In February 1957, a disturbing discovery shook Philadelphia's Fox Chase neighborhood when the body of a young boy was found abandoned in a cardboard box. This unidentified child, aged between 4 and 6 years old, was discovered wrapped in a blanket along Susquehanna Road, across from a home for girls run by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. The case, which became known as "The Boy in the Box," would perplex investigators for decades despite their initial confidence in a quick resolution.

The boy's body showed signs of both care and neglect - he had several surgical scars indicating past medical treatment, yet also bore evidence of abuse. The JC Penney box that contained his remains was traced to a specific store in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. Despite the distribution of photographs throughout Philadelphia and extensive investigation efforts, the boy's identity remained elusive, creating one of the city's most haunting unsolved mysteries.

Key Takeaways

A young boy's body was discovered in a box in Philadelphia's Fox Chase neighborhood in 1957, creating a perplexing mystery.
The victim showed evidence of both medical care and abuse, with identifiable features that investigators believed would lead to quick identification.
Despite tracing the box to JC Penney and extensive investigation efforts, authorities faced significant challenges identifying the child.

Background of Fox Chase Neighborhood

Fox Chase sits in the northeastern part of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Though often perceived as dangerous by some, it's actually a middle-class residential area with a relatively calm atmosphere. The neighborhood borders Montgomery and Bucks counties while remaining within Philadelphia County limits.

In 1957, Fox Chase had a much more rural character than today's bustling community. The area was predominantly suburban with open spaces and less development than modern residents would recognize. This quieter setting provided the backdrop for one of Philadelphia's most perplexing mysteries.

The neighborhood contained several notable institutions, including the Good Shepherd Home for Wayward Girls, operated by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. This facility stood across from the location where the "Boy in the Box" case began on February 24, 1957. La Salle University, another significant institution in Northern Philadelphia, also factored into the case when one of its students became involved in the discovery.

The roads of Fox Chase, particularly Susquehanna Road, were less traveled in the 1950s. Small thickets of trees grew alongside these routes, creating secluded areas where the infamous box containing the unidentified boy's body was eventually discovered. The typically cool winter temperatures in the area (30-40°F) actually helped preserve evidence in the case.

Fox Chase's location within Philadelphia made authorities initially optimistic about solving the murder quickly. They believed the urban setting would facilitate identification through widely distributed photographs of the victim. Despite these advantages, the case became one of Philadelphia's most enduring mysteries.

The neighborhood has transformed significantly since 1957, evolving from its semi-rural past into the more developed residential area known today.

Discovery of the Boy in the Box

Initial Discovery

On February 24, 1957, an 18-year-old Polish immigrant named John stumbled upon a disturbing sight in Fox Chase, a northeastern Philadelphia neighborhood. While checking his rabbit traps in a wooded area, he found what appeared to be a box containing the body of a young boy. The box was located across from the Good Shepherd home for girls, operated by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd.

John, coming from a family with deep distrust of authorities due to their experiences in communist Poland, convinced himself it was merely a doll. Fearing he might become a suspect, he chose not to report his discovery to the police.

Frederick's Investigation and Actions

The following day, February 25, a 26-year-old La Salle University undergraduate student named Frederick encountered the same box. He claimed he had pulled off Susquehanna Road because he spotted a rabbit darting into the woods, though some later questioned his motives.

Frederick, uncertain about what to do, first consulted with several priests at La Salle University, including his brother. The priests advised him to contact authorities about his discovery. News of a missing girl from Belmar, New Jersey, reportedly influenced his decision to finally notify police.

Officer Elmer Palmer's Response

On a cold, rainy Tuesday morning, Officer Elmer Palmer arrived at the location on Susquehanna Road to investigate. Upon examining the contents of the box, he quickly determined that this was indeed a human body, not a doll. Ironically, the box was labeled "Fragile: Handle With Care."

During Palmer's initial investigation, a nun from the Good Shepherd home noticed the police car and approached the scene. Before Officer Palmer could intervene, she glimpsed the boy's body, immediately turned away, and began praying.

The authorities quickly mobilized resources:

A police captain arrived
Two detectives were dispatched
An ambulance was called to transport the body

When medical personnel arrived, they discovered the extent of the boy's injuries:

Multiple bruises throughout the body
Several lacerations
Recently cut hair (apparently after death)
Seven noticeable scars, including three that appeared surgical

The medical examiner's autopsy revealed additional details:

The boy was between 4-6 years old
He had been circumcised
Three small moles on his face
Wrinkled right palm and feet, suggesting immersion in water
Traces of blue fluorescent dye in his left iris
Partially digested baked beans in his stomach
No evidence of previous broken bones

Despite the boy's clearly identifiable face and the metropolitan location where photographs could be widely distributed, this case would prove surprisingly difficult to solve.

Investigation and Identification Efforts

Physical Description and Medical Findings

The unidentified boy, discovered in February 1957, was estimated to be between 4 and 6 years old. Medical examination revealed several distinct physical characteristics that investigators hoped would aid in identification. The child had three small moles on his face, one below his right ear, another on his chest, and an additional mole on his right arm. His skin showed unusual wrinkling on the right palm and both feet, suggesting prolonged exposure to water. Most notably, his left eye contained traces of fluorescent blue dye, potentially indicating prior medical testing for an eye condition.

The autopsy findings provided additional details about the boy's condition. He had a full set of baby teeth and showed evidence of having eaten baked beans approximately 2-3 hours before death. His esophagus was coated with a brown substance. Despite the visible external injuries, the medical examiner noted that the child had never suffered any broken bones during his lifetime. Seven scars were documented on his body, with three appearing to be surgical in nature—located on his chest, groin, and ankle—suggesting he had received medical care at some point.

Witness Reports and Initial Investigation

Two individuals discovered the body before authorities were notified. The first, an 18-year-old Polish immigrant named John, found the body on February 24, 1957, but mistook it for a doll and, due to family distrust of authorities, chose not to report it. The following day, Frederick, a 26-year-old university student, discovered the same scene. After consulting with priests, including his brother, Frederick eventually contacted the police.

Officer Elmer Palmer was first to respond to the scene on Susanna Road. The responding officers, including Palmer and Sam Weinstein, were initially confident that identification would be straightforward given the boy's intact facial features and the case occurring in a populated area. They believed that once the child was identified, suspects would quickly emerge, as homicide victims typically know their perpetrators.

Clues and Evidence Assessment

The primary physical evidence was the box itself, labeled "Fragile, Handle With Care." Investigators determined it had contained a bassinet from JC Penney, specifically from a store at 100 South 69th Street in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. They established the box had been delivered to the store around November 27, 1956, and sold between December 3, 1956, and February 16, 1957.

Despite this promising lead, the investigation hit a significant obstacle. JC Penney operated on a cash-only policy during this period, as credit cards were still in their infancy and checks were considered unreliable. This meant there was no paper trail to identify the purchaser of the bassinet. Further complicating matters, the FBI's attempt to recover fingerprints from the box proved unsuccessful. While fingerprints were obtained from the boy himself, the lack of computerized databases in 1957 meant that comparisons had to be conducted manually, a painstaking process with no guarantee of success.

Efforts to Track the Origin Box

The investigation into the mysterious case of the unidentified boy found in Fox Chase began with careful examination of the container that held his remains. Detectives believed identifying the source of the box would provide valuable leads to solve this tragic case.

JC Penney's Retail Trail

The box that contained the young boy's body provided investigators with their first substantial clue. It was a JC Penney box that had originally contained a bassinet, clearly marked with "Fragile" and "Handle With Care" labels. Detectives traced the box to a specific JC Penney store located at 100 South 69th Street in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania.

Through store records, investigators determined the bassinet had been delivered to the store around November 27, 1956. The purchase occurred between December 3, 1956, and February 16, 1957. This timeline helped establish a crucial window for the investigation.

Challenges with 1950s Identification Methods

The investigation faced significant obstacles due to the limited technology of the 1950s. JC Penney operated on a cash-only policy at the time, making it impossible to trace the buyer through financial records. Credit cards were still in their infancy, with Diners Club cards only recently becoming available.

The FBI attempted to recover fingerprints from the box but were unsuccessful. Without digital databases, fingerprint comparison was a manual, time-consuming process. Even prints taken from the boy himself couldn't be quickly matched against existing records.

Detectives Elmer Palmer and Sam Weinstein initially believed the case would be solved quickly due to:

The boy's facial features being intact
The discovery occurring in a large city where photos could be widely distributed
The statistical likelihood that homicide victims typically know their perpetrators

Despite these factors working in their favor, the limitations of 1950s-era investigative techniques significantly hampered their ability to identify the child or trace the box's purchaser effectively.

The Murder of Joseph Augustus Zarelli: Philadelphia's "Boy in the Box" Cold Case Finally Solved