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

[breachtones]

I actually logged in just to post this very thing. It’s very likely little Joseph had his mom’s last name.

Also before the presser, they said he came from a prominent family and nothing I’ve found on Zarelli seems to suggest anything I’d call prominent in Delaware county.

Perhaps the father’s family was the very prominent one and everyone is assuming wrongly the who the dad is. Lost more to this story will come out in time.

Ps I think the press questions were pretty lame, there’s so much more that could have been asked to give us a bit more answers. Was the Martha right? Was he in foster or adopted? Etc…

First question was quite literally, "was he murdered". Holy hell reporters, do better.

 

[IDK]

One other thing. As I've now stated in way too many posts, law enforcement's usage of the phrase "siblings from parents on both sides" really feels like a valuable quote from today's presser. So using that little bit of information, what sorts of possibilities can we talk about with respect to Joseph's parentage?

1. Joseph was born out of wedlock, and each of his biological parents had children with other partners.

2. Joseph was born into a marriage. His parents divorced and had children with other partners.

Again, because we're talking about a - presumably - Roman Catholic Italian American family in the 1950s, I think a divorce is most likely out of the question. Throughout the 1950s, divorce rates ranged from about 2.1 to 2.5 divorces for every 1,000 Americans - those rates are presumably even lower for Roman Catholics in that time period.

So what's the point? While it's possible that marriage records might lead to valuable information in this case, I think it's more likely that they'll be of no value at all. Joseph's birth certificate is likely the ONLY document that has any value in helping to determine who BOTH of his parents were.

Also perhaps 1a: Joseph was the product of an affair between two married individuals?

 

[megs1477]

I’m not sure if it helps, but I do a lot of genealogical research. I’m the mid-1800s all the way past the mid-1900s, if for some reason an unwed mother kept the baby (usually there was an adoption either formal or informal, or child is raised by family member as their own), the child was always given the mothers name. I am sure there are instances otherwise, but I haven’t run across one. Giving the child a different name is basically announcing to the world something that was overall taboo. It was starting to be accepted in some circles around this time, but there are still many that don’t accept it today.

 

[arielilane]

Smith told reporters blunt force trauma was "more than likely" Zarelli's cause of death.

"At this point in time, a lot of the family members who would've been old enough to have a memory of any incident that might have occurred are, you know, normally long gone," Smith said. Authorities have identified who Zarelli's parents were but said they will not be releasing that information now "out of respect" for Zarelli's siblings, some of whom police said are still alive.

When asked by reporters whether the "uphill battle" he described meant Zarelli's killer or killers may not be identified, Smith said, "That's correct."

"We may not make an arrest. We may never make an identification," he said. "But we're going to do our darnedest to try."

Authorities said they are hopeful that the identification of the "Boy in the Box" will lead to an "avalanche" of new tips. Hundreds of tips were initially received back when Zarelli's body was found, Smith said, but none resulted in an identification.

'Boy in the Box' Joseph Zarelli's killer "may never" be caught, cops admit

"We may never make an identification" of the person or persons responsible for the death of "Boy in the Box" Joseph Augustus Zarelli, police said.

www.newsweek.com

 

[WestCoastLMET]

One other thing. As I've now stated in way too many posts, law enforcement's usage of the phrase "siblings from parents on both sides" really feels like a valuable quote from today's presser. So using that little bit of information, what sorts of possibilities can we talk about with respect to Joseph's parentage?

1. Joseph was born out of wedlock, and each of his biological parents had children with other partners.

2. Joseph was born into a marriage. His parents divorced and had children with other partners.

Again, because we're talking about a - presumably - Roman Catholic Italian American family in the 1950s, I think a divorce is most likely out of the question. Throughout the 1950s, divorce rates ranged from about 2.1 to 2.5 divorces for every 1,000 Americans - those rates are presumably even lower for Roman Catholics in that time period.

So what's the point? While it's possible that marriage records might lead to valuable information in this case, I think it's more likely that they'll be of no value at all. Joseph's birth certificate is likely the ONLY document that has any value in helping to determine who BOTH of his parents were.

In those low divorce rates typically the reason for the granting of divorce was physical abuse or abandonment. In this case familial abuse could be a major factor.

 

[iamshadow21]

I’m not sure if it helps, but I do a lot of genealogical research. I’m the mid-1800s all the way past the mid-1900s, if for some reason an unwed mother kept the baby (usually there was an adoption either formal or informal, or child is raised by family member as their own), the child was always given the mothers name. I am sure there are instances otherwise, but I haven’t run across one. Giving the child a different name is basically announcing to the world something that was overall taboo. It was starting to be accepted in some circles around this time, but there are still many that don’t accept it today.

My great grandfather was born out of wedlock, and he has his mother's surname, as has his younger brother. Neither have a father listed at all. However, their younger sister DOES have a father listed, the man my great great grandmother ended up marrying. The younger sister STILL has the mother's surname. Even though her father is listed on the birth certificate. Because she was illegitimate, born before they were married.

Convention denied a lot of kids their father's surnames because of so-called morality. It was a way of labelling them throughout life.

 

[WestCoastLMET]

My great grandfather was born out of wedlock, and he has his mother's surname, as has his younger brother. Neither have a father listed at all. However, their younger sister DOES have a father listed, the man my great great grandmother ended up marrying. The younger sister STILL has the mother's surname. Even though her father is listed on the birth certificate. Because she was illegitimate, born before they were married.

Convention denied a lot of kids their father's surnames because of so-called morality. It was a way of labelling them throughout life.

It has a lot to do with what state law allows. My son was born in 1984 his father and I were not married as I was a teenager, however, my state allowed me to give him his fathers surname, but it was novel. His father did not have to sign the birth certificate. In my case the father fully acknowledged paternity and it was about legitimizing our son in the eyes of the law.

 

[bears10]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> Of course and many bio dads I have found are married men. However, especially in this time period, a birth mom definitely wouldn’t have given her out of wedlock child a paternal family middle name and fathers last name. If he was adopted or kept she probably would have “ made up” a fathers last name, left it blank or used her maiden last name. Just patterns I have noticed in all the cases ive solved.

Of course ancestry dna would tell you that you match your children.. I speak from absolute knowledge of recent immigration from Italy and how the matches reflect on ancestry dna. It’s possible a potential bf was a first generation Italian American, making Joseph only a second. The more recent you are to immigration, the less matches you will have. That is a fact. This can be true for any ethnic background. Cases involving Mexican and Norwegian descent , for example , can also be very difficult. Most people in Italy do not test on ancestry dna let alone upload to ged match. That is why they found the biological father through a document and then tested dna with the child and found the mother through dna matches solely. Again, remember that dna researchers cannot use mainstream ancestry dna and rely on ged match which has way less matches.

Isn't this a moot issue since they did identify him using dna?

 

[AliceInPain]

Apologies for any misspelling of names.

LINK TO FULL PRESS CONFERENCE

8TH DECEMBER 2022.

(Commissioner thanks all partners involved with identifying Joseph).

Captain - Good morning, everyone. Before I provide you with an overview of this investigation, I would like to echo the sentiments of the Commissioner, by thanking all those individuals and entities who participated and really put their hearts into this investigation. On February 26, 1957, at 10:40 am., the remains of a white male, estimated to be 4-6 years of age, were located in a wooded area with dense underbrush along Susquehanna Road between Verree and Pine Roads in the city and county of Philadelphia. The child had been severely beaten. He was unclothed, had been wrapped in a multi-colour blanket and placed inside of a cardboard box. The child had brown hair that was crudely cut close to the scalp, and blue eyes. Multiple bruises were visible on the child's body and autopsy revealed that the child had sustained multiple abrasions, contusions, a subdural haemorrhage and plural effusions. The autopsy confirmed that the child was between four and six years of age. The child was subsequently buried in plot number 191 at a Potters Field, located at 12890 Dunks Ferry Road in the city of Philadelphia. The investigation was originally assigned to Detectives Pal and (?) in 1957 and reassigned to Detective Carruthers, in May of 1960. Hundreds of tips and leads were received, both locally and nationally, from around the country. These tips were diligently followed up on by investigators. None, however, would lead them to the positive identification of the child.

sbm

Thank you so so much!!! <3

 

[cvaldez1975]

I wonder who the family members denying paternity are—I’m assuming they would be siblings of the father, unless Joseph had biological siblings (half or full) older than him who could remember events from around Joseph’s birth. It’s also equally possible that no living family members were aware of Joseph’s existence and they are denying paternity because they never saw Joseph.

Where were they denying paternity? I haven’t seen.

 

[ifindedout]

RIP Joey. Now you have your name back. You will not be forgotten.

 

[Noirdame79]

While I'm happy that Joseph has his identity back, it's heartbreaking to think about what this poor child suffered in his short life. The fact that no one reported him missing says a lot too - and really makes me suspect that his killer was someone who was supposed to care for him. I'm sure LE will release some new information once they know more.

RIP Joseph

 

[iamshadow21]

It has a lot to do with what state law allows.

RSBM

Don't I know it. In case people think this is long gone - one of my mum's dearest friends found out she was adopted only a few years ago. Found out when someone turned up on her doorstep, on behalf of her birth mother. Her adoptive mother clammed up and refused to talk about it. Mum's friend found out her birth certificate was a forgery. When she found her original birth certificate, it had 'invalid' or something stamped on it.

Long story short, it had the mother's name on it, but not the father's.

The mother had told the nurses at the time who the father was, but they refused to write it down. She was unmarried, white, and the father was Aboriginal. Mum's friend wasn't given up willingly by her birth family, but taken forcibly because of those circumstances. This was in the 50s.

For those who care about happy endings, since the reveal, Mum's friend has connected with her mother, and her father's family (father was deceased), and her identity as an Aboriginal woman.

 

[AgnesTurnip]

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Alright folks at this point in time we open it up to Q&A.

REPORTER A:

The death certificate offically says ‘unknown’ for the manner of death, how and when did you guys determine that it was indeed a homicide.

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Oh that was determined early on in the investigation.

REPORTER A:

Right, so why was the death certificate not changed? Or I guess when was that determined because the death certificate says ‘unknown.’

CAPTAIN SMITH:

I can’t answer that question.

REPORTER A:

Okay, but it is in fact that he was killed? It is a homicide?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Yeah, that’s correct.

REPORTER A:

Okay, can you tell us a little bit more about, um, that part of the case? Of what, you know, how he was killed or what happened to him?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Well… I described the injuries. He had abrasions, he had contusions, so basically he had blunt force trauma. From what I understand he was also, uh, emaciated. Okay, so. But, I’m gonna say blunt force trauma was more than likely the cause of death.

REPORTER B:

Captain, with an investigation that now has a name, what changes behind the scenes? What does this give your detectives? Wh- where do you go from here?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Alright, so the jobs- its over 65 years old now. Alright. SO that’s – that’s definitely- it‘s gonna be an uphill battle for us to definitively determine who caused this child’s death. If this- if this technology had been available to us 20 years ago it might have been a completely different, different story. Because once you identify who the child is you start beginning with family members. Well, at this point in time a lot of the family members who would have been old enough to have any memory of any- any incident that might have occurred are, y’know, normally long gone.

REPORTER B:

SO, are you saying there’s a possibility that you may never make an arrest in whose responsible for the death of Joseph Augustus Zarelli.

CAPTAIN SMITH:

That’s correct. We might, we may not make an arrest. We may not make an identification. But we’re gonna do our darnedest to try.

REPORTER C:

When you talked to the relatives did you ask them, and did they answer, why nobody came forward in 1957 sayin’ “hey I think that that’s Joseph?” [untellable]?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Yeah, that’s gonna be- gonna be part of the investigation and again I- I- I will go to time and time again it’s an ongoing and active investigation.

REPORTER C:

But did you- did you ask them that, or did they answer?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

I’m not gonna comment on that sir.

REPORTER A:

What was the reaction from the family when detectives came over with this information?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Not gonna comment on that either.

REPORTER D:

Where was he from?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Where?

REPORTER D:

Where was he from?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Where was the child from?

REPORTER D:

Yeah, or his family?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

What section of the city? Uhm, West Philadelphia we believe.

A CLUELESS INDIVIUAL:

Was he ever- ever, like, uhm, reported as a missing child?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

No.

A CLUELESS INDIVIUAL:

Never?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

No. Never sir.

REPORTER B (I think?):

Are either of his parents still alive? Or are both deceased.

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Both parents are deceased.

PERSON A:

Do you think someone in his family killed him?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

I can’t comment sir, ongoing active investigation.

REPORTER E:

Captain, when it comes to other, you mentioned this, the other victims in other- you have potter’s fields, at least one that we know about, I think there are others scattered around. Can you talk about the efforts to name and identify and maybe the city’s efforts, I don’t know how to say this – the city’s efforts to obtain grant money to try to use this technology in identifying other people who are unidentified. Who have no name, whether they’re homicide victims or not?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Right, well. I can’t speak to grant money, okay that’s outta my wheelhouse. But we do—yeah, there are efforts as I’ve described. Ah, uh Captain Keerney, is he here? Yeah, could you just talk a little bit about what you guys are doin’? Thank you.

[PAUSING HERE]

I will post the next half tomorrow!

 

[hafom8840]

R.I.P. Joey. You finally have your name back.

 

[digiskunk]

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Alright folks at this point in time we open it up to Q&A.

REPORTER A:

The death certificate offically says ‘unknown’ for the manner of death, how and when did you guys determine that it was indeed a homicide.

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Oh that was determined early on in the investigation.

REPORTER A:

Right, so why was the death certificate not changed? Or I guess when was that determined because the death certificate says ‘unknown.’

CAPTAIN SMITH:

I can’t answer that question.

REPORTER A:

Okay, but it is in fact that he was killed? It is a homicide?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Yeah, that’s correct.

REPORTER A:

Okay, can you tell us a little bit more about, um, that part of the case? Of what, you know, how he was killed or what happened to him?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Well… I described the injuries. He had abrasions, he had contusions, so basically he had blunt force trauma. From what I understand he was also, uh, emaciated. Okay, so. But, I’m gonna say blunt force trauma was more than likely the cause of death.

REPORTER B:

Captain, with an investigation that now has a name, what changes behind the scenes? What does this give your detectives? Wh- where do you go from here?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Alright, so the jobs- its over 65 years old now. Alright. SO that’s – that’s definitely- it‘s gonna be an uphill battle for us to definitively determine who caused this child’s death. If this- if this technology had been available to us 20 years ago it might have been a completely different, different story. Because once you identify who the child is you start beginning with family members. Well, at this point in time a lot of the family members who would have been old enough to have any memory of any- any incident that might have occurred are, y’know, normally long gone.

REPORTER B:

SO, are you saying there’s a possibility that you may never make an arrest in whose responsible for the death of Joseph Augustus Zarelli.

CAPTAIN SMITH:

That’s correct. We might, we may not make an arrest. We may not make an identification. But we’re gonna do our darnedest to try.

REPORTER C:

When you talked to the relatives did you ask them, and did they answer, why nobody came forward in 1957 sayin’ “hey I think that that’s Joseph?” [untellable]?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Yeah, that’s gonna be- gonna be part of the investigation and again I- I- I will go to time and time again it’s an ongoing and active investigation.

REPORTER C:

But did you- did you ask them that, or did they answer?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

I’m not gonna comment on that sir.

REPORTER A:

What was the reaction from the family when detectives came over with this information?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Not gonna comment on that either.

REPORTER D:

Where was he from?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Where?

REPORTER D:

Where was he from?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Where was the child from?

REPORTER D:

Yeah, or his family?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

What section of the city? Uhm, West Philadelphia we believe.

A CLUELESS INDIVIUAL:

Was he ever- ever, like, uhm, reported as a missing child?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

No.

A CLUELESS INDIVIUAL:

Never?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

No. Never sir.

REPORTER B (I think?):

Are either of his parents still alive? Or are both deceased.

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Both parents are deceased.

PERSON A:

Do you think someone in his family killed him?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

I can’t comment sir, ongoing active investigation.

REPORTER E:

Captain, when it comes to other, you mentioned this, the other victims in other- you have potter’s fields, at least one that we know about, I think there are others scattered around. Can you talk about the efforts to name and identify and maybe the city’s efforts, I don’t know how to say this – the city’s efforts to obtain grant money to try to use this technology in identifying other people who are unidentified. Who have no name, whether they’re homicide victims or not?

CAPTAIN SMITH:

Right, well. I can’t speak to grant money, okay that’s outta my wheelhouse. But we do—yeah, there are efforts as I’ve described. Ah, uh Captain Keerney, is he here? Yeah, could you just talk a little bit about what you guys are doin’? Thank you.

[PAUSING HERE]

I will post the next half tomorrow!

Thank you for this!!

 

[digiskunk]

M's story seems so detailed that it's hard to disregard.

I agree. "M" told law enforcement that the alleged child's named was "Jonathan", which could easily be confused with "Joseph" (at least if you ask me). It's also worth noting that she provided the name in 2002—plenty of time for your brain to mix similar names up.

 

[Palisades]

The last thread on this was deeply worrying due to the absurd speculation. I know I am new to this forum, but the accusations were deeply worrying.

We should start with the actual available information:
1. His name was Joseph Augustus Zarelli.
2. He was born on January 13, 1953, and is likely from West Philadelphia.
3. In accordance with police statements his parents are deceased, and he has siblings on both sides of his family (meaning mother and father).
4. There are a handful of Zarelli families who lived in or near West Philadelphia at the time of his birth and death, though none of them have come forward.
5. There was, in 2002, a report made by a woman going by either "Martha" or "M" who posited that her abusive mother had "purchased" Zarelli, and kept him at the home, with several details provided that were only under the purview of law enforcement (including stomach contents and details of the crime scene) - though she identified Joseph as "Jonathan."

The last point is only speculative, but is a strong lead.

The last point, regarding the *potential* father and mer is that, it was still common in the 1950s for parents to send their children away if they were impoverished or unmarried, and it is highly likely, judging from the information provided by police, that Zarelli's parents were unmarried.

I think anything beyond the above is outside of the realm of possibility, until official records are provided.

You should change #5 by removing the name "Zarelli'. M posited that her abusive mother had purchased the boy who was found deceased in the box. Right now, the boy **that M is tallong about hee mother buying** and Zarelli being one and the same is not a fact.

Edited for clarity.

 

[iamshadow21]

I agree. "M" told law enforcement that the alleged child's named was "Jonathan", which could easily be confused with "Joseph" (at least if you ask me). It's also worth noting that she provided the name in 2002—plenty of time for your brain to mix similar names up.

I agree. But even if it turns out that it's a coincidence, I like that for a long time, the name we've had associated with this child is very close to his real one. Like when Little Jacob turned out to be Jayden.

 

[GameChanger42]

I agree. "M" told law enforcement that the alleged child's named was "Jonathan", which could easily be confused with "Joseph" (at least if you ask me). It's also worth noting that she provided the name in 2002—plenty of time for your brain to mix similar names up.

Yup and people definitely changed the names of kids they adopted. Lack of bookkeeping in these situations back then and the abuse the name change probably wasn't questioned at all poor kid probably didn't interact with anyone.