This case has been on my mind recently, more specifically, the Polaroid photo found in Port St. Joe, Florida of the two children. Obviously, a lot of people believe the girl in the photo is Tara Calico. There was speculation that the boy was Michael Henley, but considering his remains were found not far from where he originally disappeared in the Zuni Mountains in New Mexico, it is highly unlikely.

What do you guys think of the Polaroid?

I should say I'm a huge believer in Occam's Razor, and using plausible deductions and inferences to lead to the most likely explanation. I like trying to "profile" who the most likely culprit is. I think that applying these axioms is a good way of disentangling some of the more "out there" theories, which UM certainly gave us a dose of....

That being said, I'm having a hard time figuring the angle on this one...

In terms of explaining the Polaroid, lets examine the possibilities...

First, I think it's necessary to point out that the photo was found face up in the parking lot of a gas station in Port St. Joe, Florida. Considering the nature of the photo, to me, this indicates that the person who "dropped" it...

A. wanted it to be found.
B. was going for "shock value" - really, two young kids bound with tape on their mouths. Its pretty "out there"...it reminds me of a case recently where a photo of a dead and mutilated woman was found at a gas station. Upon further investigation, it turned out it was a photo from Afghanistan and depicted a war atrocity.

That being said, there are a few directions to go with the Polaroid from 1989...

1. A criminal mastermind who gets his (women rarely commit these crimes) kicks abducting children and left behind a photo to taunt authorities.

Unlikely. Most stranger abductions of children are for sexual purposes. The perp is usually an adult male, and the children are typically dead and disposed within 48 hours. In addition, most pedophiles have a sex and age preference. Yet, the Polaroid depicts a girl and a boy. Age is up for grabs, but suffice to say there is a pretty significant age gap between the two...kinda unique for a pedophile. Two sexes..different ages...
Not to mention the people who commit these types of crimes are usually solitary and act alone, and typically don't advertise their crimes in this fashion...the whole thing seems highly unlikely to me.

2. The photographer is a parent or guardian of these children, has sexually abused them and the photo was taken either for self gratification, or for resale.

Unlikely. While the scenario is plausible, these types of offenders typically don't advertise their crimes in public (i.e., photos left face up in a gas station). Also, any buyer of the photos is unlikely to leave them in a similar state.

3. Human trafficking, The photo is a remnant of that.

Unlikely. Organized crime is involved here. They don't advertise either.

Ultimate conclusion, - the photo is a hoax perpetuated by kids, and they have feared to come forward over the years due to the publicity generated by the Polaroid.

Thoughts?

I've always thought the photo was a hoax. Was the perp just rifling through old photo albums in a gas station parking lot, and one just happened to fall out?

I mean it COULD happen, but I don't know...

I think the actual photo was either a hoax perpetrated by bored kids, some creepy pedophilic remnant of a different crime entirely, or some sort of bizarre practical joke.

I've gone back and forth on the photo over the years. I feel the same way, SheRaa. It could be fake either as a joke or hoax, but it could be an actual crime in progress. Tara's mother stated she recognized a scar on the girl's leg as Tara's according to one article, but I failed to see it in the photograph.

I think part of what keeps me thinking it could be real is the boy's face. He just looks so scared and petrified. It could be a joke, but looking at his face is just so disturbing. Something about the girl's expression also really bothers me- I find it so genuine. She seems bitter and resentful of the person taking the picture.

It could all just be really good acting, of course. But the photo will still always creep me out. I think whoever the girl is, she is probably not Tara.

I think I probably would have found the idea of kids playing a practical joke of this magnitude unfathomable. But after having learned that the photos sent to Noreen Gosch were traced back to kids playing a practical joke in Florida in 1979, it is possible. My first thoughts were what Wishful said, the kids look legit afraid though.

United States seems to be the only country that has a website with a good chunk of its missing people profiled on it. I have to wonder about the possibility of the kids being originally from outside the U.S. and brought here, that might help explain why nobody identified them. This case got a heavy dose of publicity within the 50 states.

Not to keep rehashing things I've recently said, but I still think Nyleen Kay Marshall may have been one of a series of at least 4 abductions from people who dipped in from Canada. -- I've looked at every case on the Charley Project and don't immediately recall anyone that looks like these 2. Though I'm going through them again and up to 1987, right near the time frame, so I'll keep an eye out. Meaghan, owner of CP, says there are a lot of cases she can't profile because there are no photos of the missing person, she once estimated that number to be "in the thousands". There's also a lot of old cases (people who went missing in the 80's for example) that have just surfaced on the site within the last few years. Mind-boggling to think how many of these cases don't attract that much attention.

I was "iffy" on the picture being Tara until I read the article online of the lead investigator saying she was killed by 2 boys she had gone to high school with, who were driving the green van along the highway she was riding her bike. Their parents helped cover the crime, arrest warrants for the boys (now men) were made but couldn't be processed without the body or the bike.

So while I don't think the photo is of Tara, I'm still debating as to whether or not the picture is fake or not. I think the boy looks scared but the girl looks more annoyed.

I lean towards the photo being a prank that got out of hand; the police have a pretty solid theory and suspects tied to Tara's disappearance. Who knows if the sightings at the beach of the young woman had any connection to the polaroid.

At least one of the other pair of images that have been written off was found at a construction site. More recently someone else got their kicks off of sending images of a boy in regards to the case: http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/article/girl-in-the-photograph-the-tara-calico-story/index.html

In August, 2009, Port St. Joe, Florida, police received two pieces of mail from Albuquerque. The Port St. Joe Star got one too. Each envelope contained a photo of a brown-haired young boy, with the mouth area of the photo crossed in blank ink—it seemed to be an imitation of that 1989 Polaroid, in which a boy had tape over his mouth. Detective Jake Richards said these photos went to other police departments and to several churches, but that investigators were unable to get DNA evidence or other useful information from the mail.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/files/2013/02/calico-mouth-boy-e1360086563154.jpg

No mention if they attempted to date the film that the images were made from or analyzed the facial features against the boy in the Port St. Joe photo.

At least one of the other pair of images that have been written off was found at a construction site. More recently someone else got their kicks off of sending images of a boy in regards to the case: http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/article/girl-in-the-photograph-the-tara-calico-story/index.html


What is with that horrendous age progression pic of Tara in the link above???

The fact that both people in the picture (it has been debated in the past wheather the younger person is a boy or girl) are wearing clothes, pretty much rules out the possibility of this being genuine "pedophile pornography" in my opinion.

This case has been on my mind recently, more specifically, the Polaroid photo found in Port St. Joe, Florida of the two children. Obviously, a lot of people believe the girl in the photo is Tara Calico. There was speculation that the boy was Michael Henley, but considering his remains were found not far from where he originally disappeared in the Zuni Mountains in New Mexico, it is highly unlikely.

What do you guys think of the Polaroid?

I should say I'm a huge believer in Occam's Razor, and using plausible deductions and inferences to lead to the most likely explanation. I like trying to "profile" who the most likely culprit is. I think that applying these axioms is a good way of disentangling some of the more "out there" theories, which UM certainly gave us a dose of....

That being said, I'm having a hard time figuring the angle on this one...

In terms of explaining the Polaroid, lets examine the possibilities...

First, I think it's necessary to point out that the photo was found face up in the parking lot of a gas station in Port St. Joe, Florida. Considering the nature of the photo, to me, this indicates that the person who "dropped" it...

A. wanted it to be found.
B. was going for "shock value" - really, two young kids bound with tape on their mouths. Its pretty "out there"...it reminds me of a case recently where a photo of a dead and mutilated woman was found at a gas station. Upon further investigation, it turned out it was a photo from Afghanistan and depicted a war atrocity.

That being said, there are a few directions to go with the Polaroid from 1989...

1. A criminal mastermind who gets his (women rarely commit these crimes) kicks abducting children and left behind a photo to taunt authorities.

Unlikely. Most stranger abductions of children are for sexual purposes. The perp is usually an adult male, and the children are typically dead and disposed within 48 hours. In addition, most pedophiles have a sex and age preference. Yet, the Polaroid depicts a girl and a boy. Age is up for grabs, but suffice to say there is a pretty significant age gap between the two...kinda unique for a pedophile. Two sexes..different ages...
Not to mention the people who commit these types of crimes are usually solitary and act alone, and typically don't advertise their crimes in this fashion...the whole thing seems highly unlikely to me.

2. The photographer is a parent or guardian of these children, has sexually abused them and the photo was taken either for self gratification, or for resale.

Unlikely. While the scenario is plausible, these types of offenders typically don't advertise their crimes in public (i.e., photos left face up in a gas station). Also, any buyer of the photos is unlikely to leave them in a similar state.

3. Human trafficking, The photo is a remnant of that.

Unlikely. Organized crime is involved here. They don't advertise either.

Ultimate conclusion, - the photo is a hoax perpetuated by kids, and they have feared to come forward over the years due to the publicity generated by the Polaroid.

Thoughts?

Hey Justin Welcome back!

I've always been a subscriber to the hoax theory as well. I mentioned somewhere on the forums awhile back it seems like something the older girl (perhaps the younger child's babysitter?) could have been doing as a bit of a prank and didn't consider the consequences. After how the story took on a life of it's own after the discovery of the photograph perhaps they didn't want to come forward back in the day for fear of creating a massive false alarm and after all these years quite possibly have the attitude in line with "why dredge up ancient history?"

Funny you should make this post because I just finished watching an episode of The New Detectives on the forbidden site called Without a Trace and at the end, they did a little blurb on the picture and showed it.

Kidnappers and serial killers do photograph and videotape their captors. Most don't purposefully allow their stuff to be seen, so it could be a totally different kidnapping and the perp is sadistic and daring enough to have thrown the picture out, as a taunt. It could be a hoax. Whatever you believe, you can't deny the picture is creepy.

Wiseguy - I agree with your assessment to a point. I'm with you on thinking that about the possibility of these kids being from outside the US. I think a lot of folks have some fixed assumptions about the case, such as the kids are American, the photo was taken in the US, or even that the photo was taken in Port St. Joe, FL. The bottom line is though we just don't know any of those things. The photo was found in Port St. Joe, and the film was from June 1989(?) Otherwise, we know nothing else about the photo's origins.

All that being said, I think another assumption a lot of folks make is that these are missing children. It's easy to do, as the case originally presented to the world was about Tara Calico and Michael Henley, both were missing, abduction was a possibility, the photo is found, the girl looks so much like Tara, and the boy looks so much like Michael, so it must be them. Now, we know the boy isn't Michael. Is the girl still Tara? My whole point is, again, that we don't know - the kids could be anyone, and I don't know that they were necessarily abducted and/or missing to begin with. Assuming for the sake of argument that the photo is a hoax, or some kind of pornography, these kids (now adults) could still be out there alive and well, and searching through missing person’s databases for matches to the subjects in the Polaroid might be a moot point. Though, interestingly, some think the boy could be David Michael Borer - another UM case subject.

soilentgreen - thanks for posting that article about the photos sent to the papers and the police in 2009. I forgot to mention it. My gut feeling always was that this was either some crank, or someone fixated on the case who wanted to breathe some life in to it again. The New Mexico postmarks and delivery to Port St. Joe are somewhat intriguing, but, again, I think this could just be some unbalanced person who followed the coverage locally. Oddly enough, this June will make 25 years. I wonder if anything more will surface.

cordwainer1453 - I don't think the fact that the kids are clothed rules out pornography. Last year, I attended a week-long conference for crime analysts. While there, I attended a presentation about child pornography - specifically how analysts use contextual clues in the photos/videos to identify locations, victims, and offenders. I don't mean to be graphic, and I certainly hope this doesn't offend anyone, but I think it's necessary to discuss since it might permit us to get a handle on what kind of perp we might be dealing with here. The truth is, there are different levels of explicitness in child pornography and different variations. In some ways, it’s analogous to legal adult pornography. Believe me when I say, there are pedophiles who would be turned on by images of children tied up and bound in this manner, clothed or not. Not to mention (and again this is pretty nauseating to think about) the photo found might be one in a "series" of images. How many exposures were in a pack of Polaroid film back in the 80s? This is only one picture from that pack.

DarkDante - thanks for the welcome! While I think the photo is likely a hoax, someone on Websleuths pointed out a rather grisly detail that I had missed. Apparently, enlargements of the photo revealed what appeared to be bruising on the boy's neck. It's sick to think about, but such a detail could lend credence to the abduction or at least the abuse angle that this photo could be a remnant of.

Why did they connect the picture to Tara Calico in the first place? Wasn't it found pretty far away from where she disappeared?

Ultimate conclusion, - the photo is a hoax perpetuated by kids, and they have feared to come forward over the years due to the publicity generated by the Polaroid.

Thoughts?

Sums up my feelings exactly. I believe Tara was struck by a vehicle while riding her bike, and her death was covered up. The photo, IMO, was a joke amongst kids. They may not even know the publicity the photo has got, which may be another reason why they never came forward.

No offense to Tara or anyone, but bicycling with a Walkman is quite unsafe. It's not like a car radio where you can still here police sirens and such (assuming it's not cranked up too loud), those headphones completely cover your ears and prevent you from hearing everything you need to on the road.

When I was a senior in high school, there was a freshman who died crossing the road...wearing a Walkman. Never heard the truck that barreled through him. I went to his funeral. It was quite sad.

No offense to Tara or anyone, but bicycling with a Walkman is quite unsafe. It's not like a car radio where you can still here police sirens and such (assuming it's not cranked up too loud), those headphones completely cover your ears and prevent you from hearing everything you need to on the road.

When I was a senior in high school, there was a freshman who died crossing the road...wearing a Walkman. Never heard the truck that barreled through him. I went to his funeral. It was quite sad.

This is why I don't go running with earbuds in or headphones on. You can't hear anything behind you.

I don't think the girl in the photo is Tara Calico, but I've never been so sure the photo is a hoax. Whatever it is, it's clear someone wanted it to be found, as justin mentioned.

As for Tara, the story about being struck on her bike makes sense and seems likely. I know one investigator in particular was nearly absolutely certain that's what happened.

No offense to Tara or anyone, but bicycling with a Walkman is quite unsafe. It's not like a car radio where you can still here police sirens and such (assuming it's not cranked up too loud), those headphones completely cover your ears and prevent you from hearing everything you need to on the road.

When I was a senior in high school, there was a freshman who died crossing the road...wearing a Walkman. Never heard the truck that barreled through him. I went to his funeral. It was quite sad.

The headphones would have been risky but the location was the biggest factor that helped the boys to so easily discard the evidence. From what I've seen, that's a very lonely stretch of highway with no homes, gas stations or exits in view. It's basically nothing more than a desert and a road. I don't know if that area of New Mexico didn't have traditional bike paths or not but I guess she preferred to bike on that highway anyway. Tara was insanely active. Her plans that day, after doing 30 miles on her bike, was to eat lunch and then play tennis with her boyfriend.

Those boys don't get away with this if she had biked in a neighborhood or a park where witnesses are sure to be. If you strike someone off their bike in a neighborhood, you can't clean up the blood off the pavement in a matter of seconds and then drag the body and bike in your van. But on that desert highway, you simply kick some dirt to cover the evidence with no problem.

In a news segment from this past November from the forbidden site, the lead investigator says they are still gathering more and more evidence every month.

Why did they connect the picture to Tara Calico in the first place? Wasn't it found pretty far away from where she disappeared?

Tara disappeared from Belen, New Mexico on September 20, 1988.

The Polaroid was found in Port St. Joe, Florida, in June, 1989. It was taken on film not available until May 1989.

This article gives a good overview of everything.

http://missing87975.yuku.com/topic/3392#.U5MjOSimXgI

It does not explain how Tara's parents found out about the photo, but goes in to some detail about why they think it is Tara.

I would surmise the photo was linked to Tara because of the similarities the parents pointed out. I seem to recall reading somewhere (though I can't pinpoint where) that Tara's favorite author was V.C. Andrews - author of the "My Sweet Audrina" novel also depicted in the Polaroid.

I still think the connection is pretty tenuous. Henley's parents seemed just as sure that was him in the Polaroid and we know how that turned out.

Kidnappers and serial killers do photograph and videotape their captors. Most don't purposefully allow their stuff to be seen, so it could be a totally different kidnapping and the perp is sadistic and daring enough to have thrown the picture out, as a taunt. It could be a hoax. Whatever you believe, you can't deny the picture is creepy.

I don't disagree with you about serial killers taking pictures and videos of their victims. Dahmer did it, as did others (e.g., Homolka and Bernardo, Lake and Ng).

The difference here for me is a few things. First, as you said, few allow their stuff to be seen. The pictures are usually taken for self gratification. Thus, leaving a photo like this in such a public place (assuming it wasn't accidentally dropped), seems out of character for the profile.

Second, if we assume that such a perp exists we have to also assume the following...

1. He targets children.
2. He targets boys and girls.
3. He targets boys and girls of different ages.
4. He has no problem keeping multiple victims alive simultaneously.

Given what we know about pedophiles, this doesn't jibe because most have gender and age preferences, most don't harbor multiple victims at the same time, and most child abductions are committed for sexual purposes and the children are killed very soon after they are abducted - this is why recovering a missing child within the first 48 hours is considered so crucial by LE.

On top of all of the other inconsistencies, we would have to believe that the guy likes an audience.

While it's not impossible, the offender in this instance would be pretty "atypical" to say the least, and I can't help but find the whole thing questionable.

Therefore, I still maintain that a pornography/abuse type deal is going on, or its some kind of bizarre hoax or joke. Perhaps a group of kids wanted it to look like a "being held captive for ransom" type deal was going on as part of some "cops and robbers" type scenario. Weren't similar scenarios part of films that were popular at the time and that young adults would have thought were "cool" (e.g., "Die Hard", the "Dirty Harry" movies)?

Sums up my feelings exactly. I believe Tara was struck by a vehicle while riding her bike, and her death was covered up. The photo, IMO, was a joke amongst kids. They may not even know the publicity the photo has got, which may be another reason why they never came forward.

I'm glad you responded.

Do you have any thoughts on the bruising on the boy's neck as discovered by posters on WS?

Its the one issue that is preventing me from completely writing the whole thing off as a hoax. It could be indicative of strangulation, choking, or some other type of restraint.

While we're on the subject of child abductions, I recently found out that abducted/abused children tend to HATE things associated with their captors (this is very understandable).

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Clayton Moss story. It was on Oprah once. His father would do such things as lock him in a closet and urinate on him. :mad: His mother did nothing to assist her son. Well, he hates oldies music because they would crank that up all the time to drown out his cries for help.

There was also a girl, can't remember her name but she was profiled with Jacob Wetterling on a recent 20/20 episode on ID. She said she hates coffee because her abductor would drink it all the time.

I would surmise the photo was linked to Tara because of the similarities the parents pointed out. I seem to recall reading somewhere (though I can't pinpoint where) that Tara's favorite author was V.C. Andrews - author of the "My Sweet Audrina" novel also depicted in the Polaroid.

I remember someone mentioning on the forum that V.C. Andrews was a very popular author with young girls of Tara's generation back then and it would not necessarily be a surprise to see an Andrews book in the possession of any number of girls back then.

For me personally, once I began looking into the case a bit and comparing the photos, I didn't come to the conclusion that the girl in the photograph was Tara Calico. For me, the Calico disappearance speaks of a sexually motivated crime/homicide and combined with the vast landscape available to the abductor in which to dispose a body is likely the reason why her remains have never been located.

I'm glad you responded.

Do you have any thoughts on the bruising on the boy's neck as discovered by posters on WS?

Its the one issue that is preventing me from completely writing the whole thing off as a hoax. It could be indicative of strangulation, choking, or some other type of restraint.

I've tried to find the photo (or a larger more clear version) but the only ones I've seen, I cannot make out any bruising on the boy. I don't even think they were tied up, IMO. Because if this were in fact 2 abducted children, and whoever was taking the photo was doing this for some sort of sick pleasure, wouldn't he have wanted it displayed prominently that both were bound and gagged? Shouldn't they have had their hands tied and laying in front of them instead of behind? Tack on the fact that the kids both looked groomed and somewhat neat in appearance (the girl's legs are shaved), it makes me think it's less likely that it's an actual abduction photo. I just think the kids put some tape on their mouths and acted like they were tied up. At least that's what I hope for anyway...that this was just a joke that got out of hand.

I do think it's interesting (and something I overlooked before) that people claim to have seen the girl in the polaroid being lead around by adult men on a beach near where the photo was found.

I've tried to find the photo (or a larger more clear version) but the only ones I've seen, I cannot make out any bruising on the boy. I don't even think they were tied up, IMO. Because if this were in fact 2 abducted children, and whoever was taking the photo was doing this for some sort of sick pleasure, wouldn't he have wanted it displayed prominently that both were bound and gagged? Shouldn't they have had their hands tied and laying in front of them instead of behind? Tack on the fact that the kids both looked groomed and somewhat neat in appearance (the girl's legs are shaved), it makes me think it's less likely that it's an actual abduction photo. I just think the kids put some tape on their mouths and acted like they were tied up. At least that's what I hope for anyway...that this was just a joke that got out of hand.

I do think it's interesting (and something I overlooked before) that people claim to have seen the girl in the polaroid being lead around by adult men on a beach near where the photo was found.
Not say it is or isn't real....however just because they are neat and well groomed means nothing. Perps do who this will often want their victims like this as part of the abuse process, without getting graphic. It's not unheard of. It does not matter which way the hands are tired...perp personal preference for whatever activities they want. I do find it interesting about the people witnessing the girl being led....and then when the van left the picture of what appeared to be the girl was left behind. I wonder if those eyewitness reports were corroborated.

I do think it's interesting (and something I overlooked before) that people claim to have seen the girl in the polaroid being lead around by adult men on a beach near where the photo was found.

The only place I have ever read this was on the CharleyProject website. I'm not sure where these details originated from. They have never been mentioned elsewhere, so far as I know. My gut feeling is these events, if they even occurred, are unrelated to the photo.

The only place I have ever read this was on the CharleyProject website. I'm not sure where these details originated from. They have never been mentioned elsewhere, so far as I know. My gut feeling is these events, if they even occurred, are unrelated to the photo.

I would hope so, anyway. But, since I believe the photo to be a joke/hoax, I would say that either the witnesses were mistaken to what they saw, or perhaps they did see the girl in the photo, but it was just the girl who was on the beach at the time. I did read in another forum that someone had a theory that the photo was a joke amongst siblings, and that since the photo was discovered sometime in June, in a resort/vacation town, that in all probability the children in the photo were there on vacation with their family. That would make sense as to why people claim to have seen the girl on the beach.

I would hope so, anyway. But, since I believe the photo to be a joke/hoax, I would say that either the witnesses were mistaken to what they saw, or perhaps they did see the girl in the photo, but it was just the girl who was on the beach at the time. I did read in another forum that someone had a theory that the photo was a joke amongst siblings, and that since the photo was discovered sometime in June, in a resort/vacation town, that in all probability the children in the photo were there on vacation with their family. That would make sense as to why people claim to have seen the girl on the beach.

I don't mean to get fixated on minutia, but I think it's best to look at this from all angles.

Does it bother you at all that the photo was taken where it was - in the back of a windowless van?

I think DarkDante mentioned in another thread on the case that there was a stereotype that these windowless cargo vans were "child abductor" vans. It's a stereotype I remember hearing as a child as well.

I don't mean to get fixated on minutia, but I think it's best to look at this from all angles.

Does it bother you at all that the photo was taken where it was - in the back of a windowless van?

I think DarkDante mentioned in another thread on the case that there was a stereotype that these windowless cargo vans were "child abductor" vans. It's a stereotype I remember hearing as a child as well.

I honestly didn't know that it was determined to be the back of a van. I thought it was taken on a bed. I've only seen small resolution photos of it, so that's probably why I thought it was a bed. But if it is indeed a windowless van, that would cause some concern. But then again I've read that law enforcement were able to determine that besides the book there was also a squirt gun, among other trivial things found in the photo. And, although Tara's family believes the girl in the photo is her, law enforcement apparently does not. After all of these years, and the publicity the photo has gotten, I find it strange that the two children were never positively identified (if they were the victims of abduction). I wouldn't say I'm 100% sold on this being a joke or a prank.

ETA: I may be wrong on this, but it has never been conclusively proven that the mustachioed man who was driving the white van (parked in the spot where the photo was found) was responsible for the photo being dropped, correct? Couldn't the guy just have pulled up and covered where the photo lay, and then when he pulled out, the woman just put 2 and 2 together and assumed it came from him?

I honestly didn't know that it was determined to be the back of a van. I thought it was taken on a bed. I've only seen small resolution photos of it, so that's probably why I thought it was a bed. But if it is indeed a windowless van, that would cause some concern. But then again I've read that law enforcement were able to determine that besides the book there was also a squirt gun, among other trivial things found in the photo. And, although Tara's family believes the girl in the photo is her, law enforcement apparently does not. After all of these years, and the publicity the photo has gotten, I find it strange that the two children were never positively identified (if they were the victims of abduction). I wouldn't say I'm 100% sold on this being a joke or a prank.

ETA: I may be wrong on this, but it has never been conclusively proven that the mustachioed man who was driving the white van (parked in the spot where the photo was found) was responsible for the photo being dropped, correct? Couldn't the guy just have pulled up and covered where the photo lay, and then when he pulled out, the woman just put 2 and 2 together and assumed it came from him?

Quoted from this article...

http://missing87975.yuku.com/topic/3392#.U5jW0iimXgJ

"Extensive analysis performed by experts from Arizona to Los Alamos National Laboratory indicated that the woman's hairline and ear were consistent with Tara's, the Doels said. They are sure a wispy mark on the woman's right calf is the scar Tara received in a car crash.

The photo was taken in the windowless back of a white Toyota cargo van manufactured in the late 1980s, they said.

And, they said, a phone number, some of its digits indecipherable, is scratched on the spine of the novel.

Because some numbers are missing, Patty Doel said more than 300 listings are possible. Of those, only 57 are valid numbers, she said.

None has led to Tara.

In August 1989, the FBI concluded it was unable to say for sure that the people in the photo were Tara and Henley.

Patty Doel, whose disdain for the FBI is as obvious as the cigarettes she chain smokes, said an agent told her the woman's legs were shaved, thus she could not be a kidnapping victim."

IIRC, the Unsolved Mysteries broadcast indicated that the woman who found the photo pulled up to the convenience store and parked next to a white, windowless van. She went inside the store. When she came back out the van was gone and the photo was laying on the ground in the parking space where the van had been parked previously. To the best of my knowledge, no one reported seeing the driver.

Below is the highest quality copy of the photo I have been able to find. I even used Google Image Search feature and this is the best it can do...

Apologies in advance, but I think this is necessary to further the discussion.

**DISTURBING PHOTO BELOW**

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

One thing I've never noticed before about the photograph is that the young woman appears to be wearing a garment resembling a tennis skirt. If you study the fabric on the underside of her legs closely, the fabric appears to be pleated. It could be an optical illusion, but it is interesting in light of the fact that Tara's next appointment was a tennis game. Some sources do state she left her tennis clothes behind, however.

This case has been on my mind recently, more specifically, the Polaroid photo found in Port St. Joe, Florida of the two children. Obviously, a lot of people believe the girl in the photo is Tara Calico. There was speculation that the boy was Michael Henley, but considering his remains were found not far from where he originally disappeared in the Zuni Mountains in New Mexico, it is highly unlikely.

What do you guys think of the Polaroid?

I should say I'm a huge believer in Occam's Razor, and using plausible deductions and inferences to lead to the most likely explanation. I like trying to "profile" who the most likely culprit is. I think that applying these axioms is a good way of disentangling some of the more "out there" theories, which UM certainly gave us a dose of....

That being said, I'm having a hard time figuring the angle on this one...

In terms of explaining the Polaroid, lets examine the possibilities...

First, I think it's necessary to point out that the photo was found face up in the parking lot of a gas station in Port St. Joe, Florida. Considering the nature of the photo, to me, this indicates that the person who "dropped" it...

A. wanted it to be found.
B. was going for "shock value" - really, two young kids bound with tape on their mouths. Its pretty "out there"...it reminds me of a case recently where a photo of a dead and mutilated woman was found at a gas station. Upon further investigation, it turned out it was a photo from Afghanistan and depicted a war atrocity.

That being said, there are a few directions to go with the Polaroid from 1989...

1. A criminal mastermind who gets his (women rarely commit these crimes) kicks abducting children and left behind a photo to taunt authorities.

Unlikely. Most stranger abductions of children are for sexual purposes. The perp is usually an adult male, and the children are typically dead and disposed within 48 hours. In addition, most pedophiles have a sex and age preference. Yet, the Polaroid depicts a girl and a boy. Age is up for grabs, but suffice to say there is a pretty significant age gap between the two...kinda unique for a pedophile. Two sexes..different ages...
Not to mention the people who commit these types of crimes are usually solitary and act alone, and typically don't advertise their crimes in this fashion...the whole thing seems highly unlikely to me.

2. The photographer is a parent or guardian of these children, has sexually abused them and the photo was taken either for self gratification, or for resale.

Unlikely. While the scenario is plausible, these types of offenders typically don't advertise their crimes in public (i.e., photos left face up in a gas station). Also, any buyer of the photos is unlikely to leave them in a similar state.

3. Human trafficking, The photo is a remnant of that.

Unlikely. Organized crime is involved here. They don't advertise either.

Ultimate conclusion, - the photo is a hoax perpetuated by kids, and they have feared to come forward over the years due to the publicity generated by the Polaroid.

Thoughts?

I was always under the impression that the 2 kids in the photo were abducted and that they were crimes of opportunity, which would explain the differences in gender and age. A good portion of child abductions are crimes of opportunity, and that's what I think this is. Since kids spent the majority of time in school or with family and friends, some perps may snatch one when the opportunity arises and they see one alone.

And it is on that note, the odds of the girl being Tara Calico increase: she disappeared biking, for all intents and purposes, out in the middle of nowhere. She was alone. The perp or perps happened upon her, there were no witnesses around, and snatched her.

And it is on *that* note that the odds of it being Michael Henley increase somewhat. While I still personally don't think the photo looks like him (though he may have gotten a haircut), he did disappear from the same state as Tara -- New Mexico. So that makes me think someone was abducting children in New Mexico around 1989. I don't think it's impossible Henley was abducted and later returned to that site. The photo was found in FL, but we have no idea where it was taken.

Personally, I don't think the boy looks like Antreas Cantrell or David Michael Borer either.

The authorities do not believe the girl to be Tara, right? The new theory is she was struck while riding her bike, and the boys who struck her and their families helped them bury the body and cover it up. And I do not think the boy in the photo is Michael Henley. Looks nothing like him, IMO. I think because of the resemblance to Tara and the fact that they both were from NM, led Michael's family to think that maybe the boy was him. But after he was found shortly from where his family was camping, it seems fairly obvious that Michael's death was an unfortunate accident.

I was always under the impression that the 2 kids in the photo were abducted and that they were crimes of opportunity, which would explain the differences in gender and age. A good portion of child abductions are crimes of opportunity, and that's what I think this is. Since kids spent the majority of time in school or with family and friends, some perps may snatch one when the opportunity arises and they see one alone.

I agree about crimes, such as child abductions, being based on opportunity (most, if not all, crimes are if you really think about it and there are actually criminological theories that dictate opportunity has to exist for a crime to occur).

However, it's more complicated than that. As these crimes are rare, we're talking about a very specific offender type. You have to ask yourself, what motivates a person, specifically a stranger, to abduct a child they otherwise have no relationship with?

These types of crimes are predatory in nature and typically have a sex-based motive. Therefore, the perf's own sexual preferences are going to come in to play, as are age preferences. Age is important to these kinds of predators because as children mature, they develop more adult features which are not appealing.

Thus, these types of predators have very specific circumscribed victim preferences they rarely, if ever, deviate from and they are not going to strike simply because an opportunity exists and a random isolated child is present.

Assuming that the children in the Polaroid were, in fact, abducted children, then our perp would have to have no gender and age preference. It's highly unusual and atypical considering how these types of criminals operate.

And it is on that note, the odds of the girl being Tara Calico increase: she disappeared biking, for all intents and purposes, out in the middle of nowhere. She was alone. The perp or perps happened upon her, there were no witnesses around, and snatched her.

As others have mentioned, there is a relatively new theory that Calico was riding her bike and was accidentally struck by some local boys who knew her. To me, that seems like the more logical possibility as opposed to some random sexual predator lurking on the highway looking for a teenage girl. Though it's not impossible.

And it is on *that* note that the odds of it being Michael Henley increase somewhat. While I still personally don't think the photo looks like him (though he may have gotten a haircut), he did disappear from the same state as Tara -- New Mexico. So that makes me think someone was abducting children in New Mexico around 1989. I don't think it's impossible Henley was abducted and later returned to that site. The photo was found in FL, but we have no idea where it was taken.

Personally, I don't think the boy looks like Antreas Cantrell or David Michael Borer either.

Okay, so let's consider everything together.

We start with a male offender (I'm saying male because women don't usually commit these crimes). He happens to be lurking around a camp site in the Zuni Mountains in New Mexico in April 1988 and he abducts Michael Henley.

He then keeps Henley alive at least until September 20, 1988.

On Septmber 20, our offender is driving down the highway in Belen, New Mexico and encounters Tara Calico.

Even though his previous prey was a 9 year old boy whom he's kept alive, he decides he now wants a 19 year old girl. He abducts Calico.

He keeps them both alive until at least May, 1989, when he takes the infamous Polaroid.
He then discards the Polaroid in Port St. Joe, Florida in June 1989.

We don't know what becomes of Tara, but he must kill Henley and dispose of him back in the Zuni Mountains (and make it look like an accident) prior to 1990.

The alternative:

Michael Henley wanders off while on a camping trip with his father. He gets lost and ultiamtely parishes in the woods where his body will be found 2 years later.

Tara Calico is riding her bike and some local boys roll up on her. They are teasing her, and accidentally hit her with their vehicle. She is injured and/or killed and the boys panic and dispose of the body.

Someone discards a photo of two unknown (though not Calico and Henley) kids bound and gagged, in Port St. Joe, Florida in June 1989.

The grief stricken families of Henley and Calico see the photo and believe they are looking at their children.

Now, which scenario is more likey?

As others have mentioned, there is a relatively new theory that Calico was riding her bike and was accidentally struck by some local boys who knew her. To me, that seems like the more logical possibility as opposed to some random sexual predator lurking on the highway looking for a teenage girl. Though it's not impossible.

Indeed. And a random sexual predator, I believe, is not going to go looking for a teenage victim on a desert highway. Unless it's common for teenagers in New Mexico to ride their bikes on the highway, I don't know, but I'm going to guess that's not the case. Something that should also be pointed out; September 20, 1988 was a Tuesday. And at 9:30 a.m., all kids high school aged and younger would have been in school (unless they cut school that day), so the chances of finding a kid to kidnap are going to be slim.

Here's a snippet from the sheriff about the boys who are believed to be responsible. Apparently, all of Valencia County know their names and also believe they are responsible...

Gone without a trace.
At least that has been the storyline.
But to Valencia County Sheriff Rene Rivera, the case isn't much of a whodunit.
He says he knows what happened, and has for years.
Twenty years into the Tara Calico mystery, Rivera would like to let everyone in on what happened to 19-year-old Tara out on N.M. 47 on that September day:
"The individuals who did the harm to Tara, knew who she was," Rivera told me. "They knew who she was, and they're all local individuals. And I believe that the parents (of the attackers) were some of the people that helped the individuals with hiding the truth or hiding the body or trying to escape prosecution."
Tara was 19 and starting her second year in college. Her attackers were boys she had gone to high school with, although they were behind her in school and younger, Rivera says.
"She was a real pretty girl. She was very athletic and a lot of guys wanted to talk to her, they wanted to meet her, they wanted to go out with her. And while she was riding the bike, they went up to try to talk to her, try to grab her, whatever, while she was on the bike."
The truck they were driving accidentally hit Tara, Rivera says, and bad turned worse.
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."
Rivera and Detective James Purdy are still talking to people about Tara Calico, and they're hoping that time will wear away some of the resistance to answering that one lingering question: What did they do with her?
"You know it's very frustrating, being that there's a lot of people that know what happened," Rivera said. "They know the whereabouts of the body or the remains.
"A lot of the information that we are getting is because people are starting to open up a little more. When this first happened, people were scared. People were threatened not to speak out because what happened to Tara could happen to them."

http://www.abqjournal.com/upfront/1411274upfront09-14-08.htm

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't Calico and Henley in the picture, although for different reasons.

I don't think the boy looks all that much like Henley, although we probably could have conclusively known if the boy in the picture had his teeth visible. Michael Henely had very distinctive teeth -- he had only been to the dentist twice and in the known photograph of him (the one shown on UM) you can tell his dental hygeine is quite poor.

What makes me not able to completely rule out Henley is that we know next to nothing about his death. There was no cause of death determined. Also, I think the distance given relation to where he disappeared is exaggerated. He was found a good 6-7 miles from where he was last seen. That's a pretty good distance. I can't conclusively say he didn't run into foul play, whether or not his case relates to the photo, I'm not sure.

Calico was 19 and a college sophomore. This is uncomfortable to say, but I don't know that a 19 year old would satisfy a pedophile's urge for a child. That's not to say that abductor couldn't be a pervy rapist, probably is, but it makes me believe the girl in the photo is under 18 since the boy definitely is.

And here's a mystery within a mystery: why does the girl get far more attention than the boy? Isn't what happened to the boy equally horrific?

There's just no way the boy in the photo is Michael Henley, IMO. The abductor would have had to have kidnapped him from where his family was camping, traverse around with him for 5 months before deciding to abduct another child...then for reasons unknown has to kill him, and then return his body to where he originally was abducted from. It just doesn't make sense as to why the abductor would return his body to the site where he abducted him from. That's awful risky.

Do y'all think the boy shown in the picture found (June 1989) under the van is the same boy that is shown in the picture mailed to police (August 2009)?

(The first picture is the under-the-van photo, the second one is the one sent to police department.)

http://s14.postimg.org/jmdstocp9/Untitled.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jmdstocp9/)

Do y'all think the boy shown in the picture found (June 1989) under the van is the same boy that is shown in the picture mailed to police (August 2009)?

(The first picture is the under-the-van photo, the second one is the one sent to police department.)

http://s14.postimg.org/jmdstocp9/Untitled.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jmdstocp9/)

I don't believe it's the same boy.

The 2nd photo isn't even a boy that's bound and gagged, it was just a mark drawn over his mouth, IIRC.

Do y'all think the boy shown in the picture found (June 1989) under the van is the same boy that is shown in the picture mailed to police (August 2009)?

(The first picture is the under-the-van photo, the second one is the one sent to police department.)

http://s14.postimg.org/jmdstocp9/Untitled.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jmdstocp9/)

No, I don't think these two boys are the same.

My gut feeling on the 2009 photos sent to the police and the newspapers is that whoever sent them was some unbalanced person who was aware of the case and either wanted to:

A. Play "games" or
B. Drum up public interest in a cold case on its 20th anniversary.

Or maybe do a little of both.

None of the mailings contained anything substantial, according to the police, which is indicative of the "inside info" we all collectively posses about true facts behind this case (i.e., none).

While the New Mexico postmarks and mailings to Port St. Joe are interesting, I think it's just indicative of a local person who followed this case in the local media, perhaps for some years.

What makes me not able to completely rule out Henley is that we know next to nothing about his death. There was no cause of death determined. Also, I think the distance given relation to where he disappeared is exaggerated. He was found a good 6-7 miles from where he was last seen. That's a pretty good distance. I can't conclusively say he didn't run into foul play, whether or not his case relates to the photo, I'm not sure.

I'm pretty sure I read in an article that he died of exposure, which would suggest an accidental death due to the elements. However, I don't have a source for this (its not mentioned in the one article I have cited previously) so take it or leave it. If anyone can confirm, I would appreciate it.

Calico was 19 and a college sophomore. This is uncomfortable to say, but I don't know that a 19 year old would satisfy a pedophile's urge for a child.

Yes, that's the problem I'm getting at. If we assume that the same perp abducted both Henley and Calico, we're talking about someone who likes boys and girls and age doesn't matter. Granted, nothing is impossible, but for a predatory offender of this type, it's odd, especially when coupled with the fact that both were kept alive for so long, and that he felt a need to brag and show off by leaving behind evidence of his crime.

That's not to say that abductor couldn't be a pervy rapist, probably is, but it makes me believe the girl in the photo is under 18 since the boy definitely is.

Very hard to say with any degree of certainty. I've read lots of estimates online. Some of the hoax theorists have suggested these two could be brother and sister, or cousins. Again, unfortunately, we just don't know.

And here's a mystery within a mystery: why does the girl get far more attention than the boy? Isn't what happened to the boy equally horrific?

I've wondered this myself. My best guess is that the photo was linked to Henley and Calico from the start. However, when Henley was found dead, speculation about him being the boy in the Polaroid ended because either 1. it's not him. 2. it was him and he's dead.

However, Tara's fate is still unknown, and, so far as know, the family continued to promote the theory that it was her in the Polaroid.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a lot of folks still believe the girl in the Polaroid IS Tara Calico. Such speculation will likely continue until her body is found, or someone confesses, or the case is otherwise resolved.

I've seen a lot of different names proposed for the identity of the boy. All are children who were abducted and/or mysteriously disappeared. Unfortunately, none of these cases are too convincing, and I don't think LE has said anything on the matter over the years.

Personally, I think it's the proverbial needle in the haystack. While a lot of people assume these are abducted children, I don't think we can say that with any real certainty. Assuming they aren't abducted, it's going to be a nearly impossible search.

I want to know why the sheriff is so convinced of his theory about the boys harassing her and being responsible. I know he can't name names for legal reasons and lack of evidence, but something must have caused him to become so certain. What was it? Rumors that he tracked down? People who came forward covertly and verified the story? I really wish he could say.

I want to know why the sheriff is so convinced of his theory about the boys harassing her and being responsible. I know he can't name names for legal reasons and lack of evidence, but something must have caused him to become so certain. What was it? Rumors that he tracked down? People who came forward covertly and verified the story? I really wish he could say.

He must have gathered some pretty convincing info from interviews if he was able to write out arrest warrants for both boys. But we'll never know the full story. Apparently some people started talking after 2 decades.

If I had to guess, the 1953/54 green Ford pickup truck probably played a major factor in pinpointing on the suspects. Just before going out of sight, multiple witnesses stated they saw the truck following Tara on that highway. One of the witnesses made the remark that the truck was "right on her tail" and would not leave her alone. This was not too far away from where Tara's broken Sony walkman and cassette tapes were eventually discovered as well as tracks on the side of the road where it appeared the bike had been dragged off. Some research into who in the local area would have owned that model of truck at that time could have been traced easily. And if that same person went to school with Tara, I would think that would raise a red flag. Belen only had around 5,000 residents at that time and I doubt many people in 1988 would have been driving a green pickup truck whose model was over 30 years old.

I read one report that said the picture was lying face down on the pavement. So there are conflicting reports about that. If it was lying face down, that might seem more of an accident than a perp boasting about his crimes.

I think the picture looks more like Borer than Henley or Antreas Cantrell. Have there been any other names mentioned of who it could possibly be? The most striking resemblance between Borer and the boy in the pic is the very light, almost non-existent eyebrows. I'm almost positive it's not Antreas Cantrell, because he had freckles in the nose area and a cleft chin, whereas the boy in the pic does not.

The search for Henley when he was missing was quite large, involving over 400 people. It seems like with that many people, he would have been found if he was in the immediate area. Have to wonder if he wandered off a far distance from where he was last seen.

trivia: Tara was listening to a cassette by the group "Boston", whose corny hit "Amanda" kept my all-time favorite song out of #1. That would be "I Didn't Mean To Turn You On" by Robert Palmer. I have never quite forgiven them for that. Popdose has several articles on all the great tracks that peaked at #2 behind crappy #1's. That list is very LONG. It's kind of like America's Funniest Home Videos, where the funniest videos would always get second place behind some "cute", obviously staged or completely unfunny video. Life has a way of doing things like that. The most egregerious example being an episode where the finalists were a hilarious clip involving a flying lawnmower and some idiotic clip of a girl catching a bubble. One guess as to which won.

But I digress.

It's pretty hard to prove murder if there is no body. That's probably why he didn't go ahead and arrest them. All they really have is eyewitness accounts that their truck was there. No one saw them hit her, or drag her off, or dispose of her body.

It's pretty hard to prove murder if there is no body. That's probably why he didn't go ahead and arrest them. All they really have is eyewitness accounts that their truck was there. No one saw them hit her, or drag her off, or dispose of her body.

Again, this was just a theory on my part. Simply a guess and I could be way off. I have no idea what information Rivera gathered, who he talked to, what evidence he collected, what he knows. But whatever information he uncovered, it must be pretty convincing in his eyes if he went through the trouble of writing out arrest warrants for both boys even without a body.

What strikes me is that it appears he's not the only who is convinced as multiple people in that county started talking after being silent for 20 years. I get the impression that like with the attack on Jenny Pratt and to some extent, the murder of Tracy Kirkpatrick, investigators and area residents have long known the people responsible but the only way they'll get punished is with a confession which sadly, is not likely.

I just rewatched the segment and noticed the bruising on the boy's neck. :eek:

I think it would be freaky if it turned out to be Borer, seeing as he was profiled on UM.

Another reason why I think it's more likely Borer is that he had a history of hitchhiking, making him more likely a victim of kidnapping, whereas Antreas Cantrell likely drowned and Henley likely died of exposure.

Police believe the photo was taken inside of white van. I don't know how they came to that conclusion, but they know more than I do about this. I really don't think this is a hoax. I wish it was.

I know we've probably talked about this before, but while Tara and the girl look in the photo look similar, the one difference I noticed was the eyebrows. Tara's are curved, whereas the girl's are straight. Granted, they could have been trimmed differently or what not, but I don't know how likely that is.

Police believe the photo was taken inside of white van. I don't know how they came to that conclusion, but they know more than I do about this. I really don't think this is a hoax. I wish it was.

Same here. I don't think what's going on in the photo is a fabrication at all.

Same here. I don't think what's going on in the photo is a fabrication at all.
I really wish it was a hoax, but I agree. Just the expressions on their faces really stand out to me, particularly the boy looking so terrified. Just a hunch, but the girl looks like to me like she's trying not to show fear, which is probably what a sick abductor would want. It just doesn't seem like a joke/hoax.

You would think, however, that other people would come forward to identify the boy and girl. Sometimes I surf the Charley Project trying to see if any ages/appearances match up around that time frame but so far no luck. Of course, there's always the possibility that they're no longer missing and were found deceased. But in any case, wouldn't people come forward saying, ''Hey, that looks like [someone familiar]!'' After all, this segment was aired repeatedly on UM and I've seen the photo widely circulated on the internet when talking about disturbing photos and mysteries.

Guess I'm in the minority on this one, but I think the girl in the photo looks pretty bored, or not amused.

One question I have for those who think the photo is real. Why is there so much emphasis on these being abducted and/or missing children? Some people have mentioned looking on CharleyProject and various other sites for matches. While that is certainly noble, I just don't think we know enough to say that these are abducted or missing children. Even if we assume that the photo is "real" (i.e., these weren't some kids playing a "tie up" game) the photo could still be something a parent or guardian took of their own kids as part of some kind of abuse or pornography type scenario.

One question I have for those who think the photo is real. Why is there so much emphasis on these being abducted and/or missing children? Some people have mentioned looking on CharleyProject and various other sites for matches. While that is certainly noble, I just don't think we know enough to say that these are abducted or missing children. Even if we assume that the photo is "real" (i.e., these weren't some kids playing a "tie up" game) the photo could still be something a parent or guardian took of their own kids as part of some kind of abuse or pornography type scenario.

No idea--but I'd wager it's primarily because of the very public association with Calico, and Henley to a lesser degree. I wouldn't rule out an abuse or pornography scenario at all.

One question I have for those who think the photo is real. Why is there so much emphasis on these being abducted and/or missing children? Some people have mentioned looking on CharleyProject and various other sites for matches. While that is certainly noble, I just don't think we know enough to say that these are abducted or missing children. Even if we assume that the photo is "real" (i.e., these weren't some kids playing a "tie up" game) the photo could still be something a parent or guardian took of their own kids as part of some kind of abuse or pornography type scenario.

If these kids were U.S. residents and not abduction victims, it seems like they would have been positively ID'd by now, 25 years later. Somebody at their schools would have noticed, I would imagine. The only other options were that they were born outside the U.S. (as I speculated earlier), or they had been abducted quite some time previous and nobody recognized them. (that's an unsettling thought).

If these kids were U.S. residents and not abduction victims, it seems like they would have been positively ID'd by now, 25 years later. Somebody at their schools would have noticed, I would imagine. The only other options were that they were born outside the U.S. (as I speculated earlier), or they had been abducted quite some time previous and nobody recognized them. (that's an unsettling thought).

I'm going to have to disagree. To me, the fact that these kids have not been identified is a non-issue either way. The quality of the photo isn't the greatest, and with their mouths being covered by the tape, it is really hard to make out details that might otherwise help ID them. Also, as I've stated before, we have no idea where the photo was taken originally. The fact that it was recovered in Port St. Joe, frankly, means squat to me. There is nothing in the photo that would indicate precisely where it was taken. It could have been taken anywhere in the US or abroad. And that's the thing...if you open your mind to that possibility, the kids could be anyone, anywhere, and that could explain why they haven't been identified, even if the photo was a hoax by a group of kids.

I also tend to think that the early coverage on the story may have muddied the waters. When news of the photo went public, the two names associated with it were Tara Calico and Michael Henley. It's always been that way, even though we know it's virtually impossible the photo depicted Henley. It's also pretty darn unlikely that the photo depicts Calico, but, for better or for worse, their names are still synonymous with the photo all these years later. It's what people tend to believe, especially in regard to Calico.

Moreover, I think when people learn of the story, it's presented within the context of the photo possibly being of Calico. That's got to affect a person's perception because they think the photo is either Calico, or an abducted child. The possibility of it depicting the girl next door never occurs to anyone.

Even if someone did come forward and admit it was them self in the picture playing a tie up game or whatever, do you think we'd even hear about it? This case is pretty old (25 years?) and even though we like to rehash these cases, they are not in the general public consciousness. Also, the sensationalist aspect of these things gets more attention. Kids kidnapped and tied up and taken pictures by some pervert gets attention. Kids playing around doesn't. Sort of like when John DeLorean was arrested for "selling" cocaine. It was barely reported that he was acquitted because of entrapment, and the authorities even admitted that they had entrapped him. It was all over the news when he was arrested, though.

Even if someone did come forward and admit it was them self in the picture playing a tie up game or whatever, do you think we'd even hear about it? This case is pretty old (25 years?) and even though we like to rehash these cases, they are not in the general public consciousness. Also, the sensationalist aspect of these things gets more attention. Kids kidnapped and tied up and taken pictures by some pervert gets attention. Kids playing around doesn't. Sort of like when John DeLorean was arrested for "selling" cocaine. It was barely reported that he was acquitted because of entrapment, and the authorities even admitted that they had entrapped him. It was all over the news when he was arrested, though.

I disagree. UM and this forum have been exceptional at providing updates in every instance they occur. I think if this were a known hoax, we would have heard about it. UM wasn't afraid to update a case that turned out to be a hoax (KROQ DJ's for example). Also, the media does report hoaxes when the occur.

The image is forever associated with Tara Calico, so naturally people are going to assume that if it isn't Tara, it's got to be another girl that was abducted. I still think the location it was found (a vacation spot in Florida), the time of year it was found (summer), would seem to indicate that this was a vacationing family. Whether or not the parents took the picture is up for debate, but I do not think that the children in the photo were abduction victims.

I know there's been a lot of speculation that the children may have been acting. The thing is, children are not, by nature, good actors. I can't tell you how many untalented child actors I've seen on t.v. shows, and these are supposed to be professionals.

Take for example the Greenbush twins (Carrie) on Little House on the Prairie. Couldn't act to save their lives. They usually had one sentence between them per episode or flat out didn't appear in others. It got to the point were they had the Ingalls adopt children so that they wouldn't have to rely on them. (Jason Bateman for example). There was one Carrie-tastic episode during the 9 year run and it was probably the worst episode of any show ever (I used to do hilarious episode reviews on another forum. I still have them all saved.) And it is because kids can't act that they usually make bad and unconvincing liars.

Anyways, my point is I don't think most children would be capable of faking or acting the fear that is in the boy's eyes, for example. As we've said, if this was a hoax, I doubt the kids would have realized that they would need to act afraid in order to pull of this prank. And in regards to the girl, I think she looks more tired than anything.

I think for me the biggest thing is that it can't be proven that it is in fact Tara in the photo, which makes me speculate if it is even her. I have in fact heard of the V.C. Andrews theory, that the author was her one of her favorites. That fact alone makes me even more skeptical it is Tara. Kidnapping is about power and the photo gives me no indication the kidnapper gives a damn about the alleged victims in the photo. For me the odds are 50/50 that it's real. My opinion, I think people initially wanted it to be Tara because of some of the similarities in facial features that they just came to that conclusion.

This hasn't been talked about before, but it's important to note that this is a POLAROID, which I believe were relatively new to the market at the time. The big thing about Polaroids were that they dispensed the picture within a matter of seconds. Whereas with all the other cameras available at the time, you had to take them somewhere to get them developed. An abductor would want to use a Polaroid and not another camera because he obviously wouldn't want whoever developed it to see the picture.

And you couple that with the van, the bruising, the fear. Not a hoax, IMO.

This hasn't been talked about before, but it's important to note that this is a POLAROID, which I believe were relatively new to the market at the time. The big thing about Polaroids were that they dispensed the picture within a matter of seconds. Whereas with all the other cameras available at the time, you had to take them somewhere to get them developed. An abductor would want to use a Polaroid and not another camera because he obviously wouldn't want whoever developed it to see the picture.

And you couple that with the van, the bruising, the fear. Not a hoax, IMO.

Polaroid cameras had been around long before this picture was taken. I believe the film was knew to the market at the time. There is no proof this picture came from the van parked outside of the market and there is 100% no proof this is Tara. If in fact this is real, this would open another whole new case.

This hasn't been talked about before, but it's important to note that this is a POLAROID, which I believe were relatively new to the market at the time. The big thing about Polaroids were that they dispensed the picture within a matter of seconds. Whereas with all the other cameras available at the time, you had to take them somewhere to get them developed. An abductor would want to use a Polaroid and not another camera because he obviously wouldn't want whoever developed it to see the picture.

And you couple that with the van, the bruising, the fear. Not a hoax, IMO.

Polaroid cameras were not new to the market in 1989 when that photo was found. As a little kid during that decade, I remember many homes having them. Pictures were always being taken with polaroids at birthday parties, Halloween parties and such. Mostly during the mid-80's from my memory, they were everywhere. As the 80's came to a close, they weren't used as much but still available if needed. The fad had really died out for the most part by then.

Everything else I agree with you, though. Polaroid cameras for that time period could be convenient for getting naughty and disgusting pictures processed while that kind of material would not be allowed to be developed at the store with a regular camera. I could see an abductor using one.

This hasn't been talked about before, but it's important to note that this is a POLAROID, which I believe were relatively new to the market at the time. The big thing about Polaroids were that they dispensed the picture within a matter of seconds. Whereas with all the other cameras available at the time, you had to take them somewhere to get them developed.

Polaroid cameras and film have actually been around for a long time. Offhand, one of the more famous photos of the JFK assassination was taken with a Polaroid camera, and that was in 1963. I had no idea when the technology was invented so I Googled it. "Instant" cameras and film date back to the 1940s at the earliest...

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

An abductor would want to use a Polaroid and not another camera because he obviously wouldn't want whoever developed it to see the picture.

The same logic applies to a child pornographer or a parent/guardian inflicting abuse upon their own children and taking pictures for self gratification, resale, or whatever other sick reason.

Since Tara Calico/the girl gets 90% of the attention on this case, let's talk about Michael Henley/the boy:

I read a post on here that says Henley was accidentally shot to death on the turkey hunt. I have no idea if that's true. What I am curious about, if Justin's statement that he read Henley died of exposure is true, then how did they determine that from just bones? I just find it odd that 400 people went looking for him, nobody found him initially, and he is found 6-7 miles from where he was last seen. I think his death is strange and I'm not comfortable with it being swept under the rug.

Posters on another forum came up with these possibilities.

Scott Kleeschulte: I don't see any resemblance here.
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/k/kleeschulte_scott.html

Patrick Shawn Betz: With Borer, this seems to be one of the stronger possibilities, though the eyebrows look different. Age is about right though.
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/b/betz_patrick.html

I think it's futile to try and match the kids in the photo with "missing" children, when in fact the kids very well could have been abused by their parents and/or guardians, and that in fact they were never "missing".

Since Tara Calico/the girl gets 90% of the attention on this case, let's talk about Michael Henley/the boy:

I read a post on here that says Henley was accidentally shot to death on the turkey hunt. I have no idea if that's true. What I am curious about, if Justin's statement that he read Henley died of exposure is true,

I've done a lot of thinking and I'm about 90 percent sure I read this in an online newspaper article written on one of the anniversarys of Tara Calico's disappearance. The article mentioned the photographs and the original connection to Henley, then when on to say his body was found and his death attributed to exposure. I REALLY want to find this article again, as I want to read it, and I have a disdain for posting claims that can't be backed up by research. Unfortunately, I'm going out of town this afternoon, and won't be back for a week. When I return, I'll try to find it. In the mean time, I encourage anyone who is interested to start looking. It's probably still online.

Frankly, the accidentally shot to death scenario sounds dubious to me. I haven't read the post but maybe someone was speculating or throwing out possibilities. If that were the truth in the matter, I would imagine we would have heard more about it. Just a thought.

This is why this (and other) forums drive me nuts some times. Some posters shape their theories in such a way that they sound like facts, or they make claims without citing where they got the information. I realize the informal nature of these forums, and that it's unrealistic to envision everyone fact checking their posts. However, it seriously hinders any real serious discussion of issues like this when you have to first disentangle the BS from the truth. I don't mean that as a jab at anyone in particular and it's not a huge deal, but it's there.

then how did they determine that from just bones?

Weren't they able to reach a similar conclusion in regard to Don Kemp's death?

I just find it odd that 400 people went looking for him, nobody found him initially, and he is found 6-7 miles from where he was last seen.

I wonder how many people were looking for Art Jones? I honestly don't know the details of either search, but this is another example where remains weren't found for a time when they hypothetically should have been found much sooner, especially given the much smaller proximity in the Jones case.

The biggest thing going against Henley is that he disappeared in the woods. Very easy to get lost, especially for a kid, and continue wandering as opposed to staying put and waiting for help.


Posters on another forum came up with these possibilities.

Scott Kleeschulte: I don't see any resemblance here.
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/k/kleeschulte_scott.html

Patrick Shawn Betz: With Borer, this seems to be one of the stronger possibilities, though the eyebrows look different. Age is about right though.
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/b/betz_patrick.html

I still think it's counter-intuitive to look at profiles of missing and abducted children when we have no evidence that is what the photo depicts. Not to mention that these "comparisons" are being done by people without the necessary background and qualifications to do them and make definitive statements. Again, it's the Internet, people are free to do whatever, I just don't think a lot of credence should be given to these comparisons. At least in Henley's case UM cited an "expert" who was pretty confident the boy was Henley. This person was most likely incorrect, but it gives the theory a little more credence, IMO.

Since Tara Calico/the girl gets 90% of the attention on this case, let's talk about Michael Henley/the boy:

I read a post on here that says Henley was accidentally shot to death on the turkey hunt. I have no idea if that's true. What I am curious about, if Justin's statement that he read Henley died of exposure is true, then how did they determine that from just bones? I just find it odd that 400 people went looking for him, nobody found him initially, and he is found 6-7 miles from where he was last seen. I think his death is strange and I'm not comfortable with it being swept under the rug.



For Michael Henley. I encourage you to look up David Paulides. He wrote a book on people who have disappeared in plain view in national parks across North America, but primarily in the U.S. Most of these missing person cases are still unsolved and are very chilling. Some of his work can be seen (or heard, they're recorded podcasts) on the forbidden site. Henley's case is a perfect example of some of the more notable cases featured in Paulides's book.

Person disappears in plain view in a national park. There is a massive search for the missing person for no more than 10 days. National Park services quit the search. Case gets put in a file. No one sees the file. Paulides has found thousands of cases that fit this scenario and in some cases has been stonewalled by the National Park Services into seeing the files. Some going back to the early 80's. Even under FOIA he's been stonewalled into not getting the missing persons case files and has even had some files redacted.

I wonder how many people were looking for Art Jones? I honestly don't know the details of either search, but this is another example where remains weren't found for a time when they hypothetically should have been found much sooner, especially given the much smaller proximity in the Jones case.

The biggest thing going against Henley is that he disappeared in the woods. Very easy to get lost, especially for a kid, and continue wandering as opposed to staying put and waiting for help.

Arguably the most famous Great Smoky Mountains disappearance case is that of Dennis Martin, a small boy from Knoxville who disappeared from Spence Field in 1969 and was never seen again. As Henley and Martin were close to the same age and size when they disappeared, I thought what this former park ranger had to say might be pertinent to the Henley discussion:

McCarter, believes that what most likely happened to Dennis is that he got lost, became disoriented and Dennis perished in the wild. But he does not rule out either of the other two theories.

He cites several reasons why the massive search could have missed Dennis or his body.

A 48-inch-tall boy can easily elude detection in rugged mountain terrain, and especially in a rhododendron or laurel thicket. The sound of a roaring creek can prevent a searcher from hearing a child's shouts for help. And in some cases, lost and disoriented children have been known to hide from searchers.

As for an animal attack, McCarter said, "That is possible." Bears normally will not attack humans, but in June 1969, their normal food sources were greatly diminished. And near Spence Field about two weeks before Dennis disappeared, McCarter said, rangers released a "bony, scrawny bear" caught in a wild boar trap baited with corn - something that bears normally do not eat.


www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jun/28/missing-dennis-martin

I don't find it unusual that Henley was missed the first time.

I still think it's counter-intuitive to look at profiles of missing and abducted children when we have no evidence that is what the photo depicts. Not to mention that these "comparisons" are being done by people without the necessary background and qualifications to do them and make definitive statements. Again, it's the Internet, people are free to do whatever, I just don't think a lot of credence should be given to these comparisons. At least in Henley's case UM cited an "expert" who was pretty confident the boy was Henley. This person was most likely incorrect, but it gives the theory a little more credence, IMO.

I don't think it's necessarily a totally useless endeavor, but I do feel it's often that regular joes attempt to pound square pegs into round holes when making amateur comparisons. You're absolutely right--the vast majority of people don't have the background and qualifications to make the most informed comparisons possible. But I don't think it's necessarily counterproductive to search through profiles of the missing and abducted, even if it might in fact be "spinning wheels". The people doing such aren't professionals, so it isn't as though professional time and resources are being potentially wasted.

I definitely agree with your first point--there's nothing definitive about the photograph. I get a strong gut feeling that it's not a prank, hoax, or whatever one wants to call it, but I don't at all know what it actually depicts.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/article/girl-in-the-photograph-the-tara-calico-story/index.html

This article mentions Henley's death via exposure. There was another poster on here, that said this:

Michael Henley Died Of Exposure And Tried To Cover Himself With Some Leaves And Branches, He Was Not Murdered, And Thus The Case Was Closed.

No idea where that information came from, but I was almost certain the UM update (after Henley's remains were found) stated that the authorities believed he died from exposure.

No idea where that information came from, but I was almost certain the UM update (after Henley's remains were found) stated that the authorities believed he died from exposure.

UM updated this? Are you sure? I was always under the impression the segment never made it to Lifetime and vanished after its NBC run.

well, there were some posters on websleuths who kept mentioning names of boys who went missing AFTER the photo was found, in some cases 6 years after. Several people mentioned Jacob Wetterling when he went missing months after the photo was found and looks nothing like the boy. Now I agree that was pointless.

Being that 25 years have past, it's highly unlikely the boy is still being held captive, if he was at all. But if I were in his place, I think I would want everyone doing everything humanly possible.

UM updated this? Are you sure? I was always under the impression the segment never made it to Lifetime and vanished after its NBC run.

I am 99% positive there was an update to this segment that stated that Michael Henley's remains were found. The reason I'm pretty certain was because when first seeing it, I thought the boy was Michael Henley. And the segment definitely made it to Lifetime, because I remember watching it during my high school years, when it used to air at noon and 1:00 p.m.

And the segment definitely made it to Lifetime, because I remember watching it during my high school years, when it used to air at noon and 1:00 p.m.

:eek:

I've been posting on this forum for 14 years now and you have got to be the first ever person to say they saw this segment on Lifetime. Watching the reruns religiously on Lifetime for 15 years, I never once saw the Tara Calico segment. I do remember the night it originally aired on NBC when I was 10 but I was 25 the next time I saw it and that was only because crystaldawn sent it to me.

Several years back, we had discussions here over why Lifetime chose never to air it and many thought it was because of the photo, which Stack warns the viewers about beforehand. Although that theory was shot when someone brought up the fact that Cindy James' dead body was shown in her segment and rerun throughout the decade.

:eek:

I've been posting on this forum for 14 years now and you have got to be the first ever person to say they saw this segment on Lifetime. Watching the reruns religiously on Lifetime for 15 years, I never once saw the Tara Calico segment. I do remember the night it originally aired on NBC when I was 10 but I was 25 the next time I saw it and that was only because crystaldawn sent it to me.

Several years back, we had discussions here over why Lifetime chose never to air it and many thought it was because of the photo, which Stack warns the viewers about beforehand. Although that theory was shot when someone brought up the fact that Cindy James' dead body was shown in her segment and rerun throughout the decade.

I seem to remember somebody saying that Lifetime aired this segment once during an overnight 30 minute slot (along with the Keith Reinhard segment) between 1:00 and 2:00 AM, IIRC.

ETA: Here's the link:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=263308

My version came from CD's volumes as well, and it appears to be either the original broadcast or a subsequent NBC re-airing. I don't remember seeing this segment on Lifetime either, but I only began watching Lifetime reruns regularly in the fall of 2004, and by that spring, my college schedule had me in class during the afternoon block, so that put an end to that.

I was too young (2-3 years old at the time) to remember seeing the Tara Calico segment on NBC. I do remember seeing it on Lifetime, but I don't remember what year it was (2002-2004ish). The reason I'm certain of seeing it on Lifetime was because I remember there was an update at the end (not a text update either) that mentioned Henley's remains being found shortly after the segment originally aired. I know I'm not misremembering either, because when the segments were on the forbidden site (before I even joined this forum), I had seen the segment and knew that Michael Henley's remains had already been found.

I was too young (2-3 years old at the time) to remember seeing the Tara Calico segment on NBC. I do remember seeing it on Lifetime, but I don't remember what year it was (2002-2004ish). The reason I'm certain of seeing it on Lifetime was because I remember there was an update at the end (not a text update either) that mentioned Henley's remains being found shortly after the segment originally aired. I know I'm not misremembering either, because when the segments were on the forbidden site (before I even joined this forum), I had seen the segment and knew that Michael Henley's remains had already been found.

Didn't the update just show the Polaroid and have Robert Stack talking in the background? I vaguely remember an update on Lifetime. I remember they had done quite a few updates like that on Lifetime where they ended the segment in still frame and had Robert's voice dubbed over the image.

This discussion about the segment possibly being on Lifetime is interesting.

I first heard of the Calico/Henley case in the late 80s through A Current Affair and America's Most Wanted. I honestly was unaware that it was covered on UM until the early 2000s when I received a recording of the 9/20/89 NBC airing of the episode via a trade. I then passed that recording on to Crystaldawn.

If the Calico/Henley story was shown on Lifetime, I can confirm that it was NOT shown in part of the episode it originally was packaged with on NBC. The old Lifetime version of 9/20/89 (with Stack, pre-Farina) substituted the lengthy Sheldon Weinberg update in place of the Calico/Henley story.

That being said, I do remember a couple folks mentioning on the forum over the years that they saw the Calico/Henley story during the half hour 1am installments that used to air on Lifetime back in the 90s. Unfortunately, I don't recall seeing it.

However, I can also confirm that the half hour installments that aired at 1am some times did contain stories that were not shown during the 8pm hour long installments. I accidentally stumbled upon the Keith Reinhard story this way one night when I was recording a movie on Lifetime, fell asleep during the recording without shutting off the VCR and the tape kept rolling. The tape finally ran out just split seconds after the completion of the Keith Reinhard story.

Another reason I don't believe it's a hoax is because the segment aired on the 9/20/89 episode -- the second season premiere. I don't think UM would open a season with a hoax story.

Another reason I don't believe it's a hoax is because the segment aired on the 9/20/89 episode -- the second season premiere. I don't think UM would open a season with a hoax story.

Wasn't that the same episode that featured the Roswell UFO crash?

Wasn't that the same episode that featured the Roswell UFO crash?

Yep, it was Jim Meade/Roswell/Tara Calico & Michael Henley Jr. in that order.

The update that I remember seeing showed the picture of Michael Henley, and then a news shot of the area where he was last seen with Stack talking about how his body was discovered shortly from where his family was camping.

One thing that I'm confused on is that I've heard reports that a vehicle was following Tara, and that it was also believed that the vehicle accidentally hit Tara, and it was susbsequently covered up. Huh?

If a vehicle was following Tara, that would be more indicative of a kidnapping/foul play than an accident. I have no idea why they would be following her unless he/she/they intended to do something with her.

I think someone mentioned on here that in most cases of road accidents/hit-and-runs, the victim is left behind. That makes sense. Even if police managed to find a vehicle that they believe collided with Tara and her bike, it would be very difficult to prove foul play. They could just argue that Tara wasn't watching where she was going and veered into traffic, they hit her in an accident, panicked and hid the body and the bike. It seems to me there would be little reason to hide the body and the bike to this day.

The fact that Tara has never been found makes me believe she was kidnapped.

One thing that I'm confused on is that I've heard reports that a vehicle was following Tara, and that it was also believed that the vehicle accidentally hit Tara, and it was susbsequently covered up. Huh?

If a vehicle was following Tara, that would be more indicative of a kidnapping/foul play than an accident. I have no idea why they would be following her unless he/she/they intended to do something with her.

I think someone mentioned on here that in most cases of road accidents/hit-and-runs, the victim is left behind. That makes sense. Even if police managed to find a vehicle that they believe collided with Tara and her bike, it would be very difficult to prove foul play. They could just argue that Tara wasn't watching where she was going and veered into traffic, they hit her in an accident, panicked and hid the body and the bike. It seems to me there would be little reason to hide the body and the bike to this day.

The fact that Tara has never been found makes me believe she was kidnapped.

Could have been some teens "tailgaiting" her bike with their vehicle, harassing her. That's what I tend to think was happening. Some local idiots were messing with her, accidentally struck her, and then hid the body to cover it up.

One thing that I'm confused on is that I've heard reports that a vehicle was following Tara, and that it was also believed that the vehicle accidentally hit Tara, and it was susbsequently covered up. Huh?

If a vehicle was following Tara, that would be more indicative of a kidnapping/foul play than an accident. I have no idea why they would be following her unless he/she/they intended to do something with her.

I think someone mentioned on here that in most cases of road accidents/hit-and-runs, the victim is left behind. That makes sense. Even if police managed to find a vehicle that they believe collided with Tara and her bike, it would be very difficult to prove foul play. They could just argue that Tara wasn't watching where she was going and veered into traffic, they hit her in an accident, panicked and hid the body and the bike. It seems to me there would be little reason to hide the body and the bike to this day.

The fact that Tara has never been found makes me believe she was kidnapped.

Just speaking hypothetically, but if a vehicle did collide with the bike, it's possible that there may be paint transference. The perp/perps might have wanted to dispose of the bike for that reason. Also, wasn't the vehicle tailing her supposedly rare/vintage even for the 80s? A rare vehicle coupled with the possibility of transference would be a good reason to get rid of the bike.

The bike being missing and her body not being found could go either way honestly. I mean, if she was kidnapped by someone, why would they take the bike? Wouldn't they just want to grab her and go?

Just speaking hypothetically, but if a vehicle did collide with the bike, it's possible that there may be paint transference. The perp/perps might have wanted to dispose of the bike for that reason. Also, wasn't the vehicle tailing her supposedly rare/vintage even for the 80s? A rare vehicle coupled with the possibility of transference would be a good reason to get rid of the bike.

The bike being missing and her body not being found could go either way honestly. I mean, if she was kidnapped by someone, why would they take the bike? Wouldn't they just want to grab her and go?

In that scenario, they would probably take the bike in order to minimize any trail of evidence they might have left behind which would buy them some time to get away. Plus it would have been easy and quick for them to stuff the bike in their truck or van; if they were in a sedan it would have taken them a little while and a passing motorist might have noticed.

The big picture here, is that it has never been proven Tara was abducted beyond a shadow of a doubt. The polaroid itself is circumstantial at best. Who knows maybe she took a longer route than usual and disappeared of her own free will. I've heard of cases where a person, primarily a young adult, went out to do an everyday activity and just literally walked away from everything. They started a new life, got a new job, got married, had kids, etc.

I once heard of a case where an 18 year old girl left to get milk at the grocery store and just disappeared. Her family found her 8 years later working at a WalMart in a neighboring state. She had a husband and 2 kids and refused to talk to her family.

Again I don't think the photo proves anything on the theory of Tara being abducted.

One thing that I'm confused on is that I've heard reports that a vehicle was following Tara, and that it was also believed that the vehicle accidentally hit Tara, and it was susbsequently covered up. Huh?



I took it to mean kids her own age who came across her riding her bike and got behind her to harass her and mess with her, not a perp who secretly followed her. They were messing around and then accidentally got too close and hit her.

In that scenario, they would probably take the bike in order to minimize any trail of evidence they might have left behind which would buy them some time to get away. Plus it would have been easy and quick for them to stuff the bike in their truck or van; if they were in a sedan it would have taken them a little while and a passing motorist might have noticed.

I think some pieces of her Walkman and a cassette tape she was listening to were found along the highway. Granted, I never really considered the implications of this before, but I think this might be move evidence in favor of the accidental hit theory. The Walkman could have been damaged during the accident and the assailants neglected to pick it up in their haste to quickly clean up (before other motorists came by) and flee the scene.


The big picture here, is that it has never been proven Tara was abducted beyond a shadow of a doubt. The polaroid itself is circumstantial at best. Who knows maybe she took a longer route than usual and disappeared of her own free will. I've heard of cases where a person, primarily a young adult, went out to do an everyday activity and just literally walked away from everything. They started a new life, got a new job, got married, had kids, etc.

I once heard of a case where an 18 year old girl left to get milk at the grocery store and just disappeared. Her family found her 8 years later working at a WalMart in a neighboring state. She had a husband and 2 kids and refused to talk to her family.

Again I don't think the photo proves anything on the theory of Tara being abducted.

I've never heard of a run away theory in this case. While I suppose it is possible, there really isn't any evidence of it that I am aware. Everything I have read about the case makes it sound as if Tara's disappearance, whatever the motivations and the mechanics behind it ultimately were, was not voluntary.

Also, I think people get too hung up on the Polaroid. There could be multiple scenarios here.

A. Tara was abducted, and IS the girl in the Polaroid.
B. Tara was abducted and IS NOT the girl in the Polaroid.
C. Tara was the victim of a hit and run and IS NOT the girl in the Polaroid.

The only scenario that explains both Tara's disappearance AND the Polaroid together is the first one. The other two explain Tara's disappearance, but not the facts behind what's going on in the Polaroid.

The more I think about this whole thing, the more I think the girl in the Polaroid was NOT Tara. I mean, the photo was found quite a distance away from where Tara disappeared, several months after the fact. The FBI was never able to confirm that the girl in the Polaroid was Tara, nor were researchers at Los Alamos. The possibility that Tara was the girl in the Polaroid was suggested by her parents after they saw the photo in the media. I hate to say this, but parents in missing persons cases will often grasp at whatever straws they can to believe that their child is alive. So, the possibility of the girl being Tara provided some hope that she may one day come home. Unfortunately, I just don't think the girl was Tara. There really is no evidence that it was aside from the parent's hunch. Also, not to mention that Henley's parents were certain he was the boy in the photo. We know that can't be the case.

I've never heard of a run away theory in this case. While I suppose it is possible, there really isn't any evidence of it that I am aware.

None whatsoever.

I guess nothing is impossible but consider that she had a family (parents and a younger sister) with whom she was extremely close. She had a ton of friends from both high school and college. She had a boyfriend. She had a full scholarship to the Univeristy of New Mexico - (a free college education which she took very seriously), I can't think of any reason why she would choose to throw all of that away and live on her own in some other state.

I certainly don't blame Tara's parents for thinking it's her. If a person did nothing more than glance at a picture of Tara and the infamous Poloroid, I can certainly see how someone would think it's her since the general physical apperance is about the same. The odds go down the more you investigate. I could also understand how they would want it to be her since they viewed it as a better alternative than death.

Here's a couple interesting links that are pretty recent in regards to Tara's case.

Melinda Esquibel has been working on a documentary about the case for the last couple of years (titled 'Gone Without a Trace') and is hopefully close to finishing it. Melinda was a high school friend of Tara's. She now lives in Los Angeles but her family still lives in Belen. Just like Deputy Rene Rivera said a couple years ago, Melinda says she is sure that it was boys Tara had gone to school with who struck her accidentally, freaked out and took the body and the bike. Although she says four boys were in that van and that she feels alcohol might be involved. She says she also feels that all of Belen knows who these guys are and that they are indeed responsible. But she won't name names.

Melinda also says that the year she was in New Mexico working on the documentary, she started getting harassed and she had to call 911 a few times. Her family also started getting harassed and had their home broken into multiple times.

http://www.onenewspage.us/video/20131003/1438656/Tara-Calico-case-reopened-after-25-years.htm

This second link includes a short video interview with Tara's sister Michele Doel, who was 15 when Tara went missing. Michele has granted very few interviews over the years but she agreed to do this one on a local news station to let people know that she feels it is her responsibility to keep working on the case like her parents did. But what happened to Tara still deeply haunts and effects how she handles herself today by constantly looking over her shoulder, checking the backseat of her car and making sure she's not being followed. She also mentions that she was jogging once in downtown Albuquerque and came to a stop at a corner when she ran into a police officer. The officer asked her why she chose to jog in such a congested area and she responded that she never goes ANYWHERE that's secluded because of what happened to her sister.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3222115.shtml#.U7hAmqIb7pc

If the "boys following and harrassing her" scenario is the right one, I definitely don't buy that it was an accident. For one thing, Tara was known to bike for long periods (well in excess of 30 miles per day), so I'm thinking her biking was pretty well known to the community. I think it's more likely someone staked her out, became familiar with her routine and waited until they knew she was in an area with nobody around and nabbed her.

The missing bike is the biggest factor, IMO, that points to an accident. An abductor wouldn't care about lugging a bike as well as Tara, he would have just left it. Someone who hit Tara's bike with a car would have been worried that there was damage and/or paint transfer that could be traced back to the vehicle, so they would definitely want to dispose of the bike.

I just rewatched the segment and noticed the bruising on the boy's neck. :eek:

Good God....

I decided to check out the DVD of the episode, which I haven't seen in a LONG time.

Maybe it's just my eyes, but the picture seems clearer on the DVD than it does in the various scans that have circulated online.

That being said, I agree with your assessment. It looks very much like bruising. Interestingly, it doesn't look very "uniform" either and almost has the appearance of fingermarks.

Regardless, it's sickening and I had the same feelings as I did they day I discovered the Nyleen Kay Marshall letter could be read if you do a freeze frame. Almost wish I hadn't. :(

Yeah. I viewed it on my tv, so it was a larger version of the pic than you can see online. Do you think that makes abduction more likely, whoever these children are?

I have no idea why they aired the Nyleen letter. Someone must have been having a brain freeze.

Yeah. I viewed it on my tv, so it was a larger version of the pic than you can see online. Do you think that makes abduction more likely, whoever these children are?

Truthfully, no, I don't. I still think the photo could be something a parent or guardian took of their own children for whatever purpose - sexual gratification, as some kind of sadistic, sexual power game, or even resale as child pornography. Not to be graphic, but the Noreen Gosch website has many examples of this type of pornography. Unfortunately, it would appear to be somewhat common.

Assuming this is a child abduction in progress, I keep struggling with the offender profile. I suppose it's not impossible that there could exist some criminal mastermind who steals children, regardless of sex and age, and poses them for taunting Polaroids. I don't know though, the whole thing just seems pretty unlikely to me.

Assuming this was an abduction - what do you think the purpose of taking the photo was? Was its being left behind in the parking lot even intentional? Not trying to be caustic, just genuinely curious how you perceive the angle here.

I have no idea why they aired the Nyleen letter. Someone must have been having a brain freeze.

My feel on this is that it was a sign of the times (late 80s, early 90s). I just don't think they (the show's creators) anticipated people doing freeze frames and trying to read the letter. That being said, I don't think the inclusion of those graphic lines was intentional either.

My take is that there's something sinister going on in the photo. I suppose there is a possibility that they are the real children of whoever took the photo. Perhaps they were "home-schooled" or had been pulled out of regular school years prior and that's why they are still unidentified.

I think profiling is helpful to an extent, but it's not 100% accurate. For example, tomorrow I am watching an episode of A Crime To Remember, that is profiling a Michigan serial killler from the late 60's. He was handsome, clean-cut, attended college and doesn't at all fit the typical mold of a serial killer.

I think profiling is helpful to an extent, but it's not 100% accurate. For example, tomorrow I am watching an episode of A Crime To Remember, that is profiling a Michigan serial killler from the late 60's. He was handsome, clean-cut, attended college and doesn't at all fit the typical mold of a serial killer.

Would that be John Norman Collins? Because if so, I'd like to see it myself if it's on TV. That was before my time but my parents were in college when those killings were going on and they told me stories.

My take is that there's something sinister going on in the photo. I suppose there is a possibility that they are the real children of whoever took the photo. Perhaps they were "home-schooled" or had been pulled out of regular school years prior and that's why they are still unidentified.

I think I've said on this thread before the fact that they have not been identified means very little because the photo could have been taken anywhere in the world. There is a good possibility that the kids aren't even American. Not to mention this case is 25 years old.

Also, if they are child abuse/pornography victims there is a good chance they are still alive to this day, and were never missing to begin with. The problem is that this photo is usually touted as being of Tara Calico and/or Michael Henley and/or "child abduction victims" or "missing children" when we really have no idea if any of those scenarios are correct.

I think profiling is helpful to an extent, but it's not 100% accurate. For example, tomorrow I am watching an episode of A Crime To Remember, that is profiling a Michigan serial killler from the late 60's. He was handsome, clean-cut, attended college and doesn't at all fit the typical mold of a serial killer.

Yes, you're correct, profiling is not 100 percent.

However, deductive reasoning based on the known facts isn't a bad starting point in a case like this. As I said earlier, considering the abduction scenario, it's not impossible that this offender exists, it's just atypical and unusual behavior for an offender of this type.

Part of my assessment in trying to deduce the most likely scenario is to reject hypotheses that are unusual and/or atypical in order to more narrowly focus on what is more likely. The criminal mastermind stealing children, regardless of sex and age preferences, and keeping them alive, and posing them for Polaroid photos that will then be discarded as taunts doesn't pass the sniff test, for me anyway, because such behavior is rare and other, more plausible, explanations exist.

The criminal mastermind stealing children, regardless of sex and age preferences, and keeping them alive, and posing them for Polaroid photos that will then be discarded as taunts doesn't pass the sniff test, for me anyway, because such behavior is rare and other, more plausible, explanations exist.

Not to mention the fact that this person abducted two unrelated children of different sexes, relatively around the same time. That's got to be almost impossible.

The more I mull it over, the more I'm convinced the Polaroid was a remnant of some sicko's kiddie porn collection and not Calico/Henley or any other abducted child for that matter.

If a parent/guardian truly did take the picture, it's hard to imagine they would be so careless as to let it get out in such a public manner, especially if the kids could potentially be identified as their own.

That being said, I still think a parent/guardian could have taken the pictures, but sold them to a third party. If that was the case, this was likely a series of pictures. This particular shot was either accidentally dropped (unlikely) or intentionally dropped just to mess with people who might find the photo and would obviously find it disturbing.

Of course, this whole affair could be a hoax, but I think the bruising on the boy's neck shoots that down.

I know there is a lot of debate as to what constitutes pornography. I generally understand it as material in which naked (or mostly naked) people engage in sexual activities. If that's the case, the infamous "Calico" picture doesn't qualify as pornography. It's been shown on UM and other programs, and I don't think they would put a porn pic up there. I'm thinking it would be classified under something else. In any event, I find the picture horrifying.

I hope that it wasn't a parent or guardian that took the picture, but a 3rd sibling or young relative. The girl's face makes me think this is what happened. She looks bored and unamused, and was possibly goaded into doing it by whoever took the picture.

I know there is a lot of debate as to what constitutes pornography. I generally understand it as material in which naked (or mostly naked) people engage in sexual activities. If that's the case, the infamous "Calico" picture doesn't qualify as pornography. It's been shown on UM and other programs, and I don't think they would put a porn pic up there. I'm thinking it would be classified under something else. In any event, I find the picture horrifying.

For the sake of furthering the discussion, I strongly encourage you to go to Noreen Gosch's website about the disappearance of her son Johnny. There are many shocking and horrific pictures of clothed children tied up and gagged that have been sent to her by pedophiles or downloaded from websites and forums intended for pedophiles.

As I mentioned earlier, last year I attended a presentation for law enforcement personnel about child pornography. Believe me when I say there are sickos out there who get turned on pictures of kids tied up. Whether such pictures constitute a definition of "pornography" is up for grabs, but pictures like this are taken and the rationale, audience, and end use of them is, unfortunately, obvious.

I understand. I have been to the Noreen Gosch site in the past. An episode of "Maxium Drama" I recorded awhile back showed one of the pics. Police had stated that these pics were a hoax, that they came from Florida in the late 70's and they had idenitifed all the kids in the pictures, none of them had been kidnapped. Apparently, some sick person played a cruel joke on Noreen Gosch.

What is with that horrendous age progression pic of Tara in the link above???
The age progression is totally uncalled for and even scarier than the Polaroid.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/article/girl-in-the-photograph-the-tara-calico-story/index.html

Hi all, I'm glad to see Tara still being discussed. It's one of those cases I can't forget.

I don't think it is Tara in that Polaroid. I think she had an "accident" while riding her bike that was not really an accident so much as someone harassing her, or following her, to the point of foul play. Although I don't rule out the possibility that it was an opportunistic abduction and whoever did it took the bike so no one would know the exact point she vanished from.

When I first saw that Polaroid I thought it was kids playing around with a Polaroid camera and doing a goofy kidnap spoof. I wouldn't have put it past my friends and I when we were young, had we thought of it. But then I see the marks on that little boy's neck and... :( Also, I believe the police Id'd the interior as a white commercial van, so not something you would expect kids to ride around in. And then that girl's photo turned up in California so to me, unfortunately, that sounds like possible pornography. If they were being moved around in a van they may have been "used" at truck stops. :(

I agree, Tara's age progression sketch is just awful. Too bad someone can't make a better one.

If they were being moved around in a van they may have been "used" at truck stops. :(

as horrifying as that sounds, that may explain why the boy and girl were together. Perhaps the actual abductor didn't want to use either of them for his own sexual gratification, but was using them for monetary profit by providing them to other people.

This case is often disturbing just thinking about it.

I agree wiseguy, unless you accept that it was just a kids' prank then it's pretty disturbing no matter which way you look at it.

Although you would think a perp like that would keep better track of their Polaroids. Maybe there was a reason for peeling away so carelessly, like the kids had made a noise.

I think I'm in the minority, but I think the polaroid was placed there to be found. I don't think someone carelessly let it fall from their van.

The main reasons I think this was a prank/fake:

-No one (besides Tara Calico) has even come close to matching the girl. The boy has had some close matches, but since his distance is farther away in the picture and somewhat shadowed, it's hard to make a good analysis. But LE now believes Calico met with foul play shortly after she disappeared. There has to be information they're privy to that they're not letting the public know to come right out and say that. So in all probability, IMHO, the girl in the picture isn't Tara. You would think by now SOMEONE with a missing child would have came forward (thanks to the publicity of the picture) and had a close enough match after all these years.

-If this was some sickos way of having "torture kiddie porn" with either kidnapped children or their own (or relatives), what is the point of having the girl's hands hidden behind her back? If the motive was to show some sort of domination or bondage, wouldn't that be displayed more prominently? The only hint of any sort of "bondage" is the tape over their mouths.

-The odds that both of these kids were kidnapped by the same person is astronomical. In almost every case of a kidnapping, the kidnapper has a preferred gender to abduct. It's very unlikely that this person would abduct a girl around Tara's age, and then abduct a boy several years younger.

-I may be the only one, but I don't think either kid in the photo looks terrified. The boy looks tired and the girl looks bored.

-I may be the only one, but I don't think either kid in the photo looks terrified. The boy looks tired and the girl looks bored.
RSBM

You're not the only one. I don't think they look afraid either. They look...disinterested?

But, I don't know what expression someone who has been chronically exploited might have. Maybe they are just resigned.

I don't know what photo you guys looked at, the boy clearly looks terrified.

For those that think the picture is genuine, what exactly would the reason be for leaving the picture in a gas station? If the intent was to let people know someone abducted these children, why not include some sort of ransom or taunting message? What was the point of leaving it at that particular gas station?

Other reasons I think it was staged:

-IIRC, the FBI identified a squirt gun in the photo. Why would this be there if these kids were abducted?

-Port St. Joe is a tourist destination. It wouldn't be that uncommon for a vacationing family to have a camera ready to stage this picture. Plus, that would give a reason as to the location of where the picture was found.

-The VC Andrews book is displayed prominently. Not only did these kids get to play with squirt guns, but they also got to read books. If these were indeed abducted children, and their kidnapper obviously let them have some sort of "freedom", why feel the need to bound and gag the children? If the girl was in the middle of reading the book (seems likely due to it being located right next to her) before the picture was taken, why go through the trouble to tie her hands up just for the picture if you're not even going to show the restraints?

-Who's more likely to have carelessly left the photo in a public place? A couple of kids staging a photo, or an abductor who's gone undetected for over twenty years?

-The photo appears, IMO, to have been taken haphazardly, and it looks rushed. That would be why the book was found next to the girl (she was reading it), and the squirt gun and various other clutter is seen in the picture. It just seems more likely that a couple of kids got the idea of to make this photo up, all they really needed was a roll of tape and the polaroid camera.

I may be the only one, but I don't think either kid in the photo looks terrified. The boy looks tired and the girl looks bored

You're not the only one. I don't think they look afraid either. They look...disinterested?

But, I don't know what expression someone who has been chronically exploited might have. Maybe they are just resigned.

I don't know what photo you guys looked at, the boy clearly looks terrified.

Therein lies the problem...how they "look" in terms of the emotions they are supposed to be expressing in that picture is entirely subjective. We all see different things, and I tend to think our own theorizing plays a part in guiding us to an emotional filled conclusion of our own. Of course, if we think the photo is a hoax, they look "bored" or "uninterested." If we think the photo is real, they look "terrified." Personally, I don't give much weight to any of this emotion-based "evidence", but that's just me...

The one thing I can't get over is the bruising, assuming that is what it is, on that boy's neck. That may suggest that he has been choked or otherwise abused.

One thing I will say here is that if the bruising is real, I have a hard time imagining that a parent would let their own kid out in public like that. I also have a hard time believing that if a parent took this photo, they would carelessly discard it or even want it to be found in the first place. So, maybe this is more evidence in favor of the abducted and/or exploited children angle. Assuming the photographer intended the picture to be found, he probably wouldn't want there to be an obvious connection between himself and the subjects. On the other hand, we can't assume the photographer and the person who dropped the photo are one in the same.

Regarding the way they are tied up, it makes sense if the point was to restrain them. Ever wonder why the cops seldom handcuff a prisoner in the front? Because a person cuffed in the front can still raise their arms over their head and administer a "hammer" (I think that's what it's called) or double fist punch to the head. Handcuff a person behind their back - problem solved. The same basic reasoning applies here. Assuming the person who tied them up was intending on preventing retaliation by way of a blow to the head from one of the kids, that is the correct way to restrain them.

I don't know where I am going with all this. Just thinking out loud...

-The VC Andrews book is displayed prominently. Not only did these kids get to play with squirt guns, but they also got to read books. If these were indeed abducted children, and their kidnapper obviously let them have some sort of "freedom", why feel the need to bound and gag the children? If the girl was in the middle of reading the book (seems likely due to it being located right next to her) before the picture was taken, why go through the trouble to tie her hands up just for the picture if you're not even going to show the restraints?

Has anyone here actually read this book and can provide a condensed review?

Is there any way any part of the story could line up with what is depicted in the Polaroid?

Maybe the Polaroid was part of someone's school project or book report or something?

Has anyone here actually read this book and can provide a condensed review?
Is there any way any part of the story could line up with what is depicted in the Polaroid?
Maybe the Polaroid was part of someone's school project or book report or something?

Wikipedia gives a detailed synopsis that's too long to copy here, but here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Audrina

Here's an irreverent detailed review (warning: language):
http://foreveryoungadult.com/2011/06/10/a-review-of-the-worst-book-in-history/

I don't see any obvious correlation between a plot point in the novel and what's depicted in this Polaroid. Maybe I missed it.

Therein lies the problem...how they "look" in terms of the emotions they are supposed to be expressing in that picture is entirely subjective. We all see different things, and I tend to think our own theorizing plays a part in guiding us to an emotional filled conclusion of our own. Of course, if we think the photo is a hoax, they look "bored" or "uninterested." If we think the photo is real, they look "terrified." Personally, I don't give much weight to any of this emotion-based "evidence", but that's just me...

I agree with this. I think it would all depend on the context of when the photo was taken. If the girl and boy were photographed immediately after they were taken captive, they're more likely to look terrified. But if they were photographed after having been held captive for a long period of time and being bound and gagged is no longer a new experience for them, they might have resigned looks on their faces which come across as looking "bored" or "uninterested". A lot of people seem to think that the boy looks more frightened than the girl, but for all we know, maybe she had already been held captive for awhile before her abductor decided to go out and kidnap a boy as well. The expressions on their faces can just be interpreted in so many different ways.

Therein lies the problem...how they "look" in terms of the emotions they are supposed to be expressing in that picture is entirely subjective. We all see different things, and I tend to think our own theorizing plays a part in guiding us to an emotional filled conclusion of our own. Of course, if we think the photo is a hoax, they look "bored" or "uninterested." If we think the photo is real, they look "terrified." Personally, I don't give much weight to any of this emotion-based "evidence", but that's just me...

I was thinking something similar this A.M. We all interpret things differently. I have no idea how I would view the expressions on the individuals' faces if I was unaware of the Tara Calico case, because for me, the photo has always been associated with it. Aside from that, the two appear to be bound and have black tape over their mouths, and that image immediately conjures ominous feelings, so of course many people are going to interpret fear on the faces of those people. I know I have. But I can also definitely see why other people have many different feelings on what those facial expressions convey, and I don't think any of us are necessarily wrong--or right.

I think of those photos that got thrown into the Johnny Gosch case. I don't know the circumstances behind those photographs, but it wasn't an abduction or even coercion, according to the boys themselves. But I can tell you that if I found a photograph like that just lying around, I would be frightened and worried for the people in it. I wouldn't have the context to put it in, of course, and ultimately, neither do we with the so-called Tara Calico photograph.


Something I never noticed before until today: we actually have no way of knowing whether those individuals are in fact bound. They clearly have their hands behind their backs, but it's impossible to tell if they are actually restrained.

I've never read anything by V.C. Andrews, but many years ago I had a few discussions with people who had. Her books were reasonably popular with teenaged girls back in the mid-late eighties. Some of her works depict incest, kidnapping, keeping women or children imprisoned in a house, things like that. It's made me wonder if the photographer knew the general vein of those kind of books when he/she took the image.

Therein lies the problem...how they "look" in terms of the emotions they are supposed to be expressing in that picture is entirely subjective. We all see different things, and I tend to think our own theorizing plays a part in guiding us to an emotional filled conclusion of our own. Of course, if we think the photo is a hoax, they look "bored" or "uninterested." If we think the photo is real, they look "terrified." Personally, I don't give much weight to any of this emotion-based "evidence", but that's just me...

This is true. However, the two main reasons I keep reading on why people think it's genuine are the resemblance of the young woman to Tara Calico, and the fear in the boys eyes. But if the girl in the photo isn't Tara (as law enforcement now believes), the only thing to rely on is the "look" of the boy in terms of believing this is a real abduction. There is no concrete proof of an abduction. No solid leads tying any missing person from the US that match the boy or the girl in the photo. The only thing people have to go in is based off of their own individual impression of the photo. And for me, that doesn't work. I have to go with Occam's Razor. If this were a prank/hoax, there wouldn't need to be any corroborating evidence, because either the kids in the photo are grown up and have no idea of the attention it attracted, or are too ashamed to come forward. You need to really rely on pure emotion from looking at the photo to believe it was a real abduction.

The one thing I can't get over is the bruising, assuming that is what it is, on that boy's neck. That may suggest that he has been choked or otherwise abused.

I've looked and looked at this photo repeatedly ever since reading this thread and I do not see bruising on the boy.

http://i46.tinypic.com/555vlk.jpg

Regarding the way they are tied up, it makes sense if the point was to restrain them. Ever wonder why the cops seldom handcuff a prisoner in the front? Because a person cuffed in the front can still raise their arms over their head and administer a "hammer" (I think that's what it's called) or double fist punch to the head. Handcuff a person behind their back - problem solved. The same basic reasoning applies here. Assuming the person who tied them up was intending on preventing retaliation by way of a blow to the head from one of the kids, that is the correct way to restrain them.

Assuming they were handcuffed or restrained from behind, we still have no way of knowing whether or not their feet were bound. Regardless of how their hands were bound (or not), they still could have possibly used their feet in some sort of escape attempt. And if the purpose of taking this photo (if it indeed were real) was for some sick fetish, wouldn't the photographer have made a better effort to show the fact that these kids were bound outside of two pieces of tape? It just seems amateurish to me.

ETA: I honestly used to believe that there was a possibility that the girl was Tara Calico. But as I got older and realized how rare and unusual it would be for a child abductor to abduct two children of different sexes with a different age, I had some doubts about the photo being authentic. That changed again when LE came out with their new theory on Tara being hit while riding her bike. That made me realize that the girl in the photo probably wasn't Tara, and since there have been no other missing girls who have come close to matching the girl in the photo, in all probability this was just some sort of weird prank. I could envision this scenario:

A vacationing family makes a pit stop somewhere (possibly where the photo was found). The parents go inside, while the 3 siblings are outside stretching their legs. The middle sibling grabs a camera, goads his older sister into "posing" for the camera while the younger brother willingly obliges. The sister was probably in the middle of reading the book, which is why it is right next to her in the picture. They take some tape, put it over their mouths, and then pretend to have their hands tied. The middle sibling takes the picture, and the photo is dropped either where it was taken, or elsewhere (if the picture wasn't taken where the polaroid was found). Or there was no 3rd sibling, and the parents took the picture as a joke/gag to send to one of their relatives back home (kind of like a postcard like photo, saying something to the effect of "look what we had to do to keep the kids quiet for the long ride" type of thing). Either they never knew of the attention it got, or were fearful for coming forward due to the belief that the children in the photo were abducted or abused.

I also doubt that it's Tara in the photo. I think the other theory (truck on the road while she was biking) is more likely.

What was mentioned upthread, prostituting these kids at trucks stops or similar, is something I never contemplated before. Horrific. I certainly hope that isn't what was happening to these kids, but if the pic is genuine, then something terrible was happening to them anyway.

I could also see a scenario like someone mentioned above about siblings taking a silly photo as a prank. (I hope that's what happened.) And then maybe one of them grabbing it and tossing it out the window because they didn't like how it looked or they didn't want their parents to see that they'd been horsing around like that.

Thanks to TracyLynnS and her information in another thread about this case. She informed me about the Egghead Software company, and how they had retail stores that sold the shirts featured in the polaroid. Which, IMO, proves to a near certainty that these two children in the photo were siblings. Both children in the photo are wearing Egghead shirts. Thinking logically, had these children (unrelated) been abducted, what are the odds that this kidnapper is going to go shopping for two different Egghead shirts for his kidnapped children to wear? Why advertise the fact that he's an Egghead customer?! And why make sure to make both abducted kids match with their shirts? See where I'm going here? The fact that both children have these shirts on means in all likelihood that they are related, and both fans of computer games and/or the store. There's no doubt in my mind that these kids are brother and sister (or possibly cousins). Whether or not there's some sort of foul play involved in these photos is up for debate, but IMO, this leads more credence to the faked photo prank theory.

Both children in the photo are wearing Egghead shirts.

I think only the girl is wearing an Egghead shirt. I don't know what the logo or cartoon is that's on the boy's shirt. Anyone know what that is?

When I was looking for Egghead shirts online the other day, I only found two styles, both only shown in gray. One was just like the one the girl is wearing in the photo and the was a jersey style shirt with a big pic of the egghead guy and name on it. The second one is very different from both of the shirts the kids are wearing.

http://www.defunkd.com/public/upload/images/product_images/big/VintageManiac_30581322761496.jpg

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/physical-object/2007/09/102682163.01.01.lg.JPG

The photo worries me for these reasons:

Yes, it is true we don't know everything about the photo. But let's break down what we do know about it:

The photo was found in the parking lot where the white van was. Police determined the photo depicts the inside of a white van. Windowless vans, like the one at the convenience store, seem to be the vehicle of choice for child abductors. The driver of the white van apparently went inside, no children did. Additionally, no children are heard in the vehicle when it is parked at the convenience store.

To add to all of that, consider this: Someone (can't remember if it was this forum or not) had speculated that the children were forced to live/sleep in the van, and that it was probably their living and sleeping quarters due to the presence of quilts and what not. If these kids were pulling a prank, or back there voluntarily or whatever, would they really have the presence of mind to put quilts back there?

So when you add all that together, it seems to point to something sinister happening. Otherwise, you have to believe in some pretty huge coincidences. Is it just a coincidence the picture was taken in a windowless van? Is it just a coincidence the photo was found where the van was parked? Sure it was. And I'm Michael Jordan, I used to play for the Chicago Bulls.

Now, with a lot of cases, there are tons of mistaken identity. A lot of eyewitness accounts that aren't reliable. Some cases dozens, others hundreds, heck, there are probably some that have thousands. But this case? The Calicos and Henleys are the only known families that have ever come forward (in 25 years) and said that's their relative. Usually, cases like these attract a swath of family members believing that's their own, but in this case only 2. Why is that? And if The Calicos and Henleys are mistaken, then who are these children? Why haven't they been identified? Are we to believe that there is a high volume of relatives, friends, teachers, neighbors, etc that know who these kids are but aren't speaking? Highly unlikely. So that leaves two scenarios: 1) they're from out of this country, 2) they've been in the van for awhile and their parents don't recognize them (or are deceased or other possibilities).

If this was a prank, why wouldn't the kids come forward? To my knowledge, they haven't committed any criminal act, and even if they had, I doubt the authorities would do anything given their ages. Plus 25 years have passed, surely they wouldn't be afraid of anything now.

I feel, like a lot of cases on here, that a lot of attention and detail needs to be considered before making a final conclusion. A person can quickly glance at the photo, determine it's a hoax and move on with their life. But I think, when you consider the totality of clues, including what I've mentioned above, something just isn't right with the photo.

I think only the girl is wearing an Egghead shirt. I don't know what the logo or cartoon is that's on the boy's shirt. Anyone know what that is?

I had thought I read somewhere that they determined both children were wearing the Egghead shirts. And the boy's shirt has something similar to the Egghead logo guy. But it very well might not be an Egghead shirt.

If these kids were pulling a prank, or back there voluntarily or whatever, would they really have the presence of mind to put quilts back there?

If they were driving with their family on vacation, it makes all the sense in the world to have quilts and apparent bedding back there. That's where they slept during the long drive.

Is it just a coincidence the picture was taken in a windowless van? Is it just a coincidence the photo was found where the van was parked? Sure it was. And I'm Michael Jordan, I used to play for the Chicago Bulls.

It's entirely possible that a family would have used a van to travel for a vacation.

If this was a prank, why wouldn't the kids come forward? To my knowledge, they haven't committed any criminal act, and even if they had, I doubt the authorities would do anything given their ages. Plus 25 years have passed, surely they wouldn't be afraid of anything now.

Perhaps they forgot about taking the photo so long ago and have no idea of the attention it has gotten.

The photo worries me for these reasons:

Yes, it is true we don't know everything about the photo. But let's break down what we do know about it:

The photo was found in the parking lot where the white van was. Police determined the photo depicts the inside of a white van. Windowless vans, like the one at the convenience store, seem to be the vehicle of choice for child abductors. The driver of the white van apparently went inside, no children did. Additionally, no children are heard in the vehicle when it is parked at the convenience store.

I think that it's a cultural meme that windowless struggle vans are the transport of choice for child abductors. The majority are family members driving whatever they have.

White cargo vans are also the vehicle of choice for plumbers, electricians and other tradesmen.

You stated ..."let's break down what we do know about it" and then went on to infer that the photo was related to the van that was parked at the store. We don't know that. I think it's important to keep in mind that the mere presence of a van and the interior of the van in the photo may not be related at all.

To add to all of that, consider this: Someone (can't remember if it was this forum or not) had speculated that the children were forced to live/sleep in the van, and that it was probably their living and sleeping quarters due to the presence of quilts and what not. If these kids were pulling a prank, or back there voluntarily or whatever, would they really have the presence of mind to put quilts back there?

As TheCars pointed out, they could have been on a long trip and had the blankets back there to save on spending money on a Motel 6.

So when you add all that together, it seems to point to something sinister happening. Otherwise, you have to believe in some pretty huge coincidences. Is it just a coincidence the picture was taken in a windowless van? Is it just a coincidence the photo was found where the van was parked? Sure it was. And I'm Michael Jordan, I used to play for the Chicago Bulls.

I don't see the fact that there was a van present at the time the photo was found as an insurmountable coincidence. We are dealing with people that may have selective memories and they may be making connections that just aren't there.

You keep saying "the" van as if there was solid evidence that the van that was parked in the parking lot and the van that the police say where the photo was taken are known to be one in the same. I think that's a mighty large logical step to take. Windowless vans are not that particularly uncommon to rule out a coincidence.

Now, with a lot of cases, there are tons of mistaken identity. A lot of eyewitness accounts that aren't reliable. Some cases dozens, others hundreds, heck, there are probably some that have thousands. But this case? The Calicos and Henleys are the only known families that have ever come forward (in 25 years) and said that's their relative. Usually, cases like these attract a swath of family members believing that's their own, but in this case only 2. Why is that? And if The Calicos and Henleys are mistaken, then who are these children? Why haven't they been identified? Are we to believe that there is a high volume of relatives, friends, teachers, neighbors, etc that know who these kids are but aren't speaking? Highly unlikely. So that leaves two scenarios: 1) they're from out of this country, 2) they've been in the van for awhile and their parents don't recognize them (or are deceased or other possibilities).

I believe that the Henleys were indeed mistaken and the boy was found not far from where he went missing dead from exposure.

What is more probable: That the boy went missing during a camping trip and died from exposure or... He was kidnapped along with a teenage girl, both held alive, killed somewhere and then placed back a few miles from the location he went missing?

Only two families that we, as the public and not LEO, know of that made a claim that the children are theirs. Not everyone that makes a claim gets national television attention or a newspaper article and LEO does not always share every detail of a case in the interest of good investigation techniques.

If this was a prank, why wouldn't the kids come forward? To my knowledge, they haven't committed any criminal act, and even if they had, I doubt the authorities would do anything given their ages. Plus 25 years have passed, surely they wouldn't be afraid of anything now.

The vast majority of the prank pulling young people in 1988 did not watch UM. It's quite possible that the children never saw the case. Or that they don't care. Or that they don't want to get in trouble even 25 years later.

I feel, like a lot of cases on here, that a lot of attention and detail needs to be considered before making a final conclusion. A person can quickly glance at the photo, determine it's a hoax and move on with their life. But I think, when you consider the totality of clues, including what I've mentioned above, something just isn't right with the photo.

I don't think that it's a hoax as I don't think it was an intentional effort to trick LE into believing that the kids were held against their will. I think it was just a joke between friends or siblings that somehow fell out of their hands and became connected to the case.

Also consider the family's desire to find their children, they'll see their children and hold on to any hope that they are still alive. The Terry Lynn Nixon case is a great example of this very confirmation bias.

Arguably the most famous Great Smoky Mountains disappearance case is that of Dennis Martin, a small boy from Knoxville who disappeared from Spence Field in 1969 and was never seen again. As Henley and Martin were close to the same age and size when they disappeared, I thought what this former park ranger had to say might be pertinent to the Henley discussion:

McCarter, believes that what most likely happened to Dennis is that he got lost, became disoriented and Dennis perished in the wild. But he does not rule out either of the other two theories.

He cites several reasons why the massive search could have missed Dennis or his body.

A 48-inch-tall boy can easily elude detection in rugged mountain terrain, and especially in a rhododendron or laurel thicket. The sound of a roaring creek can prevent a searcher from hearing a child's shouts for help. And in some cases, lost and disoriented children have been known to hide from searchers.

As for an animal attack, McCarter said, "That is possible." Bears normally will not attack humans, but in June 1969, their normal food sources were greatly diminished. And near Spence Field about two weeks before Dennis disappeared, McCarter said, rangers released a "bony, scrawny bear" caught in a wild boar trap baited with corn - something that bears normally do not eat.


www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jun/28/missing-dennis-martin

I don't find it unusual that Henley was missed the first time.


<snip>

Just re-reading this thread and I must stress that this is a very important thing to keep in mind. Not everyone that goes missing is another white-slave captive whisked from truck stop to truck stop to serve as another sexual victim of the White Van Phantom TM: Occasionally more mundane fates fall on people.

The truck stop idea is far fetched. How could that be kept hidden? Criminals maintain a certain level of desecration otherwise they are not criminals for very long (actually they are, just upgraded to "prisoners"). While local police may sometimes turn a blind eye and deaf CB speaker to run of the mill lot lizards they would seriously pursue any leads of a child being peddled.

While not impossible I believe that it is very unlikely.

Homegirl was riding a bike with headphones on and run over, accident or not, killers got rid of the body. Littleman wanders away from his camp and dies from hypothermia. Bored kids messing around with a camera say "Hey! Think your sister would be down for..." and drop the photo or leave it for a prank or forget that they took it, etc.

I think that it's a cultural meme that windowless struggle vans are the transport of choice for child abductors. The majority are family members driving whatever they have.

I would tend to disagree. The windowless vans are perfect for the abductors because nobody can see into them, and there's enough space back there to hidethe kid or kids. I would need to see some statistics before dismissing it as a "cultural meme".

You stated ..."let's break down what we do know about it" and then went on to infer that the photo was related to the van that was parked at the store. We don't know that. I think it's important to keep in mind that the mere presence of a van and the interior of the van in the photo may not be related at all.

I broke down the facts in the next paragraph and the inferences came later, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

In any event, my point is, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And when the photo is found where the van was parked and the authorities determinedthe photo was taken in same or similar van, then the odds are pretty darn good the photo was taken inside that van.

As TheCars pointed out, they could have been on a long trip and had the blankets back there to save on spending money on a Motel 6.


I've heard they're quite expensive. :lol:

The vast majority of the prank pulling young people in 1988 did not watch UM. It's quite possible that the children never saw the case. Or that they don't care. Or that they don't want to get in trouble even 25 years later.

What trouble? As I stated, they haven't committed any crime. How would you know the "vast majority of prank pulling young people did not watch UM?" That's a large leap.

Also consider the family's desire to find their children, they'll see their children and hold on to any hope that they are still alive. The Terry Lynn Nixon case is a great example of this very confirmation bias.

I don't know a Terry Lynn Nixon. There's Kerri Lynn Nixon. In that case, it was mentioned that Kerri had told friends her desire to runaway, so that's another factor why they thought it might be Kerri. I certainly don't blame them for it. As for Tara, it still could be her in the pic. Who knows?

I would tend to disagree. The windowless vans are perfect for the abductors because nobody can see into them, and there's enough space back there to hidethe kid or kids. I would need to see some statistics before dismissing it as a "cultural meme".

The statistics are is that most kidnappings are from family members. Most do not buy a white windowless van to do so. Most do so with whatever vehicle they happen to be using which is usually not a windowless van.

They're also perfect for a variety of uses and not all are boogyman rapists.

While they may be the vehicle of choice and perfect for the task I don't think that you could prove that the majority of kidnapped children in the US are snatched up and bundled in the back of the van to be gagged with tape.

I broke down the facts in the next paragraph and the inferences came later, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You inferred that the van that was parked in space where the photo was found and the van where the photo may have been taken were one in the same. This is what I am getting at: we don't know that the van that the witness recalls is the same one where the photo was taken.

Is it a reasonable assumption? That's debatable. I'm half way on this. I will begin by assuming that the photo is not of Tara or the Henley boy (which is extremely unlikely). First of all, as many seem to think this is a photo of child porn... Child porn in that day was rare and difficult to come by. Not something the owner would want to lose or would be careless enough to drop it from the same vehicle where the incriminating photo was taken. Possible but I think unlikely.
If it was a prank it would have gotten there any number of ways. Maybe the kids took it, got a giggle and forgot about it. Maybe they threw it away and it blew into a parking spot. Maybe they took the photo to freak out their parents. Who knows.

...And then there's this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/if-youre-trapped-with-duct-tape-over-your-mouth-heres-how-to-get-it-off-78037604/?no-ist

If we can agree that a photo can end up in a parking spot though other means than being dropped from a vehicle then I think we can agree that it is possible that the van in the spot may not be one in the same as the van in the photo.

In any event, my point is, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And when the photo is found where the van was parked and the authorities determinedthe photo was taken in same or similar van, then the odds are pretty darn good the photo was taken inside that van.

The photo was found where the witness says a van was parked, not where the van was parked. Your confirmation bias is showing.

The authorities, if you believe them so far, have also stated that Tara likely was killed in a hit and run incident based on evidence not available to the public.

I've heard they're quite expensive. :lol:

Standard queen bed near me is 69.99. If you're being sarcastic and that's not much to you then kick some of that my way. Paypal gift or bitcoin is fine.

Really? Do you think it is unreasonable that folks would sleep in a vehicle, especially a van, on a long trip to save money?

What trouble? As I stated, they haven't committed any crime. How would you know the "vast majority of prank pulling young people did not watch UM?" That's a large leap.

They may not have come forward for a variety of reasons and children, at the time, may not want to admit to something if there is perceived trouble which would be understandable in this case. There are any number of reasons why they wouldn't come forward.

Let me rephrase: The majority of kids of the ages of the kids in the photo did not see this segment. I think that is a fairly safe statement.

Another great example from the Kerri Lynn Nixon story: They could not ID the girl in the video. They knew when and where it was shot and still couldn't pin down who she was. Why didn't she come forward? Who knows? She wouldn't have been in any trouble. I'd go with she was probably too busy cutting out magazines and making a collage on her bedroom mirror to care or catch the segment.

The fact that no one has come forward to say they took the photo or that they are in the photo does not mean that the people in the photo were being held against their will. I think it is reasonable to believe that if the photo is a prank the kids may never have seen the segment or may not have come forward for whatever reason.

I don't know a Terry Lynn Nixon. There's Kerri Lynn Nixon. In that case, it was mentioned that Kerri had told friends her desire to runaway, so that's another factor why they thought it might be Kerri. I certainly don't blame them for it. As for Tara, it still could be her in the pic. Who knows?

Ah, yes, thank you. Kerri is what I meant however you still did not address my point that a grieving family seeking a family member will see their missing child and cling to any shred of hope they have. I certainly don't "blame" them for it. I understand why they would want to believe that they were seeing their daughter.

I agree, it could be Tara in the photo. But I see very little evidence aside from a vague resemblance. If it is who is the boy then?

The statistics are is that most kidnappings are from family members. Most do not buy a white windowless van to do so. Most do so with whatever vehicle they happen to be using which is usually not a windowless van.

They're also perfect for a variety of uses and not all are boogyman rapists.

While they may be the vehicle of choice and perfect for the task I don't think that you could prove that the majority of kidnapped children in the US are snatched up and bundled in the back of the van to be gagged with tape.

Proof?

The photo was found where the witness says a van was parked, not where the van was parked. Your confirmation bias is showing.

How would you know where the van was parked? Were you there?


Standard queen bed near me is 69.99. If you're being sarcastic and that's not much to you then kick some of that my way. Paypal gift or bitcoin is fine.

Really? Do you think it is unreasonable that folks would sleep in a vehicle, especially a van, on a long trip to save money?

It wasn't $70.00 twenty-five years ago. Yeah I do think it's unreasonable. Not impossible, but extremely rare. I've worked in the industry most of my adult life so I know a thing or two about it.

Let me rephrase: The majority of kids of the ages of the kids in the photo did not see this segment. I think that is a fairly safe statement.

well...maybe. Factoring in all of UM's competition for the night in question, as well as the people who didn't watch t.v. that may be technically true, but it still reached a fair number of them.

Another great example from the Kerri Lynn Nixon story: They could not ID the girl in the video. They knew when and where it was shot and still couldn't pin down who she was. Why didn't she come forward? Who knows? She wouldn't have been in any trouble. I'd go with she was probably too busy cutting out magazines and making a collage on her bedroom mirror to care or catch the segment.

That is a false statement. The girl in the video did come forward and it wasn't Kerri Lynn. I talked about it another thread.

I think that it's a cultural meme that windowless struggle vans are the transport of choice for child abductors. The majority are family members driving whatever they have.

White cargo vans are also the vehicle of choice for plumbers, electricians and other tradesmen.

The majority of the windowless cargo vans that I see are tradesmen. I have no idea where the stereotype came from about children being whisked of the streets into white vans, but they are usually used for work around where I live. And they are also used (especially in the 80's, before the minivan craze) by families taking vacations. My uncle has a blue one. We used it for vacations.

I don't see the fact that there was a van present at the time the photo was found as an insurmountable coincidence. We are dealing with people that may have selective memories and they may be making connections that just aren't there.

I agree. The lady goes inside to go shopping, comes back out and notices the photo. She remembers seeing a van parked outside, so instantly she makes the connection that it must have come from the van. It's not that much of a stretch to see how this lady was trying to make a connection to something, trying to be helpful to law enforcement.

I believe that the Henleys were indeed mistaken and the boy was found not far from where he went missing dead from exposure.

I agree. The only reason the boy was thought to have been Henley, IMHO, was because of the resemblance of the girl to Tara Calico. And knowing that Tara went missing from New Mexico, as did Henley, Henley's parents made the connection based off of the hope that their son was still alive. Once it was shown how improbable it was that the boy in the picture was Henley (I never did think the boy looked anything like Henley), then that makes it even less likely, IMO, that the girl in the picture is Calico.

I think it was just a joke between friends or siblings that somehow fell out of their hands and became connected to the case.

I agree.

The kids in the photo might not want to come forward for a variety of reasons, already discussed. But I just thought of another one: guilt and/or shame. Imagine if they realized that this picture set off a ton of publicity, getting several families to suspect that their child might be the one in the photo. They might be ashamed to come forward, fearful of the backlash they would receive for giving families a false sense of hope.

The kids in the photo might not want to come forward for a variety of reasons, already discussed. But I just thought of another one: guilt and/or shame. Imagine if they realized that this picture set off a ton of publicity, getting several families to suspect that their child might be the one in the photo. They might be ashamed to come forward, fearful of the backlash they would receive for giving families a false sense of hope.

That's a very probable suggestion and exactly why I think they would, at the time at their ages at least, fear 'getting in trouble'. By now they may be completely unaware that it's still something that LE is looking into... If they care at all.

I was also thinking last night that it could have been a prank pulled on their parents. The kids could very well be siblings. I can easily imagine the scenario:
"Wouldn't it be funny to stage this photo and then leave it on the table when Mom and Dad get home? They'll freak!"
Heartless kind of a prank but kids sometimes don't completely understand how their actions may affects others. Also kids are known sometimes to exploit their parents feelings for them, threatening to hold their breath for something or whatever.

I agree. The lady goes inside to go shopping, comes back out and notices the photo. She remembers seeing a van parked outside, so instantly she makes the connection that it must have come from the van. It's not that much of a stretch to see how this lady was trying to make a connection to something, trying to be helpful to law enforcement.

I think that this is vital and I think that this threw the investigation way off from the beginning. If I were looking into this case when it happened I have to ask myself which scenario is more likely: Tara was the victim of a hit and run or that she was abducted and held against her will, driven 1500 (more? I think more) miles away, had her photo taken and the abductors carelessly decided to drop the incriminating photo out of their pocket right outside the vehicle where she's being held. This seems to be exceedingly unlikely.

Proof?

From
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/stranger-child-abductions-actually-very-rare-130514.htm

Only a tiny minority of kidnapped children are taken by strangers. Between 1990 and 1995 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children handled only 515 stranger abductions, 3.1 percent of its caseload. A 2000 report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs reported that more than 3/4 of kidnappings were committed by family members or acquaintances of the child. The study also found that children abducted by strangers were harmed less frequently than those taken by acquaintances.

I am willing to grant that the number of stranger abductions may have been higher 2 years before this NCMEC data but it wouldn't be the majority. So yes, most abductions are family members.

http://www.lindenhurststrangerdanger.com/?page_id=2

This site has a cool chart showing a decline in stranger abductions between 1990 and 1999. So even keeping with that trend that stranger abductions were more common in 1988 it would still be under 5% and actually more like 3% +/-. So yeah...

I also think it's important to keep in mind that we don't know this was an abduction. I don't believe it was and the authorities no longer believe that it was either. I'm not appealing to authority but I am pointing out that it appears to be unlikely that it was an abduction.


How would you know where the van was parked? Were you there?

No sir, I've spent exactly zero time in Port St. Joe in 1989. I am going off of the portion of the witness statement that made it to UM which we both know is not the entirety of the statement.

That is exactly my point: What do we know? We know that the witness stated that a van was there. A van is significantly different than the van. Witnesses have been wrong before. Again, Kerri Lynn Nixon. A witness swears that she met the girl in South Carolina. Same features, same name and from New York.
Was she wrong? She may have met a girl from New York with exactly the same name but we both know that human memory is not an HD recorder. We interpret what we see. Witnesses can be mistaken. In fact, in the KLN thread you said yourself:
"Eyewitness counts are far from accurate many times. Hard to know if people see what they think/want to see, or if they are just making it up to sound important."
I won't hold you to a statement you made 7 years ago but I agree with that statement.

It wasn't $70.00 twenty-five years ago. Yeah I do think it's unreasonable. Not impossible, but extremely rare. I've worked in the industry most of my adult life so I know a thing or two about it.

I disagree that it would be extremely rare and unreasonable for a family to sleep in their van on vacation. I can remember several times that my family slept in a vehicle during a vacation to save money on hotel rooms, even around the 1988 time frame. I think we had to once or twice because all the local hotels were booked up.

Also, this was June in Florida. The hotels may have indeed been booked up in an era before kayak.com. Prudent families knew to prepare for this.

On top of that, blankets are not an unusual thing to keep in a vehicle. I have an old Army wool blanket that I keep in my truck in case I do need to spend the night in my truck but also I have used it to lay on the ground when I needed to change a tire. Sure beats laying on the shoulder of the highway. If I looked inside a family panel van I would not think a few blankets or pillows would be so terribly out of place.

All things being equal and controlling for the variables as much as I can I think it is much more likely that she was indeed the victim of a hit and run accident. Homegirl rode her bike like 36 miles a day and listened to music while she did. I would be surprised if they had dedicated bike lanes in the area at the at the time. I could easily imagine a variety of ways in which she would be hit by a car or truck.
The killer(s) would then take the body and drive it out to the desert, and dump the bike. Really, if you took a bike to a landfill no one is going to ask questions. Even if they did you could just say 'Oh yeah, my daughter/little sister left it in the driveway and I backed over it. I told her...'. This is completely reasonable. The missing bike does not trouble me at all. This is not a titled car that has a unique VIN and requires a special method to dispose of.
The desert in that area is a massive place with watties and canyons. Seriously, that drive between Lordsberg and Deming on I-10 is brutal. That area has huge amounts of BML and tribal lands and national forests. A broken piece of a walkman window was found in a campground just inside the Cibola National Forest which would be the nearest NF from where she went missing. There is plenty of room. The 'yotes could have made short work of the body and scattered the remains. The fact that remains haven't been found does not surprise me in the least.

That is a false statement. The girl in the video did come forward and it wasn't Kerri Lynn. I talked about it another thread.

Ah, OK, I was not aware of this. Thanks very much!

I know of families who would sleep in the back of vans/suburbans/pick-ups with caps on the great DisneyWorld road trip back then. Usually the kids would sleep at night while a parent drove, they'd stop at some crappy tourist trap like South of the Border for the kids to run around like idiots and the driver would sleep in the car. I even know people who would toss a mattress in the back of a capped pick-up, toss in some blankets and pillows and pile an insanely illegal (nowadays) mess of kids in the back for the ride.

I know of families who would sleep in the back of vans/suburbans/pick-ups with caps on the great DisneyWorld road trip back then. Usually the kids would sleep at night while a parent drove, they'd stop at some crappy tourist trap like South of the Border for the kids to run around like idiots and the driver would sleep in the car. I even know people who would toss a mattress in the back of a capped pick-up, toss in some blankets and pillows and pile an insanely illegal (nowadays) mess of kids in the back for the ride.

OT:

South of the Border is extremely cringe-worthy on multiple levels.

This recent discussion made me remember a trip my family took when I was in my early teens. We rented a van (though, not the oft-maligned "child molester" type) and drove from our home in Florida to Washington DC, then to Minnesota and back to Florida. That was one long trip. Although we did not sleep overnight in the van, I know I sure as Hell did sleep while my parents were driving during the day because...there wasn't anything else to do. In anticipation of this, we did have extra blankets and pillows that we kept in the van in the event one of us did want to doze off.

Ergo, assuming the photo is a hoax, I can see perfectly legitimate reasons for the sheets and blankets being there, and for reasons that do not completely preclude the possibility of staying in hotels/motels.

One question I do have (okay, maybe two)....

to those who think this photo is real and that these are actual child abduction victims....

what do you think the purpose of taking the photo was? Along those lines, was its being left there intentional?

OT:

South of the Border is extremely cringe-worthy on multiple levels.

I have made the trek through this area many times from Florida to the Carolinas and back. I have seen all the advertising and the hype and the hundreds of ridiculous billboards they have every few miles. In spite of this, I have never once had a desire to visit this place.

OT:

South of the Border is extremely cringe-worthy on multiple levels.

for a minute there, I thought you were talking about Taco Bell :lol: Didn't "South of the Border" used to be their nickname?

what do you think the purpose of taking the photo was? Along those lines, was its being left there intentional?

As sickening as this sounds, one possibility was that he intended to send the picture to their parents as a way of taunting them. (as in like the Nyleen Kay Marshall segment and other ones that had something similar to this). In that case, it wouldn't be intentional. Interestingly, in addition to that, it would suggest someone that traveled alot. If he was from Port Joe, for example, he surely wouldn't mail it from there.

I have made the trek through this area many times from Florida to the Carolinas and back. I have seen all the advertising and the hype and the hundreds of ridiculous billboards they have every few miles. In spite of this, I have never once had a desire to visit this place.

I stopped at South of the Border last fall on a drive back from North Carolina to Miami after a Canes football game in Chapel Hill. Needed a break from the highway so I parked briefly and took the overhead walkway from one side of the street to the other. The place was nearly barren, which has been the case every time I've stopped there in recent decades. I don't know how they keep it going.

Overall it's not bad. The steakhouse is actually pretty good. I've stayed at the campground a couple of times. Once I made it an overnight destination.

The place I've never visited is Ron Jon Surf Shop. Drive through Florida and you're bombarded with their billboards from every direction and distance. The babes on their billboard aren't bad but nothing as memorable as, "Pedro's Weather Report: Chili today, hot tomale!" :lol:

for a minute there, I thought you were talking about Taco Bell :lol: Didn't "South of the Border" used to be their nickname?

I think it was like "Run to the border" or something like that. And it used that bell sound a that sounded pretty much exactly like that which was used in the music in the Bicycle Bandit segment. :lol: For all we know, that could'very been where he was puffing off to next.

Overall, SOTB is a godawful, tacky place. You really have to see it to believe it.

I had no idea what you guys were talking about. I thought it was some kind of low rent strip club or something. lol

Then I looked them up.

C'mon guys, those authentic Mexican sombreros made in China are pretty darn awesome! Check 'em out on IG:


http://instagram.com/p/jFLdAjxooF/

I had no idea what you guys were talking about. I thought it was some kind of low rent strip club or something. lol

Then I looked them up.

C'mon guys, those authentic Mexican sombreros made in China are pretty darn awesome! Check 'em out on IG:


http://instagram.com/p/jFLdAjxooF/


Don't worry, last time I was there, there was in fact a low rent strip club on the premises. Strippers, fireworks and ethnic stereotype crap souvenirs. Fun for the whole family!

For Michael Henley. I encourage you to look up David Paulides. He wrote a book on people who have disappeared in plain view in national parks across North America, but primarily in the U.S. Most of these missing person cases are still unsolved and are very chilling. Some of his work can be seen (or heard, they're recorded podcasts) on the forbidden site. Henley's case is a perfect example of some of the more notable cases featured in Paulides's book.

Person disappears in plain view in a national park. There is a massive search for the missing person for no more than 10 days. National Park services quit the search. Case gets put in a file. No one sees the file. Paulides has found thousands of cases that fit this scenario and in some cases has been stonewalled by the National Park Services into seeing the files. Some going back to the early 80's. Even under FOIA he's been stonewalled into not getting the missing persons case files and has even had some files redacted.

Ive totally read about his cases or actually listened to several of his podcasts. Creepy stuff!! I think its interesting to note that 6-7 miles for a kid is quite a long distance. I wonder what the terrain was like. According to Paulides, these kids are found so far away, and up terrain that would be nearly impossible.

I think that this is vital and I think that this threw the investigation way off from the beginning. If I were looking into this case when it happened I have to ask myself which scenario is more likely: Tara was the victim of a hit and run or that she was abducted and held against her will, driven 1500 (more? I think more) miles away, had her photo taken and the abductors carelessly decided to drop the incriminating photo out of their pocket right outside the vehicle where she's being held. This seems to be exceedingly unlikely.

If people actually think the van the witness saw was the same one the boy and girl were photographed in, why in the hell would the "abductor" take his abducted kids out for a ride in public? It makes no sense. And then to just drop his photo off on the ground serves absolutely no purpose. There was no note, there was no type of "message", so what was the point?

Ive totally read about his cases or actually listened to several of his podcasts. Creepy stuff!! I think its interesting to note that 6-7 miles for a kid is quite a long distance. I wonder what the terrain was like. According to Paulides, these kids are found so far away, and up terrain that would be nearly impossible.

That is a long distance but also remember that the cold and hunger drove him as well. Folks that have been lost have said that they felt driven, almost like they were being chased to become 'unlost'. This was also the last walk he would ever make and his life depended on it. If the boy thought his family and safety were up over the next ridge or hill he'd walk it and terrain or distance be damned.

That is a long distance but also remember that the cold and hunger drove him as well. Folks that have been lost have said that they felt driven, almost like they were being chased to become 'unlost'. This was also the last walk he would ever make and his life depended on it. If the boy thought his family and safety were up over the next ridge or hill he'd walk it and terrain or distance be damned.

Very true, I would have loved to found out how his feet looked, was he still clothes, were clothes nearby, what terrain he went through. Some amazing stuff. I couldn't find any info on his remains.

Very true, I would have loved to found out how his feet looked, was he still clothes, were clothes nearby, what terrain he went through. Some amazing stuff. I couldn't find any info on his remains.

Henley's remains had deteriorated so much they weren't able to determine a cause of death. I don't think they were able to determine much of anything from his remains.

As sickening as this sounds, one possibility was that he intended to send the picture to their parents as a way of taunting them. (as in like the Nyleen Kay Marshall segment and other ones that had something similar to this). In that case, it wouldn't be intentional. Interestingly, in addition to that, it would suggest someone that traveled alot. If he was from Port Joe, for example, he surely wouldn't mail it from there.


Hold the phone... That letter and the phone calls were proven to be linked to Nyleen Kay Marshall? Last I heard most LE disregard them as a sick joke/hoax.

Hold the phone... That letter and the phone calls were proven to be linked to Nyleen Kay Marshall? Last I heard most LE disregard them as a sick joke/hoax.

I don't know where you heard the police disregarded it as a hoax. Stack said the writer had details of the case that weren't known to the public. I don't know if they were conclusively proven to be legit, but I believe they were based on that.

Hmm... Not sure where I heard that myself. I thought that I had read that somewhere. However, I found a news story a few months ago that complete omits any mention of them:
http://www.kxlh.com/news/cold-case-nyleen-marshall/

Once again, it's far more likely to me that the girl wandered away and got lost. The story of being taken and whisked around the world seems far less plausible. Like Micheal Henley.

Hmm... Not sure where I heard that myself. I thought that I had read that somewhere. However, I found a news story a few months ago that complete omits any mention of them:
http://www.kxlh.com/news/cold-case-nyleen-marshall/

Once again, it's far more likely to me that the girl wandered away and got lost. The story of being taken and whisked around the world seems far less plausible. Like Micheal Henley.

Thanks for the link. It confirmed a few things that I have read here and elsewhere, such as the step father being a person of interest. However, these things were stated by LE in the article. Always nice to have corroboration from an official source, in any event.

Regarding the letter, I'm torn. While I agree that an accident seems to be the most likely explanation for Nyleen's disappearance, the fact that LE mentioned the letters at all gives them some credibility. I'm sure that a case like this generates all sorts of bogus leads, yet LE and UM took the time to "go the distance" with this one, so to speak.

The most revealing clue about this picture, IMO, is that not a SINGLE parent in the US (apart from the Calicos and the Henleys) has claimed that either of these two kids is theirs. This photo was shown not only on Unsolved Mysteries, but also on America’s Most Wanted, The Oprah Winfrey Show and 48 Hours. I don’t buy that these parents didn’t recognize their children because of the tape over their mouths, JMO. I think there are two possibilities:
-1 It were the parents of these children who took this picture. I can still vividly remember the case of Austrian Elisabeth Fritzl who was held captive by her father Josef for 24 years (from her 18th to her 42nd). In this time period, Josef fathered seven children with his daughter. Four of these children were held captive just like their mother, and didn’t see the outside world until April of 2008. The children in the picture could have suffered a similar fate. However, I think it’s unlikely that a parent would take a picture of them like that and then throw it away in a public place.
-2 The children in this picture were not Americans. I think this is the likeliest possibility. The photo never made international headlines back in 1989 (correct me if I’m wrong). So it’s not strange that no parent has identified his/her child in the photograph. My guess is that these were tourists from a Commonwealth country (they are Caucasian with a tanned complexion, and the girl has a book in the English language next to her), like Australia, New Zealand or perhaps even South Africa. The parents were quite well-off, since they were apparently able to buy the latest Polaroid camera and perhaps they visited an Egghead Software store as well, where they bought the girl’s tee. The squirt gun and the possible tennis shorts also point to them being tourists. I think that they were at a rest stop somewhere, the parents made a short walk and the kids were playing some sort of a game. One of the kids made the infamous photograph, hid it from the parents, and when they were on the last day in the States, placed it on the parking lot of the convenience store in Port St. Joe.
I honestly don’t know how a second Polaroid photo (apparently from the same girl) showed up over 2000 miles away in Montecito, California. This photo was never shown to the public.
What do you think about this theory?

Possible. Surprising the second & third photos have never been released-it isn't like it has been a hot case after the initial interest.

-2 The children in this picture were not Americans. I think this is the likeliest possibility. The photo never made international headlines back in 1989 (correct me if I’m wrong). So it’s not strange that no parent has identified his/her child in the photograph. My guess is that these were tourists from a Commonwealth country (they are Caucasian with a tanned complexion, and the girl has a book in the English language next to her), like Australia, New Zealand or perhaps even South Africa. The parents were quite well-off, since they were apparently able to buy the latest Polaroid camera and perhaps they visited an Egghead Software store as well, where they bought the girl’s tee. The squirt gun and the possible tennis shorts also point to them being tourists. I think that they were at a rest stop somewhere, the parents made a short walk and the kids were playing some sort of a game. One of the kids made the infamous photograph, hid it from the parents, and when they were on the last day in the States, placed it on the parking lot of the convenience store in Port St. Joe.
I honestly don’t know how a second Polaroid photo (apparently from the same girl) showed up over 2000 miles away in Montecito, California. This photo was never shown to the public.
What do you think about this theory?

I mentioned that theory a while back, that they were from another country, and think it's a high possibility.

-2 The children in this picture were not Americans. I think this is the likeliest possibility. The photo never made international headlines back in 1989 (correct me if I’m wrong). So it’s not strange that no parent has identified his/her child in the photograph. My guess is that these were tourists from a Commonwealth country (they are Caucasian with a tanned complexion, and the girl has a book in the English language next to her), like Australia, New Zealand or perhaps even South Africa. The parents were quite well-off, since they were apparently able to buy the latest Polaroid camera and perhaps they visited an Egghead Software store as well, where they bought the girl’s tee. The squirt gun and the possible tennis shorts also point to them being tourists. I think that they were at a rest stop somewhere, the parents made a short walk and the kids were playing some sort of a game. One of the kids made the infamous photograph, hid it from the parents, and when they were on the last day in the States, placed it on the parking lot of the convenience store in Port St. Joe.

Whether the photo is "real" (i.e., abducted or abused children) or a hoax (i.e., kids playing a tie-up game), I always thought it was possible they weren't American. And really, since we're talking about the whole world, it not surprising that no one has ever conclusively identified them.

I honestly don’t know how a second Polaroid photo (apparently from the same girl) showed up over 2000 miles away in Montecito, California. This photo was never shown to the public.

There were actually several "Tara Calico" Polaroid snapshots found after the initial van photo. It's just that those three - the van shot, the closeup shot from Montecito, and the Amtrak photo were the most "credible."

Personally, I think that publicity over the van photo prompted a lot of pranksters to manufacture and "drop" similar photos. That could explain why so many were found, including the photo in Montecito. It is possible that the girl in the Montecito picture just happened to resemble Tara Calico.

On the other hand, assuming your prank scenario is correct, perhaps the kids behind the van photo took multiple pictures, and dropped them at various locations (including Montecito). This could work if they were tourists from a foreign country traveling and visiting various US locales.

There were actually several "Tara Calico" Polaroid snapshots found after the initial van photo. It's just that those three - the van shot, the closeup shot from Montecito, and the Amtrak photo were the most "credible."

Personally, I think that publicity over the van photo prompted a lot of pranksters to manufacture and "drop" similar photos. That could explain why so many were found, including the photo in Montecito. It is possible that the girl in the Montecito picture just happened to resemble Tara Calico.

On the other hand, assuming your prank scenario is correct, perhaps the kids behind the van photo took multiple pictures, and dropped them at various locations (including Montecito). This could work if they were tourists from a foreign country traveling and visiting various US locales.

That's interesting, I never knew there were more than 3 photos found.

Does anybody know if these pictures were found primarily in the summer months?

There were actually several "Tara Calico" Polaroid snapshots found after the initial van photo. It's just that those three - the van shot, the closeup shot from Montecito, and the Amtrak photo were the most "credible."

Personally, I think that publicity over the van photo prompted a lot of pranksters to manufacture and "drop" similar photos. That could explain why so many were found, including the photo in Montecito. It is possible that the girl in the Montecito picture just happened to resemble Tara Calico.

On the other hand, assuming your prank scenario is correct, perhaps the kids behind the van photo took multiple pictures, and dropped them at various locations (including Montecito). This could work if they were tourists from a foreign country traveling and visiting various US locales.

IIRC, the mother of Tara Calico said that she believed that the Amstrak photo was a cruel prank. It would be possible that the tourist family visited multiple places, although I'm surprised about the locations where the first two photos were found. Neither Port St. Joe nor Montecito are big cities, both have fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Montecito is, according to Forbes, on of the richest communities in the USA. Perhaps they visited a family member in Montecito, before they headed for Florida for a road trip? It's pure speculation of course.
I didn't know of any other photos, but I guess that the people who made these were just some copycats, if that's the right word for it ;)

Interesting footnote, btw, is that in the UM segment, you can see a woman pull up at a convenience store called 'Handy Andy Quick Shop', where she found the photograph. This store is actually not in Port St. Joe, Florida, but in Grants, New Mexico. In the segment, you can see that the lady's car passes a car salesman, which is indeed next to Handy Andy Quick Shop. Unsolved Mysteries was in New Mexico to shoot the Calico/Henley segment, so they apparently decided to just film an actress going to a local convenience store, rather than going all the way to Port St. Joe, which is quite understandable.

That's interesting, I never knew there were more than 3 photos found.

Does anybody know if these pictures were found primarily in the summer months?

Yes, I read in an article (back when I had access to Newsbank) that stated there were dozens of "Tara Calico" photos, including one showing her being buried alive, but most were obvious hoaxes. All of them came out of the woodwork after the van photo was publicized nationally which would lead me to believe some people were "inspired" to create prank photos and either leave them in public places or mail them to the police. Unfortunately, I don't recall when these photos were recovered. If I come across the article again I'll post it here.

I haven't read this whole thread...watching this on UM now and the picture was found faced down...unless that was said wrong on UM?

Edit: I found where this was already posted. Disregard, unless you want to read the blog mention, 'Real Life is Horror.'

http://reallifeishorror.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-really-happened-to-tara-calico.html

Deputy Methola said he made contact with Mr. Brown at his residence and Mr. Brown explained that he was dying and wanted to get this off of his chest. Deputy Methola utilized his department issued tape recorder for the interview.

Mr. Brown explained that around the time of Tara Calico's disappearance, Lawrence Romero Jr. lived in a trailer home and his father had a rental property just down the street from him. Mr. Brown explained that they had made a make shift basement under the trailer home where they would party and smoke marijuana. Dave Silva and another friend that was tall and had red hair would come to the home that Lawrence Romero, Jr., lived in and Mr. Brown would join them to party in the basement.

Mr Brown said on one occasion they were all there drinking margaritas and making fajitas. He was in the basement with them and he had a weird feeling, so he looked down and noticed in "a grave wrapped up in a blue tarp" of what he believed was a small body. He said they started talking about Tara Calico, they were searching for and then they began talking about how they raped and killed her.

Mr. Brown said he knew the kids because he had worked at the school and he knew these kids smoked weed and skipped school. Mr. Brown said one of them used to be her girlfriend and one of them was jealous. They started talking about another friend that had been with them named Leroy Chavez. They started talking about what they had done and also warned him not to talk about it or they would come and get him.

They said they were driving one of the guy's older truck that day, they all knew Jeff Abeyta and Tara had broken up and they all knew she rode her bike down the highway routinely.

They explained they hit her with the truck and then put her in the back of the truck with Leroy Chavez and then took her out to the gravel pits where they sodomized and raped her.

Lawrence Romero Jr. said "She got ballsy," stood up and said she was going to make sure they were all going to jail. Lawrence Romero Jr. went and got a knife from the truck and David, Leroy and the tall red haired guy held her down while Lawrence Romero Jr. stabbed and killed her. He said they drug her body and put her in a bush nearby until they got nervous when the search started for her.

Edit: I found where this was already posted. Disregard, unless you want to read the blog mention, 'Real Life is Horror.'

http://reallifeishorror.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-really-happened-to-tara-calico.html

Deputy Methola said he made contact with Mr. Brown at his residence and Mr. Brown explained that he was dying and wanted to get this off of his chest. Deputy Methola utilized his department issued tape recorder for the interview.

Mr. Brown explained that around the time of Tara Calico's disappearance, Lawrence Romero Jr. lived in a trailer home and his father had a rental property just down the street from him. Mr. Brown explained that they had made a make shift basement under the trailer home where they would party and smoke marijuana. Dave Silva and another friend that was tall and had red hair would come to the home that Lawrence Romero, Jr., lived in and Mr. Brown would join them to party in the basement.

Mr Brown said on one occasion they were all there drinking margaritas and making fajitas. He was in the basement with them and he had a weird feeling, so he looked down and noticed in "a grave wrapped up in a blue tarp" of what he believed was a small body. He said they started talking about Tara Calico, they were searching for and then they began talking about how they raped and killed her.

Mr. Brown said he knew the kids because he had worked at the school and he knew these kids smoked weed and skipped school. Mr. Brown said one of them used to be her girlfriend and one of them was jealous. They started talking about another friend that had been with them named Leroy Chavez. They started talking about what they had done and also warned him not to talk about it or they would come and get him.

They said they were driving one of the guy's older truck that day, they all knew Jeff Abeyta and Tara had broken up and they all knew she rode her bike down the highway routinely.

They explained they hit her with the truck and then put her in the back of the truck with Leroy Chavez and then took her out to the gravel pits where they sodomized and raped her.

Lawrence Romero Jr. said "She got ballsy," stood up and said she was going to make sure they were all going to jail. Lawrence Romero Jr. went and got a knife from the truck and David, Leroy and the tall red haired guy held her down while Lawrence Romero Jr. stabbed and killed her. He said they drug her body and put her in a bush nearby until they got nervous when the search started for her.


Dang. I prefer the theory that she got killed because a car hit her bike...

The fact that not only does this episode not appear on Amazon and it wasn't in the Farina reboot either makes me believe no one involved (investigators, family) believe that photo is Tara Callico anymore

The fact that not only does this episode not appear on Amazon and it wasn't in the Farina reboot either makes me believe no one involved (investigators, family) believe that photomis Tara Callico anymore

It is amazing that anybody in LE ever did.

It is amazing that anybody in LE ever did.

I believe Tara's mom is the one that came forward and said it was her. I feel for her but it looks like it wasn't her

I believe Tara's mom is the one that came forward and said it was her. I feel for her but it looks like it wasn't her

Other parents of missing females believed it was their kid as well. The girl is patently not 19 years old & her face doesn't match either. Parents it is understandable, but law enforcement not at all. Then again the answer to the case might be a child of the sheriff, so he was probably happy with the diversion.

For Michael Henley. I encourage you to look up David Paulides. He wrote a book on people who have disappeared in plain view in national parks across North America, but primarily in the U.S. Most of these missing person cases are still unsolved and are very chilling. Some of his work can be seen (or heard, they're recorded podcasts) on the forbidden site. Henley's case is a perfect example of some of the more notable cases featured in Paulides's book.

Person disappears in plain view in a national park. There is a massive search for the missing person for no more than 10 days. National Park services quit the search. Case gets put in a file. No one sees the file. Paulides has found thousands of cases that fit this scenario and in some cases has been stonewalled by the National Park Services into seeing the files. Some going back to the early 80's. Even under FOIA he's been stonewalled into not getting the missing persons case files and has even had some files redacted.

there are some really strange disappearances in national parks, a child was found on top of a high mound in a swampy place, really hard for the searchers to get there and they were all wet..the child was clean and dry,,, as if someone or something carried him and placed him there.

bodies found on or right next to the trail that searchers went up and down numerous times

Originally Posted by elg0rd0
For Michael Henley. I encourage you to look up David Paulides. He wrote a book on people who have disappeared in plain view in national parks across North America, but primarily in the U.S. Most of these missing person cases are still unsolved and are very chilling. Some of his work can be seen (or heard, they're recorded podcasts) on the forbidden site. Henley's case is a perfect example of some of the more notable cases featured in Paulides's book.

Person disappears in plain view in a national park. There is a massive search for the missing person for no more than 10 days. National Park services quit the search. Case gets put in a file. No one sees the file. Paulides has found thousands of cases that fit this scenario and in some cases has been stonewalled by the National Park Services into seeing the files. Some going back to the early 80's. Even under FOIA he's been stonewalled into not getting the missing persons case files and has even had some files redacted.

there are some really strange disappearances in national parks, a child was found on top of a high mound in a swampy place, really hard for the searchers to get there and they were all wet..the child was clean and dry,,, as if someone or something carried him and placed him there.

bodies found on or right next to the trail that searchers went up and down numerous times

What is the deal with that guy? From what I gather he seems to propose that the most likely scenario is that Bigfoot are real & are abducting/killing people. Also believe he got fired from the force for perpetrating a scam. That others who have examined these cases don't see the patterns he does.

The photos are disturbing whether it's Tara or not. The question is, were the girl and boy in danger or was it a tasteless hoax/prank?? That's what gets me.

The photos are disturbing whether it's Tara or not. The question is, were the girl and boy in danger or was it a tasteless hoax/prank?? That's what gets me.

Impossible to tell, they haven't been matched to any missing kids in 28 years so chances are it was a hoax. Marilyn Manson said he used to dump similar photos at random places in Florida as a teen, so perhaps it was something that was done by pranksters back then.

Amtrak photo:

https://i.lensdump.com/i/tCsm2.jpg


2nd alleged Tara Calico polaroid:


https://i.lensdump.com/i/tCmI9.jpg

Amtrak photo:

https://i.lensdump.com/i/tCsm2.jpg


2nd alleged Tara Calico polaroid:


https://i.lensdump.com/i/tCmI9.jpg

Where are these from?

Where are these from?

I found them from a reddit thread about the case. Not sure where they were originally from.

Police have not taken those photos seriously since the boy some thought resembled a missing child was found in the Arizona wilderness in 1990, having died from exposure. It has been said that Taro Calico was murdered on the date she had disappeared. Some local boys were harassing her in a truck, while she was cycling, but got too close, and seriously injured or killed her by accident when the truck hit the bike.

The boys panicked, and and dumped her body at an unknown location. All that remained at the scene was a cassette tape. The investigator is certain he knows who is responsible for Calico's death, but does not have enough of a case to make a conviction.

Tara Calico is known by most people as a possible match for a tied-up girl in a Polaroid left in a parking lot in the 80s. She went missing on Sept 20, 1988, last seen taking a bike ride along a state road. Pieces of her Walkman and a cassette tape were found on her usual route. /u/kittykatinthehat made a case write-up here.

What most people overlook are the case docs in the public record. I'm attempting to summarize them here and separate the wheat from the chaff since it's a lot of content and 'this person said this thing in an interview'.

Dying man Henry Brown requested an interview with Deputy Frank Methola that is detailed in the case docs (date not included, but I assume it had been many years after her disappearance). Brown stated that he hung out with some troublemaking teens, one of them Lawrence Romero Jr., son of the Sheriff Lawrence Romero Sr. LR Jr. dealt drugs and was also interested in Tara but she was dating another guy, Jeff Abeyta, who also happened to sell drugs.

Brown was partying with LR Jr. and his buddies at LR Jr.'s trailer, specifically the makeshift basement under it. Part of the party talk included LR Jr. and friends talking about how they hit Tara with their truck, then raped and killed her. They hid her body in bushes, and when the search intensified, moved her under a tarp in the makeshift basement and then later to a pond. A man named Donald Dutcher also came forward in late 2013 to say one of the suspects confessed to him.

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!).

tl;dr Most likely scenario: Tara was deliberately run over by some druggies, one of whom was the Sheriff's son, and all the suspects are deceased so no confessions will be forthcoming, although there is a rumoured suicide note that was covered up by the Deputy Sheriff.

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

Tara Calico is known by most people as a possible match for a tied-up girl in a Polaroid left in a parking lot in the 80s. She went missing on Sept 20, 1988, last seen taking a bike ride along a state road. Pieces of her Walkman and a cassette tape were found on her usual route. /u/kittykatinthehat made a case write-up here.

What most people overlook are the case docs in the public record. I'm attempting to summarize them here and separate the wheat from the chaff since it's a lot of content and 'this person said this thing in an interview'.

Dying man Henry Brown requested an interview with Deputy Frank Methola that is detailed in the case docs (date not included, but I assume it had been many years after her disappearance). Brown stated that he hung out with some troublemaking teens, one of them Lawrence Romero Jr., son of the Sheriff Lawrence Romero Sr. LR Jr. dealt drugs and was also interested in Tara but she was dating another guy, Jeff Abeyta, who also happened to sell drugs.

Brown was partying with LR Jr. and his buddies at LR Jr.'s trailer, specifically the makeshift basement under it. Part of the party talk included LR Jr. and friends talking about how they hit Tara with their truck, then raped and killed her. They hid her body in bushes, and when the search intensified, moved her under a tarp in the makeshift basement and then later to a pond. A man named Donald Dutcher also came forward in late 2013 to say one of the suspects confessed to him.

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!).

tl;dr Most likely scenario: Tara was deliberately run over by some druggies, one of whom was the Sheriff's son, and all the suspects are deceased so no confessions will be forthcoming, although there is a rumoured suicide note that was covered up by the Deputy Sheriff.

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

Amtrak photo:

https://i.lensdump.com/i/tCsm2.jpg


2nd alleged Tara Calico polaroid:


https://i.lensdump.com/i/tCmI9.jpg

A woman bound up with toilet paper in public and what looks like a polaroid selfie. Excellent clues.

A woman bound up with toilet paper in public and what looks like a polaroid selfie. Excellent clues.

Hey, that Cushelle is really strong. It is bad enough anybody thought that the first photo was Tara when it is patently somebody much younger with a totally different facial shape, but how did the other photos ever get taken seriously by the police?

Dale Kersetter's video and now Tara's "other" photos being online.... What other UM "white whales" will be hunted down next!?

Tara Calico is known by most people as a possible match for a tied-up girl in a Polaroid left in a parking lot in the 80s. She went missing on Sept 20, 1988, last seen taking a bike ride along a state road. Pieces of her Walkman and a cassette tape were found on her usual route. /u/kittykatinthehat made a case write-up here.

What most people overlook are the case docs in the public record. I'm attempting to summarize them here and separate the wheat from the chaff since it's a lot of content and 'this person said this thing in an interview'.

Dying man Henry Brown requested an interview with Deputy Frank Methola that is detailed in the case docs (date not included, but I assume it had been many years after her disappearance). Brown stated that he hung out with some troublemaking teens, one of them Lawrence Romero Jr., son of the Sheriff Lawrence Romero Sr. LR Jr. dealt drugs and was also interested in Tara but she was dating another guy, Jeff Abeyta, who also happened to sell drugs.

Brown was partying with LR Jr. and his buddies at LR Jr.'s trailer, specifically the makeshift basement under it. Part of the party talk included LR Jr. and friends talking about how they hit Tara with their truck, then raped and killed her. They hid her body in bushes, and when the search intensified, moved her under a tarp in the makeshift basement and then later to a pond. A man named Donald Dutcher also came forward in late 2013 to say one of the suspects confessed to him.

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!).

tl;dr Most likely scenario: Tara was deliberately run over by some druggies, one of whom was the Sheriff's son, and all the suspects are deceased so no confessions will be forthcoming, although there is a rumoured suicide note that was covered up by the Deputy Sheriff.

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

Ugh. I knew Lawrence Romero Jr. was dead but I didn't know the other three were dead as well.

After listening to a couple of Melinda's Esquibel podcasts, I learned that all of Tara's friends from high school have known for decades that those four boys were involved in killing her. Pretty much all of Belen feels the same way. The question of what happened to her and who is responsible is long past being a mystery. The only question left is where her remains are buried.

It is a real tragedy. Tara was a very intelligent, sweet and amazing person with a good head on her shoulders, poised for a very successful life in whatever path she would have chosen. It's such a shame that all of that was wiped out by a bunch of druggie loser, high school kids who were playing hooky from school, who would go on to add NOTHING to society.

https://i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk/incoming/article24653181.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/1_Mysterious-Polaroid-Picture-The-Disappearance-of-Tara-Calico.jpg

I've never noticed this before until today, but look at the piece of tape lying in front of the boy. Wouldn't it make sense that, if this were indeed a joke amongst siblings, the person taking the photo had this piece on him and removed it to take the photo of his two siblings?

ETA: I came across this (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/vpphme/tara_calico_unsolved_mystery_and_discovery_of/if0jvug/) post on reddit, which says that on the Tara Calico podcast (https://www.patreon.com/VANISHEDPod), there was an episode with one of the former detectives, and it is claimed that they found the girl in the photo and found her working at a flea market in Florida. Why this information has never been publicized is odd to me. Unfortunately, I cannot find a working link of this episode anywhere because it looks like the host has scrubbed them from every platform and you can only access them on the patreon.

https://i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk/incoming/article24653181.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/1_Mysterious-Polaroid-Picture-The-Disappearance-of-Tara-Calico.jpg

I've never noticed this before until today, but look at the piece of tape lying in front of the boy. Wouldn't it make sense that, if this were indeed a joke amongst siblings, the person taking the photo had this piece on him and removed it to take the photo of his two siblings?

ETA: I came across this (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/vpphme/tara_calico_unsolved_mystery_and_discovery_of/if0jvug/) post on reddit, which says that on the Tara Calico podcast (https://www.patreon.com/VANISHEDPod), there was an episode with one of the former detectives, and it is claimed that they found the girl in the photo and found her working at a flea market in Florida. Why this information has never been publicized is odd to me. Unfortunately, I cannot find a working link of this episode anywhere because it looks like the host has scrubbed them from every platform and you can only access them on the patreon.

Interesting, similarly on a podcast about Amy Bradley the hosts claimed that they knew a porn producer & the Jas photos was just a model that had at some point done try-out photos for him. Never heard that anywhere since & they didn't elaborate any further.

In this case it seems likely as the FBI website does not mention the photo at all. How it ever came to be said to be her boggles the mind, this girl looks nothing like her-much younger & different shaped face & another reason why I am always dubious about labs saying it is definitely somebody-in this case I believe one lab said it was her, another said it wasn't & a third sat on the fence.

The facial recognition technology being trialed/used nowadays to spot criminals over three decades later is incredibly flawed & have led to many people being arrested & charged with crimes they didn't commit. You can only imagine what they were using in the late 1980's/early 1990's.

Interesting, similarly on a podcast about Amy Bradley the hosts claimed that they knew a porn producer & the Jas photos was just a model that had at some point done try-out photos for him. Never heard that anywhere since & they didn't elaborate any further.

Yeah the way it was described to me was that the host of the podcast brought up the polaroid in the first 5 minutes and the detective immediately shut it down and this is how it was described to me:

I can tell you that that girl, in that van...That one in the van with the young kid? That was not Tara Calico. Uh, it's a girl that we went and looked up, and we went down to Florida...and she was spotted at a flea market selling alligators, you know. Stuffed alligators.

The host did nothing to follow up and the detective died shortly after he was interviewed. Whether or not they actually located this girl, or if they located several people who positively identified her, we'll likely never know.

So I broke down and subscribed to that Patreon so I could hear it for myself. Tony Scazzero was the Undersheriff to Sheriff Anthony Ortega, who was the Sheriff who came into office after Lawrence Romero. Keep in mind that it has long been rumored that Lawrence Romero's son was involved in the death of Tara Calico. The interview was conducted by investigator Don Dongess who was the current (at the time of the interview) detective assigned to Tara's case. Here is a transcript, verbatim, of what he said:

Dongess:
I'm starting from square one, and talking to some of the people that were involved in this whole thing. What can you tell me sir?

Scazzero:
What can I tell you? I can tell you that that girl, in that van...

Dongess:
What girl was that sir?

Scazzero:
That one in the van with the kid, the young kid.

Dongess:
Uh-huh.

Scazzero:
It's a girl that we went and looked up. There was a tip that we had from somebody in Florida. And we went down to Florida and looked her up. She was spotted at a flea market selling alligators. Stuffed alligators.

Dongess:
Uh-huh.

At this point Tony Scazzero asks who the man is with Dongess, and is introduced to his partner. He then goes on to say that that's all he has, besides what Rene Rivera had already said publicly. The detectives never go back to the polaroid, which makes me believe that they too have already ruled out the photo and identified the girl.

So I broke down and subscribed to that Patreon so I could hear it for myself. Tony Scazzero was the Undersheriff to Sheriff Anthony Ortega, who was the Sheriff who came into office after Lawrence Romero. Keep in mind that it has long been rumored that Lawrence Romero's son was involved in the death of Tara Calico. The interview was conducted by an investigator Don Dongess who was the current (at the time of the interview) detective assigned to Tara's case. Here is a transcript, verbatim, of what he said:

Dongess:
I'm starting from square one, and talking to some of the people that were involved in this whole thing. What can you tell me sir?

Scazzero:
What can I tell you? I can tell you that-that girl, in that van...

Dongess:
What girl was that sir?

Scazzero:
That one in the van with the kid, the young kid.

Dongess:
Uh-huh.

Scazzero:
It's a girl that we went and looked up. There was a tip that we had from somebody in Florida. And we went down to Florida and looked her up. She was spotted at a flea market selling alligators. Stuffed alligators.

Dongess:
Uh-huh.

At this point Tony Scazzero asks who the man is with Dongess, and is introduced to his partner. He then goes on to say that that's all he can has, besides what Rene Rivera had already said publicly. The detectives never go back to the polaroid, which makes me believe that they too have already ruled out the photo and identified the girl.

Really irritating, because she & the boy next to her are still listed as a missing & endangered on the missing persons websites & still being linked to Calico. Do they & law enforcement have little to no contact?

Really irritating, because she & the boy next to her are still listed as a missing & endangered on the missing persons websites & still being linked to Calico. Do they & law enforcement have little to no contact?

I think there was probably a lack of communication between the departments honestly.

lots of people are listed on missing persons websites who aren't truly missing. Sally Lou Ritz (of Judge Crater fame) is still listed on the Doenetwork and she was never even missing.

Michael Henley was in the photo his parents confirmed it on UM IMO this segment is buried on purpose bc they believe it spreads false information, that could not be more wrong. Henleys mother was correct it was her son. His remains were IMO obviously dug up and Strategically placed in the area he went missing btw in a spot throughly searched 50 times over by some of the most Sophisticated search and recovery teams I've already used in America.

Once you realize that the "white whale" here is MICHAEL HENLEY, you will get a lot closer to the truth of what Tara's fate was. Michael henleys mother CONFIRMED it was her son in the picture, that for me is more profound than ANYTHING the fbi or scottland yard has to say. Michael henleys remains were IMO obviously dug up and Strategically placed in the area he went missing btw in a spot throughly searched times over by some of the most professional search and rescue teams. Michael (God bless his soul) IS the decoy here.People generally find out that "henly was found so it's not him in the st.joe Polaroid and next people write off that "well, it's proven that its not Henley so it's probably not Tara either.

His remains were IMO obviously dug up and Strategically placed in the area he went missing

Definitely possible.

Michael Henley was in the photo his parents confirmed it on UM IMO this segment is buried on purpose bc they believe it spreads false information, that could not be more wrong. Henleys mother was correct it was her son. His remains were IMO obviously dug up and Strategically placed in the area he went missing btw in a spot throughly searched 50 times over by some of the most Sophisticated search and recovery teams I've already used in America.

And what exactly would the purpose of that be?

Once you realize that the "white whale" here is MICHAEL HENLEY, you will get a lot closer to the truth of what Tara's fate was. Michael henleys mother CONFIRMED it was her son in the picture, that for me is more profound than ANYTHING the fbi or scottland yard has to say. Michael henleys remains were IMO obviously dug up and Strategically placed in the area he went missing btw in a spot throughly searched times over by some of the most professional search and rescue teams. Michael (God bless his soul) IS the decoy here.People generally find out that "henly was found so it's not him in the st.joe Polaroid and next people write off that "well, it's proven that its not Henley so it's probably not Tara either.

Yes, because parents desperate to believe their kid is still alive are very objective & will not just say that is their child when shown a photo-happens pretty much every case.

Please do elaborate why this boy was so special that local police, the FBI etc collaborated to do this charade you claim.

i live in New Mexico and if you ask people in Belen/Valencia County they will tell you she was hit by a pickup driven by boys her age. Accident or not, they freaked out and buried her body east of Meadow Lakes area

i live in New Mexico and if you ask people in Belen/Valencia County they will tell you she was hit by a pickup driven by boys her age. Accident or not, they freaked out and buried her body east of Meadow Lakes area

This is the consensus from law enforcement I believe.

Recently, a search warrant was issued in the area Tara Calico was last seen. The Police have been tight lipped about it though.

Once you realize that the "white whale" here is MICHAEL HENLEY, you will get a lot closer to the truth of what Tara's fate was. Michael henleys mother CONFIRMED it was her son in the picture, that for me is more profound than ANYTHING the fbi or scottland yard has to say. Michael henleys remains were IMO obviously dug up and Strategically placed in the area he went missing btw in a spot throughly searched times over by some of the most professional search and rescue teams. Michael (God bless his soul) IS the decoy here.People generally find out that "henly was found so it's not him in the st.joe Polaroid and next people write off that "well, it's proven that its not Henley so it's probably not Tara either.


The Michael Henley case is very straight forward. Him and his family went camping in New Mexico. At some point, he wandered off, and got lost in the wilderness. Two years later, Henley's remains were located a few miles away from the family campsite. No foul play is suspected.

The premise of a group of people kidnapping him, taking him to Florida while holding him hostage, then murdering him, only to bring his body across the country a few miles from where he was last seen, and dump his remains there, is utterly ridiculous.

The Henley case is closed. There is no "mystery" as to what happened to him.

Recently, a search warrant was issued in the area Tara Calico was last seen. The Police have been tight lipped about it though.

I wish I could feel positive about this but it's hard to go there. 35 years later and I feel like this should have been solved long ago.

The names of the four teenage boys were posted online nearly a decade ago. All of them are now dead. They were losers as kids and grew into loser adults who added nothing positive to the world. They skipped school that day, were driving along the highway and saw Tara, rode slowly behind her just as what was witnessed. At some point, they bumped into her, she hit the ground and was either seriously hurt or dead. It's possible that might have been an accident but regardless of their intention at that point, they still grabbed her and her bike and put them in the truck. And yes, I believe their parents helped dispose of the body because I don't see high school kids having the wherewithal to successfully do this on their own.

What also annoys me is that despite this being a rather desolate highway for Tara to do her traditional bike riding on, many witnesses saw her that morning, including a girl Tara went to high school with. (They saw each other and waved at each other as the girl passed Tara in her vehicle). Almost all of the witnesses also saw her being trailed by the truck.

Why so little was done with all this information is not surprising when you know that the Sherrif who handled the investigation was the father of one of the four teenage boys.

I wish I could feel positive about this but it's hard to go there. 35 years later and I feel like this should have been solved long ago.

The names of the four teenage boys were posted online nearly a decade ago. All of them are now dead. They were losers as kids and grew into loser adults who added nothing positive to the world. They skipped school that day, were driving along the highway and saw Tara, rode slowly behind her just as what was witnessed. At some point, they bumped into her, she hit the ground and was either seriously hurt or dead. It's possible that might have been an accident but regardless of their intention at that point, they still grabbed her and her bike and put them in the truck. And yes, I believe their parents helped dispose of the body because I don't see high school kids having the wherewithal to successfully do this on their own.

What also annoys me is that despite this being a rather desolate highway for Tara to do her traditional bike riding on, many witnesses saw her that morning, including a girl Tara went to high school with. (They saw each other and waved at each other as the girl passed Tara in her vehicle). Almost all of the witnesses also saw her being trailed by the truck.

Why so little was done with all this information is not surprising when you know that the Sherrif who handled the investigation was the father of one of the four teenage boys.

So all of that is likely what happened, and that is a new twist that I did not know about that one of the boys was the Sheriff's son. It makes sense. Surprised they are all dead though. The 1980s was not that long ago to be a teenager. They would all be just in their 50s today.

Anyway, I was always skeptical about that picture found with that girl and boy. Never was sure if it was Tara or not. Or Michael Henley. Was he just killed by some wildlife or something in New Mexico? Either way, did they ever find out who those kids were in that picture? Because that was disturbing. That did NOT look like a fun prank type of photo to me. It looked real. So if so, then who was it?

So all of that is likely what happened, and that is a new twist that I did not know about that one of the boys was the Sheriff's son. It makes sense. Surprised they are all dead though. The 1980s was not that long ago to be a teenager. They would all be just in their 50s today.

Anyway, I was always skeptical about that picture found with that girl and boy. Never was sure if it was Tara or not. Or Michael Henley. Was he just killed by some wildlife or something in New Mexico? Either way, did they ever find out who those kids were in that picture? Because that was disturbing. That did NOT look like a fun prank type of photo to me. It looked real. So if so, then who was it?

According to people here & on the web a cop working the case tracked down the girl in the picture to some market in Florida where she was selling stuff, but there were no details provided about the boy.

How anybody thought it was actually Tara when they were clearly vastly different in facial shape & features & Tara was clearly several years older, is just another example of the power of human delusion.

I get that Tara's mother saw it & was trying to cling to hope, but law enforcement should have told her it clearly wasn't her & treated it as a separate investigation.

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article29407948.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Mysterious-Polaroid-Picture-The-Disappearance-of-Tara-Calicojpgra.jpg

Either way, did they ever find out who those kids were in that picture? Because that was disturbing. That did NOT look like a fun prank type of photo to me. It looked real. So if so, then who was it?

The sheriff's department who came in after Lawrence Romero found the girl in the photo and she was working at a flea market in Florida. It was in all likelihood a prank among siblings.

So all of that is likely what happened, and that is a new twist that I did not know about that one of the boys was the Sheriff's son. It makes sense. Surprised they are all dead though.

I’m having trouble locating the link that had the most information. The best I could currently find was this…copied and pasted…

Disappearance and Possible Police Cover-Up

Rene Rivera, Valencia County Sheriff, who joined the force shortly after Tara vanished, claimed to know what had transpired. According to Rivera, two teens who knew Tara from school drove behind her and hit her bike by mistake.

They panicked and immediately loaded Tara into the truck and rushed away. The youths were then joined by two other guys, who helped the boys murder Calico and dispose of her body.

Rivera stated that they were attempting to gather evidence against the lads to build a case against them.

Tara’s stepfather, John Doel, chastised Rivera for his simple statements, questioning why he would make a statement without enough proof to warrant an arrest.

There have been no arrests, and Rivera has not publicly named any suspects.

In 2013, a guy called Henry Brown confessed to police on his deathbed that he knew who was responsible for Calico’s kidnapping. Brown stated that he was in the basement of a man named Lawrence Romero Jr. shortly after Calico’s abduction. Lawrence is the son of Valencia County Sheriff. Brown spotted what seemed to be a young woman’s body wrapped in a blue tarp and buried in a makeshift grave when he was there.

Lawrence Romero Jr., Dave Silva, and Leroy Chavez told Brown in his confession that they had hit Calico with a truck mistakenly when she was riding her bike. After that, they drove her to a gravel pit and took advantage of her. Lawrence Romero, Jr. allegedly stabbed Calico to death as Chavez and Silva reportedly pinned her down after she threatened to report them to the police.

Lawrence Romero Jr., according to Brown, also wrote his confession letter about his involvement in Calico’s abduction. However, his father, the Valencia County Sheriff, destroyed the written confession to spare Lawrence.

In addition, Henry told detectives that he believed the guys later disposed of Tara’s remains in a pond near one of their homes. He further said that her bike had been discarded at a junkyard. Another individual came to tell police that one of the suspects had also confessed to him.

Later, in 1991, Romero Jr. committed suicide. Despite the evidence from the witnesses, no charges have been made against the other suspects because Tara’s body was never located.

The FBI and the Valencia County Sheriff’s Department made a joint statement in 2018 stating that they have proof that Calico was attacked and killed by two teen males in a pickup truck. They also claimed that their “parents may have assisted them in covering up the crime.” However, no suspects have been identified, and no arrests have been made in the case.

I’m really, REALLY struggling with the concept of panicking over knocking someone off their bike to the point of serious injury and your response as a group is to take her to a rock quarry and take turns raping her. I can’t conceive of this evil by anyone, let alone teenage boys.

Anyway, I was always skeptical about that picture found with that girl and boy. Never was sure if it was Tara or not. Or Michael Henley. Was he just killed by some wildlife or something in New Mexico? Either way, did they ever find out who those kids were in that picture? Because that was disturbing. That did NOT look like a fun prank type of photo to me. It looked real. So if so, then who was it?

I read that Michael Hedley likely died within 48 hours of going missing, most likely from hypothermia, since there was a snowstorm shortly after he went missing.

I’m really, REALLY struggling with the concept of panicking over knocking someone off their bike to the point of serious injury and your response as a group is to take her to a rock quarry and take turns raping her. I can’t conceive of this evil by anyone, let alone teenage boys.

If the boys did take turns raping her, it would suggest that the vehicle hitting her bicycle was intentionally done.

If the boys did take turns raping her, it would suggest that the vehicle hitting her bicycle was intentionally done.

True. And that will take us down another rabbit hole where I have to contemplate the thought of these boys not only doing this horrible and disgusting thing but the parents helping hide the evidence knowing they raped her on top of the assault.

It’s so over the top evil that its incredibly difficult to wrap you brain around. But sadly not uncommon when you know how the Kristin Smart/Paul Flores fiasco went down.

"Substantial" news conference dealing with new information in the Calico case tomorrow morning:

https://news-bulletin.com/new-details-on-tara-calico-case-to-be-revealed-tuesday/

"Substantial" news conference dealing with new information in the Calico case tomorrow morning:

https://news-bulletin.com/new-details-on-tara-calico-case-to-be-revealed-tuesday/

Let's hope it is more substantial than the lame announcement a decade or so back.

"Substantial" news conference dealing with new information in the Calico case tomorrow morning:

https://news-bulletin.com/new-details-on-tara-calico-case-to-be-revealed-tuesday/

My guess is they're going to announce the names of those they believe to be responsible (who IIRC are all dead) and then close the case.

Authorities expect Tara Calico case to go to the DA soon


VALENCIA COUNTY, N.M. — Authorities said Tuesday they have enough evidence to soon turn the case of Tara Calico’s 1988 disappearance over to the district attorney.

They said Tuesday they have suspects named. However, we won’t know their names until the records are unsealed. Ahead of Tuesday’s announcement, the Valencia County Sheriff’s Office said, “Substantial progress has been made in this investigation and it is time for the public to be made aware of this new information and its impact on the community.”

On the morning of September 20, 1988, Calico went for her daily 17-mile bike ride in Belen. Witnesses spotted her riding a neon-pink mountain bike just before noon. Then, around two miles from home, on NM-47, she and her bike disappeared. Authorities say a light-colored pickup truck with an attached camper shell was close behind her as she rode toward home.

In the nearly 35 years since her disappearance, various leads have emerged, even photos claiming to show her. In 1998, a judge also reportedly ruled Calico dead by homicide. The case lay dormant until 2013. Then, in 2019, the FBI posted a reward of up to $20,000 for information regarding Calico’s whereabouts, as well as the arrest and conviction of those responsible for her disappearance.

ok.. So, someone help me out here. I *THINK* I'm confusing two separate cases that are.. Turning out to be quite similar.

Both of them involve polaroids of kids tied up.. This one, we've found out that the "ID" of the boy was wrong and we've known that for quite some time. Seems just now we're finding out for certain that the ID of Tara was also incorrect.

But, wasn't there another case where a photo was found.. I thought in a parking lot, where they thought it was an abducted child, but.. Turns out that after a few years, some kids came forward and they had been playing "Cowboys and indians" or something and had taken a photo of one of them tied up that had later been found?

Or am I just losing my mind?


As for this case.. Who's left to charge? I thought everyone suspected of involvement had died?

ok.. So, someone help me out here. I *THINK* I'm confusing two separate cases that are.. Turning out to be quite similar.

Both of them involve polaroids of kids tied up.. This one, we've found out that the "ID" of the boy was wrong and we've known that for quite some time. Seems just now we're finding out for certain that the ID of Tara was also incorrect.

But, wasn't there another case where a photo was found.. I thought in a parking lot, where they thought it was an abducted child, but.. Turns out that after a few years, some kids came forward and they had been playing "Cowboys and indians" or something and had taken a photo of one of them tied up that had later been found?

Or am I just losing my mind?


As for this case.. Who's left to charge? I thought everyone suspected of involvement had died?

Yes-it was the Johnny Gosch case.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/51537z/johnny_gosch_the_photos/

IF the supposed suspects are dead now what charges are they sending to the district attorney? Aiding and abetting charges against the parents?

IF the supposed suspects are dead now what charges are they sending to the district attorney? Aiding and abetting charges against the parents?

I think there might be one who is still alive.

Seems just now we're finding out for certain that the ID of Tara was also incorrect.



We found out about this quite some time ago. It's on this board somewhere, perhaps even in this thread.

The girl in the photo was found alive and well in the late 1990's, working at a Florida flea market. She was questioned at that time.

There's a NewsNation video that came out two weeks ago on YouTube that is titled...Authorities announce plan to move forward in Tara Calico case.

I hope they release some info soon....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe0vrnWsBk

And officials say they have a suspect...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGz8WU8aQ98

I’m really, REALLY struggling with the concept of panicking over knocking someone off their bike to the point of serious injury and your response as a group is to take her to a rock quarry and take turns raping her. I can’t conceive of this evil by anyone, let alone teenage boys.

Something similar happened to me in 2010. I was walking down the sidewalk in the late evening, minding my own business, when a convertible without a roof pulled up beside me on the road with four teenage guys and a girl. They began to taunt me with anti-semitic insults (they thought I was Jewish despite me being Hispanic because the area I lived in had a high Jewish population, I guess?). The one on the front passenger side opened the car door, and tried to grab me but I fled. Luckily, there was a gas station nearby I ducked into, and they sped off. Very terrifying. Based on what those guys told me, it seemed they wanted to do to me what those other guys likely did to Tara Calico. Many monsters exist in this world.

I find Nancy Grace to be annoying as hell but she covered this story last week if anyone is interested...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY7omTRBuMk