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

[Alleykins]

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.

One thing I've learned in my 50+ years on this planet is people see what they want to see. And they also don't see what they don't want to see.

 

[HarmonyE.]

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.

He did die from the head injury, which I suppose could have happened in a fall (although unlike adults, kids seem to "bounce" and escape serious injury when falling down even entire flights of stairs). But there were so many same-aged bruises all over different parts of his body, a single beating of a moving/squirming child seems more likely. Couple this with his general emaciated state, and I think we're looking at severe abuse and neglect.

<modsnip - no link>

 

[fred&edna]

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.

I definitely agree... LE knows more. I'm not confident the culprit will ever be identified (but I hope so).

 

[iamshadow21]

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.

I don't know if you've seen the postmortem photographs, but the bruising is too extensive, and too widely spread all over his body for this to be anything other than what it has ALWAYS been called, for all the decades this case has been open - a homicide. Blunt force trauma is what killed him, possibly with an instrument rather than a fist, but it was no simple fall.

There are fingermarks on his head from an adult hand gripping it. Black eyes, bloody lips. A deep, dark contusion at the base of his skull the size of an orange. A deep, dark bruise on his upper arm, the right place and size to be left by an adult hand gripping hard enough to leave a bruised band several inches wide right around it. Countless bruises up and down both his legs. And those are just the ones obviously visible on the low res photos publicly viewable. There is nothing, absolutely nothing accidental about what happened to this child.

 

[Alleykins]

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.

I worked for the phone company for 30 years, 3 years as a directory assistance operator. Non-published phone numbers and unlisted phone numbers aren't the same. Unlisted phone numbers were not in the phone book, but could be obtained through directory assistance. Non-published numbers weren't in the phone book or in directory assistance. I couldn't see non-published phone numbers, my computer screen would state "non-published" where the phone number would be. I couldn't unmask it, either, so I couldn't give it out by accident or be talked into giving it out.
When I worked in customer service and collections, we could see non-published phone numbers because telephone numbers make up the account number. So if someone who had a non-published number called in, they had to give me the complete account number, which included the phone number, in order for me to assist them. I never gave out information without verifying with whom I was speaking first. Everything we did was regulated, so if I didn't follow procedure and verify the caller, I could get fired.
The only way a police department or government agency could get a hold of phone records was by subpoena. We even had a special procedure and department for handling them. In all my years, I only gave out the number to our subpoena department once. A police officer called and asked for it. Unrelated to that request, our office was involved in one local murder investigation. My manager testified as an expert witness at a murder trial explained how we knew a phone call was made from where it was made.
Our internal phone records were different than the phone bill a customer received. They contained more detail than the bills, like local calls made to and from the number. We had that information, but local calls weren't itemized on the bill except by special request, because, in my territory, most customers had unlimited local calling. They could have an itemization for a small fee, but most didn't want it. Even folks with metered service didn't want to pay the small fee to itemize their local calls (it was under a buck a month back then).
Please note, every state's local phone service is/was billed differently, determined by each state's public utility commission. What applied in my customer service territory did/does not apply to other areas.

 

[Friday Fan]

I worked for the phone company for 30 years, 3 years as a directory assistance operator. Non-published phone numbers and unlisted phone numbers aren't the same. Unlisted phone numbers were not in the phone book, but could be obtained through directory assistance. Non-published numbers weren't in the phone book or in directory assistance. I couldn't see non-published phone numbers, my computer screen would state "non-published" where the phone number would be. I couldn't unmask it, either, so I couldn't give it out by accident or be talked into giving it out.
When I worked in customer service and collections, we could see non-published phone numbers because telephone numbers make up the account number. So if someone who had a non-published number called in, they had to give me the complete account number, which included the phone number, in order for me to assist them. I never gave out information without verifying with whom I was speaking first. Everything we did was regulated, so if I didn't follow procedure and verify the caller, I could get fired.
The only way a police department or government agency could get a hold of phone records was by subpoena. We even had a special procedure and department for handling them. In all my years, I only gave out the number to our subpoena department once. A police officer called and asked for it. Unrelated to that request, our office was involved in one local murder investigation. My manager testified as an expert witness at a murder trial explained how we knew a phone call was made from where it was made.
Our internal phone records were different than the phone bill a customer received. They contained more detail than the bills, like local calls made to and from the number. We had that information, but local calls weren't itemized on the bill except by special request, because, in my territory, most customers had unlimited local calling. They could have an itemization for a small fee, but most didn't want it. Even folks with metered service didn't want to pay the small fee to itemize their local calls (it was under a buck a month back then).
Please note, every state's local phone service is/was billed differently, determined by each state's public utility commission. What applied in my customer service territory did/does not apply to other areas.

We had a set up where we weren't in the phone book, but our number could be obtained from directory assistance. We chose this due to my husband's work as a public figure and didn't want trouble makers and vandals showing up at our door.

 

[HarmonyE.]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>

There are many men who aren't thrilled about the idea of raising another man's child, and I think it's certainly possible MA gave Joseph up because of this. She hadn't had much luck with men up to that point, even considering how young she still was. But I struggle with her being aware of where Joseph was and but not being aware he was the famous boy in the box, or worse still, not coming forward to claim him if she knew it was her son.

Of course, if she gave him up before he turned 2 or 3, it's possible she did not recognize him from the chubby, happy baby he once was and lived her life believing he was out there somewhere doing well.

 

[Laughing]

We had a set up where we weren't in the phone book, but our number could be obtained from directory assistance. We chose this due to my husband's work as a public figure and didn't want trouble makers and vandals showing up at our door.

There were other ways to achieve this. I once noticed a phone book listing for

Pants, S. Marty

Love that, of course, unlisted number without the fees!

 

[RedWolf29]

R.I.P. Joseph Augustus Zarelli. I'm so happy that you have been identified. It's a shame that your parents weren't alive to see this happen <modsnip>

 

[squish]

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 agree with this.

However, how would Colleen Fitzpatrick know anything about where Joseph stayed in his short life? How could she know anything about the unknown boy who Martha's said her parents took in? Surely this is far outside of her expertise. It's sounds like Martha's parents unofficially took in a boy who was not related to them. I don't see how any of this can be on public record for it to be searchable.

 

[iamshadow21]

I agree with this.

However, how would Colleen Fitzpatrick know anything about where Joseph stayed in his short life? How could she know anything about the unknown boy who Martha's said her parents took in? Surely this is far outside of her expertise. It's sounds like Martha's parents unofficially took in a boy who was not related to them. I don't see how any of this can be on public record for it to be searchable.

I guess I'm just trusting, that as always, LE and their associates have a lot of information we don't get to see as members of the public. Databases that aren't publicly searchable. Censuses that are still under privacy seal. Taxes. Bills. That kind of thing. Information to suggest that Joseph might have been in one particular place.

 

[Alleykins]

There are many men who aren't thrilled about the idea of raising another man's child, and I think it's certainly possible MA gave Joseph up because of this. She hadn't had much luck with men up to that point, even considering how young she still was. But I struggle with her being aware of where Joseph was and but not being aware he was the famous boy in the box, or worse still, not coming forward to claim him if she knew it was her son.

Of course, if she gave him up before he turned 2 or 3, it's possible she did not recognize him from the chubby, happy baby he once was and lived her life believing he was out there somewhere doing well.

It's called the Cinderella Effect. There have been studies on it. One group of researchers claimed having a stepparent is the strongest risk factor for child abuse ever identified.

The Cinderella effect: are stepfathers dangerous?

Stepfathers are less likely to kill their children than previous researchers have claimed.

theconversation.com

 

[YaYa_521]

MOD NOTE:

Unless/until LE announces the family's names, members can NOT publicly sleuth any individuals named in MSM articles. Members can sleuth away all they like behind the scenes, in private or in group conversation with other members, but NO public sleuthing. Anything shared in PMs can NOT be brought to the public thread. Sleuthing or encouraging sleuthing of individuals who have not been identified by LE or who are not officially named POI will result in a thread reply ban.

Excerpt from The Rules: Etiquette & Information:

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing known victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is known to be relevant to the case. Judgmental commentary or negative connotation or negative speculation constitutes victim shaming or blaming. Unless LE names a POI or makes one or more arrests for Joseph's murder, insinuations about either parent's involvement or their knowledge of someone else's involvement is not constructive and is against TOS.

Finally, WS requires links to information stated as fact. If you can't provide a link from MSM or LE, don't post it. Don't say you'll find a link later, don't say you can't link because it's not approved here but this is what it says and certainly don't tell other members to go find the link for the facts you put in your post. If you can't link it, you can't talk about it. What you "heard somewhere" or "read somewhere" or "think you heard", etc. is NOT an approved source. If you can't link it, you can't post it. All images, photos and screenshots require a link. If you post facts without links or reply to or quote posts that violate TOS, the post will be removed.

Post respectfully and responsibly. Any questions, jump off any post to Report and ask your question.

 

[Ilex]

The history of adoption and agencies and how things worked are really important in this case. I spent the day yesterday going through things and found some interesting facts about the process in Philadelphia county. This was printed in the Philadelphia Inquirer Oct 4, 1956. It's in a column titled "Your legal problems". It was kind of like a Dear Abby column, with legal questions answered by attorneys. The question asked was if an adoptive family had to be the same faith as the child being adopted. The answer went into the legalities of adoption in Phildelphia. A few key points were:
-All adoptions in Pennsylvania had to go through the court system.
-All adoptions in PA went through Orphan Courts, except for Philadelphia which went through the Municipal Court.
-Adoption records are impounded by the court and closed unless they need to be seen for good cause.
-The family adopting the child must be of the same faith as the biological family, unless the adoption by a different faith family would be in the best interests of the child.
-Catholic babies were placed through the Catholic Children's Bureau.
The Philadelphia Inquirer 04 Oct 1956, page Page 22 - Newspapers.com

 

[Ilex]

It's also interesting to understand what was going on politically at that time. In 1952 PA had put a bill out there to revamp the adoption system. Before 1954, adoptions weren't always done through the courts but children were placed into and out of the system by private agencies, many of them religious organizations. There was the Catholic Charities for Catholic children, Jewish based organizations for Jewish children, another for Methodist, Lutheran, etc. and one based on ethnicity. The Catholic Church was fighting very hard to keep the bill from passing (June 21, 1953 Philadelphia Inquirer). Catholic Charities also took a suit all the way to the US Supreme Court to contest the adoption of a Catholic child by her Protestant Aunt and Uncle (April 5, 1955 referencing Kuntz case). There were a large number of children in the Catholic adoption system and the caseworker load was overwhelming. It was stated in one article that each caseworker handled over 65 children each, and that each child in foster care could only be checked in on once a month. Facilities were overrun with children and there were ads placed asking for families to take in children (May 24, 1955; Dec 7, 1955, Philadelphia Inquirer ads ). And there was money. Each child received $14 from the state per week for care. When a child was fostered, the foster family and the agency placing the child shared that money (Jan 30, 1955, Phildelphia Inquirer). That's a lot of money. And the agency was responsible for doing background checks on the families they placed the children with. The big thing the Catholic Church was pushing was child safety. In fact the Archbishop (O'Hara) stated "Catholic Institutions have maintained the highest standards of childcare in the commonwealth for over 150 years" (Philadelphia Inquirer June 23, 1953). Yet the reason this bill was proposed was to end black market baby selling and children being lost in the foster care system.
The long and short of this is, at the time Joseph was adopted the system was going through some huge changes. In an effort to stop black market babies, PA had proposed Bill 480. The religious organizations were fighting it. The caseworkers at these organizations were overwhelmed, children were desperately seeking temporary shelter with local families and IMO it would have been very easy for a child to simply slip through the cracks. Additionally, these religious organizations were under incredible scrutiny and pressure to appear safe. My opinon is that Joseph was in an emergency foster home placement with a family that needed money and he probably wasn't the only child in the home. One child out of 10,000 suddenly isn't there? I'm not sure a caseworker would have noticed.

 

[Ilex]

If you look further you find that even keeping records of vital statistics didn't become "law" until June of 1953. Joseph was born in January of that year, so very easy for his information to be lost. In June of 1953 the vital statistics act was passed. It stated:
"a certificate of each adoption and annulment of adoption decreed or ordered in this commonwealth shall be transmitted to this department". Before June of 1953, there was nothing requiring any adoption service to report to the state. This was also the first time adopted children who had name changes were required to do so through legal means. In other words, anyone who adopted Joseph could just change his name with the agency they used to adopt him without going through any legal process. It's no wonder it's so difficult for those born before June of 1953 to find their biological parents. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1953/0/0066..PDF

 

[Magnum P.E.]

Am I missing something here? Didn’t Joseph live with one parent, and the address is known. So where does adoption come in to play?

 

[Ilex]

Am I missing something here? Didn’t Joseph live with one parent, and the address is known. So where does adoption come in to play?

"Family members believe that the boy was put up for adoption through a Catholic organization shortly after his birth. "
"The relative who spoke to the (Phildelphia) Inquirer suggested that (the mother) put her son up for adoption, as she had done that before with a previous child she gave birth to, a daughter."

Parents of Philly's 'boy in the box' are finally revealed

The parents of Philadelphia's 'Boy in the Box' have finally been revealed, 65 years after he was found murdered, as a Pennsylvania construction magnate and a 'beautiful, kind and quiet' woman.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Ilex]

Lastly, I went to newspapers.com and looked through the years from 1953-1958 and put in street names to see if there had been any police activity in the area during that time. I found nothing. I went from 58th street to 64th street and then Market street. LE seems to think Joseph was living in the area around 61st St and Market Street. I assume they think he was living in that area because of the connection with the bassinet box he was found in. I haven't checked the rest of the streets that come off 61st Street, except for Market Street. It would seem that Joseph wasn't just beaten this one time, his legs were almost all just one massive bruise and obviously he was just being deprived of a few meals. Someone like that must be a very volatile individual and I keep thinking he must have assaulted or abused others.

 

[Ilex]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>

I hate this but, whatever Joseph went through was not a short term thing. He was severely malnourished and that takes time. He had so much bruising on his legs in various stages of healing, again that takes time. His legs looked like someone had repeatedly, over months, slapped him with a belt. Whoever did this tortured this child for some time before finally killing him.
I had originally thought he had been hidden away, but I think it was winter, he was wearing pants and his legs could be hidden. His killer made sure to hit him where the bruising wouldn't show. Just my opinion but I don't believe this was something that happened suddenly or even within a couple of months. IMO this poor child was someone's punching bag for a long time.