Identified! PA - Philadelphia, 'Boy in the Box', WhtMale 4-6, 4UMPA, Feb'57

[Cubby]

Marcia King's identification was covered by every major news outlet including DailyMail where her story got 'shared' over 1k times with people endlessly criticizing the family for not identifying her & that was just for not reporting her missing... the boy in the box's case would get a tremendous amount of attention and the family would get a ton of judgment and hate given the abuse the boy in the box suffered.

So he doesn't deserve to be identified? Because his family might be slammed by internet trolls who critique what the family may not have done more than 50 years ago? I don't consider 1k views on a media story a media frenzy. I am pretty sure if I took a random survey of 1000 people within a few miles of my location none of them would have heard of Marcia King. Heck, it took me a minute to recall who Marcia King was.

Jon Benet and Caylee Anthony had media frenzy.....

What matters is they are id'd. They family has a choice as to whether or not they choose to read the Internet, media stories and comments from strangers who are mostly internet trolls. Internet trolls and extended family who may not have known he was missing, shouldn't be a reason to deny this child the dignity of getting his name back.

 

[Tssiemer]

I don’t agree at all. Bring them all to justice damn. Wait I dont Disagree. Technology is always changing and evolving and eventually all of this will be solved I believe.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

I personally don't think his family killed him.I very strongly feel he was put in an Orphanage,hospital,foster home or institution of some kind

I was under the impression that many, maybe most, institutions such as orphanages, hospitals and facilities for troubled kids/teens had their own cemeteries so they would have little motivation to just dump his body. Hell, all of those sorts of facilities would have staff who could simply cover up cases of injury and death. Many would also have had resident or connected medical staff who could simply sign a death certificate and close the matter.

Unfortunately that makes it more likely that family or an abductor killed him.

 

[leilarose68]

[QUOTE="Cubby, post: 14126024, member: 14313"]So he doesn't deserve to be identified? Because his family might be slammed by internet trolls who critique what the family may not have done more than 50 years ago? I don't consider 1k views on a media story a media frenzy. I am pretty sure if I took a random survey of 1000 people within a few miles of my location none of them would have heard of Marcia King. Heck, it took me a minute to recall who Marcia King was. [/QUOTE]

Look, DDP has decided that they don't do suspect DNA and that's a complex decision they made based on multiple factors. It has nothing to do with whether someone 'deserves' to be identified, obviously he deserves to be identified. It's not as simple as that, it involves more abstract thinking and considerations for this specific non-profit. I'm sure other organizations will solve crimes through DNA and will take on these child cases.

I don't know if you know this but at least one person CALLED Marcia King's mother. This isn't about internet comments, it's about crazy people who think they're entitled to breach the family's privacy and berate them directly. And Boy in the Box's identification would get way more attention due to it being a child that was abused which would open up a whole can of worms. But that isn't really the main reason.

I believe that GEDMatch was not really in support of DDP using the database to find criminals but were onboard with an ongoing, longterm initiative to identify the unidentified and simply bring them back to their families.

I respect DDP's decision to not use people's DNA to unwittingly implicate people in their family despite lots of people demanding they take on these child cases; it is an ethical decision even if it means that not every important case will be taken on. Every non-profit has a specific mission and parameters, it's not as simple as just taking on every sad case because they're sad. Again, someone will do his DNA in the future, it doesn't have to be one non-profit doing everything.

I understand you're frustrated but DDP really aren't the people to take it out on. They're very smart people doing what they can in their own way and for good reasons that they can articulate way better than I can. Because of the complexities of the real world and relationships with databases things aren't black and white.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

We need to find someone else then.That's on their hands and thier conscience if they feel that is ok.Very sad.I feel the Vidocq Society with the the Philadelphia Police Department Homicide can do this for him.I pray they do.

 

[Suglo]

We need to find someone else then.That's on their hands and thier conscience if they feel that is ok.Very sad.I feel the Vidocq Society with the the Philadelphia Police Department Homicide can do this for him.I pray they do.

Parabon Labs and CeCe Moore are on it:

“- Parabon NanoLabs (Parabon) announced today the general availability of its Snapshot Genetic Genealogy Service, which provides investigators a revolutionary new tool for solving crimes with evidence from an unknown DNA sample. The company's new genetic genealogy (GG) unit is led by CeCe Moore, a pioneer in the field, best known for her work on the PBS television series Finding Your Roots. Parabon's GG analysts compare crime scene DNA samples against public genetic genealogy databases to narrow down a suspect list to a region, a family, or even an individual. The approach is the same as that used by law enforcement to identify the Golden State Killer suspect Joseph James DeAngelo.”

Parabon® Announces Snapshot® Genetic Genealogy Service for Law Enforcement

 

[Itsmevkb]

I am wholly behind trying to find this poor boys identity. However, I will also say this kind of DNA research scares the cr*p out of me.

 

[Tssiemer]

I am wholly behind trying to find this poor boys identity. However, I will also say this kind of DNA research scares the cr*p out of me.

Sooooo my in laws didnthe ancestry one and some crap came out of the wood work and now I am scared to death to do it. My Mom has been working on our family tree for decades and has traced it back a few 100 years and thought this would be a good gift for her but my family just can’t handle any surprises that may arise opening this can of worms.

 

[Gardener1850]

I am wholly behind trying to find this poor boys identity. However, I will also say this kind of DNA research scares the cr*p out of me.

Sooooo my in laws didnthe ancestry one and some crap came out of the wood work and now I am scared to death to do it. My Mom has been working on our family tree for decades and has traced it back a few 100 years and thought this would be a good gift for her but my family just can’t handle any surprises that may arise opening this can of worms.

It scares a lot of people I know too-- no one wants to do a DNA test "for fun" and find out they are related to a serial killer (JMO). Or worse-- have LE show up on your doorstep and ask for your DNA to test against crime scene evidence because a relative took a test that showed you as one of the other cousins who lived in the area where the crime was committed--this happened to some guy in Oregon before they caught EARS/ONS-- they had to get a court order to get that guys DNA and rule him out. I don't have any worry about it personally, but I know this fear exists in many people I talk to. I worry that people will stop giving their DNA to sites like GedMatch and it will become more difficult to ID Does or solve crimes with this method. I think those fear reactions are one reason DDP may not want to delve into taking on children's cases where it's likely a relative was involved in the murder/abuse. I can't speak for DDP, but JMO, they may want to avoid controversy so that they can keep ID'ing as many Does as possible. Maybe later, when they are more established and this method has become more accepted as commonplace in the public eyes, perhaps DDP will change their minds to take on children's cases. In the meantime, I think LE can start to do the same thing as DDP and not reveal their methods to the public. JMO.

 

[Alleykins]

OT: I personally have nothing to hide, but I value my privacy, so I most likely won't do a DNA test. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I put my DNA out there I might open up that Pandora's Box of crazies my father claims he spawned. I have 3 half-sisters that I've known about all along, two of them are certifiable, and that's enough. I have no desire to meet them in person at all, though I would meet up with my youngest half-sister should I ever be in her neighborhood. I wouldn't go out of my way to meet her. I'm sure my father was delusional when he claimed he had kids from the east coast all the way to Mexico, but I don't want to put that to the test.


There's also the matter of my grandma having a baby out of wedlock who she claimed died of SIDS at 3 days old in the hospital that no one can find a death certificate for. Should it turn out he was adopted, I want to respect her privacy, even though she's been gone for a while now. I know folks would disagree with me, but if she never took measures to reunite with him while she was alive, she must have had a good reason.


As far as possibly helping identify a set of unidentified remains, I know of no missing people in my family, so I wouldn't be of any help, especially if it were on my father's side.

 

[Gardener1850]

@Alleykins that is exactly the conversation I have been having with relatives and friends recently. I get it why people wouldn't want to contribute DNA--families are messy and some people don't want to know. I have done my own genealogy extensively for my ancestors but I don't know my 4th-6th cousins, so I have no way of knowing if one of them could be a missing person (or a serial killer). I think that is what is mind-blowing about this new technique. It's both really fascinating, really useful for identifying people and a little scary for people who value their privacy or just don't want to know. I go back in forth in my mind on how I feel about it all.

Back to the Boy in the box-- absolutely he deserves to be identified and I hope investigators will use whatever legal techniques they can to achieve that. Due to the above discussion I completely understand when police try to keep their methods under wraps (as they apparently did in identifying Terry Rasmussen). I have hope this boy can be identified in the near future even if DDP does not take the case. JMO.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Back to the Boy in the box-- absolutely he deserves to be identified and I hope investigators will use whatever legal techniques they can to achieve that.

I agree. Hell, I don't even like children, but they really do deserve the protection of adults and, if that fails, justice from adults. This child has already been failed on the first count. He should not be failed again on the second.

 

[Imphyy77]

With the advancements of DNA research, I'm surprised that the police haven't worked companies, like 23andMe, to locate a possible close relative via the child's genealogical profile. Also, assuming the boy looked like one of the parents, I wondered if the police tried running the photo they have through age progression software.

 

[Ozoner]

I agree. Hell, I don't even like children, but they really do deserve the protection of adults and, if that fails, justice from adults. This child has already been failed on the first count. He should not be failed again on the second.

Justice would mean legal consequences for the person responsible for the boy's death. I'd lay 19 to 1 odds that the perp is dead.

 

[CCJD]

With the advancements of DNA research, I'm surprised that the police haven't worked companies, like 23andMe, to locate a possible close relative via the child's genealogical profile. Also, assuming the boy looked like one of the parents, I wondered if the police tried running the photo they have through age progression software.

23andme and Ancestry.com refused to work with LE for the purpose of identifying unidentified victims which is why DNA Doe Project had to find a workaround via GEDMatch.

I don't understand the need for age-progression on a child who is deceased and won't get any older unless you're thinking of a resemblance with possible siblings. There was an artist's rendering (I think the late Frank Bender did it) of what the boy's father may have looked like. You can see it at this link:
4UMPA

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Justice would mean legal consequences for the person responsible for the boy's death. I'd lay 19 to 1 odds that the perp is dead.

Yes, it's very likely that the perpetrator is dead. Given the age of the case that stands to reason. For me "justice" in this case means identifying the boy and being able to say "this is what we think happened and why".

However, since he was probably born around 1953 or 1954, his parents could have been born in the late 1920s or early 1930s, so one or both could still be alive. People did seem to marry very young in some parts of the US at that time.

If one or both of his parents was responsible and is/are still alive, then there may still be time to give him justice in the usual sense of the word. But that time is rapidly running out.

 

[dotr]

23andme and Ancestry.com refused to work with LE for the purpose of identifying unidentified victims which is why DNA Doe Project had to find a workaround via GEDMatch.

I don't understand the need for age-progression on a child who is deceased and won't get any older unless you're thinking of a resemblance with possible siblings. There was an artist's rendering (I think the late Frank Bender did it) of what the boy's father may have looked like. You can see it at this link:
4UMPA

Thanks for the link.
4UMPA - Unidentified Male

 

[Cubby]

Parabon Labs and CeCe Moore are on it:

“- Parabon NanoLabs (Parabon) announced today the general availability of its Snapshot Genetic Genealogy Service, which provides investigators a revolutionary new tool for solving crimes with evidence from an unknown DNA sample. The company's new genetic genealogy (GG) unit is led by CeCe Moore, a pioneer in the field, best known for her work on the PBS television series Finding Your Roots. Parabon's GG analysts compare crime scene DNA samples against public genetic genealogy databases to narrow down a suspect list to a region, a family, or even an individual. The approach is the same as that used by law enforcement to identify the Golden State Killer suspect Joseph James DeAngelo.”

Parabon® Announces Snapshot® Genetic Genealogy Service for Law Enforcement

I was just coming here to post this....but I'm late....

Anyhoo, it appears GEDmatch is on board:

The Key to Cracking Cold Cases Might Be Genealogy Sites

The difference this time was that GEDmatch knew about the investigation.

Earlier this month, the open-source database—which houses nearly a million voluntarily contributed genetic profiles—changed its terms of service to explicitly allow law enforcement to use it, either to identify the remains of a deceased individual or identify a perpetrator of a violent crime.

 

[Cubby]

Also from the link in my previous post:

CURTIS ROGERS, WHO runs GEDmatch, says a number of users did remove their profiles or make them private following the Golden State Killer news. But in the weeks since, the site has experienced a serious uptick in uploads, with emails flooding in about how people want to donate their DNA to help catch dangerous criminals. Today the database is back to around a million users, according to Rogers.

 

[folieadeuxnola]

Marc Hoover: The unsolved mystery of the Boy in the Box in Philly | The Clermont Sun

Annually, thousands of children disappear for various reasons. If they are found, it’s important to identify them so they can be returned to their families. And if a child is deceased, he deserves a proper burial.

An unknown author once said, “”There is no foot so small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world.”

This brings us to an unsolved mystery from Philadelphia that has lingered for over 60 years. I can remember this story when I was a teenager. I had assumed that it would be solved. I am referring to the case of America’s unknown child; also referred to as the “Boy in the Box.”