View this page "Bond Analysis"
7 views
Skip to first unread message
dib'struth
Aug 9, 2009, 12:49:33 PM8/9/09
to Joan Webster Murder
Another perspective of the informant Robert Bond
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/bond-analysis
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/bond-analysis
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.
skydove
Aug 9, 2009, 5:11:44 PM8/9/09
to Joan Webster Murder
This is an interesting analysis. It emphasizes once again the
novelistic character of Burke's book. Fictional flourishes helped make
the book such a page-turner for its many fans on Amazon; but the more
one knows about the case, the more fantastical they appear. Compare,
for example, the analyst's description of Bond today with Burke's
version of Bond's testimony at Lenny's trial. The analyst is careful
to note that many years in prison may have made inroads on Bond's
cognitive abilities. The the person described in the relatively recent
interview, however, sounds more like a tertiary syphilitic than like
the majestic giant that appears on Burke's pages, a guileless
primitive, a tad intimidating because he's a big guy who's killed two
women, but basically just a citizen coming forward to do his civic
duty.
I would be interested to know when Rappaport made the statement about
the lack of credibility of Bond's testimony. He certainly didn't do
much to put a dent in it at the trial. Is this perhaps a 21st-century
assessment, made with the assurance that Lenny can't now request a new
trial on the basis of inadequate representation in 1984?
The problems with the timeline are properly emphasized here. Others
have pointed out the impossibility of one Bond/Paradiso conversation
Burke "reports" because on the afternoon that Bond was brought to
Charles Street from the MCI facility he'd been at, there was a
lockdown at Charles Street and there could not have been an encounter
between the two prisoners.
The analyst makes the commonsense point that most people awaiting
trial in jail will be reluctant to discuss immediately pending cases
with fellow inmates because of the obvious danger that the person
asking questions will "try to trade on that information." Teenaged
gangbangers know this much. Lenny, with all his experience, surely
knew it; equally surely, he wouldn't have had much to say to a
stranger who suddenly arrived in the next cell and started
interrogating him.
But the beauty of Burke's plan was that he'd been able to determine
that Lenny and Bond knew each other. Thus there was a chance that the
two men would get to talking. Even if all Lenny really said was that
he was being framed on Iannuzzi, it wouldn't make any difference.
Burke was going to make up Bond's testimony for him anyway, so the
only important thing was to establish that Lenny and Bond spent some
time together at Charles Street.
In the normal run of things, it surely is unlikely for a prisoner
who'd just been convicted to spend days or weeks in the jail he'd been
sent to for the period of the trial. But this wasn't the normal run of
things. Burke had a very weak case against Lenny in Iannuzzi and he
needed something more. Given the extent of corruption in Boston at the
time, it's not unfeasible that the usual procedure of shipping Bond
right up to MCI-Concord would have been bent.
Others have noted that during this period after Bond's trial, state
troopers were in and out of Charles Street regularly. Asked if they
were, by any chance, preparing a witness, they issued firm denials.
It's not too far-fetched to suggest, however, that Bond wasn't talking
to Lenny much, if at all. Rather, Burke's agents were paying him
repeated visits with a view to feeding him the story he was going to
be obliged to first regurgitate before Burke in his office, then
commit to paper and mail to Burke, and then be led through at Lenny's
trial. As we know, the results were uneven. But it's only with Burke's
book in hand that we see how inventive the guy is. How much more
plausible that Lenny never said any of what Bond under oath attributes
to him but, rather, Burke the novelist-in-training made it all up and
tried to have Bond learn enough of it to sink Lenny in the Iannuzzi
trial.
novelistic character of Burke's book. Fictional flourishes helped make
the book such a page-turner for its many fans on Amazon; but the more
one knows about the case, the more fantastical they appear. Compare,
for example, the analyst's description of Bond today with Burke's
version of Bond's testimony at Lenny's trial. The analyst is careful
to note that many years in prison may have made inroads on Bond's
cognitive abilities. The the person described in the relatively recent
interview, however, sounds more like a tertiary syphilitic than like
the majestic giant that appears on Burke's pages, a guileless
primitive, a tad intimidating because he's a big guy who's killed two
women, but basically just a citizen coming forward to do his civic
duty.
I would be interested to know when Rappaport made the statement about
the lack of credibility of Bond's testimony. He certainly didn't do
much to put a dent in it at the trial. Is this perhaps a 21st-century
assessment, made with the assurance that Lenny can't now request a new
trial on the basis of inadequate representation in 1984?
The problems with the timeline are properly emphasized here. Others
have pointed out the impossibility of one Bond/Paradiso conversation
Burke "reports" because on the afternoon that Bond was brought to
Charles Street from the MCI facility he'd been at, there was a
lockdown at Charles Street and there could not have been an encounter
between the two prisoners.
The analyst makes the commonsense point that most people awaiting
trial in jail will be reluctant to discuss immediately pending cases
with fellow inmates because of the obvious danger that the person
asking questions will "try to trade on that information." Teenaged
gangbangers know this much. Lenny, with all his experience, surely
knew it; equally surely, he wouldn't have had much to say to a
stranger who suddenly arrived in the next cell and started
interrogating him.
But the beauty of Burke's plan was that he'd been able to determine
that Lenny and Bond knew each other. Thus there was a chance that the
two men would get to talking. Even if all Lenny really said was that
he was being framed on Iannuzzi, it wouldn't make any difference.
Burke was going to make up Bond's testimony for him anyway, so the
only important thing was to establish that Lenny and Bond spent some
time together at Charles Street.
In the normal run of things, it surely is unlikely for a prisoner
who'd just been convicted to spend days or weeks in the jail he'd been
sent to for the period of the trial. But this wasn't the normal run of
things. Burke had a very weak case against Lenny in Iannuzzi and he
needed something more. Given the extent of corruption in Boston at the
time, it's not unfeasible that the usual procedure of shipping Bond
right up to MCI-Concord would have been bent.
Others have noted that during this period after Bond's trial, state
troopers were in and out of Charles Street regularly. Asked if they
were, by any chance, preparing a witness, they issued firm denials.
It's not too far-fetched to suggest, however, that Bond wasn't talking
to Lenny much, if at all. Rather, Burke's agents were paying him
repeated visits with a view to feeding him the story he was going to
be obliged to first regurgitate before Burke in his office, then
commit to paper and mail to Burke, and then be led through at Lenny's
trial. As we know, the results were uneven. But it's only with Burke's
book in hand that we see how inventive the guy is. How much more
plausible that Lenny never said any of what Bond under oath attributes
to him but, rather, Burke the novelist-in-training made it all up and
tried to have Bond learn enough of it to sink Lenny in the Iannuzzi
trial.
dib'struth
Aug 10, 2009, 1:19:31 AM8/10/09
to Joan Webster Murder
Excellent observations skydove. Some points I want to emphasize
again. The media reported repeatedly that Burke had received a letter
from Bond on January 5, 1983. He claims he called Sgt Tammaro and Tr
Palombo to his office to read it. He claims this was the break in the
case. Burke continues in more recent interviews that he had this
letter on 1-5-83. That is blatantly false. Burke still didn't have
the letter he was expecting even by 1-14-83 when Bond was
interviewed. He knew he was going to get a letter and he didn't have
it. Sgt Tammaro arranged to pick it up and go over it before
Tammaro's "arranged" polygraphs. The so called break was a year
before Bond ever entered the picture. There was an anonymous call to
the Websters tying Paradiso to both cases. That got the ball
rolling. The caller was later identified as Tammaros's "friend" Patty
Bono. This was a complete set up. Authorities spent a year gathering
information, so called evidence, and spreading suspicion in through
law enforcement. They kept things out of the press when they wanted
and fed what they wanted. Information was completely controlled and
mmanipulated. Go back through the articles and see who is quoted.
The same names keep popping up. Three names are all over this; Burke,
Palombo, and Tammaro. Bond named these individuals in his grievance
with the court. The analysis doesn't reveal the name Bond disclosed
during the 2008 meeting. When you understand the statement was
fabricated and fed to Bond, and it is false on numerous points
relating to both cases, then a couple of big problems crop up. The
interviewers abandoned the MO being attached to Paradiso and gave the
correct manner of Joan's death. They also were aware of the trail
establishing the boat was reported missing on July 26, 1981, months
before Joan disappeared. They continued to press the theory that kept
investigation focused on the boat and harbor despite the problem. The
explanation provided an answer why there was no body. It's fair to
question if someone in the room knew what happened to Joan. Bond
didn't and neither did Paradiso.
again. The media reported repeatedly that Burke had received a letter
from Bond on January 5, 1983. He claims he called Sgt Tammaro and Tr
Palombo to his office to read it. He claims this was the break in the
case. Burke continues in more recent interviews that he had this
letter on 1-5-83. That is blatantly false. Burke still didn't have
the letter he was expecting even by 1-14-83 when Bond was
interviewed. He knew he was going to get a letter and he didn't have
it. Sgt Tammaro arranged to pick it up and go over it before
Tammaro's "arranged" polygraphs. The so called break was a year
before Bond ever entered the picture. There was an anonymous call to
the Websters tying Paradiso to both cases. That got the ball
rolling. The caller was later identified as Tammaros's "friend" Patty
Bono. This was a complete set up. Authorities spent a year gathering
information, so called evidence, and spreading suspicion in through
law enforcement. They kept things out of the press when they wanted
and fed what they wanted. Information was completely controlled and
mmanipulated. Go back through the articles and see who is quoted.
The same names keep popping up. Three names are all over this; Burke,
Palombo, and Tammaro. Bond named these individuals in his grievance
with the court. The analysis doesn't reveal the name Bond disclosed
during the 2008 meeting. When you understand the statement was
fabricated and fed to Bond, and it is false on numerous points
relating to both cases, then a couple of big problems crop up. The
interviewers abandoned the MO being attached to Paradiso and gave the
correct manner of Joan's death. They also were aware of the trail
establishing the boat was reported missing on July 26, 1981, months
before Joan disappeared. They continued to press the theory that kept
investigation focused on the boat and harbor despite the problem. The
explanation provided an answer why there was no body. It's fair to
question if someone in the room knew what happened to Joan. Bond
didn't and neither did Paradiso.
dib'struth
Aug 10, 2009, 9:18:14 PM8/10/09
to Joan Webster Murder
This came into the site emailbox from skydove. I'm not sure why it
does it, but I want to get everyone's information posted.
Bond never would have had a grievance to file with the court had not
Burke, in his office, in front of witnesses, in a taped conversation,
allowed Bond to suppose that he'd receive favorable treatment from the
court if he cooperated in the Lenny-framing scheme. In fact, however,
the offer Burke made went beyond what Mass. law authorized for someone
with Bond's conviction record. Presumably, though not necessarily
certainly, Burke knew this; others in the room (veteran law
enforcement and corrections officers) should have known it and
undoubtedly some did.
The only one to be fooled was the only one Burke intended to mislead:
the uneducated Bond, who wasn't accompanied by an attorney, family
member, or friend. Bond expected to be offered a deal, "like in the
movies," and he accepted without question what he wanted to hear. Now
he's paying for having trusted the wrong guy, as well as for having
murdered two women.
Manipulation of the media is important insofar as it created a highly
anti-Lenny atmosphere in Boston (& again, it's hard to understand why
Rappaport didn't request a change of venue on the grounds of local
press coverage alone, never mind whether it had been manipulated). The
more significant things here are the unethical treatment of Bond,
without which the Commonwealth would have been deprived of a star
witness, and way Burke suppressed exculpatory evidence and lied about
dates in connection with the Bond letter. If Lenny were living, these
alone should have sufficed to reopen the case. What can be done now?
> > trial.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
does it, but I want to get everyone's information posted.
Bond never would have had a grievance to file with the court had not
Burke, in his office, in front of witnesses, in a taped conversation,
allowed Bond to suppose that he'd receive favorable treatment from the
court if he cooperated in the Lenny-framing scheme. In fact, however,
the offer Burke made went beyond what Mass. law authorized for someone
with Bond's conviction record. Presumably, though not necessarily
certainly, Burke knew this; others in the room (veteran law
enforcement and corrections officers) should have known it and
undoubtedly some did.
The only one to be fooled was the only one Burke intended to mislead:
the uneducated Bond, who wasn't accompanied by an attorney, family
member, or friend. Bond expected to be offered a deal, "like in the
movies," and he accepted without question what he wanted to hear. Now
he's paying for having trusted the wrong guy, as well as for having
murdered two women.
Manipulation of the media is important insofar as it created a highly
anti-Lenny atmosphere in Boston (& again, it's hard to understand why
Rappaport didn't request a change of venue on the grounds of local
press coverage alone, never mind whether it had been manipulated). The
more significant things here are the unethical treatment of Bond,
without which the Commonwealth would have been deprived of a star
witness, and way Burke suppressed exculpatory evidence and lied about
dates in connection with the Bond letter. If Lenny were living, these
alone should have sufficed to reopen the case. What can be done now?
>
> - Show quoted text -
dib'struth
Aug 10, 2009, 9:49:48 PM8/10/09
to Joan Webster Murder
Skydove,
You do bring up very relevant points how Bond was enticed and treated
in order to get the statement.
To me there are 2 glaring points that are very problematic.
1. The false statement authorities took from Bond included the
correct manner of Joan's death including Bond's gesture to point to
the correct part of his head.
2. Authorities already knew the paper trail establishing the boat was
reported missing 7-26-1981, long before Joan disappeared. They
continued to press forward with the theory. What the theory provided
was an explanation why there was no body turning up.
The people that interviewed Bond are:
SGT CARMEN TAMMARO
TROOPER ANDREW PALOMBO
TROOPER JACK O'ROURKE
SGT ROBERT HUDSON
OFFICER BILL GILLAM
ADA TIM BURKE
Tammaro, Palombo, Bill, and Burke are specifcally named by Bond in a
filing with the court. That document is on this site.
Current investigation learned another name who was not present, but
sent people to see Bond. Evidence of that influence is apparent in
the interview.
Good news. Two new sources are presently reviewing a case summary.
There is also a new consideration being discussed.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
You do bring up very relevant points how Bond was enticed and treated
in order to get the statement.
To me there are 2 glaring points that are very problematic.
1. The false statement authorities took from Bond included the
correct manner of Joan's death including Bond's gesture to point to
the correct part of his head.
2. Authorities already knew the paper trail establishing the boat was
reported missing 7-26-1981, long before Joan disappeared. They
continued to press forward with the theory. What the theory provided
was an explanation why there was no body turning up.
The people that interviewed Bond are:
SGT CARMEN TAMMARO
TROOPER ANDREW PALOMBO
TROOPER JACK O'ROURKE
SGT ROBERT HUDSON
OFFICER BILL GILLAM
ADA TIM BURKE
Tammaro, Palombo, Bill, and Burke are specifcally named by Bond in a
filing with the court. That document is on this site.
Current investigation learned another name who was not present, but
sent people to see Bond. Evidence of that influence is apparent in
the interview.
Good news. Two new sources are presently reviewing a case summary.
There is also a new consideration being discussed.
dib'struth
Aug 11, 2009, 12:42:04 PM8/11/09
to Joan Webster Murder
Multiple agencies have been involved in the case;
the MSP
Boston PD
Harvard Campus PD
Cambridge PD
Saugus PD
Beverly PD
Glen Ridge NJ PD
Hamilton PD
Boston FBI
Newark FBI
FBI headquarters in Quantico
Suffolk County DA
Essex County DA
Middlesex County DA
George Webster established a command post at Harvard.
George and Eleanor Webster are former CIA adding another element of
investigatory skill.
There is a protected FBI informant in this case.
Visibility reached as high as FBI Director Wiliam Webster.
The Bond statement is fasle, but the Websters support it.
When remains were recovered, there was no cooperation or support for
further investigation. George and Eleanor Webster had the clout to
insist on further investigation when new facts were learned in the
case.
It is impossible to imagine with all of this manpower that nothing was
found in Joan's case to resolve it. That indicates to me there were
inside efforts to divert legitimate investigation. That is borne out
in documents.
The false Bond statement has 2 problematic components:
1. It contains the correct manner of death including Bond's gesture to
point to the correct location on the head.
2. Authorities continued to press the boat theory regardless facts
already known about the boat. The boat was reported missing in
numerous agencies on 7-26-1981, before Joan disappeared. The theory
was convenient to keep investigation diverted and an explanation why
there was no body.
The people involved obtaining the Bond statement are;
Sgt Carmen Tammaro
Trooper Andrew Palombo
Trooper Jack O'Rourke
Sgt Robert Husdon
Officer Bll Gillam
ADA Tim Burke
Where it is possible, these are the individuals to be asked what
happened to Joan Webster. This case is being covered up.
the MSP
Boston PD
Harvard Campus PD
Cambridge PD
Saugus PD
Beverly PD
Glen Ridge NJ PD
Hamilton PD
Boston FBI
Newark FBI
FBI headquarters in Quantico
Suffolk County DA
Essex County DA
Middlesex County DA
George Webster established a command post at Harvard.
George and Eleanor Webster are former CIA adding another element of
investigatory skill.
There is a protected FBI informant in this case.
Visibility reached as high as FBI Director Wiliam Webster.
The Bond statement is fasle, but the Websters support it.
When remains were recovered, there was no cooperation or support for
further investigation. George and Eleanor Webster had the clout to
insist on further investigation when new facts were learned in the
case.
It is impossible to imagine with all of this manpower that nothing was
found in Joan's case to resolve it. That indicates to me there were
inside efforts to divert legitimate investigation. That is borne out
in documents.
The false Bond statement has 2 problematic components:
1. It contains the correct manner of death including Bond's gesture to
point to the correct location on the head.
2. Authorities continued to press the boat theory regardless facts
already known about the boat. The boat was reported missing in
numerous agencies on 7-26-1981, before Joan disappeared. The theory
was convenient to keep investigation diverted and an explanation why
there was no body.
The people involved obtaining the Bond statement are;
Sgt Carmen Tammaro
Trooper Andrew Palombo
Trooper Jack O'Rourke
Sgt Robert Husdon
Officer Bll Gillam
ADA Tim Burke
Where it is possible, these are the individuals to be asked what
happened to Joan Webster. This case is being covered up.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages