View this page "Need for Independent Investigation"

[dib'struth]

There is justifiable reason for an independent investigation looking
at the individuals in charge of the Joan Webster murder case.

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/need-for-independent-investigation
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[The Great One]

Now there is a problem................

[dib'struth]

This case apparently hits a nerve for you. The Joan Webster case is
an unresolved murder and there has been a great deal of research to
raise these concerns. Substantial documentation has been obtained to
support issues brought forward. If you have documents or information
that supports otherwise you are welcome to bring it forward. I hope
you are not suggesting that Joan Webster does not deserve a full
review to get to the truth. Marie Iannuzzi's case also warrants
examination. The records from that case are public record. You asked
previously about documents. It became apparent that authorities were
an obstace to seeking the truth. It is not prudent to advertise to
them the documents that exist.

If nothing was wrong in the conduct of the investigation, Joan's files
will support them. An idependent review that is warranted is not a
condemnation of anyone. The answers are in the records.

[angelina]

Unlikley?! ... but very true, much was assumed on the part of the bpd and state police as carmen staged a lot of bullshit and got what he wanted, but now the level of corruption that has come to light of certain members of the police weither knowingly or not shows what slipshod work was done on be half of the commonwealth vs paradiso,and now to find other documents from other agencies showing a more details and  unacceptible ethics is really amazing how corrupt this state is

 OPEN THE FILES.... TIM WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF???

[The Great One]

My problem is you say things about people that are dead and cannot
defend themselves. Everyone in this case is dead....your energy for
justice would be better focused on helping find missing children or
abused children and help break the cycle. You want to claim their was
corruption....put up or shut up. Where is YOUR DOCUMENTATION????? All
I see over and over is how you have all this info yet don't share. You
don't get to trash good names without back up. That is defamation of
character. You may not like some people involved but you will not
mouth off!! Why are the webster and ianuzzis so quiet on this matter.
Clearly you see you are not helping either family having no proof and
dragging it on an on. Stop running your mouth and bring your proof
out!!!!

[dib'struth]

Not everyone who has been impacted by this case or involved is dead.

A witness came forward in 2007 after multiple attempts to get some
questions and concerns answered failed. Information was provided
without specifying the case. The witness was encouraged to bring the
information forward being relevant in an unresolved murder. When the
case was learned, the authorities were the ones that blocked
information. Calls were not returned, information was not followed up
on, and there have been ongoing efforts to discredit the witness.

Your reaction is much like the reaction of several people who have
done the digging and research and found troubling documents in files.
Joan and Marie can't speak out, but deserve a voice. Others who were
involved in the case in varios aspects are deceased. Information
regarding them is strongly encouraged to sort out who responsible
individuals are and who was used knowingly or not.

Going to authorities who have responsibility over this case today is
not an avenue that will get to the truth. Spelling out every document
and information learned is like handing them the things they need to
make up more excuses for. Documents are in the hands of investigators
and strategies are being considered.

Defamation or slander require that statements are unfounded or
knowingly false. That is not the case here. The Iannuzzi case is a
matter of public record. So is the Janet McCarthy case, the Federal
Bankruptcy case, and the Insurance case regarding the boat. The Joan
Webster case files have been blocked, but that is not the only source
where records have been obtained. Investigators have also interviewed
numerous people. There is still an effort to acquire additional
information. The information and documents will be brought forward in
the best avenue at the appropriate time. There are some documents on
this site that do begin to show the patterns of what took place. This
site does not presume to know all the answers. Perhaps encouragement
from others such as yourself to get the case files opened will clear a
lot of the discrepencies up.

Murder is a state case, not brought by the Iannuzzis or the Websters.
They would have to be asked about their feelings on these topics.
Most families want the truth even if it is not what they have
previously believed. New information can dramatically change the
perceptions that have been given the public.

Personally, I had to face some seriously wrong behavior of individuals
close to me. Lives have been shattered with lies layered upon lives.
The only way to help everyone involved is to air the truth. There
have been a lot of people hurt in all of this and there are still
victims today.

[dib'struth]

Angelina sent this to the email site:

It is on the site a lot of it,you can look for it ...it is there,
Some things cant be put up as some people involved who are alive want
it to stay closed until it can be exposed publicly and there will be
no place for the living cockroaches to hide or deny .AND SO THEY ARE
NOT IN DANGER OF BEING SILENCED PERMANENTLY

The iannuzzis don't say a thing as they probably don't know of this
site and have done a lot of double backing a long time ago, some
members of that family lied on the stand, that's here on site.

They also may believe they got the truth or accepted it even though
many in the family still believe david doyle killed marie but went
along with it because of the money the websters had flying around the
case

The Websters have blocked some things as it could sully their name and
they are concerned more about image then truth.

What proof do you have that anyone is being defamed? I dont see any
name calling except that of burke who is a liar.and your own
assumptions of what is being said

Who do you speak of ?

Lenny was defamed too and everyone was more than happy to let it be as
they assumed he was guilty and felt he deserved it but that kind of
thinking shows that truth is not important to some just pinning it on
a patsy was good enough

If the person you speak of is truly innocent and did a good job then
it will be in the files and if not, so be it ...maybe the truth hurts
but it needs to come out, and just maybe there are others involved who
were /are abused in the families involved and this is a way to enable
them all to get the help needed. This is not about anyone person
involved here it is about everyone involved.
THE PROOF IS HERE AND IT WILL COME OUT IN A PUBLIC FORUM SO LIARS
CANT HIDE

[dib'struth]

For some reason there seems to have been a difficulty posting
yesterday. The comments did go into the email. Hopefully this was
intended for posting from the great one. If not, please notify me and
I will remove it.

You have a lot of hostilty about a very old case. I wish people had
this much
Passion for good people who need help and not towards families that
lost their daughters. These woman spent the last moments of their life
in fear. You call their family liars and say they helped keep this
case silent. NOONE is going to be SILENCED......are you
serious......is this a special on HBO!

I said what I said about the families Paradiso, Ianuzzi & Webster not
saying anything because they should be putting up the stink! I really
want to understand this need to jump all over this case and it only
started when Burke published the book??

Pictures of State Troopers, DA, and state officials alluding to
corruption without solid proof is not acceptable!!!

[dib'struth]

There are multiple people that contribute to this site. People have
different reasons for feeling strongly about this case. People most
definitely have been silenced.

I don't know if you have taken the time to look at records that are
already posted. There are news articles, testimony, sworn statements
and some analysis from different people who know different parts of
these cases. Digging into a case like this will undoubtedly ruffle
some feathers, but that is true in any case. There is a strong effort
to keep this from having an independent review. If media is necessary
to examine records, this is not the best forum. This has been a site
to gather information and take a critical look at where the problems
are with this case. There are enough documents to raise flags people
should be concerned about.

As far as posting people's pictures and confronting this case, there
is no hesitation knowing documents do support the concerns if
challenged. By that, I don't mean someone on the other side of a
keyboard that is unknown to the group. Obviously you have some
knowledge and concern with this case. I respect that and hope you
will consider seriously contributing information that supports the
individuals you know who were a part of this case. These are public
officials who had responsibilities for everone's safety. Something
went very wrong.

Burke's book makes representations from files that are inaccessible to
either support or negate his statements. Other documents have been
acquired that show serious discrepencies in his version of events.
"Solving" cases in that way only leaves others vulnerable to be hurt
by the offenders left in our midst. That has happened. This case has
left a stack of victims that is sickening. There are a lot of people
still suffering from the ripple effect. So yes, there is a desire to
expose abuse and stop the cycle.

I can't speak to all of the issues about what the Iannuzzi and Webster
families think. There is evidence on this site how Iannuzzi family
members were threatened, coerced, and changed testimony. That is also
true of other witnesses in the Iannuzzi case. I can say with
certainty, there are documents the Webster family would not want
exposed. They are very damaging.

This case was in the making for years. It took passage of time and
other things come to light before it could be reviewed in a way where
things started to make sense. At the time, things were sent in all
sorts of directions. It also took the gathering of different pieces
of information that for years have been kept apart. The information
in this case was controlled.

This site has been examining the root of the case and those involved
are being scrutinized. That includes the families. It is hard to
imagine why the Websters are quoted as believing the False Bond
statement after the remains were found buried. I don't know if they
were deceived and evidence withheld or if they know more than they are
saying. There is not one molecule of evidence that connected Paradiso
to Joan Webster. Examing the Iannuzzi case brings that conviction
into serious question, but it was a case where he could be connected.
Whether this man should have been in jail for other things, I won't
try to judge. The Constance Porter case seems to be a just conviction
and he did serve time. These murder cases, later cases piled on, and
unverified allegations during all of this were not just.

This is about helping the victims that still suffer. Those efforts
have been ongoing for quite some time and trying different ways to
approach the problems from every possible view. It took time to get
to part of what the problem was. This case is most definitely part of
it.

[dib'struth]

The same glitch may still have happened or the send button hit at the
same time. This comment came into the email from Angelins. I
apologize for any problems, but will try to keep the comments posted
as quickly as possible.


Angelina wrote:
The proof is there, the freedom of information act is a beautiful
thing!

I dont see any hositility toward any one person, even tim burke who
is a liar... it is about exposure to a case that has been shoved under
the rug,by certain law officials and family members, and I do believe
the Paradiso family wants all sides to be heard as well as some
members of the Webster family and a Iannuzzi cousin who contacted
the site.

Marie and Joan were decent people who deserve the truth to be brought
out.

Just because you may not understand the depth of what has been found
out, or refuse to believe the seriousness of the situation does not
mean it is not true.You may want to see some of the certain documents
but what do you bring to the table except your complaint of unfairness
to law officials(many who are corrupt)
You may bring any of your information forward at any time and you have
not offered to do that yet why is that?

It is the internet and anyone can bring anything out in the open
and even though you believe that the people involved were honest and
did their job properly you bring no proof forward to refute what is
the general opion of many of this site.

If you have information then you should bring it forward as you say
put up or shut up!

The proof is here... where is your proof?

The point of all of this is to get the files open, it is a sad day
when people can pick and choose what truth they want to be made
public, and people are silenced all the time.

It happenned in this case a long time ago and continues today.

[dib'struth]

This comment came into the email from mjpbis

Who says that this person has any proof! They are asking that you guys
bring your proof that you so speak of.. That you say will come out
soon enough... You keep saying about justice for the victims but
aren't the websters victims? and don't you say they are lied and they
are part of this corrupt conspiracy theory you guys are trying to
uncover!!!
Just seems this you guys are so determined to discover something that
may or may not be there, and you guys seem to be willing to drag good
people's names threw the mud that are no longer here to defend
themselves. Just becareful because you never know who is reading this
and who has the power to do what....

[dib'struth]

If you are not willing to read the documents that are already posted
in the file section and cross referenced on this site, then you are
going to keep coming with the same argument. Go to the file section
and start reading the report from Investigator Slawsby. Follow that
with the report from Inspector Long and the evidence against David
Doyle in the Iannuzzi murder. Individuals who were involved in the
case who are now deceased are also speaking for themselves in
testimony and other sworn documents. Trooper Palombo testified he met
with David Doyle 20-30 times and never once documented those
meetings. That is not how a police officer interviews a suspect in a
murder case. He then stated he didn't consider Doyle a suspect. This
is more the type of arrangement you have with an informant and it is
publically known Trooper Palombo worked with informants in EB. He had
been the chief investigating officer on the Iannuzzi case since
February of 1981.

Any family member who has lost someone through such violence are
victims as well. They are further victimized if they are handed a
scapegoat to blame for their loss.

This case was billed beginning with a John Doe Grand Jury. That is
incorrect. This began as the Commonwealth verus Leonard Paradiso only
days after the Websters held a high powered meeting giving Paradiso's
name based on an anonymous call. They had the name, not Burke, and
things moved forward on an unverified call placed by a friend of
Tammaro. It was only later changed to a John Doe because Burke would
never have gotten an indictment against Paradiso from the grand jury
testimony he got from the Iannuzzi family. It implicated Doyle and
the evidence was there to support it. I am still working on how Burke
tried to claim rape on a woman who still had her clothing in tact. A
leotard without snaps.

People became influenced by the media linking Paradiso to Joan
Webster. There was absolutely nothing that connected him to her.

> > It happenned in this case a long time ago and continues today.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[dib'struth]

I apologize, but have no idea why things are only popping into the
email. I will get thingsup as they come in.

This came from Angelina

The proof is there and anyone can read it, there are many victims not
only the websters,
it has not been said that the websters lied, people need to look thru
the site and see what is here.

The newest info can NOT be put up yet as it is still an open
investigation, you are a member of the group but you also dont know
who is involved and soon enough it will all come to light.

If you have proof of innocence then bring it on.If you just want to
malign this site dont bother . A lot of work has gone into getting
much of the information that is here and soon to be added.

Every thing stated by the site and people involved can be backed up
but the authorities wont want it to come to light nor will they be
given the chance to dispose the work and documents that have been
brought forward.

And to the just be careful statement... no need to threaten we know
there are those who will fall when the whole story comes out, who want
our efforts to fail but we know the sources of the documentation and
that is not corrupt or a lie and thats enough .

Who they are and what they can do besides personal harm doesent
matter, there are to many eyes watching now .

You all have to be patient and you will see it is amazing the amount
of corruption involved here, who is at the center of of it all remains
to be seen but certain members of the story dont want anyone to know
as they want it to go away. 2 women are dead ,one person accused
unjustly is dead, and many involved who are alive have ties to
corruption many times over.

I personally cant wait until the media and public devore this whole
thing,then current people involved will have to explain themselves as
to why they refused to find what really happenned
and explain why the story was killed when Joan was found buried in
Hamilton, it doesent add up and needs closer for all involved once
and for all.

I personally wonder why some people keep harping on the innocence
of the corrupt law officials, and not anyone who of them who is
deceased is being accused of anything yet.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

I was reminded by someone this evening about something the great one
might be interested to know. Burke has made representations of files
in a case that is still open. There were some efforts to stop the
book from publication. The response was no even though it is an open
case due to freedom of speech. Maybe any anger you might feel should
be directed toward him.

[dib'struth]

This came to the email fro the great one

All you did and do is double talk....all I am saying is I have been
watching this for a while and nothing has changed. I didn't start this
sight, don't ask where my proof is...show me yours! That's what this
is about, everytime I make a comment you come back with " if you have
any info" line. Give me a break....don't presume to know what a police
officer does with an informant, also knowing some of these people as I
did. Don't ever think a man with four daughters and one looking very
much like Joan would let someone walk the streets just to cover some
other bullshit up!

I don't care if Tim Burke drops dead as we speak. I found this site
googling someone and was disgusted when I saw what was "thought".
There are no threats here...there will only and ever be action. What
did these "corrupt" officials gain by covering up a murder? Their
lives look no better than anyone else.....

[dib'struth]

Great One,

I respect that you obviously have some personal connections to
individuals that were part of these cases. From my stand point I have
encouraged you that you can provide information that would be relevant
to examining these cases. These individuals are being looked at for
their involvement in these cases not from their personal
relationships. As far as what a police officer does, they do not
conduct a murder investigation with a suspect in numerous undocumented
meetings.


This site was put up to gather information. Many people here have
suffered life changing damage as a result of this case. They have a
right to look at this case and find out just what went on. It is
starting at the beginning with how this case was developed and
presented. That means looking at everyone involved. It also means
looking at the climate and what was going on in Boston. Joan's
remains, when they were discovered, do not match up with the Paradiso
explanation.

No one at this site caused this circumstance. No one sensationalized
this case almost from day one. Efforts to work cooperatively with
current authorities to clarify discrepencies are being blocked.
Frankly, I would prefer it that way, but those files are guarded.
People here have been harrassed and efforts to discredit. That tells
me just how close this group has gotten and the nerves being hit. The
last I saw Burke pontificating on TV, he looked awful. If you want
other facts to be known then get the DA off his... and open the files
for an independent or cooperative review.

I am not insensitive to personal feelings about people we know, but
yours are no greater than any of the rest of us here. People here
have suffered damage from this case and I don't know that you have.
Victims have every right to challenge and question. Shutting people
up in one venue only means there needs to be another one found.

I am not sure what it is you want proven. No one has been accused of
anything, but some facts have been laid out. Your inference what that
implies is yours. This site is serious to get to the truth in Joan
Webster's murder. As Burke was successful before, he will not succeed
in this group backing down. There are some very explosive documents.
The DA is not interested in anything that rocks the boat on what is
being promoted. John Dawley has even stated as much in the papers.

Your earlier suggestion to expose and break a cycle of abuse is
exactly what is going on here. People have to speak out to do that.
No one here has shut down those avenues. As difficult as it is for
me, I try to keep emotions out of the equation when looking at all of
this in order to keep constructive and productive dialogue.

[angelina]

But your wrong Jessica,

 

 Many people did quite well for themselves with career advancement (Carmen) got a cushy job at mass port then the governors office, and several FBI agents were promoted and later found to be as bad as John Connolly.

 

Tim Burke got out of the DA office soon after the cases  were finished as no one wanted him around with his pompass attitude, and he made out quite well defending policemen who were brought to court for brutality, corruption and other offensives by the general public and he got paid very well by the state police for it, there are several officers involved who got advances to higher positions  and were later found to be corrupt.

 

Andy never got the same treatment as Carmen though he did a most of the leg work, Also he was not  heard from when Joans body was found in Hamilton in1990 and he was alive then so maybe he did know something and was trying to figure a way of how the case mo changed but unfortnatley we will never know unless he had documents he saved and his family still has.

 

 I would think his family would want to expose the truth  as Tim burke tells it he makes himself look the the brains and Andy like the big tough cop with no brains.That is injustice in  it self.

 

 I would imagine his family would want the truth exposed not kept quiet. I would think  if he was around today he would help expose the corrupt  people involved who let him down in the first place.

[dib'struth]

This came into the email from the great one. It might be from a
phone.

When was joan's body found?

On Jun 18, 10:56 am, angelina <myzt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But your wrong Jessica,...
>
> read more »

> > > > > > > Just because you may not understand- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

On 4-18-1990, a vet was walking her dog and came across part of a
human skull. For the next several days teams searched the area
findinging miscellaneous things. On 4-26-1990 a gravesite was found.
Almost the entire skeleton was recovered.

She was found in Hamilton, MA, a very remote area that was reported to
be a biker "hangout" and dumping ground. The local papers this was a
known area for crime activity.

The condition of the remains were that of "massive trauma." Her jaw
was broken in at least 3 places, she had multiple broken ribs, and the
blow to the head was described as a 2" hole on the right side of her
head. The body was askew and disfigurement was suggested.

The current investigation has been able to verify certain information
regarding the condition. Other people were notified prior to the
positive identification from dental records. There fortunately have
been other sources to get some information than just the files held by
Essex Couty. The hole in the side of the head was basically the
entire right side.

There was one other very disturbing fact learned regarding her
remains. It does suggest premeditiation. At this point that is
information that needs to be kept confidential. It was not
information that has been publically known.

Reviewing the site, there is information that the Webster family
cremated the body when it was returned to them. I am not sure what MA
or NJ law is or was at the time. Many states do not allow cremation
of a murder victim with an ongoing investigation.

> > > > > > > > is a liar... it is about- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[myz...@gmail.com]

why do you ask the same questions all the time? Why not look for
yourself it is all here,

> > > > > > > tried- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

This message was received through the email from the great one

Why premeditation? How can they tell from the remains?

> > > > > > > > name based on an anonymous call.  They had- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

There are several ways. Your associations with law enforcement might
be a good place to ask some questions. I would be interested in there
thoughts as well.

Joan disappeared from the airport without a trace. When combined with
other information, that is someone who knew what they were doing to
cover tracks.

The remains were very brutally beaten. That is an act of rage not a
random act of a bad actor who happened upon an opportunity.

The area where Joan was found was not someplace you would happen
upon. It is very remote and someone would have had to be familiar
with the area. This was the middle of the night and the weather was
terrible.

Time was taken to bury the body. The chances of finding her were very
unlikely or at least for a long time as proved to be the case. This
area is underwater at certain times of the year.

Items were dispursed in multiple places taking time and thought. This
again is not the behavior of a random offender, but diverted
investigation.

In reviewing murders in Boston where the MO's match up more closely,
time was taken to remove identifiers. This was also the case here.

There was also a protected FBI informant in this case. Burke doesn't
share that. The FBI was involved in the case very early on. Not when
Burke tries to inflate his ego that he brought them in in May of
1983. It can't be ignored the conduct of far too many out of that
office at that time. I don't throw everyone into the pot as corrupt,
but it can't be overlooked that sadly some were. This case got some
very high visibility.

There was also a connection between Burke's office and some of the now
known corrupt FBI officials. Corrution was discovered and exposed in
Newman Flanagan's office. That is documented in 1991 when it was
discovered John Kiernan, head of homicide in that office was
discovered keeping duplicate and secret files.

This is a lot and very overwhelming at times. Examining this case is
being done right. Investigators are involved to help gather and
understand the information. The only way to get to the truth is to
look at absolutely everything and then eliminate when the facts do not
support something. This group does not want another scapegoat. That
has left too many other victims besides just Joan and Marie.
Everything is being scrutinized.

> > > > > > > > > Any family member who has lost someone through such- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

Something else that is disturbing in what Burke is trying to suggest
especially when looking at the condition of Joan's remains. Court
records, the media, the book, and his current presentation say Joan
was raped then hit over the head.

Individuals at this site have independent knowledge of Bond, the
statement, and how it was acquired. Bond asserted that Joan
struggled, was hit in the head with a whiskey bottle, and then raped,
not the other way around. Burke twists the words and that is very
significant.

His whole story defies common sense and yet people swallow it.
Information has been controlled.

> > > > > > > > > Who they are and- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

This came into the email from skydove

The only thing certain here is that the woman whose remains were
discovered in Hamilton received a serious head wound that could have
been fatal. Whether she was raped at all, before or after being hit,
is unknowable. There's also no proof that she wasn't injected with a
lethal dose of barbiturate before her body was savaged. I don't
suggest that this happened.

Another thing we don't know for sure is whose remains were discovered
in Hamilton and caused to be cremated by the Webster family after a
dentist had said that the victim's teeth matched Joan Webster's dental
records. With all the talk of corruption, why is it beyond possibility
that a dentist was persuaded to confirm such a match? An experienced
eliciter of false testimony could easily enough have chosen the right
tack: intimidation? money? Dentists are often family men. Suppose
someone's children were threatened. How hard would it be, morally, to
say that the remains of one dead woman belonged to another woman, one
who hadn't been seen in 8 years and probably was dead? Money, or
threats to reveal financial or other hanky-panky, would also be
powerful motivators. The dentist would be assured of the prompt
cremation of the remains, so that no matter what might come to light
in the future, his opinion couldn't be questioned.

Without the dental match, how plausible is it that the remains are
Joan's? The purse was found in the Saugus marsh and the suitcase in
the Boston Greyhound terminal. The remains probably aren't real far
from the airport, either. There are other unsolved missing person
cases in Mass. Sometimes the bad guys get lucky.

It was stated earlier that the remains found in Hamilton had been
brutally attacked and that this signified an act of rage. But from
everything I have ever read or heard about Joan Webster, she was a
fine human being, kind, thoughtful, principled, gracious, and
considerate. Who's going to become infuriated with her? Had her
Harvard studies been a front for drug trafficking on a scale that
aroused the ire of long-established criminals? Please. She was also an
educated woman, intelligent and sophisticated -- not likely to find
herself in the woods in the middle of the night with a homicidal
maniac.

Unless the person responsible for Joan's abduction and subsequent fate
comes forward to enlighten us, it doesn't seem likely that we'll ever
know.

skydove

> > > > > > > > > > investigation, you are a member of the group but you also dont- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

On 11-26-1984, Burke requested a copy of Joan's dental records after
finding a partial jaw. It is verified the records were picked up from
Joan's dentist in NJ, hand carried to MA, and delivered in person to
Dr. Stanley Schwartz at Tufts. Schwartz is the forensic dentist who
identified the remains through dental records in 1990. Schwartz
retained a copy of Joan's dental records. The identification with the
jaw in 1984 was negative.

When the remains were recovered and examined, certain things were
reported. It was determined that the blow to the head was the fatal
blow. The Websters identified a ring found on the skeleton. Other
testing is unknown. I doubt rape could be determined at that point.
It may have been possible to test for drugs in her system, but that
information is not available. The concept of being drugged raises the
question if she was brutallized in a semi or unconscious state. The
extent of the wounds make it seem rather unlikely and unnecessary if
she had been fatally dosed.

Considering whether these remains belonged to someone else has no
supportable basis. It may be wishful thinking of family of others who
remain missing that were contacted when the remains were discovered,
but to date there is no documentation that even raises the question
with any conflicting information. If that were learned then it would
become a legitimate avenue to explore, but it is a diversion based on
what is known at this time. Investigation was diverted all through
this case and examination needs to remain focused based on what is
known.

I don't know what the interaction was between Burke or Suffolk County
and Dr Schwartz. There is nothing documented that has come to light
that suggests he falsified an identification in this case or any
other. There is evidence that Burke and others involved in the case
falsified information and withheld evidence. That is supportable in
documents.

The methods you suggest to influence Schwartz are apparent in other
aspects of the case. It is extremely troubling that witnesses in the
Iannuzzi case, Christine DeLisi and Jean Day, were threateaned with
fear of losing their children. The concept of children being
threatened or coerced is equally heinous. Documents may also suggest
this occurred.

To my knowledge there was a dental match. Who would have had anything
to gain by falsifying the identification? Burke has had to add layers
of lies to bend his version of events in some fashion to "fit." The
investigators on the case in the beginning were silent when the
remains were found, the story being learned to be false. The Websters
are quoted doubting the remains were Joan's early on and then stated
they continued to believe Bond's false statement without elaborating.
This was regardless that the remains were not dumped at sea. I don't
see any advantage for anyone for the remains to be identified as
Joan's if they were not. If evidence surfaces that shows otherwise,
it will be incorporated into what is already known to sort through to
the truth.

Your description of Joan is the consensus of everything I have seen.
Unfortunately, there are far too many victims that can also be
described as good people. This does not exempt her from someone
wishing her harm. It is not known whether Joan was witness to
something or had knowledge that might be damaging if others were to
learn it. I can relate to that very well. In resolving this, it is
more productive to dissect the case laid out about Paradiso, those
involved in that, and then get to the why there. I don't think the
motive will be obvious and it takes peeling this layer back to see who
was behind it. Sadly Joan ended up somewhere with a homicidal maniac.

It was stated early on by Inspector Richards of Beverly that items
dispersed as they were appeared to be a diversionary tactic. This
took some forethought and it certainly resulted in throwing
investigation in all directions. It confused the case. There is
conflicting information regarding the items and raises questions that
need to be answered.

Discovering the truth in Joan's case is undoubtedly a challenge. The
files guarded by Essex County may or may not have the key pieces of
information to resolve the case. A very significant lead was verified
this last week. It may just force the authorities to address the
discrepencies in this case.

> > > > > > > > no brains.That is injustice in  it self.- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

This came into the email from skydove

Without the least intent to impugn the professional integrity or
competence of Dr. Schwartz, I simply repeat that he could have been
influenced to make the finding he did. I make no suggestion as to who
would have wanted this to happen or why. As William James famously
pointed out, if you find one white crow, you can't say that all crows
are black.

That the Websters identified a ring found on the skeleton is, under
the circumstances, less than probative. Joan's parents made more than
one statement that is hard to square with reality; as far as I know,
everyone else who examined the ring was a stranger to Joan. Moreover,
the Websters hadn't had the kind of press the little Ramsey girl's
parents had; their word would have sufficed. Why might the Websters
have made a false identification, deliberately or owing to confusion?
I have no idea.

I said earlier that I wasn't suggesting that Joan had been drugged,
fatally or otherwise, after her abduction. I merely pointed out one
possibility among others that leaves us agnostic.

The possibility that the remains found in Hamilton didn't belong to
Joan Webster most certainly does have a supportable basis, and I made
some of those points in my last post.

At this point, while we know so little, it doesn't much matter whether
Burke, Suffolk County, the feds, or other parties "interacted" with
Dr. Schwartz. The possibility that someone did shouldn't be dismissed.

It is indeed impossible to state who would have gained anything by
ensuring that the remains were wrongly identified. I remember when
they were found. Friends in Mass. sent me clippings from local papers,
and it seemed very strange that the Websters would be so sure that
their daughter wasn't the victim. But much of their behavior has been
impenetrable to anyone looking through the lens of predictable
reactions to the circumstance of a missing child. By the time the
remains were found, Burke was so far out on a limb with the perjurious
testimony he'd elicited at Lenny's trial and his obstruction of
justice throughout the Iannuzzi case that a few more discrepant
statements wouldn't mean much to him. In retrospect, he may be wishing
that he'd been a bit more careful in the drafting of his book.

The failure of one person to perceive an advantage to the Websters of
having the remains misidentified doesn't mean there wasn't one. It
also needs to be pointed out that the Websters may have been pressured
to accept the misidentification by parties, and for reasons, that as
far as we know have no support in solid evidence. We still don't
really know who was running the show here, or what circumstances that
never made their way into the Boston Herald are being so assiduously
covered up.

skydove

> > > > discovered John Kiernan, head of homicide in that office was- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

The possibbilities are endless without access to the Webster case
files. My contention is there is nothing that has been brought
forward with supportable documentation that suggests this is an avenue
to pursue. The strongest path to the truth thus far has been
examining those involved in the original investigation and prosecution
of this and the Iannuzzi case. The starting point is the fact that
these remains were identified as Joan.

You are correct that the Websters were not under any scrutiny. Their
word was taken at face value and there are comments and/or behaviors
that don't square. Burke suggests in his book they are the influence
that brought about this book. They apparently still "believe" this is
what happened even though there is an abundance of verifiable
information that excludes Paradiso from consideration. Certainly
their influence of this theory would make others accept it as the
truth. I agree you can't overlook what the Websters might have gained
in any of this just because it is not readily visible to the outside.
Their background alone defines secrecy and creating perceptions.

Last week's discovery could be very instrumental in holding everyone
to some answers. There should be further information regarding a lead
that appears to have been suppressed.

> > read more »- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

This was received in the email from skydove

It's true that the remains discovered in Hamilton "were identified as
Joan." It's also true that not everyone accepts this "starting point."
Although common sense and life experience tend not to be accepted in
court as "supportable documentation," it's further true that absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The stupefying implausibility of the notion that Lenny killed Joan has
been detailed often enough and doesn't require to be reprised. He was
in the wrong place (prison or jail, I forget which) at the wrong time
(when a scapegoat was needed whose arrest record pegged him as a
likely suspect in the killing of a young woman).

Yet suppose David Doyle were to make a full, "supportable" confession
to the murder of Marie Iannuzzi. This would entail the acknowledgment
that he perjured himself at Lenny's trial. But whereas for Doyle,
perjury hardly signifies next to a charge of first- or second-degree
murder, Burke, as the prosecutor, begins to look, at best, like a
naive dupe. When his kid-gloved treatment of Doyle on the witness
stand is paired with his pathetic attempt to lend a patina of
coherence to Bond's contradictory statements under oath, he starts to
look very bad indeed.

Although stranger things have happened, it doesn't seem at all likely
that Doyle will oblige us by confessing. Other events could converge
to upset Burke's increasingly unstable applecart, however. Best case:
as the weight of evidence that Lenny was railroaded becomes even
greater than it already is, those Burke could name in various
transgressions will unite to throw him under the bus before he has a
chance to rat them out, leaving him isolated and looking like a wack
job.

> > > > records. With all the talk of corruption, why is- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

It may well be true that there are those who don't believe the reamins
are those of Joan Webster. There are also those who believe Paradiso
was guilty, or the Zodiac, or even recently Ted Kaczynski. The
problem is there is nothing documented that can support the theory
that has come to light. Speculation does hinder getting to actual
facts where they can be obtained by diverting energy into theories
that don't have a trail to follow. Being open to that information or
something that places someone like Kaczyinski in the right time and
place could change that, but has not surfaced to date.

It's not that likely Doyle will confess to the Iannuzzi murder now,
although he did to 2 individuals which was documented.

I agree that as more comes to light, those who confabulated the
Paradiso story will be uncomfortable to take the blame. Then you may
have someone start to open up to save their own skin. Burke is the
most vulnerable because he had the arrogance to write the book and
think no one would ever challenge him or learn other facts in a
supportable way. He guessed wrong.

It needs to be reinforced that the informant Bond has identified
someone. He named individuals at the time; Burke, Tammaro, Palombo,
and Bill. He has also identified someone else who was not in the
interrogation room. There are documents that support this could well
be the case and indicators who it was. Bond indicated that he was
screwed, that Pisa went along with it and he got out of jail.

> > > > described as good people.  This does not- Hide quoted text -

[dib'struth]

In answereing the post from skydove, it made me think of a question
that the answer I am most interested in hearing is from the great
one. Do you believe Paradiso was responsible for Joan Webster's
murder? If you do, what is it that convinces you?

If there was something that could be determined that did verify within
reasonable doubt that he was the offender, I would have no hesitation
to accept it. I don't want to speak for others at the site, but I
know there are others that feel that way as well.

> > > > > I don't know what- Hide quoted text -