Has anyone read that the sheriff claims to know who the guilty parties are?

I think I remember someone posting an article on that in another Tara Calico thread not too terribly long ago. I wasn't really buying it, honestly.

Of all the cases shown on UM, one of the cases I would love the most to be solved is Tara Calico. From the pictures shown on the program, she looked like such as sweet and beautiful woman. How someone could just take her away and make her a slave is beyond me and unforgivable. I believe that photo found in Florida is of Tara and she is probably dead now but I also want to believe she is still alive. If I could go back in time I would help solve this crime by tracking Tara's route and getting info about the car driven by her abductor then giving it to the police.

She's dead.

She was never taken to Florida. She died on the date she disappeared most likely. A group of boys was harassing her, while she was riding her bike, and accidentally hit her with their car. She was badly injured, and the boys panicked. They killed her, and dumped her body somewhere in New Mexico.

I also believe she is dead, and I don't believe that she is the girl in the picture. That said, I am curious about the sheriff saying that he knows who did it, but, without a body, he cannot prove it. If there really were multiple people involved, and it really was a "panic" killing in response to having hit her with their vehicle, why doesn't he just get the DA to give immunity to one of those involved to tell everything, including the location of her body? That way, at least all but one of those involved could be held responsible, she could be given a proper burial, and her family could finally at least know the truth about what happened to her.

If I had to guess, I would say that Tara's family would agree to such an arrangement.

She's dead.

She was never taken to Florida. She died on the date she disappeared most likely. A group of boys was harassing her, while she was riding her bike, and accidentally hit her with their car. She was badly injured, and the boys panicked. They killed her, and dumped her body somewhere in New Mexico.

That seems to be the majority opinion and the most likely scenario. I guess the girl in the photo looking like Tara was just an unbelievable coincidence. (Same size, facial structure, lazy left eye and a book found next to her written by Tara's favorite author.)

Kind of reminds me of the girl seen in the New Kids on the Block video who looked exactly like Kerri Lynn Nixon - same size, facial structure, hair and number of ear piercings.

Kind of reminds me of the girl seen in the New Kids on the Block video who looked exactly like Kerri Lynn Nixon - same size, facial structure, hair and number of ear piercings.

Now that was uncanny. I understand the film quality was not grand, but I honestly thought that girl could've been Kari Lynn Nixon's twin.

Even if the girl in the photo is not Tara Calico, the bigger Unsolved Mystery is who are the two kids in the photo? If the boy is almost certainly not Michael Henley, then who is he? Same goes for the girl. With the advent of the interent, I'm sure if these two children were actual missing kids they would have garnered much more publicity with people coming forward saying they recognized them as children other than Tara or Michael.

As sick as it seems, maybe it was just some sickos fetish to see kids tied up and he got his kicks off of taking pictures of it, and the kids were willing participants (or their parents were as well)...obviously someone would have came forward by now (especially for the boy in the photo) and said, "Hey that's my child in that picture that's been missing for 20 some years!".

Yeah, I tend to think that they are not missing kids, but rather are kids who are being abused by their own parents or guardians. No doubt that photo was viewed by every law enforcement agency to see if it could possibly match any of their missing kids cases, and I'm sure all those amateur sleuths have gone through all the photos of missing kids out there to try to match them, and I've never heard any other suggestions other than Michael and Tara. And whatever the likelihood that it is Tara, there's no question that it's not Michael.

and I've never heard any other suggestions other than Michael and Tara.

another name that floated around for the boy was Antreas Cantrell, but I think that's unlikely was well.
http://www.forthelost.org/acantrell.html

Yeah, I think that boy is an unlikely candidate. How would that work, exactly? He was involved in a boating accident with his parents, who died, but someone secretly rescued him and abducted him?

Even if the girl in the photo is not Tara Calico, the bigger Unsolved Mystery is who are the two kids in the photo? If the boy is almost certainly not Michael Henley, then who is he? Same goes for the girl. With the advent of the interent, I'm sure if these two children were actual missing kids they would have garnered much more publicity with people coming forward saying they recognized them as children other than Tara or Michael.


I tend to think the two in the photo are part of a larger group of friends who are just playing a prank. I would not doubt these two are brother and sister, and her girlfriends were over one day and they decided to have a little fun. That it ended up getting so much publicity and was tied to two missing children probably shocked them, and they probably made a pact to not say a word because the parents of the victims, the officers and investigators, and the public, would be out for their heads.

I do not think the girl in the photo is Tara. They look alike, but take a close look at the nose of the girl in the photo and compare it to that of Tara. They do not look the same. Plus, the girl in the photo looks a bit too young to be Tara.

I've thought that too. There could be a group of kids just having a little fun not knowing that tying someone up is considered sexual. Then a friend says "I'm taking your picture, look scared!"

I guess I just WANT to believe that. But the truth is I think it is Tara. Think about this. If it were a prank or even other missing kids they would have been identified by now. Didn't a police sketch artist or something state that it was an 85% chance it was Tara? That's good enough for me.

Because think about it. Look at that picture closely. This is no prank. Those kids look terrified. The boy's eyes are literally screaming "help me"! The girl looked as if she had been crying.

This is no prank. Those kids look terrified. The boy's eyes are literally screaming "help me"! The girl looked as if she had been crying.
Agreed 100%

I don't think the girl is Tara Calico, but it's not something that a bunch of kids "pulled off" and they're all having a laugh about it now. People generally know the look of pure terror and misery when they see it.

Agreed 100%

I don't think the girl is Tara Calico, but it's not something that a bunch of kids "pulled off" and they're all having a laugh about it now. People generally know the look of pure terror and misery when they see it.

I don't remember where I read this, but I read somewhere that the book in the picture had cover art from an edition that did not get printed until well after Tara was abducted, and the thing was pointing out several other things that pointed to it probably not being her.

This picture was one of my sharpest memories from the original run of UM. I still refer to those windowless cargo vans as child molester vans because of it...

I never thought the picture looked like Tara Calico, to be honest. Admittedly, I base this solely on the other pictures I've seen of her, but it just doesn't look much like her to me. The girl in the picture hair is different, her face looks different, and she looks healthy and tanned; not what you'd really expect of someone held hostage a year. I don't know.

The provenience of it seems questionable as well. Pre-internet, it's not likely that officials in FL would even know about Tara Calico and I don't think there was much national media coverage either. Moreover, why leave it outside the convenience store? Not exactly a high profile location. It just seems a little dubious to me. If the goal was to taunt the Calico family, why not mail it to them, or even leave it in NM.

It is curious, however. You'd think if it was staged, the kids involved would have been identified by now. The other pictures, which to the best of my knowledge have never been released, are another part of the mystery. If it's the same girl and those pictures are believed to be fake, it throws doubt on the legitimacy of the famous picture as well.

I've seen one of the other pictures (the one with the girl with her hands bound with tape). I believe Tara's mother dismissed this photograph as a fake.

I've seen one of the other pictures (the one with the girl with her hands bound with tape). I believe Tara's mother dismissed this photograph as a fake.

Where did you see this one? I was under the impression neither of the other two pictures was released. Is it available somewhere on the net?

Interesting blog. Apparently the Valencia County sheriff believes he knows what happened to Tara but doesn't have enough evidence:

http://kidnappingmurderandmayhem.blogspot.com/2008/09/mystery-of-tara-calico-by-leslie.html


Rivera has been working on the case since he started as a deputy in 1989, since he was promoted to detective in 1996 and since he was elected sheriff in 2006. For all of those years, the walls of Valencia County have been talking, naming names of the boys who were in the truck, names of the boys who helped bury Tara's body after they killed her, names of the parents and other relatives who helped clean up and cover up the mess.

Rivera says he has had enough information to get arrest warrants for the two boys - now men - whom he has identified as the killers. Two others have been identified as accomplices.

Then why, 20 years later, are we marking another milestone anniversary of a missing person's case?

Because Tara Calico is still missing.

"It's kind of hard to make a case," Rivera says, "without a body."

I don't think the girl is Tara Calico, but it's not something that a bunch of kids "pulled off" and they're all having a laugh about it now.

But then what do you make of the "copycat" picture in the subway that her mother dismissed as a "fake"? Tara's own mother believes someone could do something like this as a misguided gag. If you are correct in that something like this is out of the realm of possibility, then the subway picture must be authentic as well. And all the Zodiac letters must be authentic as well (yet some are considered dubious at best). People "pull off" all kinds of cold and cruel pranks like this, including children. When you're that age, stuff like that is "fun".

But I did not say they were "all having a laugh about it now". When they saw how big it got, they probably felt a great deal of remorse - and still do.

The problem I have with it is this: if these were abducted children, why were they never identified? Their parents have probably done everything possible under the sun to find out what happened (consider the lengths some parents on UM go to - like dressing up as a biker chick and going to seedy bars across the country [ie. Gus Hoffman's mother]). Almost guaranteed, their parents would have seen this photograph by now (considering its widespread dissemination as well as their intent to follow down every possible lead - including a famous photograph of unidentified abducted children). You would think by now they would have seen the photo and said, "hey, that's my child!".

Where did you see this one? I was under the impression neither of the other two pictures was released. Is it available somewhere on the net?

Well the second one (the close up) I don't believe was released. This one was on a website alongside the first picture. The website has since shut down but the picture was out there for awhile.

Interesting blog. Apparently the Valencia County sheriff believes he knows what happened to Tara but doesn't have enough evidence:

http://kidnappingmurderandmayhem.blogspot.com/2008/09/mystery-of-tara-calico-by-leslie.html


Rivera has been working on the case since he started as a deputy in 1989, since he was promoted to detective in 1996 and since he was elected sheriff in 2006. For all of those years, the walls of Valencia County have been talking, naming names of the boys who were in the truck, names of the boys who helped bury Tara's body after they killed her, names of the parents and other relatives who helped clean up and cover up the mess.

Rivera says he has had enough information to get arrest warrants for the two boys - now men - whom he has identified as the killers. Two others have been identified as accomplices.

Then why, 20 years later, are we marking another milestone anniversary of a missing person's case?

Because Tara Calico is still missing.

"It's kind of hard to make a case," Rivera says, "without a body."


Yeah I believe Sheriff Rivera's account of what happened. It's a far more logical account than Tara Calico being abducted, driven halfway across the country to Florida, having a picture taken bound and gagged and then never heard from again.

It's also a pretty bold statement for an official to make without conclusive evidence so he must have enough evidence where he feels comfortable enough to go public with his account. I hope that one day they can locate Tara's remains and Rivera can make his case against those he believes are responsible for her death.

Yeah I believe Sheriff Rivera's account of what happened. It's a far more logical account than Tara Calico being abducted, driven halfway across the country to Florida, having a picture taken bound and gagged and then never heard from again.

It's also a pretty bold statement for an official to make without conclusive evidence so he must have enough evidence where he feels comfortable enough to go public with his account. I hope that one day they can locate Tara's remains and Rivera can make his case against those he believes are responsible for her death.

Agreed. The Sheriff must have some solid evidence to come right out and announce he has suspects; it doesn't, of course, mean he's right, but drunken/high, etc. kids fooling around, accidently kill Tara and bury her in the desert is easily to believe then the existence of a ring of child abductors, going among the country taking children and snapping photographs of them for fun.

something about missing kids, there are a lot of missing and dead kids found that no one has claimed. The boy in the box is just one famous example. People murder, sell, torture kids with frequency. A lot of the cases dont get reported. Who is Sharon Marshall???? She had to be someones kid, yet no one has claimed her.

I dont know if the girl in the photo is tara or not. I kinda believe it is. I think most people dont want to believe it is her. Who was the little boy? I dont think it was a prank either. They really did look scared.

Alright so according to this article...last year the Port St. Joe police department were sent two further photos of a boy resembling the boy depicted in the back of the van with the girl some believe is Tara Calico.

In these photos he had his mouth blacked out with marker as if to replicate the original photograph. Also included was a copy of the photo sans the defacing.

It has all the earmarks of a cruel prank but it's interesting due to the fact of when these photographs turned up (last year being the 20th anniversary of the original polaroid being discovered) and the fact that the boy in the set of photos resembles the boy in the original photograph.

Port St. Joe police seem to be taking this seriously:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,544305,00.html?test=latestnews

something about missing kids, there are a lot of missing and dead kids found that no one has claimed. The boy in the box is just one famous example. People murder, sell, torture kids with frequency. A lot of the cases dont get reported. Who is Sharon Marshall???? She had to be someones kid, yet no one has claimed her.

I disagree. The difference is this: the boy in the box died at the hands of either his foster parents or adoptive parents, so obviously they were not looking for him (in fact, they didn't want him to be found at all). The high majority of missing children found dead (I would estimate about 90%) who are never claimed die at the hands of their caretakers. That is why Precious Doe was never claimed, for instance. Either that, or they are from broken homes whose parents who don't really care about them.

Unless, of course, both this girl and this boy are from broken homes, and their parents did not care about them. Or they are brother and sister and the perp is their own parents or father, which I think is unlikely (why tie your children up like that and take a picture??)

I wrote a paper about missing children years ago, and from the different articles that I read on the subject, it seems that of the 800,000 kids or so per year who disappear, the vast majority of them are either parental abductions, runaways, or throwaways. Only a very few of them are stranger abductions. I do think that the kids in the Florida photo are in danger and scared, but it wouldn't surprise me if nobody is looking for them. I do think a lot of kids fall through the cracks, go to the streets, and become involved with people who seem like a good idea at the time, but who in the end do the kids harm.

The paper I wrote was in the late 80s, but from what I understand, the numbers are basically the same today.

I'm sure this has been inquired in some of the other Tara Calico threads, but has anyone here been through Doe Network or Charley Project to compare the photo with missing persons other than Tara and/or (of course) Michael, particularly those missing from Florida? I know we have a few posters here who do that sometimes; just wondering if anyone happened to come across anything interesting.

I'm sure this has been inquired in some of the other Tara Calico threads, but has anyone here been through Doe Network or Charley Project to compare the photo with missing persons other than Tara and/or (of course) Michael, particularly those missing from Florida? I know we have a few posters here who do that sometimes; just wondering if anyone happened to come across anything interesting.

The two unidentified children I believe had/have their own unique listing at the doe network but to my knowledge the only names that have been brought up by authorities in connection with the photographs are Tara Calico and Michael Henley Junior.

We know that the boy isn't Henley and after Sheriff Rivera's declaration about Tara Calico, I'm don't think she is in that picture either.

Getting back to the photograph for a minute, I know most of us regard the photograph as depicting children who were legitimately abducted by someone but I think it's possible that the photo's decades-long connection to the disappearance of Tara Calico may have given it some credence that quite frankly it might not have deserved.

I think a lot of people who look at that photo, the first thing they do is try and determine if the girl is in fact Tara Calico. They look at it, then they look at Tara's picture and think "Is this girl Tara Calico?", "Tara Calico disappeared under mysterious circumstances months before that photo was taken", "Tara Calico must have been abducted and this photograph not only depicts abducted children but a specific abducted child"

Honestly I'm not sure what that picture depicts. I will grant you the terror in the young boy's eyes looks very real. The girl less so, the girl looks more or less ticked off (which again could indicate that the photo is legitimate but also could mean nothing). We all know there are a lot of low-class people in the world who get their jollies out of doing stupid things (and UM has depicted plenty of these people) but honestly there is every chance that this could be a case of some jerk taking a picture of his girlfriend and kid brother in a way that makes them look like they were abducted.

The fact that a white panel van is involved in this case also sticks out to me. As someone who grew up in the seventies and eighties, a white panel van was kind of always mentioned in connection with child abductions. I have very distinct memories of a neighbor purchasing one of these vans in the late-eighties and my friends and I always used to say "I bet he's a child abductor" or something like that. Bottom line a stereotype had already existed about those type of vehicles. If the person who was driving that van was aware of the stereotype, it would play right along into the theory that this could have been someone playing up the stereotype as a prank.

There are just several things about this case that makes me wonder that if that photograph is as legitimate as everyone claims. It's scary and spooky as hell I'll grant you that but maybe that was the photographer's intent to begin with.

Honestly I'm not sure what that picture depicts. I will grant you the terror in the young boy's eyes looks very real. The girl less so, the girl looks more or less ticked off (which again could indicate that the photo is legitimate but also could mean nothing). We all know there are a lot of low-class people in the world who get their jollies out of doing stupid things (and UM has depicted plenty of these people) but honestly there is every chance that this could be a case of some jerk taking a picture of his girlfriend and kid brother in a way that makes them look like they were abducted.


Well if it was some guy doing a prank then SOMEONE would know those two kids in the picture. Think about it. You are watching it in your hometown and see the picture and you recognize that girl you go to school with. Or the boy. Since it was plastered all over the news, newspapers and a very, very popular show like UM at the time, the odds are someone could recognize those kids if it isn't Tara. And if it were a prank, someone would squeal on them for sure. Bottom line, if that isn't Tara, somehow someway that girl would be identified.

People say her hair looks different? So? I highly doubt the abductor thought enough to buy her Head and Shoulders shampoo with extra body.

Just remember this name: Jaycee Dugaard. She is alive and back home with her family. Who among us didn't think she was dead? There is hope.

Well if it was some guy doing a prank then SOMEONE would know those two kids in the picture. Think about it. You are watching it in your hometown and see the picture and you recognize that girl you go to school with. Or the boy. Since it was plastered all over the news, newspapers and a very, very popular show like UM at the time, the odds are someone could recognize those kids if it isn't Tara. And if it were a prank, someone would squeal on them for sure. Bottom line, if that isn't Tara, somehow someway that girl would be identified.


That is a good point.

However, if the mother can't even tell whether or not it's Tara, and if the FBI and NASA disagree as to whether or not it's her, how could the classmates of the pranksters say for certain it was them?

Well if it was some guy doing a prank then SOMEONE would know those two kids in the picture. Think about it. You are watching it in your hometown and see the picture and you recognize that girl you go to school with. Or the boy. Since it was plastered all over the news, newspapers and a very, very popular show like UM at the time, the odds are someone could recognize those kids if it isn't Tara. And if it were a prank, someone would squeal on them for sure. Bottom line, if that isn't Tara, somehow someway that girl would be identified.

People say her hair looks different? So? I highly doubt the abductor thought enough to buy her Head and Shoulders shampoo with extra body.

Just remember this name: Jaycee Dugaard. She is alive and back home with her family. Who among us didn't think she was dead? There is hope.

Again I'm just not 100% convinced this is a case of child abduction. It's possible that they would've been identified by now if it was a prank, it's possible that they wouldn't be. The fact of the matter is nobody has ever come forward to tie those children to any missing persons case except the one we know of and we know that the parents who were so convinced that the boy was Michael Henley Junior ended up being wrong.

For me I think it's a long shot the girl in the photograph is Tara Calico. I know there are some strange coincidences that Tara's mom pointed out such as the fact that one of Tara's favorite books is lying next to her but the thing with Tara Calico that has always bothered me is that it's referred to as a "child abduction". According to The Charley Project, Tara was nineteen years old when she disappeared, judging from the photographs she was also a very attractive young woman.

So the circumstances of her disappearance go, that she was out on a bicycle ride and there is some evidence to suggest that at some point she was intercepted along her route and perhaps forced into a vehicle of some sort. Alright so we have a attractive girl, out on a bike ride on a summer day and she vanishes. To me this seems like a sexually motivated crime. In my opinion a likely scenerio would be that someone abducted Tara Calico with the intention of raping her and there was an obvious struggle in the vehicle resulting in Tara discarding several items along the route. I believe that Tara was murdered not long after her abduction. I don't see this as a case of a standard "child abduction" due to Tara's age. I don't think her disappearance has anything to do with a disappearance of a young boy the age of Michael Henley Junior either. I think her case was a sexually motivated crime which resulted in her death.

Of interest to me in Tara's case is the fact her mother's bike has never been found. If it wasn't for some evidence of a skuffle where Tara's cassette was found (believed to be the point of abduction) then I would have to say the missing bike actually plays very nicely into the Sheriff Rivera's theory that this crime was committed by locals, perhaps by people who even knew Tara Calico. Now Sheriff Rivera says he has evidence that proves this crime was in fact an accident. But if you want to buy into the case of abduction the fact we've never located the bike tells me that perhaps Tara knew her abductors, they could've approached her with the offer of loading her bike into the back of their vehicle and giving her a ride back into town.

Now if you want to argue against Sheriff Rivera's accident theory which to me seems pretty plausible there are a couple of questions I have. First if Tara was indeed struck by a vehicle and knocked from her bike why didn't her walkman shatter at the scene of the crime. Instead it was found a significant distance from where it is believed she was intercepted in the first place. In addition there are those troublesome "signs of a scuffle" at the point where Tara's cassette tape was found.

It's a very interesting case where you can look at it several ways but I think what we have here is a sexually motivated crime. Either a sexual predator of some sort who abducted a pretty girl on her bike ride or as Sheriff Rivera claims local boys who were probably getting their kicks tailing and harassing Tara and they took their eyes off the road resulting in tragedy.

http://www.taracalico.com/

I don't understand, if the sheriff knows who is responsible for Tara's death claiming that it was boys (now men) and that their parents helped them cover it up then why is nothing done? Just because a body hasn't shown up? How about interviewing these guys? A polygraph? Something. There has to be something they can do to get these guys to talk

I don't understand, if the sheriff knows who is responsible for Tara's death claiming that it was boys (now men) and that their parents helped them cover it up then why is nothing done? Just because a body hasn't shown up? How about interviewing these guys? A polygraph? Something. There has to be something they can do to get these guys to talk

For me I think it's a long shot the girl in the photograph is Tara Calico. I know there are some strange coincidences that Tara's mom pointed out such as the fact that one of Tara's favorite books is lying next to her but the thing with Tara Calico that has always bothered me is that it's referred to as a "child abduction".

I feel that the book is really of little importance in the context of Tara Calico herself. V.C. Andrews books were extremely popular with young women throughout the 1980s--I suppose the craze can be somewhat likened to the Twilight series fad. It would be far more a strange coincidence if Tara's favorite author happened to be Kafka or Fitzgerald, and one of their works ended up in the photograph. However, the works of "V.C. Andrews" (which was in fact an actual person and author, but now a name many ghostwriters have worked under, as is the case with much mass-publication "drugstore" fiction--I spotted a rack full of brand new "V.C. Andrews" paperbacks in the base PX just yesterday afternoon) often contain macabre scenes and disturbing situations, usually within some quasi-Southern gothic setting. I find it interesting that Flowers in the Attic, the first V.C. Andrews book, describes three children being abducted from the their parents by their grandmother (Pat Farmer? Eh, bad joke) and subsequently forced into and locked away in an attic for the duration of their entire childhood. It's a loose tie to the photograph, but still something to think about.

The book found in the photograph, My Sweet Audrina, wasn't necessarily Tara's favorite; it was only stated that V.C. Andrews was her favorite author (which, again, isn't necessarily very unique to Tara). Here's a synopsis of the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Audrina


There may in fact be some significance to that particular book being in that photograph, but if there is, it isn't immediately obvious--to me, anyhow.



I too have always wondered why Tara was repeatedly described as a missing child. She was 19 years at the time of her disappearance, a college student for Pete's sake. Certainly no child. A lone young woman traveling rather vulnerably on a long, isolated stretch of road automatically leads me to believe the motive behind the abduction (and probable murder) was indeed sexual.

Another major discrepancy I find with the photograph is the lack of muscularity in the girl's legs--Tara went on "regular" 35-mile bike rides and had a date to play tennis with her boyfriend later that afternoon. She was a definite athlete. The individual in the picture doesn't immediately strike one as such.

I don't understand, if the sheriff knows who is responsible for Tara's death claiming that it was boys (now men) and that their parents helped them cover it up then why is nothing done? Just because a body hasn't shown up? How about interviewing these guys? A polygraph? Something. There has to be something they can do to get these guys to talk

Easy, because if he arrests them and can't prove his case (and let's be honest, the existence of the picture itself is reasonable doubt in the hands of any half-competent attorney), then they are off scott-free, even when/if the body turns up.

I'm sure he has interviewed them, tried to turn them, but couldn't. polygraphs are worthless as evidence, so who cares if they took one or not.

The book found in the photograph, My Sweet Audrina, wasn't necessarily Tara's favorite; it was only stated that V.C. Andrews was her favorite author (which, again, isn't necessarily very unique to Tara). Here's a synopsis of the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Audrina


There may in fact be some significance to that particular book being in that photograph, but if there is, it isn't immediately obvious--to me, anyhow.

That sounds like an incredibly disturbing book, not at all what I would consider "young adult" literature. I would also think it was there for a reason, whether as an actual clue or a fake one.

I feel that the book is really of little importance in the context of Tara Calico herself. V.C. Andrews books were extremely popular with young women throughout the 1980s--I suppose the craze can be somewhat likened to the Twilight series fad. It would be far more a strange coincidence if Tara's favorite author happened to be Kafka or Fitzgerald, and one of their works ended up in the photograph. However, the works of "V.C. Andrews" (which was in fact an actual person and author, but now a name many ghostwriters have worked under, as is the case with much mass-publication "drugstore" fiction--I spotted a rack full of brand new "V.C. Andrews" paperbacks in the base PX just yesterday afternoon) often contain macabre scenes and disturbing situations, usually within some quasi-Southern gothic setting. I find it interesting that Flowers in the Attic, the first V.C. Andrews book, describes three children being abducted from the their parents by their grandmother (Pat Farmer? Eh, bad joke) and subsequently forced into and locked away in an attic for the duration of their entire childhood. It's a loose tie to the photograph, but still something to think about.

The book found in the photograph, My Sweet Audrina, wasn't necessarily Tara's favorite; it was only stated that V.C. Andrews was her favorite author (which, again, isn't necessarily very unique to Tara). Here's a synopsis of the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Audrina


There may in fact be some significance to that particular book being in that photograph, but if there is, it isn't immediately obvious--to me, anyhow.



I too have always wondered why Tara was repeatedly described as a missing child. She was 19 years at the time of her disappearance, a college student for Pete's sake. Certainly no child. A lone young woman traveling rather vulnerably on a long, isolated stretch of road automatically leads me to believe the motive behind the abduction (and probable murder) was indeed sexual.

Another major discrepancy I find with the photograph is the lack of muscularity in the girl's legs--Tara went on "regular" 35-mile bike rides and had a date to play tennis with her boyfriend later that afternoon. She was a definite athlete. The individual in the picture doesn't immediately strike one as such.

Good points you made here! I was thinking the same thing about the book. I had read many times that the book in the photo was by Tara's "favorite author," and then when I looked at the photo again and saw it was VC Andrews, I was thinking, "yeah, Tara and half of all teenagers at the time." Literally everyone I knew at that age was reading "My Sweet Audrina".

Also, I agree about the look of the girl in the photo. She seems younger than 19, for sure, and def. not an avid athlete, as Tara most certainly was. Good call.

I tend to think that the sheriff is right on the money here, and that she was accidentally hit, and then the people panicked and buried her and the bike. If this had been a case of abduction, the person wouldn't have bothered to take her bike, they would have just grabbed her, and left the bike behind. It seems that the people who did this wanted to leave no evidence if possible.

She's dead.

She was never taken to Florida. She died on the date she disappeared most likely. A group of boys was harassing her, while she was riding her bike, and accidentally hit her with their car. She was badly injured, and the boys panicked. They killed her, and dumped her body somewhere in New Mexico.

I know this is the theory of a lot of people (include me), but it struck me a bit when I noticed that this is a one time poster who only posted this one comment.

Maybe I'm becoming paranoid from watching too much UM, but my first thought was that this poster had first-hand knowledge of the incident.

I don't understand, if the sheriff knows who is responsible for Tara's death claiming that it was boys (now men) and that their parents helped them cover it up then why is nothing done? Just because a body hasn't shown up? How about interviewing these guys? A polygraph? Something. There has to be something they can do to get these guys to talk

They probably have done all that. They just don't have enough evidence to go to court with it and convict them.

It is like the ATV murders - RS said right from the start, "one of the most frustrating cases is when the police know who did it, but lack the evidence to convict". They eventually did get enough evidence, and I am sure when the UM segment aired, the main suspect had been given a polygraph, was interviewed, etc. But the police can't come out and say "John Smith and Robert Jones are guilty. We gave them a polygraph and they failed. We interviewed them, and Smith was acting suspicious the whole time". That is now how they roll.

I know this is the theory of a lot of people (include me), but it struck me a bit when I noticed that this is a one time poster who only posted this one comment.

Maybe I'm becoming paranoid from watching too much UM, but my first thought was that this poster had first-hand knowledge of the incident.

Yes it does seem to be a rather PRECISE description of what "happened". Good chance this guy never posts again

Also, I agree about the look of the girl in the photo. She seems younger than 19, for sure, and def. not an avid athlete, as Tara most certainly was. Good call.



I don't think the girl in the photo would be confused with a large woman named "Bertha" either. She wasn't fat that's for sure. She had what I thought were pretty "fit" legs. And let's keep in mind this picture was found 12 months after she disappeared. I have a feeling her abductor was not letting her jog for daily 35 mile treks in order for her to keep in shape

Another major discrepancy I find with the photograph is the lack of muscularity in the girl's legs--Tara went on "regular" 35-mile bike rides and had a date to play tennis with her boyfriend later that afternoon. She was a definite athlete. The individual in the picture doesn't immediately strike one as such.

I agree. Which begs the question, if the girl in the photo isn't Tara Calico, who is it? With the popularity of this case and a website up (and Wikipedia page) with that huge picture on it, why hasn't someone else recognized these two kids if they aren't Tara Calico and that little boy? Surely those kids parents have been looking for them and may have stumbled across this photo.

I agree. Which begs the question, if the girl in the photo isn't Tara Calico, who is it? With the popularity of this case and a website up (and Wikipedia page) with that huge picture on it, why hasn't someone else recognized these two kids if they aren't Tara Calico and that little boy? Surely those kids parents have been looking for them and may have stumbled across this photo.

good point. and I have my doubts that the girl is Tara, I'm really torn on that issue. But still, 21 years later, we have absolutely no idea who the boy is. And I just don't think it's Antreas Cantrell either. It would seem like somebody - a neighbor, a relative, a friend, a schoolmate, somebody would conclusively recognize these kids.

the only thing I can think of is, and unfortunately this is not pleasant, that the kids were abdcuted when they were very young, and that is why nobody has recognized them. I don't know how likely it is, but it's a possibility.

the "expert" um contacted said that there was an 80% chance the boy was Michael Henley, and I really do not think it is Henley. What I would like to happen is to see a real expert get a blown up copy of the photo and compare it with photos of Calico and Henley, and see what they have to say. I'm wondering why we never got that by now.

good point. and I have my doubts that the girl is Tara, I'm really torn on that issue. But still, 21 years later, we have absolutely no idea who the boy is. And I just don't think it's Antreas Cantrell either. It would seem like somebody - a neighbor, a relative, a friend, a schoolmate, somebody would conclusively recognize these kids.

the only thing I can think of is, and unfortunately this is not pleasant, that the kids were abdcuted when they were very young, and that is why nobody has recognized them. I don't know how likely it is, but it's a possibility.

the "expert" um contacted said that there was an 80% chance the boy was Michael Henley, and I really do not think it is Henley. What I would like to happen is to see a real expert get a blown up copy of the photo and compare it with photos of Calico and Henley, and see what they have to say. I'm wondering why we never got that by now.

The only problem I have with it being Michael Henley is that he disappeared/was kidnapped in the Zuni Mountains in New Mexico. This photo was found all the way in Florida, then his body turned up in the Zuni Mountains. It seems kinda odd that they would drive him all the way to Florida, only to dump his body back where he was kidnapped from. That along with the fact that the sheriff claims he now knows who killed Tara Calico but cannot prove it makes me think he must REALLY know something. Law Enforcement agencies do not generally make those type of statements, especially with the perpetrators still out there.

the only thing I can think of is, and unfortunately this is not pleasant, that the kids were abdcuted when they were very young, and that is why nobody has recognized them. I don't know how likely it is, but it's a possibility.


If they were abducted at a very young age, there would be no need to still have them bound and tied up years later. Steven Stainer, Jaycee Dugard, etc. prove that is the case.

If these were truly abducted children in this photo and not kids playing a prank (as I still maintain), they must have been runaways from bad homes or something - their parents obviously weren't looking for them or didn't really care.

If the two in this photo were abducted as little children, the parents might not recognize them once the photo turned up, but they would recognize them to be the same age as their children would be, and they would have come forward to say "hey, that could be my child!" Parents who have had children go missing latch on to some of the most hopeless dead ends and the scantest evidence - they are just desperate to believe their children are still alive.

It's a good thought and theory, but I don't think that is what happened.

If these were truly abducted children in this photo and not kids playing a prank (as I still maintain)

Even if they were kids playing a prank, this photo and case is very popular and I find it hard to believe that not one single person out there recognized one of these and alerted authorities about them.

Even if they were kids playing a prank, this photo and case is very popular and I find it hard to believe that not one single person out there recognized one of these and alerted authorities about them.

This is a good objection to my theory.

However, this is the way I look at it: what is more likely - (a) that two abducted children whose parents are looking for them and whose friends want to find them will identify them; or (b) that two kids who played a prank will have been identified when the photo became famous? I think the former is more likely.

Let us assume it was me and my best friend's older sister who did this. Let's say one of us took it with us and planted it while on one of our out-of-state vacations, or let's say we mailed it to cousins who live in another state (I had cousins I saw once every couple years, and these are the kind of things we'd do when we'd get together! Prank calls, throwing dead rodents on top of other people's roofs, etc. In other words, the idea kids would plan out and execute something like this is not completely unrealistic).

Now if that was the case, would we have been identified? I can tell you that the number of people who knew both me and my best friend's sister and who also watched UM was extremely small - if such a person even existed. The only one I could think of at the time was - well, me. (And as the biggest UM fan ever, someone suggesting such a prank to me at that time would have been very appealing to me, because it meant I might just get on UM. But I digress . . . )

If you remember that not even the FBI and CIA and not even Tara's or Michael's mother were able to identify them, we can conclude that there are hundreds of people that "look like" the two in this photo. Wrapping one's mouth can make identification more difficult - it is a significant portion of the face which is covered.

Anyone who did know both or even either of us may have seen the photo and said, "Wow, that looks like Wamisto!" But knowing we were safe at home, and "knowing" that this photo was an "authentic" picture of two "truly" abducted children, they would just think the two of us looked alike (just like I see people on TV all the time or people in real life that I think looks like my boss, or my brother, or my friend, etc.)

I think the theory of her being killed by the boys in the field makes more sense then the kidnapped theory.

Plus, I didn't really think the girl in the picture looked like her that much.

I think the theory of her being killed by the boys in the field makes more sense then the kidnapped theory.

Plus, I didn't really think the girl in the picture looked like her that much.

I cant even remember what Tara looked like. the only picture I remember is the one inside the van. Does anyone have a verified photo of Tara?

I cant even remember what Tara looked like. the only picture I remember is the one inside the van. Does anyone have a verified photo of Tara?

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/c/calico_tara.html

does anyone remember where Michael Henley was disappeared/found? I believe Tara disappeared from Belen, New Mexico, and Henley disappeared from somewhere in New Mexico. In that sense, I can see why people would think it was Calico and Henley in the photos as they figured it was some perv operating in the New Mexico area.

does anyone remember where Michael Henley was disappeared/found? I believe Tara disappeared from Belen, New Mexico, and Henley disappeared from somewhere in New Mexico. In that sense, I can see why people would think it was Calico and Henley in the photos as they figured it was some perv operating in the New Mexico area.

He disappeared in the Zuni Mountains in New Mexico while fishing with his father. His remains were later found there as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambone2421
Even if they were kids playing a prank, this photo and case is very popular and I find it hard to believe that not one single person out there recognized one of these and alerted authorities about them.

This is a good objection to my theory.

I've always wondered if that photo was part of someone's kiddie porn collection

Or something even more benign.....some kids playing cops and robbers and took the photo as a "ransom demand".

I've always wondered if that photo was part of someone's kiddie porn collection

Or something even more benign.....some kids playing cops and robbers and took the photo as a "ransom demand".

Yea I've thought of the cops and robbers aspect as well. If its not Tara Calico in this photo, then its a definite coincidence that a book by her favorite author is sitting right next to her. On the other hand, I highly doubt that Tara had that book with her when she disappeared and I think its even more unlikely that her kidnappers asked her who her favorite author is, then bought a book by that author to put in the picture with her.

Yea I've thought of the cops and robbers aspect as well. If its not Tara Calico in this photo, then its a definite coincidence that a book by her favorite author is sitting right next to her. On the other hand, I highly doubt that Tara had that book with her when she disappeared and I think its even more unlikely that her kidnappers asked her who her favorite author is, then bought a book by that author to put in the picture with her.

I doubt she had that book with her when she disappeared too. Unless her mother would have told the police so, because she should know what belongings she had with her the day she disappeared. (She knew she had a walkman, and pieces of it were found). I picture two possibilities (only if the girl in the picture IS indeed, Tara):

If she had the book with her, maybe all the posessions she had were put in the location the picture was taken for no apparent reason.

Maybe I am just spitballing on this one, but lets say she didn't have the book with her. Maybe the book just happened to be in the posession of the abductors, Tara saw it (and maybe overheard something said by her abductors, saying they were going to take a picture of her), and struggled a little to reach for it (with her hands tied up) but succeeded, to make sure it was near her when the picture was taken. She seemed to be a very smart person, so she was trying to do anything she could to leave a trail of clues. After all, pieces of her music player were found along her bike route, as part of a plan to leave a trail as she was in trouble, so she needed to do something more.

Maybe I am just spitballing on this one, but lets say she didn't have the book with her. Maybe the book just happened to be in the posession of the abductors, Tara saw it

Anyone know the name of the book? or was that not revealed?

Maybe I am just spitballing on this one, but lets say she didn't have the book with her. Maybe the book just happened to be in the posession of the abductors, Tara saw it (and maybe overheard something said by her abductors, saying they were going to take a picture of her), and struggled a little to reach for it (with her hands tied up) but succeeded, to make sure it was near her when the picture was taken. She seemed to be a very smart person, so she was trying to do anything she could to leave a trail of clues.

That's a little too "McGyver"-ish for me. But you never, know.

I highly doubt that Tara had that book with her when she disappeared and I think its even more unlikely that her kidnappers asked her who her favorite author is, then bought a book by that author to put in the picture with her.

If Tara was being held as a "wife" for her abductor, maybe the book was a wedding gift.

Come to think of it....if Tara was the "wife", maybe Michael was supposed to be the "son"?

Ugh, the thought of that makes me repulsed and mad. :mad:

Anyone know the name of the book? or was that not revealed?



That's a little too "McGyver"-ish for me. But you never, know.



If Tara was being held as a "wife" for her abductor, maybe the book was a wedding gift.

Come to think of it....if Tara was the "wife", maybe Michael was supposed to be the "son"?

Ugh, the thought of that makes me repulsed and mad. :mad:

The book is My Sweet Audrina by VC Andrews.

I doubt she was held as a "wife" unless she was suffering from some kind of psychological disorder like Stockholm Syndrome or sense of attachment. If she is still alive, a psychological disorder seems like the best explanation for why she hasn't been seen again.

I have no reason to believe the boy in the picture is Michael Henley. There were no signs of foul play when his remains were found, according to police.

I watched this episode last night and have read today that the boy Mike Henley's remains were later found not far from where he went missing. What is baffeling is that it says that foul play is not suspected!!!!

How can this be?

The father claimed the boy was only out of his sight for a few minutes and then vanished without a trace. Then years later his bones are found and law enforcement doesnt suspect foul play?

How could he have died of exposure? That would mean he was out there wandering around for quite some time before he died and no one came upon him? Surely there were search parties. How could he just be wandering around in the woods and no one see a trace of him until years later? This makes no sense.

Anyone heard any reason as to why they dont suspect foul play that I may be missing?

I watched this episode last night and have read today that the boy Mike Henley's remains were later found not far from where he went missing. What is baffeling is that it says that foul play is not suspected!!!!

How can this be?

The father claimed the boy was only out of his sight for a few minutes and then vanished without a trace. Then years later his bones are found and law enforcement doesnt suspect foul play?

How could he have died of exposure? That would mean he was out there wandering around for quite some time before he died and no one came upon him? Surely there were search parties. How could he just be wandering around in the woods and no one see a trace of him until years later? This makes no sense.

Anyone heard any reason as to why they dont suspect foul play that I may be missing?

I will contact the LE agency that handled the case and figure out how they came to that conclusion.

I will contact the LE agency that handled the case and figure out how they came to that conclusion.
Well that would be very interesting to hear what they have to say. If you do contact them please let us know what you hear. Thanks

Last night I watched the episode again and noticed that it was stated that family members, local police as well as the national gaurd where all involved in searching for the boy. So it seems there was quite an intense search for him. Kinda strange when you figure his remains where found not far from where he vanished.

Also on the UM episode it simply states he was on a camping trip however on another website I found it stated they were turkey hunting. Could it be that the boy was accidently shot by someone in the hunting party? Who knows, everything about this case wreaks of foul play but somehow the cops have ruled it out.

Well that would be very interesting to hear what they have to say. If you do contact them please let us know what you hear. Thanks

Last night I watched the episode again and noticed that it was stated that family members, local police as well as the national gaurd where all involved in searching for the boy. So it seems there was quite an intense search for him. Kinda strange when you figure his remains where found not far from where he vanished.

Also on the UM episode it simply states he was on a camping trip however on another website I found it stated they were turkey hunting. Could it be that the boy was accidently shot by someone in the hunting party? Who knows, everything about this case wreaks of foul play but somehow the cops have ruled it out.


It might take awhile. I searched the internet to figure out the agency that handled the investigation after Michael's body was discovered but had no luck. I sent an email to the FBI's Albequerque field office. These are some questions I will ask:

How long had Michael been dead for, at the time of the discovery?
What was the official cause of death determined to be?
Were there any reported sightings of him in the area around the time the body was discovered?

If you have any other questions in mind, feel free to post them.

It might take awhile. I searched the internet to figure out the agency that handled the investigation after Michael's body was discovered but had no luck. I sent an email to the FBI's Albequerque field office. These are some questions I will ask:

How long had Michael been dead for, at the time of the discovery?
What was the official cause of death determined to be?
Were there any reported sightings of him in the area around the time the body was discovered?

If you have any other questions in mind, feel free to post them.
Im not sure if they will give out any info being that this concerns a minor. But its worth a shot.
Those are all good questions, actual cause of death would be a very telling one but if it comes back as "exposure" then we are back to square one. I think the most burning question is how in the world they could rule out foul play? Child wanders off from camp, massive search for child turns up nothing, year later childs remains are found not far from camp, foul play ruled out. There are alot of missing pieces to this puzzle.

Im not sure if they will give out any info being that this concerns a minor. But its worth a shot.
Those are all good questions, actual cause of death would be a very telling one but if it comes back as "exposure" then we are back to square one. I think the most burning question is how in the world they could rule out foul play? Child wanders off from camp, massive search for child turns up nothing, year later childs remains are found not far from camp, foul play ruled out. There are alot of missing pieces to this puzzle.

Could be something like a fall, or something, into an area that may not have been searched, due to difficulties getting to it, or its simply not being seen by the searchers. I have no idea of the topography or layout of the area, but it seems like a logical possibility to me.

Could be something like a fall, or something, into an area that may not have been searched, due to difficulties getting to it, or its simply not being seen by the searchers. I have no idea of the topography or layout of the area, but it seems like a logical possibility to me.

True, I did consider the possibility that he could have fallen off a cliff or something of that nature. If the re-anactment was in the same spot though it seems like a very flat area. Even still with them saying he was found not far from where he went missing and with the national gaurd searching form him you have to wonder how they could have missed him. Would they not have considered this possibitlity just as we have? And it seems someone found his remains so how remote could the place he was found really be? I mean all these searchers didnt see a fully clothed boy where every he was laying but someone a year later finds a skeleton while not even looking for it?? Its possible but still very odd

Originally posted by bell83 Could be something like a fall, or something, into an area that may not have been searched, due to difficulties getting to it, or its simply not being seen by the searchers.

Originally posed by zack007attack It might take awhile. I searched the internet to figure out the agency that handled the investigation after Michael's body was discovered but had no luck. I sent an email to the FBI's Albequerque field office. These are some questions I will ask:

How long had Michael been dead for, at the time of the discovery?
What was the official cause of death determined to be?

Originally posted by kane7474 actual cause of death would be a very telling one but if it comes back as "exposure" then we are back to square one. I think the most burning question is how in the world they could rule out foul play? Child wanders off from camp, massive search for child turns up nothing, year later childs remains are found not far from camp, foul play ruled out


These are all really good points/ questions. I was under the impression Michael wandered off, accidently slipped off some cliff into a crevasse or some area hard to get to, hit his head, broke his neck or whatever and died.

The cause of death was exposure? Hmmm, well I'd guess that he coulda maybe gotten injured in some way that he was unable to move or scream out. What do you guys think?

True, I did consider the possibility that he could have fallen off a cliff or something of that nature. If the re-anactment was in the same spot though it seems like a very flat area. Even still with them saying he was found not far from where he went missing and with the national gaurd searching form him you have to wonder how they could have missed him. Would they not have considered this possibitlity just as we have? And it seems someone found his remains so how remote could the place he was found really be? I mean all these searchers didnt see a fully clothed boy where every he was laying but someone a year later finds a skeleton while not even looking for it?? Its possible but still very odd

It could be that, simply, he fell into a crevasse or something, a place where he couldn't be seen be searchers, then years later, someone happened upon him thusly: Dropped something (backpack, Walkman, pack of cigarettes) and went down after them, then discovered the body. Just playing devil's advocate. As I said, I have no idea of terrain, and it's been a LONG time since I saw the segment.

These are all really good points/ questions. I was under the impression Michael wandered off, accidently slipped off some cliff into a crevasse or some area hard to get to, hit his head, broke his neck or whatever and died.

The cause of death was exposure? Hmmm, well I'd guess that he coulda maybe gotten injured in some way that he was unable to move or scream out. What do you guys think?

I was just making the point that if the cause of death would be determined as exposure then we would still have no clue what had happened to the boy.

Again you have to figure that the father is saying the boy was only out of his sight for less then twenty minutes!! How far could he possibly have gotten?? Then you have to figure in that according to what we are reading now that his remains were found not far from where he went missing.

I dont know if we will ever get answers on this one. I just dont get how they can find a skeleton and rule out foul play.

Could be something like a fall, or something, into an area that may not have been searched, due to difficulties getting to it, or its simply not being seen by the searchers. I have no idea of the topography or layout of the area, but it seems like a logical possibility to me.

I have continued looking for info on Henley for the last few days and have found just a few tid bits. I read on another site where someone claiming to be "close to the case" is stating that someone simply happened upon his remains and that he was in a shallow grave. They explain this by saying that he had wondered off and when night fall came he covered himself up with leaves and sticks. I have found on several sites that the medical examiner stated he most likely died from exposure. Again nothing from the actual medical examiner himself or anyone in law enforcement. Time and time again though it seems to be stated that he was on a hunting and not just a camping trip. Also everyone story I read states that he was found close to where he was reported missing. I have found no mention anywhere of him falling or becoming trapped in any out of sight area.

Again I just dont get why there isnt more interest into what happened to this boy. Its like they find his remains and confirm he's not the boy in the picture and then just forget about him.

Interesting to note that it was Mike's family that came forward and was so convinced that the boy in the pic was him. Honeslty I think the girl could very well be Tara but dont think the boy looks like Henley much. LE thought the same thing but the Henley's where insistent. I wonder if they came forward to cover the fact that he was killed in a hunting accident? Just a thought.

What are the chances that the picture is a nasty prank?

Also, has anyone ever read the V.C. Andrews book in the picture?

What are the chances that the picture is a nasty prank?

That reminds me of the Johnny Gosch case. Photos were made public that were said to be of him and a couple other kids. I believe it was a cop who stated that the explanation of why they were tied up was because the kids were playing a game of seeing who could get untied the fastest while someone else took photos of it.

That seems bizarre. I can't imagine 12 year olds participating in these kind of bondage games for the camera, even if the circumstances are innocent.... but then I can't imagine a pervert taking such pictures and thinking that they can get them developed anonymously.

Both scenarios are hard to accept, but one of them has to be what actually happened. To decide whether or not it was a prank, maybe the looseness or tightness of the bindings would be a clue? I haven't seen photos of either the Gosch case or the Calico case in a long time and I don't want to view them to answer the question for myself. It's just too disturbing.

That reminds me of the Johnny Gosch case. Photos were made public that were said to be of him and a couple other kids. I believe it was a cop who stated that the explanation of why they were tied up was because the kids were playing a game of seeing who could get untied the fastest while someone else took photos of it.

That seems bizarre. I can't imagine 12 year olds participating in these kind of bondage games for the camera, even if the circumstances are innocent.... but then I can't imagine a pervert taking such pictures and thinking that they can get them developed anonymously.

Both scenarios are hard to accept, but one of them has to be what actually happened. To decide whether or not it was a prank, maybe the looseness or tightness of the bindings would be a clue? I haven't seen photos of either the Gosch case or the Calico case in a long time and I don't want to view them to answer the question for myself. It's just too disturbing.

It's very possible they were a hoax. First off it's important to note that the infamous picture of the two children was a Polaroid so there would be no need to have a lab develop the film.

Second as far as the motive behind the photo, if it is indeed a hoax I look at it almost a pre-cursor to some of the incidents that have occurred in recent years with celebrities taking what they thought were private pictures of themselves with their cell phones only to find their accounts hacked and embarrassing pictures of them leaked all over the internet. The bottom line is people at times do stupid things with a camera especially teenagers. Some of it is harmless fun but it this case definitely straddles the line into a whole other scene all together because nobody is sure whether or not the photograph is a hoax or is a legitimate photograph of abducted children.

The thing that has always bothered me with this case (and the photograph) are the age differences of the children. You have to remember that during the time when the children in the photo were thought to be Tara Calico and Michael Henley Junior that there was I believe more than a ten year age difference between the two. Now I'm not saying it's impossible for some type of predator to abduct both a nineteen year old girl and a young child but to me that has always been a bit of a stretch. I've always thought that the abduction of Tara Calico was a sex related crime and that she is not the girl in the photograph. Much like the current investigators on this case believe, I think that Tara was murdered soon after her abduction and her remains are probably buried somewhere in the New Mexico desert.

As for the photograph itself, I've always felt it is very possible that it could be a hoax perpetrated by the teenage girl in the photograph and possibly a friend or boyfriend who took the picture. As for the young boy in the photograph he could have very easily been a youngster the girl in the photograph was babysitting or even be the younger brother of the girl in the photograph or the photographer. Again given the age discrepancy between the two subjects in the photographs it is possible that he was either coaxed or forced to go along in staging this photograph by the teenagers.

The one thing that has always bothered me though about the photograph is the look of fear in the boy's eyes. Unless the youngster is a particularly good actor I'm not all together convinced that he'd be able to create such a genuine look of fear for what would've ostensibly been a staged photograph. In fact you could argue that most children of his age would not be able to pull off such a convincing picture. Which I suppose leads us right back to where we started from with determining whether or not the photograph is a hoax or not. For me however, with this case if the photograph is indeed real I just have trouble sketching out a profile of the abductor. If the photograph portrayed two young children in the photograph I'd probably feel more certain that it was legitimate but the fact that we have a teenage girl near adulthood and a little boy in this photograph. I don't know just could be a lot of things.

I think Unsolved Mysteries would always present every possible scenario to add to the heir of mystery that surrounded every case. With that said back when the segment was aired the family members of Tara and Michael did have hope that the picture found (in Florida mind you) of the two children were their kids. But with the passage of time it seems unlikely that either child in that photo was Michael or Tara being that Michael's remains were found in New Mexico. I think people try to over-analyze things in disappearance cases because they want to have the hope that their loved one is still alive obviously. But Tara's bike was never found...and wasn't in said on the UM segement that she was seen being harassed by a car of boys? Well the Sheriff of Valencia county who came up with the scenario of a covered up accidental death is in all likelihood right. And as sad/sick as it may sound I think the original photo was just a staged photograph.

I don't see what's so weird about the older teen and a younger child. The abductor/killer could have been trying to create a twisted babysitter-and-child scenario, or perhaps the older girl is supposed to represent a sister or mother figure. I don't believe there is an age discrepancy.

Also, just because the boy in the photo wasn't the boy some people thought he was doesn't rule out that the girl could be Tara.

I don't see what's so weird about the older teen and a younger child. The abductor/killer could have been trying to create a twisted babysitter-and-child scenario, or perhaps the older girl is supposed to represent a sister or mother figure. I don't believe there is an age discrepancy.

Also, just because the boy in the photo wasn't the boy some people thought he was doesn't rule out that the girl could be Tara.

You don't think there is an age discrepancy between the two people pictured in the photograph? I'd say that the closest in age range I can determine the subjects to be would be the girl (17) and the boy (12) which is still a rather significant age discrepancy.

One thing that is significant about this case that I believe is sometimes overlooked is we don't where that photograph was taken. We do know that it was a recent photograph at the time due to the type of film it was taken on but apparently the photograph itself had no evidence of time stamping.

This means that the photograph could have been taken anywhere in the United States and simply placed in the parking lot in Port St. Joe in an area where the abductor knows is far from where the a) the subjects were abducted from b) where the photo was taken c) perhaps even where the bodies of the subject could be found.

If the photograph is legitimate, I've personally always had a hard time believing that either one of the children pictured in that photograph was in Port St. Joe when the photograph was dropped by the abductor. I think the photo was taken somewhere else (possibly another state) and simply abandoned by the abductor in Port St. Joe. It's even possible that the children pictured in the photographed were already deceased by the time it was discarded.

You don't think there is an age discrepancy between the two people pictured in the photograph? I'd say that the closest in age range I can determine the subjects to be would be the girl (17) and the boy (12) which is still a rather significant age discrepancy.

One thing that is significant about this case that I believe is sometimes overlooked is we don't where that photograph was taken. We do know that it was a recent photograph at the time due to the type of film it was taken on but apparently the photograph itself had no evidence of time stamping.

This means that the photograph could have been taken anywhere in the United States and simply placed in the parking lot in Port St. Joe in an area where the abductor knows is far from where the a) the subjects were abducted from b) where the photo was taken c) perhaps even where the bodies of the subject could be found.

If the photograph is legitimate, I've personally always had a hard time believing that either one of the children pictured in that photograph was in Port St. Joe when the photograph was dropped by the abductor. I think the photo was taken somewhere else (possibly another state) and simply abandoned by the abductor in Port St. Joe. It's even possible that the children pictured in the photographed were already deceased by the time it was discarded.


One of them is older than the other for sure, but it's not a "discrepancy". "Discrepancy" implies there is something wrong/amiss. One of the persons in the photo being older than the other is a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. I explained why in the post you quoted.

Call me crazy, but I've always thought that it was Tara Calico in the picture. I know some people have tried to debunk it by saying she looks different and all but there are problems with this.

First off, people say it doesn't look like her. Take a closer look. She is similar in stature. He hair is the same length, her eyes are similar and the picture we often go by are school pictures and such. How many of us would look exactly the same in a school picture where we comb our hair compared to a picture where we are being held captive without showering possibly and under duress?

Look at the body language of the two kids as well. The girl looks like she's being told her puppy died, the boy's face screams of "help me!"

If it were a hoax we'd know about it by now. If it were a prank someone would come forward. If someone recognized that person as a schoolmate playing a game then they would have come forward. But they didn't. No one did. Those two kids are still unidentified.

If it were a hoax we'd know about it by now.

Not necessarily!

At this point I believe the sheriff who says he knows who did it but doesn't have enough proof to convict. The simplest explanation is usually the best one. It seems pretty logical that she would have gotten hit by a car during her bike ride, perpetrators panicked and did away with her.

Even if the girl in the photo is not Tara Calico, the bigger Unsolved Mystery is who are the two kids in the photo?

As bad as it sounds, someone could have just been playing a prank. I admit that the book in the photo is convincing, but it could have just been a huge coincidence. Why hasn't anyone come forward? Probably because they know they'd be in a heap of trouble.

I don't think the girl in the photo looks like Tara. She's the same age and hair color, but her eyebrows are totally different. Tara's have a very round arch. The photo girl's are almost straight with no arch.

I know this is the theory of a lot of people (include me), but it struck me a bit when I noticed that this is a one time poster who only posted this one comment.

Maybe I'm becoming paranoid from watching too much UM, but my first thought was that this poster had first-hand knowledge of the incident.

Why does one comment mean the person is a killer?

As bad as it sounds, someone could have just been playing a prank. I admit that the book in the photo is convincing, but it could have just been a huge coincidence. Why hasn't anyone come forward? Probably because they know they'd be in a heap of trouble.



I think I've mentioned this before, but VC Andrews was VERY popular among teens when Tara went missing. On any given day, I'd say at least 1/2 of my friends would have been in the middle of reading a VC Andrews book. They were the Twilight of the day, without the internet to make it quite so popular.

Call me crazy, but I've always thought that it was Tara Calico in the picture. I know some people have tried to debunk it by saying she looks different and all but there are problems with this.

First off, people say it doesn't look like her. Take a closer look. She is similar in stature. He hair is the same length, her eyes are similar and the picture we often go by are school pictures and such. How many of us would look exactly the same in a school picture where we comb our hair compared to a picture where we are being held captive without showering possibly and under duress?

Look at the body language of the two kids as well. The girl looks like she's being told her puppy died, the boy's face screams of "help me!"

If it were a hoax we'd know about it by now. If it were a prank someone would come forward. If someone recognized that person as a schoolmate playing a game then they would have come forward. But they didn't. No one did. Those two kids are still unidentified.

Absolutely fantastic argument, and that's exactly what I was thinking. Tara's mother said the girl in the picture had a mark on her thigh that Tara had.

I think I would be far better able to make up my mind on the question of whether that's Tara in the photograph if we were able to see the so-called second photo, which is apparently a picture of the female's face. Over the years I've become less and less convinced that's her. It's the eyebrows and nose structure--they are completely different from each other.

It's definitely not as compelling, but what about those clothes the female is wearing? Are those similar to something Tara owned? Certainly she was most likely somewhere consistently warm. The Southwest can be very chilly early in the morning and late at night in the fall and winter, and Tara disappeared in late September.

To my mind, the photo is a fake. The children in the photo don't appear to be dirty or in any obvious distress as you would assume that kidnapped children held by a psycho would be. Their clothes are also clean and I doubt that a killer trying to avoid detection would allowed the book to be in teh frame when taking a photo.

I think that all of the attention this photo has garnered has actually distracted from looking for Ms. Calico.

...

Call me crazy, but I've always thought that it was Tara Calico in the picture. I know some people have tried to debunk it by saying she looks different and all but there are problems with this.

First off, people say it doesn't look like her. Take a closer look. She is similar in stature. He hair is the same length, her eyes are similar and the picture we often go by are school pictures and such. How many of us would look exactly the same in a school picture where we comb our hair compared to a picture where we are being held captive without showering possibly and under duress?

Look at the body language of the two kids as well. The girl looks like she's being told her puppy died, the boy's face screams of "help me!"

If it were a hoax we'd know about it by now. If it were a prank someone would come forward. If someone recognized that person as a schoolmate playing a game then they would have come forward. But they didn't. No one did. Those two kids are still unidentified.

Agreed. I'm convinced the photo is real and of Tara as well. Simply the most disturbing photo I've ever seen (and not by choice---thanks, Google!).

Agreed. I'm convinced the photo is real and of Tara as well. Simply the most disturbing photo I've ever seen (and not by choice---thanks, Google!).

Why do you think that the photo is "real?" Even the police seem to have issues w/ whether or not the photo is valid.

Wasn't it determined that she was killed while out riding her bike, by a bunch of local teenagers who were harassing her when they "accidentally" killed her and even some parents got involved and covered everything up? Law enforcement doesn't have Tara's body, which is why they have no case against these people but I seem to remember they had a good idea who was responsible. And if that is the case, then the girl in the photo is most certainly not Tara Calico.

Yeah thats right, an officer came forward a couple years ago and said he knew the names of who did it, but didnt have a body so he couldnt make a case. sounds a little off, not sure why he waited 20 years, probably something more to it.

Wasn't it determined that she was killed while out riding her bike, by a bunch of local teenagers who were harassing her when they "accidentally" killed her and even some parents got involved and covered everything up? Law enforcement doesn't have Tara's body, which is why they have no case against these people but I seem to remember they had a good idea who was responsible. And if that is the case, then the girl in the photo is most certainly not Tara Calico.

I don't subscribe to that theory. I believe Tara was abducted and then that creepy picture was taken of her.

To my mind, the photo is a fake. The children in the photo don't appear to be dirty or in any obvious distress as you would assume that kidnapped children held by a psycho would be. Their clothes are also clean and I doubt that a killer trying to avoid detection would allowed the book to be in teh frame when taking a photo.

I think that all of the attention this photo has garnered has actually distracted from looking for Ms. Calico.

Exactly. Why would a kidnapper who has his victims bound and gagged allow them to have a book? And it wasn't a book that Tara had with her when she was captured (put into the picture as some sort of trophy), because the edition that it is wasn't released until well after her disappearance. I don't buy this being her.

I don't subscribe to that theory. I believe Tara was abducted and then that creepy picture was taken of her.

Why do you believe that the photo is legitimate? The police have issues w/ it's authenticity and it doesn't make much logical sense for it not to be a fake.

Let's go with the "She was hit on the road by accident, then done away with" theory.

If that theory is true, and it was some kids (as I think a cop working with the case implied), where is her body? A couple of kids, or even an adult panicking, aren't going to be like experts at body disposal. If the accidental injury then murder scenario took place--Where is her body/remains?

Let's go with the "She was hit on the road by accident, then done away with" theory.

If that theory is true, and it was some kids (as I think a cop working with the case implied), where is her body? A couple of kids, or even an adult panicking, aren't going to be like experts at body disposal. If the accidental injury then murder scenario took place--Where is her body/remains?

I think that you might be presupposing that an accident would mean that there would necessarily be a lot of blood. If they didn't hit her that hard, then there might not be much blood, if any at all. Also, the "accident" story could be something told by an intentional killer to somehow lessen or mitigate their responsibility.

I think that you might be presupposing that an accident would mean that there would necessarily be a lot of blood. If they didn't hit her that hard, then there might not be much blood, if any at all. Also, the "accident" story could be something told by an intentional killer to somehow lessen or mitigate their responsibility.

No, I wasn't suggesting any blood or lack thereof. Of course, a person can be internally fatally wounded and yet look totally fine on the outside.

I'm saying her body, after say the killer finished the job. The cop I believe said he had knowledge that it was some kids or something, that they accidentally hit her and injured her, and in a panic decided to finish her off to avoid getting in trouble. If that story was true...Where is her body? I'm not taking about any blood or evidence like that...I'm saying where did her body/bones go?

If it was a couple of kids, they wouldn't be experts at making a body disappear since 1988. A serial killer, sure, but a couple of kids in a panic? I sincerely doubt that.

No, I wasn't suggesting any blood or lack thereof. Of course, a person can be internally fatally wounded and yet look totally fine on the outside.

I'm saying her body, after say the killer finished the job. The cop I believe said he had knowledge that it was some kids or something, that they accidentally hit her and injured her, and in a panic decided to finish her off to avoid getting in trouble. If that story was true...Where is her body? I'm not taking about any blood or evidence like that...I'm saying where did her body/bones go?

If it was a couple of kids, they wouldn't be experts at making a body disappear since 1988. A serial killer, sure, but a couple of kids in a panic? I sincerely doubt that.

I'm not sure how they got rid of the body, but:

1) There are numerous books that detail how other people have gotten rid of bodies in past crimes. Perhaps they read one of those.

2) Belen is just north of vast tracts of desert where a body can be dumped and not found for months or years, if ever. It's also close to several mountain ranges that have many remote hiking and logging trails that could also serve that purpose.

3) There are many mines and quarries not far from Belen that could also hide a body.

4) There's always the old "standby" of simply burying the body in a fairly deep hole. People seem to forget that if bury a body on private land in a relatively deep hole, there'd be almost no way it would be found unless the person that buried it confessed that he/she did so.

Those are but a few of the means to get rid of a body. There are many more, but I think that those serve to make my point.
I suppose it's a good thing that most killers are either too lazy or too stupid to carefully conceal their victims as it usually makes detecting and capturing killers far easier.

I'm not sure how they got rid of the body, but:

1) There are numerous books that detail how other people have gotten rid of bodies in past crimes. Perhaps they read one of those.

2) Belen is just north of vast tracts of desert where a body can be dumped and not found for months or years, if ever. It's also close to several mountain ranges that have many remote hiking and logging trails that could also serve that purpose.

3) There are many mines and quarries not far from Belen that could also hide a body.

4) There's always the old "standby" of simply burying the body in a fairly deep hole. People seem to forget that if bury a body on private land in a relatively deep hole, there'd be almost no way it would be found unless the person that buried it confessed that he/she did so.

Those are but a few of the means to get rid of a body. There are many more, but I think that those serve to make my point.
I suppose it's a good thing that most killers are either too lazy or too stupid to carefully conceal their victims as it usually makes detecting and capturing killers far easier.

This is gonna sound nuts and totally sci-fi
But I wonder how much it'd cost the government to build like some kind of sonic type machine or gadget that can detect deceased biological material. Or it could detect clothing fibers or something. Sort of like a metal detector or like one of those metal finding machines people use to look for treasure underground...Build it so it can ''sense'' or detect biological material that is up to, say, 20-30 miles away as well as 20-30 miles underneath it, and place one of these machines every 30 miles in a spot underground.

This is gonna sound nuts and totally sci-fi
But I wonder how much it'd cost the government to build like some kind of sonic type machine or gadget that can detect deceased biological material. Or it could detect clothing fibers or something. Sort of like a metal detector or like one of those metal finding machines people use to look for treasure underground...Build it so it can ''sense'' or detect biological material that is up to, say, 20-30 miles away as well as 20-30 miles underneath it, and place one of these machines every 30 miles in a spot underground.

Actually "sonic" would mean that the device would use sound waves to detect something.While that might detect a solid object in soil or some type of liquid, you'd almost have to know where to look for it be effective, thus giving it a very limited range.

There are methane detectors that can detect the presence of decomposition gases. But I believe they have to used to in a time span very close to the body being buried and would probably work best for shallow, rather than deep graves.

There are also ground radar units that have been used to detect the locations of bodies. However, the ones that I have seen being used are small devices w/ very limited ranges, usually a few feet around the detector. Mining and oil companies may have more sensitive units,but they are likely VERY expensive and difficult to operate.

In the future someone will likely create a detector (if they haven't already) that can detect human DNA over a wide area. To me that type of device would make searching for concealed bodies and missing people much easier, although I'm not certain how such a device would work.

The U.S. military had "people sniffers" back in Vietnam. Results were mixed, but they tended to work at least decently in the right conditions. The biggest drawback was that they were too sensitive. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw something along the lines of what you're talking about in a few years. That would be an unbelievably great tool for investigators.

What's the deal with the book people? Is it possible that maybe the abductor was reading it? Or maybe the girl in the picture WAS reading it? So what? Even a person being held hostage can get some down time and read. They need to eat right? But it's strange that they are allowed to read?

I don't agree with whoever said the children in the picture don't look to be in a panic. They sure don't look happy. Both of their eyes are present. If you are ever going to recognize a person, even years later, you will know from their eyes. Tara's mother thought it was her. A professional sketch artist thought it was an 85% chance it was her. And I go back to the mother theory. That's her daughter. In your gut wouldn't you know if that's your kid? In your heart of hearts you'd be able to tell. She wasn't blindfolded either.

Considering Tara had a routine with doing this it is not at all uncommon that someone picked up on this. I agree that some panicky teenagers would likely not be able to cover up a murder cleanly like that. Even in the classic movie Prom Night there was one witness ;)

I'll still maintain that if that picture is a hoax then someone would recognize the kids. The kids would have went to school right? Somebody is going to recognize them. UM was a popular show back then, a wealth of kids would have watched that very episode.

What's the deal with the book people? Is it possible that maybe the abductor was reading it? Or maybe the girl in the picture WAS reading it? So what? Even a person being held hostage can get some down time and read. They need to eat right? But it's strange that they are allowed to read?

Eating is a necessity, if you're keeping someone for whatever nefarious purpose the kidnapper would be keeping them for. Reading is not. I feel that if the kidnapper feels he has to have them bound and gagged, with hands behind their backs, he most likely will not be allowing them creature comforts. In addition, this kidnapper would be an incredibly nice guy if he's going to run out and get books by the kidnappee's (if, as we're led to believe, it's Tara) favorite author for her to read.

As for the part about the fear...personally, I don't see it. The girl seems to have an indifferent look to me. The boy...well...from what I see (which isn't much), it's a look that can be faked. Hell, I faked looks like that when I was a kid.

Is the photo real? I don't know. Is it fake? I don't know. I tend to lean toward believing the latter, though. Or that it's not exactly what we think it is. What it would be (if not a fake or a picture of abducted kids), I can't even begin to guess. But, as I said, I just don't put a whole lot of faith in it being real. And I definitely don't think it's Tara.

What's the deal with the book people? Is it possible that maybe the abductor was reading it? Or maybe the girl in the picture WAS reading it? So what? Even a person being held hostage can get some down time and read. They need to eat right? But it's strange that they are allowed to read?

I don't agree with whoever said the children in the picture don't look to be in a panic. They sure don't look happy. Both of their eyes are present. If you are ever going to recognize a person, even years later, you will know from their eyes. Tara's mother thought it was her. A professional sketch artist thought it was an 85% chance it was her. And I go back to the mother theory. That's her daughter. In your gut wouldn't you know if that's your kid? In your heart of hearts you'd be able to tell. She wasn't blindfolded either.

Considering Tara had a routine with doing this it is not at all uncommon that someone picked up on this. I agree that some panicky teenagers would likely not be able to cover up a murder cleanly like that. Even in the classic movie Prom Night there was one witness ;)

I'll still maintain that if that picture is a hoax then someone would recognize the kids. The kids would have went to school right? Somebody is going to recognize them. UM was a popular show back then, a wealth of kids would have watched that very episode.

1) The book is also kind of meaningless to me. In fact, its presence is one of the reasons that I think the photo is fake. Why display the book in a photo if you assume that the photo could be found by the authorities? Especially since there was a phone number of the spine of the book?

2) To my mind, the fact that children couldn't be recognized might mean that the picture was taken outside of the United States. Or that they changed their hairstyles after it was taken. I still think that the photo was a fake that was intentionally left behind by the van's driver or occupants.

3) If you drove past somebody parked alongside the highway, would you really pay attention to what they were doing? Especially if you were running late or tired? If the kids vehicle (if this really happened) was parked in front of where the cyclist was lying, it would shield them view. And you would only have a few seconds to see what was happening and decide in your mind if it looked "suspicious" before you'd be away from the scene.

4) I've always loved UM and I watched it regularly when it was on the air. Having said that, it was never a Top 10 or Top 20 television program. It's popularity waxed and waned throughout the run of the series and towards the end was especially low. I don't find it unbelievable that people who may have known the kids may not have seen the photo on the show as most people have never seen UM.

Both of their eyes are present. If you are ever going to recognize a person, even years later, you will know from their eyes. Tara's mother thought it was her. A professional sketch artist thought it was an 85% chance it was her. And I go back to the mother theory. That's her daughter. In your gut wouldn't you know if that's your kid? In your heart of hearts you'd be able to tell.

Unfortunately, Michael Henley's mother "knew" it was him in the picture, yet we all now know that would have been impossible as his remains were determined to have been in the Zuni Mountains where he was last seen for as long as he had been missing, which was April 1988. The film the photo was developed on wasn't available until March 1989. Grief often has that effect on the mind (Kari Lynn Nixon supposedly being in that concert video comes to mind), and one certainly can't fault her for it. But she was incorrect.

If it was a couple of kids, they wouldn't be experts at making a body disappear since 1988. A serial killer, sure, but a couple of kids in a panic? I sincerely doubt that.

Desperation makes geniuses out of people though.

4) I've always loved UM and I watched it regularly when it was on the air. Having said that, it was never a Top 10 or Top 20 television program. It's popularity waxed and waned throughout the run of the series and towards the end was especially low.

With all due respect, you're half wrong. In its first three seasons UM was in the top twenty, after which its popularity did indeed wax and wane.

New here, and I believe the woman in the picture is Tara Calico. Who the boy might be is pure guessing. With Tara, there is a mention that she had a cowlick on her right side temple area. The picture with the black tape clearly shows a woman who has a cowlick. The scar on her leg her mother also verified.

One point that hasn't been brought up too much here is the coincidence that the second set of pictures mailed to the Port St. Joe area newspapers/police in early 2010 (I believe it was) were also postmarked from New Mexico. If a person goes on the assumption that this is a hoax by teenagers or something, is it realistic to believe that 21+ years later these same people are still playing this game, and having the pictures delivered near the anniversary date of the last ones in 1989? I can't buy that.

I have a very hard time believing that if this was a prank of some sort that not one person, in 22+ years, has been able to identify who the boy or girl in these pictures are. People just aren't that good at keeping their mouth shut for so long, especially when younger.

I think the photos are all part of a sadistic person who wants to show the public and police especially what he has done and gotten away with. When I see too many coincidences on things (the New Mexico connection, the cowlick, scar on leg, book shown with her favorite author, her mother believing it was her, the 2nd set of photos mailed to the same city where last ones were found, and probably more that the police have withheld) I believe it to be more than just a coincidence. I really hope this case is solved one day. A great start would be to identify who those two people are in the photos. From the way this person has taunted the police, my guess is that there will be more pictures that will surface in the future.

I think the photos are all part of a sadistic person who wants to show the public and police especially what he has done and gotten away with. When I see too many coincidences on things (the New Mexico connection, the cowlick, scar on leg, book shown with her favorite author, her mother believing it was her, the 2nd set of photos mailed to the same city where last ones were found, and probably more that the police have withheld) I believe it to be more than just a coincidence. I really hope this case is solved one day. A great start would be to identify who those two people are in the photos. From the way this person has taunted the police, my guess is that there will be more pictures that will surface in the future.

Why wait twenty some years to release more photos of Tara? Michael Henley's parents believed the boy in the picture was their son, but his remains were found shortly after the photograph was found. His remains were found near a campground where he was last seen, and it seems like it was an unfortunate accident. And if Tara were abducted, where is she at today?

New here, and I believe the woman in the picture is Tara Calico. Who the boy might be is pure guessing. With Tara, there is a mention that she had a cowlick on her right side temple area. The picture with the black tape clearly shows a woman who has a cowlick. The scar on her leg her mother also verified.

I want to agree and sometime I go back and forth on this claim but the thing that always sticks with me is that the detective that was in charge of this case has publicly stated that he knows who killed Tara and that she was hit by a car while riding her bike and then they disposed of her body. He goes on to say that they cannot make any arrests or prosecute anyone until the body is found. Why say something like that if it isn't true? And if it is true, that certainly means Tara wasn't in that van since she was killed while riding her bike the day she disappeared.

I always thought that the photos mailed to the police in 2009 (on the anniversary of Calico's disappearance) were likely sent by someone who had an interest in the case and wanted to generate some publicity and attention, as the matter had been dormant for so many years. If I remember correctly, the mailings were nothing more than headshots of a unidentified boy with black marker scribbled over his mouth to "represent" the black tape in the original Polaroids from '89. The packages didn't include any information, that the police revealed, that would lead me to believe the sender had any additional pertinent information on the case.

The package being from New Mexico was kinda strange, but it could just be an unbalanced local who has followed the case since it's inception.

Or, a more sinister possibility - it could be the real killers of Calico (as theorized by that one detective) trying to make investigators re-consider the abduction angle.

Taken from the UM Locations thread:

This is the Calico home located at 403 Bruggs Drive in Belen, New Mexico. Tara left here on September 20, 1988 for her usual 34 mile bike ride. After she vanished, the Calico family lived here for 15 more years before moving to Florida in 2003.

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Tara1.jpg

Highway 47 was Tara's traditional bike route. Several witnesses saw her there that morning. This next photo is the spot where 2 hunters reported seeing Tara riding with the 1954 Ford pickup truck right on her tail. Note: The homes seen in the distance were not there in 1988.

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Tara2.jpg

Captain Donald Donges of the Valencia County Sheriff's Department was vague with the details on a video featured on the forbidden site. But he thinks the general area shown in the final photo was where Tara died. This was also apparently where police found marks in the dirt where a bike was dragged the day she vanished.

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Tara3.jpg

Apparently officers claim to know who the killers are. They were boys at the time, now men. Their parents helped them cover the crime scene (getting rid of the bike, the body and covering the blood with sand.) But without a body, the police don't have the hard evidence to convict their suspects.

Apparently officers claim to know who the killers are. They were boys at the time, now men. Their parents helped them cover the crime scene (getting rid of the bike, the body and covering the blood with sand.) But without a body, the police don't have the hard evidence to convict their suspects.

That seems far more likely IMO than the abduction scenario.

That seems far more likely IMO than the abduction scenario.

It really does. Although the picture found in Florida of the girl tied up does look very much like Tara. The lazy left eye, the facial structure, the hair length and the book found by her feet was written by Tara's favorite author.

I'm not sure what to think. I wish the police would reveal more details of what they know.

It really does. Although the picture found in Florida of the girl tied up does look very much like Tara. The lazy left eye, the facial structure, the hair length and the book found by her feet was written by Tara's favorite author.

I'm not sure what to think. I wish the police would reveal more details of what they know.

100% agreed. The photo DOES look like Tara but if the cops say they know who killed her, then the photo cannot be her. I really wish we could hear more from that cop who claims to know what happened.

Although it is very odd for so many people to have committed in the murder/coverup and yet not one of them has ever slipped up and said anything. Usually you have one idiot who spills the beans.

The cop who says he knows who did it but doesn't have enough for an arrest just seems like he's trying to get his name in the paper. First of all, these people he claims were all younger and I highly doubt that every single one of them (including the people that they probably told over time) could keep their mouth shut for this long. Very hard to believe.

There is supposed to be a documentary coming out about Tara's disappearance by one of her schoolmates in high school (who did not know her real well in H.S). Here is a trailer for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laj7UX01LAc

The cop who says he knows who did it but doesn't have enough for an arrest just seems like he's trying to get his name in the paper. First of all, these people he claims were all younger and I highly doubt that every single one of them (including the people that they probably told over time) could keep their mouth shut for this long. Very hard to believe.

I disagree on the cop just wanting his name in the paper. This was a very famous case in their city and his name was in the paper plenty for lack of the case being solved. I think this case really stuck with him and he is frustrated that he cannot do anything about it. I would like to know what makes him think that he knows who did it but again, we will not know unless a body is found.

I agree with you though, that it is very unlikely that they all kept their mouths shut this long.

I disagree on the cop just wanting his name in the paper. This was a very famous case in their city and his name was in the paper plenty for lack of the case being solved. I think this case really stuck with him and he is frustrated that he cannot do anything about it. I would like to know what makes him think that he knows who did it but again, we will not know unless a body is found.

I agree with you though, that it is very unlikely that they all kept their mouths shut this long.

The same can be said for an abductor. Tara was a teenager when she went missing. If she were still alive, it's highly unlikely she wouldn't have reached out to someone by now. And if the girl in the photo was in fact Tara, just how did this person transport the abducted children around in public (bound and gagged) without ever being spotted, or their cover being blown?

You have good points, but we now know that many people who were abducted as children and remain captive as adults, often do not reach out for help.

This is the case that haunted me for the longest time. I couldn't get that picture of the two tied up children out of my mind. Horrific scene.

I think the photograph was left behind intentionally, sort of a catch me if you can type of thing. Quite a brazen thing to do on top of the kidnappings.

A very haunting case indeed. Like some others, I believe that the girl in the photograph is most likely Tara Calico. Just from comparing the picture with pictures of her on the internet, there is a very strong resemblance.

I think the book was probably something the abductor bought afterwards; he found out that that was her favorite author and so put it there as a clue. I think obviously this guy wanted people to know who the girl was and the book was a little way of saying it.

The prank picture thing doesn't make sense to me, for reasons already given in this thread. I just find it too hard to believe that the kids who posed in the photo for a prank weren't identified, or that no-one involved in the prank ever admitted it. Also, what's the likelihood of one of these hypothetical mischievous kids just HAPPENING to look uncannily like Tara Calico, or having a friend pose in the picture who does, etc. Not very likely at all, I think...

The "prank" also seems more like something that would happen today, in the internet age, than something a couple of kids would think to do in 1989. Not to say that everyone back then was magically pure-hearted and never pulled off any messed-up jokes, but that kind of mentality just seems to me a newer phenomenon tied to the internet and groups like 4chan executing cruel pranks on a massive scale. Hell, even today, if this same disappearance occurred I couldn't imagine some kids getting together to make a practical joke out of it. It just doesn't seem right to me.

And why toss the prank photo in some random parking lot if you're hoping for it to get the widest possible exposure? The way it was left there doesn't seem to ensure that it will necessarily even be found at all, or at least not anytime soon.

One final, more crucial, point concerning the "prank photo" theory: why the little boy? If the intent of the picture was simply to fool a mass of people into thinking Calico was abducted and currently being held captive, then what's the point of having a little boy, also tied up, there in the picture? It doesn't seem necessary at all, and to me it points to a crucial flaw in the prank theory.

Whether the girl in the photo is Tara Calico or not, I simply don't think it's likely that the photo is a fake. It's more comforting to believe so, but sadly it doesn't seem likely.

I also am skeptical of the idea that Calico was killed by some local boys (probably accidentally), and then the murder was covered up by them (and possibly their parents?!?). Again, I just can't imagine no-one spilling the beans about this. Additionally, how likely is it that this group would all agree to either covering up the accidental murder of Calico OR killing Calico to get out of being persecuted for hitting/gravely injuring her OR simply killing her for no logical reason. When you've got a group of more than 2 or 3 people, it's difficult to believe that all of them would agree on the course of action being morally acceptable, or none of them ever confessing. I also can't imagine these kids hiding her body in a way that avoided detection for all these years. Possible, but simply far-fetched.

The bottom line is, we will very possibly never know what happened to Tara Calico, or the boy in the photo, or the girl in the photo if she's not Tara. I just hope that (provided it is not a prank) the boy and girl in that sad photo, whoever they may be, suffered the least possible hurt. But we will probably never know. And that makes me sad.

The bicycle accident story seems more realistic then the kidnapping story.

What do you guys make of the car seen following Tara down the highway? Whether involved or not, the reenactment was VERY creepy.

The bicycle accident story seems more realistic then the kidnapping story.
True, it's more likely she died that day than was kidnapped and ended up all the way in FL.

I just find it hard to believe that these guys all agreed to cover up her murder, and no one said anything about it. Would it really be such an easy snap decision to murder her instead of dealing with the consequences of hitting her with their car? Unless the initial accident did actually kill her. But still, no one hears a thing about this until a couple years ago? No discovery of her remains or anything either? These guys must've been pros at disposing of bodies. I dunno, seems odd to me.

I guess it's up in the air as to whether the car seen following Tara was a possible abductor or this group of guys she knew. Or someone completely unrelated (though I sort of doubt that).

I think too many people look at this with tunnel vision. They assume that (a) the picture was definately of Tara or (b) that whoever made the picture assumed that it would be linked to her disappearance. You have to remember, the picture was found hundreds of miles away from where she was last seen. Assuming the photo was a fake of some sort, I doubt that the person making it and/or leaving it behind in Florida assumed it would be linked to someone in New Mexico

I think too many people look at this with tunnel vision. They assume that (a) the picture was definately of Tara or (b) that whoever made the picture assumed that it would be linked to her disappearance. You have to remember, the picture was found hundreds of miles away from where she was last seen. Assuming the photo was a fake of some sort, I doubt that the person making it and/or leaving it behind in Florida assumed it would be linked to someone in New Mexico

I agree. I'm not convinced that the picture is her, or that it's even real. However if it is real, and it's not Tara but another abducted child, I feel very bad for her. I mean, the picture has gotten a lot of attention and could be an important clue, but it's being directed at the wrong missing child.

I think too many people look at this with tunnel vision. They assume that (a) the picture was definately of Tara or (b) that whoever made the picture assumed that it would be linked to her disappearance. You have to remember, the picture was found hundreds of miles away from where she was last seen. Assuming the photo was a fake of some sort, I doubt that the person making it and/or leaving it behind in Florida assumed it would be linked to someone in New Mexico
Good point. It could very well have no connection at all, and if it were taken by pranksters vying for attention surely they would've picked a better place to "drop" the photo? I just think the strong resemblance of the girl in the photo to Tara, plus the placement of the book by her favorite author, is too much to dismiss it.

Assuming it is Tara, the huge distance between where she lived/disappeared and where the photo was found just points to the photo drop probably being an accident. Or a desperate cry for help on the part of Tara and/or the boy. Who knows.

V C Andrews was almost as popular as Twilight back then, I remember all the kids in my junior high reading those books. One was actually made into a movie, Flowers in the Attic. I'm uncertain whether it was Tara in that photo, but the book does nothing to persuade me either way.

I agree with Necco. Every single person I knew was reading V.C. Andrews.

We can't assume that the end result is what was intended - if it was pranksters, they may have had no idea that when you cover half of her face, one of them looked like Tara Calico. There are tons and tons of young, pretty girls who are missing; while the odds are huge that someone happened to look like Tara Calico in particular, the odds are very good that she looked like some missing person. The girl in the photo doesn't have a particularly unusual appearance. I can think of at least two people she looks like that I went to high school with. If one of them had been missing the picture would definitely give me pause.

Case in point - that is exactly what happened with regards to the little boy in the picture. He looked a lot like Michael Henley, but he wasn't. What are the odds of an unrelated child looking a lot like Michael Henley? Not very good, but he did. So it's not unbelievable that the same situation happened with Calico - it looked like her, but it wasn't. Take a fairly normal-looking kid, cover half the face, and the odds are good that they'll resemble other people. If it's true for Henley it can be true for her.

I agree. The parents of a missing child want to believe their loved one is still alive, so even the slightest resemblence gives them hope, and they hold onto that hope. The girl in the photo does resemble Tara, but I still think the police officer who says he's investigated the case and came to the conclusion that it was a hit and run, is far more likely than an abduction theory. Think about it. This officer has more information available to him than anyone else, so he obviously has evidence supporting this theory. Just not enough to name these people yet unfortunately. And Tara was last seen riding her bike, but her bike was never located. Quite an odd thing for an abductor to abduct a girl on a bike, and take the bike too.

I agree. The parents of a missing child want to believe their loved one is still alive, so even the slightest resemblence gives them hope, and they hold onto that hope. The girl in the photo does resemble Tara, but I still think the police officer who says he's investigated the case and came to the conclusion that it was a hit and run, is far more likely than an abduction theory. Think about it. This officer has more information available to him than anyone else, so he obviously has evidence supporting this theory. Just not enough to name these people yet unfortunately. And Tara was last seen riding her bike, but her bike was never located. Quite an odd thing for an abductor to abduct a girl on a bike, and take the bike too.


It has been almost 23 years since this happened. Yet, in that time not one of the persons involved in this 'hit and run' theory has said a word to anyone. These were all young men involved in this (certainly not the best at keeping something quiet ), according to this detective. After so long, they would possibly be looking at a manslaughter charge... if that due to the statute of limitations running out on such a charge. Is that even a plausible theory? I just have a really hard time believing this theory of the hit and run.

I agree. The parents of a missing child want to believe their loved one is still alive, so even the slightest resemblence gives them hope, and they hold onto that hope. The girl in the photo does resemble Tara, but I still think the police officer who says he's investigated the case and came to the conclusion that it was a hit and run, is far more likely than an abduction theory. Think about it. This officer has more information available to him than anyone else, so he obviously has evidence supporting this theory. Just not enough to name these people yet unfortunately. And Tara was last seen riding her bike, but her bike was never located. Quite an odd thing for an abductor to abduct a girl on a bike, and take the bike too.

With regards to the photo, I wouldn't say the girl in the photo is definitely NOT Tara, but I would say that it is more likely not her.

I think the reason the killers/abductors took her bike was to get rid of any evidence that could provide a link between the victim and the perpetrators. If it was a hit-and-run type of incident, they would want to get rid of the bike in case any paint chips from their vehicle had scrapped onto Tara's bike and vice versa. Plus, Tara's blood could have gotten onto the bike and/or their vehicle.

With regards to the photo, I wouldn't say the girl in the photo is definitely NOT Tara, but I would say that it is more likely not her.

I think the reason the killers/abductors took her bike was to get rid of any evidence that could provide a link between the victim and the perpetrators. If it was a hit-and-run type of incident, they would want to get rid of the bike in case any paint chips from their vehicle had scrapped onto Tara's bike and vice versa. Plus, Tara's blood could have gotten onto the bike and/or their vehicle.

Assuming it's a hit-and-run, but why was there no trace of blood from the accident anywhere? I'm sure the police were swarmed over that area looking for blood. All they found was a music tape recorder I believe, which her mother felt was left by Tara on purpose.

If the photo wasn't Tara, then who was it. Hoax or not, there isn't one single person on the face of the earth that could have or still identify this person? This was a national story at the time, not a local one. America's Most Wanted TV show even aired it.

Assuming it's a hit-and-run, but why was there no trace of blood from the accident anywhere? I'm sure the police were swarmed over that area looking for blood. All they found was a music tape recorder I believe, which her mother felt was left by Tara on purpose.

If the photo wasn't Tara, then who was it. Hoax or not, there isn't one single person on the face of the earth that could have or still identify this person? This was a national story at the time, not a local one. America's Most Wanted TV show even aired it.

The police probably couldn't pinpoint the exact location of the accident on the road. Plus, any biological material such as blood could have been easily concealed by the elements of nature. There also might not have been much blood at the exact location of the collision. Even if they found any blood, they might not have been able to immediately prove it was Tara's. Back in 1988 (time of her disappearance), DNA technology was still in its infancy, difficult, expensive, and very time consuming; blood typing was the cornerstone of blood evidence back in that era. But had they found any blood and tested it a few years later, when DNA was much simpler, they might have solved this case by now.

I believe the authorities said only part of Tara's walkman was found, along with a casette tape. Maybe she dropped it while riding her bike, then while picking it up, got hit by an oncoming truck/van. Then she is taken away (dead or alive), along with her bike. maybe the perps either ignored the walkman or didn't notice it since they had to act quickly, whether she was intentionally hurt or accidentally.

I think she definitely was taken away from her bike trail in a van or truck because if the perpetrators were in a regular car like a sedan, it would have been harder to leave the area with her bike without being spotted because of the amount of time it would take to load it into a small car. They could have easily been spotted in broad daylight, trying to cram a bicycle into their vehicle (witnesses reported seeing a truck in Tara's vicinity after all).

About the photo, if it isn't Tara, I see a few possibilities:
1) The faces in the photo are covered too much to make a positive ID, so they don't bother calling it in. I'm spitballing on this one, since Tara's mother came forward.
2) No one who has seen the photo thought of the possibility of the girl being someone they know.
3) It was just a prank, and whoever took it might not have known it has been recovered. But if they do know, maybe they didn't want to get in trouble for it since they might be charged with obstruction of justice or other charges.

The police probably couldn't pinpoint the exact location of the accident on the road. Plus, any biological material such as blood could have been easily concealed by the elements of nature. There also might not have been much blood at the exact location of the collision. Even if they found any blood, they might not have been able to immediately prove it was Tara's. Back in 1988 (time of her disappearance), DNA technology was still in its infancy, difficult, expensive, and very time consuming; blood typing was the cornerstone of blood evidence back in that era. But had they found any blood and tested it a few years later, when DNA was much simpler, they might have solved this case by now.

I believe the authorities said only part of Tara's walkman was found, along with a casette tape. Maybe she dropped it while riding her bike, then while picking it up, got hit by an oncoming truck/van. Then she is taken away (dead or alive), along with her bike. maybe the perps either ignored the walkman or didn't notice it since they had to act quickly, whether she was intentionally hurt or accidentally.

I think she definitely was taken away from her bike trail in a van or truck because if the perpetrators were in a regular car like a sedan, it would have been harder to leave the area with her bike without being spotted because of the amount of time it would take to load it into a small car. They could have easily been spotted in broad daylight, trying to cram a bicycle into their vehicle (witnesses reported seeing a truck in Tara's vicinity after all).

About the photo, if it isn't Tara, I see a few possibilities:
1) The faces in the photo are covered too much to make a positive ID, so they don't bother calling it in. I'm spitballing on this one, since Tara's mother came forward.
2) No one who has seen the photo thought of the possibility of the girl being someone they know.
3) It was just a prank, and whoever took it might not have known it has been recovered. But if they do know, maybe they didn't want to get in trouble for it since they might be charged with obstruction of justice or other charges.

Personally, I think the police should do a massive re-launch of this case with those pictures shown. If these two people can be identified as being a hoax and staged picture in the photo, then this will eliminate the Port St. Joe, FL connection. The other thing that bothers me about this case is the 20 year anniversary pictures sent all over again. If this was a prank, wouldn't you think it would have been dropped after all this time. It's almost like the sender gave a "don't forget about this" message. If I'm not mistaken, I believe I read that there was some taunting of the police departments in one letter. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I'm sure I read that in an article.

According to the detective, the suspects in this case of the hit-and-run were between 17-20 years old. Being this good at keeping their mouth shut for so long is quite a feat. I'm of the belief that the bicycle not being found gives more credibility to a stranger abduction than the accident theory, and I agree with you, it had to be a truck or van that could whisk it away quickly in daylight for fear of being spotted.

An interesting side note: Back in 1994 there was an anonymous caller to a missing person's hotline stating that Tiffany Sessions (http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/s/sessions_tiffany.html), who went missing in Florida in early 1989, was abducted and forced into prostitution and was accompanied by two other abducted females, Tracie Kroh (missing since 1989 also- Pennsylvania http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/k/kroh_tracy.html), and Elizabeth Miller (missing since 1983 http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/m/miller_elizabeth.html) and that they were traveling in a white van with Florida license plates. I always thought it was somewhat of an ironic coincidence of the white van, FL connection, and so on. The police did investigate it and assumed it was a hoax (how well was this investigated?), but I wonder if that caller may have known something, but without giving too many details. There were no more calls, apparently. Interesting. I have always wondered about the Tiffany Sessions case because my friend went to school with her at the University of Florida and knew her somewhat well. She disappeared just like Tara did, without a clue, only she was jogging at the time.

Maybe the FBI and police jurisdictions involved in Tara's case can all get together and bring this case out to the public again. They really should find out either way who those people are in the pictures, hoax or not.

The vast vast majority of hit and run cases involve leaving the body behind and the bike. Rare is it that anyone bothers to do anything with a body if it's an accident or a joke gone wrong. They are usually so freaked out that they want to get out of there as fast as possible. Not impossible, but not likely in this case. It follows a pattern of abduction. Girl on road alone, on a bike, walkman in her ears. She can't hear anything behind her. She can't get away fast enough likely. Large vehicle seen behind her by a witness already.

She's hit enough to knock her off balance and it's broad daylight so it needs to be done quickly. Grab her, grab the bike, off you go. Walkman flies off and gets damaged in the struggle. Maybe she was hit hard enough to cause some blood to be on the bike. There may have been a 2nd person involved too or not.

kdog1 you make some VERY good points. A massive re-launch should be done and those photos re-released to find out once and for all who those people are. It's sensational enough that it would spread pretty quickly.

Personally, I think the police should do a massive re-launch of this case with those pictures shown. If these two people can be identified as being a hoax and staged picture in the photo, then this will eliminate the Port St. Joe, FL connection. The other thing that bothers me about this case is the 20 year anniversary pictures sent all over again. If this was a prank, wouldn't you think it would have been dropped after all this time. It's almost like the sender gave a "don't forget about this" message. If I'm not mistaken, I believe I read that there was some taunting of the police departments in one letter. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I'm sure I read that in an article.

Not sure on the taunts, as it's been awhile since I have read the article. I seem to remember the mailings were just photos of a boy's face with black marker scribbled over his mouth to signify the black tape in the original Polaroids.

I think this could be a prank by someone unrelated to the original (1989, Port St. Joe) Polaroid prank. Or, it could be some unbalanced person who was following the case and hoping to drum up some publicity on the anniversary.

According to the detective, the suspects in this case of the hit-and-run were between 17-20 years old. Being this good at keeping their mouth shut for so long is quite a feat. I'm of the belief that the bicycle not being found gives more credibility to a stranger abduction than the accident theory, and I agree with you, it had to be a truck or van that could whisk it away quickly in daylight for fear of being spotted.

I don't think the missing bike gives weight to either theory.

In both scenarios - the abduction and the accident - the perp would have reason to do away with the bike, as it is evidence and gives the cops a starting point and rough idea where the crime was committed or where the perp or victim were.

The vast vast majority of hit and run cases involve leaving the body behind and the bike. Rare is it that anyone bothers to do anything with a body if it's an accident or a joke gone wrong. They are usually so freaked out that they want to get out of there as fast as possible. Not impossible, but not likely in this case.

Well, that would depend on whether or not she was still alive after getting hit. If they were certain she was killed on impact or that she never saw it coming, then it's likely her body would have been left behind. However, if the theory is correct that the perpetrators were local teenage boys who were harrassing her before accidentally hitting her, then she could easily ID them and their vehicle if she survives (and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that she could have known them personally). If they decided they needed to kill her, they wouldn't want to risk doing it on the highway where there's a chance of being seen by a passing motorist, so that's why they would take the body and the bike away from there to finish the job.

Generlaly, I would agree with the assertion that young people would not be able to stay quiet about a hit-and-run for 23 years, but then I think of the Jenny Pratt case, which should have been one of the most easily solvable cases on UM, yet everyone involved has still managed to keep their mouth shut after all this time.

I think the missing bike lends more weight to the hit and run theory. An abductor would have had to have pulled up to Tara, snatched her off of her bike, and then held her down while they retrieved the bike. Granted there could have been two people involved, but most abductors want to leave the scene as soon as they abduct their victim. Someone who hit Tara on her bike (and probably mangled it from the impact) would have a reason to dispose of it.

Generlaly, I would agree with the assertion that young people would not be able to stay quiet about a hit-and-run for 23 years, but then I think of the Jenny Pratt case, which should have been one of the most easily solvable cases on UM, yet everyone involved has still managed to keep their mouth shut after all this time.

This is a very good example of the criminals keeping their mouths shut.


I think the missing bike lends more weight to the hit and run theory. An abductor would have had to have pulled up to Tara, snatched her off of her bike, and then held her down while they retrieved the bike. Granted there could have been two people involved, but most abductors want to leave the scene as soon as they abduct their victim. Someone who hit Tara on her bike (and probably mangled it from the impact) would have a reason to dispose of it.

I agree as well.

Was it ever determined if the boy died of foul play?

Was it ever determined if the boy died of foul play?

I don't believe there was foul play suspected in Michael Henley's death.

Well, that would depend on whether or not she was still alive after getting hit. If they were certain she was killed on impact or that she never saw it coming, then it's likely her body would have been left behind. However, if the theory is correct that the perpetrators were local teenage boys who were harrassing her before accidentally hitting her, then she could easily ID them and their vehicle if she survives (and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that she could have known them personally). If they decided they needed to kill her, they wouldn't want to risk doing it on the highway where there's a chance of being seen by a passing motorist, so that's why they would take the body and the bike away from there to finish the job.

Which would, I would think, make it an abduction as weell, not a hit and run alone. This very well could have happened...although I still don't know why they would want to kill her on the thinking of "well we went this far lets just get it over with." Not impossible though...there's no logic for murder. Or, going on this theory further, accidentally hit her too hard, grab everything and head for the hospital on the thought of maybe just leaving her there but she ends up dying on the way there and she's left somewhere.

I don't believe there was foul play suspected in Michael Henley's death.

Wasn't he killed by a bear or some animal?

Wasn't he killed by a bear or some animal?

I thought there was a fall involved IIRC, but I'm not 100% certain.

If I'm recalling correctly Michael Henley was found not far from where his Dad was camping. kinda odd. but hey it's the woods. he could've fallen into some brush or something and it would've been hard to see.

I think it was said he died from a fall or exposure.

I thought I heard it was exposure, but I could be wrong. I never thought the photo looked like him, but the girl does bear a strong resemblance to Tara. After doing some research online, I saw that her mother also believed it was her due to a birthmark/scar on the leg. That makes me feel a little more strongly that the photo might be her, but I have never been convinced.

I don't really believe the hit and run theory. I think, more likely, that this was an abduction. But I sure would like to know why the sheriff has concluded that these select few people he is focusing on are the ones who committed the crime. What evidence has he uncovered? Perhaps statements from witnesses who won't come forward?

I thought I heard it was exposure, but I could be wrong. I never thought the photo looked like him, but the girl does bear a strong resemblance to Tara. After doing some research online, I saw that her mother also believed it was her due to a birthmark/scar on the leg. That makes me feel a little more strongly that the photo might be her, but I have never been convinced.

I don't really believe the hit and run theory. I think, more likely, that this was an abduction. But I sure would like to know why the sheriff has concluded that these select few people he is focusing on are the ones who committed the crime. What evidence has he uncovered? Perhaps statements from witnesses who won't come forward?

I think the sheriff has evidence that lead him to the perpetrators and/or statements from confidential informants. However, he cannot publicly disclose what evidence and/or statements he has recieved for security reasons. Plus, the evidence and statements alone wouldn't hold up in court on their own without some sort of legitimate proof that Tara is dead, and these individuals are responsible for it. He would need blood evidence of some sort, or her body.

The sheriff could make an arrest without the body, but it would be tricky. Look up the Dennis Keith Smith case (also shown on UM, as well as the Forensic Files episode "Missing in Time"). Smith murdered Carolyn Killaby, dumped her body (although her body was never found), the police found enough blood evidence in his truck to earn a conviction, and he was sentenced to life.

I think the sheriff has evidence that lead him to the perpetrators and/or statements from confidential informants. However, he cannot publicly disclose what evidence and/or statements he has recieved for security reasons. Plus, the evidence and statements alone wouldn't hold up in court on their own without some sort of legitimate proof that Tara is dead, and these individuals are responsible for it. He would need blood evidence of some sort, or her body.

The sheriff could make an arrest without the body, but it would be tricky. Look up the Dennis Keith Smith case (also shown on UM, as well as the Forensic Files episode "Missing in Time"). Smith murdered Carolyn Killaby, dumped her body (although her body was never found), the police found enough blood evidence in his truck to earn a conviction, and he was sentenced to life.

I know, that's one of my top cases. I'm glad they have been able to make convictions without bodies, but I fully understand how difficult that is. They just don't have that kind of evidence here; whatever it is must be convincing for the sheriff, but certainly not of the caliber to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. It's really a shame.

I have to comment on one aspect of the case.

Firstly, I'm assuming the comparison photos shown in the segment are ones the experts used.

Starting with Michael (yes, I know it turned out not to be him, but I just want to comment). The boy in the photo doesn't look like Michael at all. The hair length is much different, and looking at the two photos, the boy appears to be younger in age. My point here is that it's fairly obvious the boy wasn't Michael from the start.

Tara and the girl on the other hand, look a bit similar. However, Tara's nose seems slimmer then the girl pictured, and her eyes seem to be a bit more roundish. The girl in the picture also appears to have a darker complexion, but that could be a camera/lighting effect. I wish I could compare Tara's eyes to the girl. I am swayed however by the fact her mother apparently recognized a birthmark on her leg.

Here's an interesting piece of Tara Calico-related news. The infamous polaroid has actually made the front cover of a new book that was released about missing persons.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1463750994/

Obviously, it might be a bit unsettling for someone who's never seen that photo before to suddenly come across it, but wouldn't it be neat if some random person who was browsing the shelves at a book store actually recognized those two kids? SOMEBODY out there has to know who they are!

I wouldn't mind buying that book, but I'd probably get a lot of strange looks from people who saw it lying on my coffee table :lol: .

Tara had been being followed by a 1954 light colored Ford pickup truck. Was this ever looked into? How many 1954 Ford pickups could there have been in or around that area at the time?

Tara had been being followed by a 1954 light colored Ford pickup truck. Was this ever looked into? How many 1954 Ford pickups could there have been in or around that area at the time?

Don't take this for gospel, but here's a reddit link to a discussion, along with an excerpt:

"The problem with the investigation? Well, first off, one of the prime suspects was the son of the Sheriff. Second of all, speculation that Deputy Sheriff (later Sheriff) Rene Rivera was a dirty cop who had their backs. Thirdly? All of the suspects are now deceased. LR Jr. either committed suicide or played a game of Russian Roulette (depending on who you ask) in 1991 and supposedly left a note confessing, which was not entered into evidence by Deputy Rivera. The docs are vague on who the other suspects are so I'm not going to name names (although there are plenty!)."


https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/5orxpa/tara_calico_about_as_resolved_as_it_can_get/

From what I understood, Tara was never actually abducted. Someone ran her over on her bike and killed her, possibly unintentionally, and disposed of her body. The mysterious photo I think was just a cruel prank. Tara's mother died 15 years ago at the age of 64. No doubt the stress of this whole thing sent her to an early grave. Micheal Henley's body was found a year and a half later, not far from where he disappeared. Foul play was not suspected in his case. Police believe he wandered off and was killed by a wild animal.

It's been heavily speculated that Tara was killed in a hit-and-run accident while her body and bicycle were disposed of by the perpetrators. However, I think another plausible theory is that she was one of the many unknown victims of David Parker Ray.

It's been heavily speculated that Tara was killed in a hit-and-run accident while her body and bicycle were disposed of by the perpetrators. However, I think another plausible theory is that she was one of the many unknown victims of David Parker Ray.


I think you're 100% right, David parker ray was born in Belen, NM, Tara disappeared from Belen, NM. According to unsolved mysteries many people reported Tara being "stalked" by a truck with a trailer, David parker ray was known as the "toy box killer" the tox box being what he called a sound proofed trailer where he tortured his victims.

I think it's also likely that the picture is her.

I think you're 100% right, David parker ray was born in Belen, NM, Tara disappeared from Belen, NM. According to unsolved mysteries many people reported Tara being "stalked" by a truck with a trailer, David parker ray was known as the "toy box killer" the tox box being what he called a sound proofed trailer where he tortured his victims.

I think it's also likely that the picture is her.

I'm not convinced the picture was her, although that possibility still remains open. If it wasn't Tara, it was most likely a prank of some kind.

I'm not convinced the picture was her, although that possibility still remains open. If it wasn't Tara, it was most likely a prank of some kind.

But even the FBI and britains scotland land experts were convinced it was her, Remember that this was before the days of photoshop, and advanced computer software, they just happened to find a girl who looked so much like Tara that not only the highest levels of the inteligence community believe it was her, Taras own mother believed to be her. A perfect lookalike just for a prank? If it was a prank, knowing how famous this picture is, the girl involved in the prank or friends and family would have come forward.

But even the FBI and britains scotland land experts were convinced it was her, Remember that this was before the days of photoshop, and advanced computer software, they just happened to find a girl who looked so much like Tara that not only the highest levels of the inteligence community believe it was her, Taras own mother believed to be her. A perfect lookalike just for a prank? If it was a prank, knowing how famous this picture is, the girl involved in the prank or friends and family would have come forward.

Calling her a "perfect lookalike" is a bit of a stretch. And I think the FBI and Scotland Yard said it could be her, not that it was definitely her.

And I disagree with your last statement. The photo is not that famous outside of true crime circles. The girl in it could have no idea how big it blew up (this was long before the internet). And even if she did find out about it, maybe she was too embarrassed to come forward. Personally, I think the photo looks like two bored kids on a car trip playing around.

From what I understood, Tara was never actually abducted. Someone ran her over on her bike and killed her, possibly unintentionally, and disposed of her body.

The people of the Belen area, as well as Tara's loved ones and friends don't consider it a mystery of who is responsible. The names of the four males, who were teenagers at the time, are available online (and I believe in earlier pages of this thread.) The only true mystery left is where her body is after the parents of those four boys help hide the evidence.

But even the FBI and britains scotland land experts were convinced it was her, Remember that this was before the days of photoshop, and advanced computer software, they just happened to find a girl who looked so much like Tara that not only the highest levels of the inteligence community believe it was her, Taras own mother believed to be her. A perfect lookalike just for a prank? If it was a prank, knowing how famous this picture is, the girl involved in the prank or friends and family would have come forward.

The picture is patently not her-Tara was 19, the female in the picture looks around 14-15. The nose is totally different-the girl in the photo's nose is considerably thinner & they don't look similar facially-even with part of the face in the photo being obscured.

There were three photo analysis performed-Scotland Yard concluded it was her, an independent lab in Los Alamos concluded it wasn't & the FBI decided the results were inconclusive. Of course the family aren't really going to be impartial due to them desperately wanting to believe she is still alive. I would imagine if the photos were tested with modern software all would come back negative, but really a cursory glance is enough due to the obvious age difference.

Photographic analysis is pseudo-science anyways. At best you could say it MIGHT be Tara. but it "MIGHT" be thousands of other girls too

I've always thought the "well there's a VC Andrews book in the picture, so it's obvious it's her, because she loved VC Andrews" train of thought was bizarre. Because a kidnapper that keeps their victims duct taped and bound is going to give a s*** if their victim likes to read, or who she reads? Come on.

I've always thought the "well there's a VC Andrews book in the picture, so it's obvious it's her, because she loved VC Andrews" train of thought was bizarre. Because a kidnapper that keeps their victims duct taped and bound is going to give a s*** if their victim likes to read, or who she reads? Come on.

The picture is patently not her-Tara was 19, the female in the picture looks around 14-15. The nose is totally different-the girl in the photo's nose is considerably thinner & they don't look similar facially-even with part of the face in the photo being obscured.

There were three photo analysis performed-Scotland Yard concluded it was her, an independent lab in Los Alamos concluded it wasn't & the FBI decided the results were inconclusive. Of course the family aren't really going to be impartial due to them desperately wanting to believe she is still alive. I would imagine if the photos were tested with modern software all would come back negative, but really a cursory glance is enough due to the obvious age difference.

so science works if it backs up your theory and it's garbage if it doesn't? hahahahahahahahahaha

we live in a world were feelings are worth more than facts, no wonder that 90% of these cases are never solved

so science works if it backs up your theory and it's garbage if it doesn't? hahahahahahahahahaha

we live in a world were feelings are worth more than facts, no wonder that 90% of these cases are never solved


It's similar to the Robert "Curt" Borton case. The photographs were clearly not Borton but the family believed they were Curt because that gave them hope. I feel so bad for Tara's family, but the photograph is more of a bizarre and sensational aside in the case rather than proof of anything.

so science works if it backs up your theory and it's garbage if it doesn't? hahahahahahahahahaha

we live in a world were feelings are worth more than facts, no wonder that 90% of these cases are never solved

No, there was zero need for it in the first place at it clearly wasn't her. That there were three different opinions just shows it isn't a science as shown by recent reports. This isn't DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence.

https://www.cnet.com/news/facial-recognition-software-inaccurate-in-98-of-metropolitan-police-cases-reports/