Identified! PA - Philadelphia, 'Boy in the Box', WhtMale 4-6, 4UMPA, Feb'57

[Ms Suzanne]

The 'Boy in the Box': Will 2019 Be the Year We Get Answers About the Famous Unsolved Murder? I pray they find out his real name.I will never give up trying to find out who he is .He is very special to me.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Has anyone heard of any new updates about any DNA matches with Barbara Rae Venter?

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Golden State Killer: The woman instrumental in his capture Has anyone heard any updates or and DNA matches and The boy in the box and Barbara Rae Venter or can please find out?Very sad.

 

[Owutatangledweb]

Ms Suzanne, I'm right there in there with you, still hoping. I just never post. I keep waiting.... like you.

 

[larsonslair]

"M"--she is the missing link in all of this.

I'll not divulge her full name here, but if we ever see daylight on this, it'll be because she steps forward and publicly admits what she knows. Though now that I say it, a dedicated hour or two of sleuthing will give you almost all of the information "M" has provided, including the name of the monstrous human being who perpetrated this cowardly act. The story itself is even more frightening and sickening than imaginable, too.

 

[Alleykins]

"M"--she is the missing link in all of this.

I'll not divulge her full name here, but if we ever see daylight on this, it'll be because she steps forward and publicly admits what she knows. Though now that I say it, a dedicated hour or two of sleuthing will give you almost all of the information "M" has provided, including the name of the monstrous human being who perpetrated this cowardly act. The story itself is even more frightening and sickening than imaginable, too.

Welcome.
If you're referring to the "M" in this wiki, the claims were not able to be verified. Just curious, why the cryptic post if this is who it is about? Thanks.

 

[larsonslair]

Welcome.
If you're referring to the "M" in this wiki, the claims were not able to be verified. Just curious, why the cryptic post if this is who it is about? Thanks.

Hi--the Wikipedia article actually does a fantastic job of glossing over the depth of M's account of what happened. This gives the impression that she is to be discounted.

She isn't.

The police were actually impressed by her as a witness, and her story is, indeed, verifiable to a great extent (tracking down a photo of her mother was one of the most chilling experiences of my pseudo-sleuthing life, and I'm normally able to keep such a reaction within due bounds). The biggest problem for the authorities--aside from identifying the child--is the matter of who to prosecute. M's mother is dead, and has been for over twenty years. Although M admits to having assisted in the dumping of the boy, it's incredibly difficult to conceive of any charges coming down on her so many years after the fact--especially in light of her own tortured past.

I waffled on the idea of posting anything at all. In the end, I erred on the side of contributing my gut feeling that M coming forward in a more pronounced way may prove to be just the boost this case needs. I should be careful to note that there are others out there who take the contrary position; for them, she has given this case all of the "boost" it needs. She's done everything she possibly could, up to and including involving the authorities. With that, I don't disagree. But there's much, much more to this story.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

I personally do not believe M's story at all.She's changed it a few times and I won't look into her.Her stories never panned out.She said her mother killed him.That they went to a house and paid money for a boy they and herself didn't know.Then maybe her uncle was the boys father.Why the all story changes?Apparently DNA matches are not matching to her family or her.I strongly believe DNA relative matches will lead to who this sweet little boy is.Time will tell.DNA is so very very powerful.

 

[larsonslair]

I personally do not believe M's story at all.She's changed it a few times and I won't look into her.

I have no doubt that you care a lot about this case. In fact, I think I recognize your distinctive sentence style from another forum, in which case I sincerely thank you for your persistence. We wouldn't be where we are without such dedication.

Now, with all due respect, it's obvious that you haven't objectively investigated M. Precisely how and in what ways did M change her story?

She said her mother killed him.That they went to a house and paid money for a boy they and herself didn't know.Then maybe her uncle was the boys father.

Perilously close to a strawman. M's supposition that "maybe" her uncle was the boy's father does not in any way refute her account, unless you'd care to further elucidate that point.

Why the all story changes?

Again, point out these so-called changes.

Apparently DNA matches are not matching to her family or her...DNA is so very very powerful.

Ah, but only so powerful, you see. The Boy in the Box's nuclear DNA was too degraded to provide a strong sample, so investigators relied on a (less comprehensive) mtDNA sample taken from his teeth. I presume you know this, too, so where did you come by your assertion that a familial connection between M and BiB has been ruled out? Moreover, how would a definitive link make a bit of difference in the veracity of M's account?

 

[LeenC]

If they have mitochondrial DNA and suspect he’s the child of her uncle, it shouldn’t be too difficult to track down the boy’s supposed mother or a female relative of hers by going up further in the family tree.

I’ve been going back and forth between believeing her and discarding her story. The entire thing is so farfetched and unbelievable that you either feel that “no one could make this up unless it was true” or that she must be a very disturbed woman to fabricate such a thing. I have no doubt she had a troubling childhood. Whether or not it included this boy at any point, remains to be seen.

The thing that troubles me most about M’s story and which makes me feel like she might not be telling the truth but rather fabricating a story based on what she read in news papers, was told by investigators themselves or heard rumours about, is the part about her mother cutting the boy’s hair to make him “unrecognizable”.
First of all, it’s her own words that her mother supposedly cut the boy’s long hair to “conceal his identity”. But how would a twelve year old (she was 12 at the time of the murder) realize that that was why her mother cut the boy’s hair? It seems unbelievable to me that a 12 year old would come to that conclusion herself. Which means she either asked her mom (which seems a highly unlikely thing to do given she’d just witnessed her mom killing the other child in their home and given the abusive nature of her mother. I doubt she’d ever brought this event up again to find answers to questions such as this one) OR it’s something she added to her story later in life after reading/hearing about it.
The second problem I have with this is why would her mom cut the boy’s hair in the first place? According to M, the boy had been living in their basement for 2,5 years and the only people aware of him being there were her mother and herself, in which case nobody would ever link a deceased boy to them anyway. Thirdly, from what I understand it was during those 2,5 years that the boy’s hair grew to be the length it supposedly was before he was killed. Therefore, it would be counterproductive to cut his hair if the idea was to conceal his identity. Because the only people who could possibly recognize the boy and link him back to her mom, are the people he lived with before she ‘bought’ him. Surely the longer hair would have concealed his identity better if that were the case.

It seems that this part of her story just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and that in this small statement she contradicts herself and her story in almost every way possible. Therefore, I wonder if at the very least parts of her story are influenced by a third party (a newspaper, stories she heard in the neighborhood, an overly enthousiastic and more-than-willing-to-believe investigator etc.).

 

[larsonslair]

I want you to know, LeenC, that I genuinely appreciate your perspective on this. I'm green to this board, and it's nice to be able to compare notes.

If they have mitochondrial DNA and suspect he’s the child of her uncle, it shouldn’t be too difficult to track down the boy’s supposed mother or a female relative of hers by going up further in the family tree.

You're right--it shouldn't. And if there were some sort of agreement between the authorities and M regarding the protection of her identity, it isn't inconceivable that this very issue would have been extensively discussed.

it’s her own words that her mother supposedly cut the boy’s long hair to "conceal his identity." But how would a twelve year old (she was 12 at the time of the murder) realize that that was why her mother cut the boy’s hair? It seems unbelievable to me that a 12 year old would come to that conclusion herself. Which means she either asked her mom (which seems a highly unlikely thing to do given she’d just witnessed her mom killing the other child in their home and given the abusive nature of her mother.

First, she wasn't twelve at the time of the murder. She was fifteen. This is unimpeachable. Second, where did you specifically come by her own words that M's mother cut this boy's hair in an effort to conceal his identity? Is this paraphrasing courtesy of americasunknownchild.net, or even the Wikipedia article? Sounds like a lot of people are comparing this secondhand information against M's own testimony as related in David Stout's The Boy in the Box and asserting a contradiction where one does not empirically exist.

It would be counterproductive to cut his hair if the idea was to conceal his identity.

That, or his hair was kept long so that he could emulate the appearance of a girl in order to satisfy the desires of an individual (or individuals) besides M's mother. Admittedly conjectural, but I've not heard my idea proffered heretofore. Knowing M's familial background begs the question.

in this small statement she contradicts herself and her story in almost every way possible.

It's one thing to have formed one's own viewpoint based on information, but it is a wholly different cut of cloth to do so based on misinformation widely available on the Internet. And that's okay--few people drill into this case anymore, sadly. Fewer still are willing to drill as deeply into M's account, unfortunately.

 

[LeenC]

I want you to know, LeenC, that I genuinely appreciate your perspective on this. I'm green to this board, and it's nice to be able to compare notes.



You're right--it shouldn't. And if there were some sort of agreement between the authorities and M regarding the protection of her identity, it isn't inconceivable that this very issue would have been extensively discussed.



First, she wasn't twelve at the time of the murder. She was fifteen. This is unimpeachable. Second, where did you specifically come by her own words that M's mother cut this boy's hair in an effort to conceal his identity? Is this paraphrasing courtesy of americasunknownchild.net, or even the Wikipedia article? Sounds like a lot of people are comparing this secondhand information against M's own testimony as related in David Stout's The Boy in the Box and asserting a contradiction where one does not empirically exist.



That, or his hair was kept long so that he could emulate the appearance of a girl in order to satisfy the desires of an individual (or individuals) besides M's mother. Admittedly conjectural, but I've not heard my idea proffered heretofore. Knowing M's familial background begs the question.



It's one thing to have formed one's own viewpoint based on information, but it is a wholly different cut of cloth to do so based on misinformation widely available on the Internet. And that's okay--few people drill into this case anymore, sadly. Fewer still are willing to drill as deeply into M's account, unfortunately.

I based my words on what I read in Jim Hoffmann’s book “The Boy in the Box: America’s Unknown Child”. So no, I did not base this on “secondhand information” available on the internet, but on a book which quotes the testimony of the investigators who interviewed her. Said book also specifically states that she was 12 at the time of the murder so unless you personally know “M” or were present during her testimony, her mentioned age apparently might not be as “unimpeachable” as we thought.

I guess you have your opinion and I have mine. And that’s alright. But perhaps, instead of focusing on pointing out how everything we say is solely based on misinformation (mainly because you disagree based on what you yourself have read/heard/encovered), you could share why exactly you have the believes you do and point us to your sources which are apparently more trustworthy

Because if I’ve been misinformed about this case, I’d very much like to read up on that.

 

[larsonslair]

Said book also specifically states that she was 12 at the time of the murder so unless you personally know “M” or were present during her testimony, her mentioned age apparently might not be as “unimpeachable” as we thought.

"I was thirteen when my mother took me in the car to get him."
Direct quote from M, as recounted in David Stout's The Boy in the Box: The Unsolved Case of America's Unknown Child.

"The night it happened, it was late February 1957. I was fifteen."
Direct quote from M, as recounted in David Stout's The Boy in the Box: The Unsolved Case of America's Unknown Child.

This lines up perfectly with what those of us who have done the proper digging already know about M. It's neither my function nor my facility to hold anyone's hand through the process of finding information, and unfortunately that includes you.

I guess you have your opinion and I have mine. And that’s alright. But perhaps, instead of focusing on pointing out how everything we say is solely based on misinformation (mainly because you disagree based on what you yourself have read/heard/encovered), you could share why exactly you have the believes [sic] you do and point us to your sources which are apparently more trustworthy Because if I’ve been misinformed about this case, I’d very much like to read up on that.

I see I struck a nerve.

It's important to get these things straight. That often requires reading more than one source, and sometimes cross-referencing against what you think is the best presentation of all evidence. My only contention here is that you've simply not met that particular standard.

We certainly have differing opinions--I drilled a bit deeper to get to mine is all. No hard feelings, huh?

 

[Ms Suzanne]

NOTHING in M's stories has been proven as fact.Her lead did not pan out.They need to move on and check out other leads.Her lead is going nowhere.I studied M extensively.I won't look into her anymore and I won't discuss her anymore.Barbara Rae Venter is doing Apparently DNA relative matches.None of these matches so far from what I hear from my sources(I won't name) are matching as relative matches to M or her uncle or her family so far and I do really think they would by now.We shall see what happens now.I very strongly do believe DNA relative matches will find out who he is.I KNOW it.No matter where the DNA matches.Let's just give it time ok?DNA is so very very powerful.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

One of my sources in the medical examiners office said he believed they had a full profile on The boy in the box.This was in 2016.He went on to say.Our unidentified boy's DNA is uploaded into CODIS, in fact we generated another profile just last year from the boy's mandible.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

From America's Unknown Child's website
America's Unknown Child (the Boy in the Box mystery)
Case Summary

The investigators were impressed by "M's" testimony, which seemed quite plausible, but they remained skeptical. At issue was whether "M", who has a history of mental problems, could have fabricated the entire story. After the investigative team returned to Philadelphia, the Philadelphia police department, the Vidocq Society, and the Montgomery County District Attorney's office launched an intensive follow-up investigation in order to verify "M's" account of the unknown boy's death. Unfortunately, six months later, having left "no stone unturned" in their relentless search for corroborating evidence, the investigators came up empty. Not a single one of "M's" allegations could be substantiated. Also, a search for trace evidence in the basement of the Lower Merion home where the boy allegedly resided turned up nothing. The investigators are still pursuing other clues in this phase of the Boy in the Box investigation.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

From America's Unknown Child's website

Case Updates

Events and updates

February 2003: The investigators reported that they have successfully tracked down and interviewed several people who used to live in the Lower Merion neighborhood where the unknown boy allegedly resided. Thus far, none of these potential witnesses have been able to confirm that a child matching the unknown boy's description lived there at that time. The search for additional former neighborhood residents continues. Also, the current residents of the house where the boy allegedly lived have refused to allow investigators to search their basement for trace evidence that might link the boy to that location.


October 2003: After a long delay, the investigators were finally granted permission to examine the basement of the Lower Merion home where the unknown boy allegedly resided. Unfortunately, no trace evidence of the boy was found.


September 2004: During the past year, Vidocq Society investigators located and interviewed additional people who used to live in the Lower Merion neighborhorhood where, according to the unsubstantiated testimony of an Ohio woman, the unknown boy was secretly confined in a basement and subjected to physical and sexual abuse for two years prior to his death. Two of the former neighbors had been frequent visitors to the home, and they had access to all areas, including the basement. They flatly denied that a young boy lived there. A female neighbor who had been a close friend of the family and attended the same church, said that she was astonished to learn of the false accusations being made against them. She stated that the Ohio woman's allegations are "preposterous." The Vidocq Society investigators believe they have now exhausted all investigative options relative to the Ohio lead. Sadly, what had initially appeared to be the most significant breakthrough in the long history of this investigation, has ultimately turned out to be just another frustrating dead end.

 

[dotr]

A general comment..
Sometimes unbalanced persons may blame others for things they may have done themselves, but get tangled in their own false stories.
In recent times, a tv commercial meant to be amusing, shows a sibling threatening to cut a younger child's hair....
Expecting that DNA will ultimately lead to the truth in this case.
fwiw, speculation, imo.

 

[larsonslair]

Is this the same America's Unknown Child website that incorrectly attributes M's age at the time of the murder? Because if so, sigh.

I can respect that you don't want to discuss M anymore. It's an exhausting case. Certainly there are no hard feelings--we're all part of the same team, after all. I'll even accede to the position that much of it is speculative on both ends. Viewed solely in that light, M's contention that the BiB lived in her basement for two years holds up about as well as some neighbor's contention that there was never a boy in the basement at all, Vidocq be damned. To borrow from Bertrand Russell, how do you even begin to argue with someone who claims a teapot is orbiting Mars?

Empirical evidence is scant, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Conveniently disregarded are those factors strongly supporting M's story, from the contents of the decedent's esophageal lining to M's encounter with the Good Samaritan--who, choose you to believe M, easily misidentified her as a tall boy. In that M's story has yet to be proven, M's story has yet to be refuted.

It's simply an angle you find exhausting. I get it. And you're not wrong that an answer lies in a DNA match. But even there, a mtDNA mismatch between M and the boy would not necessarily rule out a familial relationship. I suspect you already know that, but at least one other anti-M adherent here fails to understand this.

 

[aThousandYearsWide]

I was wondering if isotopes were ever done on him at the chance he was from somewhere else? I recently learned about the orphan trains that didn't do through background checks on adoptees but that ended in 1929 almost 30 years prior to boy in the box. It is also possible if he was adopted that it could have been legal. Could he even have been a hospital kidnapping victim? There is also the theory he was being brought up as a girl being his hair was cut and he wasn't dressed when found. Frank Bender developed this theory due to the choppy last minute hair cut. Maybe his mother had a mental illness and had wanted a girl? Also his parent could have been on the run and disguised him as a girl. Another thing I wondered was why did they do a bust for what his father may have looked like when it is possible his father wasn't aware he had a child. The hat and hankerchief could be unrelated. If the foster home theory rings true it's possible his mother was underaged or unwed. From what we do know is that he was likely born in a hospital and not undocumented (like a home-birth or homeless mother) is because he has potential surgical scars on his groin, chest, and ankle. What condition would cause such surgeries?
4UMPA

A thought I had was if he does get identified, since this case was 60 years ago, that his family might not want to release his name to not have their family publicly associated with a child's murder. But would they have that opinion in an older case like this? If he was adopted illegally we may never know the identity of his killer.