Autopsy Information
On the evening of February 26, 1957, the Boy in the Box’s autopsy was performed by Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Joseph W. Spelman. One of his first problems was trying to determine the time of death, the reason being Philadelphia’s weather is generally cold in February, and in fact “in the last week of that month, the temperature ranged from the chilly twenties to the brisk forties . . . [and in such weather] human bodies do not
decompose rapidly” (Selby 1958). Dr. Spelman indicated that the time of death could have been within two to three days, or as much as two to three weeks, though he tended to believe that “the body [was not] in the field that long” (McIntyre 1957). On the other hand, the cause of death was not a problem. Dr. Spelman stated in his report that the boy died due to being “beaten to death” (Englade 1999). The multiple bruising throughout the body indicated the little boy was beaten in a brutal fashion. Though the age of the boy is questionable due to indications of malnutrition found when his x-rays
were analyzed, the boy was initially determined to be anywhere from three to five years old, though many sources quoted the ages as four to six years old.
The body of the boy again led to some problems. It had plenty of small clues, such as identifying marks, but none were really prominent. Of course, the body was completely nude, except for the blanket covering his loin area. If you study the crime scene photo of the boy inside the box, you can see how little the blanket covers the body. The belly button is even visible. Interestingly, the nails, both hands and feet, were cut,
and his hair had been freshly cut, though in a crude, rushed manner, with small tufts of hair still clinging to the boy’s body, as if the body had been wet just before or after death. His arms were lying on each side of his torso with the palms apparently facing down. The boy weighed 30 lbs. and was 40 1/ 2 inches tall. Of Caucasian ethnicity, he had blue eyes, partially open, but the eyeballs had already started to sink back toward the skull by the time of the autopsy. His hair was a light brown. Four blatant bruises pocked his forehead, which indicated someone had placed pressure there just before
or just after death perhaps to cut the boys hair in haste. Dr. Spelman even considered the idea that the boy’s four bruises on his head led to his death. Which, if the hasty haircut is considered, could mean the death was accidental, albeit highly unlikely based upon the totality of the evidence, i.e. multiple bruising, dumping of the body, etc. The tiny lips were dry and blotched with blood. His ribs were exposed, indicating malnutrition. The boy’s “little tummy [was] already greenish with rot,” by the time William H. Kelly, fingerprint expert for the Identification Unit, took his prints (Erdely 2003).
Seven scars blotted the body, which were seen as possible clues to the boy’s identity. Three were possibly surgical in nature: two on the chest and groin, both well-healed indicating that they had been created some time before. There was also a “scar on [the] boy’s left ankle, which looked like a ‘cut down’ incision indicating [the] boy possibly received infusions” (Philadelphia Bulletin 1957). Dr. Spelman later ordered an examination of all records at Philadelphia General Hospital to locate child patients with a record of operations involving infusions or treatment of an illness.
As a side note, a recent reexamination of the boy’s autopsy by “Philadelphia Medical Examiner Haresh Mirchandani concluded that what had been thought to be signs of multiple intravenous insertions into the boy’s leg - an indication that he might have been chronically ill - were actually scars from hernia surgery” (Lewis 1998). There was also a 1 1/ 2 inch scar on his chest, closer to the left side. He had one round-shaped scar on his left elbow. Interestingly, his chin had one “L” shaped scar, 1/ 4 inch in either direction. There were no vaccination scars evident, either.
The boy had three moles on the
left side of his face.: one small mole below his right ear; three small moles on the right side of his chest; and one large mole on his right arm, two inches above his wrist and in direct line with his little finger.
Interestingly, the boy’s teeth were a full set, and slightly buck-toothed, an indication of his age being more likely on the older estimate of three to five years of age than the younger. Also, his tonsils were present. Though a later analysis of the boy’s body by Dr. Wilton M. Krogman considered him to be minimally malnourished, the presence of tonsils indicates he had a
somewhat healthy immune system, given that tonsillectomies were quite common back then, or that his caregiver was uncaring about the boy’s suffering if in fact he needed them removed. Given the manner of death, the latter seems more realistic.
The boy’s body had signs of being held under water for some time either just before or after death. The palm of his right hand and the soles of both feet were waterlogged or “pruny,” what investigators call the “washerwoman effect.” Was the boy submersed in water, perhaps in an attempt to drown him? His left hand unaffected because it was frantically holding on to the side of the tub during the act? Dr. Spelman later ruled out drowning.
Though forensics was limited in 1957 compared to today, the investigators working the Boy in the Box’s case were very intuitive. An ultraviolet light was used by Dr. Spelman to scan over the body so as to look for tiny clues, small fibers, anything which might reveal something significant. When the boy’s left eye was exposed to the light, he noticed that the eye fluoresced a bright blue, indicating a possible use of an eye medicine to treat an eye infection. Like the cut-down incision, this was another unique characteristic the investigators could present when speaking to physicians, hospitals, etc.
A strange finding during the autopsy was the discovery of an unidentifiable brown liquid in the boy’s throat. To the present day, with the exception of “M”’ s statements below, no conclusion has been reached as to what the liquid might have been. In a later analysis of the body moreover, Dr. Spelman concluded that the boy had not eaten for at least two to three hours before death. Was Dr. Spelman mistaken? What significance if any did this mysterious brown liquid have for the boy’s case?
Given that the official cause of death was being “beaten to death” (Englade 1999) and that the boy’s body had “multiple head injuries” (Rothenberg 2000), the x-rays of the boy’s skeleton interestingly revealed no visible signs of any fractures, either past or present.
Given that the investigation produced no viable evidence of the boy’s name, or even of the exact manner in which he died, it was determined by investigators to ask an anthropology expert to look over the remains and see if he could come up with some more clues. Dr. Wilton M. Krogman was Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. He was known by the moniker “The Bone Detective” (Selby 1958). Prior to burial of the boy, he performed an analysis of the boy’s physical characteristics, including x-rays of the boy’s body. Anything to help point the investigators in the right direction. He determined the boy to be 40 inches tall, which gave the boy a “height age” of approximately three years and eight months. Yet, the boy only weighed thirty pounds which indicated a “weight age” of only two years and two months (Selby 1958). To Dr. Krogman, this was an obvious sign of malnutrition and in fact the x-rays of the leg bones indicated “scars of arrested growth” (Selby 1958). According to Krogman, this evidence indicated that the boy’s growth could have been slowed down “six months to a year” (Selby 1958).
Krogman also speculated that the boy was ill the last year of his life. Hence, Dr. Krogman’s opinion that the boy’s caretaker was probably constantly on the move. Perhaps carnival workers. Perhaps, the boy was a victim of a kidnapping and thus constantly kept on the run. When asked if he felt the boy might have been mentally incompetent, and was being raised by an unstable mother, he could not say. Interestingly, Krogman recounted how, after his name was placed in the paper about the case, he received a phone call from a woman. “Can you tell whether the boy was weak-minded?” she prodded (Selby 1958). Of course, the woman remained anonymous. But she added to her initial query “Do you know what it is to take care of an idiot? Sometimes you get so sick of their crying you can kill them in a fit of anger. That might be your explanation” (Selby 1958). She hung up. End of story.
Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (Revised Edition) (Kindle Locations 195-198). . Kindle Edition.
www.crimewatchers.net
