MOMMY'S A MOLE-Eve Carson

looked closer and it was a human skull. It had suture like zigzag lines those are unique to human skulls. Officer Hathfiell was the first to respond. An initial conclusion determined discovery was indeed a human skull. Hamilton Police Chief Walter Cullen arrived at the scene next and photographed to find. The Massachusetts State Police Crime Prevention and Control Unit Sea Pack dismatched Colonel Dennis Marx to take charge of Corporal

Denis Marks to take charge of the crime scene. Local police sent the skull in a nearby black boot to Hunt Memorial Hospital to examine, but nothing else service in the initial surfaced. In the initial cursory search of the surrounding area. Noticees went out to departments to assist the resident force, and names poured in to compare the cranium

to known missing persons. Joan Webster's name appeared on the list, but the resting spot was more than thirty miles from the long speculated crime zcene at Peer seven in Boston. Of course, it's being checked out, but the location doesn't seem to correlate. Circumstances pointed to her being taken out in a boat and dumped at sea. The book that we're featuring this evening is Mummies a Mole, Unraveling the Joan Webster Murder and other Secrets in a CIA Family

with my special guest journalist and author Eve Carson. Welcome to the program and thank you for agreeing to this interview. Eve Carson, Thank you.

Webster family itself. Tell us a little bit about yourself and a little bit about your background, and then proceed from there a little bit.

through a mutual friend in Indianapolis. We dated for a couple of years and then got married in nineteen eighty. Joan was his baby sister.

case when the pieces just really didn't add up. They're intelligent, educated people that make this a much more complex story than what it really should have been. Joan was the youngest of three children, and she had worked in New York City for a number of years before deciding to go back to school. She went and became part of the graduate program for the School of Design at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Very bright, young woman, lovely, just giggled, kind,

would do anything for anyone. She was a wonderful part of my life, and as I've gone through this case, she's become even that much more important to me. I really appreciate and value who she was as a person,

and this is an important case to look at. At the time that she disappeared, she was in her second year at Harvard, and she had flown back early from a Thanksgiving break in Glenridge, New Jersey, which is where her parents lived, and she went back Saturday night versus Sunday, which was a little bit unused lawn didn't really make much sense for quite some time, but she disappeared from Logan Airport the night she flew back to Boston November

twenty eighth, nineteen eighty one. A lot of people have the perception that this case was resolved, but it is an open murder case in Essex County, Massachusetts. It was at the time, it was highly publicized. This ran in the media not only in the New England area, but actually there was some national coverage on it as well. But this was long before the Internet and cable TV, so it got a lot of attention for the type of case that it was, and certainly got more publicity than most.

She was happy, she was upbeat. Matter of fact, she was very enthusiastic about a project that she had just completed before the break and had gotten very high marks on. No one noticed anything out of the ordinary. Her sister also lived in the Boston area, so it was a little confusing why she had gone back early when ordinarily she would have ridden back with her sister the next

day to the Boston area. The way the story came out was that she went back early to work on a project that she was going to present, and that wasn't the case at all. She had just completed it. Matter of fact, the year before, she had missed her Thanksgiving break because the workload was so heavy. So to me going back through this and trying to piece this all together, that was a very unusual circumstance for her to have gone.

that following Monday. It wasn't until several years later that George Webster, her father, indicated that she had made a call Saturday morning to a classmate to confirm that they had supplies for a project that didn't match up with the police reports at all. They had checked the home phone numbers, but they did not check George Webster's private number. That number was missing from the police records, and I

suspect that he didn't report it. And no investigator would know that that number existed unless you know, they wouldn't know it was missing from police reports, unless they knew that that number existed. That was a confidential line that he used. It sat in his office.

reactions in me when you hear someone is missing. And he got very angry with me, And that is very bothersome, but they are very stoic. I only saw Steve cry about the situation one time, only one time. I never saw any other members of the family cry about Joan being missing. Steve cried when he was under sedation, having wisdom to teth pulled about a month and a half later.

had a background in the CIA. They never broke down even during private family times, which was very concerning to me. I spoke to Steve's mother about it going the family needs to grieve, you need to process. I didn't understand that that is you know the way that they behaved on a regular basis. They don't deal with issues, They block them out, and it is concerning they blocked them out yet today.

The story that came out was that they believed that Leonard Parodiso had picked her up at the airport, taken her to his boat which was down at Peer seven, and said that he murdered her on his boat and then dumped her in Boston Harbor. For a long time that was there really was no other explanation so as not to believe that, But that story didn't come out until a full year later. That story came out in

January of nineteen eighty three. Digging into the records, I could see how the process went along for that year trying to implicate this man for her murder. It really was an extraordinary explanation, but no one had anything to disputed. It was coming from the authorities. It was being agreed with by the parents, so no one was going to dispute it at that time. That story is still being recycled that she was murdered on Paradiso's boat. The only difference is is the fact that she was found in

nineteen ninety. Her remains were found buried more than thirty miles from the crime scene. So they kind of reworked the ending to suggest that Parodiso had removed her from the boat, her bludgeoned body, taken her to a very remote area, heavily wooded area, and buried her remains.

a known abusive relationship. When the anonymous call was placed in January of nineteen eighty two, a woman implicated Leonard Parediso for both crimes, both the Ayawsie murder and for jones disappearance. Her story, which she later testified to in court, was never corroborated, never verified. It was a ten year old allegation, and suspiciously, it was very similar to the

story that they were trying to suggest. As far as what happened to Jong, she claimed that Paradiso had threatened to dump her in the ocean where no one would ever find her, and of course that's what the police were promoting. As far as what they suggested happened to Joan, that she was dumped in the ocean and was not going to be found, And it was very convenient because nobody had surfaced. No one had any idea what had happened to Joan.

prove that he murdered Joan Webster. Nothing supports it.

his boat and dumped her in Boston. Harper Robert Bond had absolutely no credibility whatsoever, but his statement was sealed, and when he came forward and testified in the Ayan Easy case and also in a pre trial hearing, he

was implicating Parodis, so for Joan Webster as well. So conveniently the police had an informant who could give them a story that tied both of these cases together, and all through the media, all through the press, these two cases were tied together, even though there were no similarities whatsoever. Marie Ayaneuzi was found strangled. She was garreted with her own next scarf, and she was dumped out on a rocky bank near the Pine River. Joan, at this point

in time, was still a missing person. Nothing suggested that with.

com to claim you're free. Welcome bonus that's Chumbuck Casino dot com and lived at chumber Line. No, we're necessary d where everybody lost in terms of conditions eighteen plus.

Those are part of the recovered documents now and the statement that he gave was false.

charged or tried for this crime. Joan had been found thirty miles from the alleged crime scene, and she had also not been dumped in Boston Harbor, So I knew that this indeed was not the correct answer for what had happened to Joan. But there was a great deal that I did not know. I could speculate about the time in Boston when things went on there. This was a very corrupt period in Boston's history. There was a

lot of corruption. The FBI protected criminal informants. I had no idea the circumstances surrounding the Ayanuzi case or the exculpatory evidence that was available in that case but hidden in other case files. Basically, you've got a case here of public corruption. The authorities manufactured an explanation for Jones loss. Why would they do that, Well, you either have to look at them wanting to boost themselves as heroes finding

the answers. But the Websters were extremely involved in this case. They were meeting with the FBI, they were corresponding with the FBI. I know personally that they were in Boston all the time. They had a heavy hand in the direction that this case took, and they also were the ones that were extremely influential for people to believe this. People sympathized with them. Here these parents have lost their daughter.

If the Websters say they believe this, then people went along with it, and the authorities were going along with it as well. The authorities did one of two things. They either lied to the Websters or they lied for them. And going through and recovering the documents that I have, seeing the evidence that I have in my personal experiences with the Websters, I'm very concerned that it's the latter, because they are completely ignoring evidence that has come to light now and part of that evidence.

was put together. I knew nothing about that composite until I started digging into this case. That composite was suppressed. It was never broadcast, it was never published. And that's not the normal behavior of authorities or the family. If you're looking for a missing person, the composite is frightening. I recovered it. It is in the book. I disclosed it in the book as well as comparison with someone that it looks very much like the Webster family withheld that.

They also withheld George Webster's private phone number. So the family they twisted and distorted things as well. For example, Joan had just completed a project, it got spun, and all of a sudden, Joan is going back early. That's an explanation no one was going to dispute coming from the father. But his explanation was that she went back early to work on a project when that is just what she had just completed. A lot of little twists in there, And I mean, this is a family that

has cia background. They're very good at creating perceptions.

she became a logical suspect. In her case, the police were not participating in fabricating and promoting that story. In this case, the police are the ones that are fabricading the story and promoting Leonard Parodiso as the culprit and the crime, when there's no evidence whatsoever that connects him to the crime at all. I've been through every single piece of so called evidence. I've been through the witnesses, I've been through the associated cases that were tied to

Leonard Parodiso. It was a corrupted case. The legitimate investigators who might have gotten to the truth were taken down primrose path. Things were diverted. And give a good example in the epilogue of a book was written in two thousand and eight by the former prosecutor Tim Burke, who was assigned to the investigation. In the epilogue of his book, he lists a bankruptcy fraud case and he provides the name of Richard Stearns as the judge and gives the

date of November one, nineteen eighty five. That's completely false information from sworn affi David's I can look in I can read that he instigated this case. He timber contacted the FBI, got them involved in a bankruptcy fraud case against Leonard Parodisso Leonard Parodiso had filed for bankruptcy in nineteen eighty one, in August of nineteen eighty one. Among the things that he did not list in his bankruptcy

was the boat the alleged crime scene. And the authorities had the information right at the time that they came out with this theory. It's in documents, it's in sworn statements, it's in court records that they had knowledge that the boat had been reported missing. The trial that he misrepresents in his book actually took place in April of nineteen

eighty five and Judge Bruce Elia in Rhode Island. The Federal District Court in Rhode Island, after reviewing all of the evidence, which was not contested at all, determined that the boat did not exist in August of nineteen eighty one, four months before Joan Webster disappeared, so the crime scene

did not even exist. And yet they continued their media reports where both Tim Burke and the lead officer on the case, Andrew Palombo, got on TV continued to promote that Joan had been murdered on this boat dumped in Boston Harbor. It wasn't until nineteen ninety when her remains were found, that it shifted a little bit, and they suggested, well, yes, he murdered her on the boat, but then moved her thirty miles away and buried her. That's not even remotely possible.

It's impossible. You can't murder someone on a boat that did not exist. And Tim Burke's two thousand and eight book indicates that his story still is, and the book was supported by the family, that Joan was murdered on this boat, and he gives a horribly graphic description of her being raped and murdered. What I'd like for listeners to know is how she was really found because it's equally as horrific, but it did not happen in the

way that the family and the authorities describe. The way Joan Webster was found was she had a two by four inch hole in the side of her head. It took out the entire right side of her skull. That was an enormous blow with a bat, a crowbar, a limb, something that was swung with enormous force that cracked her skull and literally took out the entire right side. She had been stripped of. All clothing had been completely stripped.

There was nothing in the area that was Jones, with the exception of a ring and a gold neck chain that was still on the skeleton. When they found the remains, she had been completely stripped and she was thrown out in a black plastic trash back. The family, after finding the remains and learning how their daughter had been murdered and disposed of, had her cremated and cremation in effect and I did not understand this until I dug into

this case. Cremation effectively shuts down the investigation. The state can only release the body a murder victim for cremation after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and they never had an inquest against the men that they continued to accuse of the murder. They just shut down the case and then continued to accuse him.

involved and tell us why you got involved? And when that one, I guess decisive moment came when you said I want to get involved here and I'm this story doesn't seem to make ring true and I'm going to become involved. And then what was the dynamic between you and Steve being her brother and part of this secretive Cia family.

probably the most numbing experience of my life. My daughter alleged in her letter, which has been authenticated and the implications verified by multiple people, that her father sexually abused her. I cannot prove or disprove that that happened, but what I can establish is that I immediately sought help to try and get to the truth, understand what my daughter's meaning was and what had happened. I know that the

behaviors of my children. I have two daughters became very different, very different, very hostile, very angry, and their anger was directed at me. It was not something I could understand. The Webster family has a very strong image. People like them. They're fun to be around, they're interesting people, but it's not the dynamic of who they are behind closed doors, and what I found was a family that would not

sit down and discuss the issues. I basically was alienated from my daughters, and I became a victim of being very devalued and literally discarded. When I started to dig into this case, it was my fervent hope that I would find something to justify the family's belief and support of Tim Burke's book, because they came out publicly supporting it. I had gone through a series of experiences with them

that just didn't add up. And what I found when I dug into it was that their behaviors in Jones's case matched more the experience that I had than the experience that the public viewed of them looking for their daughter. They were not honest, they were not open. They will not discuss anything. I've already presented them with facts. If authorities lied to them, I'd be in their corner. One.

This is a horrible, horrible nightmare to live through. To relive it going through these documents was equally as horrifying, but even more so seeing the deception that was going on and seeing a man frame. A man was framed, there was exculpatory evidence for him in the Ayonwsy case. They persecuted this man and went after him with a vengeance that's just unimaginable. The websters are very secretive that certainly comes out of the condition of their CIA and

activities that they may have been involved in. They were not things that they discussed, but I can take personal knowledge and time and place of certain things and know that they certainly were aware, and they were in a time and a place to have been involved in some things that most people in a modern, decent, open society would not approve of. Whether they felt justified for that

as part of the CIA, I don't know. I'm sure that they probably did, and I'm sure that family members Joan, the other sister, Anne, and Steve were all very conditioned to keep secrets, and that is what exists today. They are extremely co dependent. My children are in a position now where they believe that their sense of security is in keeping family secrets. I certainly don't agree with that. I know I understand it, but I certainly don't agree

with that. When people have done things that are wrong, every victim should speak out.

in their minds this is what happened to her. Basically, it's their story and their sticking to it. They don't want people to dig into their closet. And unfortunately, I was someone who saw a different side of the Websters than what the public sees. And they are very image conscious, image managed moments. That's what I'm a casualty of. I knew too much about the family.

or to go along with the family line. I started to dig into the case in two thousand and seven, didn't really get to records until maybe the middle of two thousand and eight and into two thousand and nine. I hired a private investigator and an attorney in Boston to help me. All the records have been procured in a very proper way and are verifiable, and I got

to thousands of pages of records. Fortunately, having been part of the family, I think I even understood to look in a couple of places that other people had not. I retrieved police records from glen Ridge, New Jersey, which

was the hometown. I found a great deal of information there, including the composite that had been suppressed and learned once I got into that that the family had that composite in the first couple of weeks of jones disappearance, and I didn't know about it until two thousand and nine. And the image in that composite is extremely frightening. It resembles the lead officer who was involved in the case.

FBI that was the Whitey Bulger era. They protected criminal informants in one of the I learned in digging into this case that there was a confidential source providing false information to the FBI about Jones's case. That's the individual who also resembles the composite. I was able to determine through other sources who indeed that was and it wasn't even that difficult to figure out because I could see

what information was being provided. The Robert Bond statement claiming Joan was murdered on the boat and dumped in Boston Harbor. There was a confidential source reporting on a gun that they miraculously discovered under where Piediso's boat had been sunk, even though the legitimate investigators had missed it for two months. The confidential source provided information to find a witness, a

woman named Charlene Bullerwell, who gave incredible testimony. And I'll never forget the day that this article landed on my kitchen counter. This woman claimed that Leonard Pardissa was a hit man for the mob. He chopped up bodies, tied cinder blocks to them, and dump them in the ocean. For years, I spent vacations looking in the water, wondering if Joan was down there. That's a horrible thing to do to people. And there's nothing that cor operates that

story whatsoever. The interesting thing in FBI files was that Tim Burke claimed that Charlene Bullerwell they had a photograph of her wearing Joan's missing bracelet. To my knowledge, the bracelet was never found, but the only people who could identify that bracelet were the websters. So why did tim Burke claim that this woman was wearing Joan's bracelet? The pieces didn't add up, but all the little tiny little tweaks in things you know, to be honest, I think

tim Burke was manipulated. He may have legitimately believed that Parody Said was responsible for murdering Joan early on, so he was willing to pervert another case to nail him. They had absolutely nothing to go after him for for Joan, nothing, All of the evidence was manufactured.

people do things. But would the family then possibly been convinced by the prosecutor too that despite some holes in some of this and lack of evidence, that certainly this was their culprit And again with the CIA background, did the family not believe that there was some that it just happened to be this guy working for the mob or capable of doing such an atrocious crime, would have no connection with them as CIA personnel.

to find out. Tim Burke had to have had his back covered to publish this book because the documents did exist to refute what he was coming out and suggesting. He suggests that he wrote the book at the encouragement of the Websters. He says that in his epilogue of the book, the family went and visited him in two thousand and five, and after that he came out and wrote the book. I can't figure out why that would convince them, you know, why he would be so convincing

to them. None of the evidence snatched up whatsoever? You know, is it possible that they withheld information from them about the boat, not existing findings from the trial that took place in Rhode Island in nineteen eighty five. It's possible I was lied to, So I mean, I certainly can understand someone being lied to. They were very close to it. They seemed to have their hands in everything that was

going on. They even drove up to summers in Connecticut in nineteen eighty seven at a time when there was a push to try and get Robert Bond, the two time convicted murderer who was their informant, to testify and take parodies of the trial in Jones's case. That was before her remains were found. If they were going to do it, they had to have Robert Bond. The Webster

family was involved every step of the way. One of the things I found inappropriate in there was the fact that the Websters received an assurance from another witness that the state used a man by the name of Tony Pisa. Tony Pisa was a man who was once on death row. He came forward with a story that was completely unverifiable. It was a he said, situation, no way to verify it whatsoever, and pretty far fetched. And that man's a

freeman today. He got out of jail, and he made assurances to George Webster that he wasn't really interested in the reward money for coming out and talking. It was the witnesses such as those Robert Bond and Tony Pisa that convicted Leonard Peredisso in the Ayanusi case, there were only three people that suggested that Parodiso was involved in both crimes. That was Robert Bond, Tony Pisa and the woman who placed the anonymous phone call.

to the Websters. Steve's sister Anne has threaten sent some very harassing emails, and George Webster, Jones' father As of Christmas twenty twelve, Christmas Night and I listed several things where there were discrepancies in the records versus what they were supporting. I asked to sit down in a proper setting to discuss them, and he was very juvenile, name calling, harassing, threatening, vulgar language, and his last line in the email to

me was die. That to me is a very threatening comment to come from my former father in law who I lived through this experience with them, and here his daughter is was brutally murdered. The case has never been solved. I've dug out information, it's all verifiable, and he wishes me to die. The Webster family wants to support that Joan was murdered in a random way, you know, wrong place, at the wrong time, picked up by this man, murdered on his boat, and that's impossible. The boat did not exist.

If they had involvement in the crime, then that puts my children at risk, and it certainly put me at risk. Their secrecy about what was going on in the investigation and being truthful about what the evidence was, who legitimate suspects were, and what not. It frightening. And if you've got someone who is involved in the investigation who's equally as interested in keeping a lid on this case, is certainly explains the dynamics of what's going on. That's where

the piece is fit. And it's a case of public corruption. As far as the story that was contrived, whether the Websters were involved or not involved, that's something that a legitimate investigation needs to research. I spoke with Special Agent Michael Carraza in the Public Corruptions Unit of the FBI, and he indicated to me that the first thing in any case that should be done is for the family to be looked at. That's true in any case, that

never happened. In this case, George Webster took over the investigation. He really ran the show. And because of the Webster's influence, being very available to the media, constantly making comments, they sat through the Ayan Easy trial. They were constantly in the public's eye as a grieving family looking for their daughter, naming Parodiso as the culprit. It influenced a lot of lives and in very negative ways. So yeah, the family, the family needs to answer some questions.

have no answers for it. But what has happened as a result of it A confidential piece of information that I provided the current assistant d'a who is custodian of Jones files, as well as three Massachusetts state troopers. I provided them with confidential information. That information was then later distorted and misrepresented to the public to paint me in a very negative way. I tried to come forward with documents at the Massachusetts Parole Board in twenty eleven to

give a victim impact statement regarding Robert Bond. I had his written statement about what happened to Joan. I had his testimony. I'd met with him face to face. I know that his statement was false, and authorities have known it was false at the time that they took it. I provided documentations to fully support my statement. I was not allowed to make this statement. I'm properly certified with a Department of Corrections. But people got on the phones

and they were talking to each other. They blocked me from coming forward and speaking out. This book really came to fruition because it had to come out. There has to be public awareness. If you've got a case that is controlled by people with an interest to hide it and cover it up, because there's a pretty big history in Boston of just this type of thing, then you've got a system, a totally dysfunctional system that does not work,

that can leave people victimized all over the place. And if I go back to my children and the allegations that my daughter made, if that's the kind of abuse in violence within a family where they've got an unresive what are the dire consequences of lying and covering up crime who they have hurt along the way. I'll protect my children and I'll be as bold as I need to. I have documents to back me up. And this is an incredible case.

daughter Joan. So did they were they able to include all this and sort of give it as some sort of a testament that you might not be credible because of it.

with the family. It's been reported to the police. It's in a police file. It's become part of the public record in a court case a contempt hearing I had against my ex husband. Even my ex husband had verified that letter as well as my child's sister in writing. Those are all things that I have. They're documented the FBI here in my locale. Here when I received a threatening email from George Webster, the FBI agent looked at all three components that I was dealing with, Because I'm

really dealing with three things here. I'm dealing with allegations that my child made and I as a mother standing up for her, which God only hopes that every period that would come across such a night as would try and stand up for their child. That's number one. The second part of it that I'm dealing with are the unique background of this family, how they deal with things, their dysfunction to be able to sit down and discuss things.

They're alienating and devaluing behavior that's not treatment I deserved in any way, shape or form. People did know me. And the third factor is an unresolved murder in the family where the family is supporting and impossible theory, and there are documents, court records, police reports, an abundance of records that support that this is a false assertion that is still being promoted by the state and the family.

So yeah, the FBI agents that looked at those three components indicated that my child's letter should have been investigated and asked if that was something to pursue at this time.

They're both adults. Now. I've been trying to deal with that, and that was the first and foremost thing I tried to deal with for many years without really making the connection other than the behaviors just didn't add up, you know, the behaviors, the image of a family looking for their missing daughter, and the image of this family basically eliminating me because I was not one who was just going to close my lips and not try and help my

child understand what was wrong and get her the proper health. I was driven from my children and in a pretty brutal way. You know, I have no animus. I'm angry. I'm very angry. The family was not honest and they're still not being honest. You can't ignore facts to suggest that they don't exist. Ignoring things does not change the facts. And the facts are in the documents, and I've gotten abundance of them, and many have been provided to many

different departments. I just recently received a letter from Governor Chris Christie as well as from his Attorney General's office. I appeal to Governor Christie to look into this case because Joan was a New Jersey resident legally, she was a student in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but she was a legal resident of the state of New Jersey at her parents' home at the time and this crime happened. He took

it seriously and forwarded information to his attorney general. His attorney general did write me back that they felt the more appropriate place for it to be investigated is with the attorney general in Massachusetts. Martha Cokeley already denied a request to try and look into this, and she has an unusual relationship with Tim Burke. She was named as someone who had made a verbal agreement entitling him to some very valuable beach property that he's trying to fight

for right now against the city of Marshfield, Massachusetts. So you know, you got a good old boys club out there where people will cover for each other rather than explain. Tell me how mister Paradiso could have murdered my sister in law on a boat that didn't exist. I want people to go back and focus on the facts, and if there's an explanation for it, it certainly would have come out by now. If they had a real justification for implicating this man, it would have come out by now.

Because there's been plenty of heat to get to the truth in this, and what they seem more interested in is trying to keep me quiet. That's why this book had to come out.

have it documented in my book. Tim Burke claimed that she placed an anonymous call to the Websters as well, implicating Parodiso for jones murder. She claimed she did not make that call. Well, one of the two of them is lying. Either Tim Burke manufactured a story or he's got to discredit his witness, who she was never a credible witness to begin with. This was a ten year old allegation with absolutely nothing to support it. She went in and made up a story. What was interesting is

that she was an acquaintance. She grew up with not only Leonard Parodiso, but she also grew up with one of the police officers who was very integrally involved in this case. Man by the name of Sark Carmen S Merrow, who was the lead officer's superior and he was very

involved in this case. Robert Bond, the convicted murderer that they got to make a statement, was led through an interview by Carmen to Morrow, and when he was disgruntled with his outcome, not getting the things that he felt he had been promised, he named he filed a motion with the court and he named specific names. He named Tim Burke making promises, he named Andrew Palumbo making promises. He named Carmen to Merrow making promises, and that document

is actually in the book. I do have a few documents that I've put in the back of the book. There are so many more that it was impossible to put everything in there. But I am posting some things up online on a Facebook book page about this case so that people can truly see that I'm not out. I'm out to get to the truth, and I'm out to get to the truth for two very important reasons. My children's well being in safety number one, and the only thing that you can ever give to a deceased

member of your family the truth. That's the only way you can value and respect their lives. Joan was an incredible person, a wonderful person, and if indeed, you know, she was about to spill the family secrets, perhaps to me I was pregnant at that time. Perhaps she wanted to tell me about, you know, the way this family

encouraged or forced secrecy within the family. You know, I haven't the most admiration for her, and she has been a guiding force to really relive this whole experience all over again, and it's been a nightmare all over again.

When I saw a picture of Joan's skull compared to you know, what was described to me what had happened to her, and I could see for myself the skull, there was no way that she was hit in the head with a whiskey bottle in a cramped little boat cabin, and by that point I knew that the boat didn't exist. I couldn't get out of bed for two days. You know, this has been an enormous amount of grief to deal with.

But I'm a rock solid person, and if anyone chooses to question or challenge, I'm happy to go through that process. I'm happy to go through that process with the documents, and unfortunately the authorities who should be interested in the truth are not the ones doing it. But other measures have been taken. I am waiting a response for a complaint that was filed to try and have this case removed from its current jurisdiction because they're not legitimately looking at this case.

the body was found naked, no clothing whatsoever. But it is very curious and telling that the body that the family would create this their daughter basically without doing that, you would think they would want to have some answers, whatever answers they could derive from that autopsy.

since this has been going on. You know, you asked about some of the family's reactions. When I recruit recovered FBI files, I found an incident in those files that I'd known about as part of the immediate family. But it was something that was never published in the press. It's never been I mean numerous books have talked about this case, at least five books that I'm aware of, but this was something that was never discussed in any of these books, and that was an extortion incident that

took place in October of nineteen eighty two. I had a second miscarriage shortly after that incident happened. I mean, these were things that were very hard on you, emotionally and physically. It was a very draining period. It went on for years and years. I asked about that extortion incident because no one had ever been charged for that. I was curious about it. I had asked the DA's office about it. My ex husband lied to my brother and told him he didn't know of anything about anything

like that. Couldn't think of anything that even remotely was like that at all. That conversation was taped, so I have him on record. You don't forget when your father is wired and you're put in a wired car and you're traveling across state lines with an extortionist and driven to a bogus address. The man by the name of Harvey Martel was taken to the FBI headquarters where he was questioned, wouldn't answer questions, and then was released, never charged.

It was in the FBI files and one of the copies one of the reports was initial by William H. Webster, who at that time was the director of the FBI, So this had extremely high visibility. So yeah, you know, to repeat an incident like that sounds pretty crazy, You're pretty sensational, unless you could back it up. And it wasn't until I got into the FBI records that I certainly was able to back it up and have been able to corroberate it in other files as well.

interested in these kinds of cases. And I applaud you for this very concise, very very I mean, no one can you know, characterize you as going off on a tangent or hysterical or you're very, very logical. And this book is very like a historical legal document, so it's not so much opinion. It's here are the facts, as many as you could dig up to point in a direction away from the official story. So I applaud you with this effort, and I think just hang in there.

I think you're gonna I mean, there are some promising signs.

You know, I have really had to dig, and I've had to dig hard. I know I've hit nerves. I mean, my heart would break for the Webster family if they were lied to and they truly believed it. But you have to look at their inability, their dysfunction to discuss anything other than Nope, this is what happened, and to devalue and besmirch anyone who disagrees with what they say, and that it's a patriarchal family. That is kind of how he operated. Only I didn't grow up that way.

I grew up to be an independent thinker get the facts for myself. And what I learned and what I uncovered was not at all what I was led to believe at the time. And it's heartbreaking.

Twitter and a post office box. I would welcome anyone who has even if it's suggestions on who do you turn to as a private citizen when you find corruption with the authorities in seeking justice for a case, anyone who's got advice, things that they've experienced themselves, thoughts am. I welcome it all, and I appreciate the time you've given me to talk about this case. It's a tough case, but you know it's one where you know, everybody should

be concerned. If you've got authorities that can do this to people's lives, they continue to devalue Joan that she certainly does not deserve that, and if the consequences of their misconduct, their corruption to throw off a case resulted in harm to my children, my children should be facing off with the State of Massachusetts themselves, but they need support behind them to be able to speak as victims.