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

[IDK]

Why are we so attached to the idea that Joseph was disabled in this thread?

Is it because of Martha's story, which Colleen Fitzpatrick herself has said is not linked to Joseph?

Can someone show me somewhere where historic or current LE or others linked to the actual investigation assert this is likely, or even possible?

Because I can't find it. And I fear we're attached to something because of Martha's story that we now know isn't Joseph's story.

And, as far as I can tell, all the pathologist/LE descriptions describe Joseph as beaten, emaciated, and with minor surgical scarring, possibly from infancy, but otherwise, normal.

I know not all disabilities show on the skin or the face. I'm multiply neurodivergent myself. But I do wonder if we're stuck on him being a hidden disabled child because we're looking for some kind of reason or justification, when the reality is, there's no justification for this, and there's every chance Joseph was a neurotypical, nondisabled child that was murdered for no reason at all, like so many of the precious children who have their own threads here on Websleuths.

EDIT: This is in no way cranky or trying to tell others what to post, I am just trying to understand why the 'he was disabled' idea keeps coming back around, when, as far as I can find, there's no evidence to suggest he was.

For me, it’s a piece of the puzzle that I am trying to understand. You’re right, it’s possible there were no disabilities at all. Also, my thinking is not related to the M story ( unless subconsciously) as I’ve always questioned that account.

But if say Joseph had been a premature baby, there wouldn’t necessarily be outward evidence other than maybe small size. The puzzle of IV cutdown, possible chest tube, dye in his eye could all fit with the known evidence. The same with erythroblastosis fetalis due to his half sister’s early death.

So that’s why I consider it a strong possibility, could be totally wrong.

 

[iamshadow21]

I do feel 'stuck' on this as a strong possibility, but not because of Martha's story...
Back then, kids were outside...even in the cities. People knew who had kids, and saw them here and there........The concept of neighborhood and neighborliness was strong...

I feel strongly that Joseph was hidden.

I agree, it's probable that Joseph was hidden, because his physical condition would be hard to explain away if neighbours saw him, thin and bruised. But that happens to abused children everywhere. <modsnip - no link> Maybe it doesn't matter in the narrative of how Joseph ended up dying the way he did, but I think it's kind of talked about on here as though there's hard evidence he was disabled, and as far as I can tell, there isn't. I'm happy to be corrected, if there is some, somewhere, but this is a 'cite your source' kind of forum, and I just haven't seen any sources. Talk about Martha's story, talk about possible institutions in the area, <modsnip>, but nothing that actually connects directly to Joseph. I just don't want it to become another fact that isn't a fact, that becomes solid and real because it gets repeated so much, like all of the whispers that come up over and over again in the long threads with little hard evidence known to the public, like Delphi, for example.

 

[Alleykins]

Why are we so attached to the idea that Joseph was disabled in this thread?

Is it because of Martha's story, which Colleen Fitzpatrick herself has said is not linked to Joseph?

Can someone show me somewhere where historic or current LE or others linked to the actual investigation assert this is likely, or even possible?

Because I can't find it. And I fear we're attached to something because of Martha's story that we now know isn't Joseph's story.

And, as far as I can tell, all the pathologist/LE descriptions describe Joseph as beaten, emaciated, and with minor surgical scarring, possibly from infancy, but otherwise, normal.

I know not all disabilities show on the skin or the face. I'm multiply neurodivergent myself. But I do wonder if we're stuck on him being a hidden disabled child because we're looking for some kind of reason or justification, when the reality is, there's no justification for this, and there's every chance Joseph was a neurotypical, nondisabled child that was murdered for no reason at all, like so many of the precious children who have their own threads here on Websleuths.

EDIT: This is in no way cranky or trying to tell others what to post, I am just trying to understand why the 'he was disabled' idea keeps coming back around, when, as far as I can find, there's no evidence to suggest he was.

I agree with this and your subsequent post (it popped up while I was typing this reply).

 

[Ilex]

Why are we so attached to the idea that Joseph was disabled in this thread?

Is it because of Martha's story, which Colleen Fitzpatrick herself has said is not linked to Joseph?

Can someone show me somewhere where historic or current LE or others linked to the actual investigation assert this is likely, or even possible?

Because I can't find it. And I fear we're attached to something because of Martha's story that we now know isn't Joseph's story.

And, as far as I can tell, all the pathologist/LE descriptions describe Joseph as beaten, emaciated, and with minor surgical scarring, possibly from infancy, but otherwise, normal.

I know not all disabilities show on the skin or the face. I'm multiply neurodivergent myself. But I do wonder if we're stuck on him being a hidden disabled child because we're looking for some kind of reason or justification, when the reality is, there's no justification for this, and there's every chance Joseph was a neurotypical, nondisabled child that was murdered for no reason at all, like so many of the precious children who have their own threads here on Websleuths.

EDIT: This is in no way cranky or trying to tell others what to post, I am just trying to understand why the 'he was disabled' idea keeps coming back around, when, as far as I can find, there's no evidence to suggest he was.

I'm not discussing disability because of anyone's stories. I don't know who Martha is, so I'm not sure what the reference is there. Nor is it to justify his murder. In my opinion he had some issues at some point in his really young life that necessitated some surgical interventions, one most likely being a hernia along with some other procedure done through the chest area. When I see those two things together I think of the cascade of symptoms that coincide with Down's syndrome. Not all people with Down's have the eye folds or mongolism, so it's possible. That might explain the early surgical interventions and might be a step closer to jogging someone's memory or finding out where he may have been treated and who may have treated him, not to justify his death. Some hospital treated him, most likely under a name not on his birth certificate. Maybe if that could be traced, something could be shaken loose? I don't know if, when they did his DNA testing, he was tested for any medical issues or if it was just a familial DNA test. It's worth discussing but it's not in any way meant to imply he deserved to be beaten to death and discarded. IMO he was adopted out to someone and hopefully his adoptive name will be found.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I agree, it's probable that Joseph was hidden, because his physical condition would be hard to explain away if neighbours saw him, thin and bruised. But that happens to abused children everywhere. <modsnip - no link> Maybe it doesn't matter in the narrative of how Joseph ended up dying the way he did, but I think it's kind of talked about on here as though there's hard evidence he was disabled, and as far as I can tell, there isn't. I'm happy to be corrected, if there is some, somewhere, but this is a 'cite your source' kind of forum, and I just haven't seen any sources. Talk about Martha's story, talk about possible institutions in the area, <modsnip>, but nothing that actually connects directly to Joseph. I just don't want it to become another fact that isn't a fact, that becomes solid and real because it gets repeated so much, like all of the whispers that come up over and over again in the long threads with little hard evidence known to the public, like Delphi, for example.

This case does seem to lend itself to wilder speculation than most, I suspect because there is so little concrete evidence. And I agree, speculation can be like a game of telephone when there is not much to go on. "Baked beans" in his stomach being a fact is one example. In reality, there was nothing in his stomach.

The assumption of many that he was disabled or "special needs" (I don't think the term existed in the 1950s) is not based on factual information. It's as though people need to find a reason for his murder, as if just being a vulnerable four year old wasn't enough for something like this to happen - there HAD to be something wrong with HIM.

The vast majority of murdered children have no disabilities or special needs and there is no reason to believe Joseph had any mental or physical limitations. All we know is that he probably had some sort of surgery at some point and that the ME believed he'd been in ill health for a period of time. But that was probably because of the extent of the malnutrition, not because of a specific physical illness. He died because he was battered to death and his emaciation was almost certainly a result of him having limited access to food. Whoever starved him probably also beat him.

 

[IDK]

Wow, I have done some speculating about a possible disabilty, but never because I felt that would justify abuse. Also not because of M’s story which I remain skeptical about. Speculation does not equal assumption. Are we not allowed to speculate on this forum? If not, that should be posted somewhere. IMO. Yikes.

 

[iamshadow21]

I'm not discussing disability because of anyone's stories. I don't know who Martha is, so I'm not sure what the reference is there. Nor is it to justify his murder. In my opinion he had some issues at some point in his really young life that necessitated some surgical interventions, one most likely being a hernia along with some other procedure done through the chest area. When I see those two things together I think of the cascade of symptoms that coincide with Down's syndrome. Not all people with Down's have the eye folds or mongolism, so it's possible. That might explain the early surgical interventions and might be a step closer to jogging someone's memory or finding out where he may have been treated and who may have treated him, not to justify his death. Some hospital treated him, most likely under a name not on his birth certificate. Maybe if that could be traced, something could be shaken loose? I don't know if, when they did his DNA testing, he was tested for any medical issues or if it was just a familial DNA test. It's worth discussing but it's not in any way meant to imply he deserved to be beaten to death and discarded. IMO he was adopted out to someone and hopefully his adoptive name will be found.

Respectfully, Down Syndrome would show up very, very clearly on genetic testing, regardless of whether his facial features were strongly characteristic of the condition. Joseph has had multiple rounds of genetic testing. He did not have DS. That m word you used is an older term for the condition (not a term for a distinct facial feature) that is no longer used because of the racist connotations. Down Syndrome has been the accepted term for many years.

If you don't know who Martha is and her connection to this case, then it may be worth your time to read up on the history of the investigation and the developments of this case over the decades. Then you will know what we are talking about when we reference Martha.

 

[IDK]

Putting this out there, since there is also possible evidence of hernia surgery (groin incision). Just an interesting observation. Please scroll past if this doesn’t interest you.


“Infants who are born prematurely are at an increased risk of having an inguinal hernia. For example, about one-third of baby boys born at less than 33 weeks gestation will have an inguinal hernia.”

Inguinal Hernia | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

An inguinal hernia is a bulge or protrusion that is seen or felt in the groin area or the scrotum (for boys). Inguinal hernias are treated surgically.

www.chop.edu

 

[Ilex]

If we believe the relative who says MEP's prior child was given up for adoption to a Catholic organization, and if Joseph was also given up for adoption to the same agency, could it have been the Catholic Social Services of Philadelphia? I would imagine the Archdiocese must have some record. If Joseph was adopted by a Catholic family they would have wanted him baptized with a new name. I'm trying to think, other than newspapers, of any place to search baptismal records for that time period. Any ideas?

 

[Ilex]

Putting this out there, since there is also possible evidence of hernia surgery (groin incision). Just an interesting observation. Please scroll past if this doesn’t interest you.


“Infants who are born prematurely are at an increased risk of having an inguinal hernia. For example, about one-third of baby boys born at less than 33 weeks gestation will have an inguinal hernia.”

Inguinal Hernia | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

An inguinal hernia is a bulge or protrusion that is seen or felt in the groin area or the scrotum (for boys). Inguinal hernias are treated surgically.

www.chop.edu

Wow, didn't realize the numbers were that high for preemies. So it begs the question of whether Joseph was premature. Hmmm...that might explain a few things. It would explain the cut down, the hernia and it might explain a chest tube early on (when babies are premature they can have issues breathing). Unfortunately it might not be helpful to find his adoptive parents since that would mean the medical interventions were done under his birth name, most likely during the first few days of his life.

 

[Alleykins]

I'm no expert, so I'm putting it out there. Where Down's Syndrome is chromosomal, wouldn't that have shown up when they did his DNA profile if Joseph had it?

 

[loveplace]

I'm no expert, so I'm putting it out there. Where Down's Syndrome is chromosomal, wouldn't that have shown up when they did his DNA profile if Joseph had it?

Yes definitely.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Wow, didn't realize the numbers were that high for preemies. So it begs the question of whether Joseph was premature. Hmmm...that might explain a few things. It would explain the cut down, the hernia and it might explain a chest tube early on (when babies are premature they can have issues breathing).

I think it's worth keeping in mind that a much higher percentage of premature babies didn't survive back in 1953 so there would be far fewer in the baseline than today. Not that a full term baby can't develop a hernia. Also, I don't think surgical intervention was an option for babies with under-developed lungs back then.

 

[Ilex]

I'm no expert, so I'm putting it out there. Where Down's Syndrome is chromosomal, wouldn't that have shown up when they did his DNA profile if Joseph had it?

Not always. It depends on the test. For example, 23 and me doesn't test for Down's.

https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/236409067-Conditions-NOT-Included-In-23andMe

 

[iamshadow21]

Not always. It depends on the test. For example, 23 and me doesn't test for Down's.

https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/236409067-Conditions-NOT-Included-In-23andMe

23 and Me is a service for private citizens, not intended to replace medical specialists like geneticists. And the people using 23 and Me aren't Does needing identification.

It was law enforcement testing Joseph's DNA. They would have been testing using a broader scope. They needed a sample to run against entries in DNA databases, yes, but they also would have been testing for obvious genetic conditions like Down, heritage-specific patterns that might suggest a certain place or population, anything to help focus in on this child's identity. They look at DNA in a very different way to members of the public, and have different tools that are specifically designed to help solve crime and identify the unidentified.

 

[spacedcurls]

I have a strong feeling that Joseph wasn't adopted. I think she kept him and raised him and then married her husband. After their baby together was born I would guess stress was high in the home <modsnip>

It's also possible that after their baby was born, Joseph could have begun regressing in some behaviors such as bed wetting, bathroom accidents, acting younger/needier than before, etc. This can happen sometimes when there is a big life change, such as a new sibling, and it's possible it made a parent or step-parent very angry. JMO, of course, but a possibility.

 

[Jerri Blank]

I agree, it's probable that Joseph was hidden, because his physical condition would be hard to explain away if neighbours saw him, thin and bruised. But that happens to abused children everywhere. <modsnip - no link> Maybe it doesn't matter in the narrative of how Joseph ended up dying the way he did, but I think it's kind of talked about on here as though there's hard evidence he was disabled, and as far as I can tell, there isn't. I'm happy to be corrected, if there is some, somewhere, but this is a 'cite your source' kind of forum, and I just haven't seen any sources. Talk about Martha's story, talk about possible institutions in the area, <modsnip>, but nothing that actually connects directly to Joseph. I just don't want it to become another fact that isn't a fact, that becomes solid and real because it gets repeated so much, like all of the whispers that come up over and over again in the long threads with little hard evidence known to the public, like Delphi, for example.

i didnt think that this type of discussion was suggesting anything was fact, but i see your concern. you are right that many people are trying to make sense of this because it's so horrific. i never got the impression that anyone was implying that if he were "disabled" that is why he was killed. he was killed because he was failed by the people who promised to be responsible for him, full stop.

for my previous comment on neurodivergent kids like my own, i definitely wasnt diagnosing anyone... more thinking aloud that the world was not safe for kids back then, and how scary and sad that is to consider.

 

[iamshadow21]

i didnt think that this type of discussion was suggesting anything was fact, but i see your concern. you are right that many people are trying to make sense of this because it's so horrific. i never got the impression that anyone was implying that if he were "disabled" that is why he was killed. he was killed because he was failed by the people who promised to be responsible for him, full stop.

for my previous comment on neurodivergent kids like my own, i definitely wasnt diagnosing anyone... more thinking aloud that the world was not safe for kids back then, and how scary and sad that is to consider.

I agree with you completely that no one is responsible for this but his killer. But, as a parent of neurodivergent kiddos yourself, you probably would have seen the headlines and comments that turn up whenever a disabled, often autistic, child gets murdered by a caregiver. It swings very quickly from 'how could someone kill a child' to 'it must be so hard to have a disabled kid' and variations on the theme of the parent inevitably cracking under the strain of such a difficult child. I agree that parents of disabled kids should get all the support and respite they need, but I think that blaming society for a parent murdering a child is minimising and deflecting the responsibility from the person who chose violence.

I don't think anyone consciously thinks a disabled kid deserves to be abused or killed, but as we've all watched the justice system and how it deals - or chooses not to deal - with these offenders (lots of suspended sentences and not guiltys), we've all subconsciously absorbed those messages from society and the media, whether we like it or not.

So, when disability gets raised, it's a line we have to walk between actual circumstances and the possible or known disabilities a victim might have, and hearing about those disabilities and saying, 'oh, x-disabled-kids are so much work, they never sleep, they wet the bed, they must have been at their wits end' and the disability becoming a reason that's somehow understandable.

The former is acknowledging reality.

The latter is edging into victim-blaming, and it's bumping into TOS... as well as making me feel really icky.

Which is the reason why I asked the question, why are we attached to the idea of Joseph being disabled if it isn't grounded in fact?

Is it because we're trying to make sense of it using a subconscious bias? Because if it is, I'd rather know and correct that in myself, sharpish. But if there is fact to be found, I'd like to know that, too. The one thing I don't want to be doing is treating an assumption like it's a fact, when it isn't.

 

[RoseTree]

Why are we so attached to the idea that Joseph was disabled in this thread?

Is it because of Martha's story, which Colleen Fitzpatrick herself has said is not linked to Joseph?

Can someone show me somewhere where historic or current LE or others linked to the actual investigation assert this is likely, or even possible?

Because I can't find it. And I fear we're attached to something because of Martha's story that we now know isn't Joseph's story.

And, as far as I can tell, all the pathologist/LE descriptions describe Joseph as beaten, emaciated, and with minor surgical scarring, possibly from infancy, but otherwise, normal.

I know not all disabilities show on the skin or the face. I'm multiply neurodivergent myself. But I do wonder if we're stuck on him being a hidden disabled child because we're looking for some kind of reason or justification, when the reality is, there's no justification for this, and there's every chance Joseph was a neurotypical, nondisabled child that was murdered for no reason at all, like so many of the precious children who have their own threads here on Websleuths.

EDIT: This is in no way cranky or trying to tell others what to post, I am just trying to understand why the 'he was disabled' idea keeps coming back around, when, as far as I can find, there's no evidence to suggest he was.

I completely agree with this take. We are making assumptions.

 

[DBinMA]

I’m not sure about if JAZ had developmental disabilities or not but….I’ve been reading quite a bit about my local
“State school” where children with all kinds of disabilities were sent.
It was encouraged to send special needs kids away in this time period. I feel like if he was unwanted and had disabilities he could have easily been put in a similar place at any age with no one questioning it. I think a single mom would have been pushed especially hard by the doctor to do so. I think we will eventually learn there’s a different explanation or excuse.