time line entries have been added. Entries have been added regarding
other events in Boston that involved officials connected to the
Ianuzzi and/or Webster cases.
other events in Boston that involved officials connected to the
Ianuzzi and/or Webster cases.
dib'struth
Aug 12, 2008, 9:22:47 PM8/12/08
to Joan Webster Murder
August 12, 1979, 29 years ago, Marie Ianuzzi was murdered. Please
take some time to remember her. Everyone's life holds value.
REVIEW THE TIME LINE. ADDITIONAL DATES WILL BE ADDED AND PLEASE LET
THE SITE KNOW OF ANY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED YET. PATTERNS ARE
EMERGING. IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO MARIE
IANUZZI AND JOAN WEBSTER.
On Jul 31, 9:19 pm, "dib'struth" <dibstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Time line entries have been added. Entries have been added regarding
> other events in Boston that involved officials connected to the
> Ianuzzi and/or Webster cases.
>
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/bullets
take some time to remember her. Everyone's life holds value.
REVIEW THE TIME LINE. ADDITIONAL DATES WILL BE ADDED AND PLEASE LET
THE SITE KNOW OF ANY THAT HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED YET. PATTERNS ARE
EMERGING. IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO MARIE
IANUZZI AND JOAN WEBSTER.
On Jul 31, 9:19 pm, "dib'struth" <dibstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Time line entries have been added. Entries have been added regarding
> other events in Boston that involved officials connected to the
> Ianuzzi and/or Webster cases.
>
dib'struth
Aug 19, 2008, 8:37:07 PM8/19/08
to Joan Webster Murder
JOAN WEBSTER WOULD HAVE BEEN 52 TODAY. KEEP HER IN YOUR PRAYERS.
STUDY THE TIME LINE CAREFULLY AND DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT.
THE MISSING PIECES ARE LOCKED AWAY IN JOAN'S FILES AND AUTHORITIES
BLOCK ANY REVIEW. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? HELP OPEN HER FILES AND HELP
MANY FAMILIES FIND PEACE FOR THEIR LOVED ONES.
TRUTH
> > work.- Hide quoted text -
STUDY THE TIME LINE CAREFULLY AND DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT.
THE MISSING PIECES ARE LOCKED AWAY IN JOAN'S FILES AND AUTHORITIES
BLOCK ANY REVIEW. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? HELP OPEN HER FILES AND HELP
MANY FAMILIES FIND PEACE FOR THEIR LOVED ONES.
TRUTH
dib'struth
Dec 11, 2008, 7:32:32 PM12/11/08
to Joan Webster Murder
Updated April 1990 information regarding the discovery of skeletal
remains
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/bullets
remains
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/bullets
dib'struth
Mar 3, 2009, 4:32:42 PM3/3/09
to Joan Webster Murder
The timeline has been updated and important to review
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages