I've followed this case for a while, so I thought I'd add my input.
It's certainly plausible that it was a hoax. But I find it less likely to be a hoax and more likely to be the following; either the mistake of a child abduction ring or the taunt of a sick criminal(involved).
Eyebrows, in my opinion, are a very flimsy way of identifying someone. It looks to me more like she was reflexively wincing in anticipation of the photo flash; either that or she was pissed. As far as the thinning of the eyebrow, has it been ruled out that Tara may have drawn parts of her eyebrows or may have had a thyroid condition? Anyway, the shape of a person's face can change rapidly due to emotion and situation. The shape of a person's eyebrow in a family photo is a poor comparison to a photo from an abduction.
What makes this case even more difficult to theorize is the lack of quality photos. The copy of the polaroid found on the internet likely came from the media, so it is not only low-resolution but every copy I have found contains obvious jpeg compression artifacts that may hinder identification efforts. It would be great if we could finally get a 600 DPI scan of the polaroid, if it still exists. Does anyone know who has the photo? Is it in some evidence locker somewhere? Seeing as it hasn't been officially ruled to be Tara, where would this photo go?
I don't see the fact that it was a polaroid as evidence suggesting that it was a hoax. At first, even I wondered why scum abducting kids wouldn't use a more professional camera? If they were producing CP, for example, why a polaroid? Well perhaps if there's a child abduction ring on the move, they might not always have access to their own development equipment, and polaroids were actually pretty good. Better that than get caught developing the film at the 1-hour photo finishing.
From my experience, it's extremely difficult to pin-point a child's age, or anyone's age for that matter. To me, the girl looks like she can be between anywhere from 13 to 20. I've seen plenty of older teenagers with that sort of face and body. As for the boy, I think he could be anywhere between 8 and 12. I'm not a professional, but that's my opinion.
Is the girl Calico? I think it's likely to an extent. But since the polaroid was found in Florida, that opens up a wide range of possibilities. As many have pointed out, there are other likely possibilities from the same time period as to who the girl may be.
I think the person who is most likely the girl in the photo, besides Calico, is Doreen Jane Vincent.
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/87dfct.html
Here is a comparison I made:
I think the similarities are very shocking.
Like I said before, I think it's likely that the girl in the polaroid is wincing for come reason, whether it be in anticipation for the photo flash or she was angry, or probably drugged.
I think the biggest similarities between the photo of Doreen and the polaroid of the girl are the left-eyes(screen right), the shape of the chin, the distancebetween the chin and the nose, the height of the lips(as far as I can tell), and the shape of the arch of the nose. It is also plausible that Doreen curled her hair and her hair was only somewhat naturally curly. Doreen is also in about the right age range, since she is 12 and when missing in 1988, a lot can change in a young person's appearance in a year, especially during puberty. It is possible that the girl in the polaroid was in the middle of development(puberty), but that can't be said to any degree of certainty.
Also notice that Doreen seems to have a thinning right-eyebrow(screen left). It is difficult to ascertain whether or not this is a genuine clue or a jpeg artifact. But the possibility that she has thinning eyebrows may be a clue that she is the girl in the polaroid. Maybe Doreen sometimes drew her eyebrows?
The only real discrepancy I can find is that the eyes of the girl in the polaroid
appear to be brown, whereas Doreen's eyes look more of a pale blue. According to the Doe Network page, Doreen's eyes were "hazel". However, not only is the copy of the polaroid available to us of poor quality, but poor lighting(even with a photo flash) can give eyes a more neutral color.
The girl in the polaroid also seems to have skin that is less fair than Doreen's. But this could be due to poor living conditions(I imagine the back of a truck bed would get pretty hot), general stress, abuse, and of course unprofessional lighting.
The fact that Doreen likely ran away makes her a better candidate for abduction because that would mean that she is alone, vulnerable, and would be willing to go along with someone. Whereas with Tara, to kidnap someone on a bike is still pretty risky. Not impossible, especially if someone was bastardly enough to hit Tara with their car and then chuck her into the back of their van. But I think the former scenario is a bit more likely for a non-serial killer abduction.
So let's talk about the other child in the polaroid.
There is actually quite a bit of old information on the internet, so for those who don't know, the other child
probably isn't Michael Henley. Michael's remains were found a year or two later in the same area where he disappeared they authorities believe that he probably died from exposure.
Someone in this thread mentioned that the other child in the photo may be a girl with her hair tied back? Sounds like a possibility, but I have not seen any matching missing females, and to be honest, it looks like a boy. I've seen pictures of girls with short hair where I could clearly tell it's a female whilst everyone else couldn't tell if it's a boy or a girl, so I think my judgment is somewhat good. So until we can come up with a female lead, I am going to assume the other child is a boy. Plus, from the little I can see, the hair looks more like a buzz cut than longer hair tied back. I've tried altering the levels in the polaroid to reveal some detail in that area and I found nothing.
I think the most likely match for the boy in the polaroid is David Michael Boerer.
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/b/borer_david.html
And here is another comparison I made:
Granted, the area in the copy of the polaroid with the boy is ridiculously low resolution.
There are several reasons why I think the boy is probably David. The eye shape and color looks nearly identical(from the little information we have), the ear lobes look very similar, the nose shape and arch look the same, the chin shape looks the same, the age seems pretty close, etc. Both photos have seemingly thin eyebrows.
The only difference is the apparent shape of the eyebrows. Some have said that the boy in the polaroid looks like he's laughing, and I think he's far from laughing. I'm not ruling the polaroid out as a hoax, but since these kind of hoaxes don't happen too often, I think it's important that we assume that the polaroid is legit.
To me, it looks like the boy is scared. If you look carefully, the eyebrows appear to be pointing up at the brow ridge. Most people don't make that kind of expression when they are laughing. At least I don't think they do; I'm not an expression in facial expressions.
Otherwise, the biggest potential discrepancy would be that the boy went missing in Alaska, which is a LONG way from Florida, where the polaroid ended up. Then again, we simply can't underestimate the network of human trafficking. Child sex slaves probably get moved across long distances on a daily basis.
It's unfortunate that we will likely never get real answers. The polaroid will probably remain a mystery.
