The Boy in the Box — America’s Unknown Child
A truly baffling case that remains unsolved, despite its youthful victim and his horrifying discovery.
Before I begin, I shall start by mentioning that I have not, in fact, ever come across this case or even heard of it for that matter. Perhaps, that is because I do not reside in America. However, I am excited to share my research with you and discuss potential theories that I haven’t yet acknowledged. I shall write some questions or thinking points in bold, and I would be honoured to hear from anyone in response.
The discovery of the body in the box
This case begins on a cold Philadelphia February day in 1957. The date of death can only be limited to the month of February, since the specific date could not be established due to weather conditions. A hunter named John Stachowiak searched the traps he had (illegally) laid, in anticipation for a capture. However, he was not to discover the body of an animal like he had desired. Instead, he stumbled across the battered and mutilated remains of a very young child in a card board box— a vision from the depths of nightmares. Fearing prosecution due to his illegal traps, he made the decision to ignore the boy’s body and carry on with his life. (I don’t know about you, but I could not live with that in my head. I guess that’s because I’m not a murderer.) Could crucial evidence have been destroyed here, by exposure to the elements? Would it have been different if he had reported it straight away? A few days later, a more honest yet similarly frightened soul discovered the boy in the box and made the decision to report it to police. A deciding factor in Fredrick Benosis’ report was the recent story circulating of the murdered child, Mary Jane Barker. Could this mean, perhaps, there was a serial child killer on the loose? (I got lost in an internet spiral upon hearing her name and after intending to only briefly read up on her facts, I still sat there, two hours later. A very peculiar case. Perhaps the next one I shall write about? Also, sidenote, wikipedia says Fredrick Benosis is actually called Frank Guthrum or something, but upon further research, Fredrick Benosis was confirmed to be his name.)
The body
The body was of a really small naked boy, around 3–7 years old. His age was indeterminable upon appearance, due to the severe malnutrition the boy had endured up until his death. The only shred of love that was apparent, was inferred from the blanket that was wrapped tightly around the tiny body, and his arms had been gently positioned across his chest.
It was also discovered that his hair had been recklessly hacked at near the time of his death, since investigators found clumps of cut her upon his body and inside his cardboard coffin.
The boy was scattered with small scars, namely on his chin, ankle and groin. (Chin and ankle for a child is pretty common. Remember catching your ankle on those scooters? Ouch. Or going over the handle bars on your bike. But groin? Strange.) Some scars were of more help than others, though. He had particular scars that were deemed surgical and hopes of the operating doctor’s location and potential identification of the victim flooded investigators. Medical examiners also had evidence pointing towards the boy having an eye ailment during his life — perhaps identification of this feature was intended to help the public recognise the boy.
The cause of death was assumed to be major head trauma from multiple blunt force injuries. Upon autopsy, it was found that the child had actually eaten a few hours before his death — a rare occurrence, looking at his stature of starvation. A brown fluid was found in the boys oesophagus, and thought to be vomit, but was ruled out as a potential cause of death.
The fingerprints, blood and hair of the boy were taken and compared through every database available, but they found no matches. On top of this, there were no missing children reports from the area that matched the description of the body. Police carried out door to door knocks and hundreds of thousands of posters were circulated around the town and nationwide, but no one recognised the boy and no parents claimed him as their own. Investigators, out of desperation, even dressed the body in common clothes and positioned him in a seating position for a photo, in hopes that someone would be able to provide them with a promising lead, but this again failed to present any.
The box and crime scene
The box was to be the most promising lead from the evidence gathered at the crime scene. It was a packaging box for a bassinet, bought from JCPenney and with the manufacturing code still visible. It was traced to be from a local JCPenney (15 miles away from disposal site), but was unfortunately one of 12 that were delivered. 8 people, upon hearing of the investigation, came forward and announced their presence. They all had either disposed of the box or still had it, and used it as storage. The remaining four could not be traced, due to payments being in cash. Investigators managed to provide a time frame for the purchase of the box from the crime scene: between 3rd December 1956 and 16th February 1957.
The only other piece of evidence found at the scene was a men’s baseball cap. Inside, was the manufacturer’s stamp and police were delighted to discover it originated from a nearby store owned by Hannah Robbins, who incredibly, remembered customising the hat and the male who instructed her. She describes him as between 26–30 years old, in work gear, alone, and spoke without an accent. A local? It sure seems that way. Mrs Robbins had specifically remembered this sale since the man asked her for the leather strap and buckle to be added. But, she hadn’t taken any of his details because it was a cash sale. But if there had been CCTV in those times from the JCPenney, could she have seen the man with the hat? Could they have had video footage of the potential murderer? Did he even buy the bassinet?
Theories
Aha, the most interesting bit. And I must admit, there are some intriguing theories.
- The Foster Home: A widely believed theory comes from a foster home a mere 1.5 miles away from where the body was found. This lead came from the police turning to a psychic as a desperate attempt for a pointer. Upon following up this lead, investigators visited the home. Shockingly, a white bassinet, synonymous with the one on the box, stood in one of the rooms. Not only this, but blankets identical to the one wrapped around the deceased victim were found there. Many people are suspicious that someone from the home killed the boy in a fit of rage or perhaps accidentally, and decided to hide it. Many suspect the owner, Arthur Nicoletti. He was forced to take in his step daughter from his wife’s previous marriage, due to her mental instability. She had already birthed four children out of wedlock. Three were alive, but one had been said to have died at an amusement park from electrocution. (I wish I could find some more evidence for this, let me know if you do) Could the boy in the box be him? Arthur, in later years, refused to take a lie detector test. Could the boy in the box be the fifth unwanted grandchild of his? It gets WEIRDER. After Catherine, Arthur’s wife’s death, Arthur MARRIES his step daughter. Could the boy in the box be Arthur and his step daughter’s incestuous child?
- M: In 2002, a woman known only as ‘Martha’ or ‘M’, claimed that her parents were the murderers of the boy in the box. She explained that her parents had bought the boy from his parents, named him Johnathan, and used him to sexually and physically abuse for entertainment. M explains that one beating, caused by the boy throwing up in the bathtub, resulted in death. But, there was never any evidence found and the family neighbour said she never heard anything of the sort. M has been known to suffer from mental disabilities. But could this be an credible option despite the lack of evidence?
- Or was this a case of an unwanted child, abused and neglected by his parents — much like Gabriel Fernandez — but whose body was later dumped?
Here’s a list of the questions, please share your thoughts!!
- do you think it was a local?
- If Mrs Robbins had watched some CCTV footage from JCPenney, despite there being over a month’s worth, perhaps she could have recognised the same man?
- Do you think Arthur Nicoletti is the likely suspect?
- Do you believe M could be telling the truth?
- What do you think happened?
I personally think, once I learned of Arthur and his step daughter’s marriage, that it is highly likely that they had a child and could not risk it being discovered that they had conceived him out of wedlock. I think, perhaps, when he was born, they kept him captive and locked away so that Catherine would never find him, and he died. So, they discarded his body as far as they thought necessary. This would explain why no one recognises the boy around the town. But the questions for this are, how does he have surgical scars if he had never been allowed to a hospital? How did Catherine not find him? Did Catherine know of her step daughter and husband’s relationship? How did Arthur leave no drop of DNA when he moved the body?
I hope this first post provides you with some food for thought. I would love to hear your thoughts!
— a.w.b. notlxstnotfound
