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

[bears10]

Uh, there’s no point in leaving these things there, I’ll even say more when they were kidnapped by the kidnapper - (he, they), he / they even threw it, if possible, well, for example, the place where these young people rested with leaves, in short, they completely hid the trace. And just leaving everything like this is at least nonsense on the part of the kidnapper.

The problem with your theories is that you're making up fantastical stories in order to fit what you think happened.

 

[bears10]

Okay, this photo is a joke, yes, they took a picture, looked at how they look and left it, but then they accidentally lost the photo in the parking lot and soon they realized that they had lost the photo, which shows them tied up and with their mouths sealed. And the sister says to her brother: “Imagine what will happen if our photo is found and shown to the police, they will look for us, I think our photo will soon appear on the news and we may even be on the Internet,” the girl said laughing. And that's exactly how when they got access to the Internet, I think IF they didn't forget, of course, the first thing they tried to do was find their photo.

BBM I would highly doubt two young kids/teens would think that.

I've told this story on Reddit but I don't remember if I've mentioned it on WS. Just to give you an idea of how weird/silly kids can be - when we were in middle school, one of my friends was really weird. Her and our other friend had a bright idea to get naked and wrap themselves in saran wrap and take pictures of themselves. This was before digital cameras, so they used a disposable camera which they took to CVS to get developed. The photo tech at CVS alerted LE, thinking it was child p*rn or child abuse, and LE showed up at my friends house to question her parents. Obviously it never crossed my friends minds that the person developing the pics might find the pictures disturbing enough to call the cops. My friends probably didnt even know what CP was back then, and they certainly didn't think the pictures could be interpreted as depicting a crime.

My point is - kids are weird and don't look at their actions through an adult lens.

 

[case researcher]

The problem with your theories is that you're making up fantastical stories in order to fit what you think happened.

Well, why is it fantastic that I say that it can be one scenario out of 100,200, at least 1000, there is simply no information from which to build on. For example, if we knew 100 percent that these were not brother and sister in the photo, but completely different people then there would be other theories and in general everything would change a lot. But I'm not saying that my theories should be taken seriously. What if when this case is fully revealed, one of my theories will be a little true. (THIS IS A JOKE)

 

[case researcher]

BBM I would highly doubt two young kids/teens would think that.

I've told this story on Reddit but I don't remember if I've mentioned it on WS. Just to give you an idea of how weird/silly kids can be - when we were in middle school, one of my friends was really weird. Her and our other friend had a bright idea to get naked and wrap themselves in saran wrap and take pictures of themselves. This was before digital cameras, so they used a disposable camera which they took to CVS to get developed. The photo tech at CVS alerted LE, thinking it was child p*rn or child abuse, and LE showed up at my friends house to question her parents. Obviously it never crossed my friends minds that the person developing the pics might find the pictures disturbing enough to call the cops. My friends probably didnt even know what CP was back then, and they certainly didn't think the pictures could be interpreted as depicting a crime.

My point is - kids are weird and don't look at their actions through an adult lens.

Well, I don’t know, no, if the girl were 10 11 years old, maybe they wouldn’t think so, but here the girl is 15-16, but the fact that she reads a book for people over 18 is nothing? There are such children and there are quite a lot of them who are 10 years old and already think almost like an adult, no, they don’t think, but they have thoughts like an adult, this is called mental age. And I also remember how my classmates in elementary school, in which there is still no such subject as history, they were already discussing the Second World War. Yes Yes.


well, if you still think that these children couldn’t think so, then their parents kind of jokingly said: “well, congratulations, you will both become popular now if this photo is found and shown to the police.”

Again options.

 

[GatorFL]

Well, I don’t know, no, if the girl were 10 11 years old, maybe they wouldn’t think so, but here the girl is 15-16, but the fact that she reads a book for people over 18 is nothing? There are such children and there are quite a lot of them who are 10 years old and already think almost like an adult, no, they don’t think, but they have thoughts like an adult, this is called mental age. And I also remember how my classmates in elementary school, in which there is still no such subject as history, they were already discussing the Second World War. Yes Yes.


well, if you still think that these children couldn’t think so, then their parents kind of jokingly said: “well, congratulations, you will both become popular now if this photo is found and shown to the police.”

Again options.

I've got 2 daughters, one 20 and the other 15. Speaking from experience, trying to keep a 15-16 year old girl from reading a book meant for 18 year olds is as silly as trying to prevent them from watching a rated-R movie.

 

[Springrain]

My point is - kids are weird and don't look at their actions through an adult lens.

Exactly. That's a huge part of being a kid, not understanding life through the lens of an adult. For the most part, kids don't see what we see in an equation that makes us think certain things. Sometimes, kids say and do things innocuously, and don't mean anything by it, but through an adult lens, we look at it differently because of our life experiences and adult knowledge. As a teacher of young kids, I can see a more mischievous student (likely influenced by media like movies) thinking it was hilarious to do a "funny" photo of him and big sister being "kidnapped", without realizing the implications that photo would have for adults (leading to concerns about the dangers of ACTUAL kidnapping. e.g. murder, human trafficking, rape, torture etc.).

And I also remember how my classmates in elementary school, in which there is still no such subject as history, they were already discussing the Second World War. Yes Yes.

I teach elementary school. That's called social studies. Social studies is expected and often mandated to be built into the curriculum to some capacity (arguably not enough and definitely not as much as English and math, and history is really the most dominant part of that. Kids nowadays know about WWII. It was a major historical event that kids, even young ones, may learn about in some capacity at school, reading about it or seeing it on TV, have been told about at home ("Your great-great-grandpa Rick fought in World War II in Great Britain", or whatever). Kids are smart and know a lot more than you'd expect about the past and present. Sorry, went off on a tangent there.

 

[stargazer17]

I've got 2 daughters, one 20 and the other 15. Speaking from experience, trying to keep a 15-16 year old girl from reading a book meant for 18 year olds is as silly as trying to prevent them from watching a rated-R movie.

Those books were popular when I was in high school and everyone read them, 14-17 yrs old.

 

[shinimeggie]

Well, why is it fantastic that I say that it can be one scenario out of 100,200, at least 1000, there is simply no information from which to build on. For example, if we knew 100 percent that these were not brother and sister in the photo, but completely different people then there would be other theories and in general everything would change a lot. But I'm not saying that my theories should be taken seriously. What if when this case is fully revealed, one of my theories will be a little true. (THIS IS A JOKE)

I think it's less that people don't think they could be siblings, or related, or for it to be a stranger abduction, and more that you don't need a huge narrative on the background of that to propose the theory.

You can say 'these kids may be related' or 'I think these kids may have been taken by a stranger' without developing a huge story about them going on a picnic with these items in tow because their parents didn't want to go with them but the kids wanted to be in nature -- for example.

We don't know a lot about the photos, but we especially don't know every tiny point that happened prior to them, and it's likely we will never know every little detail, even if these people are identified as victims or as people doing something totally innocent.

 

[case researcher]

Exactly. That's a huge part of being a kid, not understanding life through the lens of an adult. For the most part, kids don't see what we see in an equation that makes us think certain things. Sometimes, kids say and do things innocuously, and don't mean anything by it, but through an adult lens, we look at it differently because of our life experiences and adult knowledge. As a teacher of young kids, I can see a more mischievous student (likely influenced by media like movies) thinking it was hilarious to do a "funny" photo of him and big sister being "kidnapped", without realizing the implications that photo would have for adults (leading to concerns about the dangers of ACTUAL kidnapping. e.g. murder, human trafficking, rape, torture etc.).


I teach elementary school. That's called social studies. Social studies is expected and often mandated to be built into the curriculum to some capacity (arguably not enough and definitely not as much as English and math, and history is really the most dominant part of that. Kids nowadays know about WWII. It was a major historical event that kids, even young ones, may learn about in some capacity at school, reading about it or seeing it on TV, have been told about at home ("Your great-great-grandpa Rick fought in World War II in Great Britain", or whatever). Kids are smart and know a lot more than you'd expect about the past and present. Sorry, went off on a tangent there.

I just don’t understand what you are in this text “Imagine what will happen if our photo comes and is found on request, we will search, I think our photo will soon appear in the news and maybe even on the Internet.”
found daunting
to say to a 15-16 year old girl. Pfff, I remember in my childhood, I was with my cousin, and I didn’t come up with such turns, that is, repetitions of events.
just imagine the whole 30 years during these years they would surely have found themselves (unless, of course, these children in the family had money to start the Internet at home, And the judge by their clothes is not a rich family)
well, if I had a similar situation, in short, in our school there was a military excursion, so to speak, and I was also there and we were filmed there and then shown on the news, otherwise I didn’t know this, but then a couple of days later my classmate sent me a video with the news and then I took myself away. So, if a classmate hadn’t sent me a video, maybe he wouldn’t have known that I was shown on TV.And I THINK if this girl or boy did not find himself on the Internet, then their friends / relatives MAY be able to help them.

 

[case researcher]

I think it's less that people don't think they could be siblings, or related, or for it to be a stranger abduction, and more that you don't need a huge narrative on the background of that to propose the theory.

You can say 'these kids may be related' or 'I think these kids may have been taken by a stranger' without developing a huge story about them going on a picnic with these items in tow because their parents didn't want to go with them but the kids wanted to be in nature -- for example.

We don't know a lot about the photos, but we especially don't know every tiny point that happened prior to them, and it's likely we will never know every little detail, even if these people are identified as victims or as people doing something totally innocent.

Well, I created this latest theory of mine based on these three items: a book, a plastic cup, a water gun. And I figured out how they could be all these three items at once.
Everything is logical here
1. The girl took the book to read it in open air and in silence, why not.
2. Plastic cups for pouring juice and not drinking from a bottle. culture.
3. The boy took the same way as the girl took the book, he decided to take a water pistol and, as you said that they were children, he imagined that this was a powerful plasma rifle.
This is only ONE OF the possible scenarios of how these items got on the photo ...
So what's stopping you from coming up with your own theories about these subjects, what's the problem ???.



Of course, you have every right to disagree with my opinion.

 

[shinimeggie]

Well, I created this latest theory of mine based on these three items: a book, a plastic cup, a water gun. And I figured out how they could be all these three items at once.
Everything is logical here
1. The girl took the book to read it in open air and in silence, why not.
2. Plastic cups for pouring juice and not drinking from a bottle. culture.
3. The boy took the same way as the girl took the book, he decided to take a water pistol and, as you said that they were children, he imagined that this was a powerful plasma rifle.
This is only ONE OF the possible scenarios of how these items got on the photo ...
So what's stopping you from coming up with your own theories about these subjects, what's the problem ???.



Of course, you have every right to disagree with my opinion.

It stops me because we don't even know enough to be sure they're kidnapped, let alone the fact they brought all those items with them and then, for some reason, the kidnapper decided not just to wrestle two kids into this situation, but also to pick up all the bits and pieces they travelled with, including what is essentially trash.

It just doesn't seem logical. And, as much as kidnappers and worse don't seem logical to any sane people, they're largely understandable in things they chose to do and not to do, which to me, includes picking up all the random bits and pieces around these kids and placing them carefully into the van, around the kids, before taking a photo, which they then drop.

Also, to mention your other point -- I don't know why you think someone who may have lost a photo in the late 80s/early 90s would assume so many years later that their photo was found and posted online, and how they would even find that photo again. With the internet the way it is, the size of it alone, it would be impossible to find -- and again, that's assuming the person (or their friends/family) know of the photo to start with, without filling in all the gaps of why they would think it would be found and be of any interest online.

 

[case researcher]

Well, okaay there are no winners and losers, everyone has their own opinions we’re done with this. So now friends, pay attention to one small small detail, please express your opinion about this detail - why the first two Polaroid photographs were found, so to speak, not in big cities, but in well, not to say that in small but not large . Here is the first photo that was found exactly in Port St. Joe. Why? Why not in Jacksonville, for example, why not in Miami. ok, it could just be a coincidence, well, the second photo was also found in California in the small town of Montecito, and not, for example, in big San Francisco or Los Angeles. Just a coincidence? what do you think?

 

[shinimeggie]

Well, okaay. We’re done with this, so now friends, pay attention to one small small detail, please express your opinion about this detail - why the first two Polaroid photographs were found, so to speak, not in big cities, but in well, not to say that in small but not large . Here is the first photo that was found exactly in Port St. Joe. Why? Why not in Jacksonville, for example, why not in Miami. ok, it could just be a coincidence, well, the second photo was also found in California in the small town of Montecito, and not, for example, in big San Francisco or Los Angeles. Just a coincidence? what do you think?

I personally think the polaroids are totally unrelated and no-one would have thought anything about the next two if the first hadn't been found, so I personally think it's redundant where they were found.

If they were all found in the same town or city, even over an extended period of time, I would think the location has more importance. But right now, part of what makes me think they're unrelated is how and where they were found.

 

[case researcher]

I personally think the polaroids are totally unrelated and no-one would have thought anything about the next two if the first hadn't been found, so I personally think it's redundant where they were found.

If they were all found in the same town or city, even over an extended period of time, I would think the location has more importance. But right now, part of what makes me think they're unrelated is how and where they were found.

hmm, whether they are connected or not, it is still unknown, well, the fact that they are "scattered" in a country way across the states is strange. Where is Florida and where is California. I hardly think that the kidnapper took them exactly to California, why? Where is the meaning in this?

 

[shinimeggie]

hmm, whether they are connected or not, it is still unknown, well, the fact that they are "scattered" in a country way across the states is strange. Where is Florida and where is California. I hardly think that the kidnapper took them exactly to California, why? Where is the meaning in this?

I don't think there is any meaning, because I don't think they're connected IMO.

I admire people trying to make honest links between the photos, including their locations, but I'll eat crow if I'm wrong and all 3 are related to each other.

There was also prank/joke photos linked to Johnny Gosch (boys tied up, later came forward to admit it was an unrelated joke photo), as well as photos that the mother swears are her son.

But in the first photo talked about here, the boy was supposedly recognised by his family before being discovered deceased not far from where he went missing.

My point is -- people make mistakes in identification, and people create dumb photos, and I think it's impossible to find a link between all 3.

 

[Gravity Well]

If you read back through the thread, you'll find the only reason the three photos are linked is because Tara Calico's mother believed they bore a strong resemblance to Tara and could possibly be her. A desperate mother grabbing onto any hope and keeping LE active in looking for Tara.

 

[shinimeggie]

If you read back through the thread, you'll find the only reason the three photos are linked is because Tara Calico's mother believed they bore a strong resemblance to Tara and could possibly be her. A desperate mother grabbing onto any hope and keeping LE active in looking for Tara.

I feel so awful for any parent who has a missing child and then is given some evidence that their child may be alive somewhere, particularly something so visual and alive as a photo.

I can see why she would want to grab on to that hope with both hands and may not be thinking with the clear-headed freedom someone who's unattached to the missing person is lucky enough to have. Same with Johnny Gosch's mother, although her belief went even further and deeper than just photos.

 

[case researcher]

I don't think there is any meaning, because I don't think they're connected IMO.

I admire people trying to make honest links between the photos, including their locations, but I'll eat crow if I'm wrong and all 3 are related to each other.

There was also prank/joke photos linked to Johnny Gosch (boys tied up, later came forward to admit it was an unrelated joke photo), as well as photos that the mother swears are her son.

But in the first photo talked about here, the boy was supposedly recognised by his family before being discovered deceased not far from where he went missing.

My point is -- people make mistakes in identification, and people create dumb photos, and I think it's impossible to find a link between all 3.

I’m not trying to find something in common between these photos. Here I am, so I was hooked by the first photo and I’ll only discuss it. Well, we are left with two options. 1. we will wait for any information about this case, and this ohohohoh will be for a long time, or maybe it won’t be at all. 2. We will continue to write about something that we don’t really know.....


And we considered such an option that that girl and boy could be from a completely different country. Somewhere I read where I heard that at that time there was real human trafficking in the city of Port St. Joe, that people were sent there from other countries, well, in short, cruel slavery. I would not be surprised that these children are generally from Europe.

 

[Puzzleworth]

[RSBM]

And we considered such an option that that girl and boy could be from a completely different country. Somewhere I read where I heard that at that time there was real human trafficking in the city of Port St. Joe, that people were sent there from other countries, well, in short, cruel slavery. I would not be surprised that these children are generally from Europe.

Port St. Joe is on the Gulf of Mexico, and it has lots of farms and dockyards. Both types of places are known for employing less-than-legal labor. It's far more likely that any human trafficking in the area was of undocumented adult Mexican and Caribbean immigrants.

 

[bears10]

Well, okaay there are no winners and losers, everyone has their own opinions we’re done with this. So now friends, pay attention to one small small detail, please express your opinion about this detail - why the first two Polaroid photographs were found, so to speak, not in big cities, but in well, not to say that in small but not large . Here is the first photo that was found exactly in Port St. Joe. Why? Why not in Jacksonville, for example, why not in Miami. ok, it could just be a coincidence, well, the second photo was also found in California in the small town of Montecito, and not, for example, in big San Francisco or Los Angeles. Just a coincidence? what do you think?

Yes, it seems obvious that it's just a coincidence. This is like saying "a Mcdonalds wrapper was found in a small farm town in Oklahoma, and a Burger King wrapper was found in a small beach town in Maine... coincidence? I think not!".