Identified! PA - Philadelphia - 'Boy in the Box' - 4UMPA - Feb'57 #3 - Joseph Augustus Zarelli

[txsleuth70]

JAZ did not have OI. I'm a pediatric nurse. Kiddos with OI have a very distinguishable skeleton.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Regarding the post above mentioning osteogenesis, x-rays of Joseph's body revealed no prior bone factures.

 

[caradana]

Law enforcement provided the child's entire name, without specifying it was only known to be his birth name. They know who his biological parents were. I think it was a mistake on their part a) not to just say we know his first name was Joseph, but right now we cannot say more either because we don't know more or because we cannot reveal more without providing fodder for amateur goose chases, wild or otherwise; b) to make it clear they're pretty sure it's only known to be his birth name.

They also went on to say his family was prominent in the area and so anyone knowing the name with a newspapers.com account can easily find said family.

I would argue LE has indeed identified half of his family and they have an obligation to clear this up now. Speculation isn't allowed here, but it's going on all over the internet.

Such a mistake. A denialist strategy from 100+ years ago. This little boy was murdered, hundreds of thousands of hours have gone into restoring his name, and the police are honoring the privacy of extended family members in Delco where, as soon as that last name was uttered, anyone will ask until the year 2100 whenever a Zarelli appears, hey, was it your family? (Watch Mayor of Easttown)

This is like attempting a closed adoption in 2022. Science has eliminated that possibility now. People can try, and pretend, and playact, and try to set impossible terms, but there is no such thing as a closed adoption anymore. Probably for the best.

<modsnip>

 

[iamshadow21]

Regarding the post above mentioning osteogenesis, x-rays of Joseph's body revealed no prior bone factures.

Yeah, people with OI suffer many, many fractures throughout their lives. There's a reason it's called brittle bone disease; the slightest of bumps can cause a break. It's a connective tissue disorder. The bones of people with OI grow the way they do due to a flawed genetic template.

MOO. Not an expert, just the partner of someone with a connective tissue disorder (not OI).

 

[nhmemorymaker]

I feel I have not heard much discussion on the actual naming of this child.



"Joseph Augustus".
Definitely strong names in the Zarelli family at the time.

IF the father of this boy KNEW of the birth, why would he ACCEPT/honor this naming since the child might have been born out of wedlock?

IF the father of this boy did NOT know of the birth of this child, WHY would the unwed mother even attempt to name this child with the father's identity?

But, IF it is the mother, who was the Zarelli, might she not name the child after her father and perhaps her uncle (mother's brother)??

I do think this actual name that has been presented does hold clues.

 

[Betty P]

I suppose M's mother could have had help from her "friends" but she must have been one busy woman... abusing a sickly toddler, raising (and also abusing) a pre-teen daughter, and working outside the home (and, not to mention how homes and housework were "suppose to look" in the 1950's) ... and no one was the wiser to this volatile woman??

It really makes me wonder. jmo

Didn't she also say her mother "bought" this child, then abused him? JMO, that seems so unlikely, too.

 

[LaLa723]

I feel I have not heard much discussion on the actual naming of this child.



"Joseph Augustus".
Definitely strong names in the Zarelli family at the time.

IF the father of this boy KNEW of the birth, why would he ACCEPT/honor this naming since the child might have been born out of wedlock?

IF the father of this boy did NOT know of the birth of this child, WHY would the unwed mother even attempt to name this child with the father's identity?

But, IF it is the mother, who was the Zarelli, might she not name the child after her father and perhaps her uncle (mother's brother)??

I do think this actual name that has been presented does hold clues.

Good point! I have wondered a lot about the name as well.

Was it common for an unwed mother that is planning on placing a child for adoption at birth even be allowed to name a newborn? I know one case in my family where a child was born in an unwed mothers home and taken at birth (not named by birth mom). The name being a family name makes me think the child was with bio mom for awhile.

MOO

 

[steff13]

Good point! I have wondered a lot about the name as well.

Was it common for an unwed mother that is planning on placing a child for adoption at birth even be allowed to name a newborn? I know one case in my family where a child was born in an unwed mothers home and taken at birth (not named by birth mom). The name being a family name makes me think the child was with bio mom for awhile.

MOO

If the mother was a Z, and she gave Joseph to another family member to raise, perhaps that family member named him JAZ after a shared relative.

 

[Friday Fan]

Good point! I have wondered a lot about the name as well.

Was it common for an unwed mother that is planning on placing a child for adoption at birth even be allowed to name a newborn? I know one case in my family where a child was born in an unwed mothers home and taken at birth (not named by birth mom). The name being a family name makes me think the child was with bio mom for awhile.

MOO

No!
Not if it is going to be a legal adoption. She would have no parental rights and the baby was usually taken immediately to discourage bonding with the child.

There would be no reason to identify him as JAZ if the birth parents had no parental rights as he would never legally have been considered to be the mother's or the father's child.

I don't think they would have identified him in the manner that they did if he was adopted at birth (from the hospital, legal adoption). Now, things could have happened afterward and he may have been placed informally somewhere.

 

[steff13]

No! Not if it is going to be a legal adoption. She would have no parental rights and the baby was usually taken immediately to discourage bonding with the child.
I don't think they would have identified him in the manner that they did if he was adopted at birth (from the hospital, legal adoption). Now, things could have happened afterward and he may have been placed informally somewhere.

Maybe if he was informally adopted, she named him after his father or her father or her brother or some combination thereof, and the "adoptive" parents kept the name? Out of respect for her or because they didn't care enough to change it.

I mentioned in a prior post about my aunt's informal adoption. She named that baby Patrick, and her uncle and aunt who raised him kept that name, and they had the same surname, so that was kept as well.

 

[iamshadow21]

According to the book "The Boy in the Box" by David Stout the body was carefully examined by the ME and there were no signs of sexual assault.

To be blunt, there are many ways a child can be sexually assaulted and it not show on their body. For example, an adult making a child touch THEM is still a sexual assault, and would leave absolutely no signs on the child.

Also, we must remember that this was a time when sexual assault, particularly of children, wasn't very understood, the shape and forms it came in, ESPECIALLY if the perpetrator was a woman, as is speculated in this case because of Martha's story. A lot of psych theory of the time insisted child sexual abuse was rare, and people who reported it were fantasists. This came right from the top, from Freud, amongst others. Virtually all the 'common' signs of abuse we're told to look for now emerged as wisdom decades after this child was killed. Children and adult survivours weren't listened to or believed, they were pathologised.

Likely, the ME examined for signs of violent penetration, soon before death. I trust that he would have found those, if they existed. They did a good job, they did their darnedest for Joseph, but nowadays, we know more and have better testing available. DNA. Photography that can show bruising not visible to the naked eye. Alternate light that can show body fluids. High powered microscopes. Still, with all the toys, it is entirely possible that if he were examined as a Doe today, Joseph could have been sexually abused and it wouldn't show on his body.

So, I'm on the fence. I trust the ME did his job, and did it well, but I also know that not all wounds leave a convenient diagnostic mark to be read.

MOO

 

[Alleykins]

I’ve started reading David Stout’s book The Boy in the Box: The Unsolved Case of America’s Unknown Child, and wanted to circle back to the dye in the eye — David Stout states that the eye shone yellow under the UV light, rather than the blue that had been reported elsewhere. I wonder which is true, but if it’s yellow then it certainly could have been fluorescein. I don’t think the staining from fluorescein usually lasts that long, so did Joseph visit an eye doctor very shortly before his death?

Sometimes yellow showing up in a child's eye when a light is shined on it can indicate retinoblastoma, which usually develops before age 5. Not sure if that's something that would have been obvious to or detectable by a medical examiner simply by looking at it, it usually takes deeper examination with optical devices. If a police officer, even today, saw yellow in a child's eye under light most likely wouldn't know it could be an eye disease, unless they had personal experience with it.
To this day, not a lot of parents know that if they see their child's eye do that in flash pictures, they should to take their kid to an eye doctor to have it ruled out. I only knew about it because, back in the 80s, my coworker noticed his daughter's eye looked gold/yellow in a family picture and got a bad feeling about it. So they took her to the doctor, where she was diagnosed with it. Our local paper wrote about it to spread awarenes and showed the picture. Up until then, I had no clue. Forty years later, I'm still stumbling across recent articles written by parents blindsided by this diagnosis, because no one told them that a flash photograph showing a white or yellow glow in a child's eye could signal a serious eye disease.

 

[CCJD]

The Vidocq Society posted this on their FB page this morning:

"Please remember that the Joseph Augustus Zarelli case remains an active homicide investigation. The assigned detectives are both capable and diligent and we need to let them do their jobs. Speculation is dangerous and can cause harm to people who may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. If someone knows something — FACTS, not speculation — then they should contact PPD homicide and provide their information."

Log in or sign up to view

See posts, photos and more on Facebook.

tinyurl.com

 

[Ontario Mom]

Law enforcement provided the child's entire name, without specifying it was only known to be his birth name. They know who his biological parents were. I think it was a mistake on their part a) not to just say we know his first name was Joseph, but right now we cannot say more either because we don't know more or because we cannot reveal more without providing fodder for amateur goose chases, wild or otherwise; b) to make it clear they're pretty sure it's only known to be his birth name.

They also went on to say his family was prominent in the area and so anyone knowing the name with a newspapers.com account can easily find said family.

I would argue LE has indeed identified half of his family and they have an obligation to clear this up now. Speculation isn't allowed here, but it's going on all over the internet.

We don't know, what we don't know.

LE on this case have their own reasons for not sharing more than they already have and unless we're LE on this case, none of us know the exact reason why.

While I wish they would have only released his first name (and completely prevented the goose chase you mention), they did it the way they did, for a reason, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're doing.

jmo

 

[IDK]

I’ve started reading David Stout’s book The Boy in the Box: The Unsolved Case of America’s Unknown Child, and wanted to circle back to the dye in the eye — David Stout states that the eye shone yellow under the UV light, rather than the blue that had been reported elsewhere. I wonder which is true, but if it’s yellow then it certainly could have been fluorescein. I don’t think the staining from fluorescein usually lasts that long, so did Joseph visit an eye doctor very shortly before his death?

This is what I’d like to know as well!

 

[HarmonyE.]

While I wish they would have only released his first name (and completely prevented the goose chase you mention), they did it the way they did, for a reason, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're doing.

jmo

I'm not the sort to just trust the authorities because they are in authority. They shouldn't have released his full name and drawn a road map to the Z family unless they could provide some sort of context. The odds of anyone outside his family remembering his name nearly 66 years later are extraordinarily slim, especially considering no one missed him in the greater Philadelphia area when he went missing.

"His name was Joseph. And the investigation is ongoing" would have sufficed. Conversely, if they think someone may have information about Joseph Augustus Zarelli, they need to do a better job framing the questions they have. Like where he may have been living when he was killed. If they can't do that, Joseph is all anyone needs to know now.

 

[WestCoastLMET]

I feel I have not heard much discussion on the actual naming of this child.



"Joseph Augustus".
Definitely strong names in the Zarelli family at the time.

IF the father of this boy KNEW of the birth, why would he ACCEPT/honor this naming since the child might have been born out of wedlock?

IF the father of this boy did NOT know of the birth of this child, WHY would the unwed mother even attempt to name this child with the father's identity?

But, IF it is the mother, who was the Zarelli, might she not name the child after her father and perhaps her uncle (mother's brother)??

I do think this actual name that has been presented does hold clues.

A number of people have suggested he was born out of wedlock. If that were true the fathers name would not be on the birth certificate. According to the authorities the father is named on the birth certificate. <modsnip - off limits>

 

[alucardsdream]

A number of people have suggested he was born out of wedlock. If that were true the fathers name would not be on the birth certificate. According to the authorities the father is named on the birth certificate. I’m wondering about a possible prior marriage of one of the brothers.

You don't have to be married to have the father's name on the birth certificate.

 

[iamshadow21]

A number of people have suggested he was born out of wedlock. If that were true the fathers name would not be on the birth certificate. According to the authorities the father is named on the birth certificate. I’m wondering about a possible prior marriage of one of the brothers.

If you go a ways back on this thread, a day or so, you'll see a bunch of anecdotal comments about people's own experiences of this, of their own certificates or of family members. There was no firm universal standard. Some folks have no father listed, some have a father listed but the child is given the mother's name, some had father listed and father's name. Some didn't have to provide proof, just gave father's name and it was written down, others had to have the father there, with ID and giving a signature before they'd list him as parent.

 

[HarmonyE.]

You don't have to be married to have the father's name on the birth certificate.

Very true. Although in 1953 it was much more common just to leave that part blank.