Identified! PA - Philadelphia, 'Boy in the Box', WhtMale 4-6, 4UMPA, Feb'57 #2 - Joseph Augustus Zarelli

[janewall]

I guess the real question is whether that dent is indicative of neglect. The article posted by @rosesfromangels makes it clear that we can't state that conclusively.

The fact that he was from a prominent family but ended up the way he did does suggest to me that he may have been either mentally handicapped or born out of wedlock. Clearly, the family would have had the means to provide adequate care if they had chosen to do so.

Given the era of his birth, it's quite possible the shape of his head was due to an injury caused by the use of forceps during his delivery.

 

[Susikatze]

Given the era of his birth, it's quite possible the shape of his head was due to an injury caused by the use of forceps during his delivery.

No, that evens out after a few days post birth. It is not permanent.

 

[Becci]

Who is the older man pictured to the right of him? TIA

Maybe the man who made the cast

 

[iamshadow21]

Maybe the man who made the cast

See #615, it is the maker of the cast. EDIT: Whoops. Actually, an investigator from the original team, my bad.

 

[Friday Fan]

No, that evens out after a few days post birth. It is not permanent.

Yeah, my son had that...cone head. It goes away after a few days.

 

[iamshadow21]

Yeah, my son had that...cone head. It goes away after a few days.

Babies' skulls aren't fused. They are a bunch of different thin, flexible bone plates with a hole in the top (fontanelle) so that they can flex and pass through the birth canal safely without fractures. That's why their heads can look distorted after a forceps birth or a difficult or prolonged pause in the vagina. It's also why babies who have a Caesarian tend to have rounder skulls from the get-go - they don't go through that squeezing pressure. Gradually, the skull fuses with bone - forming seams called sutures - and the fontanelle closes over, but it takes years, well into toddlerhood, before it's gone altogether. It's all a pretty amazing mechanism of biology that allows us to grow the brains we have, as big as we do. If our skulls were fused earlier, we wouldn't be able to. If a baby's skull is fused too early, they can need surgery or other corrective measures so that the brain has enough space to grow.

Correct me if any of this is wrong, I'm not a doctor, just a nerd for bones. My weird special interest only.

 

[Friday Fan]

Babies' skulls aren't fused. They are a bunch of different thin, flexible bone plates with a hole in the top (fontanelle) so that they can flex and pass through the birth canal safely without fractures. That's why their heads can look distorted after a forceps birth or a difficult or prolonged pause in the vagina. It's also why babies who have a Caesarian tend to have rounder skulls from the get-go - they don't go through that squeezing pressure. Gradually, the skull fuses with bone - forming seams called sutures - and the fontanelle closes over, but it takes years, well into toddlerhood, before it's gone altogether. It's all a pretty amazing mechanism of biology that allows us to grow the brains we have, as big as we do. If our skulls were fused earlier, we wouldn't be able to. If a baby's skull is fused too early, they can need surgery or other corrective measures so that the brain has enough space to grow.

Correct me if any of this is wrong, I'm not a doctor, just a nerd for bones. My weird special interest only.

That is a weird interest!
I worked newborn/neonatal, so I'm just plain old familiar. All the premies who were there for a long time had elongated heads. (They were all delivered CS). The elongated heads were due to being immobile. Not too big of a deal was made about it, due to the fact that the heads would eventually revert to normal growth pattern. Poor Boy in the Box, looks like he was in a position where his head was immobilized until his fontanels were closed and beyond.

 

[Blackbirdsitdon]

I don't really think he was raised as a girl.

I rather believe Martha's story. During the same era that this child was abused and killed, mental illness was looked at with a great taboo, especially mental illness from a woman and not only that but a large-framed woman who had "masculine" interests like sports and science. From what we know publicly about her identity, I think it is very easy to see how such a woman making these claims against a family who had local influence could easily be dismissed as mentally ill. Especially 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but to some extent even now.

Historically women have been dismissed by law enforcement at a greater rate even when they DON'T have a history of depression or other mental illness and even when they AREN'T making claims against locally prominent families.

 

[MarziPanda]

I don't really think he was raised as a girl.

I rather believe Martha's story. During the same era that this child was abused and killed, mental illness was looked at with a great taboo, especially mental illness from a woman and not only that but a large-framed woman who had "masculine" interests like sports and science. From what we know publicly about her identity, I think it is very easy to see how such a woman making these claims against a family who had local influence could easily be dismissed as mentally ill. Especially 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but to some extent even now.

Historically women have been dismissed by law enforcement at a greater rate even when they DON'T have a history of depression or other mental illness and even when they AREN'T making claims against locally prominent families.

Afaik, M didn't make any claims against any prominent families, did she? She didn't know our boy's 'true' identity or who his birth family were, I thought? I can't remember her ever pointing fingers at anyone. The 'prominent family' thing has only come out from MSM in relation to the identification.

 

[squish]

Afaik, M didn't make any claims against any prominent families, did she? She didn't know our boy's 'true' identity or who his birth family were, I thought? I can't remember her ever pointing fingers at anyone. The 'prominent family' thing has only come out from MSM in relation to the identification.

No but her own family were somewhat successful, and M wondered if the boy might have been the child of her paternal uncle based on how affectionate the uncle was.

So if M was totally correct about absolutely everything, these claims would be against her own family, who may be described as “prominent” (though it’s a stretch).

 

[Alleykins]

It wasn't unusual not to cut a little boy's hair until age 3 or 4. A lot of people still follow this tradition.
My son's first haircut was 3, but my coworker cut her son's hair when he was like 6 months old because
it was lopsided.
Also, not too long ago, baby and toddler boys sometimes wore gowns, dresses, and short pants up to a certain age, depending on their family's status and wealth. This fashion trend might have been followed into the 50s if this child was, indeed, from a prominent family with old values, where there may have been an old school matriarch in charge of the nursery.
It's similar to how the royals still follow the short pants tradition for their little boys.
So to say he may have been raised as a girl and his hair had just been cut could indicate the investigators
may have forgotten how little boys used to be dressed and groomed by the well do do, depending on his age. Under age 6, then there's a good chance he wasn't raised as a girl, but as a typcial toddler boy from a tradition-following, well to do family.

OT: Is anyone else having issues with lag on this site? It's freezing & lagging big time on me, like it's bogged down.

 

[squish]

Also, he could have just had a longer boy’s haircut. There are masculine styles several inches long or more.

 

[Dee Deforest]

When are they announcing his identity? I've looked and can't find when? Do most think the "M" story is the one? Or Steven Damman (he may have been eliminated)? Thanks in advance!

 

[CCJD]

When are they announcing his identity? I've looked and can't find when? Do most think the "M" story is the one? Or Steven Damman (he may have been eliminated)? Thanks in advance!

Some investigators theorized that the boy was Steven Damman, a 2-year-old who was abducted from a Long Island supermarket in 1955. DNA taken from the Boy in the Box during a 1998 exhumation ruled out the missing Damman, who has never been found.

Philly police to announce identity of slain ‘Boy in the Box’ after 65 years of mystery

Philadelphia news stations reported Wednesday that police officials are expected to hold a news conference next week to name the “Boy in the Box,” a slain child who has remained unidentified for more than 65 years.

www.fox13memphis.com

 

[Friday Fan]

MOO MOO MOO
I always felt the boy had long hair because he was raised in isolation and was neglected.
He likely had developmental delays etc,

I don't know what the hair cutting connection to the killing is?

Were they going to take him somewhere, so they cut his hair?

Or did he die and did they cut his hair afterward?

I personally don't believe he was raised as a girl

All MOO MOO MOO

 

[Hope32]

It wasn't unusual not to cut a little boy's hair until age 3 or 4. A lot of people still follow this tradition.
My son's first haircut was 3, but my coworker cut her son's hair when he was like 6 months old because
it was lopsided.
Also, not too long ago, baby and toddler boys sometimes wore gowns, dresses, and short pants up to a certain age, depending on their family's status and wealth. This fashion trend might have been followed into the 50s if this child was, indeed, from a prominent family with old values, where there may have been an old school matriarch in charge of the nursery.
It's similar to how the royals still follow the short pants tradition for their little boys.
So to say he may have been raised as a girl and his hair had just been cut could indicate the investigators
may have forgotten how little boys used to be dressed and groomed by the well do do, depending on his age. Under age 6, then there's a good chance he wasn't raised as a girl, but as a typcial toddler boy from a tradition-following, well to do family.

OT: Is anyone else having issues with lag on this site? It's freezing & lagging big time on me, like it's bogged down.

Speaking of the bolded fashion. The royal family still follows this tradition of the boys wearing shorts until they are of a certain age even the school uniforms they were involve the practice.

"
There's a very specific reason for this. There's a tradition among the upper class, aristocracy and royals to dress young boys in shorts – it's often considered decidedly "suburban" not to do so.

"It's a very English thing to dress a young boy in shorts," explains the etiquette expert William Hanson. "Trousers are for older boys and men, whereas shorts on young boys is one of those silent class markers that we have in England." Why Prince George is always wearing shorts

 

[RaspberryMama]

MOO MOO MOO
I always felt the boy had long hair because he was raised in isolation and was neglected.
He likely had developmental delays etc,

I don't know what the hair cutting connection to the killing is?

Were they going to take him somewhere, so they cut his hair?

Or did he die and did they cut his hair afterward?

I personally don't believe he was raised as a girl

All MOO MOO MOO

I think some theories included the hair cutting happening post death in order to make him more unrecognizable, just in general, or because he was raised as a girl. I do wonder why his eyebrows had been plucked.

There was a barber who thought he may have cut the boys hair, but didn't know his name. I believe there was at least one theory that a cut happened during the haircut that eventually led to his death.

The messiness of his hair, to me, indicates that it wasn't done professionally and was possibly done by another child (or even himself if done while still alive - have you ever seen a child who has cut his own hair? Aiyaiyai.)

 

[airportwoman]

That is a weird interest!
I worked newborn/neonatal, so I'm just plain old familiar. All the premies who were there for a long time had elongated heads. (They were all delivered CS). The elongated heads were due to being immobile. Not too big of a deal was made about it, due to the fact that the heads would eventually revert to normal growth pattern. Poor Boy in the Box, looks like he was in a position where his head was immobilized until his fontanels were closed and beyond.

Some cultures to this day alter the shapes of their babies' heads in assorted ways.

My friend's daughter was born at 26 weeks in 1995 (not by c-section, either) and she too has a very high forehead but we all think she was destined to look that way anyway. I am also very happy to report that she is completely normal, and they never found out why my friend went into premature labor.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

No, that evens out after a few days post birth. It is not permanent.

Not necessarily. I had an uncle who was about the age of this boy at the time.His head was badly deformed for life.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Some cultures to this day alter the shapes of their babies' heads in assorted ways.

My friend's daughter was born 25 weeks in 1995 (not by c-section, either) and she too has a very high forehead but we all think she was destined to look that way anyway. I am also very happy to report that she is completely normal, and they never found out why my friend went into premature labor.

Micro Preemie here. Same. Natural birth. Moderately high forehead, but I don't mind. It seems to fit with the rest of me, so might have had it anyway.