Hey guys, it is Ryan. I'm not sure if you know this about me, but I'm a bit of a fun fanatic when I can. I like to work, but I like fun too.
It's a thing.
And now the truth is out there, I can tell you about my favorite place to have fun, Chumba Casino. They have hundreds of social casino style games to choose from, with new games released each week. You can play for free anytime, anywhere, and each day brings a new chance to collect daily bonuses. So join me and the fun. Sign up now at chumbacasino dot com. No we're not necessary, daboid, whereby lost ee terms and conditions eighteen plus.
With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen the bride and groom?
Ri? Sorry we're here. We were getting lucky in the limo when we lost track of time.
No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up quicker than a guess registered.
In that case, I pronounce you Lucky Hys for free.
At Lucky Landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting. No purchase necessary, boid, We're prohibited by lack eighteen plus terms and conditions applag see website for.
You.
Are now listening to True Murder, The most shocking killers in true crime history and the authors that have written about them Geesy Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker DTK. Every week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host journalist and author Dan Zupanski.
Good Evening. It was a brisk April morning in nineteen ninety when a woman walking her dog stopped cold in her tracks. She reeled back from something strange and disturbing, blocking the drainage tile. A human skull forensics examination showed that it was the remains of Joan Webster, the five year old Harvard graduate student whose disappearance had rattled the community and stumped investigators for the past eight and a
half years. The prosecutors had a suspect, Leonard Parediso, who was tried and convicted for the murder of another local woman. The only similarity between the entangled crimes was that both victims had long, dark hair. Assistant District Attorney Tim Burke was obsessed with proving Parodiso guilty of both murders. However, between the lack of evidence and ever changing stories, the circumstances of Joan Webster's death remains a mystery to this day.
Hope is not lost, as Joan's sister in law, Eve Carson, continues to fight for justice. Simple Safe and Secret divulges the diabolical details and dysfunctional system that is denied an obstructed justice in solving Joan Webster's murder case. The messy truth of the Mutch investigation and a wrongful conviction may be darker than the story of Joan's murder itself. The book that we're featuring this evening is Simple, Safe and Secret, The nineteen eighty one Murder of Joan L. Webster, with
my special guest, journalist and author, Eve Carson. Welcome back to the program, and thank you very much for this interview. Eve Carson.
Thank you, Dan, it's a pleasure to be here.
It's a pleasure to have you back, and congratulations on this new book.
Thank you.
Let's start right away, because we alluded to so much and said so much in the introduction. Let's talk about who the Webster family is, Joan and her parents and family, and how you're connected to this family.
I met the Websters in nineteen seventy seven. I was dating Joan's brother, Steve. At that time, Steve was the oldest of three children. The parents were George and Eleanor. Eleanor also went by the nickname Terry, and Steve was the oldest. Anne was the middle child, and Joan was the youngest. And I married Steve in January of nineteen eighty So I was part of the immediate family, the only non blood relative who was part of the family when all these events occurred.
Now, let's talk about November twenty seventh, nineteen eighty one, and New York City and the theatrical in the theater, Pirates of Penzance, and so who is at this performance? And how come you were not there?
The night before Joan disappeared, the family, who lived in glen Ridge, New Jersey, which is fairly close to Manhattan. It's a commuter town, went to the theater, which they often did. George and Eleanor attended the theaters that evening. Anne and Joan and unfortunately a guest that Joan had invited over the Thanksgiving break was unable to attend. I was not there.
Steve was not there. I was pregnant at the time, and as it happened, I actually had a miscarriage that very night that Joan disappeared.
Incredible, So tell us about what happens at this performance and where they go afterwards, and how we get to Joan disappearing.
After the theater. There was a pretty regular routine something I have done on numerous occasions with the Websters when we were in New York and went to the theater. They had familiar stopping spots. George had a familiar watering hole that he liked to go to. They had a piano player named Cosmos. George drank fairly heavily, and he would always stop on his way before entering the Lincoln Tunnel to go back to New Jersey. Upon returning home,
they got ready for the next day. Originally, as I said, John was supposed to have a guest visiting her over that weekend. Those plans got altered. So apparently George had made plans for Joan to fly back to Boston on Saturday night, as opposed to writing back with her sister Anne, who also lived in the Boston area. So John went back early from her Thanksgiving break, which was a point that always struck me as a little bit unusual.
Let's talk about George's work and also George and Eleanor's background, their work with the CIA.
This is a very extraordinary family. They're very interesting. George and Eleanor both in their early years, and they actually met while working for the CIA in Washington, DC. I don't know what they did precisely, they would never discuss. It was really rather a secretive family. In the mid nineteen fifties, George left the agency and went to work for his father. Both Anne and Joan were born in Dayton, Ohio.
They worked for his father really only though, for a couple of years, before moving back to the East Coast, where George went to work for ITT the telecommunications division. That particular division came under a senate hearings, the Church Senate hearings. I mean, that's going back in history quite a ways, but the Church Senate hearings actually investigated ITTs cooperation with the CIA during events that took place in Chile in the nineteen seventy. So this is a real interesting family.
Now let's get back to Jones plans to come back to Boston. Tell us how things proceed and tell us a pardon me, I got derailed a little bit with George's plans with it, and t you said, you're right that it was very untypical, non typical for him to be involved in leaving the home and having to do anything involving Itt in terms of the business trip.
Tell us about that George delegated and the time that I met him. He was the director of budgeting and planning for the Defense Department, the Defense Group. He was a high level manager and he delegated. Was not like him at all to interrupt his plans, certainly a holiday weekend and one where Joan had a guest that she was planning to have come visit the family. It was not like him to plan trip at all. But my
recollections were corroborated. I had recalled that when we did get notified that Joan was missing, that I felt bad for eleanor because George wasn't there. My understanding was that he had made a business trip to California, and course back in those days, that would have been very a full day trip, so he had to have left over the course of that weekend. That's not public knowledge that
Joan traveled over the weekend. But it is something that I was certainly aware of, and Eleanor is quoted in an article that was done that indeed George, as she said, had traveled to California.
Now let's talk about right away, the witness, the classmate, the person that Caesar at the Logan airport.
She saw a couple of friends at the airport. Joan traveled alone and she waved to a couple of friends that she saw from a distance. There was a classmate that had seen her talking to an individual behind a counter in the luggage are. That report actually did get reported in a Newark paper, but it was later suppressed by the head of itt Security. He kind of got involved and said, well, we don't know whether that's factual
or not. That story kind of died out, and the way it was reported for all those years was that Joan waved a couple of friends, but she was really never seen. She just vanished for the airport. That was not true at all.
There was a cab she went to take a cab, and so a cab driver named Fenton Moore comes into the story and he described a man he saw with Joan. Tell us what he describes what he sees.
That is that was one of the last pieces of evidence I was able to recover, and that was a lead that was actually suppressed. I can verify in records that not only did the police have it, but Georgian Ellan or Webster also had that lead. In December of nineteen eighty one, Joan had tapped on the window of the cab driver and asked him to take her to Cambridge. He loaded her suitcase in his trunk. He gave a
very good description of Joan. Before you know, he started to move toward, you know, getting into driver to Cambridge. Joan turned and said that there was a man that was with her. The cab driver did try to load the suitcase of the man, said it was extremely heavy, and the man became argumentative. He exchanged words with the caby indicating that he did not like how the cab driver was loading his bag. The man then turned to Joan and said, we don't want to take this cab.
At that point, the driver took Joan's bag out of the trunk and Joan and this man that was with her moved to another car in the line. It was a blue vehicle unidentified as a cab the things that struck me. This individual was able to give pretty good description of the individual that was with Joan. They described him as a middle aged white mail under six foot about one hundred and sixty pounds. The man had dark hair,
he was wearing glasses, wire glasses. He did have a beard according to the description, and was wearing an overcoat. Those factors in that description did not match at all with the individual that authorities began to pursue beginning in January of nineteen eighty two and ultimately accused of murdering Joan, even though they never tried him.
You talk about this person that comes in to be a person of interest, Leonard Parodiso. He's in court November thirtieth, near the end of nineteen eighty one. They call him Lenny the I think it's called a quahag. But anyway, he's He shuck's clams. He's really good at it and has a pushcart, and so tell us a little bit more, a little bit more about Leonard Parodiso.
Leonard Parodiso was the man that the authorities and the websters ultimately accused of murdering shown He was a big man. He was over six y two over two hundred pounds, eighth grade education. He did have his run ins with the police. He had a rap sheet, so he was certainly no saint. He had been in prison for a few years on an assault charge and then was later parolled. Certainly he was vulnerable to accusations that were being made, and he was familiar to various different state police officers
that then became involved in Jones's investigation. During the course of all of this, they really piled on him. They accused him of another murder that then got entangled with jones case, and several other charges. I mean, they just really went after him, one right after the other. As I went through various court records, police reports, etc. I didn't find that he was guilty of these other accusations
that they were piling on him either. It really appeared that he was vulnerable, he was a patsy, and it became a smoke screen to really go after him for jones murder.
Let's get to talking about the death of Marie Ayanuza Newsy and how they try to connect Leonard Parodiso to her and her murder.
Marie ayan Uzi was a nineteen seventy nine murder victim, twenty one year old woman in East Boston. She and her boyfriend had attended a wedding that Leonard Parodiso and his girlfriend had also attended in August of nineteen seventy nine. They were casually introduced at that time. They didn't know each other prior to that, and because of that contact, he became a suspect in Marie Ayanuzi's murder. She was
murdered later that night. The evidence that was there really all implicated the boyfriend, and it was very strong, circumstantial evidence. They had her boyfriend had strangled her or attempted to strangle her a few months before she was murdered. They were known to be an abuse in an abusive relationship. He had scratches on his arms in his hands the day after Marie was found murdered. Everything really implicated the boyfriend. The boyfriend, though, had some connections. I don't know whether
some of it was perhaps family connections. It was a very rough time in Boston in that era, a lot of mob a lot of mafia connections, a lot of corruption in our legal system and law enforcement, So there were some connections there. Some of the people that I had discussed this with at the time who lived in the area, felt that he had been an informant feeding one of the police officers information about, you know, drug use and drug deals on the street. The boyfriend really
got off the hook. I believe that case had gone cold until Joan disappeared, and that's when Leonard Parodiso again became a suspect in Marie's case and Tim Burke, the former prosecutor, set up a grand jury. But he set up the grand jury against Leonard Paredisso for the murder of Marie I knew. He later changed that to a John Doe and claimed that he was looking for the
rightful culprit in that case. None of the evidence, there was no evidence that connected Leonard Paredisso legitimately to Marie Ayanuzi, and there was even a first hand witness who had seen Leonard Pardisso in his girlfriend more than half an hour away when the States snitch said that he was with Marie and at the time of the murder.
Now we have to go back and talk about the police, how they actually proceed or at least look like they're proceeding with the case of the murder of Joan Webster or the disappearance. They don't know if it's a murder, they have no body tell us how they proceed, and tell us how George Webster seems to proceed.
George was very involved, but his involvements was kind of under the radar, you know. You can see it very much in documents. His influence was there the authorities. Once Leonard paredisso had been arrested for the murder of Marie Anuzzi, an officer, Sergeant Carmen Tomorrow, who was with the Massachusetts State Police, went and visited Leonard Parediso and he accused Parodiso of murdering Joan on his boat. That's the first
place where the boat theory came up. It was introduced by the Massachusetts State Police before there was any suspicion or connection or any reason to believe that Parodiso had anything to do with Joean Webster's murder. The Carmen Tomorrow actually knew Leonard Parediso growing up, and they probably were a bit of you know, arrival during their teen years
and whatnot. There's an incident that's been described about brawl that broke out on a high school boat, a party boat, and Carmen Tamarrow was actually one of the people that was arrested, so there was some jealousy there. I don't know full details of what their relationship was growing up over the years, but certainly there was animus at the time that Paradiso was then arrested and accused of murdering both Marie Ianuzzi and Joan.
Now Burke, which is an inexperienced district attorney as you write, but we'll talk about an Andrew Palumbo, which is far more experienced law enforcement officer. But the way that Burke is trying to pressure Paradiso is through his girlfriend named Candy Wayant. And how is she involved in his business? Which is this shocking?
And with this boat he was basically what I would call a shellfish peddler. During the Feasts of Saints that they have in Boston in the North End the Italian community every summer, he would have a cart and he shucked his co hogs, big clams and whatnot. Candy wasn't really involved in that, however, you know, she was the one they had dated for many years, and she was the one that had purchased the boat that he used to go out fishing. Malafemina. Whether that was a straw
purchase or not, you know, I really can't say. But actually the boat was licensed in her name and titled in her name, and Massachusetts happens to be a titled state, so the boat was technically hers.
You talk about some of the things that they do. This boat needs a lot of repairs, and Parodisa was struggling, so there is something that they concoct a scheme. And this is well before Joan Webster goes missing.
That's right.
You know.
One of the things that news articles that had never been sent back to me by the family were reports, early reports when this story first came out that the boat didn't exist when Joan disappeared. Since then, in digging through records and whatnot, and I do have certified court records, and I can see witness testimony from other individuals that this boat did not exist. Candy and Leonard went to
his boat in July nineteen eighty one. He had it moored at Peer seven, and they stripped the boat and he pulled a couple of plugs and pulled up the john and the boat sank, and it boat sank right there where it had been moored so the boat was underwater, probably about thirty five feet before Joan ever took that flight.
About four months before it took the flight. The insurance company which actually did do an investigation, they paid out the insurance money on the boat, paid it to Candy Wyant and that was paid out in September of nineteen eighty one. So again it had been investigated and it paid out prior to Jon's disappearance. So this boat never existed. The only person who indicated that Joan was murdered on this boat was a jailhouse snitch, two time convicted murderer
named Robert Bond, and he wasn't an eyewitness. His testimony was really hearsay, he claimed Leonard Parodiso confessed the sings to him.
The thing is is that there are various grand jury indictments. Finally that come down. Let's get to the actual trial and the testimony of a person named Dave Delaria in one of those grand jury that were convened. How is this evidence not at the trial?
Explain it actually was at the trial, and then the judge was cutting certain evidence that had been admitted. David Delia had been picked up by the police. They had heard that David Doyle, Marieanuzzi's boyfriend, had been talking and confessed to this individual or indicated to this individual that Marie got what she deserved and he was the one responsible. So Tim Burke during the trial just absolutely crucified that witness. He was a drug user. They drank, so did Marie
ayan Uzzi, and so did her boyfriend, David Doyle. So they were casting dispersions on testimony that was given. They, you know, Burke, even when after the eyewitness who placed Leonard Parediso half an hour away from where their snitch claimed he was. So that whole case, there were so many discrepancies with what the story was that was portrayed versus what's in the actual records. It really the records support It was most definitely a wrongful conviction. It was a sham prosecution.
You say, Not only was you questioned the ethics and the just the tactics of the of Da Burke, but also the judge really helped the prosecution in this case in very controversial terms as far as you're concerned.
No question, the judge back in a lobby conference was ruling out evidence. There were two witnesses friends of Marie Ianuzi's that came forward and described prior incident where David Doyle, the boyfriend, had tried to strangle Marie, and just how emotionally distraught she was, and the judge disallowed it, or Tim Burke pressured a witness and she changed her testimony. He also cut out a witness that had, according to the police report, had seen Maria Ayanuzzi back at the
bar at one point thirty in the morning. Now, the times are important, and I really go into detail with times in the books so people can see that the time then doesn't jive because according to the story they were trying to promote Leonard Parediso had Rieianuzzi in his car and had murdered her at that time. But that was not the case. She actually returned to the bar. The judge cut out that testimony from going back to the jury.
Now, what was the result, What was the verdict of this trial?
The verdict in that trial, they found parodis So guilty of second degree murdered. They found him guilty of attempted rape even though they were trying to put rape charges on him, and he went to prison. He tried to appeal and they continue need to be shut down. When he tried for a retrial twice, that petition went to the exact same trial judge that had been presiding over the case. So he wasn't getting a fair or fresh set of eyes. And he never was able to get an appeal on that case.
That appeel just kept going to the same judge who denied that there was any impropriety. Yeah, let's talk about Robert Bond and his testimony and the circumstances where George meets with Robert Bond.
Interestingly, Robert Bond was a two time convicted murderer, and I will tell you that I myself have met him face to face.
Wow.
I went with a private investigator trying to ask questions and learn a little bit more. This is a very intimidating man. And or he was. He is now deceased. He was convicted on his second murder. He was going to be sent for life. He had already had one furlough where he had failed to return to prison. I mean,
this guy is bad news. And his story was that he claims Parodiso confessed to him in jail that he had murdered Marie Huzzi and was giving some details that were inconsistent with the facts, and that he had murdered Joan. What he claimed was that Parodiso claimed to have taken Joan on his boat, hit her in the head with a whiskey bottle, and dumpter in Boston Harbor. None of those things are true. The boat did not exist when Joan disappeared, and Joan was found eight and a half
years after she disappeared. He was found buried in a very remote area about twenty twenty five miles north of the airport in Hamilton, Massachusetts. So his statement is false. And yet for so many years, Joan had not been discovered yet, and therefore they just kept prolonging this story to the point where people presumed it to be facts.
There was nothing factual about it at all. And actually, my point where I got very suspect that Leonard Parodissa was not the right PA person was when they did find Jones's remains, I thought, you know, how can that be? And when I really got into the records, I could see that they knew all along that it was not the case.
Let's go back before they find jones remains and the evidence that they find with the finding of her remains and what does this Burke do again? You have to explain. We just briefly explained how he entangles these two cases and tries to put it on Leonard Parediso despite the circumstances being different. So after his conviction, he is not done with Parodiso, is he?
No, not at all. He continued to pile on different cases and just continued to go after him. Mister Burke actually used the way mister Burke presents his case and he wrote a book about this as well, which is something that really spurred me to dig into Jones's case further. And he claims that, you know, Leonard Pardies so confessed both of these crimes. He claims that he had John Doe grand jury to begin with to go after Paradiso
for Marie and Neusi. That is not the case. He first went after Leonard Parediso specifically, and it really was kind of a prosecutorial trick because all of the testimony in that grand jury implicated Marieanuzi's boyfriend David Doyle. Right, they didn't want you an indictment against David Doyle. They were going after Paradiso. So these cases were entangled. They used the Ayanewsi case to issue warrants to search the Wyant home, for example, and that came out under the
Marie and Newsie case. But what they were looking for, what they recovered were items that they tried to tie into their story about what they claim happened to Joan vote paraphernalia and photographs. They were looking for photographs, specifically looking for photographs that looked like Joan Webster in a Marieanuzzi warrant. It was just very fraudulent. The whole thing was very deceptive, but it gave them some extra tricks before they even introduced Parodis as a suspect in Jones's case.
For a full year, really kind of under the radar to try and tie things together, mister Burke pulled some really disgusting stunts. I mean, I'm not going to be a judge and whatnot, but you know, when you've got a bad actor in the system like that, and for whatever reasons he had, he really he wanted to prove that the story he was telling that he was some white knight, you know, ridding the city of menace to society, someone he calls a serial killer. I didn't find any
evidence that Leonard Parodiso ever murdered anyone. As I said, he was vulnerable, he had a rap sheet, and you know, even talking with folks out in the Boston area, you know, he may have had issues with some abuse and whatnot. But I didn't find any evidence that he actually raped someone, and I didn't find any evidence that he had murdered anyone. But that was the story they were trying to portray. Therefore, they took all these different cases that they kept piling on.
Tim Burke was the one who instigated a bankruptcy case that was held in the federal courts, with a centerpiece of that being the boat his alleged crime scene, and affirmation out of that case is that that didn't exist. And yet that's not what came out through the media and whatnot. He just really was able to portray his case. Jones's case actually gets very simple when you kind of tear away all of the other complications and scenarios that were thrown in on top of it. I believe it
was deliberately confusing when it boils down. Mister Burke, and he has said as recently as last year he made a statement that he relied on two inmates who provided information that he relied on, and he's convinced parities so committed both murders of Marie Anuzzi and Joan Webster. And if you go to the witnesses that he used, Robert Bond being one, Robert Bond said Joan was Paredisa, took Joan to his boat, hit her in the head with a whiskey bottle, raped her, and dumped in Boston Harbor.
Not true, not possible. The other witness was a man by Ralph Anthony Pisa, who was once on death row for a murder he committed. And he really gave no verifiable testimony at all. He just claimed to have had a conversation, two different conversations that couldn't be verified, claiming that Leonard Parediso had confessed both crimes to him. No way to substantiate that at all. But one thing in
his testimony did stand out to me. During a pre trial hearing, Pisa claimed that he had made assurances to George Webster. That's just completely inappropriate. The hearing where he gave that testimony was for the Marie Ayaanusi case in where they did try to bring John's name into that case, and it would be so completely inappropriate for the father of another murder victim or a missing person to be
having any kind of conversation with a witness like that. Absolutely, there was a lot of behind the scenes things going on, things I had no idea, was not aware of at all.
Let's use this eve as an opportunity to stop for a second to hear from our sponsor, which is Best Fiends. It was a typical night, Lisa and I had some dinner, We both talked about work, and then suddenly I disappeared. But not to worry. I was just off scoring some quality time playing Best Fiends. Others may wonder about your sudden disappearances too, but I totally understand if you're having
as much fun playing as I do. What I enjoy the most about Best Fiends is that I can totally lose myself in playing, getting away from my too serious occupation. I'm amazingly at level eleven seventy right now, with so many levels left to achieve, It's easy to just play a few levels anytime you have a little time to spare. It feels great to beat another level or get in the zone. Best Fiends is a free to download mobile puzzle game that has thousands of levels, new adventures and
challenges every time. There are dozens of unique Fiends to collect to build a team of Fiends to fight the menacing slugs, and you'll never be stranded if you lose your Internet connection. New events and challenges come up all year. You're always able to earn exclusive in game items, characters, and rewards. Download your new favorite Getaway Best Fiends for free today on the App Store or Google Play. You'll even earn five dollars worth of in game rewards when
you reach level five. That's Friends without the R Best Fiends Now, Eve, we were talking about Tony Pisa, another informant with an incredible motivation to lie and need to provide false testimony, and as you we just mentioned, consulted and was assuring George Webster very very interesting. Also tell us about this again to fit the narrative that Burke is trying to push forth. There is a three point fifty seven magnum found. Tell us why it's not such a great discovery.
Oh, this was mind boggling. And I remember when this story came out originally that Tim Burke had with his divers after they had found Perdizo's boat and raised it that they found in the water what turned out to be a fake three point fifty seven magnum realistic looking that Tim Burke's diver brought up. Tim Burke didn't identify his source at that time, calling him a confidential source, but in his book that he had published, he did
identify it. So I was able to do some research on that and discovered that the man he had named, John O'Connell, he had been a developer who was working at Peer seven in nineteen eighty and so a year before Joan disappeared, and he actually got in quite a bit of trouble for embezzling housing in urban development government funds. He was a crook and he got himself in trouble. He was under investigation by the fall. By October of
nineteen eighty one, they had taken his business records. They actually videotaped him secretly in a kind of a sting on November twenty fourth, nineteen eighty one, so four days before Joan disappeared in Jacksonville, Florida, according to Burke. Burke claims that this man had divers go into the water to recover tools at the work site while he was
no longer working there, he claimed. Burke claims this happened in April of nineteen eighty two and claims that the diver found a gun and he told them to throw
it back in the water. What the FBI three HO two report said that I recovered in documents of this witness that what his divers found in the water was a Mercedes And you know, on top of it, I know that there were assigned divers in the water after the boat came up, searching the waters for two full months looking for anything that might connect Parodiso or the boat to Joan and found absolutely nothing. And there was absolutely nothing on the boat that would connect them. I
have all the FBI lab reports. So the whole thing was a hoax. I mean they were planting evidence, they were manufacturing evidence and just painting a picture, and of course no one had access to any information that would counter it.
You talk about Burke and Palombo teaming up to continue this narrative in the press despite it seemed to be some conclusion to everything. I'll tell us a little bit about.
That enterw Palombo and Tim Burke were paired to go after Parodiso in February of nineteen eighty two, so shortly after Joan had disappeared, and that took place at a meeting that the Websters actually convened at Harvard, and obviously that meeting would be about Joan. But the result of that meeting came out where they came out and then went after Parodizo for the Marie and Newsy murder, so that they could make a connection between Parodiso and Marie Neuzi.
He met her at the wedding the night before she was murdered, so there was a connection that they could make. They had no connection to make, you know, connect him to Joan in any way. The two of these individuals and Plumbo was a very big man, kind of gruff looking. He was an undercover Massachusetts State Police officer Ian Carmen Tomorrow, were both assigned to the f barracks at Logan Airport.
They would make comments, they perpetuated this story. They would add fodder to it, claiming that Parodiso used to hanging out with child molesters at the bus station. The bus station became a point of interest in Jones's case because that's where her luggage was found two months after she disappeared and they just I remember after Jones's remains were recovered, Palombo insisted that Parodiso was guilty of the crime. However, they never made any chart. They never charged Parodiso at all.
They just made the accusations and the evidence that they kept trying to promote as being items that connected Parodisa to jan I went through each and every one of them. Every one of them is bogus. There's an explanation for what that item is, and it did not belong to John. They were not Jones things. Tim Burke actually made a claim to the FBI. This is an FBI reports. He
claimed that a woman was photographed. They collected a photograph during the Wyant search under the ion Easy case, a photograph of a woman that was wearing Jones bracelet or bracelet identical to Jones. They may have had the photograph, and I believe that they did. That's how they located a woman that Parodiso had infrequently dated. But she had no jewelry of Jones, but they kept promoting these things anyway, Jones jewelry, her identifiable jewelry was never recovered.
Let's talk about when Joan is actually discovered the particulars of that and then what that creates in terms of a bombshell of sorts.
On April eighteenth, nineteen ninety so, eight and a half years after Joan disappeared, a woman happened to be a woman vet was walking her dogs on the lower part of her property. She actually lived on a bluff above a lake or pond in Hamilton, Massachusetts, a very remote area, and she had a lower part of the property that often flooded. She was walking with her dog and discovered something that was blocking a drainage ditch under her driveway
and she approached it. Initially, she thought it was a punched in volleyball. As she got close, being a vet, she identified that it was a human skull. She contacted the police right away and they came and cordoned off the area for the next week. They did a grid search of the area and a lot of people out there are dogs and what not. Doing a grid search over an entire area, and they found miscellaneous things, animal bones, just a variety of different things, but nothing that connected
to Joan or Joan's case. And at this point they didn't have an identification on her. They were just about ready to give up. There were three officers out there kind of standing in an area, and one of them reached down and reached into a log or what had become a decayed log, and pulled out a vertebrate. So they had found Jon's remains. They had found her grave. Joan was found with a two inch by four inch
hole in the right side of her head. The entire right side of her head was taken out, so someone had hit her with tremendous force. She had been stripped of all clothing. None of her clothing was in that area at all, it was just skeletal remains others. Then she had a gold neck chain and common gold and semi precious stone ring that were still on the skeleton.
She had been buried in a black plastic trash bag, and the police speculated that she was probably murdered elsewhere and brought to that site, and judging from the wound, the fatal blow to her skull, they would have needed to contain the blood. And this is hard, hard, it's hard to recall these things, even this many years later.
There were two layers of logs that were over the gravesite, and someone had been out there a second time because the first layer of logs was decomposed, whereas the second layer was not, as it had not been there as long. The power company on a regular basis would go out there and try to thin the trees in the area. So there were lugs. There were cut logs out in that area that were readily available.
Now you talk about what the patho pologists, you tago blunt force trauma on the side of her head creating this basically hole on the right side of her head. What does this revelation or what does this discovery do to Tim Burke and his whole theory about she being killed on a boat and being tossed overboard.
Well, at that point they should have been very aware that Robert Bond was a false witness Number one. She was not tossed in Boston Harbor. She was found buried more than thirty miles away. The bloat of the head that's not done by a whiskey bottle. The police officer that I spoke with who was involved in the recovery, he felt it was probably a bat or a limb, could have been a tire iron. Whatever it was, it was something that someone with a great deal of strength
really took her out. John would have died instantly, but he had no recollection that there was any glass remaining in what little hair was left on the skull, So they really did they did know. Those records are not records I've been able to get access to because I'm not technically next of Keen, which would be a blood family member, and George Webster would not let anyone see those.
Let's use this as an opportunity to stop for a second for these messages.
With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen the bride and groom? Sorry?
Sorry, we're here.
We were getting lucky in the limo and we lost track of time.
No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up quicker than a guess registered in.
In that case, I pronounce you lucky.
Thanks for free.
At Lucky landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting. No purchase necessary board. We're prohibited by Lot eight team plus terms and conditions applak see website for details.
Now let's get back to how Tim Burke gets his justice, A little bit of justice for people in this case. What happens to Tim Burke before we talk about basically your conclusions on what you put together on who was responsible for jones murder.
Tim Burke, he did gain a conviction in the Ayanusi case. I do believe it's a wrongful conviction. The documents most definitely support that, and I'm not alone in that conclusion. It certainly is worth an investigation of that case. There were several cases like that at this time in tim Burke's office at that time Suffolk County office, they were
found for having secret and duplicate files. So there were many cases that were drawn into question for corrupt practices between nineteen eighty and nineteen eighty eight, and of course the Ayonwzy case and Jones investigation were right in the heart of that. Tim Burke kind of continued to try and pursue the issue, wanting Robert Bond to testify in a case for Joan. Bond wouldn't do it. He actually named Tim Burke, Carmen te Merrow, and Andrew Palumbo for
making promises that he relied on. So they were nigged on their promises and he wasn't going to testify again. He did get Tony Pisa out of jail, Tim Burke went and presented in front of another county in court on behalf of Ralph Anthony Pisa. As I said, this was a man who was once on death row for the murder he was involved in. Instead he walked out a freeman. Tim Burke in nineteen eighty five left the Suffolk County District Attorney's office to go into private practice.
And one thing I found very interesting, and I do have a first and witness who informed me of this. He removed a carton of Joan Webster's files from the Suffolk County's office. You don't do that, and ordinarily it should have been handed down to a new prosecutor in the case to pursue it. It was still an open case. It is still an open case. Burke was handed a very plumb contract when he left for private practice to
represent the Massachusetts State Police. So I found that very interesting, because yes, they certainly were involved in dirty practices.
Here you write about something very interesting, a freedom of information requests regarding a believe in nineteen fifty seven CIA manual. And then we get back to George and Eleanor's training. But George's training and you say, still with itt, still the same type of person. Tell us what was involved or included in this freedom of information request and the manual.
That manual is a very interesting thing to find because as you as I started to try to sort through and understand what was the really what was the model who plans of murder like this intentionally manipulate someone to another vehicle those unnoticed, really or not someone that could be identified at the time. This was very meticulous, it was very deliberate. I found the CIA manual. It was an instruction manual that was used in the agency at
the time. George and Eleanor were part of the agency, and it really was a manual on how to kill someone. They taught people how to kill and I could pick out very identifiable things that followed what I could see as having happened and transpired. In Jones's case, Joan was unquestionably the target of that murder. This was not a random act. She was intentionally moved from one vehicle to another, which brings up another very important point that no one
ever really picked up on. There was another person involved in this. The driver of the second car was involved. No one ever came forward that someone had been in the car with him. They got dropped off at a different place.
No.
This at least three people left in that vehicle, the driver, the individual who was with Joan at Logan Airport in Joan and Joan went missing for a very long time. It is very descriptive on how to kill someone using unidentifiable and available instruments as weapons, as opposed to using a gun or a knife, which you would have ballistics or you know, different things that could help identify a certain type of weapon. Hitting someone with a branch or a bat or a tire iron, those are things she
could readily dispose of. They would seem innocuous unless you really knew what they were being used for. It described on where you strike someone if you're using that type of manner of death, cause of death, and that's precisely where Joan was hit. It just was very unsettling to see something that described in such really great detail how you would kill someone in the fashion that Joan was killed.
Let's talk about something that we haven't mentioned, we've skipped over. When Joan was found, she had a business card inner woman, and she also had a handwritten note on that business card. Who was that business card from and what did that note contain?
Do you know? Yeah, that business card really bothered me when I found that. When I first recovered FBI files, I noticed several different items that were listed in Jones wallet, and I could identify that one of the business cards was of George Webster, and I had it listed in three different items. But it wasn't until I recovered a police report several years later where I saw what that business card said. It had a handwritten note on it that said if found, call this number, and it was
the number to George Webster's office. So the first hall that was placed after any evidence was found was to George Webster. Now John was twenty five. She was a very sophisticated young woman, very intelligent, Harvard graduate student. She didn't live in the same town at that time with her parents. You wouldn't have a card like that in your wallet, you really wouldn't. You might have your dad's business card, but you wouldn't have a note for someone
to call his number. I don't know when that card was placed there before the fact, could have been placed there after the fact, but that was something that was very much overlooked. But it is described in a police report that was taken of the man that actually found Joan's person wallet just a few days after she disappeared.
You say only four people you believe were involved in this, I guess cover up. But George is the link in terms of the only person knowing the whereabouts of his daughter that day.
There are only a handful of people who really promoted this story that worked closely together. They are Timber, Andrew Palombo, Carmen Tomorrow, and George Webster. As far as who knew where Joan was going to be at that time, I spoke with Joan on that Thanksgiving Day. At that time, as far as I knew, she still had her friend coming to visit. She had no plans of going back early. Four people that would have absolutely known where she was going to be would be her parents, George and eleanor
Anne who was there and Joan. George claimed that Joan had placed a call to a classmate for checking to see if they had supplies. His story was that Joan went back early to work on a project, That's why she went back early. Well, Joan had just presented her project just before leaving for Thanksgiving break, so that was not true, and the phone records don't support his story.
They don't support it at all. Another thing that I found very interesting when I started to go through records, and I would pick out these little pieces and try to see how they fit into the whole puzzle of everything, and I didn't get them in any particular order. One of the first things I noticed in records that I recovered was that George and Eleanor Webster did not provide the police with a second phone number that they had
that went into their house. He had a private line that upstairs, and I can remember being told that that was off limits. You don't use that phone. You know, I've often wondered, it's not anything I could ever prove, but you know, the connections that George's division had with the CIA when he was with ITT, his background with the CIA. I sometimes wondered if perhaps that was a cover job. I'll never know, you know, that's not something
I will ever know. But he certainly had the mindset of the intelligence background that he had, and so did Eleanor. They were very secretive. I was. You know, I've gone through a full range of emotions reviewing information and reliving this experience, winding out just how deceptive they were with me a family member.
You right in the very beginning that George had a sort of a curt statement right after I guess after it was discovered that Joan was missing. Yeah, what did he have to say? And and also the family's reaction and your reaction.
The Christmas right after Jonas appeared, So not even quite a month after she disappeared, Steve and I went back to New Jersey to spend Christmas, and George came into the living room that Christmas morning and said, well, she's gone, We'll have to move on. It's a very stoic family. I certainly don't respond that way, but I don't judge people for how they respond to grief. We all respond differently, but in hindsight, you know, it is something that definitely
sticks out. I never once saw George and eleanor cry, not once or in very stoic Steve cried once about a month after that, when he had been sedated toy have wisdom teeth pulled. That's the only time he ever cried. I cried. I was very emotional. I had just had a miscarriage. I was emotional, very distraught over the situation with Joan, and I do tend to show my emotions, you know, and I can reflect that again on other
behaviors of the family. For example, after Joan was recovered, when they were finished with a forensic George and Eleanor had Joan cremated, which is actually against the law in the state of Massachusetts because it was an unsolved case. There could still be more jurisdiction or a judicial inquiry into the crime. But he had it cremated. And when we went back to New Jersey for the interment and didn't go, or own sister didn't go, it's just, you know,
it's just very troubling. You know, they're very emotionally disconnected people, and that's very problematic because then you don't care what happens.
That last statement is very interesting. There's not any religious reasons for the cremation, but also in light of the advanced DNA of the advances in DNA, that you would think that they would be advised by most people to hold off cremation in case DNA advances could help their case.
It's the district attorney who would have to release the body. In course, by this time it had been moved into a third District Attorney's office. This case is handled in three different DA's offices. Essex County is the final one because that's where the county where her remains were found. And for him them to release it, you know, I that's against the law and it just is baffling to me that they would allow that. But George did indeed have her cremated. I have the date, the location, I
have her does certificate. Yeah, it's the Websters, for whatever reasons, did not want people to know what truly happened to Joan, and that's a problem absolutely.
I want to thank you so much Jeve Carson for coming on and talking about your latest book, Simple, Safe and Secret, the nineteen eighty one Murder of Joan L. Webster. For those that might want to take another look. Is there a website for this book? And tell us who is published this book? On your behalf.
Genius Book Publishing has published this book. They've just done a wonderful job helping me really clearly tell this story to really take away a lot of the confusion and mystery surrounding this case. I do have a website also that I've put together because I want people to realize that I'm coming forward with my conclusions based on real documents, so I want people to see those real documents. The website is Justice for Joan Webster. It's kind of set up in maybe a blog type fashion would be the
best way to describe it. There are different tabs, different categories that really step you through. You'll be able to see documents. I just it's a mind boggling case, but one that truly deserves attention. I mean, when authorities can do this to people, they have caused really serious harm
in people's lives, including my own. To be a family member that has gone through such tragedy and realize not only didn't they care at the time to truthfully seek justice for Joan, they endangered, They left other people vulnerable, and authorities today would rather shield the misconduct then give people the piece that they deserve injustice for John.
Yeah, it's very sad, but congratulations on bringing to light all this in crucial information about the murder of Joan L. Webster. Thank you so much, Eve Carson, Simple safe and secret the nineteen eighty one murder of Joan L. Webster. Thank you so much. You have a great evening.
Good night, Thank you, Dan.
Thank you