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

Hey folks, please be mindful of paywalled articles and copyright law.

Direct quotes or copy/paste / screenshots of information from those articles is not allowed. It is a violation of Websleuths copyright rules which are based on copyright law.

Copyright Rules

Members may only link to the article and copy the public Google hit summary, or briefly paraphrase what the article is about to give others who may wish to pay for the linked article an idea of the content.

There are people who are actually employed to search the internet all day looking for for copyright violations in order to initiate legal action against individuals or companies who violate those laws.

Thanks for your understanding.
 
Pointing to the hair and eyebrows, Frank Bender theorized that he may have been raised as a girl. Bender really had an otherworldly gift but I’m inclined to discount this theory simply because that wasn’t among M’s *released* statements. However, M stated he was sexually abused, which could generally fit with the idea of being raised as a girl.


From the americas unknown child site...

As for your question regarding the length of the hair trimmings found on the body, there was no indication that the boy had unusually long hair.

 
From the americas unknown child site...



If I recall correctly it was just an idea Bender had and one person said that he was usually right 99% of the time when he had an idea (paraphrasing), so they pursued it a bit. I guess the thought was that longer cut strands were perhaps cut first and then the remaining hair shortened, and the shorter strands were left on the body. OT, but how awesome to have someone say your intuition is so on spot - sounds like Frank Bender was quite the guy. But most likely not correct on this point.
 
If I recall correctly it was just an idea Bender had and one person said that he was usually right 99% of the time when he had an idea (paraphrasing), so they pursued it a bit. I guess the thought was that longer cut strands were perhaps cut first and then the remaining hair shortened, and the shorter strands were left on the body. OT, but how awesome to have someone say your intuition is so on spot - sounds like Frank Bender was quite the guy. But most likely not correct on this point.
According to the Philadelphia Magazine article one of the detectives (Bristow) was in Mexico getting some RR and was still obsessed with the case. He thought maybe no one recognized him because he had been raised as a girl. A street artist in Mexico drew the original BITB as a girl. So, I don't know if it was Frank's idea or just if he was just drawing based on another theory. Bristow died in 1994.

I don't know when Bender drew the BITB as a girl, but Frank Bender was too young to be involved in the initial investigation.

Bill Kelly says the renditions as a girl first a appeared in 1957 and 1958. (Frank would have been only been 15-17 during this time frame)



We see this alot in cold cases. People will start theorizing on something that isn't likely because traditional theories are not yielding results.

From 2008
Kelly said back in 1957 and 1958, renditions of the child as a girl by a West Coast artist were briefly published in newspaper accounts, but they produced no leads.

He thinks Bender's new rendition may be the clue they've been looking for


Francis Augustus Bender (June 16, 1941 – July 28, 2011) --Oh boy..he shared the same middle name!
 
According to the Philadelphia Magazine article one of the detectives (Bristow) was in Mexico getting some RR and was still obsessed with the case. He thought maybe no one recognized him because he had been raised as a girl. A street artist in Mexico drew the original BITB as a girl. So, I don't know if it was Frank's idea or just if he was just drawing based on another theory. Bristow died in 1994.

I don't know when Bender drew the BITB as a girl, but Frank Bender was too young to be involved in the initial investigation.

Bill Kelly says the renditions as a girl first a appeared in 1957 and 1958. (Frank would have been only been 15-17 during this time frame)



We see this alot in cold cases. People will start theorizing on something that isn't likely because traditional theories are not yielding results.

From 2008
Kelly said back in 1957 and 1958, renditions of the child as a girl by a West Coast artist were briefly published in newspaper accounts, but they produced no leads.

He thinks Bender's new rendition may be the clue they've been looking for


Francis Augustus Bender (June 16, 1941 – July 28, 2011) --Oh boy..he shared the same middle name!

Bender wasn't involved in the original investigation, but he did have great reputation, which is why that angle was pursued.
"If he told me to get on the ledge and see if I could fly across the street, I would give it a shot. I would go flying down, but that's how much confidence i have in him, in his forensic knowledge."

Lol.
 
Last edited:
Pointing to the hair and eyebrows, Frank Bender theorized that he may have been raised as a girl. Bender really had an otherworldly gift but I’m inclined to discount this theory simply because that wasn’t among M’s *released* statements. However, M stated he was sexually abused, which could generally fit with the idea of being raised as a girl.

Some of her statements have specificity that could have been gleaned from articles that go back to 1957 (man that saw woman pulled over w/ boy). She pointed Vidocq to Lower Merion as the boy's location, which is close to West Philly, but not West Philly. She could have speculated based on the JC Penny located in Upper Darby. Neighbors that lived near the house and had access and personal history with the house said is was a ridiculous accusation and that a boy never lived there. According to this lady, he used the floor drain as a toilet, but the investigators got access to the basement where he was supposedly kept and found no evidence of him. I see no mention about the floor drain in their follow up to the the basement inspection.

 
Neighbors that lived near the house and had access and personal history with the house said is was a ridiculous accusation and that a boy never lived there.
Not saying M's story is true or false, but neighbors absolutely don't always know what goes on behind closed doors. It is absolutely not implausible that neighbors wouldn't know about an abused child confined to a basement. IMO.
 
Not saying M's story is true or false, but neighbors absolutely don't always know what goes on behind closed doors. It is absolutely not implausible that neighbors wouldn't know about an abused child confined to a basement. IMO.
I saw this. This came out after the first interviews with neighbors.

September 2004: During the past year, Vidocq Society investigators located and interviewed additional people who used to live in the Lower Merion neighborhorhood where, according to the unsubstantiated testimony of an Ohio woman, the unknown boy was secretly confined in a basement and subjected to physical and sexual abuse for two years prior to his death. Two of the former neighbors had been frequent visitors to the home, and they had access to all areas, including the basement. They flatly denied that a young boy lived there. A female neighbor who had been a close friend of the family and attended the same church, said that she was astonished to learn of the false accusations being made against them. She stated that the Ohio woman's allegations are "preposterous." The Vidocq Society investigators believe they have now exhausted all investigative options relative to the Ohio lead. Sadly, what had initially appeared to be the most significant breakthrough in the long history of this investigation, has ultimately turned out to be just another frustrating dead end. Case Updates
 
I saw this. This came out after the first interviews with neighbors.

September 2004: During the past year, Vidocq Society investigators located and interviewed additional people who used to live in the Lower Merion neighborhorhood where, according to the unsubstantiated testimony of an Ohio woman, the unknown boy was secretly confined in a basement and subjected to physical and sexual abuse for two years prior to his death. Two of the former neighbors had been frequent visitors to the home, and they had access to all areas, including the basement. They flatly denied that a young boy lived there. A female neighbor who had been a close friend of the family and attended the same church, said that she was astonished to learn of the false accusations being made against them. She stated that the Ohio woman's allegations are "preposterous." The Vidocq Society investigators believe they have now exhausted all investigative options relative to the Ohio lead. Sadly, what had initially appeared to be the most significant breakthrough in the long history of this investigation, has ultimately turned out to be just another frustrating dead end. Case Updates

That's very interesting. I don't think M's story is the story. I don't believe she was lying, and I am not casting aspersions on her character. I just don't think it's what happened.
 
Just a question, was the hair ever proven to be Joseph's?

I am not certain, actually. I did read in the Boy in the Box book that the white men's handkerchief that was found near Joseph had hair on it that was NOT his. So they don't know if it's associated with him or if it is just another piece of garbage tossed out in the same area.
 
With all these cases of kids being raised in closets, basements, etc., and neglected, I don't think it's impossible that wherever Joseph lived, there were neighbors in and out who had no clue of his existence.

At this point to be honest I'm not really believing M's story. But that doesn't mean there definitely wasn't a situation similar with another family. IMO
 
Some of her statements have specificity that could have been gleaned from articles that go back to 1957 (man that saw woman pulled over w/ boy). She pointed Vidocq to Lower Merion as the boy's location, which is close to West Philly, but not West Philly. She could have speculated based on the JC Penny located in Upper Darby. Neighbors that lived near the house and had access and personal history with the house said is was a ridiculous accusation and that a boy never lived there. According to this lady, he used the floor drain as a toilet, but the investigators got access to the basement where he was supposedly kept and found no evidence of him. I see no mention about the floor drain in their follow up to the the basement inspection.

By the time investigators had M's info and went to see the house, it was 45 years later. They did actually find some info that could have corroborated her story such as ceiling beams where the coal bin he was allegedly kept in was, and a new patch of concrete over the spot where the drain could have, but it was impossible to find any hard evidence 45 years later. If he had been there, and if his DNA had ever been there, it would have been long gone by then. This info was in David Stout's book.
 
I saw this. This came out after the first interviews with neighbors.

September 2004: During the past year, Vidocq Society investigators located and interviewed additional people who used to live in the Lower Merion neighborhorhood where, according to the unsubstantiated testimony of an Ohio woman, the unknown boy was secretly confined in a basement and subjected to physical and sexual abuse for two years prior to his death. Two of the former neighbors had been frequent visitors to the home, and they had access to all areas, including the basement. They flatly denied that a young boy lived there. A female neighbor who had been a close friend of the family and attended the same church, said that she was astonished to learn of the false accusations being made against them. She stated that the Ohio woman's allegations are "preposterous." The Vidocq Society investigators believe they have now exhausted all investigative options relative to the Ohio lead. Sadly, what had initially appeared to be the most significant breakthrough in the long history of this investigation, has ultimately turned out to be just another frustrating dead end. Case Updates
How did they prove being frequent visitors and going into the basement? The drain could have been covered. Who lived at Martha's childhood home when LE checked her accusations?

Was the neighbors' testimony all they checked?

I'm not saying Martha was right. I'm saying what I've seen so far doesn't constitute grounds for dismissing her claims.
 
By the time investigators had M's info and went to see the house, it was 45 years later. They did actually find some info that could have corroborated her story such as ceiling beams where the coal bin he was allegedly kept in was, and a new patch of concrete over the spot where the drain could have, but it was impossible to find any hard evidence 45 years later. If he had been there, and if his DNA had ever been there, it would have been long gone by then. This info was in David Stout's book.

But those things potentially just prove that she was familiar with that house. The beams and the drain were there regardless of whether Joseph was.

What gets me is the car story from the Good Samaritan. He called the police a few days after Joseph was found. Surely he remembered what the vehicle looked like. That would be an easy detail to corroborate, but I don't see where it ever was. Either M's parents owned a blue Ford (for instance) or they didn't.

It's like the "baked beans" story. She said he ate baked beans and got sick, and I have seen people hanging their hat on that, saying that he had baked beans in his stomach. But there is no indication that he did have baked beans in his stomach. Both David Stout's book and the Unknown Child website say that there was no indication he had eaten in the 2-3 hours prior to his death. Both LE and the Vidocq Society have said that no part of her story could be confirmed. So it stands to reason, the baked beans story was not correct. And it stands to reason that her parents didn't own a vehicle like the one witnessed by the Good Samaritan.
 
Longtime lurker. This case is bizarre and the wild speculation has got the best of me.

The M story can be ruled out quite easily. PPD has her witness statement and they spent a lot of time fact checking her claims. The founder of the Viodcq Society recently discussed this theory on one of the news programs after last weeks announcement and acknowledged they performed their due diligence, but it was a dead end. We have an identity. We have the area where Joseph was living. It was even stated at the press conference that PPD have their suspicions of who killed Joseph. If there was any way to tie M or her mother to this murder, none of us would be here as the case would be solved.

The information that PPD chose to release was calculated and formed around whomever they deem their prime suspect. None of what was said at the press conference, that I can tell, has anything to do with M or her mother. The information is directed towards those who would have known Joseph when he was alive and not the general public.
 
I have no idea whether M was for real or not, but I just find the whole story so...elaborate, for lack of a better word. I am sure that horrible things like she described did happen sometimes (and still do), but in the 20 years I've been following this story, I've never felt like it had a strong ring of truth. I'm not even sure why, and I certainly hope it isn't true, but it doesn't sit right with me.

I think the truth is so much simpler: a young and/or poor mother, lack of resources, possibly a sick or developmentally-delayed child - a perfectly sad recipe for tragedy. I always go back to Occam's Razor here.
 
But those things potentially just prove that she was familiar with that house. The beams and the drain were there regardless of whether Joseph was.

What gets me is the car story from the Good Samaritan. He called the police a few days after Joseph was found. Surely he remembered what the vehicle looked like. That would be an easy detail to corroborate, but I don't see where it ever was. Either M's parents owned a blue Ford (for instance) or they didn't.

It's like the "baked beans" story. She said he ate baked beans and got sick, and I have seen people hanging their hat on that, saying that he had baked beans in his stomach. But there is no indication that he did have baked beans in his stomach. Both David Stout's book and the Unknown Child website say that there was no indication he had eaten in the 2-3 hours prior to his death. Both LE and the Vidocq Society have said that no part of her story could be confirmed. So it stands to reason, the baked beans story was not correct. And it stands to reason that her parents didn't own a vehicle like the one witnessed by the Good Samaritan.
So much is the issue is the amount of time passed before M spoke to LE. So much can be neither proven nor disproven. Augustine himself said "If we could just prove one thing about it, we'd have it solved. And if we could just disprove one thing, we'd throw her tip in the garbage." Like you said, proving what she said about the house doesn't mean that Joseph was ever in the house, and they expected that before they even searched the house ("To corroborate her story, Augustine is arranging to search the Philadelphia house where she used to live. Was the drain in the basement where she said it was, for example, and did houses in that area have coal bins as she described? But these minor details will not seal a case that, for Augustine, has become a life's work."). Those quotes are from the following interview/article: CNN.com - Tossed away: The boy in the box - Dec. 5, 2002

If M's story had come out shortly after Joseph was found, it could have been definitively confirmed or denied -- the brown residue in the esophagus could have been further tested to see if it matched up with baked beans, the home could have been investigated for his hair, blood, or fingernail clippings in the bathroom, human waste in the sewage drain, etc. The Good Samaritan said something along the lines of it being a very regular car that he saw, but no note of make or model, and M claimed that her family owned very regular cars as well -- if it had been 45 years earlier, they could have showed him M's family car and asked if it was the same one. So much info that would have given us a concrete answer on whether M's account is true or not has just been lost to time. Until if/when we know what happened to Joseph, we just won't know whether M's account is true or not.

I neither believe nor disbelieve M, but if I see erroneous information given that tries to disprove her, I will generally correct it. I don't think she had a reason to purposely lie, but trauma can affect a person in so many ways. With the info we have at the moment there's just no way for me to say for certain whether her account of events is true or not.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
4,445
Total visitors
4,623

Forum statistics

Threads
592,485
Messages
17,969,539
Members
228,783
Latest member
Smokylotus
Back
Top