Resolved FL - Port St Joe, 2 Children 96UMFL & 66UFFL, bound & gagged in photo, Jun'89

[sony12]

96UMFL

66UFFL

Just out of curiosity why does the Doe Network attach photos on their pages that very clearly are not the same person?

 

[Triss]

Just out of curiosity why does the Doe Network attach photos on their pages that very clearly are not the same person?

They seem to think that it is, in fact, the same person.
I have my doubts, though. Looks like 3 different girls to me. The guy grabbing the girl with the glasses looks very recognizable, I'm surprised he wasn't identified so far.

 

[Vern]

Just out of curiosity why does the Doe Network attach photos on their pages that very clearly are not the same person?

1st Polaroid: 15 Jun 89 - Port St. Joe, Florida: 1st polaroid is found showing her bound and gagged in van with boy. Film not available until May '89.

2nd Polaroid: Found date unknown - Montecito, California: 2nd polaroid is found showing close up of girl, same cowlick, pillow is thought to be the same one and design as the pillow beside her head in van photo discovered in Florida. Film not available until June '89 (so perhaps taken a month later after they'd had ample time to cross the country??);

3rd Polaroid: Found date unknown - location unknown, but taken on Amtrak train. Film not available until Feb '90 (so 8 months later).

IMO, I suspect that the 2nd and 3rd polaroids were discovered together in Montecito and ergo why no found location and date are given for the third. The 2nd polaroid links these two found photos to the 1st polaroid discovered in Florida.

Another plausible link is that Polaroid who obviously examined the film, also noted a flaw in the photos that was caused by the camera taking them and not the film. Perhaps a speck of dirt inside the lens visible in all three, or a slight area where the ink runs improperly etc. Kind of like how they track perpetrators who typed out letters/ransom demands by determining the typewriter model, keys model and a unique flaw in a key that could be used to identify the exact typewriter used (ergo the owner). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5434&context=jclc

And yet a third option for how they are linking them: Perhaps fingerprints on the Polaroids - yet to be identified. I'm certain that LEOs would have scanned them for prints. You did have to hold them and shake them to develop. Maybe they should try touch DNA these days if that's the case.

I too am surprised that the man in the Amtrak photo has never been identified as it seems someone should recognize him. But then, I've not seen that one do the facebook rounds like I have the 1st polaroid. Facebook has a far reach so perhaps it's time the Sherrifs office got that photo out there for shares.

 

[sony12]

The third photo looks like a complete joke. That is probably why the man was never found. Many people suspect that the van photo is a joke as well but that Amtrak photo really looks like a joke.

 

[Vern]

The third photo looks like a complete joke. That is probably why the man was never found. Many people suspect that the van photo is a joke as well but that Amtrak photo really looks like a joke.

Even the authorities stated that ...

Even the Doe Network link states that.

The important bit is to identify them so that the authorities ca determine whether they they ARE or ARE NOT a joke.

They can't just ignore them lest they not be jokes because there are obviously minors involved in those photos.

 

[ThePhantom]

Apparently additional photos were sent in later years -- I believe to the sheriff's dept. and to a church. If the sheriff really knows who did this (They believe it was some locals who were following her on her bike and accidentally hit her) -- why doesn't the sheriff's department complete the investigation and file charges?

 

[Vern]

Apparently additional photos were sent in later years -- I believe to the sheriff's dept. and to a church. If the sheriff really knows who did this (They believe it was some locals who were following her on her bike and accidentally hit her) -- why doesn't the sheriff's department complete the investigation and file charges?

I think you are speaking of two different Sheriff's offices.

The Sheriff's office in Florida is the one along with the church who, rumor has it, received more photos and stated this may be a prank afterwards.

It's the Sheriff's office in Belen, New Mexico that is investigating the disappearance of Tara Calico ([the "her" I believe that you are writing about here] Her thread is here: NM - NM - Tara Calico, 19, Belen, 20 Sept 1988 ) is the one that has spoken of a theory that she was struck by boys in a truck that had been following her.

Two different cases and Sheriff's offices with two seperate investigations although there is/was speculation that the girl in the photos may be Tara.

But I agree - if struck with a bike and they actually have evidence to back that up .. why no charges?
Likewise Florida - if these kids have been identified and it was all a prank ... why no official realease from LE stating so.

 

[ThePhantom]

Sigh... yes to all the above. I think the young woman in the photo found in Florida does resemble Tara. On the other hand, if the sheriff is sure that he knows what happened to Tara, I won't bother considering the young lady in the photo might be Tara. In searching for answers, we turn over every rock looking for clues. In the case of Tara, it sounds like the answers may be known to a few, perhaps never to be revealed.

 

[Oakie]

Apparently additional photos were sent in later years -- I believe to the sheriff's dept. and to a church. If the sheriff really knows who did this (They believe it was some locals who were following her on her bike and accidentally hit her) -- why doesn't the sheriff's department complete the investigation and file charges?

Because one of the boys in the truck (according to locals) was the sheriff's son!!

Just to be clear, I don't think this is the explanation. I still think the girl in the van photo is undoubtedly Tara.

 

[ThePhantom]

Hi Oakie, I just spent two hours going down the rabbit hole on another case, Mark Randall Davis. Some posters were upset because no one had been making any comments lately. Unlike Tara's case, in which there seem to be clues and information, the search for Mark is like a needle in a haystack. I at least have a shred of hope that we may get answers about Tara. After 20 years, clues are *finally* emerging in the Joshua Guimond case, one of my "pet cases." And the answers, I think, are not going to be anything the sheriff ever posited as a viable theory.

 

[Oakie]

And the answers, I think, are not going to be anything the sheriff ever posited as a viable theory.

How many times have we seen that?

 

[Springrain]

Am I the only one who thinks these were a hoax?

 

[Vern]

Am I the only one who thinks these were a hoax?

Not if you scroll up.

 

[Laughing]

Even the authorities stated that ...

Even the Doe Network link states that.

The important bit is to identify them so that the authorities ca determine whether they they ARE or ARE NOT a joke.

They can't just ignore them lest they not be jokes because there are obviously minors involved in those photos.

bbm

Has anyone found an attempt to identify the man & woman in the train image??? Either of them posting another picture & describing the situation of the "hoax" would change the landscape of this case.

(IMHO, someone on r*dd*t must have tried this???)

If not debunked -- that image remains a piece of this puzzle imho.

JMHO YMMV LRR

 

[Springrain]

Not if you scroll up.

OK, was just wondering...I started rereading this from page 1 and the last page and the consensus seems overwhelming. JMO

 

[Romulus]

What I asked myself...is it because the guy in the photo has not yet been identified...yet the face is clearly visible...or has it already been identified and I don't know?

 

[case researcher]

So I was very interested in the story about Tara, but most of all I want to know about that girl and boy from polaroid and I've been racking my brain for days and I'm thinking about who they could be and I have one, it might be a bit stupid but the theory about this poor girl and boy is fine looking at their clothes, you can immediately understand that the clothes are not very rich, so you can judge that they were not very rich and I think that they are from the countryside in general, because look at the girl, she has sun tan on her skin + you can even see her muscles and you can get it all working in the farm, they may even have their own ranch and it is possible that their family was not rich and maybe even their father borrowed money from someone rich but had nothing to give back and so in order to get money those bad guys took their poor children captive. that's my theory yes it's a bit illogical but...

 

[case researcher]

Tas, ka fotogrāfija tika atrasta Floridā, nenozīmē, ka fotogrāfija ir uzņemta tur; to varēja paņemt jebkur. Un tas nenozīmē, ka fotoattēla subjekti kādreiz bijuši Floridā.

Es vienmēr esmu domājis, ka šī fotogrāfija ir likumīga; tam nabaga zēnam sejā ir baiļu un satraukuma izskats, ko nevar viltot.

the truth is that I have been researching and researching this photo for the last few days and creating theories and I can say that the photo is not a fake because there must be good actors to create such tortured faces, especially a boy can understand, and you will say why to the girl (who could be Mellisa Aurora Burgess) doesn't have that kind of facial expression because we don't know how long they've been imprisoned in this van and the girl looks like she's been imprisoned for a long time and has simply come to terms with the situation and started to get used to it. they would have responded a long time ago and written down that "that photo is just a joke, don't take it serious"

 

[case researcher]

and about that polaroid photo of how she got out of the van, there are also many options here and one of them. I think that the photo was taken earlier when the girl was seen on the beach with man's and how it looked from the side - so then the van stopped somewhere on the side of the road before entering Port St. Joe, the old man with the mustache got out of the van with a Polaroid camera, opened the door of the van and on him two poor children - a girl and a boy - were watching the scene, he laughed and raised the camera and took a photo of the two poor young people, so the girl's eyes were also half-closed from the flashlight, she may have been still asleep, then the old man put the photo down to them and said "look how cute you are here " this means that the old man, as well as other similar psychopathic maniacs, like to play with their victims. Then he got into the van and drove on to Port St Joe. Meanwhile, the girl had already completely woken up and she already started to think of a plan, what can be done with this photo and only thought that she needs a place where there are a lot of people and when the van is standing still and the worst thing would be if that psychopath was not in the van but had gone somewhere for a while. So the van drove to Port St. Joe and stopped at a small store and the old man got out and went to the store to do some shopping, then the girl realized that he had gone away, she opened the door of the van a little but it was difficult because her hands were tied at the back but she did it and when the door gave way she threw the photo through a small hole and closed the door because he saw that psychopath coming out of the store already. The girl strongly believed that someone would see that photo and take it and start looking for them, but even the "BEST" US police did nothing that strong. And only god knows what those bas*ards did to those poor young people...

 

[case researcher]

the truth is that I have been researching and researching this photo for the last few days and creating theories and I can say that the photo is not a fake because there must be good actors to create such tortured faces, especially a boy can understand, and you will say why to the girl (who could be Mellisa Aurora Burgess) doesn't have that kind of facial expression because we don't know how long they've been imprisoned in this van and the girl looks like she's been imprisoned for a long time and has simply come to terms with the situation and started to get used to it. they would have responded a long time ago and written down that "that photo is just a joke, don't take it serious"

Changed: Today i saw another aspect in that photo so please look at the girl's legs and the pose of the legs then compare with the rest of her body, it seems that the girl is leaning her legs to the opposite side of the photographer.......she might be more comfortable that way? can it just be a coincidence? childhood trauma? No, you can immediately understand why that girl does it..........(
This photo have a terrible and dark history.