Respectfully, these are my conclusions:
1. Few people actually KNOW what a person would look like if they were in such a situation. Therefore, I think that we can't really say how one would "look" if they were in this position, especially children and young adults. And, if these children had been abused or threatened previously to these photos, they might well be restrained just through pure fear. Remember that Richard Speck was able to "restrain", rape, torture and kill 8 nurses back in 1966. There are numerous cases of killers being able to control and restrain people just by their fear. Maybe the girls hands were tied or maybe they weren't tied at all and he told her to put them behind her back while he took the photo? I don't think that we can infer anything by the expressions on their face. Everyone will see something different. You see boredom and acting, I see defiance and terror.
2. Again, the gags may also be part of the killer staging this photo for impact to the public. What better way to say to the world that these children are gone and he has them? He may have them somewhere that he is not concerned about them yelling and anyone hearing them. We can't see their feet. Perhaps the feet are tied or chained and he knows they can't go anywhere.
3. There appears to be bedding thrown down for the kids to lay on. Some think that it is in the back of a van, but I wonder about this because of the lamp up in the left hand corner that appears to be sitting on something. Maybe a camper that has a table? I don't think from this scene that one can infer that there appears to not have had a struggle. It doesn't necessarily look like there was, but in such a small space, what would a struggle look like? The girls hair is messed up. Again, the book laying there does not necessarily mean that she was reading it before or after the photo. If the killer abducted these kids and wanted to play a horrible game by leaving pictures around, he might have left the book there as a prominent clue as to who the girl was. I think the book was placed there as a clue just like the photo was placed in the parking lot.
4. Completely conjecture in the theory that this was set up. This is all subjective. To you, the scene looks like the girl had been reading the book. That would be the obvious thought. And, you have said that you believe this scene was staged by the middle brother. How do you get to that conclusion?
5. Just because you don't know of a case where 2 people were kidnapped separately does not mean that it has never happened. Sex isn't the only motivation for kidnapping. There is human trafficking as well. Perhaps the person had one longer than the other. Perhaps he thought he wanted a girl but decided that he wanted a little boy too. Perhaps he was working with a group and was taking them back to the group for whatever reason and decided to take this photo to either terrorize the community or maybe someone made him do it and he was trying to leave a clue? There are dozens of scenarios and most of us can't get our head inside of it because we are normal, sane individuals. I personally will never be able to think in the way a person like this would think, and I'm grateful for that.
6. Pure conjecture and you are trying to make the scene fit your beliefs. It is jumping to a lot of conclusions about the photo. Remember that this photo was taken with a film camera. It would have had to been developed and printed (unless the supposed middle brother had a dark room). It just doesn't seem to me to be something that a kid could/would do. And, what of the places that developed the film? Wouldn't this photo draw attention? Wouldn't the person who left it worry that they would be caught?
I believe that this photo is of Tara Calico. That's not only my belief, it's the belief of many thousands of others, including her own mother. I don't know who the boy is as he is further back in the photo and can't be as clearly seen. I am the mother of 5 daughters, so I can say with clear experience that 16 year olds can look 19 and vice versa. In the known photos of Tara, she looks young to me. Three years difference in a girls life is hardly a reason for the FBI to discount that this is her. It looks exactly like her and if I was her mother, I would be able to know positively that this was my daughter. The boy, on the other hand, is not as easy to identify.
As I said before, I respect your opinion, but I just wanted to point out the other side.
Norest:
The mistake that you made that I referred to is in regard to your point #6. The photo is a Polaroid, which only manufactured self-developing cameras during this time period. (They now make digital cameras and have discontinued their once flagship line.) As you imply, I would have been very surprised if a photo of this nature from that era had not been from a Polaroid. Most of these sorts of photos have been for obvious reasons. So this negates your point that it is unlikely that the photo had been taken by a kid.
I do agree that the young woman in the photo does look very much like Tara Calico, and I’m not sure I agree with the FBI’s assessment of the ages of either subject. The girl looks older to me than what they suggest and the boy younger. Nevertheless, many people resemble others and for awhile many were convinced the boy had been Michel Henley, including, I believe, his own mother. Michael had disappeared while hunting in New Mexico (where his family is from) and his remains have now, unfortunately, been recovered. The article I read concerning this does not state what the boy had died from, only that there had been no signs of foul play. I would guess he had become separated from his dad, became lost and eventually succumbed to the elements. Tragic.
On Mrs. Gosch’s website, she has numerous photos of boys (most bound), many of whom she claims are of her missing son Johnny, taken not long after his presumed abduction. I personally don’t think any of the boys are Johnny and there are two series (two apiece) of photos of boys in (different) pajamas bottoms that she maintains are both Johnny. This is difficult for me to understand because to my eyes they are clearly not even the same boy. (They are, however, also clearly taken in the same room and on the same bed.)
You are quite right that it is not always possible to put one’s self into the frame of mind of degenerates and try to understand their thought processes. If this
is an abduction photo, it remains a mystery to me as to the reason why the abductor(s) would have taken the shot at all under the circumstances that seem to be implied by the logistics of the scene, let alone intentionally leave it in a public place or to have been so careless with it if they had lost it unintentionally.
However, in science there is an overriding principle known as “Occam’s Razor” that states that the simplest explanation for any phenomenon is usually the correct one. The photo looks staged, is very amateurish, seems to have been taken on the spur of the moment, and all that was needed for it was a camera and a little bit of tape: nothing more, and it did not take much time to plan and execute. Therefore, the simplest explanation seems to have been kids messing around; a joke shot that later got out of hand.
The girl in the photo, probably the oldest kid involved, might not even have known that the kid who took the photo (probably her brother) had any intention of leaving it in a public place. If at any time subsequently they became aware that the photo had become an object of public and law enforcement focus, they were probably scared.., er, very much. Thus, they have kept silent to this day. As I said, given all the facts this seems the most likely and simplest explanation.
Finally, it is true that I very much
want to be right. The implications of my being wrong are not good after all these years. Admittedly, that could have influenced my thought processes. Truth is no respecter of what one desires.
