Identified! PA - Philadelphia - 'Boy in the Box' - 4UMPA - Feb'57 - Joseph Augustus Zarelli #4

[steff13]

I've been off for a while, so sorry if I'm blowing up the thread. The thing that sticks out to me is it seems that Joseph did live with his mother. But, it also seems like his mother was pretty close to her family. It seems unlikely that she could have successfully hidden a child from her family for four years, but if they knew about him, why didn't they ask questions when he was suddenly gone? And more importantly, why didn't they say something when his picture was being plastered all over the city? I get circling the wagons when it comes to family, but I don't believe that many people could have kept that secret so successfully for over 60 years.

Which leads me to believe maybe he was given up for adoption, either formally or informally, but the information we do have doesn't really support that either.

Are we certain the the baby born in 1956 was her husband's? If they married later, why wouldn't they have married while she was pregnant? That would have been the "done thing" in the 1950s. Is there possibly another guy in between JAZ and the husband? Maybe not a very nice guy?

 

[HarmonyE.]

Just to bring Martha back into things for a moment, one of the reasons why her story held some weight for a very long time, was that it echoed another witness statement - the man who saw who he thought was a woman and a young teenage boy, stopped, who ignored his offer of help and seemed to stand in a way to conceal the numberplate. We know that they have decided that Martha wasn't the 'boy', that her story doesn't connect with Joseph's, but if that woman and child WERE there disposing of Joseph's body, then a woman is involved in this, somehow. It's entirely possible that the woman and child were just there for nothing to do with Joseph, maybe having changed a tyre or something, but we know, in all likelihood, Joseph was taken to the scene in a car, so it is noteable.

I've never believed Martha's story. No matter what anyone may try to claim, girls in 1957 didn't look like boys. And I don't believe anyone would be dumb enough to be that obvious in disposing of a body in a large box. He was almost certainly brought by car as I can't imagine how else someone would get the box and the body to that site. We also don't know what day the dumping might have taken place as the ME opined Joseph may have been dead for days up to a couple of weeks. I don't doubt the witness, but the sighting probably has no relevance to the crime.

 

[Friday Fan]

It's very likely the vehicle seen was a red herring. It was a dump site. I think there were often people there, this driver happened to remember seeing them around that time frame. Also clothes were found near where that vehicle was spotted.

Don't think Joseph was dumped while it was daylight.

Also I believe dumping was "illegal" back then, so the woman and boy likely being kinda sneaky for that reason.

 

[steff13]

Re: Martha's story - I'm reading the Boy in the Box book, and the teenage boy who says he found Joseph's body but didn't report it said he found it on Sunday morning, if I recall correctly, but the good samaritan saw the woman/boy on a different day. Monday or Tuesday, I think. Of course, that first boy was not 100% reliable, but if that's true, then the woman/boy had nothing to do with Joseph, which further discredits Martha's story, to my way of thinking.

 

[steff13]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>

Obviously, we know it happens all the time, but it's still hard to think that a mother would either kill her own child, allow her husband to kill her child, and/or stay with the man who killed her child and have more children. It's more palatable to think that there is some other unknown individual who did this, you know?

 

[iamshadow21]

I've never believed Martha's story. No matter what anyone may try to claim, girls in 1957 didn't look like boys.

My grandmother was an avid hiker and outdoorswoman. Boots, shorts, big stick for balance, and off the trail. She nursed in London during WW2. When she wasn't working, she was hiking. Lots of pictures of my mum from the fifties as a kid, she's in shorts, pixie cut, t-shirt, camping, hiking, fishing. School or church pictures, sure, she's in a dress, or skirt and blouse, but casual holiday snaps? She's dressed like her brothers. It really depends on the family.

EDIT: For broader context than my specific family, The Parent Trap, 1961, the girls have a longish pixie cut, and at the camp they wear shirts, shorts and a scarf kinda like a Brownie scarf around their necks. The fifties is known for its high-femme styles for women, but girls were wearing shorts, too. Try googling Marilyn Monroe shorts, you get a heap of pics.

None of this is related to Martha's story being true, being not true, whether the people seen at the site were related at all to Joseph's death, etc. But it wasn't anachronistic or gender divergent for a girl or woman to wear shorts or other less fitted clothing in the fifties. Not as common as now, I grant you, but it happened.

 

[HarmonyE.]

My grandmother was an avid hiker and outdoorswoman. Boots, shorts, big stick for balance, and off the trail. She nursed in London during WW2. When she wasn't working, she was hiking. Lots of pictures of my mum from the fifties as a kid, she's in shorts, pixie cut, t-shirt, camping, hiking, fishing. School or church pictures, sure, she's in a dress, or skirt and blouse, but casual holiday snaps? She's dressed like her brothers. It really depends on the family.

I am not saying it's impossible. I'm sure there were a few girls who dressed like boys despite the rather strict conventions of the day. It's just not very likely, and M's story is simply not compelling overall.

 

[Eddie99]

I have to politely disagree with the notion M's story is not compelling.

My understanding is there were elements of her story, that dovetailed with information the police held back.

<modsnip>

I certainly can't say she was correct. But I don't think this should be dismissed.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I have to politely disagree with the notion M's story is not compelling.

My understanding is there were elements of her story, that dovetailed with information the police held back.

What information did she have that the police held back? I'm not sure they held much, if anything, back.

 

[fred&edna]

I've been off for a while, so sorry if I'm blowing up the thread. The thing that sticks out to me is it seems that Joseph did live with his mother. But, it also seems like his mother was pretty close to her family. It seems unlikely that she could have successfully hidden a child from her family for four years, but if they knew about him, why didn't they ask questions when he was suddenly gone? And more importantly, why didn't they say something when his picture was being plastered all over the city? I get circling the wagons when it comes to family, but I don't believe that many people could have kept that secret so successfully for over 60 years.

Which leads me to believe maybe he was given up for adoption, either formally or informally, but the information we do have doesn't really support that either.

Are we certain the the baby born in 1956 was her husband's? If they married later, why wouldn't they have married while she was pregnant? That would have been the "done thing" in the 1950s. Is there possibly another guy in between JAZ and the husband? Maybe not a very nice guy?

Wonderful post

 

[txsleuth70]

JAZ did not have DS. Yes, much individuality exists with different aspects of DS, but I am stating this based on his build (even with signs of malnutrition) the shape of his hands, and his head shape.

Also, having DS would have been an important detail that LE would have shared right away to help in identifying who he was.

Even children who have some sort of mosaicism of DS (I'm aware there are many) usually will have 1 or 2 identifying markers of having DS.

For all of these reasons above, and zero evidence otherwise, IMOO, JAZ did not have DS.

 

[iamshadow21]

JAZ did not have DS. Yes, much individuality exists with different aspects of DS, but I am stating this based on his build (even with signs of malnutrition) the shape of his hands, and his head shape.

Also, having DS would have been an important detail that LE would have shared right away to help in identifying who he was.

Even children who have some sort of mosaicism of DS (I'm aware there are many) usually will have 1 or 2 identifying markers of having DS.

For all of these reasons above, and zero evidence otherwise, IMOO, JAZ did not have DS.

I agree completely.

Yeah, the thing I noticed about his hand, the photograph they took of it, though it's a low res image, it's obvious that the creases of his palm are completely typical. Kids and adults with DS often have a crease pattern specific to DS, with one long crease across the centre.

 

[Magnum P.E.]

Obviously, we know it happens all the time, but it's still hard to think that a mother would either kill her own child, allow her husband to kill her child, and/or stay with the man who killed her child and have more children. It's more palatable to think that there is some other unknown individual who did this, you know?

It is an awful thought, but far stranger things have happened. The mother apparently lived in the Philadelphia area until not so many years ago. Every few years there would be stories in the newspaper with those photos…..

One wonders what she thought at that time.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

I go back and forth regarding Martha. I believe there are very compelling details, and believe that LE did feel she was credible, her story could just be absolutely ruled in. Or out

But I strongly believe that she could have been identified as a boy. Very short hair was absolutely the norm back then. I can actually remember being taken to the local hairdresser to trim and curl my very short bob do!!

 

[iamshadow21]

Very short hair was absolutely the norm back then. I can actually remember being taken to the local hairdresser to trim and curl my very short bob do!!

RSBM

Roman Holiday, 1953. Once Audrey Hepburn did it, everyone wanted it.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I go back and forth regarding Martha. I believe there are very compelling details, and believe that LE did feel she was credible, her story could just be absolutely ruled in. Or out

I keep seeing people say there are "compelling" details indicating Martha's story is true. But when I ask what those details are, I never hear anything but "baked beans", and of course there was no food at all in Joseph's stomach.

What details do you believe confirm Martha's story?

 

[iamshadow21]

I keep seeing people say there are "compelling" details indicating Martha's story is true. But when I ask what those details are, I never hear anything but "baked beans", and of course there was no food at all in Joseph's stomach.

What details do you believe confirm Martha's story?

I always found Martha's story compelling and believable purely because I came from a similar background of adverse childhood circumstances that led to issues with memory surrounding certain parts of my life.

Once Colleen Fitzpatrick said that Martha's story was in no way connected to Joseph's, I accepted that.

That said, I still think Martha's story has elements of veracity. I think she had a childhood that was extremely difficult. But memory is a tricky thing. Maybe she did have a sibling who died or was injured badly, and she connected that to Joseph, whose face was on flyers and in newspapers at the time, and her brain fused those things. Or maybe her childhood was her, alone, enduring it, and her brain tried to give her another child to endure it with, one whose absence was explicable by Joseph being dead. Since Martha is gone, her family, too, there's no way of knowing. But I don't think she made it up to get attention, or anything like that. I think she had a past that she was trying to work through and understand, and Joseph, though he wasn't there in reality, got tangled up with that somehow. No malice, just trauma, and an attempt at recovery. I wish her peace.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I always found Martha's story compelling and believable purely because I came from a similar background of adverse childhood circumstances that led to issues with memory surrounding certain parts of my life.

Once Colleen Fitzpatrick said that Martha's story was in no way connected to Joseph's, I accepted that.

That said, I still think Martha's story has elements of veracity. I think she had a childhood that was extremely difficult. But memory is a tricky thing. Maybe she did have a sibling who died or was injured badly, and she connected that to Joseph, whose face was on flyers and in newspapers at the time, and her brain fused those things. Or maybe her childhood was her, alone, enduring it, and her brain tried to give her another child to endure it with, one whose absence was explicable by Joseph being dead. Since Martha is gone, her family, too, there's no way of knowing. But I don't think she made it up to get attention, or anything like that. I think she had a past that she was trying to work through and understand, and Joseph, though he wasn't there in reality, got tangled up with that somehow. No malice, just trauma, and an attempt at recovery. I wish her peace.

I don't doubt Martha had a hard life, but I've never heard anything that comes close to convincing me she knew Joseph. Which is not to say she didn't convince herself she did.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Capt. Jason Smith said officers did not yet know who killed the boy or the circumstances of how he had died, and that investigations would continue.

“We have our suspicions as to who may be responsible, but it would be irresponsible of me to share these suspicions as this remains an active and ongoing criminal investigation,” Captain Smith said.

After 65 Years, the ‘Boy in the Box’ Has a Name (Published 2022)

Detective work and DNA analysis helped officials learn the identity of a 4-year-old boy whose beaten body was found inside a cardboard box in Philadelphia in 1957. The killing remains unsolved.

www.nytimes.com

If the investigators have their suspicions but can’t reveal it quite just yet, there’s more to this than the public know, Imo. They’ve got the final piece of the puzzle but are ensuring they’re got every avenue covered before they disclose it.
I’m glad Joseph is no longer a nameless victim, he has been named and his abusers will be known in time but imo, that’s as far as it can go, they would be all deceased, no punishment for them.

I have wondered whether he was, in fact, ‘murdered’, being malnourished and in a weakened state, he might have fallen down stairs and sustained head injuries which caused his death. These injuries would look like blunt force injuries, Imo. If Joseph was severely neglected, this is a crime in itself and led to his death and sadly, his persecutors will never be punished. These awful people wouldn’t believe they were guilty of a crime, it’s murder but not in their eyes, it was an accident.
Joseph may have been the scapegoat child, he was deprived of nourishment, unloved, locked away and mistreated, this kind of punishment has long been a form of abuse in dysfunctional homes, it’s still seen today in various forms of severity, most will survive but are emotionally scarred for life.


JMO

 

[Friday Fan]

Capt. Jason Smith said officers did not yet know who killed the boy or the circumstances of how he had died, and that investigations would continue.

“We have our suspicions as to who may be responsible, but it would be irresponsible of me to share these suspicions as this remains an active and ongoing criminal investigation,” Captain Smith said.

After 65 Years, the ‘Boy in the Box’ Has a Name (Published 2022)

Detective work and DNA analysis helped officials learn the identity of a 4-year-old boy whose beaten body was found inside a cardboard box in Philadelphia in 1957. The killing remains unsolved.

www.nytimes.com

If the investigators have their suspicions but can’t reveal it quite just yet, there’s more to this than the public know, Imo. They’ve got the final piece of the puzzle but are ensuring they’re got every avenue covered before they disclose it.
I’m glad Joseph is no longer a nameless victim, he has been named and his abusers will be known in time but imo, that’s as far as it can go, they would be all deceased, no punishment for them.

I have wondered whether he was, in fact, ‘murdered’, being malnourished and in a weakened state, he might have fallen down stairs and sustained head injuries which caused his death. These injuries would look like blunt force injuries, Imo. If Joseph was severely neglected, this is a crime in itself and led to his death and sadly, his persecutors will never be punished. These awful people wouldn’t believe they were guilty of a crime, it’s murder but not in their eyes, it was an accident.
Joseph may have been the scapegoat child, he was deprived of nourishment, unloved, locked away and mistreated, this kind of punishment has long been a form of abuse in dysfunctional homes, it’s still seen today in various forms of severity, most will survive but are emotionally scarred for life.


JMO

We only have census records, phone books, newspapers, but they have other data.

This would include benign things such as traffic stops. There may be minor civil records also, car sales, deeds etc. None of this old data is available to the general public online.

Even the unlisted phone numbers were registered with the phone company.

They are able to trace the movements of the known people in Joseph's life better than we can.