NY NY - Joseph Rodriguez, 4, New York City, 6 Sept 1936

[Odyssey]

Are the files available for public viewing ? I don't think there's anymore info without a NY times subscription.

I thought possibly on Ancestry or something...

 

[Robin Hood]

I thought possibly on Ancestry or something...

I was thinking more of the LE files.

 

[Hilda Swenson]

There is a ship manifest from October 30 1940 showing Pauline and Jose A.E. Rodriguez coming from San Juan into NYC on the SS Rosario . Their listed address is the Hotel Gladstone on 52nd St and Park Ave in NY (about 3 miles from the 1936 addy). Her DOB is January 3 1899.

 

[Odyssey]

There is a ship manifest from October 30 1940 showing Pauline and Jose A.E. Rodriguez coming from San Juan into NYC on the SS Rosario . Their listed address is the Hotel Gladstone on 52nd St and Park Ave in NY (about 3 miles from the 1936 addy). Her DOB is January 3 1899.

Interesting. I found a couple articles in the New York Times archives which had some more information on this case.

Apparently, Joseph didn't actually go missing from Pauline's residence. I have listed the information I found in that article here (my very new MP blog):

http://whereaboutsstillunknown.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/joseph-rodriguez/

The other bombshell was that the telegram was signed!! They just said that it was signed by a person 'unknown to Pauline' and they never released the person's name, as far as I can find.

I don't want to get in trouble for posting the pay-per-view articles, but you can find them on the NY Times archives by searching "1637 park", his name was spelled with a Q (Rodriquez) in that article.

 

[Hilda Swenson]

Interesting. I found a couple articles in the New York Times archives which had some more information on this case.

Apparently, Joseph didn't actually go missing from Pauline's residence. I have listed the information I found in that article here (my very new MP blog):

http://whereaboutsstillunknown.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/joseph-rodriguez/

The other bombshell was that the telegram was signed!! They just said that it was signed by a person 'unknown to Pauline' and they never released the person's name, as far as I can find.

I don't want to get in trouble for posting the pay-per-view articles, but you can find them on the NY Times archives by searching "1637 park", his name was spelled with a Q (Rodriquez) in that article.

Nice blog!

We need to find out who signed that telegram.

I found Dora Olivo in the US Public records Index:

Birth Date:1 Aug 1911
Address: 341 E 70th St Apt 11c, New York, NY, 10021-8663

and in the SS Death Index:

Dora Olivo
SSN: *advertiser censored*-XX-XXXX
Last Residence: 10021 New York, New York, United States of America
Born:4 Aug 1911
Died: 2 Jun 1999
State (Year) SSN issued:New York (Before 1951)

Yes her absence in the 1940 census could be because she was in P.R. in 1940.

 

[Odyssey]

There is a ship manifest from October 30 1940 showing Pauline and Jose A.E. Rodriguez coming from San Juan into NYC on the SS Rosario . Their listed address is the Hotel Gladstone on 52nd St and Park Ave in NY (about 3 miles from the 1936 addy). Her DOB is January 3 1899.

Was there a DOB for Joseph A.E. Rodriguez? I'm wondering if it could have been Joseph, or if he was an adult.

The Pauline I found on the 1940 census (living with a Pedro Olivo) was born in 1911 so either there were two Pauline's or one of the records has the birthdate way off...

 

[LaborDayRN]

It all makes me wonder if possibly Dora wanted her son back, took him to P.R. to raise him and later returned to the U.S. Interesting case.

 

[Odyssey]

It all makes me wonder if possibly Dora wanted her son back, took him to P.R. to raise him and later returned to the U.S. Interesting case.

Me too.

The fact that it happened when Pauline was away for the day and left him with a neighbor - Dora might have known that Pauline would be away, and where Joseph would be staying, if she was married to Pauline's brother.

 

[Hilda Swenson]

Was there a DOB for Joseph A.E. Rodriguez? I'm wondering if it could have been Joseph, or if he was an adult.

The Pauline I found on the 1940 census (living with a Pedro Olivo) was born in 1911 so either there were two Pauline's or one of the records has the birthdate way off...

I did find a Pauline and Pedro Olivo but it was on a Texas census. The weird thing is the link I clicked on said NY census but it took me to a Tx page.

 

[Hilda Swenson]

Was there a DOB for Joseph A.E. Rodriguez? I'm wondering if it could have been Joseph, or if he was an adult.

The Pauline I found on the 1940 census (living with a Pedro Olivo) was born in 1911 so either there were two Pauline's or one of the records has the birthdate way off...

Yes. Jose A.E. Rodriguez dob Feb 15, 1863 birthplace Caguas Pto Rico. Pauline's birthplace is listed as New Haven, Conn. There were only 5 people on the SS Rosario coming into NY that day. Jose and Pauline are the first two listed. The third listed is Jose A.B. Nolla dob May 24, 1902 in Camuy Pto Rico.

The other two were Arnold Golden and Chester Yoworski and do not appear to be associated with the other three.

 

[Odyssey]

I did find a Pauline and Pedro Olivo but it was on a Texas census. The weird thing is the link I clicked on said NY census but it took me to a Tx page.

That is strange, because I just went back to look for it again and the one I had seen wasn't coming up... it took me awhile to find it, Ancestry has "Pedro Olive" so if you search that way you will see the one I was talking about. (Pauline's name is spelled wrong too)

I must have found it through a different site or when browsing for Dora's address.

 

[Veidt]

I'm a bit confused by this genealogy talk, so please bear with me. I'm referring to things posted in this thread as well as the Whereabouts Unknown that has been linked to.

I've been searching on familysearch.org and it seems like Pauline Rodriguez is a common name. Same with Joseph Rodriguez - someone named Pauline Rodriguez had a husband and a 12-year old son by that name in the 1930 census.

Either way I found a Pedro Olivo and a Pauline Rodriguez living as lodgers in the same district (I think) where 1936 Park Avenue would be located. They were lodging with Linn and Mary Jonbert. I assume that's what that blog is talking about but here's where it gets confusing. Here's what the blog says:

A search of the 1940 New York City census turned up a Pauline Rodriguez, born in 1911, living in the same neighborhood, but at a different address. Living with her, was a Pedro Olivo, born in 1881.

BBM. However, the records I found say the last place of residence was the same, so from what I understand they were both living in that address in 1930. However, what that blogger discovered was that the address of the 1940 census (which I can't find) was different from the 1936 residence. So either they're two different people with the same names, or Pauline moved out between 1930 and 1936 and then back in, or something weird like an error is going on.

I also don't understand where Joseph's last name Rodriguez comes from. From what I understand Pauline was divorced, her father (Pedro) and her sister (Dora) were both named Olivo and that would have been her maiden name. So why is Joseph, Dora's son, named Rodriguez also like Pauline's married name? Unless Dora had Joseph by a man with that last name. I guess that possible since it's not an unusual last name. I'm just confused though!

The thing about the telegram is intriguing, I wonder if that article was accurate. Either way, I don't know much about telegrams but they would have been able to trace where it was sent from and ask the staff there if they could remember who had dictated it, no? So I wonder why they never released that description and the name, especially since Pauline not knowing who it was makes it sound like it wasn't Joseph's mother trying to take him back.

I wonder if whoever it was stalked the family for some time in order to know Pauline or if it was more than one person acting together.

 

[Odyssey]

I'm a bit confused by this genealogy talk, so please bear with me. I'm referring to things posted in this thread as well as the Whereabouts Unknown that has been linked to.

I've been searching on familysearch.org and it seems like Pauline Rodriguez is a common name. Same with Joseph Rodriguez - someone named Pauline Rodriguez had a husband and a 12-year old son by that name in the 1930 census.

Either way I found a Pedro Olivo and a Pauline Rodriguez living as lodgers in the same district (I think) where 1936 Park Avenue would be located. They were lodging with Linn and Mary Jonbert. I assume that's what that blog is talking about but here's where it gets confusing. Here's what the blog says:



BBM. However, the records I found say the last place of residence was the same, so from what I understand they were both living in that address in 1930. However, what that blogger discovered was that the address of the 1940 census (which I can't find) was different from the 1936 residence. So either they're two different people with the same names, or Pauline moved out between 1930 and 1936 and then back in, or something weird like an error is going on.

I also don't understand where Joseph's last name Rodriguez comes from. From what I understand Pauline was divorced, her father (Pedro) and her sister (Dora) were both named Olivo and that would have been her maiden name. So why is Joseph, Dora's son, named Rodriguez also like Pauline's married name? Unless Dora had Joseph by a man with that last name. I guess that possible since it's not an unusual last name. I'm just confused though!

The thing about the telegram is intriguing, I wonder if that article was accurate. Either way, I don't know much about telegrams but they would have been able to trace where it was sent from and ask the staff there if they could remember who had dictated it, no? So I wonder why they never released that description and the name, especially since Pauline not knowing who it was makes it sound like it wasn't Joseph's mother trying to take him back.

I wonder if whoever it was stalked the family for some time in order to know Pauline or if it was more than one person acting together.

BBM:

I think it's possible that they changed his last name to Rodriguez when Pauline began caring for him, since that was her last name at the time (like an informal adoption).

It's also possible that Pauline was the sister of Joseph's father, and was not Dora's sister. I think that's somewhat unlikely, though, if Pauline and Pedro Olivo were listed together on a census, Pauline was more likely Dora's sister.

 

[Veidt]

BBM:

I think it's possible that they changed his last name to Rodriguez when Pauline began caring for him, since that was her last name at the time (like an informal adoption).

It's also possible that Pauline was the sister of Joseph's father, and was not Dora's sister. I think that's somewhat unlikely, though, if Pauline and Pedro Olivo were listed together on a census, Pauline was more likely Dora's sister.

Thank you for the explanation, this makes sense. It strikes me as weird that in that case Pauline would use the last name she'd gotten from her ex-husband but maybe she just thought of it as a last name like any other without any negative emotions attached to it and it was more practical that way.

I thought that Pauline was the sister of Joseph's father, but the records I found and the records that blog found definitely list Pauline and Pedro Olivo living at the same address and IIRC the ones I found stated Pauline was Pedro's daughter. I can try to look it up again if you're interested. It could be a coincidence as they were lodging with people, or just two people with the same names, but I think it makes sense that it's them and that Pauline was Joseph's maternal aunt.

The informal adoption thing makes sense, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Archangel85]

Well... if she brought him back to Puerto Rico it's going to be really difficult to find any records since most of the records pre 50's are in a really really bad condition or have been thrown away (I live in Puerto Rico)

 

[kimmy88]

It seems odd after the passage of time since Joseph's disappearance that the police have still not released the name that was signed on the bottom of the telegram (or a description of the person who dictated it).

I would also guess from Dora Olivio's place of death (previously posted), that she wasn't responsible for Joseph's disappearance...JMO. She would have to have left USA and gone to PR with her son, sent or arranged the sending of the telegram, stayed in PR for an undetermined amount of time, then decided to head back to USA to live out her days in NY. If she did take Joseph, why would she go back to the same city that she took him from, years later? Surely she would have kept a low profile and stayed in PR? Of course its possible she returned once the media attention around the case died down, but what would have happened to Joseph? If she loved her son so much she couldn't bear to be apart from him and felt as though she had to 'abduct' him, surely she would never return to live somewhere he couldn't ever return to (without people becoming suspicious). This lady also lived until relatively recently - 1999 - if she was responsible for Joseph's disappearance, surely at some point throughout her life or in her old age she may have been inclined to admit responsibility even to just one close friend or member of her own family, to put their mind's to rest if nothing else?

Most of this post is just me thinking out loud but to be honest it is my opinion that Joseph wandered off from the other children playing on the street that day and was then abducted either by a stranger or by someone familiar to him/his family or was involved in some sort of accident without anyone witnessing it. The culprit could then have panicked and fled with Joseph and there we have the telegram 6 days later.

This case has remained with me for years and I truly hope one day very soon, all the details that were not released by LE at the time, are made public and hopefully the case can take a step closer to being solved.

 

[Veidt]

It seems odd after the passage of time since Joseph's disappearance that the police have still not released the name that was signed on the bottom of the telegram (or a description of the person who dictated it).

Is this case well-known in the area? Are people still talking about it? If not, I wonder how likely it is that they forgot to release that info due to no longer thinking it would be relevant.

It's been a while since I read the details on this case. Reading your reply made me wonder if they could have been protecting someone important. It seems very likely instead that they were expecting to keep that information to themselves until they had more solid evidence on the perps, if divulging it could have led them to escape. I wonder why they're still holding on to it when it's likely that the people involved are now dead or very old. Releasing it could prompt someone to come forward, say a child or grandchild of the perps who may have overheard a conversation or seen something unusual. Sometimes a little bit of info is all it takes for a lighbulb to go off on someone's head and make them connect the dots.

I don't know if the name on the telegram was real. From what I remember reading, Joseph's aunt could not think of who had sent it to her. IF it was signed (I don't remember reading about it being signed, as I said, it's been a while), then it could have been a fake name so she didn't recognize it. The only other option is it was real but it wasn't someone she knew, just someone who knew her... it makes me wonder if it was some sort of stalker who had a loose grip on reality, and felt 'close' to the Rodriguez family without having met them.

The description of the sender, I don't know if they ever got one. I find it strange that they didn't (if they never did), as I think I said before in this thread, I think it would have been more or less easy to talk to people and see if anyone remembered having that telegram dictated to them, to find where it had been sent from, and then see if anyone remembered who had chosen the words and paid for it. If they remembered seeing anyone and if so who, was it more than one person, did they give out a name.

I would also guess from Dora Olivio's place of death (previously posted), that she wasn't responsible for Joseph's disappearance...JMO. She would have to have left USA and gone to PR with her son, sent or arranged the sending of the telegram, stayed in PR for an undetermined amount of time, then decided to head back to USA to live out her days in NY. If she did take Joseph, why would she go back to the same city that she took him from, years later? Surely she would have kept a low profile and stayed in PR? Of course its possible she returned once the media attention around the case died down, but what would have happened to Joseph? If she loved her son so much she couldn't bear to be apart from him and felt as though she had to 'abduct' him, surely she would never return to live somewhere he couldn't ever return to (without people becoming suspicious). This lady also lived until relatively recently - 1999 - if she was responsible for Joseph's disappearance, surely at some point throughout her life or in her old age she may have been inclined to admit responsibility even to just one close friend or member of her own family, to put their mind's to rest if nothing else?

Most of this post is just me thinking out loud but to be honest it is my opinion that Joseph wandered off from the other children playing on the street that day and was then abducted either by a stranger or by someone familiar to him/his family or was involved in some sort of accident without anyone witnessing it. The culprit could then have panicked and fled with Joseph and there we have the telegram 6 days later.

This case has remained with me for years and I truly hope one day very soon, all the details that were not released by LE at the time, are made public and hopefully the case can take a step closer to being solved.

You know, I agree with you on Dora Olivo in some respects.

I can understand why she wouldn't have spoken if she did it. Maybe she knew she would get in trouble and may have worried. I don't know how her family would have reacted even in her old age. If she had other children and spoke while they were young they could have been taken away from her. Just a thought. I also wonder if it's possible that she mentioned it or hinted it to someone. Depending on what her family was like, maybe they decided to keep a secret or dismissed it as her being unwell and imagining things. Who knows?

As to her returning, if he'd died in PR, maybe she then decided to return to NYC if she felt there was no evidence that could be used against her. I also wonder, maybe he was alive in PR and she went back to NY for work.

I don't think it would have been her, though. In a scenario like this she would have abducted him because she loved him so much she didn't want to be away from him. In this case I believe that someone, somewhere would have known the truth at some point and many decades later, I believe she would have finally spoken more freely about it. Especially so if he died, losing a child is a very devastating experience, I don't think someone could just keep quiet and never hint at that for so many decades.

I also find it very hard to believe she took Joseph if she took him back to PR. Remember the world was a smaller place in those days, it was easier to be familiar with the people around you. Unless she went to an area of PR where she knew nobody and nobody knew her, I think it would have been a matter of time until someone noticed she was there with Joseph and mentioned it to someone who mentioned it to someone else... and it would have reached the ears of the rest of her family or at least have made them suspect something. I even think that if they so much as believed she had taken him, they would have gotten in touch with people they still knew in PR, ask them if they'd seen her or him, etc.

For her to have abducted him and made him disappear forever while showing no remorse or grief, never talking to anyone, that would require her to be VERY mentally unwell. While that's not an impossible thing to happen to people it's just not the simplest explanation.

All :twocents:.

 

[Archangel85]

Is this case well-known in the area? Are people still talking about it? If not, I wonder how likely it is that they forgot to release that info due to no longer thinking it would be relevant.

It's been a while since I read the details on this case. Reading your reply made me wonder if they could have been protecting someone important. It seems very likely instead that they were expecting to keep that information to themselves until they had more solid evidence on the perps, if divulging it could have led them to escape. I wonder why they're still holding on to it when it's likely that the people involved are now dead or very old. Releasing it could prompt someone to come forward, say a child or grandchild of the perps who may have overheard a conversation or seen something unusual. Sometimes a little bit of info is all it takes for a lighbulb to go off on someone's head and make them connect the dots.

I don't know if the name on the telegram was real. From what I remember reading, Joseph's aunt could not think of who had sent it to her. IF it was signed (I don't remember reading about it being signed, as I said, it's been a while), then it could have been a fake name so she didn't recognize it. The only other option is it was real but it wasn't someone she knew, just someone who knew her... it makes me wonder if it was some sort of stalker who had a loose grip on reality, and felt 'close' to the Rodriguez family without having met them.

The description of the sender, I don't know if they ever got one. I find it strange that they didn't (if they never did), as I think I said before in this thread, I think it would have been more or less easy to talk to people and see if anyone remembered having that telegram dictated to them, to find where it had been sent from, and then see if anyone remembered who had chosen the words and paid for it. If they remembered seeing anyone and if so who, was it more than one person, did they give out a name.



You know, I agree with you on Dora Olivo in some respects.

I can understand why she wouldn't have spoken if she did it. Maybe she knew she would get in trouble and may have worried. I don't know how her family would have reacted even in her old age. If she had other children and spoke while they were young they could have been taken away from her. Just a thought. I also wonder if it's possible that she mentioned it or hinted it to someone. Depending on what her family was like, maybe they decided to keep a secret or dismissed it as her being unwell and imagining things. Who knows?

As to her returning, if he'd died in PR, maybe she then decided to return to NYC if she felt there was no evidence that could be used against her. I also wonder, maybe he was alive in PR and she went back to NY for work.

I don't think it would have been her, though. In a scenario like this she would have abducted him because she loved him so much she didn't want to be away from him. In this case I believe that someone, somewhere would have known the truth at some point and many decades later, I believe she would have finally spoken more freely about it. Especially so if he died, losing a child is a very devastating experience, I don't think someone could just keep quiet and never hint at that for so many decades.

I also find it very hard to believe she took Joseph if she took him back to PR. Remember the world was a smaller place in those days, it was easier to be familiar with the people around you. Unless she went to an area of PR where she knew nobody and nobody knew her, I think it would have been a matter of time until someone noticed she was there with Joseph and mentioned it to someone who mentioned it to someone else... and it would have reached the ears of the rest of her family or at least have made them suspect something. I even think that if they so much as believed she had taken him, they would have gotten in touch with people they still knew in PR, ask them if they'd seen her or him, etc.

For her to have abducted him and made him disappear forever while showing no remorse or grief, never talking to anyone, that would require her to be VERY mentally unwell. While that's not an impossible thing to happen to people it's just not the simplest explanation.

All :twocents:.

Puerto Rico was a way different world back then. People were living in poverty. She could've easily hidden in the mountain area of Puerto Rico and would never be found. Unless you lived in the city, communications were difficult.

 

[Veidt]

Puerto Rico was a way different world back then. People were living in poverty. She could've easily hidden in the mountain area of Puerto Rico and would never be found. Unless you lived in the city, communications were difficult.

I know the world itself was very different back then but presumably her family would have been in touch with her or people in PR. If she was back in a village where her family knew people or something then IMO word would have reached their relatives in NY. I can't imagine Joseph's aunt (and grandfather I think it was, who lived in NY too) never mentioning to anyone else in the family or other Puerto Ricans at all that her nephew has disappeared. Word would get around, even if it took time.

The only scenario I can imagine is her being hidden in a very isolated area where her family didn't know anyone, where people who knew her family didn't know anyone either. That's just not plausible to me though for the reasons I've stated before, why would she? Why would she then return to NY? Why would she never tell anyone, even in her old age, about it? It seems much more far-fetched than someone else kidnapping him IMO.

 

[CastlesBurning]

I wonder if perhaps LE had tried sending a letter to all doctors/hospitals within a certain area, simply to try proving or disproving whether some accident had actually occurred? If there was indeed some truth to the "doctor won't let me move him" line, that would imply that some medical person had treated a four-year-old with some pretty serious injuries. Certainly that's the kind of thing that might raise some red flags and be remembered...