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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Ilex, you're so right-think it was stated long ago that this was a case of prolonged regular abuse and not a mere one-time incident. Would so much love for little Joseph to get his justice and the perpetrator(s) be publically identified!
 
Ilex, you're so right-think it was stated long ago that this was a case of prolonged regular abuse and not a mere one-time incident. Would so much love for little Joseph to get his justice and the perpetrator(s) be publically identified!

According to the medical examiner the bruises were all the same age which would tend to indicate a single recent beating. His general condition however would tend to indicate a long period of neglect/abuse.
 
I agree with this.

However, how would Colleen Fitzpatrick know anything about where Joseph stayed in his short life? How could she know anything about the unknown boy who Martha's said her parents took in? Surely this is far outside of her expertise. It's sounds like Martha's parents unofficially took in a boy who was not related to them. I don't see how any of this can be on public record for it to be searchable.

Colleen Fitzpatrick is also a member of the Vidocq Society which has done extensive investigation into JAZ’ s case. So I think she is privy to a lot of information that is not public , even though it might seem like it’s not her area of expertise.

 
Am I missing something here? Didn’t Joseph live with one parent, and the address is known. So where does adoption come in to play?
Using this post as a springboard. Knowing little Joseph was discarded in an empty JC Penney bassinet box two months after his younger maternal half sister was born, rules out the possibility of his being adopted.

Imo.
 
Using this post as a springboard. Knowing little Joseph was discarded in an empty JC Penney bassinet box two months after his younger maternal half sister was born, rules out the possibility of his being adopted.

Imo.
There's a lot of assumption in that statement, not limited to the family buying the bassinet. As far as we know there's no publicly available evidence for that. The bassinet was chased for a very, very long time, by successive generations of LE. Unsuccessfully. Unless it's surfaced in someone's attic with the receipt tucked conveniently in the lining, we can't say definitively it was ever anywhere near the home Joseph was living in. And unless it's in a family member's attic, we can't say he was with family. Joseph dying and a sibling being born within a short window of time could be nothing but a coincidence. Until we hear otherwise, we can't assume they're cause and effect.

I think the only thing we can assume is that LE and the other investigators know far more than they're telling, or may ever tell.

The thing that I'm pretty uncomfortable about with this scenario is that we know there are living siblings. If one of those is that baby, and she went looking for information about Joseph and found people talking about her being born was possibly the reason he was killed, then I don't know about anyone else, but that would make me, an innocent victim, feel even worse about the whole situation. She's blameless. She shouldn't have to bear the weight of that.



MOO
 
There's a lot of assumption in that statement, not limited to the family buying the bassinet. As far as we know there's no publicly available evidence for that. The bassinet was chased for a very, very long time, by successive generations of LE. Unsuccessfully. Unless it's surfaced in someone's attic with the receipt tucked conveniently in the lining, we can't say definitively it was ever anywhere near the home Joseph was living in. And unless it's in a family member's attic, we can't say he was with family. Joseph dying and a sibling being born within a short window of time could be nothing but a coincidence. Until we hear otherwise, we can't assume they're cause and effect.

I think the only thing we can assume is that LE and the other investigators know far more than they're telling, or may ever tell.

The thing that I'm pretty uncomfortable about with this scenario is that we know there are living siblings. If one of those is that baby, and she went looking for information about Joseph and found people talking about her being born was possibly the reason he was killed, then I don't know about anyone else, but that would make me, an innocent victim, feel even worse about the whole situation. She's blameless. She shouldn't have to bear the weight of that.



M

No where did my post suggest the assumptions you present.
 
The history of adoption and agencies and how things worked are really important in this case. I spent the day yesterday going through things and found some interesting facts about the process in Philadelphia county. This was printed in the Philadelphia Inquirer Oct 4, 1956. It's in a column titled "Your legal problems". It was kind of like a Dear Abby column, with legal questions answered by attorneys. The question asked was if an adoptive family had to be the same faith as the child being adopted. The answer went into the legalities of adoption in Phildelphia. A few key points were:
-All adoptions in Pennsylvania had to go through the court system.
-All adoptions in PA went through Orphan Courts, except for Philadelphia which went through the Municipal Court.
-Adoption records are impounded by the court and closed unless they need to be seen for good cause.
-The family adopting the child must be of the same faith as the biological family, unless the adoption by a different faith family would be in the best interests of the child.
-Catholic babies were placed through the Catholic Children's Bureau.
The Philadelphia Inquirer 04 Oct 1956, page Page 22 - Newspapers.com

It's also interesting to understand what was going on politically at that time. In 1952 PA had put a bill out there to revamp the adoption system. Before 1954, adoptions weren't always done through the courts but children were placed into and out of the system by private agencies, many of them religious organizations. There was the Catholic Charities for Catholic children, Jewish based organizations for Jewish children, another for Methodist, Lutheran, etc. and one based on ethnicity. The Catholic Church was fighting very hard to keep the bill from passing (June 21, 1953 Philadelphia Inquirer). Catholic Charities also took a suit all the way to the US Supreme Court to contest the adoption of a Catholic child by her Protestant Aunt and Uncle (April 5, 1955 referencing Kuntz case). There were a large number of children in the Catholic adoption system and the caseworker load was overwhelming. It was stated in one article that each caseworker handled over 65 children each, and that each child in foster care could only be checked in on once a month. Facilities were overrun with children and there were ads placed asking for families to take in children (May 24, 1955; Dec 7, 1955, Philadelphia Inquirer ads ). And there was money. Each child received $14 from the state per week for care. When a child was fostered, the foster family and the agency placing the child shared that money (Jan 30, 1955, Phildelphia Inquirer). That's a lot of money. And the agency was responsible for doing background checks on the families they placed the children with. The big thing the Catholic Church was pushing was child safety. In fact the Archbishop (O'Hara) stated "Catholic Institutions have maintained the highest standards of childcare in the commonwealth for over 150 years" (Philadelphia Inquirer June 23, 1953). Yet the reason this bill was proposed was to end black market baby selling and children being lost in the foster care system.
The long and short of this is, at the time Joseph was adopted the system was going through some huge changes. In an effort to stop black market babies, PA had proposed Bill 480. The religious organizations were fighting it. The caseworkers at these organizations were overwhelmed, children were desperately seeking temporary shelter with local families and IMO it would have been very easy for a child to simply slip through the cracks. Additionally, these religious organizations were under incredible scrutiny and pressure to appear safe. My opinon is that Joseph was in an emergency foster home placement with a family that needed money and he probably wasn't the only child in the home. One child out of 10,000 suddenly isn't there? I'm not sure a caseworker would have noticed.

If you look further you find that even keeping records of vital statistics didn't become "law" until June of 1953. Joseph was born in January of that year, so very easy for his information to be lost. In June of 1953 the vital statistics act was passed. It stated:
"a certificate of each adoption and annulment of adoption decreed or ordered in this commonwealth shall be transmitted to this department". Before June of 1953, there was nothing requiring any adoption service to report to the state. This was also the first time adopted children who had name changes were required to do so through legal means. In other words, anyone who adopted Joseph could just change his name with the agency they used to adopt him without going through any legal process. It's no wonder it's so difficult for those born before June of 1953 to find their biological parents. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1953/0/0066..PDF

Thanks @Ilex for all the great research you've done. This is very interesting

Reading your posts, I wondered about compulsory school age for children in Pennsylvania & more specifically Philadelphia. JAZ was 4 when he died. Most children are 5 when they go to kindergarten. So could his age have become a stressor to whomever was caring for him? If he were enrolled in school any kind of abuse would have been much more obvious.

Granted that during this time period child abuse & domestic abuse weren't treated or investigated as they are today but still...
 
Using this post as a springboard. Knowing little Joseph was discarded in an empty JC Penney bassinet box two months after his younger maternal half sister was born, rules out the possibility of his being adopted.

Imo.

I don't see how this rules out adoption or a foster home.

People had big families back then. He could have lived with a different family which had a child in the period leading up to his death.

Also, whoever disposed of his body may simply grabbed someone else's discarded box as it was the right size to transport his body. Philly is a big city with lots of people and trash.
 
I don't see how this rules out adoption or a foster home.

People had big families back then. He could have lived with a different family which had a child in the period leading up to his death.

Also, whoever disposed of his body may simply grabbed someone else's discarded box as it was the right size to transport his body. Philly is a big city with lots of people and trash.
Also, foster families took in children and babies on a regular basis. It is tempting to suspect JAZ was staying with his mother and stepfather but any other scenario is possible (adoption, foster family or orphanage).

Only thing that sticks in my mind is how initially LE (and the genealogist i think) said that JAZ stayed with a parent. This statement was quickly withdrawn when relatives came forward with the information that Mary put her oldest child up for adoption, too.

And besides that a mixed scenario is also possible, he may have stayed a limited time with mom until he was put in foster care or for adoption because she had to support herself and had no means to provide and care for him. That is very likely, as initially, he was well cared for, just the last months or weeks before his death he was starved and beaten. She may have even been told by the foster that he got sick and died.

Just impossible to tell at this point, all directly involved people are deceased. Mary apparently never told her younger children about Joseph and the girl she had before them - but it was the 50s and 60s and things were very hush hush. Plenty of people found out about adopted out half siblings through genetic testing recently.

Jmoo
 
I go back to the statement made by LE during the press conference... that he (little Joseph) lived in the area of 61st and Market. I doubt his mother's name listed in the city directory was the only indication that he lived in that area of Philadelphia during his short life. JMO

And, on another note... I wonder if any progress has been made on the DNA testing of at least one item found with his body.
 
Also, foster families took in children and babies on a regular basis. It is tempting to suspect JAZ was staying with his mother and stepfather but any other scenario is possible (adoption, foster family or orphanage).

Only thing that sticks in my mind is how initially LE (and the genealogist i think) said that JAZ stayed with a parent. This statement was quickly withdrawn when relatives came forward with the information that Mary put her oldest child up for adoption, too.

And besides that a mixed scenario is also possible, he may have stayed a limited time with mom until he was put in foster care or for adoption because she had to support herself and had no means to provide and care for him. That is very likely, as initially, he was well cared for, just the last months or weeks before his death he was starved and beaten. She may have even been told by the foster that he got sick and died.

Just impossible to tell at this point, all directly involved people are deceased. Mary apparently never told her younger children about Joseph and the girl she had before them - but it was the 50s and 60s and things were very hush hush. Plenty of people found out about adopted out half siblings through genetic testing recently.

Jmoo

These are all interesting observations.

I have a question though in regards to your statement: “only thing that sticks in my mind is how initially LE said that JAZ stayed with a parent. This statement was quickly withdrawn when relatives came forward with the information that Mary put her oldest up for adoption too”

I must have missed something— I don’t remember LE or CF withdrawing their statement about where JAZ stayed. Is there somewhere I can read about this retraction?

Thanks very much.
 
Do we know what year Joseph's mother got married to his stepfather?

Not for certain. We aren't sure they were ever legally married yet, and not just common law, but IMO she changed her name for social security purposes in 1958. Her husband was still legally married in 1956 I believe. This is MO and not fact.
 
Also, foster families took in children and babies on a regular basis. It is tempting to suspect JAZ was staying with his mother and stepfather but any other scenario is possible (adoption, foster family or orphanage).

Only thing that sticks in my mind is how initially LE (and the genealogist i think) said that JAZ stayed with a parent. This statement was quickly withdrawn when relatives came forward with the information that Mary put her oldest child up for adoption, too.

And besides that a mixed scenario is also possible, he may have stayed a limited time with mom until he was put in foster care or for adoption because she had to support herself and had no means to provide and care for him. That is very likely, as initially, he was well cared for, just the last months or weeks before his death he was starved and beaten. She may have even been told by the foster that he got sick and died.

Just impossible to tell at this point, all directly involved people are deceased. Mary apparently never told her younger children about Joseph and the girl she had before them - but it was the 50s and 60s and things were very hush hush. Plenty of people found out about adopted out half siblings through genetic testing recently.

Jmoo

I have kept up fairly well here, but I do not recall if we have had revealing dialogue about Mary's obituary. Do we know anything specific about the statement regarding "contributions could be made to the Snell Grove Center", the special needs home in Alabama.

I apologize if I have missed said discussion...
 
These are all interesting observations.

I have a question though in regards to your statement: “only thing that sticks in my mind is how initially LE said that JAZ stayed with a parent. This statement was quickly withdrawn when relatives came forward with the information that Mary put her oldest up for adoption too”

I must have missed something— I don’t remember LE or CF withdrawing their statement about where JAZ stayed. Is there somewhere I can read about this retraction?

Thanks very much.
I did not word it correctly. It was not officially withdrawn but never discussed anymore.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
57
Guests online
2,150
Total visitors
2,207

Forum statistics

Threads
601,855
Messages
18,130,760
Members
231,162
Latest member
Kaffro
Back
Top