buffetoflies
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,128
- Reaction score
- 38
No it is another school photo of her.
Resolved FL - Port St Joe, 2 Children 96UMFL & 66UFFL, bound & gagged in photo, Jun'89
- Thread starter Venom Goose
- Start date
- Status
Hello everybody,
I've been reading this thread for a day or two, and I also remember seeing this photo on TV sometime in 1990-ish. One of the tabloid shows--Inside Edition, I think--showed this photo at the end of each show for a time. I remember the voice-over announcer saying "It is now day XX since this photo was found."
With regards to the girl's t-shirt: I think I make out at least two Disney characters on the far-right (our left) of the shirt. Both appear to be the "baby" version of the characters: Baby Minnie/Mickey first (our left) and Baby Donald Duck next. Baby Donald has his arms flung into the air; I have seen this "ta-dah!" pose a lot while searching these cartoon characters on the web.
The boy's t-shirt logo looks like a sitting teddy bear, with the head cocked to the left, with one large black eye (his right eye) and the other eye not drawn (or otherwise unseeable in the pic). I can see the "ring" around the bear's black nose that is so typical of teddy-bear drawings to indicate a different fur color around the nose. It looks like the bear was drawn to appear to be a stuffed animal, and positioned as if a child dropped the bear into a sitting position. I wonder if we could even see "stitching" drawn on it if the pic were higher-res. Two of the three circles around the head are the ears, and the third circle, the one furthest to our left, may be the bear's stumpy right arm/paw.
If the resolution was better, you might be able to see the phone number on the VC Andrews book, and I think that may be the purpose of the picture, to provide a clue to track these kids down. Another reason for the photo may be to present these kids as "merchandise" for purchase by some pedo .
I have never forgotten these pictures over the years, and I have wondered whatever became of those poor kids.
This is an great site, I am privileged to be a voice in it with the rest of you awesome sleuthers!
I've been reading this thread for a day or two, and I also remember seeing this photo on TV sometime in 1990-ish. One of the tabloid shows--Inside Edition, I think--showed this photo at the end of each show for a time. I remember the voice-over announcer saying "It is now day XX since this photo was found."
With regards to the girl's t-shirt: I think I make out at least two Disney characters on the far-right (our left) of the shirt. Both appear to be the "baby" version of the characters: Baby Minnie/Mickey first (our left) and Baby Donald Duck next. Baby Donald has his arms flung into the air; I have seen this "ta-dah!" pose a lot while searching these cartoon characters on the web.
The boy's t-shirt logo looks like a sitting teddy bear, with the head cocked to the left, with one large black eye (his right eye) and the other eye not drawn (or otherwise unseeable in the pic). I can see the "ring" around the bear's black nose that is so typical of teddy-bear drawings to indicate a different fur color around the nose. It looks like the bear was drawn to appear to be a stuffed animal, and positioned as if a child dropped the bear into a sitting position. I wonder if we could even see "stitching" drawn on it if the pic were higher-res. Two of the three circles around the head are the ears, and the third circle, the one furthest to our left, may be the bear's stumpy right arm/paw.
If the resolution was better, you might be able to see the phone number on the VC Andrews book, and I think that may be the purpose of the picture, to provide a clue to track these kids down. Another reason for the photo may be to present these kids as "merchandise" for purchase by some pedo .
I have never forgotten these pictures over the years, and I have wondered whatever became of those poor kids.
This is an great site, I am privileged to be a voice in it with the rest of you awesome sleuthers!
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,274
- Reaction score
- 7,543
Chuz Life
Voluntary Investigator
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2012
- Messages
- 763
- Reaction score
- 23
I (for one) disagree with that conclusion. However, despite a very lengthy search, I have not been able to find a better match. For what it's worth, I don't think it is a Disney shirt either. . . Though I do recognize the similarities to both of those type shirts.
killer Chaser
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 78
The girl looks like she's sitting on her hands if she was tied her arms and elbows would be a bit higher.Right now I can't find the boy's Doe Network page, but here is the girl's:
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/66uffl.html
The Doe Network:
Case File 66UFFL
Colour photo here:
Unidentified Female Last seen on June 15, 1989 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County, Florida.
Vital Statistics
* Estimated age: 15 - 16 years old
* Approximate Height and Weight: 5'0"
* Distinguishing Characteristics: Brown hair and blue eyes.
Case History
On June 15, 1989, a Polaroid photo of this girl bound and gagged was found in a Port St. Joe, FL convenience store parking lot by a customer. The photo also showed an unidentified boy, also bound. The photo was found where a white, late 1980's Toyota cargo van with no windows had previously been parked. This unidentified teenage girl was also seen on the beach in Port St. Joe, Florida on June 15, 1989. She was accompanied by several older caucasian males, who appeared to be ordering the girl along the beachfront. It is not known if this girl was being held against her will by these individuals or if the incident was staged. Investigators are still trying to ascertain the girl's identity, which would allow them to close the case or investigate further.
A tattered copy of "My Sweet Audrina" by V.C. Andrews, a lastic cup and a squirt gun are also visible in the photo. Polaroid officials say the picture was taken with film not available until May 1989. Two other photos have surfaced over the years. The first was found near a residential construction site in Montecito, California. The haunting Polaroid, taken on film not available until June 1989, shows the blurry image of a girl's face, her mouth again covered with tape, her hairline exhibiting that same cowlick at the right temple. Behind her is light-blue striped fabric similar to that on the pillow in the Toyota van photo. Another Polaroid, this one taken on film not available until February 1990, shows a woman loosely bound in gauze, her eyes covered with more gauze and large black-framed glasses. A man is sitting next to her on a passenger seat of an Amtrak train.
There have been speculations that the girl in this case file is Tara Calico who disappeared from New Mexico in 1988.
Investigators
If you have any information concerning this girl's identity, please contact:
Port St. Joe Police Department
850-229-8265
You may remain anonymous when submitting information to any agency.
--------
From http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/mpccn/calico.html
"A copy of the V. C. Andrews novel My Sweet Audrina, a plastic cup, and a squirt gun are also visible in the photo. There is apparently a phone number written on the spine of the book, but some of the digits are unreadable. Experts say it could be 300 possible numbers, 57 of which are valid."
"The Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) examined the photo and cannot determine whether the girl is Calico or the boy Henley, but experts at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Arizona believes the girl is Calico. The girl has a similar hairline and ear to Calico's, and a mark on her calf similar to a scar Calico got in a car crash."
That would depend on a lot of things... how long her arms are...how her hands may be tied together...hands crossed or uncrossed..short waisted/long waisted...I just tried it...my elbows are closer to my hip area when crossed in back...
Classito
killer Chaser
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 78
There's just too much of her forearm showing for her hands to be tied together.
Murkywaters
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,020
- Reaction score
- 3,897
The Tara Calico documentary is supposed to be coming out this year.
The eyebrows look different...possibly groomed/plucked.
Chuz Life
Voluntary Investigator
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2012
- Messages
- 763
- Reaction score
- 23
Sadly, I don't believe the girl in the polaroid was Tara Calico. I know her family believes it was Tara. However, by my estimates, the girl in the polaroid was much taller than 5'7." (Tara's reported height) Plus, Tara's nose was a bit wider and rounder than the girl in the polaroid.
glamorous_in_traffic
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
So this is probably insanity (she's much too old) but has anyone ever considered Frankie Hurst? She disappeared somewhere between VA and SC in May 1989 and was known to hitchhike (including in FL). Again, probably insanity on my part but I see a resemblance between her and the girl in the Polaroid.
https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/9595/0/
https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/9595/0/
Lethalmatthew
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 3
What do you mean? Montecito is a community in California, more than 700 miles from where Tara went missing.
EyesOnSunday
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 25
Not necessarily. They could be tied with a length of rope in between so her hands aren't actually touching.
LaurenBelle
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2015
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm leaning towards the hoax side. Several things always bother me about this image and the related story.
1. The book. This seems like such a tenuous link to Tara Calico. She didn't have it on her at the time she disappeared, so do we assume a kidnapper asked her what she'd like to read and then bought her a second-hand copy.. to be nice? It's not exactly a comforting book. How is she reading it with her hands bound anyway?
2. Speaking of bound hands - if they are actually bound, the boys are done very tightly behind his back but the girl either has only her wrists bound by rope, or her fingers bound, given the angle of her elbows. They seem like honour system bindings, that would only be effective if you were too scared to lick your lips and move your jaw until the tape came off, or roll sideways and take each others tape off.
3. We have about zero reason to believe the photos found in Montecito and the Amtrak photo are at all related to this one. They've never been released, nobody has provided any evidence they are all linked, I don't even know where that info comes from. Anyone know? They both have a third of their faces obscured by tape. People have provided literally dozens of photos of missing people on this thread who look similar and yet nobody has been able to make a positive ID, so why are we sure the person in the other photos is the same - and where is the boy in these other shots? It seems to rest on a "similar" striped pillow in both photos. That seems like a really easy thing to match up, you could measure the stripe size, scale and compare. Also, it's got to be one of the most common bedding prints in the western world.
Here is my theory, for what it's worth (which is probably nothing).
A family is on a road trip. These two look similar enough to be brother and sister - similar colorings, nose bridges, ear lobes, far enough apart in age. The bedding is mismatched, different prints of quilts and pillows, so it's unlikely it was a motel but it could be a caravan or the back of a van. So there is a family travelling around Florida during summer in a van - not very unusual. I went on dozens of similar road trips with my family as a child. I also know that two kids cooped up in a van are likely to be bickering and noisy and driving their parents nuts. So one of the parents grabs a roll of tape from their camping supplies and tapes their mouth up, either as a joke or as a genuine punishment (which could be why the boy looks upset) and takes a photo with the camera they have been using to capture the holiday, possibly with the intention of showing friends later in a "lol, we finally found a way to stop the kids from fighting in the car" type caption. Polaroids are hard to keep together, especially floating around in the back of a car you're constantly getting in and out of at various stops, the photo falls out into the carpark. Why has nobody ever come forward to claim it's them? There are lots of reasons. Contrary to what people seem to think here, not everybody uses this forum or Reddit or reads Florida newspapers. If they were travelling, it's unlikely they saw the TV news that week. The internet wasn't around back then, and I only saw this photo for the first time a few days ago and I work online for a living and love reading creepy stories. It's entirely possible that they've just never seen it. Even if someone they know has seen it, we've already noticed how difficult it is to identify people when a third of their face is obscured. They could be from overseas, they could have moved overseas. They may have seen it and not even recognised it as themselves or remembered it being taken. Who here can say they remember the exact instance of every photo they've ever seen of themselves in childhood? Maybe they've seen it and don't know what they're meant to even do about it.
1. The book. This seems like such a tenuous link to Tara Calico. She didn't have it on her at the time she disappeared, so do we assume a kidnapper asked her what she'd like to read and then bought her a second-hand copy.. to be nice? It's not exactly a comforting book. How is she reading it with her hands bound anyway?
2. Speaking of bound hands - if they are actually bound, the boys are done very tightly behind his back but the girl either has only her wrists bound by rope, or her fingers bound, given the angle of her elbows. They seem like honour system bindings, that would only be effective if you were too scared to lick your lips and move your jaw until the tape came off, or roll sideways and take each others tape off.
3. We have about zero reason to believe the photos found in Montecito and the Amtrak photo are at all related to this one. They've never been released, nobody has provided any evidence they are all linked, I don't even know where that info comes from. Anyone know? They both have a third of their faces obscured by tape. People have provided literally dozens of photos of missing people on this thread who look similar and yet nobody has been able to make a positive ID, so why are we sure the person in the other photos is the same - and where is the boy in these other shots? It seems to rest on a "similar" striped pillow in both photos. That seems like a really easy thing to match up, you could measure the stripe size, scale and compare. Also, it's got to be one of the most common bedding prints in the western world.
Here is my theory, for what it's worth (which is probably nothing).
A family is on a road trip. These two look similar enough to be brother and sister - similar colorings, nose bridges, ear lobes, far enough apart in age. The bedding is mismatched, different prints of quilts and pillows, so it's unlikely it was a motel but it could be a caravan or the back of a van. So there is a family travelling around Florida during summer in a van - not very unusual. I went on dozens of similar road trips with my family as a child. I also know that two kids cooped up in a van are likely to be bickering and noisy and driving their parents nuts. So one of the parents grabs a roll of tape from their camping supplies and tapes their mouth up, either as a joke or as a genuine punishment (which could be why the boy looks upset) and takes a photo with the camera they have been using to capture the holiday, possibly with the intention of showing friends later in a "lol, we finally found a way to stop the kids from fighting in the car" type caption. Polaroids are hard to keep together, especially floating around in the back of a car you're constantly getting in and out of at various stops, the photo falls out into the carpark. Why has nobody ever come forward to claim it's them? There are lots of reasons. Contrary to what people seem to think here, not everybody uses this forum or Reddit or reads Florida newspapers. If they were travelling, it's unlikely they saw the TV news that week. The internet wasn't around back then, and I only saw this photo for the first time a few days ago and I work online for a living and love reading creepy stories. It's entirely possible that they've just never seen it. Even if someone they know has seen it, we've already noticed how difficult it is to identify people when a third of their face is obscured. They could be from overseas, they could have moved overseas. They may have seen it and not even recognised it as themselves or remembered it being taken. Who here can say they remember the exact instance of every photo they've ever seen of themselves in childhood? Maybe they've seen it and don't know what they're meant to even do about it.
killer Chaser
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 78
I'm with you! Probably bored kids on a road trip.
- Status