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

[txsleuth70]

I don’t know if LE knows he was adopted tho. How could that be confirmed?

I'm just saying if he WERE to have been adopted as others have stated. MOO

 

[wary]

I think you're wrong. MOO. I have done geneology on more than four dozen families and these instances of NPE show up in frequency. Especially during the WWII era. Men home on breaks from deployment, etc. It is more than plausible that he had no idea.

The point made in the quoted post is that PA law said that the supposed father had to acknowledge that the child was his, in order for his name to be put on the birth certificate. So, if that law was enforced, he’d have to know about the child.

One huge question in my mind is—WAS that law actually rigorously enforced? As we all know, many laws aren’t.

MOO

 

[spacedcurls]

The results of the DNA testing were uploaded to DNA databases and the results were interpreted by the geneaologists involved in this investigation. Based on the interpretation of the results by the geneologists, detectives were able to locate and make contact with possible relatives of the child's family, on the maternal side. Through further investigation and additional testing, the geneologists involved in this investigation were able to establish the identity of the birth mother of the unidentified child. A court order signed by a Court of Common Pleas Judge to obtain the birth records, death records and adoption records for all children born to the established birth mother between the years 1944-1956 from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau and Health Statistics and Registries Division of Vital Records. There were three responsive results based on this order. Two of the results were birth certificates for children born to the established birth mother, during that time frame, who were previously known to investigators. One of whom provided DNA and was matched, previously, by the geneologist. The third result was a birth certificate for a male child born to the established birth mother in 1953, which could be consistent with the approximated age of the unidentified child. The birth father was listed on the birth certificate for the male child, born in 1953. Based on research by detectives and the geneologists, a male was discovered who could possibly be the birth father of the unidentified child. Detectives were able to locate and make contact with possible relatives of the child's family, on the paternal side. Through additional testing, the geneologists were able to establish the birth father of the unidentified child.

BBM, I was looking through the transcript and thought this was interesting -- I know there was some confusion yesterday when they said that the other children of the birth mother were previously known to investigators, and what exactly that meant. I'm wondering if the siblings had been matches in the DNA database and that was how they were able to determine the mother in the first place, so when they found their birth certificates they weren't surprised because they already knew about them.

There's also no way to know for certain that the two known siblings are older or younger than Joseph, due to the range of years that they requested records for -- they likely just picked a range with a little leeway in case Joseph turned out to be older than he appeared due to being malnourished/stunted/etc.

 

[Ontario Mom]

There are people out there who are very good at genealogical research who will undoubtedly figure out who the parents are with a high level of confidence, so I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. I strongly disagree with law enforcement's decision not to name the boy's parents. This case has been the focus of public outrage for nearly seven decades. The public's right to know the truth far outweighs the family's right to privacy, in my opinion.

I completely disagree about the public's "right" to know anything, trumping the family's privacy. While this case has been public knowledge for decades, and while yes, we all want to see justice served, LE handling this case know a heck of a lot more than the public does, and if THEY made the choice to not identify them to the public, they have a good reason for that I will respect it. And, respect the family's right not to have their names tossed around on a public forum.

jmo

 

[KAYTOM]

Case Summary

Here's an aerial photo of the site taken in 1959. Veree road is marked w/ the Yellow line. Pine in Red. The road between is Susquehanna Road. I believe one of the well footpaths mentioned above is in the woods that extend 10-15 feet into the field. Not sure about the intersection they mention.

 

[Alleykins]

BBM, I was looking through the transcript and thought this was interesting -- I know there was some confusion yesterday when they said that the other children of the birth mother were previously known to investigators, and what exactly that meant. I'm wondering if the siblings had been matches in the DNA database and that was how they were able to determine the mother in the first place, so when they found their birth certificates they weren't surprised because they already knew about them.

There's also no way to know for certain that the two known siblings are older or younger than Joseph, due to the range of years that they requested records for -- they likely just picked a range with a little leeway in case Joseph turned out to be older than he appeared due to being malnourished/stunted/etc.

That's how I interpreted it, too. Because of the time range of the records requested and how it was worded, I also got the sense that the known maternal siblings may not have known about Joseph, either.

 

[Zak]

Im not sure birth order was established, that would certainly be illuminating

The search warrant for birth certificate’s for the mother was for the years 1944-1956. So, perhaps wrongly, assume Joseph had older sisters.

 

[amybman1]

Well, that other thread turned into a mess lol. Personally, I don't think the bio parents (whoever you believe them to be) really had anything to do with Joseph's death. Think about cases like Georgia's "Dennis" from 1999, if LE knows it's the parents they have no qualms about just releasing their name. You wouldn't release the name of someone who's innocent? I still believe M. Wish one of the reporters asked about that tip.

M seemed to have some very significant info that was corroborated by witness statements, such as the man who pulled over to help M and her mother because he thought they were having car trouble. My first question regarding her is the house she went to to exchange an envelope (likely of money) for a little boy. Surely that was the police department's first question for her. At 11 years old you'd probably know at least a general area unless it was far from your home.

 

[ncoley]

According to the article below, his autopsy showed multiple injuries including subdural hematomas which would have been deadly.

What we know and don’t know about Joseph Augustus Zarelli, also known as the Boy in the Box

Joseph Augustus Zarelli has finally been identified. Here's what we know and what we don't about the Boy in the Box case.

www.inquirer.com

It also mentions pleural effusions which doesn’t seem to fit with his traumatic injuries. From what I could find online:

“Pleural effusion can occur if your child has a lung inflammation or bacterial infection. It can also happen if fluid builds up after a surgery. If not treated, pleural effusion can lead to serious breathing problems. That’s why your child needs treatment right away.”

When Your Child Has Pleural Effusion

Pleural effusion occurs when too much fluid builds up in the pleural space. This is the area between the chest wall and lung. Learn more about this condition and how it's treated.

www.saintlukeskc.org

I read somewhere that it looked like he had a chest tube at one time? Could that have been related to a previous lung infection ?

It does sound like he may have had a chronic health condition made worse by neglect and abuse.

Does anyone else remember reading about a scar that looked like the site of a previous chest tube?

According to this linked article, “It is recognized that pleural effusion originates either in exogenous water inhaled into the lungs during drowning or in the endogenous water of the pulmonary edema, as in the process of acute death by asphyxiation.”
The Role of Pleural Effusion in Drowning : The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology
So the pleural effusions actually align with M’s story where she claimed that after a beating, he was forced into a bath by her mother.

 

[spacedcurls]

M seemed to have some very significant info that was corroborated by witness statements, such as the man who pulled over to help M and her mother because he thought they were having car trouble. My first question regarding her is the house she went to to exchange an envelope (likely of money) for a little boy. Surely that was the police department's first question for her. At 11 years old you'd probably know at least a general area unless it was far from your home.

M thought they were still in Philadelphia, but Philly is big and has many different neighborhoods. I'm 28, have lived in the suburbs of Philly all of my life, and even lived in Philly for a few years for college, and I wouldn't necessarily know what neighborhood I was in if I was driven somewhere. I've heard of them all, sure, but to be driven to one, especially as a child? No way I would know where I was.

 

[RaspberryMama]

There's also no way to know for certain that the two known siblings are older or younger than Joseph, due to the range of years that they requested records for -- they likely just picked a range with a little leeway in case Joseph turned out to be older than he appeared due to being malnourished/stunted/etc.

Thank you for pointing this out. I think since they mentioned those two first I assumed, ridiculously, that they were born first. I do know that 2 previously mentioned babies who were dead at or shortly after birth can NOT be the two others mentioned at the PC.

 

[Alleykins]

I completely disagree about the public's "right" to know anything, trumping the family's privacy. While this case has been public knowledge for decades, and while yes, we all want to see justice served, LE handling this case know a heck of a lot more than the public does, and if THEY made the choice to not identify them to the public, they have a good reason for that I will respect it. And, respect the family's right not to have their names tossed around on a public forum.

jmo

I totally agree with you. I suspect LE has good reason for not naming the parents publicly, and there's a good chance the living siblings had no clue about Joseph. They were either too young, were born after, or were never told about him. They're not responsible for what happened to him, and should bear no public shame for it, but we all know there are rabid members of the public out there who will cross that boundary and troll these people if their names are released.
That's why someone should be cautioning Joseph's family not to comment about it on social media and make their accounts private, if they haven't been cautioned already. They definitely shouldn't be outing themselves by putting up tik tok or youtube videos about it if they want to keep their privacy.

 

[musicaljoke]

That's how it is here in Ohio too but if the mother's maiden name is listed and the child has the same last name as the mother the implication would be that the mother and father were not married. We're talking about 1953 not 2022. It would be much less likely that a married woman would not take her husband's last name then than it is today. So Zarelli could be the father's name, but it could also be the mother's maiden name because they weren't married.

There is another option. Zarelli could be neither the father's nor the mother's name. If Miss X became pregnant through a relationship with Mr. Y, but before the child was born, she married Mr. Z, then the baby born in the marriage would have the last name Z, which would be neither bio parent's name.

 

[RaspberryMama]

The search warrant for birth certificate’s for the mother was for the years 1944-1956. So, perhaps wrongly, assume Joseph had older sisters.

Having all 3 births between1953 and 1956, would be difficult - unless, of course, one or both of the other babies were premature. I do think it's likely that at least one of the children was born before Joseph.

Btw, why sisters?

 

[amybman1]

That's how I interpreted it, too. Because of the time range of the records requested and how it was worded, I also got the sense that the known maternal siblings may not have known about Joseph, either.

I believe they said this was done through mitochondrial DNA matching, which reveals maternal lineage-- that may be why they specified that. For the father's info, I'm assuming they're banking on the name on the birth certificate-- I can't think of another way that they could find a match until technology allows them to better examine his badly-degraded DNA. (Of course, I may have misunderstood)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I might be late to the game, but I just saw this video on Facebook. It looks like a little Joseph grew up which means they probably can rule out some of the theories that we have floating around.

Does anyone know anything about this area?

https://www.facebook.com/100057309196042/posts/637334418186859

Near 61st and Market. From what I can tell, it was about 2,600 feet of that.

 

[CCJD]

I disagree that this alleged bio-father didn't know. (I disagree that this person is in fact undoubtedly the father, tbh.) MOO only because I'm still searching for a good link, but at that time period in PA, any person named as father had to sign an acknowledgement of paternity in order to have his name on the bc. Or he had to sign the original bc.

SO, if this "alleged bio-father" is the actual father on the bc... He could not have NOT known.

IMO,MOO,etc.

Unless someone other than the bio-father (cousin, brother, close friend...) signed the BC. I'm pretty sure photo IDs (like Drivers Licenses) weren't around then. Info was just written in longhand. And that could account for the father's misspelled name on the BC. And the bio-father would be totally unaware.
IMO

 

[jessr927]

Unless someone other than the bio-father (cousin, brother, close friend...) signed the BC. I'm pretty sure photo IDs (like Drivers Licenses) weren't around then. Info was just written in longhand. And that could account for the father's misspelled name on the BC. And the bio-father would be totally unaware.
IMO

You know, the more I think about it, I don't think it was a misspelling. I think it was a shortening of the father's first name - what the mother knew him as.

 

[alexina]

If the family wants privacy, it is something that should be respected.

However, the very moment police released JAZ's identity and gave his full name, it should've been known what would follow. Frenzy! The police and the families should've been aware of that!

And people right away started digging for information, taking some wild guesses and hurting remaining family members, who most likely didn't have a clue about this precious child's existence. That way it was found that certain Zarelli was the father and his wife the mother. But then, it could be maybe his brother or a sister. Or maybe he was adopted out right away or sold. Or maybe he lived with his mother and her new husband.

I wanted to say that the police should've waited to know more, and then to disclosed his identity. Unless they wanted to generate more tips...

JMO

 

[citizen_sleuth]

It was not until 1954 that the Pennsylvania legislature established a centralized adoption and child welfare agency, and a sizable percentage of adoptions took place outside of the system. A family court judge in Pittsburgh estimated that in 1953, over half of all children adopted in Allegheny County were taken in by relatives (or sold on the black or gray markets) with little red tape. In Delaware County, two-thirds of all children placed for adoption in 1959 were illegitimate. Of those placed for adoption in the county, only 99 were born there while 248 were born elsewhere in Pennsylvania and 45 were born out of state. Additionally, anyone––not just the biological parents––were allowed to place a child up for adoption. In one case, an insurance adjuster placed a child up for adoption. Anyone could also foster a child without undergoing any examination as to their fitness or ability to care for them.

Prior to this change, parents were not required to relinquish their parental rights to the child before placing them with an agency, meaning they could come back and claim the child years after surrendering them. In one particularly high-profile case, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruled that a mother who had placed her child up for adoption three months ago could take back custody from the foster family because she was a minor at the time of the child's birth, and therefore could not legally consent to relinquishing her parental rights.

The state's new Adoption Law went into effect on January 1, 1954, and strengthened the legal rights of the child, biological parents, and adoptive parents in addition to establishing oversight procedures, such as requiring welfare agencies to obtain licenses. However, even the new 'stricter' standards had loopholes. For example, when a child was adopted out to a blood relative, a placement report was not legally required.

As the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Press opined in 1951, "Anybody––repeat, anybody––can place a child for adoption. No license. No accounting to the State for the responsibility of the person handling the adoption. Pennsylvania does not regulate the placing of children for adoption."

In pre-1954 Philadelphia, numerous children were adopted out through the black market, with physicians and lawyers collecting hefty fees for connecting children with childless couples, sometimes commanding prices as high as $2,500. The Philadelphia District Attorney launched an investigation into these black market adoption rings in 1952. Investigators described a typical scenario in which children are 'sold' by these black market rings:

In a typical operation called to the attention of the investigators, a young unwed mother had gone to a doctor for pre-natal care.

Arrangements were made for her to be admitted to a hospital for the delivery of the baby.

In the meantime, a lawyer representing a well-to-do but childless couple contacted the doctor and asked that the baby be turned over to them for eventual adoption.

An agreement was reached for payment of a substantial fee of more than $1000, covering the young mother's hospital and medical expenses.

As soon as possible after the baby's birth, by agreement with the mother, the child was taken from her and delivered to the childless couple. The mother signed an agreement relinquishing her right to the child. She never met the couple to whom her baby was delivered and did not know their name or address.

After reading up on the adoption practices of the time, I think there are two main takeaways: 1) Joseph's mother likely had no idea who her child was adopted out to, and/or 2) if his mother was from Philadelphia, it is more likely that Joseph was adopted by a blood relative since relatively few children were adopted by unrelated couples living in the same community as the mother.

Sources
Edwin Beachler, "Baby Black Market Curbs: State Offered Ways to End Heartache in Adoptions," Pittsburgh Press, 2 March 1951, 2nd sec., 19.

Editorial Board, "The Shame of Pennsylvania," Pittsburgh Press, 25 May 1951, 26.

Joseph H. Trachtman, "Black Market in Babies Bared by D.A.'s Office; Prices as High as $2500," Philadelphia Inquirer, 25 June 1952, 1, 25. [part 1] [part 2]

Mina Wetzig, "New Laws Would Halt Future Sharon Ann Adoption Fiasco," Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, 14 January 1953, 28.

L. R. Lindgren, "Baby Adoption Bills To End 'Black Market' Ready For Governor," Pittsburgh Press, 4 March 1953, 18.

"95 Children Being Adopted: Spirit of Christmas and Law Deadline Cause Rush," Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, 20 December 1953, 25.

John Trone, "State's Adoption Laws Just Aspirin That Can't Cure Heartbreak, Cox Says," Pittsburgh Press, 21 February 1954, 2nd sec., 1.

Marilyn Ferguson, "Pa. Adoption Laws Improving Slowly," Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, 14 August 1956,

Ron Lawrence, "Joyous Ending of Adoption Follows Long Period of Anxiety, Frustration," Delaware County Daily Times, 5 April 1960, 24.