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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I get from this is the bassinet most likely was purchased for a newborn who was due/born around the purchase dates, give or take a month or two. J would have been too big for a bassinet at that point, so it wasn't purchased for him.

I'm blown they could narrow down the purchase date and how many, and who bought 11 of them, etc, given it would have all been on paper, with cash, not electronic records.
I think it's a testament to how badly the detectives wanted to solve the case. There was a lot of good, old-fashioned detective work that went into this case over the years...Philly PD never gave up on Joseph!
 
i don’t post often but is it known that PA has badly kept records or is it that common of all states?
I've been working on a genealogy project for about 2 1/2 years and almost all my records are PA and it's true-- they're a mess. I'm sure large influxes of immigrants, some literate some not, made it very difficult to keep good records-- things were just written as they sounded or Americanized into something easier.
 
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
They did say they were hoping for a new, large influx of tips. Not those exact words.
 
What I get from this is the bassinet most likely was purchased for a newborn who was due/born around the purchase dates, give or take a month or two. J would have been too big for a bassinet at that point, so it wasn't purchased for him.

I'm blown they could narrow down the purchase date and how many, and who bought 11 of them, etc, given it would have all been on paper, with cash, not electronic records.
I believe that right off the bat, the owners of 8 of the 12 contacted police, and eventually they accounted for 11. The 12th perhaps being in that large foster home run by the Nicoletti family (a similar model to what would have been sold in that box at least). However, I *think* the box was perhaps believed to already be on the side of the road when the body was placed in it, so it may have little/no connection to those that purchased the bassinets.
 
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.
When they hinted that they knew who he was last year and then we had almost a year's delay, I kinda felt the info would be limited. I think we got more info than I expected.

I sure wish I could see pic of him.
I wish they could tell more of his story, but I kinda expected this.
 
What I get from this is the bassinet most likely was purchased for a newborn who was due/born around the purchase dates, give or take a month or two. J would have been too big for a bassinet at that point, so it wasn't purchased for him.

I'm blown they could narrow down the purchase date and how many, and who bought 11 of them, etc, given it would have all been on paper, with cash, not electronic records.
Exactly. could have come from his house or maybe it was taken from curbside trash waiting to be picked up. That website has all the news archives and I didn't see any follow up to the story about the bassinet box that was published shortly after he was found - A1_bassinet
 
There was something in the presser I didn't understand, not being a medical person - the ME said there was evidence that he had some sort of intravenous treatment, was the correct, and what was the significance of that? Would that have had to have happened shortly prior to his death?

If I recall, there was some sort of evidence of a surgery, wasn't there? I wonder if those records still exist.
There is a lot of clarification here: Case Summary

The IV treatment resulted in scares as they inserted tubes that required stitches. They did try to find the records but it was too late-- the doctor was deceased and his wife had destroyed his patient records about 5 years before.
 
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?
Joseph was born only 13 days into 1953 so there is basically 4 whole years (1953, 1954, 1955, 1956) to recover from Joseph's birth, and to bear two other children, which is entirely possible. There are many women who have 3 children under 4, and there's also a possibility the two other children could be twins.
 

Joseph was born only 13 days into 1953 so there is basically 4 whole years (1953, 1954, 1955, 1956) to recover from Joseph's birth, and to bear two other children, which is entirely possible. There are many women who have 3 children under 4, and there's also a possibility the two other children could be twins.
Ok, yes, that makes sense. Thank you!
 
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.
DNA
 
I don't believe birth certificates are public record for 100 years in PA.
105 years actually. So unless a close family member has requested a copy of it, and posted it online, there is no way it's out there. Until 2058 only family (or LE. of course) can request it. I might not be around then, so I really hope one of them does.
 
What I get from this is the bassinet most likely was purchased for a newborn who was due/born around the purchase dates, give or take a month or two. J would have been too big for a bassinet at that point, so it wasn't purchased for him.

I'm blown they could narrow down the purchase date and how many, and who bought 11 of them, etc, given it would have all been on paper, with cash, not electronic records.
People who had purchased bassinettes volunteered the information.


I don't know if 11 is the exact number accounted for, but a majority of them were.
 
i don’t post often but is it known that PA has badly kept records or is it that common of all states?
Not all states. Texas, Indiana, Virginia, California etc all have some decent public records. In another state we could see public marriage indexes, birth indexes etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
1,600
Total visitors
1,744

Forum statistics

Threads
600,668
Messages
18,111,812
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top