View this page "Diverting Investigation"

[dib'struth]

The first problems to investigation came before Tim Burke's
involvement in the case and before Palombo and Tammaro were identified
as the lead investigators.

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

[dib'struth]

This came into the email from skydove

That's really great, especially the way you take apart what George
said vs. what phone records and other statements showed. This is
something that should go to the agency that's supposedly investigating
the "reopened" case. If that won't show them that the wrong foot had
been got off on, nothing will. As you know, I've agreed almost from
the first that the Websters deliberately hindered and obfuscated the
investigation. That page or so of copy alone would be sufficient to
pique the interest of anyone whose job it was to reinvestigate the
case.

One of the reasons for the reluctance to revisit Joan's case is that
so many people truly believe that the investigation, especially once
the FBI got involved, covered all the ground there was to be covered,
and did it properly. If people could be shown that the Websters were
lying and otherwise muddying the waters (passively from day 1, when
they failed to make a safe-arrival call, and then very actively,
beginning with your evidence), the heretofore unquestioned position
that "the Websters have suffered enough; nothing will bring Joan back;
they can't tell us any more than they did all those years ago" will be
seen to be unjustified. Then people will start to get mad. Then
they'll say, as you've said all along, "What kind of parents. . . ?"

The only question is, What "people" are the right ones to have this
information? They've already made enough mistakes. Find someone
authorized to call them on it.

On Nov 1, 12:36 am, "dib'struth" <dibstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The first problems to investigation came before Tim Burke's
> involvement in the case and before Palombo and Tammaro were identified
> as the lead investigators.
>

> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/diverting-inve...

[dib'struth]

The Websters were the ones that gathered probably the largest group to
ever investigate a missing person or even a murder in February of
1982. They had Paradiso's name at that time from Patty Bono, Sgt.
Carmen Tammaro's friend. There was nothing other than an anonymous
call to link Paradiso to Joan. There was no new evidence in the
Iannuzzi case to warrant the sham of a grand jury Burke claimed was
started as John Doe. It was started going after Paradiso and changed
later.

The FBI was involved much earlier than people realized. They were
called on 12-3-1981. Burke makes it sound like he was doing his civic
duty and went to them on May 3, 1983 because of Paradiso's
bankruptcy. This was a smokescreen and a way to apply more pressure
on the girlfriend. Affidavits that show Iannuzzi witnesses were
threatened by authorities bears out if you look at what happened to
the girlfriend.

Burke portrays Trooper Andrew Palombo as being distrustful of the
FBI. Other evidence shows that was not the case and he had a
relationship with the FBI. Working undercover with informants in EB,
center of the Angiulo's crime family, put him in the position to have
a working relationship with that office. The group associated with
those activities were later exposed for serious wrongdoing. A recent
question challeneged that Joan would have had any association with
that world. It's impossible to know if she had any knowledge of such
activities, but everyone overlooked whether the Websters did. Their
background was the one conducive to secrets of such a serious level
and/or making enemies along the way. That might explain why they were
not truthful about why Joan cut her break short and went back early.

Truth

> > work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[dib'struth]

Several articles have been recovered and added to the site. They are
listed at the bottom of the pages list and have not been placed in any
sequential order.

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

[dib'struth]

There is another false statement from the Boston Magazine article.

"In the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing-which we didn't go to-there were
women coming forward to testify, a series of people, about attacks on
them, and some of these cases had never been brought to trial...And if
he had been caught and convicted of some of these other things-he
might have been-this might never have happened to Joan."
George Webster 12-1984 Boston Magazine

George states they did not attend the Iannuzzi pretrial. Not only were
they there, they positioned themselves in front of the media who were
there to follow their story, not Marie Iannuzzi. They wielded a great
deal of influence how this case was perceived. They were dangling the
reward money out there appealing for more stories like the ones Burke
put on the stand that week. The only one that had any validity was
Constance Porter and Paradiso had served time for that offense. That
should not be minimized, but it doesn't justify fabricating stories to
pin on him. The Boston Globe article on 3-6-1984 is only one of the
articles that week verifying the Websters were in the courtroom for
these hearings and likely got first run editions of the
sensationalized stories hot off the press. That article was added and
near the bottom of the pages list.

Why did the Websters misrepresent this?

[dib'struth]

A 2nd quote from the Boston Magazine article has been added to this
page with an article that disputes the satement. Addition is below
the deposition made by famil counselor Ari Gleckman

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/diverting-investigation