Speaker 1: Hello friends, Steve Starkton here with you. Welcome to our
Speaker 1: latest episode. In this video we bring you the strange
Speaker 1: mysteries of the Babes in the Woods and little Lord
Speaker 1: faunt Leroy. Join me. Let's take a walk and see. Now.
Speaker 1: There are all different sorts of missing persons cases happening
Speaker 1: in the world, as well as too many aspects to
Speaker 1: each individual case and could ever be specifically named. But
Speaker 1: one of those aspects that's been coming up more and
Speaker 1: more often lately in the media and in this community,
Speaker 1: primarily involving cold cases where the missing is unidentified for
Speaker 1: a very long time. It's almost as though the victim
Speaker 1: or victims seemingly appeared from nowhere, or at the very
Speaker 1: least had no name or identity at the time when
Speaker 1: they were killed. In today's modern day and age, we
Speaker 1: often carried many objects on us that could at least
Speaker 1: lead to our identity should an accident or purposeful tragedy
Speaker 1: befollow us. But back in the day that mostly it
Speaker 1: wasn't the case. In this video, we're going to be
Speaker 1: unfortunately talking about missing, deceased and unidentified children. Even now,
Speaker 1: children under a certain age aren't required to carry an
Speaker 1: idea around with them, and it's not even mandatory in
Speaker 1: all schools, as some people think it should be. Could
Speaker 1: the advancements in DNA technology and the freedom the information
Speaker 1: here has brought us helped the authorities finally put a
Speaker 1: name to these victims. Only time will tell. A case
Speaker 1: that seems to be unnecessarily senseless and especially tragic is
Speaker 1: one which was stumbled upon January fourteenth, nineteen fifty three,
Speaker 1: when a simple gardener near Stanley Park in the vicinity
Speaker 1: of Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada stumbled across a gruesome
Speaker 1: and shocking scene. The bones of what appeared to be
Speaker 1: two very young children were unearthed when the gardener disturbed
Speaker 1: a patch of overgrown and extremely dense brush. The bones
Speaker 1: were covered with what's only described as a rain cape,
Speaker 1: and it seemed obvious that these poor children had been
Speaker 1: there quite a long time. There were quite a few
Speaker 1: seemingly random items and objects scattered around the two victims,
Speaker 1: and the initial investigators hoped that even one of these
Speaker 1: items would lead to not only the identity of the victims,
Speaker 1: but possibly to their killer as well. The items are
Speaker 1: covered and bagged into evidence. Were one woman's shoe, two
Speaker 1: bicycle helmets, a child's lunch box, and a cheap fur coat.
Speaker 1: Also among these seemingly benign items was a sinister one
Speaker 1: in that it was immediately recognized to be the murder weapon,
Speaker 1: a small hatchet. The initial examination of the bodies uncovered
Speaker 1: that they'd been there in that brush and undiscovered for
Speaker 1: nearly five years. The children were originally thought to be
Speaker 1: a male and a female, and between the ages of
Speaker 1: six and ten years old, respectively. It was positive that
Speaker 1: they were perhaps siblings, but with DNA technology being non
Speaker 1: existent back in nineteen fifty three, an assumption was all
Speaker 1: that that was. Despite all the assumed evidence found in
Speaker 1: the area with the children, nothing could be used to
Speaker 1: advance the case at all or to identify even just
Speaker 1: one of the victims, and the case quickly became one
Speaker 1: of the most talked about and widely recognized cold cases
Speaker 1: in the region. The children remained nameless for the time
Speaker 1: being at least, and the investigators in the community started
Speaker 1: referring to them as the babes in the woods, and
Speaker 1: that's how the case would stay known for decades to come.
Speaker 1: There were never any leads or witnesses, and the case
Speaker 1: was basically doomed to grow cold from the second the
Speaker 1: corpses were discovered. While many of the mysteries of this
Speaker 1: case remained unsolved to this day, that doesn't mean anyone
Speaker 1: involved has forgotten the children or their case, and through
Speaker 1: the years there has been some movement due to the
Speaker 1: advancement as well of DNA and other technology used nowadays
Speaker 1: in order to not only identify victims, but suspects as well.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety eight, police chose to utilize some of
Speaker 1: the modern day testing techniques available at that time to
Speaker 1: see if they could get this case solved once and
Speaker 1: for all. In additional evidence had been stored at the
Speaker 1: Vancouver Police Museum, and investigators were hopeful that they might
Speaker 1: finally get some additional information regarding this long cold case
Speaker 1: and perhaps bring some semblance of justice to the still
Speaker 1: unidentified little victims. On further and more recent examinations, it
Speaker 1: was determined that the two children were both male, and
Speaker 1: they were also able to determine that they were in
Speaker 1: fact brothers, apparently despite not seeming like much. This changed
Speaker 1: the entire course of the investigation going forward as far
Speaker 1: as how it would be handled and what the police
Speaker 1: were looking for. It's believed that the initial assumption that
Speaker 1: the two children were brother and sister, one male and
Speaker 1: one female had inadvertently been the cause for the investigators
Speaker 1: dropping the ball due to the scenario they believed had
Speaker 1: happened in the first place in order for the two
Speaker 1: to end up where and how they eventually did. Basically,
Speaker 1: they rested their entire case on that assumption alone, and
Speaker 1: therefore it didn't get anywhere from the first step outwards.
Speaker 1: Under this new information, and while for using over all
Speaker 1: of the old statements and leads in the file, of
Speaker 1: which there were almost none, investigators realized that at least
Speaker 1: one of those statements was now fairly ominous in retrospect.
Speaker 1: A couple had come forward and stated that they had
Speaker 1: witnessed two little boys walking in the park near the
Speaker 1: time when the kids were thought to have been murdered,
Speaker 1: and that they had been accompanied by a man and
Speaker 1: a woman who appeared to be in their early twenties
Speaker 1: in appearance. Bizarrely enough, one of these little boys had
Speaker 1: allegedly been holding a hatchet. The young couple was spotted
Speaker 1: again by other witnesses at the same park later on
Speaker 1: in that same day, only they were alone and there
Speaker 1: was no sign of the children they'd been with earlier.
Speaker 1: To add to the curiosity as to why these statements
Speaker 1: weren't investigated to begin with was the fact that the
Speaker 1: second set of witnesses who claimed to have seen the
Speaker 1: couple without the kids, also alleged that the woman seemed
Speaker 1: to be wearing only one shoe and was covered in blood.
Speaker 1: At the time when these witness statements had come in,
Speaker 1: the woman hadn't been found yet, and the connection wasn't
Speaker 1: made after their bodies had been uncovered, because the police
Speaker 1: had been so adamant that they were looking for the
Speaker 1: murders and identities of a boy and a girl unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Why would you not investigate a woman covered in blood
Speaker 1: and only wearing one shoe. Due to the extremely long
Speaker 1: passage of time between the murders, the discovery, and then
Speaker 1: the new evidence, the witnesses weren't able to be located
Speaker 1: ever again, and the case wasn't able to be taken
Speaker 1: any further. It's still unsolved to this very day. Who
Speaker 1: were these children and who were they with that day?
Speaker 1: Why hadn't the police and investigators made the connection between
Speaker 1: the strange reports of a woman with one shoe who
Speaker 1: was covered in blood and walking through a park with
Speaker 1: a man. Just hours after the same man and woman
Speaker 1: were allegedly seen with two little boys and said park,
Speaker 1: with one of them holding a hatchet, and the hatchet
Speaker 1: death of the two bodies that were uncovered by the
Speaker 1: gardener of that fateful day so long ago is anyone's guess.
Speaker 1: The main question most people at leave would like to
Speaker 1: know is how did it go completely unnoticed in some
Speaker 1: family out there somewhere that two of its children suddenly
Speaker 1: went missing and were never seen or heard from again,
Speaker 1: especially ones who were so young they couldn't possibly have
Speaker 1: taken off to start new lives alone. It's thought by
Speaker 1: many familiar with the case that the killers were in
Speaker 1: fact that young couple that day, and that they were
Speaker 1: perhaps the parents or were somehow otherwise related to these
Speaker 1: little boys and managed to keep it quiet for the
Speaker 1: rest of their lives. Another case of an unidentified baby
Speaker 1: in the woods is the case that's come to be
Speaker 1: known as the Little Lord Fauntleroy case. On March eighth,
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty one, floating in a pond near the O'Loughlin
Speaker 1: Stone Company and Wakeisha, Wisconsin, the United States, was a blondhaired,
Speaker 1: brown eyed boy. The child was very well dressed in
Speaker 1: a sweater, leather shoes, and what would be described by
Speaker 1: most sources and an elegant top. Due to the description
Speaker 1: of the child's clothing and the fact that he wasn't
Speaker 1: able to be immediately identify, he was given the nickname
Speaker 1: Little Lord Fauntleroy. This was because of the initial assumption
Speaker 1: that he had to have come from some sort of
Speaker 1: great wealth to be dressed as he was, especially back
Speaker 1: in those days and in that area of the country. Now,
Speaker 1: for those of you that don't know, Little Lord faunt
Speaker 1: Leroy is the name of the lead character in the
Speaker 1: children's book that was popular at the time. The man
Speaker 1: who initially discovered the body and called it into the
Speaker 1: police was a man who worked for the same stone
Speaker 1: company named John Burlach. The sheriff of Wakeisha County at
Speaker 1: that time who took the call from Burlich was named
Speaker 1: Clarence Keebler, and he rushed as fast as he could
Speaker 1: to the scene with the coroner in tow, who also
Speaker 1: happened to be his partner. The corner's name was L. F. Lee.
Speaker 1: Before the autopsy was conducted, the county officers collaborated with
Speaker 1: the Milwaukee State Police in order to try and uncover
Speaker 1: some clues as to the identity of the boy, and also,
Speaker 1: obviously I had met such a gram and tragic fate.
Speaker 1: The discovery of the body and the boy his nickname,
Speaker 1: which was given to him by the press for almost
Speaker 1: immediately front page in all the local newspaper. The autopsy
Speaker 1: was eventually conducted and it was soon uncovered that the
Speaker 1: child had been beaten about the head repeatedly with a
Speaker 1: blunt object, which was the cause of death. To back
Speaker 1: up the assumptions that the boy had been killed somewhere
Speaker 1: else and then simply disposed of in that bond was
Speaker 1: the fact that there was little to no water found
Speaker 1: in the child's lungs, and it was thought that he
Speaker 1: had been in the water for at least a couple
Speaker 1: to maybe several months. The Milwaukee Police Department then had
Speaker 1: the remains buried at the Weaber Funeral Home at seven
Speaker 1: twenty six Northeast Avenue, and hoped that the boy's family
Speaker 1: would show up to attend his services. Perhaps they thought
Speaker 1: at least someone in the extended family, the school, or
Speaker 1: even the community at large would recognize the child, but
Speaker 1: no one did. All the efforts made by investigators were
Speaker 1: for naught, as this child still remains unidentified to this day,
Speaker 1: with no further clues, leads, or suspects ever being uncovered
Speaker 1: or otherwise coming to light. A local woman named Many Conrad,
Speaker 1: out of the generosity of her heart, paid for the
Speaker 1: young boys remains to have a proper burial at the
Speaker 1: Prairie Home Cemetery on March seventeenth of that same year,
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty one. His appetash simply reads a known boy
Speaker 1: found in a Laflin quarry, Walkeshaw, Wisconsin, March eighth, nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty one. This wasn't the end, though, and although this
Speaker 1: case hasn't ever been completely solved, it did gain some
Speaker 1: traction for a little island. At least in the initial
Speaker 1: days of the investigation, a mine pump worker named Mike
Speaker 1: Kocher came forward and reported to the authorities an accountable
Speaker 1: woman he had run into in the months before the
Speaker 1: body was found, but almost in the exact same spot.
Speaker 1: The woman was said to have looked to fancy in
Speaker 1: a seemingly expensive red sweater and driving a nice looking
Speaker 1: and newer model Ford vehicle. Mike had seen or ran into.
Speaker 1: Counts differ throughout sources. This unidentified woman on February sixth,
Speaker 1: which was almost an entire month of the day that
Speaker 1: the gardener would make his grisly discovery. According to Mike Cocher,
Speaker 1: the woman approached him, her eyes filled overflowing with tears,
Speaker 1: and asked him if he had seen a little boy
Speaker 1: in the area, which Mike replied he had not. Mike
Speaker 1: claimed the woman was nervous and had a rather shifty
Speaker 1: man with her, who seemed to be more concerned with
Speaker 1: keeping an eye on the pond where the boy would
Speaker 1: eventually be found, and incomforting the woman, speaking to Mike,
Speaker 1: or looking around for clues. They walked the perimeter of
Speaker 1: the area for a few minutes and then took off
Speaker 1: in the ford, never to be seen or heard from again.
Speaker 1: The child, who was given this strange nickname by the
Speaker 1: media and investigators, captivated the public's interest from the moment
Speaker 1: his lifeless body was found. It still and often sparks
Speaker 1: heated debates, great discussions, and innumerable conspiracy theories as to
Speaker 1: what could have happened to him, he could have been,
Speaker 1: and who the woman and man seemingly searching for him
Speaker 1: were questions which none of which would be answered, either
Speaker 1: back then or in more recent years. A small committee
Speaker 1: which included Sheriff Keebler, the district attorney at the time
Speaker 1: named Alan Young, and A C. A. Dean all got
Speaker 1: together and held contests and offered money for anyone who
Speaker 1: could come forward and solve the case. But again and
Speaker 1: still it was all to no avail. Prizes for these
Speaker 1: contests started off at two hundred and fifty dollars and
Speaker 1: at the end were up to one thousand dollars, which
Speaker 1: in today's money is over fifteen thousand. But nobody ever
Speaker 1: came forward with a single shred of actual evidence. Some
Speaker 1: were of the opinion that perhaps the reason nobody ever
Speaker 1: came forward, and why no one ever recognized the boy
Speaker 1: despite his description and picture being widely circulated in the
Speaker 1: newspapers of the day, was because he had been kidnapped
Speaker 1: from a wealthy family somewhere far away who wouldn't have
Speaker 1: any access to the local news or the word of
Speaker 1: mouth which seemingly spread far and wide back then. Not
Speaker 1: far enough, though, mind you. Twenty eight years after the
Speaker 1: initial discovery of the body of the child named Little
Speaker 1: Lord Fauntleroy. In nineteen forty eight, a medical examiner from
Speaker 1: Milwaukee went to investigators and suggested that perhaps the child's
Speaker 1: death was connected to another he was aware of, being
Speaker 1: the case of six year old Homer le May. Homer
Speaker 1: disappeared the same year as Little Lord, but it seems
Speaker 1: this also led nowhere. A man named David Dobrick, who
Speaker 1: owned the Liberty Department store, came forward and told investigators
Speaker 1: that the close the child had been found in were
Speaker 1: sold by his shop at the end of the season
Speaker 1: sale towards the end of January that same year. He
Speaker 1: was adamant and insistent that this was the case, but
Speaker 1: again the promising lead led nowhere. In the end, a
Speaker 1: man claiming to be a family member of the boy
Speaker 1: came forward. His name was J. B. Belson, and he
Speaker 1: claimed the boy was his nephew, and according to his statement,
Speaker 1: the boy was his sister's us on and her new
Speaker 1: husband had kidnapped the child and threatened to kill him.
Speaker 1: It's unknown what became of this lead or these people,
Speaker 1: as the child still has no name and it's still
Speaker 1: an unsolved case that we have to conclude went nowhere
Speaker 1: for whatever reason. On May sixteenth, nineteen forty nine, a
Speaker 1: pathologist named Thorringer proposed that an exhamation of Little Lord
Speaker 1: Faultleroy's body be carried out in order to see if
Speaker 1: the man's claims held water and to see if any
Speaker 1: other new information could be gleaned by a re examination
Speaker 1: with more modern forensics. But it's said that the exhamation
Speaker 1: was never done due to the fact that Sheriff Leslie
Speaker 1: p Rock, teacher and corner at the time Alvin Johnson,
Speaker 1: denied the plan because they didn't want the child's resting
Speaker 1: place to sturb. This little boy, who was given the
Speaker 1: endearing nickname, is still buried behind a very plain monument
Speaker 1: with a very plain appetite, which states little to nothing
Speaker 1: about him or the enormous mystery that surrounds his very
Speaker 1: identity and what in the world could have happened to
Speaker 1: him all those years ago. The case of Little Lord
Speaker 1: Fauntleroy is another in which we could ask ourselves, how
Speaker 1: was that not a single person came forward to claim
Speaker 1: this child, or who was worried that some little boy
Speaker 1: in their own family hadn't been seen for a long time.
Speaker 1: The man did come forward, claiming to be the uncle
Speaker 1: and making all kinds of incriminating statements about his sister
Speaker 1: and her husband, though it seems he either wasn't credible
Speaker 1: enough or that the exclamation just simply wasn't worth it.
Speaker 1: This could very well be the case too, and it
Speaker 1: could have nothing to do with his credibility, as there
Speaker 1: was no DNA really at all back then, let alone
Speaker 1: how we've come to know and rely on it in
Speaker 1: today's modern world. It's a shame and a testament to
Speaker 1: how our world is right now that there's a label
Speaker 1: for cases specifically of unknown children found deceased in the woods,
Speaker 1: with their identities never becoming known, that label being Babes
Speaker 1: in the Woods. Sadly, there are more cases like this
Speaker 1: from all over the world, and even despite modern advancements
Speaker 1: in technology and in law enforcement in general, it's still
Speaker 1: happening at quite a high rate. There is hope, though,
Speaker 1: as even just recently we've seen many cases thought to
Speaker 1: be long since forgotten or even unsolvable from decades even
Speaker 1: a century ago, where DNA advancements and new investigative techniques
Speaker 1: have been able to permanently solve a mystery and put
Speaker 1: an end to the speculation once and for all. Can
Speaker 1: we say for sure that this will happen with the
Speaker 1: above mentioned cases that we brought to you today. No,
Speaker 1: sadly we cannot, but as always we will continue to
Speaker 1: pray and hope for all the victims we discussed with
Speaker 1: you here on this channel. Well, friends, there you have it,
Speaker 1: sad sad cases. Indeed, I look forward to your comments,
Speaker 1: but please keep it friendly and respectful until we meet again.
Speaker 1: Be good yourselves and each other. Stay safe out there.
Speaker 1: As for me, I'll see you a little further on
Speaker 1: down the trail. I'm Steve Stockton and I'll talk to
Speaker 1: you next time. Tell your pants I said, Hi.