FL FL - Delray Beach, #UP7800. WhtMale, infant, in storage unit wrapped in 1956-1957 newspaper, 2007

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
"Someone cared deeply about the mummified baby found this week in a Delray Beach storage unit. The baby still had an attached umbilical cord, police said. Packed with the infant boy were rosary beads, a rendering of Jesus, a photograph of a 5- or 6-year-old girl and a birthday prayer, said Delray Beach police Detective Gene Sapino.(...)"
UP7800 - Newspapers.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I understand this right, the mother is allegedly known, but because they don't intent to exhume the mother (2007 article) they are not 100% sure or make an identification definitive. In the mean time the daughter gave DNA and it was compared to the baby's (was it?) Now it's 2023 and this little human is still up in Namus. So what happened? Did another woman asked the alleged mother to keep her stuff in storage?
 
Other questions that could come into play are:
- When did the family started renting the storage unit?
- Where was the stuff in the unit was stored prior? (who's home, attic, garage)
- Who had access to these places during the years?

It could also be useful info to when the children in their family were born. Were they alive during this time? Is there an older sibling that might remember their mother/family member pregnant in 1956/57?

It makes me think of the Cold Case Files episode "Death of the innocents" where Susan Connell gave birth to two babies during her adolescence and she left them in an old trailer used for storage on her family's property.
 
Other questions that could come into play are:
- When did the family started renting the storage unit?
- Where was the stuff in the unit was stored prior? (who's home, attic, garage)
- Who had access to these places during the years?

It could also be useful info to when the children in their family were born. Were they alive during this time? Is there an older sibling that might remember their mother/family member pregnant in 1956/57?

It makes me think of the Cold Case Files episode "Death of the innocents" where Susan Connell gave birth to two babies during her adolescence and she left them in an old trailer used for storage on her family's property.
The article JerseyGirl posted above answers a few of my questions.

"The baby was wrapped in a newspaper called The Daily Times, dated January 9, 1957, police said. Authorities are not sure where it was published, but were checking the New York and New Jersey area because the couple lived there before retiring in Florida.

The Palm Beach medical examiner's office was bringing in a forensic anthropologist to determine the baby's age and cause of death. The medical examiner previously declined comment.

The storage bay had been rented since 1996, Messer said. The woman's father died in 2002 or 2003, and his wife died last year, he said. The couple lived in Delray Beach at one point. Woods said their belongings were stored in the warehouse after they moved to Florida in the middle to late 1980s."
 
The daughter sounds like she was in shock and denial, which is totally understandable. More than likely, the woman's mother gave birth to this baby. The girl in the picture not being recognized by the daughter is interesting. But perhaps the girl in the picture was a sibling on the father's side of the baby's family tree. Just a wild guess, but you never know. They certainly seem to have had different fathers, and I doubt this woman's father knew anything about this baby from his wife's past.

I wonder if the black pants were from the 1950s or later and if they looked like something the woman's mother would wear. It is remotely possible the woman's mother was keeping this for some other relative of course. Did she have any sisters, cousins, etc, that may have already died? Or may have given her stuff for safe keeping? I doubt she was unaware of the baby, but it isn't impossible she was keeping someone else's secret, whether that person was a relative or a friend. Without DNA results, nothing is 100 percent. It's surprising the baby was left with household stuff in a foreclosed home, but maybe she forgot that's where she put that suit case. Elderly people can be absent minded and dealing with financial stress involving that house may have been another reason that's where the suitcases with the baby got left. The person who bought their house luckily didn't throw it out or open it. It was nice of them to just move the stuff to a storage unit, under the circumstances.

This is definitely a sad story. It would be interesting to have conclusive DNA results. The daughter sounds like she couldn't deal with it at the time, but maybe more at peace with it years later. Of course some people just don't want to know. Others would do anything to solve a family mystery like this.
 
Last edited:
The girl in the picture not being recognized by the daughter is interesting. But perhaps the girl in the picture was a sibling on the father's side of the baby's family tree.
The daughter's father had a 13 yo niece in 1950. Guessing by the ages of the daughter's father (21) and aunt (23), the 13 yo was most likely the daughter of their older brother (32).
I couldn't find anything about the 13 yo girl after 1950, yet. But can't stop wondering if she is the girl in the picture and the mother of the baby? MOO JMO
 
This is definitely a sad story. It would be interesting to have conclusive DNA results. The daughter sounds like she couldn't deal with it at the time, but maybe more at peace with it years later. Of course some people just don't want to know. Others would do anything to solve a family mystery like this.
RSBM

I am sympathetic with this woman, as I am with the surviving family of Joseph Augustus Zarelli, but when it all comes down to it, this isn't about what she wants, it's about righting a wrong. This little child spent half a century in a suitcase, stored away with old, broken things and awkward pieces of furniture. He deserved a name, a grave (or an urn), and a place on the family tree. However he died - stillbirth, natural, or human action - he was denied that.

I'm sure it'd be more comfortable for her if it all went away and people stopped looking, but it was for others' comfort he was stowed away like he never existed in the first place. We can be sympathetic with the dead who knew of this child, and with the living who are dealing with the current discovery and investigation, without giving way to the suggestion that it would be easier if he just disappeared, for the second time.

I feel sympathy, but at the same time strongly disagree that 'no earthly benefit can be gained' from finding out who this little boy was. We have the opportunity to right a wrong. It's a duty to this child, not an act of grotesque curiosity.
 
Given the amount of stigma around stillbirths/pregnancy loss (and births out of wedlock, which this one probably is) at the time period I honestly can't fault the baby's mother- She probably did the best she could given her situation. I wonder if the daughter can 'claim' the baby and give him a proper burial even if he isn't identified via DNA. Are there any more recent articles?

As for the comparison to Joseph Zarelli, I 100% respect this woman's decision to not provide a DNA sample because unlike Joseph, this baby (IMO) was not murdered and a DNA sample won't lead to the identity of the killer. It's likely that nobody except for the baby's biological mother (or maybe both parents) were involved with concealing the body. Finding the body had to be extremely traumatic and I can't blame her for wanting to just put everything behind her. Of course providing DNA would be the easiest way to do that, but everyone reacts to grief and trauma differently.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
132
Guests online
1,695
Total visitors
1,827

Forum statistics

Threads
599,453
Messages
18,095,572
Members
230,861
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top