Sitcoms Online - Main Page / Message Boards - Main Page / News Blog / Photo Galleries / DVD Reviews / Buy TV Shows on DVD and Blu-ray

View Today's Active Threads / View New Posts / Mark All Boards Read / Chit Chat Board


Unsolved Mysteries Online Main Page / Message Board / Show History / Episode Guide (1987-2002) / Expanded Episode Guide #2 / Expanded Episode Guide #3 / Case Updates / Wiki / Official Site / Related Links / True Crime Shows Message Board / All Other Cases Message Board / Buy The Best of Unsolved Mysteries DVD / Buy Unsolved Mysteries - The Ultimate Collection DVD

Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season on Amazon Instant Video
/
Season 2
/ Season 3 / Season 4 /
Season 5
/ Season 6 / Season 7 /
Season 8
/ Season 9 / Season 10 /
Season 11
/ Season 12 / Watch on YouTube

Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina Episodes

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina - The Complete First Season Episodes on Amazon Instant Video
/ Season 2 / Season 3 / Season 4 / Season 5 / Season 6 / Season 7 / Season 8 / Watch on YouTube


Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends DVD Set

Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums  

Go Back   Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums > Unsolved Mysteries

Notices

SitcomsOnline.com News Blog Headlines Twitter Facebook Instagram RSS

ABC Gears Up for Halloween with Specials and Sitcom Episodes; truTV Comedy Returns for Season 5
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of October 14, 2019)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Walker, Texas Ranger Reboot in the Works; South Park Banned in China
Fri-Yay: Another Netflix Original to End as BoJack Horseman Announces Final Season; TNT Sets Halloween Supernatural Marathon
Daily Show Correspondent Gets Comedy Special; Fox Gets Jenna Dewan for Dance Show
Remembering TV Legend Diahann Carroll; Marvel and Hulu Bring New Series
Search Party Moving to HBO Max for Seasons 3 and 4; Disney Gets More Gabby Duran & the Unsittables


New on DVD/Blu-ray (August/September/October)

Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six Young Sheldon - The Complete Second Season My Three Sons - The Fourth Season - Volume One Modern Family - The Complete Tenth Season Life with Lucy - The Complete Series

08/06 - Caroline in the City - The Third Season
08/06 - Caroline in the City - The Fourth Season
08/13 - I Love Lucy - Colorized Collection
08/13 - Leave it to Beaver - Seasons One and Two
08/20 - Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six
08/27 - Baskets - The Complete Season Four
08/27 - It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - The Complete Thirteenth Season
09/03 - Bob's Burgers - The Complete 9th Season
09/03 - Fresh Off the Boat - The Complete Fifth Season
09/03 - The Goldbergs - The Complete Sixth Season
09/03 - Single Parents - The Complete Season One
09/03 - Young Sheldon - The Complete Second Season
09/04 - What We Do in the Shadows - The Complete First Season
09/10 - American Dad! - Volume 14
09/10 - The Jetsons - The Complete Original Series (Blu-ray) (WBShop.com)
09/11 - My Three Sons - The Fourth Season - Volume One
09/11 - My Three Sons - The Fourth Season - Volume Two
09/17 - Friends - The Complete Series (25th Anniversary)
09/17 - Modern Family - The Complete Tenth Season
09/19 - Angel from Hell - The DVD Edition
10/08 - Leave it to Beaver - The Complete Series
10/08 - Life with Lucy - The Complete Series
10/15 - The King of Queens - The Complete Series (Mill Creek)
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-04-2014, 08:31 PM   #121
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Senior Member
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,635
Default

Thanks to TracyLynnS and her information in another thread about this case. She informed me about the Egghead Software company, and how they had retail stores that sold the shirts featured in the polaroid. Which, IMO, proves to a near certainty that these two children in the photo were siblings. Both children in the photo are wearing Egghead shirts. Thinking logically, had these children (unrelated) been abducted, what are the odds that this kidnapper is going to go shopping for two different Egghead shirts for his kidnapped children to wear? Why advertise the fact that he's an Egghead customer?! And why make sure to make both abducted kids match with their shirts? See where I'm going here? The fact that both children have these shirts on means in all likelihood that they are related, and both fans of computer games and/or the store. There's no doubt in my mind that these kids are brother and sister (or possibly cousins). Whether or not there's some sort of foul play involved in these photos is up for debate, but IMO, this leads more credence to the faked photo prank theory.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 08:49 PM   #122
TracyLynnS
Don't Look Up
Senior Member
 
TracyLynnS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 07, 2009
Posts: 3,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
Both children in the photo are wearing Egghead shirts.
I think only the girl is wearing an Egghead shirt. I don't know what the logo or cartoon is that's on the boy's shirt. Anyone know what that is?

When I was looking for Egghead shirts online the other day, I only found two styles, both only shown in gray. One was just like the one the girl is wearing in the photo and the was a jersey style shirt with a big pic of the egghead guy and name on it. The second one is very different from both of the shirts the kids are wearing.



__________________
-
-
-
-
-

Please sign the petition to get Unsolved Mysteries on Netflix/Hulu http://www.thepetitionsite.com/733/9...flix-and-hulu/
TracyLynnS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 02:55 AM   #123
wiseguy182
Member
Senior Member
 
wiseguy182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2006
Location: Wendy's salad bar
Posts: 6,907
Default

The photo worries me for these reasons:

Yes, it is true we don't know everything about the photo. But let's break down what we do know about it:

The photo was found in the parking lot where the white van was. Police determined the photo depicts the inside of a white van. Windowless vans, like the one at the convenience store, seem to be the vehicle of choice for child abductors. The driver of the white van apparently went inside, no children did. Additionally, no children are heard in the vehicle when it is parked at the convenience store.

To add to all of that, consider this: Someone (can't remember if it was this forum or not) had speculated that the children were forced to live/sleep in the van, and that it was probably their living and sleeping quarters due to the presence of quilts and what not. If these kids were pulling a prank, or back there voluntarily or whatever, would they really have the presence of mind to put quilts back there?

So when you add all that together, it seems to point to something sinister happening. Otherwise, you have to believe in some pretty huge coincidences. Is it just a coincidence the picture was taken in a windowless van? Is it just a coincidence the photo was found where the van was parked? Sure it was. And I'm Michael Jordan, I used to play for the Chicago Bulls.

Now, with a lot of cases, there are tons of mistaken identity. A lot of eyewitness accounts that aren't reliable. Some cases dozens, others hundreds, heck, there are probably some that have thousands. But this case? The Calicos and Henleys are the only known families that have ever come forward (in 25 years) and said that's their relative. Usually, cases like these attract a swath of family members believing that's their own, but in this case only 2. Why is that? And if The Calicos and Henleys are mistaken, then who are these children? Why haven't they been identified? Are we to believe that there is a high volume of relatives, friends, teachers, neighbors, etc that know who these kids are but aren't speaking? Highly unlikely. So that leaves two scenarios: 1) they're from out of this country, 2) they've been in the van for awhile and their parents don't recognize them (or are deceased or other possibilities).

If this was a prank, why wouldn't the kids come forward? To my knowledge, they haven't committed any criminal act, and even if they had, I doubt the authorities would do anything given their ages. Plus 25 years have passed, surely they wouldn't be afraid of anything now.

I feel, like a lot of cases on here, that a lot of attention and detail needs to be considered before making a final conclusion. A person can quickly glance at the photo, determine it's a hoax and move on with their life. But I think, when you consider the totality of clues, including what I've mentioned above, something just isn't right with the photo.
__________________
"Dottie had said, in the event I got transferred that she was not interested in going with me. I wasn't expecting her to go with me. And wouldn't have even wanted her to I guess."
wiseguy182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 01:08 PM   #124
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Senior Member
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyLynnS
I think only the girl is wearing an Egghead shirt. I don't know what the logo or cartoon is that's on the boy's shirt. Anyone know what that is?
I had thought I read somewhere that they determined both children were wearing the Egghead shirts. And the boy's shirt has something similar to the Egghead logo guy. But it very well might not be an Egghead shirt.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 01:14 PM   #125
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Senior Member
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
If these kids were pulling a prank, or back there voluntarily or whatever, would they really have the presence of mind to put quilts back there?
If they were driving with their family on vacation, it makes all the sense in the world to have quilts and apparent bedding back there. That's where they slept during the long drive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
Is it just a coincidence the picture was taken in a windowless van? Is it just a coincidence the photo was found where the van was parked? Sure it was. And I'm Michael Jordan, I used to play for the Chicago Bulls.
It's entirely possible that a family would have used a van to travel for a vacation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
If this was a prank, why wouldn't the kids come forward? To my knowledge, they haven't committed any criminal act, and even if they had, I doubt the authorities would do anything given their ages. Plus 25 years have passed, surely they wouldn't be afraid of anything now.
Perhaps they forgot about taking the photo so long ago and have no idea of the attention it has gotten.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 04:54 PM   #126
PKB
Member
Frequent Poster
 
PKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 05, 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
The photo worries me for these reasons:

Yes, it is true we don't know everything about the photo. But let's break down what we do know about it:

The photo was found in the parking lot where the white van was. Police determined the photo depicts the inside of a white van. Windowless vans, like the one at the convenience store, seem to be the vehicle of choice for child abductors. The driver of the white van apparently went inside, no children did. Additionally, no children are heard in the vehicle when it is parked at the convenience store.
I think that it's a cultural meme that windowless struggle vans are the transport of choice for child abductors. The majority are family members driving whatever they have.

White cargo vans are also the vehicle of choice for plumbers, electricians and other tradesmen.

You stated ..."let's break down what we do know about it" and then went on to infer that the photo was related to the van that was parked at the store. We don't know that. I think it's important to keep in mind that the mere presence of a van and the interior of the van in the photo may not be related at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
To add to all of that, consider this: Someone (can't remember if it was this forum or not) had speculated that the children were forced to live/sleep in the van, and that it was probably their living and sleeping quarters due to the presence of quilts and what not. If these kids were pulling a prank, or back there voluntarily or whatever, would they really have the presence of mind to put quilts back there?
As TheCars pointed out, they could have been on a long trip and had the blankets back there to save on spending money on a Motel 6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
So when you add all that together, it seems to point to something sinister happening. Otherwise, you have to believe in some pretty huge coincidences. Is it just a coincidence the picture was taken in a windowless van? Is it just a coincidence the photo was found where the van was parked? Sure it was. And I'm Michael Jordan, I used to play for the Chicago Bulls.
I don't see the fact that there was a van present at the time the photo was found as an insurmountable coincidence. We are dealing with people that may have selective memories and they may be making connections that just aren't there.

You keep saying "the" van as if there was solid evidence that the van that was parked in the parking lot and the van that the police say where the photo was taken are known to be one in the same. I think that's a mighty large logical step to take. Windowless vans are not that particularly uncommon to rule out a coincidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
Now, with a lot of cases, there are tons of mistaken identity. A lot of eyewitness accounts that aren't reliable. Some cases dozens, others hundreds, heck, there are probably some that have thousands. But this case? The Calicos and Henleys are the only known families that have ever come forward (in 25 years) and said that's their relative. Usually, cases like these attract a swath of family members believing that's their own, but in this case only 2. Why is that? And if The Calicos and Henleys are mistaken, then who are these children? Why haven't they been identified? Are we to believe that there is a high volume of relatives, friends, teachers, neighbors, etc that know who these kids are but aren't speaking? Highly unlikely. So that leaves two scenarios: 1) they're from out of this country, 2) they've been in the van for awhile and their parents don't recognize them (or are deceased or other possibilities).
I believe that the Henleys were indeed mistaken and the boy was found not far from where he went missing dead from exposure.

What is more probable: That the boy went missing during a camping trip and died from exposure or... He was kidnapped along with a teenage girl, both held alive, killed somewhere and then placed back a few miles from the location he went missing?

Only two families that we, as the public and not LEO, know of that made a claim that the children are theirs. Not everyone that makes a claim gets national television attention or a newspaper article and LEO does not always share every detail of a case in the interest of good investigation techniques.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
If this was a prank, why wouldn't the kids come forward? To my knowledge, they haven't committed any criminal act, and even if they had, I doubt the authorities would do anything given their ages. Plus 25 years have passed, surely they wouldn't be afraid of anything now.
The vast majority of the prank pulling young people in 1988 did not watch UM. It's quite possible that the children never saw the case. Or that they don't care. Or that they don't want to get in trouble even 25 years later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
I feel, like a lot of cases on here, that a lot of attention and detail needs to be considered before making a final conclusion. A person can quickly glance at the photo, determine it's a hoax and move on with their life. But I think, when you consider the totality of clues, including what I've mentioned above, something just isn't right with the photo.
I don't think that it's a hoax as I don't think it was an intentional effort to trick LE into believing that the kids were held against their will. I think it was just a joke between friends or siblings that somehow fell out of their hands and became connected to the case.

Also consider the family's desire to find their children, they'll see their children and hold on to any hope that they are still alive. The Terry Lynn Nixon case is a great example of this very confirmation bias.
PKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 05:37 PM   #127
PKB
Member
Frequent Poster
 
PKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 05, 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86
Arguably the most famous Great Smoky Mountains disappearance case is that of Dennis Martin, a small boy from Knoxville who disappeared from Spence Field in 1969 and was never seen again. As Henley and Martin were close to the same age and size when they disappeared, I thought what this former park ranger had to say might be pertinent to the Henley discussion:

McCarter, believes that what most likely happened to Dennis is that he got lost, became disoriented and Dennis perished in the wild. But he does not rule out either of the other two theories.

He cites several reasons why the massive search could have missed Dennis or his body.

A 48-inch-tall boy can easily elude detection in rugged mountain terrain, and especially in a rhododendron or laurel thicket. The sound of a roaring creek can prevent a searcher from hearing a child's shouts for help. And in some cases, lost and disoriented children have been known to hide from searchers.

As for an animal attack, McCarter said, "That is possible." Bears normally will not attack humans, but in June 1969, their normal food sources were greatly diminished. And near Spence Field about two weeks before Dennis disappeared, McCarter said, rangers released a "bony, scrawny bear" caught in a wild boar trap baited with corn - something that bears normally do not eat.


http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/ju...-dennis-martin

I don't find it unusual that Henley was missed the first time.


<snip>
Just re-reading this thread and I must stress that this is a very important thing to keep in mind. Not everyone that goes missing is another white-slave captive whisked from truck stop to truck stop to serve as another sexual victim of the White Van Phantom TM: Occasionally more mundane fates fall on people.

The truck stop idea is far fetched. How could that be kept hidden? Criminals maintain a certain level of desecration otherwise they are not criminals for very long (actually they are, just upgraded to "prisoners"). While local police may sometimes turn a blind eye and deaf CB speaker to run of the mill lot lizards they would seriously pursue any leads of a child being peddled.

While not impossible I believe that it is very unlikely.

Homegirl was riding a bike with headphones on and run over, accident or not, killers got rid of the body. Littleman wanders away from his camp and dies from hypothermia. Bored kids messing around with a camera say "Hey! Think your sister would be down for..." and drop the photo or leave it for a prank or forget that they took it, etc.
PKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 12:48 AM   #128
wiseguy182
Member
Senior Member
 
wiseguy182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2006
Location: Wendy's salad bar
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
I think that it's a cultural meme that windowless struggle vans are the transport of choice for child abductors. The majority are family members driving whatever they have.
I would tend to disagree. The windowless vans are perfect for the abductors because nobody can see into them, and there's enough space back there to hidethe kid or kids. I would need to see some statistics before dismissing it as a "cultural meme".

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
You stated ..."let's break down what we do know about it" and then went on to infer that the photo was related to the van that was parked at the store. We don't know that. I think it's important to keep in mind that the mere presence of a van and the interior of the van in the photo may not be related at all.
I broke down the facts in the next paragraph and the inferences came later, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

In any event, my point is, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And when the photo is found where the van was parked and the authorities determinedthe photo was taken in same or similar van, then the odds are pretty darn good the photo was taken inside that van.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
As TheCars pointed out, they could have been on a long trip and had the blankets back there to save on spending money on a Motel 6.
I've heard they're quite expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
The vast majority of the prank pulling young people in 1988 did not watch UM. It's quite possible that the children never saw the case. Or that they don't care. Or that they don't want to get in trouble even 25 years later.
What trouble? As I stated, they haven't committed any crime. How would you know the "vast majority of prank pulling young people did not watch UM?" That's a large leap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
Also consider the family's desire to find their children, they'll see their children and hold on to any hope that they are still alive. The Terry Lynn Nixon case is a great example of this very confirmation bias.
I don't know a Terry Lynn Nixon. There's Kerri Lynn Nixon. In that case, it was mentioned that Kerri had told friends her desire to runaway, so that's another factor why they thought it might be Kerri. I certainly don't blame them for it. As for Tara, it still could be her in the pic. Who knows?
wiseguy182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 04:36 AM   #129
PKB
Member
Frequent Poster
 
PKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 05, 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
I would tend to disagree. The windowless vans are perfect for the abductors because nobody can see into them, and there's enough space back there to hidethe kid or kids. I would need to see some statistics before dismissing it as a "cultural meme".
The statistics are is that most kidnappings are from family members. Most do not buy a white windowless van to do so. Most do so with whatever vehicle they happen to be using which is usually not a windowless van.

They're also perfect for a variety of uses and not all are boogyman rapists.

While they may be the vehicle of choice and perfect for the task I don't think that you could prove that the majority of kidnapped children in the US are snatched up and bundled in the back of the van to be gagged with tape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
I broke down the facts in the next paragraph and the inferences came later, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
You inferred that the van that was parked in space where the photo was found and the van where the photo may have been taken were one in the same. This is what I am getting at: we don't know that the van that the witness recalls is the same one where the photo was taken.

Is it a reasonable assumption? That's debatable. I'm half way on this. I will begin by assuming that the photo is not of Tara or the Henley boy (which is extremely unlikely). First of all, as many seem to think this is a photo of child porn... Child porn in that day was rare and difficult to come by. Not something the owner would want to lose or would be careless enough to drop it from the same vehicle where the incriminating photo was taken. Possible but I think unlikely.
If it was a prank it would have gotten there any number of ways. Maybe the kids took it, got a giggle and forgot about it. Maybe they threw it away and it blew into a parking spot. Maybe they took the photo to freak out their parents. Who knows.

...And then there's this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...037604/?no-ist

If we can agree that a photo can end up in a parking spot though other means than being dropped from a vehicle then I think we can agree that it is possible that the van in the spot may not be one in the same as the van in the photo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
In any event, my point is, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And when the photo is found where the van was parked and the authorities determinedthe photo was taken in same or similar van, then the odds are pretty darn good the photo was taken inside that van.
The photo was found where the witness says a van was parked, not where the van was parked. Your confirmation bias is showing.

The authorities, if you believe them so far, have also stated that Tara likely was killed in a hit and run incident based on evidence not available to the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
I've heard they're quite expensive.
Standard queen bed near me is 69.99. If you're being sarcastic and that's not much to you then kick some of that my way. Paypal gift or bitcoin is fine.

Really? Do you think it is unreasonable that folks would sleep in a vehicle, especially a van, on a long trip to save money?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
What trouble? As I stated, they haven't committed any crime. How would you know the "vast majority of prank pulling young people did not watch UM?" That's a large leap.
They may not have come forward for a variety of reasons and children, at the time, may not want to admit to something if there is perceived trouble which would be understandable in this case. There are any number of reasons why they wouldn't come forward.

Let me rephrase: The majority of kids of the ages of the kids in the photo did not see this segment. I think that is a fairly safe statement.

Another great example from the Kerri Lynn Nixon story: They could not ID the girl in the video. They knew when and where it was shot and still couldn't pin down who she was. Why didn't she come forward? Who knows? She wouldn't have been in any trouble. I'd go with she was probably too busy cutting out magazines and making a collage on her bedroom mirror to care or catch the segment.

The fact that no one has come forward to say they took the photo or that they are in the photo does not mean that the people in the photo were being held against their will. I think it is reasonable to believe that if the photo is a prank the kids may never have seen the segment or may not have come forward for whatever reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
I don't know a Terry Lynn Nixon. There's Kerri Lynn Nixon. In that case, it was mentioned that Kerri had told friends her desire to runaway, so that's another factor why they thought it might be Kerri. I certainly don't blame them for it. As for Tara, it still could be her in the pic. Who knows?
Ah, yes, thank you. Kerri is what I meant however you still did not address my point that a grieving family seeking a family member will see their missing child and cling to any shred of hope they have. I certainly don't "blame" them for it. I understand why they would want to believe that they were seeing their daughter.

I agree, it could be Tara in the photo. But I see very little evidence aside from a vague resemblance. If it is who is the boy then?
PKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 06:22 AM   #130
wiseguy182
Member
Senior Member
 
wiseguy182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2006
Location: Wendy's salad bar
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
The statistics are is that most kidnappings are from family members. Most do not buy a white windowless van to do so. Most do so with whatever vehicle they happen to be using which is usually not a windowless van.

They're also perfect for a variety of uses and not all are boogyman rapists.

While they may be the vehicle of choice and perfect for the task I don't think that you could prove that the majority of kidnapped children in the US are snatched up and bundled in the back of the van to be gagged with tape.
Proof?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
The photo was found where the witness says a van was parked, not where the van was parked. Your confirmation bias is showing.
How would you know where the van was parked? Were you there?


Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
Standard queen bed near me is 69.99. If you're being sarcastic and that's not much to you then kick some of that my way. Paypal gift or bitcoin is fine.

Really? Do you think it is unreasonable that folks would sleep in a vehicle, especially a van, on a long trip to save money?
It wasn't $70.00 twenty-five years ago. Yeah I do think it's unreasonable. Not impossible, but extremely rare. I've worked in the industry most of my adult life so I know a thing or two about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
Let me rephrase: The majority of kids of the ages of the kids in the photo did not see this segment. I think that is a fairly safe statement.
well...maybe. Factoring in all of UM's competition for the night in question, as well as the people who didn't watch t.v. that may be technically true, but it still reached a fair number of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
Another great example from the Kerri Lynn Nixon story: They could not ID the girl in the video. They knew when and where it was shot and still couldn't pin down who she was. Why didn't she come forward? Who knows? She wouldn't have been in any trouble. I'd go with she was probably too busy cutting out magazines and making a collage on her bedroom mirror to care or catch the segment.
That is a false statement. The girl in the video did come forward and it wasn't Kerri Lynn. I talked about it another thread.
wiseguy182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 08:46 AM   #131
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Senior Member
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
I think that it's a cultural meme that windowless struggle vans are the transport of choice for child abductors. The majority are family members driving whatever they have.

White cargo vans are also the vehicle of choice for plumbers, electricians and other tradesmen.
The majority of the windowless cargo vans that I see are tradesmen. I have no idea where the stereotype came from about children being whisked of the streets into white vans, but they are usually used for work around where I live. And they are also used (especially in the 80's, before the minivan craze) by families taking vacations. My uncle has a blue one. We used it for vacations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
I don't see the fact that there was a van present at the time the photo was found as an insurmountable coincidence. We are dealing with people that may have selective memories and they may be making connections that just aren't there.
I agree. The lady goes inside to go shopping, comes back out and notices the photo. She remembers seeing a van parked outside, so instantly she makes the connection that it must have come from the van. It's not that much of a stretch to see how this lady was trying to make a connection to something, trying to be helpful to law enforcement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
I believe that the Henleys were indeed mistaken and the boy was found not far from where he went missing dead from exposure.
I agree. The only reason the boy was thought to have been Henley, IMHO, was because of the resemblance of the girl to Tara Calico. And knowing that Tara went missing from New Mexico, as did Henley, Henley's parents made the connection based off of the hope that their son was still alive. Once it was shown how improbable it was that the boy in the picture was Henley (I never did think the boy looked anything like Henley), then that makes it even less likely, IMO, that the girl in the picture is Calico.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKB
I think it was just a joke between friends or siblings that somehow fell out of their hands and became connected to the case.
I agree.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 09:38 AM   #132
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Senior Member
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,635
Default

The kids in the photo might not want to come forward for a variety of reasons, already discussed. But I just thought of another one: guilt and/or shame. Imagine if they realized that this picture set off a ton of publicity, getting several families to suspect that their child might be the one in the photo. They might be ashamed to come forward, fearful of the backlash they would receive for giving families a false sense of hope.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 03:25 PM   #133
PKB
Member
Frequent Poster
 
PKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 05, 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
The kids in the photo might not want to come forward for a variety of reasons, already discussed. But I just thought of another one: guilt and/or shame. Imagine if they realized that this picture set off a ton of publicity, getting several families to suspect that their child might be the one in the photo. They might be ashamed to come forward, fearful of the backlash they would receive for giving families a false sense of hope.
That's a very probable suggestion and exactly why I think they would, at the time at their ages at least, fear 'getting in trouble'. By now they may be completely unaware that it's still something that LE is looking into... If they care at all.

I was also thinking last night that it could have been a prank pulled on their parents. The kids could very well be siblings. I can easily imagine the scenario:
"Wouldn't it be funny to stage this photo and then leave it on the table when Mom and Dad get home? They'll freak!"
Heartless kind of a prank but kids sometimes don't completely understand how their actions may affects others. Also kids are known sometimes to exploit their parents feelings for them, threatening to hold their breath for something or whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
I agree. The lady goes inside to go shopping, comes back out and notices the photo. She remembers seeing a van parked outside, so instantly she makes the connection that it must have come from the van. It's not that much of a stretch to see how this lady was trying to make a connection to something, trying to be helpful to law enforcement.
I think that this is vital and I think that this threw the investigation way off from the beginning. If I were looking into this case when it happened I have to ask myself which scenario is more likely: Tara was the victim of a hit and run or that she was abducted and held against her will, driven 1500 (more? I think more) miles away, had her photo taken and the abductors carelessly decided to drop the incriminating photo out of their pocket right outside the vehicle where she's being held. This seems to be exceedingly unlikely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
Proof?
From
http://news.discovery.com/human/psyc...are-130514.htm

Quote:
Only a tiny minority of kidnapped children are taken by strangers. Between 1990 and 1995 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children handled only 515 stranger abductions, 3.1 percent of its caseload. A 2000 report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs reported that more than 3/4 of kidnappings were committed by family members or acquaintances of the child. The study also found that children abducted by strangers were harmed less frequently than those taken by acquaintances.
I am willing to grant that the number of stranger abductions may have been higher 2 years before this NCMEC data but it wouldn't be the majority. So yes, most abductions are family members.

http://www.lindenhurststrangerdanger.com/?page_id=2

This site has a cool chart showing a decline in stranger abductions between 1990 and 1999. So even keeping with that trend that stranger abductions were more common in 1988 it would still be under 5% and actually more like 3% +/-. So yeah...

I also think it's important to keep in mind that we don't know this was an abduction. I don't believe it was and the authorities no longer believe that it was either. I'm not appealing to authority but I am pointing out that it appears to be unlikely that it was an abduction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
How would you know where the van was parked? Were you there?
No sir, I've spent exactly zero time in Port St. Joe in 1989. I am going off of the portion of the witness statement that made it to UM which we both know is not the entirety of the statement.

That is exactly my point: What do we know? We know that the witness stated that a van was there. A van is significantly different than the van. Witnesses have been wrong before. Again, Kerri Lynn Nixon. A witness swears that she met the girl in South Carolina. Same features, same name and from New York.
Was she wrong? She may have met a girl from New York with exactly the same name but we both know that human memory is not an HD recorder. We interpret what we see. Witnesses can be mistaken. In fact, in the KLN thread you said yourself:
"Eyewitness counts are far from accurate many times. Hard to know if people see what they think/want to see, or if they are just making it up to sound important."
I won't hold you to a statement you made 7 years ago but I agree with that statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
It wasn't $70.00 twenty-five years ago. Yeah I do think it's unreasonable. Not impossible, but extremely rare. I've worked in the industry most of my adult life so I know a thing or two about it.
I disagree that it would be extremely rare and unreasonable for a family to sleep in their van on vacation. I can remember several times that my family slept in a vehicle during a vacation to save money on hotel rooms, even around the 1988 time frame. I think we had to once or twice because all the local hotels were booked up.

Also, this was June in Florida. The hotels may have indeed been booked up in an era before kayak.com. Prudent families knew to prepare for this.

On top of that, blankets are not an unusual thing to keep in a vehicle. I have an old Army wool blanket that I keep in my truck in case I do need to spend the night in my truck but also I have used it to lay on the ground when I needed to change a tire. Sure beats laying on the shoulder of the highway. If I looked inside a family panel van I would not think a few blankets or pillows would be so terribly out of place.

All things being equal and controlling for the variables as much as I can I think it is much more likely that she was indeed the victim of a hit and run accident. Homegirl rode her bike like 36 miles a day and listened to music while she did. I would be surprised if they had dedicated bike lanes in the area at the at the time. I could easily imagine a variety of ways in which she would be hit by a car or truck.
The killer(s) would then take the body and drive it out to the desert, and dump the bike. Really, if you took a bike to a landfill no one is going to ask questions. Even if they did you could just say 'Oh yeah, my daughter/little sister left it in the driveway and I backed over it. I told her...'. This is completely reasonable. The missing bike does not trouble me at all. This is not a titled car that has a unique VIN and requires a special method to dispose of.
The desert in that area is a massive place with watties and canyons. Seriously, that drive between Lordsberg and Deming on I-10 is brutal. That area has huge amounts of BML and tribal lands and national forests. A broken piece of a walkman window was found in a campground just inside the Cibola National Forest which would be the nearest NF from where she went missing. There is plenty of room. The 'yotes could have made short work of the body and scattered the remains. The fact that remains haven't been found does not surprise me in the least.
PKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 03:29 PM   #134
PKB
Member
Frequent Poster
 
PKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 05, 2013
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
That is a false statement. The girl in the video did come forward and it wasn't Kerri Lynn. I talked about it another thread.
Ah, OK, I was not aware of this. Thanks very much!
PKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 03:30 PM   #135
Necco
Member
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 06, 2006
Posts: 1,101
Default

I know of families who would sleep in the back of vans/suburbans/pick-ups with caps on the great DisneyWorld road trip back then. Usually the kids would sleep at night while a parent drove, they'd stop at some crappy tourist trap like South of the Border for the kids to run around like idiots and the driver would sleep in the car. I even know people who would toss a mattress in the back of a capped pick-up, toss in some blankets and pillows and pile an insanely illegal (nowadays) mess of kids in the back for the ride.
Necco is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Frequently Asked Questions

1) How do I contact Unsolved Mysteries with information on segments?

If you any information on cases, you can contact them via:

Website: www.unsolved.com

Contact form on official Unsolved Mysteries site

Please note that their old mailing address and 1-800 phone number no longer work.


2) Where can I watch Unsolved Mysteries?

Unsolved Mysteries is available for streaming on Amazon Instant Video, YouTube and Hulu.


Although the administrators and moderators of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards, nor vBulletin Solutions Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. The owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.