PA THE BOY IN THE BOX: WM, 4-6, found in Philadelphia, PA - 25 February 1957 *JOSEPH ZARELLI*

America's Unknown Child

jKmmZsq.jpg



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Source R had much more specific detail about “M”’ s family, family member data, etc., but I decided to only include a “sanitized version” in this chapter. The bottom line is that the only real evidence we have to support the notion that “M” might be related to the Boy in the Box through her paternal uncle, her father’s brother, are “M”’ s own words, and the circumstantial evidence compiled by Source R. BUT... I believe every noun, pronoun, verb, and adverb “M” has stated publicly . . . and any other grammatical elements you can think of. Her account is unequivocal in my humble opinion.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (pp. 194-195). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
 
VsUS8Ad.jpg


sqmyLRo.jpg


There was no callous development on the soles of Jonathan's feet. It's fairly obvious that he didn't walk. He lived in an old coal bin on top of a refrigerator box, with a thin blanket.
 
Hypothetical bust of what the unknown boy's father may have looked like, by forensic sculptor Frank Bender, V.S.M.

DWluTmo.jpg
 
I don’t intend here to rehash “M”’ s account of what really happened to the Boy in the Box, the reader has it above in Chapter V, but this little tidbit, this little addition or wrinkle to the account has grabbed me. You see, “M” has publicly stated in interviews that she thinks it is possible she is related to the BITB. Let me type that again: “M” has stated in interviews that she thinks it is possible she is related to the BITB.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (p. 186). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
 
“M”’ s PATERNAL UNCLE (BITB’s FATHER?)

He did not go to college and in fact initially worked as a clerk. After marrying, he eventually moved to the Mayfair section of Philadelphia. "When the wife of “M”’ s maternal uncle died sometime after the uncle, Source R found an Obit which did not mention “M” as a surviving family member. Again, this made Source R “wonder if she [uncle’s widow] was angry because “M” released information about the family.”

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (p. 194). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
 
“M”’ s Father was the son of Welsh immigrants. He had four siblings and lived near Scranton. “M”’ s father had a BS from Penn State and an MA from the University of Pennsylvania. He didn’t marry “M”’ s mother until he was in his 40s - around World War II. At Lower Merion High School, he was a Science teacher and coach, she a librarian.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (p. 194). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
 
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)


Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (p. 24). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
 
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.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (Revised Edition) (Kindle Locations 232-234). . Kindle Edition.
 
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.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (Revised Edition) (Kindle Locations 215-219). . Kindle Edition.

The PPD checked hospital records throughout the Philadelphia area. They found nothing for matching footprints, hernia surgery, anesthesia problems, or eye ailments. Hospitals would have had records of an infant suffering surgical trauma that resulted in cerebral palsy. Where were these procedures done?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venous_cutdown

Venous cutdown is an emergency procedure in which the vein is exposed surgically and then a cannula is inserted into the vein under direct vision. It is used to get vascular access in trauma and hypovolemic shock patients when peripheral cannulation is difficult or impossible. The saphenous vein is most commonly used.


Distal saphenous vein cutdown site.

bFAAhad.png


https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/80393-overview

Intravenous (IV) access is one of the crucial first steps in the resuscitation of any critically ill or injured patient who presents to the emergency department (ED). When peripheral IV access fails, alternative routes must be sought to obtain rapid access for the purpose of infusing IV fluids, blood products, or medications. [1] Although venous cutdown has largely been replaced by the use of over-the-wire percutaneous catheters (also known as central lines) [2] , it remains an excellent alternative when other approaches have failed.

F2l5NT1.jpg


The great saphenous vein (GSV) is the vessel most commonly used for the venous cutdown. [resuscitation, [10, 11, 12] this vein's location distant from the primary resuscitative efforts centered on the head, neck, and torso affords unhindered access to the site.

Saphenous vein cutdown is indicated for the purpose of emergency venous access (when attempts to gain access via peripheral or percutaneous routes have failed).





It sounds like an emergency situation occurred during the hernia operation. Jonathan may have entered surgery as a normal infant and emerged from the procedure severely disabled.
 
http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=inguinal-and-umbilical-hernia-90-P01998

Inguinal and Umbilical Hernia
What is a hernia?
A hernia occurs when a section of intestine protrudes through a weakness in the abdominal muscles. A soft bulge is seen underneath the skin where the hernia has occurred.

In children, a hernia usually occurs in 1 of 2 places:
Around the belly button
In the groin area
A hernia that occurs in the belly button area is called an umbilical hernia.
A hernia that occurs in the groin area is called an inguinal hernia.

F2l5NT1.jpg


Inguinal hernia. An operation is necessary to treat an inguinal hernia. Generally, it will be surgically repaired soon after it is discovered, since the intestine can become stuck in the inguinal canal. When this happens, the blood supply to the intestine can be cut off, and the intestine can become damaged.

During a hernia operation, your child will be placed under anesthesia. A small incision is made in the area of the hernia. The loop of intestine is placed back into the abdominal cavity. The muscles are then stitched together. Sometimes, a piece of mesh material is used to help strengthen the area where the muscles are repaired.

Children who have an inguinal hernia surgically repaired can often go home the same day they have surgery.

F2l5NT1.jpg
 
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.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (pp. 23-24). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.


Blue is the most recessive eye color. Since blue eye was Jonathan's phenotype, it would have been necessary for Jonathan to have had a blue eye genotype from each of his biological parents. In other words, both of his parents had to be carriers of a blue eye gene.
 
I do have World War II military information for M's uncle who she believed could be Jonathan's father. The military records indicate that the uncle's phenotype was brown eyes. He could still have been the carrier of a recessive blue eye gene.
 
A blue eyed person can only pass a blue eye gene to an offspring. Blue eyes are the most recessive, and green eyes are the least common.

In order for Jonathan to have had blue eyes, the uncle had to be carrying a blue eye gene even if the uncle's phenotype was brown eyes. Jonathan's mother also had to have had a genotype of at least one blue eye gene.
 
DR. SPELMAN Subject has several scars. Three appear surgical in nature. One surgical scar is on left ankle and appears to be the result of a "cut down incision" common with infusions. One in the groin area. One on chest. Interestingly, no visible vaccination scars indicating possible child of immigrants.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (p. 297). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
 
In the article, “Dr. Spelman reported that a scar on the left ankle looks like a ‘cut-down’ incision. He said such an incision is made to expose a vein so that a needle may be inserted to give an infusion or transfusion.” The two other scars might have been caused surgically because they healed leaving only a hair-line on the chest and in the groin. Dr. Spelman said that all of the bruises that covered the body of the four to five-year-old [note the age is now four to five] victim appeared to have been inflicted at the same time.” (Philadelphia Bulletin 1957)

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (pp. 32-33). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
 
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/39148015/the_boy-in_the-box

The Boy In The Box

BIRTH unknown
DEATH Feb 1957
BURIAL
Ivy Hill Cemetery
Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, USA
MEMORIAL ID 39148015 · View Source


The "Boy in the Box" some times "The Fox Chase Boy" and "America's Unknown Child" is the name given to an unidentified murder victim, approximately 4 to 6 years old, whose naked, battered body was found in a cardboard box in the Fox Chase section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on February 25, 1957. He is also commonly called "America's Unknown Child".

The boy's body, wrapped in a plaid blanket, was found in a cardboard box that once contained a baby's bassinet from J.C. Penney. The body was first discovered by a young man checking his muskrat traps. Fearing the police would take his traps away, he did not report finding the body. A few days later, a college student spotted a rabbit running into the underbrush. Knowing there were animal traps in the area, he stopped his car to investigate and discovered the body. He too was reluctant to have any contact with the police, but did report his find the following day.

The case engendered massive media attention in Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley, with pictures of the boy even being placed in every gas bill in Philadelphia. However, despite the publicity at the time of the body's discovery and sporadic re-interest throughout the years, the case remains unsolved to this day, and the boy's identity is still unknown.

The story has been profiled on the television series America's Most Wanted, and the CBS series Cold Case. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and NBC's Law & Order: SVU have both used fictionalized accounts of the story as the basis for episodes.

Like many unsolved murders, myriad tips and theories have been put forward regarding a solution to the case. Although most have been dismissed, two possible solutions to the case have been extensively investigated and engendered much focus by both the police and the media.

The first involves a foster home that was located approximately 1.5 miles from the discovery site. In 1960, Remington Bristow, an employee of the medical examiner's office who doggedly pursued the case until his death in 1993, contacted a New Jersey psychic, who told him to look for a house which seemed to match the foster home. When the psychic was brought to the Philadelphia discovery site, she led Bristow straight to the foster home. Upon attending an estate sale at the foster home, Bristow discovered a bassinet similar to the one sold at J.C. Penney. Also, he discovered blankets hanging on the clothesline similar to the one in which the boy's body had been wrapped. Bristow believed that the child belonged to the stepdaughter of the man who ran the foster home; they disposed of the boy's body so that she wouldn't be exposed as an unwed mother, as there was still a significant social stigma associated with single motherhood in 1957. Bristow theorized that the boy's death was accidental. Despite this circumstantial evidence, the police were unable to find any concrete links between the Boy in the Box and the foster family. In 1998, Philadelphia police lieutenant Tom Augustine, who is in charge of the investigation, and several members of the Vidocq Society, a group of retired policemen and profilers investigating the crime, interviewed the foster father and the daughter, whom he had married. The interview seemed to confirm to them that the family was not involved in the case, and the foster home investigation is considered closed.

The case remains officially unsolved, but investigators are attempting DNA analysis on the boy's remains to attempt to link him to entries in a national mitochondrial DNA. In the series Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Season 7, Episode 7 titled "Name" (aired November, 2005), a striking similar case was investigated by the team. The similarities are: In a decades-old unsolved case, a boy was found in a box. A man and a boy were seen by a witness at the trunk of a car at the scene, around the time the boy had been deposed there (in the real case, a woman and a boy were seen at the trunk of a car). Most of the buyers of the content of the box in which the boy was found (a boiler in the series, a bassinet in reality) had been traced back successfully by the investigators. The boy was found in a blanket that was cut in half. A woman with a mental record told her psychologist decades later that it was her brother who had been killed. Unlike in the real case, in which the trace lead nowhere (see "M"'s Story above), in the series this hint finally solved the case, although the name of the boy remained unknown. The original investigators of the case bought the boy his own grave and in the series the exact same words were written on the gravestone as those written on the first and original gravestone of the real boy in the box, which are: "Heavenly Father, Bless this unknown boy".
Another reference was made in the an episode of CBS crime series Cold Case named "The Boy In The Box." This episode has many very close similarities to the real-life case including many of the items and contents of this episode bearing striking resemblance to the posters made to help try to identify this boy, including propping the slain child up in clothes.

***I would like to thank RAP
the wonderful sponsor of The boy in the box your a angel and all who knows you and loves you are lucky to have someone as great as you.***
 
The bottom line is that the only real evidence we have to support the notion that “M” might be related to the Boy in the Box through her paternal uncle, her father’s brother, are “M”’ s own words, and the circumstantial evidence compiled by Source R. BUT... I believe every noun, pronoun, verb, and adverb “M” has stated publicly . . . and any other grammatical elements you can think of. Her account is unequivocal in my humble opinion.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (pp. 194-195). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.


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.

Hoffmann, Jim. The Boy in the Box: America's Unknown Child (3rd Edition): My Obsession with America's Greatest Crime (pp. 23-24). Susquehanna Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.


Now she says her uncle may have been the biological father of the boy she knew as Jonathan. No, she acknowledges, she has no hard evidence.

David Stout. The Boy in the Box: The Unsolved Case of America's Unknown Child (Kindle Locations 2206-2209). Kindle Edition.




A recent multi-generation study has found that the brown eyed paternal uncle carried a recessive blue eye gene. His two brothers were blue eyed phenotypes. It has been determined that based on eye color, it would have been very possible for M's uncle to have been Jonathan's father. Jonathan's biological mother would have been a blue eyed phenotype or she would have carried a recessive blue eye gene.

Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
 
In November of 1998, Jonathan's remains were exhumed at Potter's Field in NE Philadelphia. The Vidocq Society had obtained a court order to open the grave and extract DNA from the remains. The original coffin was made of wood and Potter's Field, on Dunk's Ferry Rd., is often a wet area. After forty-one years, there was significant damage and deterioration to the remains. There was no grave vault to prevent moisture from reaching the wooden coffin. Because of the condition of the remains, the Vidocq Society knew immediately that nuclear DNA from the remains would probably be impossible. mtDNA would be unlikely. Mitochondrial DNA is generally easier to extract from hair, bones, or teeth if the remains are badly degraded. The medical team was only able to obtain one tooth from the remains.

After several failed attempts, the technicians were able to obtain mtDNA from the tooth. Nuclear DNA was not possible. This means that the boy could only be identified if a female ancestor could be found in an mtDNA database. It would be very unlikely that a match for the boy's available mtDNA could be found in a database for nuclear DNA like 23andMe, etc. I personally believe that eventually there will be an mtDNA match, but it won't be an easy process and it's doubtful that it will involve a comparison with DNA from a nuclear database.

I do know that Jonathan's mtDNA is an active case with CellMark Forensics in Texas. The mtDNA from that single tooth is not a lost cause. However, it will require tedious work and time because the technicians don't have the child's nuclear DNA to work with. Through rapid developments and improvements with DNA testing, I do believe Jonathan's mtDNA will eventually be matched. It just isn't going to happen with a program like 23andMe. Eventually a female ancestor with matching mtDNA will be identified. It just isn't going to happen right now.


This is Potter's Field where the remains were originally buried.

F6rzbth.jpg


bHmJg0g.jpg
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,031
Messages
243,791
Members
981
Latest member
Alicerar
Back
Top Bottom