Identified! PA - Philadelphia - 'Boy in the Box' - 4UMPA - Feb'57 #3 - Joseph Augustus Zarelli

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is entirely possible that Martha's memories emerged over time, over years. It's entirely possible she didn't have more than a feeling something might have happened to another child to begin with, back in 1989. Not enough for either her or her therapist to report. When her memories became more solid, clearer, with enough detail to be firm about, then would be the time to approach authorities.

People have a lot of ideas about the way memory works, a lot of it oversimplified, or just plain wrong. The fact is, people can and often do forget child abuse. They go on to have productive, healthy lives, and then, something happens. A parent dies, they give birth to a child, they get divorced, they visit their hometown for the first time in years, and the first chink appears in the wall. It can feel like the end of the world, and sometimes it takes a very long time to make any kind of sense of it all.

That doesn't mean Martha was or wasn't truthful, that her memories were artificial or fantasy, or that her therapist failed in his reporting duty somehow. It just means that memory is complicated, especially where childhood trauma is concerned. I think that Martha and her therapist were trying to help. Whether it turns out she was connected to this case or not remains to be seen, but I think the interval between the first time it came up in therapy and when it was reported is less likely to be any kind of negligence on the part of either Martha or her therapist and more likely to be related to how her memories emerged and when they came into focus.

My opinion only.
I am wrong about the law on this. I am horrified by this law, but I don't get to make the law and am happy to admit when I am wrong. Here is an contemporaneous paper (to approx time of M's telling her psychiatrist) re: failure to report knowledge of a crime when told in session as a therapist. It specifies on page 5 that although it is illegal in the state of Ohio to fail to report a death, this law does not apply to mental health providers. https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/14/3/221.full.pdf This law is still on the books today. Section 2921.22 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Looks to me like the state won't sue you if you reveal information OR if you do, but the risk is the client could sue for breach of confidentiality if you inform authorities. I still say were it me, in my current role, I'd report.
 
Last edited:
I am wrong about the law on this. I am horrified by this law, but I don't get to make the law and am happy to admit when I am wrong. Here is an contemporaneous paper (to approx time of M's telling her psychiatrist) re: failure to report knowledge of a crime when told in session as a therapist. It specifies on page 5 that although it is illegal in the state of Ohio to fail to report a death, this law does not apply to mental health providers. https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/14/3/221.full.pdf This law is still on the books today. Section 2921.22 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Looks to me like the state won't sue you if you reveal information OR if you do, but the risk is the client could sue for breach of confidentiality if you inform authorities. I still say were it me, in my current role, I'd report.
I think the confessional is exempt from reporting, too.

Both priests and therapists hear a lot of hard things.

I think both probably hear a lot of true horrible confessions, but it's likely there are many more declarations of guilt that aren't actually linked to reality. A mother believing, truly, that she killed her child, and confessing such. When in reality, she was feeling overwhelmed, and regretted, just for a moment, having a child, and then when her baby died shortly after from illness or accident, fully believed that her thought killed her baby. I imagine priests and therapists hear that kind of 'guilty confession' every day, through the full gamut of iniquitous behavior. That doesn't mean a crime has happened. That mother doesn't need police investigating her, she needs absolution of guilt.

I understand the frustration LE must feel about not having access to the confessions given to therapists or priests, but I believe that there's a very good reason they shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
My niece has William's syndrome, it would be really hard to tell facially if Joseph possibly had it as it's generally most obvious around the mouth area IMO
And the tiny nose with a flat bridge, right?
 
LE will need to trace JAZ's home life to resolve this case.

We don't know:
  • Was he raised by both parents?
  • Was he raised by his mother?
  • How long was he raised by either of the parents?
  • Was he placed in another home or institution etc?
  • I don't think he was adopted at birth (at least legally) because he has a birth certificate with both of his parents' names.
  • Did have specific health needs beyond normal childhood health needs?
  • This could be difficult to determine because there may not be much of a paper trail.

The Z family needs time to process all of this.
My heart goes out to them as they come to terms with this

I soooo agree with your final statement... The Z family needs time to process this.
I am sure the announcements of the name, AND the extraordinary case in itself, is a lot to try to understand and accept.

In some ways, I think families in 2022 would have an easier time accepting a child being born out of wedlock, than the truth of what happened to him.

Many people here have shared despicable cases of the horrible things that have happened to children. I, too, knew of a family, a well-to-do family, who allowed their young daughter to have a lobotomy... and then she was whisked away forever.

If this child's health, "non-perfection" were a part of "sending him away".....
This might be harder for present day family members to deal with, than an out of wedlock birth, even if they knew absolutely nothing about it.

And geeeeez, what if some family members recognized this child when found dead....
I couldn't imagine living with that one my whole life...
 
Last edited:
His skeleton did not indicate IO. Google what a child with OI looks like on x-Ray, it may surprise you.
Maybe he was a healthy test case to see how much trauma bones can receive or how bone development is impacted by trauma. The link in the case to treatment of child disorders seems hard to ignore
 
Maybe he was a healthy test case to see how much trauma bones can receive or how bone development is impacted by trauma. The link in the case to treatment of child disorders seems hard to ignore
I think this is what it appears to be, a case of horrific child abuse and neglect that culminated in homicide.

But to entertain your theory of experimentation on children by some kind of shadowy government or medical cabal, I find it hard to believe that something like that could remain hidden so well from society and at the same time have no better solution for disposing of a test subject who died than in a wooded area known for flytipping, inside a box that was possibly already on site.

MOO
 
I think this is what it appears to be, a case of horrific child abuse and neglect that culminated in homicide.

But to entertain your theory of experimentation on children by some kind of shadowy government or medical cabal, I find it hard to believe that something like that could remain hidden so well from society and at the same time have no better solution for disposing of a test subject who died than in a wooded area known for flytipping, inside a box that was possibly already on site.

MOO
Not saying it has to be super secret or well organized conspiracy or anything. There were some institutions with shady history in the area
 
Williams syndrome
IMO I wouldn't try to identify a diagnosis from a post mortem photo. Many children WITHOUT Williams Syndrome have frontal bossing, so I don't think that should be considered as conclusive.

Also, from the the photo I wouldn't say he had an overly-elongated philtrum, either. Again, hard to see those facies that are more typical of WS in someone who is not living. WS is more easily seen in an individual by somewhat animated, exaggerated facial expressions and movements.

His gaunt facial appearance is more likely just from being malnourished. I wouldn't attempt to guess at anything else.
 
Captain - Yeah. There are a couple of pieces of evidence in our custody. One of which we're doing an examination for a possible DNA. It was an article of clothing that was left at the crime scene. But, you know, like I said, the evidence between then and now - it's diminished, just like the child's DNA degraded and became very, very difficult to extract a strain of DNA that was viable.
Rereading the transcript again. I really, really hope this lead pans out.
 
Not saying it has to be super secret or well organized conspiracy or anything. There were some institutions with shady history in the area
It wouldn't have to be a shady institution. He may not have even been in a foster home. Sadly, some children are still treated like this today in their own homes without anyone noticing for awhile, or sometimes, ever.
 
Rest in peace, little Joseph. It’s too late for justice to be done I feel but when the truth emerges about the monsters who did what they did to you emerges, it is one step nearer.

I confess I am slightly baffled by the speculations and confusions on these threads as a certain amount of reading between the lines is needed but if you think logically, surely enough things have been revealed for us to know the following:

1) JAZ had siblings from mother and fathers side. Therefore - half siblings. Implies no marriage to each other of parents and no records specified.

2) the article referencing JT’s DNA heavily implied a Z uncle and Z brothers etc. Clearly, they are leading you to draw conclusion that the Z link is male paternal, not maternal. So, assumption that father was a Z.

3) Inexact name of father on birth certificate - main Z named as a name that would frequently be shortened and likely to be that (a Bob/Robert scenario).

4) mother is unknown publicly but known to have had 3 children between 1944 and 1954. No mention of Z name appearing on other certificates so only one child was a Z.

5) DNA proved birth certificate was correct. Some Z’s are denying reality of test. Assumption - this was a secret within family only known to certain parties and Z family probably had no part in JAZ’s future short life.

6) LE made much about birth family. I think they are clearly trying to say that the Z family was not involved after birth. I think it remains open as to if child was informally adopted or raise by birth mother and stepfather.

7) no mention of if the other birth children identified of mother (and appearing to be with us still) was raised by her - and therefore possibly knowledge of JAZ) or if they were adopted out. I suspect that may be key to finding what happened to JAZ.

Personally, I do not find it unlikely that an unmarried person of a prominent, possibly religious? family in the 1950s kept the birth of a child secret from his future children or wife. Maybe a frowned up on relationship with someone family deemed unsuitable etc? Probably lost in the mists of time. I think it’s actually more likely that that would happen, rather than it all be public knowledge. I imagine this has all be distressing for all of the families involved.

I believe LE will know if the birth mother raised JAZ or her other children. From that, I think it may be possible for them to uncover the likely culprits.
Speculation MOO. Mother's other children (mb children of JAZ stepfather) would know if their father had a temper. Though sometimes it is mostly put on stepchild(ren). IMO the siblings are younger and were too young to know what happened to JAZ.

My family (both sides) tended to send their oldest child to live with grandparents. 20th century it was to send away the stepchild from a mean stepfather. 19th century it was to help aging parents with house/ farm chores. We may never know bc all the maternal siblings may have been left with was the 'sense' of a secret or animosity between mother and another relative.

IMO
 
LE will need to trace JAZ's home life to resolve this case.

We don't know:
  • Was he raised by both parents?
  • Was he raised by his mother?
  • How long was he raised by either of the parents?
  • Was he placed in another home or institution etc?
  • I don't think he was adopted at birth (at least legally) because he has a birth certificate with both of his parents' names.
  • Did have specific health needs beyond normal childhood health needs?
  • This could be difficult to determine because there may not be much of a paper trail.

The Z family needs time to process all of this.
My heart goes out to them as they come to terms with this
The Z family has had time before the announcement to process it. I feel for them, but to deny JAZ his place in their family tree :-(

MOO
 
I'm very curious about the years they chose for the birth certificate search that resulted in JAZ and 2 other half (we believe) siblings. Why those years? Was mom not of child-bearing years on the early side of that? Was she institutionalized/imprisoned/passed away on the later side? Was she known to be involved with JAZ's father during those years? PA birth certificates used to have a box to write what number of births this was for the mother and how many of them lived. (I just know this from seeing the book copy of my GF's birth certificate. Unfortunately, he was birth 5 and only 3 had lived. Heartbreaking). Anyway, I don't know if that was still a thing by that time, but would be interesting to know how many JAZ's mom had birthed before/after him and why they chose to start the search window almost 10 years before JAZ's birth, but end it just a few years after.
 
@amybman1 It was still a thing into the 1990s. I can't imagine it not being a thing at least in the medical records bc it points to what kind of trouble you're up against with the current birth.
Example (first time births are longer and have unknown element) (8th child you better triage them first because they're not waiting)

MOO
 
The Z family has had time before the announcement to process it. I feel for them, but to deny JAZ his place in their family tree :-(

MOO
The Z family has had time before the announcement to process it. I feel for them, but to deny JAZ his place in their family tree :-( MOO

I agree with this sentiment. Yes, it’s a mind boggling, tragic revelation, difficult for the family to absorb and process.

On the other hand, Joseph didn’t ask to be born, or to be born into this specific family. I hope eventually his birth and existence are accepted by the family. From what I’ve read— some are already there. Families aren’t monolithic ( think I’m quoting someone else here) and there will be a range of reactions after the initial shock.

Praying for peace for all of them (if I’m allowed to say that here)
 
I'm very curious about the years they chose for the birth certificate search that resulted in JAZ and 2 other half (we believe) siblings. Why those years? Was mom not of child-bearing years on the early side of that? Was she institutionalized/imprisoned/passed away on the later side? Was she known to be involved with JAZ's father during those years? PA birth certificates used to have a box to write what number of births this was for the mother and how many of them lived. (I just know this from seeing the book copy of my GF's birth certificate. Unfortunately, he was birth 5 and only 3 had lived. Heartbreaking). Anyway, I don't know if that was still a thing by that time, but would be interesting to know how many JAZ's mom had birthed before/after him and why they chose to start the search window almost 10 years before JAZ's birth, but end it just a few years after.
At the time they announced it, I assumed it was to make sure they captured the entire possible time of Joseph's birth. Because he was so badly malnourished, perhaps his growth had been stunted, so they went further back and as far forward as the year before his death. That seemed plausible at the time, but now I do feel certain there was more to choosing that particular timeframe.

They were already aware of one child's existence on the mother's side, and that person may have been knowledgeable about the other sibling's birthdate - that may have played into the decision for that timeframe as well. There's a lot of information on a birth certificate, including address of the mother at the time of birth.
 
@amybman1 It was still a thing into the 1990s. I can't imagine it not being a thing at least in the medical records bc it points to what kind of trouble you're up against with the current birth.
Example (first time births are longer and have unknown element) (8th child you better triage them first because they're not waiting)

MOO
Yes-- definitely would have been in her medical records, which likely are destroyed by now so was just curious if that info would be on the book copy of the birth certificate because it still does exist.
 
I'm very curious about the years they chose for the birth certificate search that resulted in JAZ and 2 other half (we believe) siblings. Why those years? Was mom not of child-bearing years on the early side of that? Was she institutionalized/imprisoned/passed away on the later side? Was she known to be involved with JAZ's father during those years? PA birth certificates used to have a box to write what number of births this was for the mother and how many of them lived. (I just know this from seeing the book copy of my GF's birth certificate. Unfortunately, he was birth 5 and only 3 had lived. Heartbreaking). Anyway, I don't know if that was still a thing by that time, but would be interesting to know how many JAZ's mom had birthed before/after him and why they chose to start the search window almost 10 years before JAZ's birth, but end it just a few years after.
It's on my PA birth certificate from 1956.
Living, Dead, Stillborn (after 16 weeks of pregnancy)

Those are also standard maternity questions in the hospital. (I'm sure those questions are still on BCs in all states)
It goes on the mother's record during prenatal visits. Gravidity and parity - Wikipedia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
2,007
Total visitors
2,144

Forum statistics

Threads
589,995
Messages
17,928,853
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top