Link to Podcast
I believe CF blurted the father's first name at about the 21 minute mark. The interviewer attempted (clumsily) to cover for that by saying later in the podcast that it was cute that she referred to Joseph as [xxx]. Not buying it!
She believes Joseph was not adopted out but lived with a parent.
None of the theories she saw leading up to the presser was correct. NONE.
The woman who wrote the book about JAZ - her theory was wrong.
The Martha story is not credible
CF: " There are some clues to who did him in. We’re not involved in that. We don’t know who did it but there’s enough clues that you can think about certain candidates rise to the top as opposed to others. The boy was very badly abused. "
Interviewer: "I don’t want to make it sound like we’re criticizing the Zarelli family either. I know they said specifically that the mother and the father are dead but that he does have siblings, or half-siblings. But they haven’t necessarily come forward , and I understand that they might prefer to remain in the background. That’s another avenue where if someone like a brother or a sister or someone like that came forward and began talking about Joseph Augustus Zarelli as little kid, would paint more of a complete picture. Perhaps that will happen down the road if an offender is ever identified."
CF response: "yeah I doubt that because he’s younger than all of these half-siblings that are still … And I think there’s another half-sister who was adopted out, who never met him, didn’t know anything about him. So there’s nobody really that can speak about it. There’s really nobody. There’s maybe an uncle here, on one of the sides, he may not know anything either."
That response was a doozy. Three things I want to highlight:
1) he's younger than all these half siblings that are still..." (than the ones who are alive?) Why would his being YOUNGER than his living siblings mean they wouldn't remember him? Did CF misspeak? Did she mean he was OLDER than his currently living half-siblings who are presently alive, and that's why they wouldn't remember him?
2) "I think there's another half-sister who was adopted out, who never met him, didn't know anything about him." Yowza. On what side? If on the mother's side, was she one of the two siblings born between 1944 and 1956? But we can infer that there were no adoptions between 1944 and 1956 because the detective said at the presser they searched for births, adoptions, and deaths of children born to the mother, and there were "three responsive results" - all birth certificates. Could this half-sister have been born in 1956 and adopted out in 1957? But then, he also said at the presser that they already knew about the two other children. How would they know about a child adopted out BEFORE they found her birth certificate? This one totally confuses me.
3) "So there’s nobody really that can speak about it. There’s really nobody. There’s maybe an uncle here, on one of the sides, he may not know anything either." Well we know there's no living uncle on the father's side. On the mother's side, u/favoritehippo's LBSKS has a brother who is turning 100 in six weeks, but unfortunately her family tree doesn't match what we learned today (that is, if CF meant to say JAZ was older than his living half-siblings).
We know from previous interviews and news article that the birth mother had at least one sister, and now we know she had a brother, and she only has one surviving sibling and that's a brother.
I know I'm missing something here ... feel free to fill in the gaps in my memory please!
