What was the one case the girl finds a photo in the parking lot???

[CowboyStudTied]

The was this woman on the one episode she parks in a lot and right next to her there's this van and right when she leaves the building she returns to her vehicle and finds a picture of 3 kids bound and gagged .... any idea what case this is???

[wiseguy182]

Tara Calico. Though it was 2 kids. The boy seems to be mostly ignored sadly.

[1990 UM fan]

Who did they think the boy in the picture was? I forget.

[sharonite]

Originally Posted by 1990 UM fan

Who did they think the boy in the picture was? I forget.

There are a lot of theories. At first it was believed to be nine-year-old Michael Henley Jr., who disappeared during a camping trip in New Mexico's Zuni Mountains in April 1988. However, his remains were found in 1990 just a few miles away from the campsite (it is believed he died of exposure).

More recently, it has been theorized that the subject in the photo is Antreas Chester "Chet" Cantrell, who disappeared following a boating accident at California's Shasta Lake in January 1988 and--until the photo surfaced--was presumed drowned. Here is additional information on his case: http://www.forthelost.org/acantrell.html

And of course, there are many people who believe that the photo was a hoax.

[ILikeTurtles]

I'm probably wrong on this, but I read something a few years ago something to the nature of there was actually 3 photos in all and one of them was a hoax. I could be mistaken, but at one point it was thought that.

[chacha6581]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

Tara Calico. Though it was 2 kids. The boy seems to be mostly ignored sadly.

Wait. Are we talking about johnny gosch here or someone else?

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by chacha6581

Wait. Are we talking about johnny gosch here or someone else?

Johnny Gosch is an entirely different story. We are talking about someone else.

[chacha6581]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

Johnny Gosch is an entirely different story. We are talking about someone else.

Ahh ok. Ty.

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by ILikeTurtles

I'm probably wrong on this, but I read something a few years ago something to the nature of there was actually 3 photos in all and one of them was a hoax. I could be mistaken, but at one point it was thought that.

I believe there was another one that they didn't expose to the public. Too freaky maybe?

But in my opinion I feel that the girl is Tara. For starters I believe she was abducted not run off the road unintentionally. She was a jogger and anyone that followed her would know her routine. And she was a pretty girl. That isn't the best combination for someone jogging in the middle of nowhere.

I believe the picture is her because the explanations that it ISN'T her are a little questionable. I mean it wasn't a good picture of her to start. There were questions about her hair, her nose, etc. I think it looks like her personally and I think you have to take into account that the conditions she might have been could have changed her appearance. She probably wasn't washing her hair, or combing it, or looking her best. To compare that to a school picture is different.

Plus if it were a hoax I believe someone comes forward by now. Because if it were a joke then no one is criminally charged. If it were just a bunch of kids doing a prank someone would recognize them as fellow students, neighbours, etc. But no one has. Which leads me to believe that the two kids in that picture were being held against their own will and something illegal was going on.

Lastly, if that isn't Tara, then WHO is it?

[JackKerouac1989]

I haven't seen the episode for this case in years, but couldn't they have traced the picture back to where it was developed? I don't remember there being any mention of that during the segment.

[DarkDante]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

I believe there was another one that they didn't expose to the public. Too freaky maybe?

But in my opinion I feel that the girl is Tara. For starters I believe she was abducted not run off the road unintentionally. She was a jogger and anyone that followed her would know her routine. And she was a pretty girl. That isn't the best combination for someone jogging in the middle of nowhere.

I believe the picture is her because the explanations that it ISN'T her are a little questionable. I mean it wasn't a good picture of her to start. There were questions about her hair, her nose, etc. I think it looks like her personally and I think you have to take into account that the conditions she might have been could have changed her appearance. She probably wasn't washing her hair, or combing it, or looking her best. To compare that to a school picture is different.

Plus if it were a hoax I believe someone comes forward by now. Because if it were a joke then no one is criminally charged. If it were just a bunch of kids doing a prank someone would recognize them as fellow students, neighbours, etc. But no one has. Which leads me to believe that the two kids in that picture were being held against their own will and something illegal was going on.

Lastly, if that isn't Tara, then WHO is it?

You make some good points but unfortunately it brings us nowhere closer as far as tilting the pendulum one way or the other in the hoax debate. The reason being is that a lot of your reasoning is based on assumptions.

The probability that someone would be able to identify the individuals in the photograph is as much of a crapshoot as anything else. You are literally talking about the proverbial needle in the haystack here with these two children. They could be anyone, based in any location, anywhere in the world. I'm not positive we can even be sure that the photograph was actually taken in Pt. Saint Joe. I could have merely been left there by the photographer.

The point I'm trying to make is anyone could stage a photo like that, drive to another state, discard it and walk away without anyone ever discovering who took the photo or the subjects in the photo let alone the intent behind the photograph.

So in response to your question about the individuals in the photograph: It could be anyone. It could be a couple of teenagers pulling a prank. It could be a legitimate photograph of abducted children. We obviously just don't have enough information to take this the realm of speculation.

[cordwainer1453]

I think the photo was some sort of prank, and no, I don't think whoever left ot there was trying to torment Tara Calico's family as some have suggested elsewhere. The whole argument "we don't know who it is, so it must be her" is sort of a weak one. And you can trash the theory that parents would be able to identify their own kid, since those parents were convinced the other kid in the picture (it is somewhat debatable if the other kid was a boy or a girl) was Michael Henley and we now know it wasn't.
Quite honestly, the best evidence that the picture is a hoax is in the picture itself. Both people in the picture are staring right into the camera, probably not what "tortured kids" would do, more likely someone playing a prank. And, also, not trying to be weird, but if you were tying up kids and taking pictures of them to masturbate to later on or whatever, why were both of them wearing clothes? It seems likely they wouldn't have any clothes on if that was the intent of the picture.

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by cordwainer1453

I think the photo was some sort of prank, and no, I don't think whoever left ot there was trying to torment Tara Calico's family as some have suggested elsewhere. The whole argument "we don't know who it is, so it must be her" is sort of a weak one. And you can trash the theory that parents would be able to identify their own kid, since those parents were convinced the other kid in the picture (it is somewhat debatable if the other kid was a boy or a girl) was Michael Henley and we now know it wasn't.
Quite honestly, the best evidence that the picture is a hoax is in the picture itself. Both people in the picture are staring right into the camera, probably not what "tortured kids" would do, more likely someone playing a prank. And, also, not trying to be weird, but if you were tying up kids and taking pictures of them to masturbate to later on or whatever, why were both of them wearing clothes? It seems likely they wouldn't have any clothes on if that was the intent of the picture.

Well, the clothes being on could still give the abductor the sense of mystique and curiousity. I don't know, I am trying to get into his head but that's just an idea.

I think the reason it is unsettling to me is that this photo was spread all over the place. People saw it on UM which was a popular show. If the kids who were in on the prank were scared to come forward at the time then what is the explanation for not doing it 25 years later? Wouldn't it weigh on you as an adult most likely with children by then? I mean, one of the people in that picture is still missing to this day. That would bother me that I had hampered an investigation.

And those kids just look terrified in the picture. I don't think it matters that they were looking at the camera at all. In that situation you do what your abductor wants. That's an awfully good Oscar performance by those kids if they were pratical jokers because they don't look like they're fooling around at all to me.

I just lean on the fact that if it wasn't Tara in that picture it is at least a girl who was in serious trouble back then, and maybe still is

[DarkDante]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

And those kids just look terrified in the picture. I don't think it matters that they were looking at the camera at all. In that situation you do what your abductor wants. That's an awfully good Oscar performance by those kids if they were pratical jokers because they don't look like they're fooling around at all to me.

This is still the main sticking point for me especially with the young boy. I've heard it mentioned time and time again when people speak of child actors. Many times they'll say child actors aren't really actors at all but instead reactors.

Meaning that some of the best acting you'll get out of children is their natural reactions to certain given situations. That sort of ties in here too as I'm not sure the boy is mature enough to be able to deceive the camera and still be able to convey that type of fear I see in his eyes. Now maybe if someone said "act scared" he might have been able to pull it off but then again he could've just as easily overacted to the point where we'd all easily be able to see this photo as a hoax and that obviously is not the case here.

I'd say the reactions in the photographs are conveying genuine emotion. Now whether that is a case of some really great acting or the fact that these children are legitimately scared half to death is obviously up to all kinds of speculation.