BOSTON — They’re listed in the naming convention for victims whose identities aren’t known: Jane Doe A, John Doe A, Jane Doe B, John Doe B.
Their relationships to each other? “Unknown,” per the latest police report.
Two weeks after the ghastly discovery of the frozen remains of two male and two female infants in a South Boston condominium, the identities of the babies and information about how they ended up in a freezer remain out of reach. Police reports are sparse and search warrants remain under seal as rumors fly.
Maureen Dahill, a longtime South Boston resident who runs the Caught in Southie neighborhood publication, told the Herald this case continues to be the “talk of the town,” particularly because official word has been so scant.
“There is a lot of speculation and theories circulating in the neighborhood,” she said. “It’s such a creepy story and people’s imaginations are running wild — people want to know the story behind this mystery.”
The jarring 911 call a bit before 3 p.m. Nov. 17, for multiple fetuses found frozen in one unit of a nine-condo building at 838 East Broadway, brought cops hurtling down Southie’s main thoroughfare up to the top of the hill in the City Point area.
The house, a large brick structure that dates back to 1910, quickly became the subject of widespread attention as TV trucks and helicopters circled overhead and a curious crowd remained around the residence even as the chilly evening rolled into an icy night.
The police that evening confirmed one possible fetus or infant had been found and the Suffolk district attorney’s office confirmed it was looking into such a find in a freezer. The initial police report didn’t offer much more; it just noted the date, time, location and the officers who responded to the “death investigation” and the detail that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner took custody of a “victim,” estimated 1 year old.
The next day, as the taped-off area expanded and multiple squads of gumshoes served search warrants there, the cops announced they’d found “additional human remains” that they’d turned over to the medical examiner. So too expanded the rumor mill in Southie, where shop owners and patrons could be heard swapping theories and estimated numbers of babies found there.
A request to the cops didn’t yield a police report dated that day, Nov. 18. The next two reports are from the following Tuesday, Nov. 22, mentioning a search warrant served that day — with both the warrant and the search warrant return, which is the document filed with the courts where the cops write what they found, under seal.
After Thanksgiving, some answers came, with the police passing on some information from the medical examiner: the human remains totaled four dead infants — two male and two female.
“All the autopsies are pending toxicology and further testing, and the cause, time and date of death remain under investigation,” homicide detectives wrote in a report about attending the post-mortem exam this past Monday, again noting that it wasn’t clear how long the babies had been there.
No one’s been arrested or criminally charged, the police and DA’s office confirmed at the end of this week. The state medical examiner directed comment to the DA’s office.
That office has characterized the current probe as less of a criminal investigation and more like solving a mystery. A spokesman for DA Kevin Hayden on Friday said that still holds true, with “still many unanswered questions” and nothing new to add publicly.
The building where the babies were found consists of nine units. The one listed on the police report, valued in city property records in the $520,000 range that seems low for pricey Southie, has been owned by the same woman since the early 1980s.
She’s who’s now in her late 60s — and sources have said is having health problems that make follow-ups difficult.
The Herald’s attempts at reaching her family members have been unsuccessful. The head of the small condo association declined to talk.
The police reports don’t mention a suspect or even the name of the condo’s owner; but the latter is solved by matching the unit number to property records.
———
