Aside from the fact that the girl in the photo looks strikingly like at least one photo I saw of Tara Calico, everything about the photo looks like a prank or “fun” shot taken by kids. As for the resemblance between Ms. Calico and the young woman, there have already been several candidates put forward as to the identity of the boy. At one point, several were convinced he had been one Michael Henley and, I believe I read, even Michael’s mother had been convinced it was him. Since Michael’s remains have been tragically since recovered, the consensus is now that this boy had not been Michael.
This goes to show how people can become convinced that a photo is of someone other than whom it is and how even close family members can be so mistaken; especially grieving mothers (most understandably) clutching at straws.
Firstly, is this the entire photo or has part of it been cut off? The first thing that jumps out at me is that despite the caption of “Bound and gagged children,” there seems to be no evidence whatsoever that either of the subjects are in fact bound. The boy’s hands cannot be seen at all, while it appears that only the fingertips of one of the girl’s hand can be seen protruding out from under her rear. The position of the girl's arms (which can be clearly seen) leads me believe that her hands were not even crossed behind her.
Therefore, if her hands were bound at all, it would seem more likely that she had been handcuffed as opposed to tied (and I even find that unlikely given the logistics of the shot).
The fact that there are objects lying on the bed, including a paperback book, leads me to believe that the picture was taken on an impromptu basis and indicates no struggle. Someone (probably the photographer; probably a relative or friend of the two kids (who might well be brother and sister)) probably saw a roll of duct tape lying around and the bright idea of a phony kidnap shot came to mind. Since the photo was a joke for mere appearances' sake, there was no reason to actually bind the “victims.”
Simply suggesting such was sufficient (and which was apparently effective since so many seem to simply accept the totally unsubstantiated fact that the kids are bound).
Some suggest that the photo might be an authentic abduction shot because of the seemingly genuine look of terror in the boy’s (especially) eyes. I think he was just acting a part that would seem natural in the situation. It’s not all that difficult. (You've been kidnapped; you're terrified.)
If the photo is a genuine shot of two abducted kids, then what was the purpose of the photo and why was it so carelessly discarded? If these kids were abducted for ransom (as opposed to having been abducted by pedophiles), is there any record of the photo being sent to their family (or families)? Is there any record of such a kidnapping at all?
Although I am hardly a fan of the works of the late V. C. Andrews (her works appealed more to women than to men, and it would seem likely that the book in the shot was in the process of being read by the young woman just before the photo was taken), I read the synopsis of this particular book on Wikipedia.
The plot revolves around a girl who never existed, though the main character (another girl) fervently believed she once had. Although this is farfetched, the book might have been intended to be a clue that the suggested kidnapping never occurred as well. Such might pass for “wit” by prankster kids. The squirt gun might be another indication of the prank nature of the scenario. Indeed, the camera is at hand because these kids are vacationers/tourists.
All things considered, I believe the preponderance of the evidence is that this was a prank picture taken by kids vacationing in Florida with their family. They intentionally left it in a public place as their idea of a “joke.” If they later saw it on television (where I first encountered the photo years ago), they either enjoyed a hearty laugh or became fearful of getting into trouble as they never envisioned matters having gotten that far. Thus, they kept silent.
