IL IL - Paul Fronczak, newborn, Chicago, 1964 + UID Male, 1, NJ, 1965

[websurfer]

I think the state FBI needs to check birth records for any baby males
that died on or near the birthdate of PF.
Also they need to check and interview the other room mate that also had a baby the one who shared the room with Mrs. F.

If the death records were looked at in the state of Chicago, and boy baby deaths were in the past month to days before he was stolen, I think a match could be made?
Do local cemeteries have a list of baby graves?
That is where the FBI should begin their search as well as hospital records[ local] of all baby deaths in the months/days leading to this kidnapping.:twocents:

Maybe Paul can start a organization to gather the people who have questionable birth records?
Maybe a site where such issues can be discussed?
It would help match up siblings and other people who always felt different or look not like the rest of the family?
Paul once he gets the name of his real blood third cousin and gets some leads to his family ties?
I would love to know who his third blood cousin is..
this will be solved due to that blood tie.
At least his original family tree has some sort of connection he has to feel great knowing this at least.

 

[kincaid]

I think the state FBI needs to check birth records for any baby males
that died on or near the birthdate of PF.

In the 20/20 special, didn't they interview someone who said her mother thought suspected Fronczak baby kidnapper attempted to abduct a 10 month old girl in the weeks before? Seems like the kidnapper either just wanted a baby or was working for some sort of illegal adoption ring.

Maybe Paul can start a organization to gather the people who have questionable birth records?
Maybe a site where such issues can be discussed?
It would help match up siblings and other people who always felt different or look not like the rest of the family?
Paul once he gets the name of his real blood third cousin and gets some leads to his family ties?.

A lot of adoptees, donor conceived children and those looking for their roots are using their DNA to find relatives and answers. Sites like Ancestry and 23AndMe have marketed to adoptees to find their roots. Being a male, the Y chromosome is very helpful in finding out his surname. It's passed down the male line. But it sounded like the 3rd cousin was female but hopefully she has some male relatives who can be tested as well. It's easier to do genealogy like that down the direct paternal line. A donor conceived boy found out his surname and tracked down his father using a site like that. The only issue with some of those DNA genealogy sites is that they attract a lot of people who don't know their roots instead of people with giant family tree files. Plus sites like that depend on people's accurate family trees, people can have a ton of 3rd cousins. Genealogy can be hard enough without having to reverse engineer someone else's distant relatives trying to find a connection.

This case is really intriguing. Eventually, the Ancestry or other family tree DNA sites might really be able to crack cases like this. It's just a shame that the Fronczaks don't want to participate. I really wonder if they feel guilty they were so quick to think the NJ baby was theirs despite all the evidence to the contrary, so they stopped looking for their biological son.

 

[Satch]

By
You may be correct, but from what I gathered from 20/20, neither the parents nor the brother would submit DNA for verification (that may have changed) and I didn't realize video cameras were common practice back in 1964. I thought it was a statement from a cab driver who said he picked up a woman from the hospital and she had a newborn. Remember this is before child car seats were used - my mom didn't have one when I was brought home from the hospital - she held me in her arms and my dad drove the car. Chicago is a big city. How did the cab driver know for a fact that it was the Fronczak baby? The newspaper article that I read said that police theorized that she took a cab.

EDIT: The parents submitted DNA to verify that Paul wasn't their child, but would not submit it again when at least four men came forward thinking that they may be the real Fronzcak child. Why? Wouldn't you want to know what happened to your baby? They knew from the beginning that Paul really wasn't their child.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

I missed the 20/20 show. Were their specific words. "We don't want to submit DNA samples (for birth Paul) because we don't want to know?" The parents actually would not submit DNA for verification? Was this from a video clip? Cuz they didn't do DNA tests back in 1964, right? If still alive, how old are the "Real Paul's" parents now? Is it known where they are living currently?

Satch

 

[marlalouise]

S

I missed the 20/20 show. Were their specific words. "We don't want to submit DNA samples (for birth Paul) because we don't want to know?" The parents actually would not submit DNA for verification? Was this from a video clip? Cuz they didn't do DNA tests back in 1964, right? If still alive, how old are the "Real Paul's" parents now? Is it known where they are living currently?

Satch

The parents weren't interviewed. Of course their DNA wasn't submitted in '64, they submited their DNA to determine if Paul was their child, but it took them a while before they agreed to do so (several weeks, I believe). This is how he found out that he wasn't the "real" Paul. But when several other men came forth suspecting that they might be the missing Paul, the parents refused to submit DNA for testing.

I know they are old (in their 80's, I think), but still, wouldn't you want to know? How could you not want to know what happened to you kidnapped day-old baby? I don't care how long it's been or how old I am, I would have to know.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jmoose]

This might sound stupid, but do the parents have to re-submit samples? I mean, their DNA was already evaluated- isn't there a record of it somewhere? Maybe they have to consent to having it compared to any new samples from the other "Paul" candidates. My husband and I both submitted samples to Family Tree DNA, and we don't have to submit new samples for subsequent tests-they have those records.

 

[JWD]

This might sound stupid, but do the parents have to re-submit samples? I mean, their DNA was already evaluated- isn't there a record of it somewhere? Maybe they have to consent to having it compared to any new samples from the other "Paul" candidates. My husband and I both submitted samples to Family Tree DNA, and we don't have to submit new samples for subsequent tests-they have those records.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[marlalouise]

This might sound stupid, but do the parents have to re-submit samples? I mean, their DNA was already evaluated- isn't there a record of it somewhere? Maybe they have to consent to having it compared to any new samples from the other "Paul" candidates. My husband and I both submitted samples to Family Tree DNA, and we don't have to submit new samples for subsequent tests-they have those records.

That's what I thought also, but in the 20/20 report, it was said that neither the parents nor Paul's brother would submit their DNA for further testing. Maybe someone who knows more about DNA testing can explain why the previous samples could not be used.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[Laughing]

Anybody? Bueller? Anybody?


The samples may have been lost or destroyed.

Initial testing may not have been DNA testing, but blood type testing. Blood type testing is considered genetic testing while looking at the phenotype (physical expression) rather than genotype (genetic coding.)

I'm open to other input, too.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It would not matter, They would have the results on record and not even need the old samples. Just the new ones, test them and see if they matched the old results.

I just don't think this is an issue.

 

[marlalouise]

Perhaps it's not a matter of the parents submitting their DNA again, but permitting their DNA to be tested against the several men who cam forward thinking they might be the real "Paul.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Perhaps it's not a matter of the parents submitting their DNA again, but permitting their DNA to be tested against the several men who cam forward thinking they might be the real "Paul.

I don't think so. If they already gave it and signed a consent to have it tested, I can not see why they would ever need to do it again.

 

[marlalouise]

I don't think so. If they already gave it and signed a consent to have it tested, I can not see why they would ever need to do it again.

Yes, but they consented to have it tested and the results matched (or in his case, not) against "Paul's" DNA. They didn't necessarily consent to have it matched against any others. Wouldn't their consent be needed to do further matches? If I give consent to have my DNA matched against one other person's DNA, it doesn't mean that person has the right to take my DNA and use it for what they want, does it? I don't know the law but it seems that I would need to further agree.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[kincaid]

Yes, but they consented to have it tested and the results matched (or in his case, not) against "Paul's" DNA. They didn't necessarily consent to have it matched against any others. Wouldn't their consent be needed to do further matches? If I give consent to have my DNA matched against one other person's DNA, it doesn't mean that person has the right to take my DNA and use it for what they want, does it? I don't know the law but it seems that I would need to further agree.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

I believe a post on the 'Who is Paul Fronczak' Facebook page, said the private company that did the first DNA test for Paul & his parents would need authorization from Mr & Mrs Fronczak for each potential Paul to be tested. The Fronczaks are cooperating with the FBI but I doubt the FBI runs the DNA of every person who comes forward in a case like this, so it would be up to ABC to test the men who contacted the show using a private company.

Seems like the best bet would be finding a more distant Fronczak male relative willing to submit his DNA for testing. A paternal uncle or paternal uncle's son would work just as Paul's father for the sake of testing.

 

[marlalouise]

I believe a post on the 'Who is Paul Fronczak' Facebook page, said the private company that did the first DNA test for Paul & his parents would need authorization from Mr & Mrs Fronczak for each potential Paul to be tested. The Fronczaks are cooperating with the FBI but I doubt the FBI runs the DNA of every person who comes forward in a case like this, so it would be up to ABC to test the men who contacted the show using a private company.

Seems like the best bet would be finding a more distant Fronczak male relative willing to submit his DNA for testing. A paternal uncle or paternal uncle's son would work just as Paul's father for the sake of testing.

Does anyone agree that it is strange that the parents don't want to know? Their DNA is already available and ABC was willing to spring for the tests, but the Fronczaks weren't?

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[oceanblue]

The only thing I can come up with for them not wanting to know, is they can't deal with the guilt. Maybe they can't face the fact that they stopped looking for Paul 1.0 and accepted a child who obviously wasn't him. If I put myself in their shoes, I can understand this.

 

[marlalouise]

The only thing I can come up with for them not wanting to know, is they can't deal with the guilt. Maybe they can't face the fact that they stopped looking for Paul 1.0 and accepted a child who obviously wasn't him. If I put myself in their shoes, I can understand this.

Either that or they know something they aren't telling.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, but they consented to have it tested and the results matched (or in his case, not) against "Paul's" DNA. They didn't necessarily consent to have it matched against any others. Wouldn't their consent be needed to do further matches? If I give consent to have my DNA matched against one other person's DNA, it doesn't mean that person has the right to take my DNA and use it for what they want, does it? I don't know the law but it seems that I would need to further agree.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

Maybe. I don't know.. I don't see how if they gave the sample to be tested to find their child why they would need to be asked every time. Because while it may be a search for them the FBI is trying to solve a crime.. I don't know.

 

[marlalouise]

Maybe. I don't know.. I don't see how if they gave the sample to be tested to find their child why they would need to be asked every time. Because while it may be a search for them the FBI is trying to solve a crime.. I don't know.

Kincaid explained the reason 5 posts above.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Kincaid explained the reason 5 posts above.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

That is just a post from Facebook page, Not anything I would take as gospel.

It seems to me if they have DNA that has to do with a crime, they would not need permission to test other people..

I wonder if there are conditional consent slips and non conditional permission slips.

What a horrible experience for all involved.

 

[JWD]

The DNA permission or not thing sounds like a question for the Jerry Springer show.