View this page "IMPOSSIBLE-Didn't Happen"

[dib'struth]

Bond theory that Burke suggests is impossible.

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

[dib'struth]

This message came into the email in response to the page from fintan

This is a damming twisting of the Bond statement by Burke.

Another motive may be that the severe right-hand side of the head
injury which was found on Joan's body was certainly immediately fatal.
So it beggars belief that Paradiso then pauses to rape the deceased.

In any event, Burke playing fast and loose by reversing the order of
events
compeltely destroys his bona fides in the case.

Furthermore, from Joan's body we know the blow was of a severity akin
to a full force impact with a baseball bat -rather than with a bottle
(which would in any event have shattered). That makes such a blow in
the confined space (left-handed?) virtually impossible.

Ahead of the discovery of Joan's body, only the perpetrator(s) knew
that the manner of death was a blow to the right hand side of the
head.

If Bond was lying about Paradiso's confession to him,
how did he know to accurately describe the manner of death?

The head injury issue is where this tissue of lies falls apart.

It's also where questions of criminal conspiracy as accessory, after
the
fact, to murder --and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
arise.

On Aug 13, 8:14 pm, "dib'struth" <dibstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bond theory that Burke suggests is impossible.
>

> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/joan-webster-murder/web/impossible-did...

[dib'struth]

Fintan,

Your observations reflect good common sense when looking at this whole
scenario. The people involved in gaining that statement need to be
examined. They are:
Sgt Carmen Tammaro
Trooper Andrew Palombo
Trooper Jack O'Rourke
Sgt Robert Hudson
Officer Bill Gillam
ADA Tim Burke

Investigation has also learned there was an individual who sent people
to see Bond who was not in the interviews room.

Who doesn't want this case opened for an independent review?

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

[dib'struth]

This came in from skydove to the email:

Subject: Re: [joan-webster-murder:217] Re: View this page "IMPOSSIBLE-
Didn't Happen"



Outside of readers of Burke's book, I don't think anyone thinks Lenny
Paradiso killed Joan Webster.

It's possible that the head-wound story was fed to Bond, as discussed,
during the period between his arrival at Charles St. Jail and his
interview with Burke and others. If this were so, the "feed" would
have had a limited number of sources. Surely the number of
eyewitnesses was small; perhaps the perp acted alone, although this
doesn't seem likely. It's not inconceivable that Joan was killed as
the ultimate in a series of messages to her parents that a presently
unknown but powerful organized entity wished the Websters to do, or
stop doing, something -- I have no idea what. If this were so, the
Websters would have been contacted, given enough details to convince
them that their daughter was dead, and firmly advised not only to keep
the matter from police attention as long as possible but to frustrate
efforts both to find the killers and to discover their motive. Such a
scenario would make sense of otherwise inexplicable actions of and
positions adopted by the Websters.

But there's at least one other possibility: Lenny in fact told Bond
the whole cockamamie story about getting Joan on his boat, hitting her
with a bottle, and disposing of the body in that stormy late November
sea. We know that in the period in question Lenny did talk to Bond.
The time of at least one these conversations couldn't have been that
given by Burke, as outlined earlier. & it also stands to reason that
Bond's many official visitors during the development of the frame were
supplying material, whether uniquely for the story Bond would tell or
as approaches to querying Lenny.

I want to be very careful here because my memory of an event that
occurred over 20 years ago is hazy, but I put forth the following. In
a phone conversation with Lenny, after we'd been corresponding for
years and I thought I was getting to know him, I asked him point-
blank: "Did you actually say all that crap to Bond?" I don't remember
Lenny's response, and maybe I didn't give him a chance to make one,
instead pressing on with my next question, which was something on the
lines of: "When Bond asked you about Joan Webster, who of course you
never met under any circumstances, did you maybe jerk him around a
little and say, 'Oh sure, I killed her. Took her out on my boat and
when she wouldn't put out I belted her one. But she went and died on
me, so I had no choice but to chuck her overboard"? To that question,
Lenny did say something like, "Yeah, that's how it happened. I never
thought anyone would be dumb enough to believe it," whereupon he
continued with all the reasons we know that let him off the hook.

I note for completeness the possibility that Lenny was simply telling
me what he thought I wanted to hear. He was not a trusting person, and
he had good reason for his caution. It may have been that indeed he
never spoke to Bond at all in Charles Street but was afraid my husband
and I, who were his long-distance friends, might have disbelieved such
a statement and withdrawn our support.

The whole point is that there's a lot we don't know and may never know
unless means are found to compel the living, who have a great deal to
lose, from clarifying the matter.

skydove

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

[dib'struth]

I'm not sure the believers are so limited. People have not had the
facts and information controlled. We are conditioned to believe the
authorities. There would be more of an outcry to review this
unresolved case if they were more informed. It has just been acceted
as truth. Most people still believe the Iannuzzi conviction was a
just case. It wasn't and the documents support that.

Your observations about the Websters' behavior is important. They do
influence people believe the theory. They would have to answer what
they believe that convinces them, but that's not likely. It would
help clarify if it was known what information they had through all of
this or if it was possible to deceive them. They had the muscle to
bring in countless numbers of people as part of this investigation. I
am inclined to believe they were the influence that didn't want
further investigation after the remains were found. If they had
wanted it they would have gotten it. Your observation there may have
been other motives directed at them is something that was never
explored. They have a background that could lend itself to a great
many people not liking their involvements. The interrelationships of
the family are an area that might shed some light. Nothing was
apparent as a motive against Joan, but the parents are a whole other
story explaining why they would go along with an implausible and
really impossible theory.

I have eliminated the consideration Paradiso spewed the boat theory in
a moment of foolish braggadocio. The boat theory was tested almost 6
months before it fell out of Bond's mouth and set to paper. Bond
confirmed he saw photos of Paradiso's boat, so he was able to pick
something out with help that the authorities were then able to
"corroborate."

The authorities were the ones that moved Bond in close proximity to
Paradiso's cell. They wanted them to be seen. Paradiso probably
didn't even know until then Bond was there. They hadn't seen each
other since Walpole in the mid 1970's. And all of a sudden Paradiso
is going to confess these 2 crimes in all this detail. Not a chance.
If Paradiso said anything at all, Bond probably posed the theory in a
question and Paradiso went sure.

I come back to some real problems in the Bond statement:

1. Authorities stuck with the boat explanation despite documentation
to the contrary. It provided an explanation for no body.

2. The MO changed and the statement contained too detailed a
description for Joan's death that was not learned until 1990. Bond
said she was hit in the head, pointed to the correct spot, described a
hole in her head, and a lot of blood.

3. Burke twists the statement of his own witness and reverses the
order of events.

BIG PROBLEMS

[dib'struth]

This came in to the email from skydove:

It was my impression that popular sentiment at the time that the
remains were discovered was to want to start the ID process by
comparison with materials the Webster family would be able to release.
When the Websters expressed certainty that the remains belonged to
someone else, many were scratching their heads: "Well, maybe that's
true. But don't you want to find out?" Then the identification was
made, and despite Bond's under-oath story about the boat, the Websters
accepted the opinion of the dentist but continued to insist that Lenny
was guilty. Published reports of statements by law enforcement
officers that the find had exonerated Lenny seem not to have swayed
them. My impression is that people in the area *did* believe the
authorities, whose statements were supported by the information
available and, even more important, by common sense. That the Websters
had another opinion was shrugged off: "It's none of our business. Let
them grieve in their own way."


So it's the Websters' behavior that departs from the norm; popular
opinion seems to have been both rational and compassionate. If the
Websters weren't old and the parents of a murdered child, it might
make sense to investigate them on charges of obstructing justice.
After all, it's an open case. Their failure to place a missing person
report for so long is only the first link in what could be called a
chain of obfuscatory, distracting, at times downright uncooperative
statements and actions.

never spun the boat story to Bond. The more I thought about it, the
more likely it seemed that he'd just affirmed what I'd seem to be
expecting. Similarly, if, as you suggest, it had been Bond rather than
me tossing out the boat tale, Lenny might well have agreed, simply
because the whole thing was too ludicrous to address.

Your first numbered point bears repetition:

1. Authorities stuck with the boat explanation despite documentation

to the contrary. It provided an explanation for no body. <<It also
provided cover, should the body ever be unearthed.>>


The second point is a maybe (there's still room for the long arm of
coincidence). The third ("Burke twists the statement of his own
witness and reverses the order of events.") really puts Burke in Ahab
territory. That took extraordinary gall. Whether there also was
extraordinary confidence remains to be seen.

BIG PROBLEMS

Agreed.

skydove

[dib'struth]

The Websters are quoted that they didn't believe the remains were
Joan. The press was also representing the DA as conducting a new
investigation and the Websters wanted answers. Sources involved tell
a different story. There was no cooperation or support and the
impression the Websters didn't want further investigation. That
should never have been their determination, it's the states case.
Budgets could have been a factor, but if the Websters wanted it they
surely would have gotten it. They demonstrated their muscle all
through the case. There were a lot of law enforcement who came
forward and disagreed with the theory having new facts to add to the
case. Sadly, it was not widely reported or known. I am sure everyone
assumed the Websters know things they don't to stick with the Paradiso
explanation. Looking at actual documents now, I can't fathom what
that would be.

Another factor is Burke's assertion the Websters were the influence
for the book. They are quoted supporting and contributing.
Currently, the DA represents the Websters not wanting their privacy
violated for an independent review. The book was pretty graphic with
details that didn't happen. What family doesn't want as much
information as possible about a murdered child?

It's tragic if the truth doesn't matter for the Websters, but it does
for others hurt by this case. It matters for Joan and Marie. I would
agree their behavior is out of the norm and theirs was probably the
biggest influence to believe this. People also have held that the
Iannuzzi case was a just conviction. There is too much information
available now to refute that. The case they were pressing for under
the veil of the Iannuzzi case was Joan's.

The authorities got the boat issue derailed with the bankruptcy case.
They did a good job diverting attention to the thing Burke established
well, the boat wasn't stolen. Paradiso and his girfriend stripped the
boat in July 1981 and Lenny sunk it. The boat was sunk in July 1981.
Joan was never ion it and other records support that.

It's a very long arm if the manner of death was a lucky guess. They
had the option of strangulation which they were developing in other
cases. Bond's statement is very specific with detail. Of all the
ways you could chose, this was too right on the money. I believe
someone had knowledge. The queston is how did they get it.

The third factor demonstrates Burke's complete lack of ethics. He
takes his own witness, twists and embellishes what Bond said. Had the
condition of the remains been known, who in their right mind would
believe Paradiso raped Joan after inflicting the blow.

This is why the state doesn't want people in those records.

ABSOLUTELY BIG PROBLEMS

> > > > > This message came into the email in- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »