The Tragic Story of One of America's Unsolved Mysteries
The most enduring
mystery to ever perplex Philadelphia detectives came to light on the evening of
February 23, 1957, when a La Salle College student parked his car off
Susquehanna Road and began to hike across a vacant lot in the drizzling rain.
The unnamed young man – various newspaper reports put his age between 18 and 26
– was a “Peeping Tom” and was en route to spy on the inmates of the nearby Good
Shepherd Home, a Catholic residence for “wayward” girls. But what he found as
he walked across the overgrown lot that night would destroy any interest that
he had in looking in young girl’s windows.
It was a cardboard
box, seemingly innocuous – until he looked inside and saw that a small corpse
had been wedged into it. Terrified, he forgot about the undressed women that he
had come to see. He turned and ran back to his car. Frightened and embarrassed,
the man confessed his discovery to his priest the next day and he was told to
call the police. He complied, after first concocting a tale that he found the
box while chasing a rabbit through the weeds, and officers were sent to the lot
to investigate.
This would be the
beginning of a heartbreaking story to which the end has yet to be written.
The young boy was found dead in the woods in Philadelphia's Fox Chase area, his head poking from a cardboard box. It would become the city's -- and one of America's -- most baffling unsolved murders.
The patrolmen who
arrived at the vacant lot on February 24 found a large cardboard carton lying
on its side, open at one end. The box had once held a baby bassinet from J.C.
Penney. Inside the box was a small boy, his pale white body wrapped in a cheap,
imitation Indian blanket. They searched the lot and 17 feet from the box,
discovered a man’s cap, made from royal blue corduroy with a leather strap and
a buckle on the back. Coincidentally or otherwise, a beaten path through the
weeds and the underbrush led directly from the cap to the cardboard coffin.
The area around the Fox Chase dump site in 1957.
An autopsy was
performed on the boy by Dr. Joseph Spelman, Philadelphia’s chief medical
examiner. His report placed the boy between four and six years old. He had blue
eyes and light blond hair that had been badly cut, closely shorn in some areas
of his head, shaved almost to the skull in others. He was 41 inches tall and
weighed only a pathetic 30 pounds at the time of his death. Dr. Spelman cited
the cause of death was a savage beating that left the boy’s body and face
covered in fresh bruises. Older marks included an L-shaped scar on his chin; a
one-inch surgical scar on the left side of his chest; a round, irregular scar
on his left elbow; a well-healed scar at the groin, apparently from hernia
surgery, and a scar on the left ankle that resembled a “cut down” incision used
to expose veins for a blood transfusion. The boy was circumcised but had no
vaccination marks, suggesting that he had not been enrolled in public school.
Police officers search the area around the site for clues.
Spelman’s report
contained many other intriguing details. The victim’s right palm and the soles
of both feet were rough and wrinkled, which suggested that they had been
submerged in water, immediately before or after death. When exposed to
ultraviolet light, the boy’s left eye fluoresced a bright shade of blue, indicating
recent exposure to a diagnostic dye used in the treatment of chronic eye
disease. Spelman attributed the boy’s death to head trauma, probably inflicted
with a blunt instrument, but he could not rule out that damage had been done by
“pressure” – which prompted some of the investigators to suggest that fatal
damage had been inflicted by someone squeezing the boy’s head when he was given
his last, botched haircut. Detectives clothed the boy and photographed his
battered face, in hopes that they might be able to learn his name – but those
hopes slowly died with the passing years.
Investigators
initially focused on the box that had been used as the boy’s coffin. It had
originally held a baby bassinet from J.C. Penney and was one of a dozen
received on November 27, 1956 and sold for $7.50 between December 3, 1956 and
February 16, 1957 from a store in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. The store, though,
kept no record of individual sales, but the other 11 bassinets were eventually
located by detectives. FBI fingerprint technicians found no usable prints on the
carton recovered from the empty lot.
The examination of
the blanket proved to be just as frustrating. It was made from cheap cotton
flannel and had been recently washed and mended using poor-grade cotton thread.
It had been cut into two separate, unequal pieces and then wrapped around the
naked boy. Analysis at the Philadelphia Textile Institute determined that it
had been manufactured either at Swannanoa, North Carolina, or Granby, Quebec.
Identical blankets had been produced by the thousands, and the police were
never able to figure out a likely place where it had been sold.
A label inside of
the blue cap led police to Robbins Eagle Hat & Cap Company in Philadelphia.
Proprietor Hannah Robbins said that it was one of 12 that had been made from
corduroy remnants at some point prior to May 1956. Robbins recalled the
particular hat because it had been made without the leather strap, but the
purchaser – a blond man in his late twenties – had returned a few months later
to have a strap sewn on. Robbins told the detectives that her customer
resembled photographs that she was shown of the “Boy in the Box,” but she had
no record of his name or address.
The image of the boy that was used in hopes that someone might recognize him. The police circulated more than 10,000 flyers, but to no avail.
Philadelphia police
circulated more than 10,000 flyers with the child’s photograph on them to
police departments throughout eastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey, but
with no results. The Philadelphia Gas Works mailed out 200,000 flyers to its
customers with their monthly gas bills, while more were circulated by the
Philadelphia Electric Company, grocery stores, insurance agents, and a
pharmacist’s association – about 300,000 flyers in all. An article about the
case was written for the FBI’s Law
Enforcement Bulletin, again without producing any worthwhile leads.
Someone, somewhere, knew who the boy was and what had happened to him, but they
were not talking.
Five months after
the boy was found, the authorities buried him in Philadelphia’s potter’s field,
near the Philadelphia State Hospital at Byberry, a mental institution. The
beleaguered detectives who worked the case collected enough money to erect the
grim graveyard’s only headstone. Its inscription read: “Heavenly Father, Bless
this Unknown Boy.”
The original headstone used to mark the grave of the unknown boy.
The case went cold,
silent and deathly still until November 4, 1998, when the “Boy in the Box” was
exhumed in order to extract DNA samples, collected for future comparison with
any suspected relatives. A year passed before the authorities finally admitted
that they had not been able to obtain a satisfactory DNA profile from the boy’s
remains. Another attempt was made in 2000, this time from the boy’s teeth, but
this attempt also failed. A second attempt, though, was reported as successful
in April 2001. Although the discovery of any living relatives seems fairly
hopeless at this point, some investigators have remained optimistic.
In 1999, Frank
Bender, a forensic artist and a founding member of the Vidocq Society, came up
with a new idea that he believed might help solve the case. The Vidocq Society
is a crime-solving organization that is based out of Philadelphia. The group is
named for Eugène François Vidocq, the ground-breaking nineteenth-century French
detective who helped police by using criminal psychology to solve "cold
case" homicides. At meetings, the members – forensic professionals,
current and former FBI profilers, homicide investigators, scientists,
psychologists, prosecutors and coroners -- listen to law enforcement officials
who come from around the world to present unsolved cases for review. Bender
sculpted a bust that he believed could bear a strong resemblance to the dead
boy’s father. The case was profiled for a national television audience on America’s Most Wanted, but no leads were
discovered. Regardless, efforts to identify the boy continue.
Like most unsolved
murders, there have been a number of theories advanced toward a solution of the
case. Most of the “Boy in the Box” theories were dismissed, but two possible
solutions created interest in recent years.
The first, which was
eventually ruled out, involved a foster home that was located a little more
than a mile from the vacant lot where the boy’s body was found. 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 that seemed to match the foster home. When the
psychic was brought to the city, she led Bristow straight to the house. Bristow
refused to let it go, investigating the case on his own. When he attended an estate
sale at the foster home, Bristow discovered a bassinet similar to the one sold
at J.C. Penney. He also saw blankets hanging on the clothesline similar to that
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. He believed
that the stepfather was involved in a sexual relationship with the girl and she
became pregnant. The boy was hidden away, but when he died accidentally, the
man disposed of the boy so that the girl would not be exposed as an unwed
mother, a significant social stigma in 1957.
Despite this
circumstantial evidence, the police were unable to find any real links between
the family and the Boy in the Box. In 1998, Philadelphia police lieutenant Tom
Augustine, who remains in charge of the investigation, and several members of
the Vidocq Society, interviewed the stepfather and the daughter, whom he had
married. The interview seemed to confirm to them that the family was not
involved in the case. After a DNA test, which ruled out the stepdaughter as the
boy’s mother, the investigation of the foster home theory was closed.
The second theory
emerged in February 2002, reported by a woman identified only as "M."
She claimed that her abusive mother purchased the unknown boy, named
"Jonathan," from his birth parents in the summer of 1954. The youngster
was subjected to extreme physical and sexual abuse for two and a half years.
Her mother then allegedly killed the boy in a fit of rage when he vomited in
the bathtub. The woman then cut the boy’s long hair (accounting for the ragged
haircut) and dumped the body in the secluded vacant lot. "M" went on
to say that as they were preparing to remove the boy's body from the trunk, a
passing male motorist pulled alongside to inquire whether they needed
assistance. They ignored him and he eventually drove away. This story
corroborated confidential testimony given by a male witness in 1957. The police
considered the story quite plausible, but were troubled by "M"'s
testimony, because she had a history of mental illness. When interviewed,
though, neighbors who had access to the house denied that there had been a
young boy living there, and said that "M"'s claims were
"ridiculous."
And so the case
remains unsolved. Despite the huge amount of publicity at the time and sporadic
re-interest throughout the years, the case remains unsolved to this day, and
the boy's identity is still unknown.
No comments:
Post a Comment