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

[IDK]

Corneal vital staining with gentian violet - PubMed

We have used 0.5% gentian violet solution as a corneal vital stain in 112 patients with variable degrees of corneal involvements and in 40 normal eyes as control. Gentian violet stained the epithelial defects and degenerated epithelial cells of cornea. The stain persisted 3-5 minutes and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Corneal vital staining with gentian violet​

A Islam 1, A Khan, Z A Rahman
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 1710886

Abstract​

We have used 0.5% gentian violet solution as a corneal vital stain in 112 patients with variable degrees of corneal involvements and in 40 normal eyes as control. Gentian violet stained the epithelial defects and degenerated epithelial cells of cornea. The stain persisted 3-5 minutes and disappeared by 8-10 minutes. There was no cross infection from dye use. The dye did not hamper usual process of repair of corneal lesions

_____________________
<modsnip - off topic>

Just because a label says, "Don't do this", doesn't mean that people won't do this or that.

Thanks for your reply! Your article says though:

“The stain persisted 3-5 minutes and disappeared by 8-10 minutes. There was no cross infection from dye use. The dye did not hamper usual process of repair of corneal lesions”

His was still present after who knows how many days or even weeks? Not trying to give you a hard time— just trying to drill down to exactly what was used in his eye and if it would only have been available from a doctor.

 

[Friday Fan]

Anyway, people were asking how JAZ got dark blue dye in his eyes. All I could think of was gentian violet. Is there any dark blue eye that people in their eyes anyway?

Then I checked to see if it had been used as a home remedy for eye conditions in the past. While I couldn't find out if it was a treatment, I found out that it has been used as a diagnostic dye.

 

[Friday Fan]

Thanks for your reply! Your article says though:

“The stain persisted 3-5 minutes and disappeared by 8-10 minutes. There was no cross infection from dye use. The dye did not hamper usual process of repair of corneal lesions”

His was still present after who knows how many days or even weeks? Not trying to give you a hard time— just trying to drill down to exactly what was used in his eye and if it would only have been available from a doctor.

I can't think of any other explanation for blue dye in his eyes??

 

[IDK]

Anyway, people were asking how JAZ got dark blue dye in his eyes. All I could think of was gentian violet. Is there any dark blue eye that people in their eyes anyway?

Then I checked to see if it had been used as a home remedy for eye conditions in the past. While I couldn't find out if it was a treatment, I found out that it has been used as a diagnostic dye.

Yes, definitely appreciate the research and the chance to bounce ideas around. I had thought of flouroscein dye ( used to diagnose corneal abrasions) and then found out it is orange! Oh well.

 

[spacedcurls]

I can't think of any other explanation for blue dye in his eyes??

I don’t know that the dye itself was blue, but it fluoresced blue under UV light.

 

[IDK]

I can't think of any other explanation for blue dye in his eyes??

Yes it’s all very strange

 

[IDK]

I found, while googling, it was used for treating eye & skin infections on animals.
https://publications.iarc.fr/_publi.../97810b4d6d234a5ea15f3d0c0e846e1f9425e0c2.pdf page 46

That might suggest :
the people giving it to him had animals (& wanted to use the treatment on him)
or
that back in the days they used it on peoples eyes also, and it was only later on that scientists noticed it was unhealthy (like so many treatments in the past).

Moo

(Edited to add link)

Interesting find. I have to go back and read about the Horsham suspects— didn’t they live on a farm?

 

[Friday Fan]

Yes it’s all very strange

I'm not worried about it.

I don't expect killers to be "health conscience" individuals.

I don't believe JAZ was seen by a doctor that shortly before his death.
Eyedrops generally don't stay in the eye for very long.

It could have just been a "thing" or an "anomoly"

 

[steff13]

I can't think of any other explanation for blue dye in his eyes??

The records I have read says it was a treatment, but could it be a test rather than a treatment? Maybe fluorescein dye.

 

[Shamrock1]

I’m sure someone already checked with Wills for pediatric records. I’d be very surprised if they still exist; JMO that adult records from the late 1970s do not for Wills’ uveal & oncology depts. (And obviously Wills was not the only provider in town).

 

[fred&edna]

MOO, I believe her story (IDK if it was Joseph, but more likely than not if it is true IMO) I think she misunderstood what happened with the exchange of money (I think people paid others to care for their children that they did not want to care for themselves, much like the current foster system) IMO

After spending the last hour or so reading/researching some additional info, I understand why many believe M's story. I just wish LE had been able to confirm/validate at least some of her story.

 

[Erutan]

I agree except I haven’t seen anything saying Martha was correct about the beans. Everything else I’ve seen she could easily have gotten from newspapers. I don’t believe her yet I don’t not believe her. I’m just not sure & there is probably a reason police didn’t investigate further than they did

Curious if that will be explained ?

 

[louellen]

I know this is deeply unsatisfying to many of us, but I think it's possible no one has come forward from Joseph's family members to share more information....because they honestly just don't know anything else.

We don't know definitively that Joseph was adopted, but here's something I think to consider. Imagine you're a single woman, finding herself pregnant in the early 1950s (when there was no oral contraception, abortion was illegal, and there's huge societal stigma about single parenthood). Now imagine you go someplace (say, a Catholic "home for unwed mothers," like the one across the street from where Joseph's body was found), carry out your pregnancy, give birth, and your child is immediately placed for adoption. At the time, it is unlikely you know who has adopted your child -- this was treated as exceptionally "secret," especially through Catholic adoption agencies. You may (or may not) have ever informed the baby's father of his conception/birth. Or, maybe he knows but does not believe he is the biological father, or wishes to pretend he isn't. Or maybe he knows and he agrees with you to keep this a secret between the two of you.

Now imagine both you and the child's father go on to live the rest of your lives separately. Maybe you marry; maybe you have additional kids with other partners. Now both you and the child's biological father are deceased, and maybe neither of you have ever told anyone else about the child. Suddenly your descendants/relatives are informed they have a DNA match to a relative (Joseph) who was a murdered child. A child no one knows ever existed, let alone who he was raised by (see: adoption).

I suppose they could come out and say, "We literally know nothing about this, we were never informed, and we have no idea what happened." But would that be satisfying either?

Just IMO -- the fact no one has come forward doesn't mean that people are ashamed or hiding something as much as it might mean they have literally no other knowledge. Not even "oh, we heard there was some baby adopted by XYZ."

 

[cuecard]

I know this is deeply unsatisfying to many of us, but I think it's possible no one has come forward from Joseph's family members to share more information....because they honestly just don't know anything else.

We don't know definitively that Joseph was adopted, but here's something I think to consider. Imagine you're a single woman, finding herself pregnant in the early 1950s (when there was no oral contraception, abortion was illegal, and there's huge societal stigma about single parenthood). Now imagine you go someplace (say, a Catholic "home for unwed mothers," like the one across the street from where Joseph's body was found), carry out your pregnancy, give birth, and your child is immediately placed for adoption. At the time, it is unlikely you know who has adopted your child -- this was treated as exceptionally "secret," especially through Catholic adoption agencies. You may (or may not) have ever informed the baby's father of his conception/birth. Or, maybe he knows but does not believe he is the biological father, or wishes to pretend he isn't. Or maybe he knows and he agrees with you to keep this a secret between the two of you.

Now imagine both you and the child's father go on to live the rest of your lives. Maybe you marry; maybe you have kids. Now both you and the child's biological father are deceased, and maybe neither of you have ever told anyone else about the child. Suddenly your descendants/relatives are informed they have a DNA match to a relative (Joseph) who was a murdered child.

I suppose they could come out and say, "We literally know nothing about this, we were never informed, and we have no idea what happened." But would that be satisfying either?

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Joseph's currently living family - on either side - genuinely doesn't know anything about him and didn't know of his existence until very recently when LE reached out. There's a TV show here in the UK called Long Lost Family in which you see people searching for their mother/father after being adopted as a baby due to their parents being very young, unmarried etc and the parents have unfortunately passed away but siblings who are 65-70 years of age discover they have a sibling that they never knew existed. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the same in Joseph's case.

 

[Gravity Well]

Although we now have a name, it feels all the more sad that little Joe must have lived such a miserable and fearful short life.

My elation at finding his identity is replaced by one of anger at the people who did this to him. The fact that LE are holding back information hints that there is some hope of finding out the truth.

RIP little man.

 

[UnlicensedPI]

Not directly related to this case, but a fascinating story with some details about the black market baby trade in the 1950s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/interactive/2022/dna-testing-bryntwick-siblings/

 

[Erutan]

I know this is deeply unsatisfying to many of us, but I think it's possible no one has come forward from Joseph's family members to share more information....because they honestly just don't know anything else.

We don't know definitively that Joseph was adopted, but here's something I think to consider. Imagine you're a single woman, finding herself pregnant in the early 1950s (when there was no oral contraception, abortion was illegal, and there's huge societal stigma about single parenthood). Now imagine you go someplace (say, a Catholic "home for unwed mothers," like the one across the street from where Joseph's body was found), carry out your pregnancy, give birth, and your child is immediately placed for adoption. At the time, it is unlikely you know who has adopted your child -- this was treated as exceptionally "secret," especially through Catholic adoption agencies. You may (or may not) have ever informed the baby's father of his conception/birth. Or, maybe he knows but does not believe he is the biological father, or wishes to pretend he isn't. Or maybe he knows and he agrees with you to keep this a secret between the two of you.

Now imagine both you and the child's father go on to live the rest of your lives separately. Maybe you marry; maybe you have additional kids with other partners. Now both you and the child's biological father are deceased, and maybe neither of you have ever told anyone else about the child. Suddenly your descendants/relatives are informed they have a DNA match to a relative (Joseph) who was a murdered child. A child no one knows ever existed, let alone who he was raised by (see: adoption).

I suppose they could come out and say, "We literally know nothing about this, we were never informed, and we have no idea what happened." But would that be satisfying either?

Just IMO -- the fact no one has come forward doesn't mean that people are ashamed or hiding something as much as it might mean they have literally no other knowledge. Not even "oh, we heard there was some baby adopted by XYZ."

I think that was well said, @louellen .

My only concern was that if there was foul play (& I think that was the case due to the condition of his remains ), there needs to be justice for Joseph ?
After all this time, that might not be possible, realistically.
So sad.
At least his tombstone can be properly titled, now.
Imo.

 

[steff13]

Curious if that will be explained ?

LE investigated M's claims for 6 months.

 

[BD1]

I know this is deeply unsatisfying to many of us, but I think it's possible no one has come forward from Joseph's family members to share more information....because they honestly just don't know anything else.

We don't know definitively that Joseph was adopted, but here's something I think to consider. Imagine you're a single woman, finding herself pregnant in the early 1950s (when there was no oral contraception, abortion was illegal, and there's huge societal stigma about single parenthood). Now imagine you go someplace (say, a Catholic "home for unwed mothers," like the one across the street from where Joseph's body was found), carry out your pregnancy, give birth, and your child is immediately placed for adoption. At the time, it is unlikely you know who has adopted your child -- this was treated as exceptionally "secret," especially through Catholic adoption agencies. You may (or may not) have ever informed the baby's father of his conception/birth. Or, maybe he knows but does not believe he is the biological father, or wishes to pretend he isn't. Or maybe he knows and he agrees with you to keep this a secret between the two of you.

Now imagine both you and the child's father go on to live the rest of your lives separately. Maybe you marry; maybe you have additional kids with other partners. Now both you and the child's biological father are deceased, and maybe neither of you have ever told anyone else about the child. Suddenly your descendants/relatives are informed they have a DNA match to a relative (Joseph) who was a murdered child. A child no one knows ever existed, let alone who he was raised by (see: adoption).

I suppose they could come out and say, "We literally know nothing about this, we were never informed, and we have no idea what happened." But would that be satisfying either?

Just IMO -- the fact no one has come forward doesn't mean that people are ashamed or hiding something as much as it might mean they have literally no other knowledge. Not even "oh, we heard there was some baby adopted by XYZ."

This very thing happened in my family. My deeply Catholic great grandfather conceived a child out of wedlock with a deeply Catholic girl in the 1930's, prior to marrying my great grandmother. She delivered in a Catholic mother's home, and gave the baby up for them to place in an adoptive home. Interestingly, she married another man a year later and somehow got her boy back to raise. This child grew up a town away from my great grandfather and his wife and children. He never knew about this son in his life, and when I did his daughter's DNA kit, saw such a close match between the son's children and my great aunt, and then saw they listed my great grandfather in their family tree, it was an absolute shock to my great aunts that they had had a brother all these years and they had NO idea. I actually cried telling my great aunts as they are in their 80's and their brother had passed away already. I had no idea how they would take it. It was very hard.

 

[Shade13]

So have they announced who the mother was and how he ended up like that?