MD MD - Baltimore, 3 Male Babies, UP13011, UP13013, & UP13014, May/Aug'66 - Connection or coincidence?

[SurrealisticSlumbers]

WARNING: The following information may be distressing to some.

In the Spring and Summer of 1966, it seems that there were multiple discoveries made of dead infants (three, that we know of) in the City of Baltimore. These unidentified babies were all male, and though some circumstances differ, the bodies of these little ones were all discovered within a 10 mile radius of one another. The details on each case are below; cases are listed in chronological order.

Unidentified WhtMale
NamUs #UP13011

Date Found: May 24, 1966
Location Found: Baltimore, Baltimore Co., Maryland
Postmortem Interval: Hours
State of Remains: All parts recovered - recognizable face
Cause of Death: Unknown

Physical Description:
Estimated Age: Newborn
Gender: Male
Race: White
Height: 1' 7" (measured)
Weight: 9 lbs. (measured)
Hair Color: Unknown
Eye Color: Unknown
Distinguishing Marks or Features: Unknown

Identifiers:
Dentals: N/A
Fingerprints: N/A
DNA: Available

Clothing & Personal Items:
Clothing / Jewelry: A "blue garment" was found nearby, but there is no further description given.
Additional Personal Items: Unknown

Circumstances of Discovery:
A newborn male's remains were located on the property of Stafford Street Apartments, at the 400 block of Long Island Ave. in Baltimore, MD, 21229.

Sources:
Doe Network
NamUs

Investigating Agency(s):
Maryland Office of the Chief State Medical Examiner
Charlotte Romero
410-333-3225
Agency Case Number: #63230

​

Unidentified Male
NamUs UP#13013

Date Found: August 10, 1966
Location Found: Baltimore, Baltimore Co., Maryland
Postmortem Interval: Days
State of Remains: All parts recovered - not recognizable; decomposing/putrefaction
Cause of Death: Unknown

Physical Description:
Estimated Age: Fetus
Gender: Male
Race: Unsure
Height: 1' 2" (measured)
Weight: 1 lb. (estimated)
Hair Color: Unknown
Eye Color: Unknown
Distinguishing Marks or Features: Unknown

Identifiers:
Dentals: N/A
Fingerprints: N/A
DNA: Available

Clothing & Personal Items:
Clothing / Jewelry: Unknown
Additional Personal Items: Unknown

Circumstances of Discovery:
A deceased male fetus was recovered from the Baltimore Harbor.

Source(s):
Doe Network
NamUs

Investigating Agency(s):
Maryland Office of the Chief State Medical Examiner
Charlotte Romero
410-333-3225
Agency Case Number: #63858

​

Unidentified Male
NamUs UP#13014

Date Found: August 21, 1966
Location Found: Baltimore, Baltimore Co., Maryland
Postmortem Interval: Hours
State of Remains: All parts recovered - recognizable face
Cause of Death: Unknown

Physical Description:
Estimated Age: Infant
Gender: Male
Race: Unsure
Height: 1' 7" (measured)
Weight: 7 lbs. (measured)
Hair Color: Black, short
Eye Color: Unknown
Distinguishing Marks or Features: Unknown

Identifiers:
Dentals: N/A
Fingerprints: N/A
DNA: Available

Clothing & Personal Items:
Clothing / Jewelry: Unknown
Additional Personal Items: A pink cotton bed cover, a cloth with a "jack-in-the-box" pattern, a white washcloth, a white rag, and cotton pajama pants in a size large, noted as being faded and of elastic material at the top. These items were found near the body.

Circumstances of Discovery:
The body of a male infant was found inside an enclosed object in a public area, at the intersection of Central Ave. and Granby St. in Baltimore, MD, 21202.

Source(s):
Doe Network
NamUs

Investigating Agency(s):
Maryland Office of the Chief State Medical Examiner
Charlotte Romero
410-333-3225
Agency Case Number: #63935​

 

[SurrealisticSlumbers]

The good thing about these cases is that DNA is on file for all of them.

No one knows quite how these infants died. Why were these dead babies (one seems to have been a full-term fetus) all dumped within a 10-mile radius of each other during the late spring and summer of 1966 - is there a connection here? Or is it just mere coincidence?

Strictly my own opinion - the fetus found floating in the harbor probably weighed more than just a pound; he was in the water for a few days at that point, active decomp present (it gets hot in August around Baltimore). As the fetus was already 14 inches in height, this baby may have been born naturally, although would've likely been a preemie if that were the case... Not sure if a young girl or woman got a "back alley" abortion in the third trimester? Another unidentified case, that of "Miss X," a pregnant woman in Delaware, was (for a time, anyway) thought to have been the result of an attempted abortion gone wrong in the days when that procedure was still illegal.

More on the Baltimore Harbor - Baltimore Inner Harbor Visitor Center | Visit Baltimore

 

[MadMcGoo]

It does seem like more than just a coincidence, but I’m not exactly sure how you’d even explain such discoveries. It’s quite sad. Like you said, at least DNA is available for them.

 

[devertere]

I think it's a really sad coincidence.

I have no clue, but were these discoveries in low-income areas?

These cases are so sad, and pretty much impossible to solve without matching DNA.

 

[SurrealisticSlumbers]

Some rambling observations on the two other infants found.

The baby boy discovered in late May of that year weighed a healthy nine pounds, and is described as being a "newborn" – that’s usually a term used to denote any child under 2 months old (at least, I think).

were these discoveries in low-income areas?

This baby was found in the Beechfield neighborhood, which is in the southwestern part of the city, just barely inside the Baltimore Beltway. Significant landmarks nearby include the Baltimore National Cemetery, and the suburb of Catonsville is just a hop, skip and a jump away. Long Island Avenue is a dead-end road off MD Rt. 144 (Frederick Ave.), and from how it looks on Google Maps, the 400 block contains an apartment complex – Hillside Park Apartments – and across the street, quite a bit of vegetation/ overgrowth, with just one single-family home there in the 400 block across from the apartments.

A little more insight on the area here… this baby was supposedly spotted on the grounds of the "Stafford Street Apartments" – well, I found no apartment complex bearing this name on that road, or anywhere in the vicinity, so it's pretty easy to infer that the apartments were simply renamed. In fact, that seems to have been exactly what happened, as I came across this description of the apartments (and more importantly, their past) on a property management website:

"In 1997, this partially vacant, crime-ridden, and badly deteriorated apartment complex was considered a horrific blight to the mixed-income and economically and racially integrated Beechfield community in Baltimore City. Beechfield was considered a diverse 'tipping community'; if these 94 apartments were allowed to deteriorate, the community would be dismantled and it would fall into poverty. However, if the property were renovated, it would be a model mixed-income community. Thus, absent a strong neighborhood plan for improvements, this complex threatened to dismantle the entire neighborhood…​

The resulting development consists of 94 mixed-income apartments, including 30 apartments set aside for low-income, public housing households."​

Looks like the Housing Authority of Baltimore City did just that; the apartments look really nice in their present state. However, back in the '60s and as recently as the '90s, this seems to have been a rough part of town. Interesting. There was what’s described as a "blue garment" near the body. Not sure if the baby had originally been swaddled or concealed inside whatever that garment was. Maybe his death was just an accident, and the mother panicked. Could’ve been that she thought she’d be investigated and possibly get in trouble for the baby's death.

On the infant found in August near the Inner Harbor: whoever placed this child's body there probably felt contrite somehow, based on a few things. First, they put him in a very conspicuous area, almost as if the person(s) wanted him to be found and maybe given a proper burial. Then, he was placed in a so-called "enclosed object" (a box or other container?) so as to shield the body from the elements. Seems as though someone cared about this baby and felt bad or guilty about his death… note that some personal effects were found either inside where the baby's body was, or at least in the immediate vicinity. The cloth that had what's described as a "jack-in-the-box pattern" is clearly an item intended for a baby. The person also placed a bed cover (crib cover?) and a washcloth and rag in there with him – maybe his spit-up rag?

There were also pajama pants found with him, in a size large – however, it is unknown to me, at least, if that’s supposed to mean an adult size large. Basically, from the looks of it, I can see this death as being some kind of terrible accident, maybe on the part of the parents, and the mother could've wanted to leave her pajama pants there with the baby as perhaps a token of her love / affection for him in his brief life. She may have been wearing those pajama pants when he died; possibly had him in the bed with her, accidentally rolled over in her sleep and smothered him, and couldn't bring herself to ever wear or see those pajama pants ever again due to the emotional trauma. I know, I’m imagining a lot here, but I just wonder. He was just a 7-lb. baby, so couldn’t have been more than a few weeks old, if that. I just sense that someone did care about this baby.

The area this child was found in was, again, near the Inner Harbor, right in the heart of downtown Baltimore, in the Jonestown neighborhood. That's just north of Little Italy. Wikipedia says: "In the last half of the 20th century, Jonestown has shifted from a predominantly Eastern European and Jewish neighborhood into a predominantly African-American neighborhood." Gives some idea as to the child's demographics; the race is listed as "unsure," yet he is said to have had "short, black hair."

 

[Susikatze]

Just a note regarding the fetus. It says 1 lb, which is not anywhere near term. It is an extremely premature baby, 500 grams/1 lb is around week 22, if I remember correctly. Even today there is hardly any survival chance for a baby so small, let alone in 1966. This is not infanticide (unless abortion is involved), but a very sad late miscarriage. The mom may have had no access to medical care (and even if, back in 1966, it was difficult to keep preterm labor away once it started, even today it is not easy).

The other two with around 7 lb are clearly full term newborns and their deaths are highly suspicious. The 3rd baby, however, got some care, judging by the items found with him. It may have been an underage girl with an unwanted pregnancy giving birth to him alone. The pyjama pants, in my book, she gave birth in them and then dumped the soiled thing with the body of the baby.

 

[SurrealisticSlumbers]

Just a note regarding the fetus. It says 1 lb, which is not anywhere near term. It is an extremely premature baby, 500 grams/1 lb is around week 22, if I remember correctly. Even today there is hardly any survival chance for a baby so small, let alone in 1966. This is not infanticide (unless abortion is involved), but a very sad late miscarriage. The mom may have had no access to medical care (and even if, back in 1966, it was difficult to keep preterm labor away once it started, even today it is not easy).

The other two with around 7 lb are clearly full term newborns and their deaths are highly suspicious. The 3rd baby, however, got some care, judging by the items found with him. It may have been an underage girl with an unwanted pregnancy giving birth to him alone. The pyjama pants, in my book, she gave birth in them and then dumped the soiled thing with the body of the baby.

Great points... please excuse my ignorance on the subject as I'm a bit on the young side and haven't been pregnant before. I just have vague recollections of high school biology, learning about how the fetus was the last developmental stage just prior to birth. I wasn't sure if the term applied to a child once born /outside the womb... again, I'm a bit ignorant on this. So when I read "fetus," I was picturing a fully-formed baby, but just wasn't sure if born alive, aborted, or dead as a result of a miscarriage / too premature birth, or stillbirth situation. They could determine the sex, and that he measured a little over a foot in height - if the pregnancy was only 22 weeks along, would the fetus already be measuring that long? I don't know these things!

I speculated in my earlier post that the decay of soft tissues (postmortem interval was listed as "days") could've taken some of the weight off, as the 1 lb. is listed as just an estimate. If this child was indeed only a pound, chances of survival outside the womb, like you pointed out, would be minimal. If this was a miscarriage, it just seems like it happened a bit late in the pregnancy - I thought the chance of miscarriage decreased significantly after about two months into the pregnancy. If it reaches a fetus, but born too prematurely and then dies, I thought that would be more like what's called a stillbirth.

P.S. I just googled "low birth weight" and this usually describes babies born weighing less than 5 lbs., 8 oz. - and anything less than like, 3 lbs. is almost unheard of and would be very low birth weight... Low birth weight is most commonly attributable to a premature birth, according to the site below.

Low Birthweight | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

 

[MarziPanda]

Great points... please excuse my ignorance on the subject as I'm a bit on the young side and haven't been pregnant before. I just have vague recollections of high school biology, learning about how the fetus was the last developmental stage just prior to birth. I wasn't sure if the term applied to a child once born /outside the womb... again, I'm a bit ignorant on this. So when I read "fetus," I was picturing a fully-formed baby, but just wasn't sure if born alive, aborted, or dead as a result of a miscarriage / too premature birth, or stillbirth situation. They could determine the sex, and that he measured a little over a foot in height - if the pregnancy was only 22 weeks along, would the fetus already be measuring that long? I don't know these things!

I speculated in my earlier post that the decay of soft tissues (postmortem interval was listed as "days") could've taken some of the weight off, as the 1 lb. is listed as just an estimate. If this child was indeed only a pound, chances of survival outside the womb, like you pointed out, would be minimal. If this was a miscarriage, it just seems like it happened a bit late in the pregnancy - I thought the chance of miscarriage decreased significantly after about two months into the pregnancy. If it reaches a fetus, but born too prematurely and then dies, I thought that would be more like what's called a stillbirth.

P.S. I just googled "low birth weight" and this usually describes babies born weighing less than 5 lbs., 8 oz. - and anything less than like, 3 lbs. is almost unheard of and would be very low birth weight... Low birth weight is most commonly attributable to a premature birth, according to the site below.

Low Birthweight | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

A 22 week foetus is typically smaller than that. Just over a foot long is about the size of a 24 or 25 week foetus. Still very premature and still extremely unlikely to survive in 1966. My sister was born at 24 weeks in 1993, at just under 2lbs, and her chances of survival at the time were 3% (it's now 55%). If she had been a boy, her chances of survival would have been almost 0%. I'm not sure why (I've never looked it up, and maybe medics aren't sure themselves) but premature girls have a better chance of survival than premature boys. I couldn't find many real statistics for the 60s other than the rate of survival for babies under 3.3lbs was 28% in 1960. I don't have any doubts that this poor baby was a stillborn or died pretty soon after birth.

ETA - yes my sister did beat the odds and live!

 

[Susikatze]

Dont need to go so far. I was born at 2 lbs as a 34 week LBW preemie in 1983 and the doctors said anything from 2 lbs and up has a great chance. Anything below that is problematic.

And a 22-24 weeker (the range is pretty individual) at 1 lb even today hardly has a survival chance (girls better than boys). We say that 24 weeks and up are the border to viability with medical care, given the weight is sufficient (1 lb is not sufficient). A baby born even older than that but without adequate NICU care hardly stands a chance, even today. In 1966.. no chance.

And re fetus/miscarriage or stillbirth; any baby dying before the age of viability (today 24/25 weeks) is considered a late term miscarriage. Early miss is from week 4 to week 12. Of course it is fully formed already but they are from week 12 or so and all they have to do is they have to grow more...
Any baby born dead after week 25 is considered stillborn (back then actually after week 34).

So we are borderline but id still count it as late term miscarriage.

 

[John/Jane Doe]

2772UMMD

2773UMMD

2774UMMD