The DWT - The Truck(s?) and the Surveillance Images [Archive]

bessie

06-02-2012, 04:43 PM

Use this thread to discuss the video surveillance of the white truck(s?), aka "The DWT".

IMPondering

08-05-2012, 10:04 AM

Well I figured I'd be the first to post here, gotta be first at something!

Thank God for the video of the truck taken by the LCG camera, the same camera that captured the picture of Mickey biking. If not for those images BSL would still be roaming the streets.

Thank you to all those that helped in making the arrest possible, especially the lady (hero) at Don's Wholesale.

The DWT/FWT postings did reach a fever pitch with those creative photoshopped photos. As I look back, some were quite comical.

And a final thanks to those that converge here to brainstorm and share banter!

laura83

08-05-2012, 06:38 PM

I'm a bit confused by the new layout. But glad I can now say that when I zoom in on the truck on my iPod, whatever is under the truck has shadows, so it can't be a shadow itself. Phew, been wanting to say that for a while but didn't want to get eggs thrown at me :rocker:

andalso

08-06-2012, 07:19 AM

Copied my own post from MUCH earlier in the threads re: my feelings on the DWT.

I feel like an idiot.I really do because I do see MS and the bike under the truck in the one picture. I absolutely see it...BUT at the same time I know it can not be...there is just no way, logic tells me there IS NO WAY (oh, and a few of you may have reminded me too). Yet, my eyes see what they see and I keep having to force myself to not believe my eyes. For me that picture is the definition of my eyes playing tricks on me. So, no I do not believe she is in the picture...but heck if I do not see it still.
IMO

Jkg005

08-06-2012, 10:28 PM

Copied my own post from MUCH earlier in the threads re: my feelings on the DWT.

I feel like an idiot.I really do because I do see MS and the bike under the truck in the one picture. I absolutely see it...BUT at the same time I know it can not be...there is just no way, logic tells me there IS NO WAY (oh, and a few of you may have reminded me too). Yet, my eyes see what they see and I keep having to force myself to not believe my eyes. For me that picture is the definition of my eyes playing tricks on me. So, no I do not believe she is in the picture...but heck if I do not see it still.
IMO

So glad the two of you have been able to release your thoughts on those pictures! Every time I would offer an opinion I was quickly hushed by insults or snide remarks. I know logically under certain circumstance neither Mickey nor the bike would be under the truck. But we don't know all of the circumstances was she stopped, coasting or turning into to parking lot? If any of those things happened I do believe that either one of them could be under the truck. I still don't know what would be so horrible about a picture being released with the bike being under the truck. I have heard way more theories that don't even come close to that. IMO I think everyone knows what the possibilities are. It just breaks my heart to think this could have happened to someone like Mickey who had the face of an angel and from what I have heard such a wonderful personality. I have the utmost respect for Mickey's family for their love for her, their devotion to finding Mickey and their self control. God bless all of them and please let Mickey come home.

gngr~snap

08-06-2012, 10:33 PM

So glad the two of you have been able to release your thoughts on those pictures! Every time I would offer an opinion I was quickly hushed by insults or snide remarks. I know logically under certain circumstance neither Mickey nor the bike would be under the truck. But we don't know all of the circumstances was she stopped, coasting or turning into to parking lot? If any of those things happened I do believe that either one of them could be under the truck. I still don't know what would be so horrible about a picture being released with the bike being under the truck. I have heard way more theories that don't even come close to that. IMO I think everyone knows what the possibilities are. It just breaks my heart to think this could have happened to someone like Mickey who had the face of an angel and from what I have heard such a wonderful personality. I have the utmost respect for Mickey's family for their love for her, their devotion to finding Mickey and their self control. God bless all of them and please let Mickey come home.
IMO I saw a blurred "something" under the truck (with a HEADLIGHT...)
So what if the bike WAS under the truck! Could Mickey not have taken off on foot only to be nabbed later on Coliseum ?
Inquiring minds want to know!

~jmo... and I will stand by it until the photo is explained by LE (if ever)
I know it was said at one point... blah blah blah... LE can stretch the truth...
whenever they deem in necessary....
again JMO

Jkg005

08-06-2012, 11:23 PM

IMO I saw a blurred "something" under the truck (with a HEADLIGHT...)
So what if the bike WAS under the truck! Could Mickey not have taken off on foot only to be nabbed later on Coliseum ?
Inquiring minds want to know!

~jmo... and I will stand by it until the photo is explained by LE (if ever)
I know it was said at one point... blah blah blah... LE can stretch the truth...
whenever they deem in necessary....
again JMO

My thoughts exactly. Also if it was a deliberate bump maybe the light broke off and it is only the light under the truck.

laura83

08-07-2012, 05:13 AM

There is definitely something under the truck. They said it wasn't Mickey, but no matter how much I look I DO see the bike. Maybe Mickey thought she could lose him on foot and didn't feel any safer going to circle k? I think the other camera that caught her was supposed to be after but wasn't it said that they had to estimate the times?

There is definitely shadows cast by whatever is under there, and definitely a light. I know that some people thought more damage would have been done by the truck, but trucks are quite high and truck is at an angle, maybe he had tried to avoid the bike but knocked it and quickly threw it in the back. People who think that he may have approached and said something to her, how about I saw you drop your bike, I have I here?

I don't know. I wish we weren't trying to work any of this out at all. I don't care what time of night it is. No one has a right to do this :(

gngr~snap

08-07-2012, 06:37 AM

There is definitely something under the truck. They said it wasn't Mickey, but no matter how much I look I DO see the bike. Maybe Mickey thought she could lose him on foot and didn't feel any safer going to circle k? I think the other camera that caught her was supposed to be after but wasn't it said that they had to estimate the times?

There is definitely shadows cast by whatever is under there, and definitely a light. I know that some people thought more damage would have been done by the truck, but trucks are quite high and truck is at an angle, maybe he had tried to avoid the bike but knocked it and quickly threw it in the back. People who think that he may have approached and said something to her, how about I saw you drop your bike, I have I here?

I don't know. I wish we weren't trying to work any of this out at all. I don't care what time of night it is. No one has a right to do this :(

I have shown the picture to people who knew NOTHING about this case... and asked is there ANYTHING under that truck? 100% said yes. They were not sure what but said "whatever" it is... it has been blurred out.

OK! I only asked like 12 people...

When I suggested that it could be a bike at 2 am... they offered the headlight...

I can wait until the trial.

IMO LE only released the photo to see if the perp would run... It was NOT for the "public" to locate him... yes they may have "missed" it when he ran and torched the truck... OR they were "on top of him" but lacked evidence to apprehend him at the time...

THEY "KNEW"!!! Just didn't have "enough" at the time!
moo

eta: maybe LE even made the image "look like" there was something there when there wasn't?

Whatever! I see it. "Smudges" in front and behind the right front tire of the DWT... and a "headlight" on the ground.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcpdIHiy6Gq39m5SOwj0-xFoVkK6_OwTuNjdf-izzT0zQ8EU6R_wlze1aFmA

it's not a horse or a donkey or a coal miner! It's a BIKE!
moo

andalso

08-07-2012, 09:12 AM

Yup...I still see the bike under the truck every time I look!!!!

Mahouston69

08-09-2012, 04:41 AM

I had to make sure this thread wasn't a trap... before posting.

I didn't see a light under the truck for a good long time. When there started to be posts asking or pointing out the light, I started to wonder. I pulled it up into Adobe Photoshop, I zoomed in, I cropped out. I layered, I sharpened, I blurred. I couldn't see anything except that light out of place. Then I started checking lights with the color picker with the truck picture and Mickey by herself. I made sure density was the same in both photos and started checking lights and objects in both photos. Numbers started matching. The light in Mickey's photo, matched the light under the truck. I still wouldn't think it was her bike or her if I didn't do that. The software says it's the bike light.

That feels so good to type and not get laughed at, and called crazy. *sigh

I don't know if she was under/in/or down the road in this photo of the truck. But, her bike light is under. It hurts me more every time I see that truck. My aching gut tells me he hit her too hard. Then everything after that was cover up and lies.

chicken fried

08-10-2012, 10:42 AM

I know that my view is not popular, but I wanted to make the case for physics, specifically regarding the "bike headlight." Just as everyone has the right to discuss why they believe they see a bike headlamp under the truck, I would like to explain why I believe that the physical laws of refraction and reflection combined to create a convincing optical illusion:

I still think that what many see as a "bike headlight" is actually the reflection of the truck's headlight off of the camera lens, onto the inner surface of the plexiglas dome over the camera, and reflecting back into the camera lens, thereby adding to the refraction originally occurring when it passed through the plexiglas dome.

A strong light source, pointed at a camera, encounters the refractive effect when it passes through a transparent medium. This means that the light rays are slightly shifted as they come out the other side of that medium, a plexiglas dome, for example. Light rays passing through a transparent material are always slightly diverted from their original trajectory. This same effect can be seen by placing a straw into a glass of water and viewing it from the side, or standing in a pool and seeing how one's legs are foreshortened.

With respect to the LCG camera, a strong light (the DWT's headlight) was indirectly shining at the camera. It's the strongest light source closest to the camera. The light rays traveled in a straight line from the headlight to the plexiglas dome. Once the rays hit the dome, and headed toward the lens, they were diverted slightly downward as they exited the inner surface of the dome, due to the refractory effect of transparent materials.

In the case of the plexiglas dome, some of the rays, instead of traveling through the camera lens onto the sensor, bounced off the curved surface of the camera lens, reversed direction but at a different, non-diametrically-opposed angle, due to the lens curvature, and reflected off of the inner surface of the plexiglas dome back into the camera lens. Therefore they shined on a different spot of the plexiglas dome than they had originally passed through.

Due to the curvature of the lens, the curvature of the plexiglas dome, the laws of reflection, and the original slight refraction caused by the plexiglas dome as the rays were coming in from the truck, the reflected rays bouncing off the camera lens and hitting the inside of the plexiglas dome are dimmer and lower than the original light source, the truck headlight. The reason that they create this refraction illusion directly under the truck headlight is that both the dome and the lens curve directly backward as one heads toward the bottom of it, changing the angle of the reflected light rays.

That reflected light off the lens then bounces off of the inside of the plexiglas dome, to be recorded by the camera as a dimmer version of the truck headlight - which masquerades as a bike headlight. Had the camera and dome been turned 90 degrees sideways on the City-Hall wall, the "bike headlight" would have appeared to the left or to the right of the truck headlight.

All this is just my opinion, based upon my knowledge of physics and the refractive and reflective properties of transparent materials, with regards to light rays. It is not to address anything else in the photo. But given the physical laws of refraction and reflection, it may be a fruitful exercise for folks to re-examine the picture, and intentionally ignore the "bike headlight," and see what that analysis reveals. :twocents:

andalso

08-10-2012, 10:57 AM

I know my view is not popular, but I wanted to make the case for physics, specifically regarding the "bike headlight." Just as everyone has the right to discuss why they believe they see a bike headlamp under the truck, I am free to discuss why I believe it is a convincing optical illusion:

I still think that what many see as a "bike headlight" is actually the reflection of the truck's headlight off of the camera lens, onto the inner surface of the plexiglas dome over the camera, reflecting back into the camera lens, added to the refraction originally occurring when it passed through the plexiglas dome.

A strong light source, pointed at a camera, encounters the refractive effect when it passes through a transparent medium. This means that the light rays are slightly shifted as they come out the other side of that medium, a plexiglas dome, for example. Light rays passing through a transparent material are always slightly diverted from their original trajectory. This same effect can be seen by placing a straw into a glass of water and viewing it from the side, or standing in a pool and seeing how one's legs are foreshortened.

With respect to the LCG camera, a strong light (the DWT's headlight) was indirectly shining at the camera. It's the strongest light source closest to the camera. The light rays traveled in a straight line from the headlight to the plexiglas dome. Once the rays hit the dome, they were diverted slightly downward due to the refractory effect of transparent materials.

In the case of the plexiglas dome, some of the rays, instead of traveling through the camera lens onto the sensor, bounced off the curved surface of the camera lens, reversed direction but at a different, non-diametrically-opposed angle, due to the lens curvature, and reflected off of the inner surface of the plexiglas dome back into the camera lens. Therefore they shined on a different spot of the plexiglas dome than they had originally passed through.

Due to the curvature of the lens, the curvature of the plexiglas dome, the laws of reflection, and the original slight refraction caused by the plexiglas dome as the rays were coming in from the truck, the reflected rays bouncing off the camera lens and hitting the inside of the plexiglas dome are dimmer and lower than the original light source, the truck headlight. The reason that they create this refraction illusion directly under the truck headlight is that both the dome and the lens curve directly backward as one heads toward the bottom of it, changing the angle of the reflected light rays.

That reflected light off the lens then bounces off of the inside of the plexiglas dome, to be recorded by the camera as a dimmer version of the truck headlight - which masquerades as a bike headlight. Had the camera and dome been turned 90 degrees sideways on the City-Hall wall, the "bike headlight" would have appeared to the left or to the right of the truck headlight.

All this is just my opinion, based upon my knowledge of physics and the refractive and reflective properties of transparent materials, with regards to light rays. It is not to address anything else in the photo. But given the physical laws of refraction and reflection, it may be a fruitful exercise for folks to re-examine the picture, and intentionally ignore the "bike headlight," and see what that analysis reveals. :twocents:

Orrrrrrr....it's Mickey's bike's headlight. :crazy:
FWIW...it also appears to me that the right front tire is off the ground...running something over. Also, Mahouston69 states (and I quote them) that "The software says it's the bike light." How is that explained? And, IIRC, Mahouston69 is not the only one who has stated that.

heidisams

08-10-2012, 11:31 AM

Orrrrrrr....it's Mickey's bike's headlight. :crazy:
FWIW...it also appears to me that the right front tire is off the ground...running something over. Also, Mahouston69 states (and I quote them) that "The software says it's the bike light." How is that explained? And, IIRC, Mahouston69 is not the only one who has stated that.

The right front tire does appear to be elevated, but that might be due to the angle of the truck... playing a trick on the eye.
Regardless, the weight of that truck would steamroll right over that bike or send it flying, imo. I don't think the bike weighs enough, in comparison to the truck, to raise the truck off the ground like that. A stationary object, or one with great mass, maybe, but not a bicycle...
All jmo.

danzn16

08-10-2012, 11:46 AM

Orrrrrrr....it's Mickey's bike's headlight. :crazy:
FWIW...it also appears to me that the right front tire is off the ground...running something over. Also, Mahouston69 states (and I quote them) that "The software says it's the bike light." How is that explained? And, IIRC, Mahouston69 is not the only one who has stated that.

I apologize but what software is available that can tell you that a light source is coming from a bike light? Versus a flash light, a fire, a reflection, etc? What software is so sophisticated that it can do this? I was not aware of such.

andalso

08-10-2012, 11:52 AM

I had to make sure this thread wasn't a trap... before posting.

I didn't see a light under the truck for a good long time. When there started to be posts asking or pointing out the light, I started to wonder. I pulled it up into Adobe Photoshop, I zoomed in, I cropped out. I layered, I sharpened, I blurred. I couldn't see anything except that light out of place. Then I started checking lights with the color picker with the truck picture and Mickey by herself. I made sure density was the same in both photos and started checking lights and objects in both photos. Numbers started matching. The light in Mickey's photo, matched the light under the truck. I still wouldn't think it was her bike or her if I didn't do that. The software says it's the bike light.

That feels so good to type and not get laughed at, and called crazy. *sigh

I don't know if she was under/in/or down the road in this photo of the truck. But, her bike light is under. It hurts me more every time I see that truck. My aching gut tells me he hit her too hard. Then everything after that was cover up and lies.

I apologize but what software is available that can tell you that a light source is coming from a bike light? Versus a flash light, a fire, a reflection, etc? What software is so sophisticated that it can do this? I was not aware of such.

Both posts BBM.

IMPondering

08-10-2012, 12:46 PM

Deja vu' all over again!

FWT does stand for FABULOUS WHITE TRUCK......The one that started the process of taking BSL down!

chicken fried

08-10-2012, 12:48 PM

Regarding mahouston69's density examination:

I do not claim to be a Photoshop expert, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I have worked with Photoshop extensively for 13 years.

The problem I see with trying to match density numbers, using the color picker, etc., is this:

The truck headlight is "blown out." The density of the white color has reached one side of the spectrum and cannot go any higher. This is evidenced by the fact that the truck headlight looks much larger than its actual size. The light is so intense that it has overwhelmed the camera sensors to the extent that pure white pixels have been created that are not actually there. The same thing happened to the speed-limit sign in the Versailles Mickey pic. The white light from under the Cathedral-Carmel bus canopy overblew the sensor to the point where it wrapped around the sign and created false pixels.

This effect can be liked to a thermometer left in the sunlight reading at the very top of the scale, even though the air temperature may be 85 degrees, or that of an 85-mph speedometer on a car that is doing 110, pegged against the top stop at 85.

The intense white color of the truck light created an oversized, maxed out, splotch on the camera sensor that bled over to other pixels.

It is possible that the density of the reflection that I describe above, of the truck headlight reflecting off the camera lens, then bouncing off the inside of the plexiglas dome (the reflection that some see as Mickey's headlight), may also possibly be attributed to this maxing-out effect, as well as the density of the known picture of her headlight.

We don't know the percentage by which the incoming bike headlight overblew the camera sensor. It is possible that enough light from the truck headlight reflected off of the lens that its reflection on the inside of the dome (the alleged "bike-under-truck headlight") still had an intense-enough white light to max out the white color and make it appear to be the same density as that of the known photo of Mickey's headlight.

Simply put, an 85-mph speedometer on a car reads the same whether the car is doing 90 or 110.

This effect cannot be definitively detected using Photoshop alone, IMO, without taking into account the technical details of the camera, which we don't have.

To restate, if the light on Mickey's bike, seen in the pic of her in front of Circle K, is at one end of the density spectrum - which it could be, as it is brighter than its surroundings (and we have no way of knowing this without a very technical analysis of the camera specs), how do we know that the reflection of an "overblown" truck headlight, bouncing off the camera lens, wouldn't still be blown out enough to appear to be the same density?

Again, if our speedometer goes to 85 - and the truck headlight is definitely "blown out," as evidenced by its obvious oversized appearance, how do we know that both the actual picture of Mickey's light, and what I deem a reflection (which others see as "Mickey's light under the truck"), are not both figuratively traveling faster than 85 mph - and yet figuratively reading 85 on the nose, in Photoshop, and so falsely appearing the same?

Had the color been somewhere in the middle of the density spectrum, it would be different. But IMO it is not possible to use a blown-out light source, maxed against one end of the scale and thereby creating pure white pixels, to definitively conclude that the light source in the known picture of Mickey's headlight, and the light under the truck, are one and the same.

WhatsupAZ

08-10-2012, 12:52 PM

I admit that I skipped over and checked out during most of this conversation because I had nothing to add. I never really had the capability to see a clear picture as I only use my phone for websleuthing. And... The tone in the "room" was so negative at times! Maybe I am just a Pollyanna.

When the sting of the outcome subsides, and more of the investigation is revealed, I plan to go back and read all of the dwt banter to see how many were correct. I am curious!

Mahouston69

08-10-2012, 02:36 PM

I apologize but what software is available that can tell you that a light source is coming from a bike light? Versus a flash light, a fire, a reflection, etc? What software is so sophisticated that it can do this? I was not aware of such.

Adobe Photoshop. It isn't the sophistication, it's a tool. A flashlight, a fire, a reflection, a bike light have different hues, intensities, densities, shadows, you don't see the fine differences until you have worked with many different photos in all aspects, restoration, digital graphics to be specific. You can sometimes spot fake photos by lack of proper shadowing, not the subject, see what I mean?

For Chicken Fried also in regards to the blown headlight. I compared the light sources from photo to photo. Not focused on one photo. Density being equal, the black points, white points, lights, and object data in photo a. Mickey, should match almost identical to those same lights, and objects in photo b. the truck, same time, within seconds, same camera, same angle, same filter, same resolution...and they do. From data in a. To data in b. Circle k light, matches circle k light. Cement curb, matches cement curb....bike light, matches bike light.

whatsthatnoise

08-10-2012, 02:44 PM

Thank you for taking a LOT of personal time to be thorough and detailed to prove the point. Its not falling on all deaf ears. I, for one, appreciate you taking the time to be helpful despite there still being objection to your logic and reason. I could not be as patient as you. Thank you sir. Well said.

I know that my view is not popular, but I wanted to make the case for physics, specifically regarding the "bike headlight." Just as everyone has the right to discuss why they believe they see a bike headlamp under the truck, I would like to explain why I believe that the physical laws of refraction and reflection combined to create a convincing optical illusion:

I still think that what many see as a "bike headlight" is actually the reflection of the truck's headlight off of the camera lens, onto the inner surface of the plexiglas dome over the camera, and reflecting back into the camera lens, thereby adding to the refraction originally occurring when it passed through the plexiglas dome.

A strong light source, pointed at a camera, encounters the refractive effect when it passes through a transparent medium. This means that the light rays are slightly shifted as they come out the other side of that medium, a plexiglas dome, for example. Light rays passing through a transparent material are always slightly diverted from their original trajectory. This same effect can be seen by placing a straw into a glass of water and viewing it from the side, or standing in a pool and seeing how one's legs are foreshortened.

With respect to the LCG camera, a strong light (the DWT's headlight) was indirectly shining at the camera. It's the strongest light source closest to the camera. The light rays traveled in a straight line from the headlight to the plexiglas dome. Once the rays hit the dome, and headed toward the lens, they were diverted slightly downward as they exited the inner surface of the dome, due to the refractory effect of transparent materials.

In the case of the plexiglas dome, some of the rays, instead of traveling through the camera lens onto the sensor, bounced off the curved surface of the camera lens, reversed direction but at a different, non-diametrically-opposed angle, due to the lens curvature, and reflected off of the inner surface of the plexiglas dome back into the camera lens. Therefore they shined on a different spot of the plexiglas dome than they had originally passed through.

Due to the curvature of the lens, the curvature of the plexiglas dome, the laws of reflection, and the original slight refraction caused by the plexiglas dome as the rays were coming in from the truck, the reflected rays bouncing off the camera lens and hitting the inside of the plexiglas dome are dimmer and lower than the original light source, the truck headlight. The reason that they create this refraction illusion directly under the truck headlight is that both the dome and the lens curve directly backward as one heads toward the bottom of it, changing the angle of the reflected light rays.

That reflected light off the lens then bounces off of the inside of the plexiglas dome, to be recorded by the camera as a dimmer version of the truck headlight - which masquerades as a bike headlight. Had the camera and dome been turned 90 degrees sideways on the City-Hall wall, the "bike headlight" would have appeared to the left or to the right of the truck headlight.

All this is just my opinion, based upon my knowledge of physics and the refractive and reflective properties of transparent materials, with regards to light rays. It is not to address anything else in the photo. But given the physical laws of refraction and reflection, it may be a fruitful exercise for folks to re-examine the picture, and intentionally ignore the "bike headlight," and see what that analysis reveals. :twocents:

andalso

08-10-2012, 02:51 PM

One of the arguments for why Mickey could not have been hit in front of the circle k is that there were people around and they would have certainly seen something/heard something and done something in response. But, if you google "passersby do nothing" (or any version of that) you will sadly realize that the truth is often that people do "do nothing" when a crime or circumstance warranting attention happens right in front of their eyes. Strange and sad, but true. Just wanted to point that out.

Mahouston69

08-10-2012, 02:58 PM

I still think that what many see as a "bike headlight" is actually the reflection of the truck's headlight off of the camera lens, onto the inner surface of the plexiglas dome over the camera, and reflecting back into the camera lens, thereby adding to the refraction originally occurring when it passed through the plexiglas dome.

Respectfully snipped. If not for two additional odd light sources, the more dense and different hue of the light directly under the right side, AND the directional light pointed down and out at the ground towards the parking lot, I might entertain your theory, but the 'spotlight' spread is obvious, directional, and matches the direct source. If it was just a glare, I don't think we would see that light pattern.

Mahouston69

08-10-2012, 02:59 PM

One of the arguments for why Mickey could not have been hit in front of the circle k is that there were people around and they would have certainly seen something/heard something and done something in response. But, if you google "passersby do nothing" (or any version of that) you will sadly realize that the truth is often that people do "do nothing" when a crime or circumstance warranting attention happens right in front of their eyes. Strange and sad, but true. Just wanted to point that out.

And..in both a.Mickey alone, And b.the Z71, there appears to be no one outside.

kgeaux

08-10-2012, 03:09 PM

Regarding mahouston69's density examination:

I do not claim to be a Photoshop expert, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I have worked with Photoshop extensively for 13 years.

The problem I see with trying to match density numbers, using the color picker, etc., is this:

The truck headlight is "blown out." The density of the white color has reached one side of the spectrum and cannot go any higher. This is evidenced by the fact that the truck headlight looks much larger than its actual size. The light is so intense that it has overwhelmed the camera sensors to the extent that pure white pixels have been created that are not actually there. The same thing happened to the speed-limit sign in the Versailles Mickey pic. The white light from under the Cathedral-Carmel bus canopy overblew the sensor to the point where it wrapped around the sign and created false pixels.

This effect can be liked to a thermometer left in the sunlight reading at the very top of the scale, even though the air temperature may be 85 degrees, or that of an 85-mph speedometer on a car that is doing 110, pegged against the top stop at 85.

The intense white color of the truck light created an oversized, maxed out, splotch on the camera sensor that bled over to other pixels.

It is possible that the density of the reflection that I describe above, of the truck headlight reflecting off the camera lens, then bouncing off the inside of the plexiglas dome (the reflection that some see as Mickey's headlight), may also possibly be attributed to this maxing-out effect, as well as the density of the known picture of her headlight.

We don't know the percentage by which the incoming bike headlight overblew the camera sensor. It is possible that enough light from the truck headlight reflected off of the lens that its reflection on the inside of the dome (the alleged "bike-under-truck headlight") still had an intense-enough white light to max out the white color and make it appear to be the same density as that of the known photo of Mickey's headlight.

Simply put, an 85-mph speedometer on a car reads the same whether the car is doing 90 or 110.

This effect cannot be definitively detected using Photoshop alone, IMO, without taking into account the technical details of the camera, which we don't have.

To restate, if the light on Mickey's bike, seen in the pic of her in front of Circle K, is at one end of the density spectrum - which it could be, as it is brighter than its surroundings (and we have no way of knowing this without a very technical analysis of the camera specs), how do we know that the reflection of an "overblown" truck headlight, bouncing off the camera lens, wouldn't still be blown out enough to appear to be the same density?

Again, if our speedometer goes to 85 - and the truck headlight is definitely "blown out," as evidenced by its obvious oversized appearance, how do we know that both the actual picture of Mickey's light, and what I deem a reflection (which others see as "Mickey's light under the truck"), are not both figuratively traveling faster than 85 mph - and yet figuratively reading 85 on the nose, in Photoshop, and so falsely appearing the same?

Had the color been somewhere in the middle of the density spectrum, it would be different. But IMO it is not possible to use a blown-out light source, maxed against one end of the scale and thereby creating pure white pixels, to definitively conclude that the light source in the known picture of Mickey's headlight, and the light under the truck, are one and the same.

I bet you are an awesome teacher.

andalso

08-10-2012, 03:20 PM

I bet you are an awesome teacher.

And I must be the terrible student! :doh:
lol

Jkg005

08-10-2012, 03:49 PM

Well here we go again! My problem is the light under the truck and the shadows under the tire are not it what I have the most problem with. My problem is the items that in my opinion have been blocked out. What I see regarding the right headlight is not a
Lit headlight at all rather two squares that have been laid one on top Of the other covering whatever (????) in the picture of the truck going towards University it appears the same may have been done there on the back window like a decal may have been covered as well as the right side of the truck bed. If you take a laptop and lean the screen back these items stick out like a sore thumb. Some of the have perfectly straight edges which in my opinion does not happen with direct light sources. Again all of this is my opinion. None of what I see is anything bazaar I don't see cats, dogs or Mickey.

Money Girl

08-10-2012, 04:01 PM

A wonderful WS poster did post a photo of the DWT with the driver clearly shown. Now, I recognize that driver as BSL.

Mahouston69

08-10-2012, 04:12 PM

Well here we go again! My problem is the light under the truck and the shadows under the tire are not it what I have the most problem with. My problem is the items that in my opinion have been blocked out. What I see regarding the right headlight is not a
Lit headlight at all rather two squares that have been laid one on top Of the other covering whatever (????) in the picture of the truck going towards University it appears the same may have been done there on the back window like a decal may have been covered as well as the right side of the truck bed. If you take a laptop and lean the screen back these items stick out like a sore thumb. Some of the have perfectly straight edges which in my opinion does not happen with direct light sources. Again all of this is my opinion. None of what I see is anything bazaar I don't see cats, dogs or Mickey.

I think they did block things out and blurred them as in digital forensics there are many ways to detect manipulation. These photos were previously manipulated, to what extent, we don't know. I won't comment on other photos posted on WS that are indeed manipulated but imported into Photoshop or almost any imaging program can show you they are. Problem is when used in a courtroom, a digital image also shows manipulation markers when it is simply rotated. So it is imperative to preserve digital data as is- if the original raw information is important to your case. If you are using it as a tool to find a suspect, or to let the suspect know you are aware he/she was involved, but not give the defense any prior knowledge of the basis of your case, then you might want to obscure identifying or incriminating digital evidence before releasing it to the public. I hope we find out one day if and what they blurred and covered up with scotch tape ;)

thecrazyqueen

08-10-2012, 04:55 PM

A wonderful WS poster did post a photo of the DWT with the driver clearly shown. Now, I recognize that driver as BSL.

I would love to see that pic.... do you know about when it was posted?

danzn16

08-10-2012, 05:34 PM

A wonderful WS poster did post a photo of the DWT with the driver clearly shown. Now, I recognize that driver as BSL.

They drew him into the photo. The photo was altered by the poster.

Money Girl

08-10-2012, 06:10 PM

I would love to see that pic.... do you know about when it was posted?

Don't remember exact date/thread, but it was prior to BSL being named a suspect.

Mahouston69

08-10-2012, 06:48 PM

Don't remember exact date/thread, but it was prior to BSL being named a suspect.

I believe that was Mr. N, (can't remember the entire username) who took parts of other images and super imposed them into/over the surveillance images and called them fantasy images? The attempt was to make them "clearer" by using let's say a fender or a wheel from a stock image of a Z71 Chevy Silverado and "painting" it over the distorted pixelized portion to show a better idea of what we were looking for. Instead, it gave a distorted reality of what we were actually SEEING and taken out of context was really confusing. I could not obtain any detail on the driver no matter what I personally did to extract any.

Money Girl

08-10-2012, 07:16 PM

I believe that was Mr. N, (can't remember the entire username) who took parts of other images and super imposed them into/over the surveillance images and called them fantasy images? The attempt was to make them "clearer" by using let's say a fender or a wheel from a stock image of a Z71 Chevy Silverado and "painting" it over the distorted pixelized portion to show a better idea of what we were looking for. Instead, it gave a distorted reality of what we were actually SEEING and taken out of context was really confusing. I could not obtain any detail on the driver no matter what I personally did to extract any.

Believe it was Mr. Noatak. Remember that he used a program that he was better than Photoshop. I'll see if I can find the link.

KateB

08-10-2012, 07:23 PM

Believe it was Mr. Noatak. Remember that he used a program that he was better than Photoshop. I'll see if I can find the link.

It is the current discussion with Mr. Noatak & he has reposted them in the last day or 2 in the "Theories" thread.

VICTIM - Mickey Shunick, 21, of Lafayette, LA (Theories) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Money Girl

08-10-2012, 07:33 PM

I would love to see that pic.... do you know about when it was posted?

Thread 30, Post 225. (Mr. Noatak)

danzn16

08-10-2012, 08:25 PM

Believe it was Mr. Noatak. Remember that he used a program that he was better than Photoshop. I'll see if I can find the link.

the poster used another year model truck overtop of BSL's truck in the "enhancement". the cab is therefore changed in shape including the windshield where the driver could possibly be viewed from. the windows were shaded and seats drawn in and then the poster shaded the seats/driver to have human characteristics. There is no recognizing BSL from this method. You could only recognize that there is human coloring driving in the truck in the enhanced photos, which by the way has a 2010 truck overlaid atop BSL's truck plus coloring overtop of the actual photo. In the actual photo you can not see the driver whatsoever. You can not add pixels to add clearer images to low pixel pictures, even if the program is better than photoshop. It just doesn't work that way.

danzn16

08-10-2012, 08:27 PM

It is the current discussion with Mr. Noatak & he has reposted them in the last day or 2 in the "Theories" thread.

VICTIM - Mickey Shunick, 21, of Lafayette, LA (Theories) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180855)

he states that he has further enhanced the photos to a face that is not BSL and implies that someone other than BSL is the perp

thecrazyqueen

08-10-2012, 08:29 PM

Well, what an imagination... lol... Although I saw Brandon.. Just what you wanted me to see... :floorlaugh:

Money Girl

08-10-2012, 08:42 PM

Well, what an imagination... lol... Although I saw Brandon.. Just what you wanted me to see... :floorlaugh:

Whatever. I just know that when I first saw the mugshots, etc. of BSL, he reminded me of the referenced image.

Galbug

08-10-2012, 08:49 PM

Do any of the locals that knew BSL remember what emblem was on the rear window of his DWT. Many discussions on WS regarding the emblem and what it might be.

Backwoods

08-10-2012, 09:08 PM

he states that he has further enhanced the photos to a face that is not BSL and implies that someone other than BSL is the perp

bbm: Where does he state that? (I must have missed it.)

Backwoods

08-10-2012, 09:10 PM

Do any of the locals that knew BSL remember what emblem was on the rear window of his DWT. Many discussions on WS regarding the emblem and what it might be.

I'm not sure that we ever even agreed what people were seeing was an emblem on the window -- although that was a suggestion and, IMO, a good one.

danzn16

08-10-2012, 09:55 PM

Do any of the locals that knew BSL remember what emblem was on the rear window of his DWT. Many discussions on WS regarding the emblem and what it might be.

I think some people thought it was the Wood Group emblem.

danzn16

08-10-2012, 10:09 PM

bbm: Where does he state that? (I must have missed it.)

they are discussing in the VICTIM thread that KateB linked to above. He said he doesn't want to post the suspect's face as he may be innocent??? I need to go read the whole thread as I haven't had time lately. But people are making sure that he is aware that their is likely lots of evidence against BSL and it's possible BSL may have confessed/led LE to Mickey's body.

Now I see some are saying he may just be cutting and posting threads from earlier postings so maybe he isn't meaning it this way?? Confusing.

heidisams

08-10-2012, 11:14 PM

I think they did block things out and blurred them as in digital forensics there are many ways to detect manipulation. These photos were previously manipulated, to what extent, we don't know. I won't comment on other photos posted on WS that are indeed manipulated but imported into Photoshop or almost any imaging program can show you they are. Problem is when used in a courtroom, a digital image also shows manipulation markers when it is simply rotated. So it is imperative to preserve digital data as is- if the original raw information is important to your case. If you are using it as a tool to find a suspect, or to let the suspect know you are aware he/she was involved, but not give the defense any prior knowledge of the basis of your case, then you might want to obscure identifying or incriminating digital evidence before releasing it to the public. I hope we find out one day if and what they blurred and covered up with scotch tape ;)

BBM

I don't think we know for sure the photos were manipulated... Many have suggested le covered up possible identifying features of the truck... Didn't want to scare him off, etc... My problem with this is, why would they ask the public for help identifying the truck/owner, but 1st alter the photo? Wouldn't it be to their advantage to include all distinguishing features, that separate it from the other 10,000 dwts? Let's say le altered BSL's truck, like a dent, decal, or logo were removed from the photo... If I saw BSL's truck , but his has a logo, dent, or whatever I probably wouldn't call it in. I don't think le would risk that, especially when they were desperate to find her alive. At that point there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.
And as far as le not wanting to tip off the defense... I really don't think le is worried about what some perps defense, someday down the road might know... What they care about is id'ing that truck, locating the perp, and getting answers to find Mickey. As soon as possible.
BTW, le doesn't take the case to trial, the State does...

All jmo.

katie78

08-10-2012, 11:43 PM

Do any of the locals that knew BSL remember what emblem was on the rear window of his DWT. Many discussions on WS regarding the emblem and what it might be.

IMO, it is this emblem. It's very common on trucks around here and ever since the original discussion on WS, I've been more attuned to noticing them. I've seen lots of them, thru all angles, front and back and IMO it is this or something very similar.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 02:25 AM

I have been trying to avoid he truck discussion for fear that it could be hostile. I am happy there is a place where it can be discussed and read by those that have an interest.

I mean this jokingly, that I am going to let my freak flag fly high today and put it all out there :)

I really do not think Mickey is under the truck but I still cannot convince myself that the bike is not under there. And, I have been told by many that it just isn't possible for any number of reasons. Yet I continue to see it!

And it is not that p word where people look at an image and see things that are not there. That would be the case with those that see owls and devils. What I see is there.

Now I can play around with Photoshop and Apple Aperature and a number of other programs and am not an expert of any sort. But, I don't need any program at all to see that there is 'something' going on that picture. Even with Chicken Fried's very knowledgeable lesson on light, I still see what I see and I do not see it in the other pictures that were taken under the same light sources and with the same camera.

What I mainly see is the light that clearly looks like the bike light, possibly the bike seat in front of the tire, some other debri or shadows on the ground and something blocking the bottom portion of the rear cab and it is not the road sign.

The black mark behind the wheel is likely from the oilfield. I pulled up some pictures of trucks parked in an oilfield lot and many of them had these black marks.

It does appear that the front tire is raised as if it is running over something, possibly the bike frame. And I do think a bike frame would be enough to elevate the tire slightly. It would not crush the bike frame so it must run over and raise the tire by at least a couple of inches. And it does appear the truck is turning slightly toward the left.

I at one time took the original image and looked at it in a very large format. I did not enlarge it, just viewed it on a very large screen. This does not change the pixelation or alter the image. I could clearly see the driver. Not exactly as Mr. N depicted him in his alteration but similar. And you can see that the driver had dark hair and a heavier build. No facial features were obvious, just the hair and upper torso. The driver side window appears to be down.

There was also something on the dashboard such as a small duffel bag or something along those lines. Not very big but oblong and dark.

I do think Brandon could have hit Mickey there, knocked her off the bike and either grabbed her there or she somehow ended up further down the road on foot when he got her. The one person that appears to be outside may not have realized exactly what was going on and may have come forward at some point.

As for police blurring out some areas, it is a possibility and could explain some of the anomalies we see. On the picture of the white truck going the opposite direction of Mickey, I think I do see where there is a spot on the tailgate that seems to have a square placed over whatever is on the tailgate. To me, this looks very much like Mickey sitting on the tailgate but I haven't been able to make sense of why.

I also still think both white trucks are the same. The truck going in the opposite direction of Mickey is definitely not the same truck with the bed cover. This is just not possible in my opinion. Early on police said that the white truck with the bed cover was cleared and that another white truck was determined to be the same truck with the bed cover. They must have meant a different image because that truck does not have a bed cover.

I have never seen police state that the truck going in the opposite direction of Mickey was cleared. They have said that evidence shows that the truck going in the same direction of Mickey was Brandon. Maybe they just do not have evidence that can prove the other truck was him.

Now I won't fault anyone if you tell me I am crazy on this but I can just swear I see someone bent over looking under the trucks drivers side front wheel area. This is on the truck going opposite as Mickey. I can see a roundish area that looks like a heavier person on their knees bending way over as if their behind is up in the air. I can see what looks like two shoes behind their behind. I don't want to see it and may deny it later but I just do see it and cannot unsee it.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 02:42 AM

As for those that think all that commotion would draw attention... I have a story for you!!

Now, none of you know who I am so I feel somewhat safe in sharing this story. several days ago I was out in one of the local establishments when a well known 'trouble maker when intoxicated' guy came in already in a bad state. He eventually was persuaded to leave but was really stumbling around out near the road and this is at 2am.

I don't really know this man but I know who he is and he dated a good friend for quite some time. He is a good person when not severly alcohol impaired. Well, I could not leave him out in the street stumbling down drunk and no one else cared.

I loaded him into my car and proceeded to take him a couple blocks down and across the street from the police station ( not saying which one!). He got out of the car, went to the door of the apartment and fumbled with the door handle. Then to my shock he started kicking the door with all his force and slightly knocked the door from its frame. To make my long story shorter, it was not his house! He was so drunk he did not know where we even were and his real home was a few miles away.

This kicking and banging on the door was very loud, my car was parked in front with the engine running and lights on. The police station is right there. Not one light came on anywhere, not one person peaked out, no one called the police. A man walked past with a dog and did not even glance in our direction. Cars drove past. Nothing at all happened.

Then I got out of there!! :)

Backwoods

08-11-2012, 02:57 AM

I have been trying to avoid he truck discussion for fear that it could be hostile. I am happy there is a place where it can be discussed and read by those that have an interest.

<snipped>

I also still think both white trucks are the same. The truck going in the opposite direction of Mickey is definitely not the same truck with the bed cover. This is just not possible in my opinion. Early on police said that the white truck with the bed cover was cleared and that another white truck was determined to be the same truck with the bed cover. They must have meant a different image because that truck does not have a bed cover.

I have never seen police state that the truck going in the opposite direction of Mickey was cleared. They have said that evidence shows that the truck going in the same direction of Mickey was Brandon. Maybe they just do not have evidence that can prove the other truck was him.

Now I won't fault anyone if you tell me I am crazy on this but I can just swear I see someone bent over looking under the trucks drivers side front wheel area. This is on the truck going opposite as Mickey. I can see a roundish area that looks like a heavier person on their knees bending way over as if their behind is up in the air. I can see what looks like two shoes behind their behind. I don't want to see it and may deny it later but I just do see it and cannot unsee it.

Thank you for sharing your observations so openly. I am one, too, who thinks the bike or part of it may be under the truck.

bbm: Now -- dare we bring over a picture of the truck going in the other direction? (I want to have another look, with your statements about it in mind.)

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 02:59 AM

Thank you for sharing your observations so openly. I am one, too, who thinks the bike or part of it may be under the truck.

bbm: Now -- dare we bring over a picture of the truck going in the other direction? (I want to have another look, with your statements about it in mind.)

Haha. Now I am not sure if I am that brave :)

Backwoods

08-11-2012, 03:22 AM

Haha. Now I am not sure if I am that brave :)

Me neither!

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 03:23 AM

I will have to have a couple of cocktails before I am ready for that next step!

Backwoods

08-11-2012, 03:30 AM

Hmmm ... guess I may just go on to bed and check back tomorrow. (Maybe some other curious person will do the dirty deed for us, LOL. Or, if not, I can just go back in the earlier threads and take a look.)

chicken fried

08-11-2012, 03:34 AM

Y'all crack me up :-)

chicken fried

08-11-2012, 03:36 AM

Honestly, what made the DWT so radioactive was when people started coloring in pixels themselves to show drivers that weren't originally there. And Muslim women and giant owls didn't help. But don't be scared.... that dang truck is burnt to a crisp and most of us are being civil!

:-)

Backwoods

08-11-2012, 03:43 AM

Yikes, we've been discovered at our dubious deeds... :what:

Jkg005

08-11-2012, 09:19 AM

:jail:As for those that think all that commotion would draw attention... I have a story for you!!

Now, none of you know who I am so I feel somewhat safe in sharing this story. several days ago I was out in one of the local establishments when a well known 'trouble maker when intoxicated' guy came in already in a bad state. He eventually was persuaded to leave but was really stumbling around out near the road and this is at 2am.

I don't really know this man but I know who he is and he dated a good friend for quite some time. He is a good person when not severly alcohol impaired. Well, I could not leave him out in the street stumbling down drunk and no one else cared.

I loaded him into my car and proceeded to take him a couple blocks down and across the street from the police station ( not saying which one!). He got out of the car, went to the door of the apartment and fumbled with the door handle. Then to my shock he started kicking the door with all his force and slightly knocked the door from its frame. To make my long story shorter, it was not his house! He was so drunk he did not know where we even were and his real home was a few miles away.

This kicking and banging on the door was very loud, my car was parked in front with the engine running and lights on. The police station is right there. Not one light came on anywhere, not one person peaked out, no one called the police. A man walked past with a dog and did not even glance in our direction. Cars drove past. Nothing at all happened.

Then I got out of there!! :)

As I have previously stated in general people just don't get involved like they used to. You see so much more now of couples arguing and fighting in public. When I see it my thought is "how embarrassing" and go about my business. Now if someone's life appeared to be in danger I wouldn't hesitate to do what needed to be done. I this case if all I saw was a truck stopped in the road with no other vehicles even if there was yelling going on I would assume it was just a couple having an argument. Then once the picture became available I would have called LE. MOO

Jkg005

08-11-2012, 09:23 AM

Thank you for sharing your observations so openly. I am one, too, who thinks the bike or part of it may be under the truck.

bbm: Now -- dare we bring over a picture of the truck going in the other direction? (I want to have another look, with your statements about it in mind.)

Help yourself we have held our thoughts too long IMO you have a right to evaluate any way you want. If you do I would like you to take note of one of my earlier post about the boxes and let me know what you think! It is in this thread.

Jkg005

08-11-2012, 09:34 AM

Honestly, what made the DWT so radioactive was when people started coloring in pixels themselves to show drivers that weren't originally there. And Muslim women and giant owls didn't help. But don't be scared.... that dang truck is burnt to a crisp and most of us are being civil!

:-)

I agree with you it really bothered me when the joking about seeing crazy things and especially the black object driving the truck. Mickey was missing and there was nothing funny about it. I do want you to know that I have read every one of your post and I somewhat understand your logic and I appreciate you knowledge! I just can't give up on knowing what I am not seeing. I do know what I see that is keeping me from what I am unable to see, hope that makes sense. Also along with the fact that I don't know if Mickey was stopped, coasting, pulling into the parking or peddling with all her might I just can't rule out that he bike could have been hit in this spot.

kgeaux

08-11-2012, 10:38 AM

Well, what an imagination... lol... Although I saw Brandon.. Just what you wanted me to see... :floorlaugh:

Whatever. I just know that when I first saw the mugshots, etc. of BSL, he reminded me of the referenced image.

This is, IMO, the problem with posting fantasy renditions of photos.....even when clearly marked "fantasy." Time goes on, and suddenly people are forgetting that the human shaped image was something ADDED to the photo, that the driver is NOT VISIBLE in the "real" photos. :moo:

I think some people thought it was the Wood Group emblem.

Hubby worked for Wood Group. Whatever is showing up, it is NOT the Wood Group emblem.

A company logo would not be on a personal vehicle, and the DWT was definitely a personal vehicle.

kgeaux

08-11-2012, 11:00 AM

BBM

I don't think we know for sure the photos were manipulated... Many have suggested le covered up possible identifying features of the truck... Didn't want to scare him off, etc... My problem with this is, why would they ask the public for help identifying the truck/owner, but 1st alter the photo? Wouldn't it be to their advantage to include all distinguishing features, that separate it from the other 10,000 dwts? Let's say le altered BSL's truck, like a dent, decal, or logo were removed from the photo... If I saw BSL's truck , but his has a logo, dent, or whatever I probably wouldn't call it in. I don't think le would risk that, especially when they were desperate to find her alive. At that point there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.
And as far as le not wanting to tip off the defense... I really don't think le is worried about what some perps defense, someday down the road might know... What they care about is id'ing that truck, locating the perp, and getting answers to find Mickey. As soon as possible.
BTW, le doesn't take the case to trial, the State does...

All jmo.

LE stated that the photos were "enhanced." I also do not believe they manipulated the photos in any way other than to make them as clear as possible.

BayouBecky

08-11-2012, 11:25 AM

I have never seen police state that the truck going in the opposite direction of Mickey was cleared.

Lafayette Consolidated Government (http://www.lafayettela.gov/Police/Press_Releases.asp?PR_Id=4677)

UPDATE IX: Two Vehicles of Interest Ruled Out
Original Release: May 30, 2012 @ 11:00 am

Lafayette, LA – Lafayette Police have identified the operators and occupants of both the older model 4-door car and the white 4-door pickup truck with the bed cover, which were captured on surveillance video. Investigators have ruled out any involvement by these individuals and they offered no additional clues for the investigation. Investigators continue to seek information on the newer model white Z-71 pickup truck. The investigation remains ongoing.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 05:00 PM

Lafayette Consolidated Government (http://www.lafayettela.gov/Police/Press_Releases.asp?PR_Id=4677)

UPDATE IX: Two Vehicles of Interest Ruled Out
Original Release: May 30, 2012 @ 11:00 am

Lafayette, LA – Lafayette Police have identified the operators and occupants of both the older model 4-door car and the white 4-door pickup truck with the bed cover, which were captured on surveillance video. Investigators have ruled out any involvement by these individuals and they offered no additional clues for the investigation. Investigators continue to seek information on the newer model white Z-71 pickup truck. The investigation remains ongoing.

This is my point exactly, thank you!! The truck with the bed cover was cleared. The truck traveling opposite Mickey in front of the Circle K does not have a bed cover and is not the same truck as the one seen on other streets with a bed cover.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 05:44 PM

Okay...I am going to do the dirty deed. The following pictures are listed in the order of time sequence.

Truck 3: White truck with the bed cover that is seen on University at approximately 1:39am. The time stamp states 1:51 but was determined to be off by 12 minutes.

Mickey 1: Mickey was seen on camera on Versailles Street at approx. 1:47am.

Mickey 2: Mickey is seen On St. Landry in front of the Circle K at 1:48am.

Truck 1: The white truck later determined to be driven by Brandon is seen in front of the Circle K at 1:48am.

Truck 2: A white truck is seen going in the opposite direction of Mickey at 1:51am. This truck was originally thought to be the same truck as truck 1 but now has an unknown status. Not 100% on this time. It was either 1:51 or 1:54.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 05:48 PM

Timeline in Mickey Shunick's disappearance:

May 18, 2012, 10:15 p.m.: MS and friends attended a concert at Artmosphere.

May 19, 2012, 12:44 a.m.: MS rides bike back to Ryan Street residence with BW.

May 19, 2012, 1:24 a.m.: MS seen in surveillance video at Taco Bell.

May 19, 2012, 1:31 a.m.: MS receives a call from her friend; it was the last time her phone was used.

May 19, 2012, 1:45 a.m.: MS begins to ride her bike home from BW's Ryan Street residence.

May 19, 2012, 1:47 a.m.: MS is caught on camera, riding her bike, on Versailles Boulevard.

May 19, 2012, 1:48 a.m.: MS is caught on camera, riding her bike, on St. Landry Street.

May 19, 2012, 1:48 a.m.: BSL’s truck caught on camera after Mickey passed the same camera.

May 19, 2012, 3:00 p.m.: BSL says he was attacked at a gas station in the New Orleans area, repeatedly stabbed by an unknown man.

May 19, 2012, 6:30 p.m.: MS's family reports her missing to police.

May 19, 2012, 9:27 p.m.: KATC first reports on their website that LPD is looking for MS.

May 19, 2012, 10:14 p.m.: Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office is called to Oschner Hospital (1516 Jefferson Highway) in reference to BSL receiving medical treatment for several stab wounds to the chest, neck, back and hand.

May 19, 2012, 10:16 p.m.: Call to JPSO is dispatched to the responding officer, JP146. Security personnel tell him NOPD has just finished up with BSL. (According to BSL, NOPD interviewed him for two hours. That would put NOPD there at approximately 8:15 p.m. – 8:45 p.m. BSL would have arrived at Oschner no later than about 8:00 p.m.)

May 19, 2012, 10:51 p.m.: JP146 advises JP184 that BSL is uncooperative.

May 20, 2012: The first search party is organized from BW’s house on Ryan Street.

May 20, 2012: Reward of $10,000 is offered.

May 21, 2012: Reward money is doubled to $20,000.

May 21, 2012, 4:20 p.m.: LPD issues its first press release about MS, releasing a picture and description of her and her bike.

May 21, 2012, 6:15 p.m.: LPD issues a press release about the dedicated tips line for citizens to call with information.

May 22, 2012, 7:30 p.m.: Candlelight vigil is held at Parc Sans Souci in downtown Lafayette.

May 23, 2012: Reward increased to $25,000

May 24, 2012: Search headquarters moves from Ryan Street to Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic Student Center.

May 24, 2012: Texas EquuSearch comes to town.

May 24, 2012, 4:00 p.m.: LPD issues a press release asking business owners and residents with video surveillance equipment to review footage from May 19th, between the hours of 1:30 and 3:30 am.

May 25, 2012: The video surveillance photos of MS on Versailles and the White Truck on St. Landry traveling in the opposite direction MS traveled are released to the public.

May 26, 2012: MS's bike is located by fishermen under the Whiskey Bay Bridge.

May 26, 2012: The video surveillance photos of the White Truck with the bed cover on University, the White Truck on St. Landry traveling in the same direction as MS, and the two pictures of the Hooptie on University and St. Landry are released to the public.

May 26, 2012: BSL reports his truck as stolen in Montgomery County, TX, according to a Montgomery Police Reporter website. (See also, May 31.)

May 26, 2012: LPD cancels its scheduled press conference stating there are no new updates

May 26, 2012, 12:42 p.m.: BSL’s girlfriend’s family member posts online about her dating a creepy RSO, linking to BSL’s RSO page.

May 27, 2012: MS's bike is recovered by LE under the Whiskey Bay Bridge.

May 27, 2012, 5:00 p.m.: Benefit concert held in Downtown Lafayette

May 28, 2012: Police continue to search Whiskey Bay Bridge area.

May 28, 2012: BSL verified by St. Landry Police as a RSO.

May 30, 2012: Volunteer searches are suspended for the day.

May 30, 2012: Shunick family officially hires Private Investigator, John Abdella.

May 30, 2012, 11:00 a.m.: LPD issues a press release stating they have both identified and ruled out the operators and occupants of both the “hooptie” and the white pickup truck with a bed cover.

May 30, 2012, around 9:00 p.m.: Investigators return to the Whiskey Bay area to re-examine it with sonar. Nothing of value is located.

May 31, 2012: Volunteer searches resume.

May 31, 2012: BSL reports his truck as stolen in Montgomery County, TX. (See also, May 26.)

May 31, 2012: BSL’s truck is found burned in San Jacinto County, TX.

May 31, 2012: BSL files motion to be removed from the sex offender registry. Hearing is scheduled for August 9th.

May 31, 2012, 9:51 a.m.: BSL rents a red Chevrolet Aveo in Spring, TX, through an insurance claim on said stolen truck.

June 1, 2012, 11:55 a.m.: LPD issues press release stating that beginning at 7:00 p.m., an answering machine will record all tips as it is no longer feasible to answer the tips line 24 hours a day.

June 2, 2012: Texas EquuSearch heads out of Lafayette.

June 3, 2012.: BSL attends church in Crowley, LA.

June 4, 2012: BSL purchases a white, Z-71 pickup truck from Don’s Wholesale in Lafayette.

June 4, 2012, 4:57 p.m.: BSL returns rental car in Lafayette.

June 6, 2012: Special K-9s Recovery Specialists are in town searching.

June 7, 2012: P.I. John Abdella releases statement about receiving credible information about two people who could be involved in MS’s dissapearance.

June 10, 2012: MS Headquarters moved to South College Shopping Center. Volunteer foot searches halted “until new leads are developed”.

June 14, 2012: LPD get a tip from a concerned citizen that BSL's truck was found burned in Texas.

June 20, 2012: Divers return to Whiskey Bay to search again.

June 20, 2012: BSL gets haircut in Crowley, LA. Tells hairdresser he is supposedly going offshore the next day for 2 weeks.

July 4, 2012: BSL returns from an “about the last two weeks” offshore hitch.

July 5, 2012: BSL arrested on aggravated kidnapping and first degree murder.

July 6, 2012: Investigative searches end at BSL’s residence.

July 6, 2012: BSL assigned two public defenders, Clay Lejeune and Burleigh Doga.

July 14, 2012: Texas Equusearch back in Lafayette to search for Mickey without volunteer searchers.

July 18, 2012: Shunick case presented to a Grand Jury in Lafayette

July 18, 2012: Brandon Scott Lavergne has been indicted for two first-degree murder charges: one for Mickey Shunick and one for Lisa Pate, whose remains were found in 1999.

July 27, 2012: Lavergne pleads not guilty in Shunick, Pate cases

August 7, 2012: LPD believes they have located Mickey Shunick's remains in rural Evangeline Parish

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 06:01 PM

Something I do find interesting... ALL talk of Brandon's white truck and what time it passed the Circle K is completely missing from any source online other than Websleuths and another forum. It was been taken out of all other timelines that I located. And I have been looking and reading through almost all news articles from the day the pictures were released until now and it just is not there any longer.

Can anyone else find any source other than a forum that states the time the white truck passed Circle K? I am a very good researcher and I do not see it anywhere. Only the times Mickey was caught on surveillance.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 06:35 PM

Honestly, what made the DWT so radioactive was when people started coloring in pixels themselves to show drivers that weren't originally there. And Muslim women and giant owls didn't help. But don't be scared.... that dang truck is burnt to a crisp and most of us are being civil!

:-)

I am also thankful for all of the effort you put into explaining the light sources. If it weren't for the fact that there are other pictures in the same time frame and in the same spot that do not show those same irregularities it would be case closed.

I know just about everyone is tired of the white truck discussions but I have a feeling that if this goes to trial, we are going to be hearing about this white truck from beginning to end, top to bottom, side to side, and all in-between. The two trucks, burnt one and new one, are such an integral part of every facet of this crime. If only they could talk!!!

HouDat

08-11-2012, 06:39 PM

I think I see Jimmy Hoffa in that DWT photo.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 07:10 PM

I think I see Jimmy Hoffa in that DWT photo.

No offense against you HouDat but it's exactly those types of statements that infuriate those of us that take these pictures seriously and are actually trying to make some real sense of these pictures.

It is also what leads some members to feel intimidated about posting on this subject.

There is nothing about about those types of statements that lead to any productivity. And I was really hoping we would have a sanctuary of sorts where we could express our thoughts on the white truck without being made fun of.

Now, with that being said, Houdat... I know that you mean no ill will.

kjnmom

08-11-2012, 08:33 PM

Something I do find interesting... ALL talk of Brandon's white truck and what time it passed the Circle K is completely missing from any source online other than Websleuths and another forum. It was been taken out of all other timelines that I located. And I have been looking and reading through almost all news articles from the day the pictures were released until now and it just is not there any longer.

Can anyone else find any source other than a forum that states the time the white truck passed Circle K? I am a very good researcher and I do not see it anywhere. Only the times Mickey was caught on surveillance.

When WS was deep in the discussion of the VOIs, I understood the timeline was taken from LE's updates. Some of the times were not mentioned in the text but when one clicks to save t Mickey's image on Versailles and the Opposite Direction DWT, the LE site automatically gives a name and number to the image file. The number appears to coincide with a time, such as Versailles 0147 or 1:47 am.
The University Street photos have timestamps on the photos.
Those images are still on the site:

http://www.lafayettela.gov/Police/Press_Releases.asp?PR_Id=4677

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 08:55 PM

It has been quite sometime since I have looked at the truck pictures. In regards to the white truck going the opposite direction of Mickey at the Circle K and the white truck with the bed cover, in my opinion they cannot possibly be the same truck.

This could be relevent information if in fact the truck going opposite Mickey is Brandon. It could give a fairly exact time frame of when she was hit/abducted and in what direction he went afterwards.

In my opinion, the differences in the two trucks are...

Truck 2:
* Does not appear to have a bed cover
* The tailgate seems to be down
* The door handles appear black
* It appears to have a chrome gas cover
* The truck overall seems shorter and taller ( I realize this statement could be due to angle)
* The drivers side window appears lighter tint than the rear passenger window
* The back end appears to be a little higher than the front
* It appears to have a side step board

Truck 3:
* Has an obvious bed cover
* Tailgate is definitely up
* The door handles and gas cover do not appear to be of a dark color, are not contrasting
* The drivers side window appears to be just as dark as the rear passenger window
* Appears longer and lower to the ground
* The back of the truck appears slightly lower than the front

I am curious what others see that I don't in the argument that it is the same truck.

Other than the two trucks being white and four doors, I do not see any other similarities.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 09:01 PM

When WS was deep in the discussion of the VOIs, I understood the timeline was taken from LE's updates. Some of the times were not mentioned in the text but when one clicks to save t Mickey's image on Versailles and the Opposite Direction DWT, the LE site automatically gives a name and number to the image file. The number appears to coincide with a time, such as Versailles 0147 or 1:47 am.
The University Street photos have timestamps on the photos.
Those images are still on the site:

http://www.lafayettela.gov/Police/Press_Releases.asp?PR_Id=4677

I thought so too but I do not see that now. if I click to save it says picture%202. They are numbered in sequence from 201, 202, 203.

Only the truck going opposite Mickey has the time as you reference as 0151 and the one on Versailles as 0147. The others have been changed.

Mahouston69

08-11-2012, 09:19 PM

I thought so too but I do not see that now. if I click to save it says picture%202. They are numbered in sequence from 201, 202, 203.

Only the truck going opposite Mickey has the time as you reference as 0151 and the one on Versailles as 0147. The others have been changed.

Early reports stated that there were no time stamps for the LCG camera. The photo of Mickey came with a estimated time stamp from the time she went from Versallius to St. Landry/University street. Sleuthing came up with the file names that led us to believe the times more accurately. THAT in itself confused me as I knew that LE had to have known the times, why not state them?

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 09:35 PM

Early reports stated that there were no time stamps for the LCG camera. The photo of Mickey came with a estimated time stamp from the time she went from Versallius to St. Landry/University street. Sleuthing came up with the file names that led us to believe the times more accurately. THAT in itself confused me as I knew that LE had to have known the times, why not state them?

Yes, I remember the times being there previously. Not only that but the times the truck was seen on the LCG camera was in quite a few timelines at one point and discussed in some news articles. Now I cannot find anything.

Most timelines end with Mickey being seen on surveillance at 1:48 by the LCG camera. No mention os the white truck's time at all.

kjnmom

08-11-2012, 09:47 PM

I thought so too but I do not see that now. if I click to save it says picture%202. They are numbered in sequence from 201, 202, 203.

Only the truck going opposite Mickey has the time as you reference as 0151 and the one on Versailles as 0147. The others have been changed.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120601/NEWS01/206010332/Police-continue-search-white-pickup-driver

The white, four-door Chevrolet Z71 pickup — captured by the City Hall surveillance camera facing St. Landry Street — can be seen crossing University Avenue at 1:48 a.m. May 19. The same video camera captured Michaela "Mickey" Shunick riding her bicycle alone down St. Landry Street heading toward St. Mary Boulevard a minute or so earlier.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 09:48 PM

This is a great study to read on the issue:

"Sex offense convictions are extraordinarily prejudicial—overwhelming
evidence shows that sex offenders are the most feared and despised group
in this country—and these convictions are not particularly probative of
credibility. Yet judges rarely acknowledge this when comparing the
probative value of past sex crime convictions to their prejudicial effect on
jurors. This failure undermines evidentiary principles that are fundamental
to our system of criminal justice. A defendant who previously was
convicted of a sex offense is left with three bad choices: he or she can
accept a plea bargain regardless of actual guilt; go to trial but decline to
testify; or testify, but lose the jury’s goodwill when the sex crime conviction
is presented. An acquittal based on valid reasonable doubt becomes much
less likely."

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/v100/n1/1001_213.Rickert.pdf

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 09:59 PM

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120601/NEWS01/206010332/Police-continue-search-white-pickup-driver

The white, four-door Chevrolet Z71 pickup — captured by the City Hall surveillance camera facing St. Landry Street — can be seen crossing University Avenue at 1:48 a.m. May 19. The same video camera captured Michaela "Mickey" Shunick riding her bicycle alone down St. Landry Street heading toward St. Mary Boulevard a minute or so earlier.

Thank you! I have been looking everywhere for this to confirm that the truck and Mickey were in this same spot at the same time....1:48am.

Although this article states she was seen there a minute or so earlier it is confirmed she was there at 1:48pm also.

"She then traveled on St. John Street and crossed over University Avenue, continuing west on St. Landry Street where she was captured on video at approximately 1:48 am."

http://www.lafayettela.gov/Police/Press_Releases.asp?PR_Id=4677

Donamena

08-11-2012, 10:18 PM

One of the arguments for why Mickey could not have been hit in front of the circle k is that there were people around and they would have certainly seen something/heard something and done something in response. But, if you google "passersby do nothing" (or any version of that) you will sadly realize that the truth is often that people do "do nothing" when a crime or circumstance warranting attention happens right in front of their eyes. Strange and sad, but true. Just wanted to point that out.
Very very early on a poster thought that some of the Circle K customers looked Latino. If so, they prob would not have talked to LE. My people, Latinos, especially when they're undocumented, always feel the 'the nail that sticks out gets hammered' so they never 'see' much.
However, I do think that, or hope that, if BSL hit her that soon, they would have done something. Said something. Maybe it's just a cultural wish. There were photos of Mickey in La Morenita, & I asked around. 'No, Señora, nostotros no sabemos nada.' I asked mostly women. Maybe that's also a cultural thing. There's not enough time or space for me to go into the anthropological aspects of Latino culture in alien territories.
JMO, absolutamente..

Donamena

08-11-2012, 10:20 PM

Thank you! I have been looking everywhere for this to confirm that the truck and Mickey were in this same spot at the same time....1:48am.

Although this article states she was seen there a minute or so earlier it is confirmed she was there at 1:48pm also.

"She then traveled on St. John Street and crossed over University Avenue, continuing west on St. Landry Street where she was captured on video at approximately 1:48 am."

http://www.lafayettela.gov/Police/Press_Releases.asp?PR_Id=4677
I think that ACI or saints_streets or someone found out that the time sequence on the cameras was off. Can't remember when.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 10:35 PM

I think that ACI or saints_streets or someone found out that the time sequence on the cameras was off. Can't remember when.

That was the cameras on University that were off by 12 minutes.

CajunStrong

08-11-2012, 10:43 PM

Very very early on a poster thought that some of the Circle K customers looked Latino. If so, they prob would not have talked to LE. My people, Latinos, especially when they're undocumented, always feel the 'the nail that sticks out gets hammered' so they never 'see' much.
However, I do think that, or hope that, if BSL hit her that soon, they would have done something. Said something. Maybe it's just a cultural wish. There were photos of Mickey in La Morenita, & I asked around. 'No, Señora, nostotros no sabemos nada.' I asked mostly women. Maybe that's also a cultural thing. There's not enough time or space for me to go into the anthropological aspects of Latino culture in alien territories.
JMO, absolutamente..

People in general will often not involve themselves for various reasons. Whether they don't want attention drawn to themselves, fear retribution or simply don't have time.

I have been guilty of the same. I've seen couples fighting/arguing and just figured they would work it out. One time I saw a man walking down the street wheeling a dolly with a safe tied to it. I figured that if he was walking down a public street with a safe then it must be his. I have seen cars being bumped in parking lots and didn't report it.

If I saw a person hit by a truck or being abducted I would definitely call but I don't have anything to hide. Only thing is, even if you saw this you naturally try to justify it as ok or they wouldn't be doing it right there in the open.

Jkg005

08-11-2012, 11:24 PM

:moo:http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120601/NEWS01/206010332/Police-continue-search-white-pickup-driver

The white, four-door Chevrolet Z71 pickup — captured by the City Hall surveillance camera facing St. Landry Street — can be seen crossing University Avenue at 1:48 a.m. May 19. The same video camera captured Michaela "Mickey" Shunick riding her bicycle alone down St. Landry Street heading toward St. Mary Boulevard a minute or so earlier.

So IMO this means he was right behind her.

andalso

08-11-2012, 11:42 PM

snipped and bolded from CajunStrongs timeline

May 19, 2012, 3:00 p.m.: BSL says he was attacked at a gas station in the New Orleans area, repeatedly stabbed by an unknown man.

Going with the theory that there is a little bit of truth in every lie. Perhaps the truth in this lie IS the attack at a gas station...the truth being BSL attacking Mickey in front of the gas station.
IMO

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 12:11 AM

:moo:

So IMO this means he was right behind her.

Exactly. On multiple websites including the Layayette government site Mickey is listed as being seen on the LCG camera at 1:48am. Originally I thought the white truck, later to be determined as Brandon, was seen on this camera at 1:49am. But now all sources I can find, and there are not many, also say he was seen on this camera at 1:48am. Any reference to his truck being there at 1:49am is gone.

This leads more credibility to the actual bicycle hit being there. Although, I do still think maybe she made it down towards St. Mary before he was able to abduct her. But I don't know that as a fact.

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 12:16 AM

Exactly. On multiple websites including the Layayette government site Mickey is listed as being seen on the LCG camera at 1:48am. Originally I thought the white truck, later to be determined as Brandon, was seen on this camera at 1:49am. But now all sources I can find, and there are not many, also say he was seen on this camera at 1:48am. Any reference to his truck being there at 1:49am is gone.

This leads more credibility to the actual bicycle hit being her. Although, I do still think maybe she made it down towards St. Mary before he was able to abduct her. But I don't know that as a fact.

I have always wondered if she may have traveled a little way on foot (or, at least, not on her bike -- if injured badly, she might not have been able to truly walk :( )

SteveP

08-12-2012, 12:39 AM

I have always wondered if she may have traveled a little way on foot (or, at least, not on her bike -- if injured badly, she might not have been able to truly walk :( )

I have often wondered how badly she was injured when hit by his truck. We may never know, unless forensic exam shows broken bones, and even then, we could only guess as to whether it was a result of being hit by the truck or whether it occurred later :(

BTW, Backwoods, maybe you won't have headaches reading my posts now. I hope you find a beautiful sunrise over the Atlantic more calming than me banging my head on the computer...lol.

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 12:42 AM

I have often wondered how badly she was injured when hit by his truck. We may never know, unless forensic exam shows broken bones, and even then, we could only guess as to whether it was a result of being hit by the truck or whether it occurred later :(

BTW, Backwoods, maybe you won't have headaches reading my posts now. I hope you find a beautiful sunrise over the Atlantic more calming than me banging my head on the computer...lol.

Infinitely more calming, SteveP -- well done! My head feels better already -- and I like to think that yours does, too!

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 01:11 AM

Exactly. On multiple websites including the Layayette government site Mickey is listed as being seen on the LCG camera at 1:48am. Originally I thought the white truck, later to be determined as Brandon, was seen on this camera at 1:49am. But now all sources I can find, and there are not many, also say he was seen on this camera at 1:48am. Any reference to his truck being there at 1:49am is gone.

This leads more credibility to the actual bicycle hit being there. Although, I do still think maybe she made it down towards St. Mary before he was able to abduct her. But I don't know that as a fact.

I do believe the little bit of truth in every lie, the time within seconds, the video evidence, coupled with time constraints, etc. that he did hit her on her bike here while she was slowing, stopped, or thinking of turning into the circle K. She may have known there were cameras there, lots of lights, open business and she may have felt him following her. Smart girl. I would have stopped/slowed here too and maybe used my phone to call and say hey "some creep is following me, come get me at the circle k and take me home after all"- He probably hurt her pretty badly. I think somewhere between St. Mary and Coliseum he assaulted her - if he assaulted her. Much like the incident in N.C. but she was too injured to get away.

OR

could be that is also his truck after grabbing her and her bike and headed straight back the other way minutes later, out of town towards whiskey bay. He didn't know how badly she was hurt and planned to assault her there and leave her there with the bike but changed his mind for whatever reason.

I really wish somebody who knew/knows BSL had and would post a photo of his 2011 before it was burned. During the day, full view, both sides, would be great. Wouldn't that be handy?

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 01:32 AM

I do believe the little bit of truth in every lie, the time within seconds, the video evidence, coupled with time constraints, etc. that he did hit her on her bike here while she was slowing, stopped, or thinking of turning into the circle K. She may have known there were cameras there, lots of lights, open business and she may have felt him following her. Smart girl. I would have stopped/slowed here too and maybe used my phone to call and say hey "some creep is following me, come get me at the circle k and take me home after all"- He probably hurt her pretty badly. I think somewhere between St. Mary and Coliseum he assaulted her - if he assaulted her. Much like the incident in N.C. but she was too injured to get away.

OR

could be that is also his truck after grabbing her and her bike and headed straight back the other way minutes later, out of town towards whiskey bay. He didn't know how badly she was hurt and planned to assault her there and leave her there with the bike but changed his mind for whatever reason.

I really wish somebody who knew/knows BSL had and would post a photo of his 2011 before it was burned. During the day, full view, both sides, would be great. Wouldn't that be handy?

Wish we knew so much more! I would think she was hurt pretty badly too.

I am sure someone probably has a photo of his truck. Maybe someone would have taken one during an outing with the kids or something. We will probably never see it :)

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 01:35 AM

This truck is not Brandon's and is not related to him in any way.

I wonder if the black mark by the gas cover here is the same type of substance we see on his truck in the LCG photo, on the passenger door.

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 01:44 AM

This truck is not Brandon's and is not related to him in any way.

I wonder if the black mark by the gas cover here is the same type of substance we see on his truck in the LCG photo, on the passenger door.

Possibly..

GrannyA.

08-12-2012, 01:53 AM

This truck is not Brandon's and is not related to him in any way.

I wonder if the black mark by the gas cover here is the same type of substance we see on his truck in the LCG photo, on the passenger door.

BBM:
I think the black mark on the truck that isn't BSLs, is gas from overflowing. I have had gas overflow when pumping, and it leaves a trail like that. Then it collects dirt. :smile:

simon magus

08-12-2012, 01:57 AM

BBM:
I think the black mark on the truck that isn't BSLs, is gas from overflowing. I have had gas overflow when pumping, and it leaves a trail like that. Then it collects dirt. :smile:

exactly! you beat me to it :)

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 02:11 AM

BBM:
I think the black mark on the truck that isn't BSLs, is gas from overflowing. I have had gas overflow when pumping, and it leaves a trail like that. Then it collects dirt. :smile:

That makes sense!

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 02:14 AM

That makes sense!

So ... I know some have felt the black mark on the DWTIQ is a shadow from the sign, etc. -- but say it's not; say it's a similar "dirt trail". It's not by the gas cap, though. What else could have caused dirt to adhere? A sugary drink poured out the passenger window comes to mind... What else?

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 02:27 AM

It's weird, but one thing that I am seeing now, since you re-posted the photos, CajunStrong (and by the way, thanks!), is the appearance of markings or something on the passenger side door of the truck in "the" photo -- right next to the black mark. I remember others talking about these before -- remember a suggestion that it might be a Wood Group logo. I don't think it's that -- it's kind of reminiscent, though. If there is indeed anything there (because I do realize it could be illusory), I'm almost starting to wonder if someone graffiti-ed his truck -- maybe the mark could be from some sort of vandalism, as well. (I know all this is reaching a little -- just posting sort of free-association here.)

simon magus

08-12-2012, 02:29 AM

So ... I know some have felt the black mark on the DWTIQ is a shadow from the sign, etc. -- but say it's not; say it's a similar "dirt trail". It's not by the gas cap, though. What else could have caused dirt to adhere? A sugary drink poured out the passenger window comes to mind... What else?

i worked for the city of lafayette/lafayette consolidated government for over 12 years...i attended city council meetings in the building where this camera is located MANY times...the parking lot is very brightly lit...i guess i'm not answering your question the way you'd like me to, but knowing the area as i do, i think it is as simple as a shadow.

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 02:34 AM

i worked for the city of lafayette/lafayette consolidated government for over 12 years...i attended city council meetings in the building where this camera is located MANY times...the parking lot is very brightly lit...i guess i'm not answering your question the way you'd like me to, but knowing the area as i do, i think it is as simple as a shadow.

You are answering from your insight -- that's good by me!

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 02:36 AM

It's weird, but one thing that I am seeing now, since you re-posted the photos, CajunStrong (and by the way, thanks!), is the appearance of markings or something on the passenger side door of the truck in "the" photo -- right next to the black mark. I remember others talking about these before -- remember a suggestion that it might be a Wood Group logo. I don't think it's that -- it's kind of reminiscent, though. If there is indeed anything there (because I do realize it could be illusory), I'm almost starting to wonder if someone graffiti-ed his truck -- maybe the mark could be from some sort of vandalism, as well. (I know all this is reaching a little -- just posting sort of free-association here.)

I don't know. I don't personally see anything else on the door other than the long black mark that does appear to be some type of substance. It's difficult to tell it is would be something poured down the door or splashed up from the ground.

There is something over the rear wheel well that we thought could be a Wood Group logo on a saddle type tool box. We were never completely confident what that is back there but it is something.

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 02:39 AM

I don't know. I don't personally see anything else on the door other than the long black mark that does appear to be some type of substance. It's difficult to tell it is would be something poured down the door or splashed up from the ground.

There is something over the rear wheel well that we thought could be a Wood Group logo on a saddle type tool box. We were never completely confident what that is back there but it is something.

Yes, I see the saddle-type thing, was just studying on it, as a matter of fact -- saw that before, but it seems clearer to me now. (My contact lenses must be in better shape than in earlier viewings -- either that, or my neurons are more, uhmmm, active. LOL)

The other "stuff" I'm "seeing" is to viewer's left of the black mark -- looks almost like somewhat skinny lettering, kind of hand-scribbled looking, in maybe a light color -- looks kind of like a V or W and then another letter (not a G), and then maybe more, smaller, just below those. (Very likely just some artifact that my eyes are tuning into tonight for some reason.)

ETA: I may have been looking at the pic posted by someone else on (I think) first page of this thread -- I think it is a little larger than yours ...?

gngr~snap

08-12-2012, 02:40 AM

So ... I know some have felt the black mark on the DWTIQ is a shadow from the sign, etc. -- but say it's not; say it's a similar "dirt trail". It's not by the gas cap, though. What else could have caused dirt to adhere? A sugary drink poured out the passenger window comes to mind... What else?

(truck would have to be parked or it would spray back...) it is a straignt line so I think a shadow too... BUT to answer your question dumping a spitoon cup out from the window??? :puke: *** with bad aim! lol

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 02:40 AM

I don't think the long black mark is a shadow. If you look towards the bottom of the truck it appears to continue behind the side step rail. If it were a shadow of the sign it would go to the ground and over the side step rail. That area of the truck is very bright and not shadowed.

gngr~snap

08-12-2012, 02:44 AM

I don't think the long black mark is a shadow. If you look towards the bottom of the truck it appears to continue behind the side step rail. If it were a shadow of the sign it would go to the ground and over the side step rail. That area of the truck is very bright and not shadowed.

agreed! It stops on the door as well. I was thinking the light pole... not the sign... hmmm

gngr~snap

08-12-2012, 02:46 AM

I don't think the long black mark is a shadow. If you look towards the bottom of the truck it appears to continue behind the side step rail. If it were a shadow of the sign it would go to the ground and over the side step rail. That area of the truck is very bright and not shadowed.

agreed! It stops on the door as well. I was thinking the light pole... not the sign... hmmm
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25513&d=1344749718

Then again (I think I see a backwards L) so it must be that diamond road sign!

* keeping in mind the light is probably above and at a downward angle towards the sign...

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 02:55 AM

Yes, I see the saddle-type thing, was just studying on it, as a matter of fact -- saw that before, but it seems clearer to me now. (My contact lenses must be in better shape than in earlier viewings -- either that, or my neurons are more, uhmmm, active. LOL)

The other "stuff" I'm "seeing" is to viewer's left of the black mark -- looks almost like somewhat skinny lettering, kind of hand-scribbled looking, in maybe a light color -- looks kind of like a V or W and then another letter (not a G), and then maybe more, smaller, just below those. (Very likely just some artifact that my eyes are tuning into tonight for some reason.)

ETA: I may have been looking at the pic posted by someone else on (I think) first page of this thread -- I think it is a little larger than yours ...?

I think you are seeing the "Silverado" lettering?

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 02:59 AM

agreed! It stops on the door as well. I was thinking the light pole... not the sign... hmmm
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25513&d=1344749718

Then again (I think I see a backwards L) so it must be that diamond road sign!

* keeping in mind the light is probably above and at a downward angle towards the sign...

I have always thought it to be the shadow from the sign on the curb. The light source is up high to the left and shining down in that direction might only shadow the top portion of the sign at a slight angle. The wind might be blowing and distort it also.

simon magus

08-12-2012, 03:01 AM

I think you are seeing the "Silverado" lettering?

that truck was not a silverado, it was a z71...if there was any lettering, it would have been "z71" on the rear quarter panels of the truck on either side...some z71s have no markings at all though.

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 03:02 AM

I think you are seeing the "Silverado" lettering?

This is to the viewer's left of the "black mark", pretty much directly under the door handle, and pretty much covers a lot of the area of the door, vertically speaking. Is the Silverado lettering that large? (If not -- well, I am very likely seeing something that isn't there, if no one else sees it!)

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 03:03 AM

agreed! It stops on the door as well. I was thinking the light pole... not the sign... hmmm
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25513&d=1344749718

Then again (I think I see a backwards L) so it must be that diamond road sign!

* keeping in mind the light is probably above and at a downward angle towards the sign...

It could be. I am not ruling it out. But, if you look at one of the other photo's from the LCG camera, there are no shadows on the roadway from the sign or pole.

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 03:05 AM

that truck was not a silverado, it was a z71...if there was any lettering, it would have been "z71" on the rear quarter panels of the truck on either side...some z71s have no markings at all though.

It was determined to be a Chevy Silverado z71.

simon magus

08-12-2012, 03:08 AM

It was determined to be a Chevy Silverado z71.

yes, but a z71 would not have "silverado" written on it anywhere...my stepfather has a silverado...silverado and z71 are two different options packages for the same truck...both "emblems" are not present on the same vehicle...a silverado is the basic option package, while the z71 has additional features.

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 03:23 AM

yes, but a z71 would not have "silverado" written on it anywhere...my stepfather has a silverado...silverado and z71 are two different options packages for the same truck...both "emblems" are not present on the same vehicle...a silverado is the basic option package, while the z71 has additional features.

Yes, I think it would only say Silverado on the rear tailgate? Right? I know the z71 is on the side rear.

simon magus

08-12-2012, 03:25 AM

Yes, I think it would only say Silverado on the rear tailgate? Right? I know the z71 is on the side rear.

no, it would say chevrolet on the tailgate...or nothing at all.

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 03:28 AM

Before I attempt to get some sleep before 4am for once :) I am going to throw one more thing out there for observation and feedback.

Does anyone see what appears to be a person bent over under the drivers side door? I swear I can see what looks like someone on their knees with the feet projected outward toward the camera and a full rear view of their behind as they look under the truck?

I am not saying it is related to Mickey. It could be that someone ran over some debri and stopped to look.

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 03:33 AM

no, it would say chevrolet on the tailgate...or nothing at all.

I think some do and some do not. I don't know about Brandon's. This is one that says Silverado but I saw some that didn't as well.

This is a 2011 Chevy Silverado z71 that should be identical to Brandon's I would think. Outside of the fact we do not know if his said Silverado.

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 03:35 AM

Before I attempt to get some sleep before 4am for once :) I am going to throw one more thing out there for observation and feedback.

Does anyone see what appears to be a person bent over under the drivers side door? I swear I can see what looks like someone on their knees with the feet projected outward toward the camera and a full rear view of their behind as they look under the truck?

I am not saying it is related to Mickey. It could be that someone ran over some debri and stopped to look.

I see what you're looking at (duh -- the red circling helped me, LOL) -- but I dunno -- Scale looks kind of small to me to be a person viewed as you described. Hmmm -- guess that would depend on how much of the person is actually wedged up under the truck to look, though. Gosh -- that would be scary to be parked in the road like that peering under the truck.

(But what do I know? I'm still seeing pink or lavender graffiti-like lettering on the other pic that no one else sees.)

simon magus

08-12-2012, 03:41 AM

I think some do and some do not. I don't know about Brandon's. This is one that says Silverado but I saw some that didn't as well.

This is a 2011 Chevy Silverado z71 that should be identical to Brandon's I would think. Outside of the fact we do not know if his said Silverado.

i thought we were talking about a decal on the rear quarter panel and/or the tailgate...you're right about some z71s having the small metallic silverado plate on the front doors...i don't think this would be visible in the surveillance photos if they are on the truck in question due to the poor quality of the photos...imo

gngr~snap

08-12-2012, 03:41 AM

I see what you're looking at (duh -- the red circling helped me, LOL) -- but I dunno -- Scale looks kind of small to me to be a person viewed as you described. Hmmm -- guess that would depend on how much of the person is actually wedged up under the truck to look, though. Gosh -- that would be scary to be parked in the road like that peering under the truck.

(But what do I know? I'm still seeing pink or lavender graffiti-like lettering on the other pic that no one else sees.)

Could it be mace on the door? Pink "Stinker" mace? http://www.pinkstinker.com/photos/lineUp.jpg

http://www.pinkstinker.com/

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 03:42 AM

I see what you're looking at (duh -- the red circling helped me, LOL) -- but I dunno -- Scale looks kind of small to me to be a person viewed as you described. Gosh -- that would be scary to be parked in the road like that peering under the truck.

(But what do I know? I'm still seeing pink or lavender graffiti-like lettering on the other pic that no one else sees.)

My Ipad has been invaluable looking at these pictures. The pinch pull feature makes it so easy to zoom in on a certain area.

I see what you see but I cannot tell what it is. Maybe just distortion as I see something similar on the front side of the hood. It could be something though!!

It's so funny because when I zoom in on what I think looks like a person bending over, I can see the curve of their behind and the space between what would be the legs and feet. Looks like they have on dark pants and a white shirt. Is it there? I don't know. But I just cannot unsee it. Something is there blocking a portion of the lower drivers side door.

I would bend over and take a pic to demonstrate but I don't think anyone wants to see that ;)

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 03:44 AM

Could it be mace on the door? Pink "Stinker" mace? http://www.pinkstinker.com/photos/lineUp.jpg

http://www.pinkstinker.com/

Wow, I didn't know it sprayed in pink or any color for that matter. I need some of that!

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 03:46 AM

Could it be mace on the door? Pink "Stinker" mace? http://www.pinkstinker.com/photos/lineUp.jpg

http://www.pinkstinker.com/

Whoa!

The lettering I'm "seeing" is kind of pink. Now you've got me thinking about scribbled messages, etc. Oh, my. It couldn't be, could it -- not when Mickey was right at that same spot just a bit before...and seemed OK ...?

I better get some sleep, y'all. Honestly...

Backwoods

08-12-2012, 03:50 AM

My Ipad has been invaluable looking at these pictures. The pinch pull feature makes it so easy to zoom in on a certain area.

I see what you see but I cannot tell what it is. Maybe just distortion as I see something similar on the front side of the hood. It could be something though!!

It's so funny because when I zoom in on what I think looks like a person bending over, I can see the curve of their behind and the space between what would be the legs and feet. Looks like they have on dark pants and a white shirt. Is it there? I don't know. But I just cannot unsee it. Something is there blocking a portion of the lower drivers side door.

I would bend over and take a pic to demonstrate but I don't think anyone wants to see that ;)

I will take another look tomorrow and zoom in -- I do understand the position you're saying they're in, just not quite coming to my eyes that way. (But I have just been straight looking at size/view posted, etc.)

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 03:51 AM

My Ipad has been invaluable looking at these pictures. The pinch pull feature makes it so easy to zoom in on a certain area.

I see what you see but I cannot tell what it is. Maybe just distortion as I see something similar on the front side of the hood. It could be something though!!

It's so funny because when I zoom in on what I think looks like a person bending over, I can see the curve of their behind and the space between what would be the legs and feet. Looks like they have on dark pants and a white shirt. Is it there? I don't know. But I just cannot unsee it. Something is there blocking a portion of the lower drivers side door.

I would bend over and take a pic to demonstrate but I don't think anyone wants to see that ;)

I do see what you are seeing.. again, could be?

simon magus

08-12-2012, 03:59 AM

OT, but this whole situation has reminded me how dangerous and violent the world can be...especially for women and children, and although i want to believe that this will change for the better within my lifetime, i honestly don't have much faith that it will happen...and i find that terribly disheartening...prayers for all here who care enough to try to make a difference.

gngr~snap

08-12-2012, 04:03 AM

My Ipad has been invaluable looking at these pictures. The pinch pull feature makes it so easy to zoom in on a certain area.

I see what you see but I cannot tell what it is. Maybe just distortion as I see something similar on the front side of the hood. It could be something though!!

It's so funny because when I zoom in on what I think looks like a person bending over, I can see the curve of their behind and the space between what would be the legs and feet. Looks like they have on dark pants and a white shirt. Is it there? I don't know. But I just cannot unsee it. Something is there blocking a portion of the lower drivers side door.

I would bend over and take a pic to demonstrate but I don't think anyone wants to see that ;)
ON HIS KNEES... HMMM....
The CEO ie. "perp" spends a little time on his knees after being "maced"
here is the video...
CEO gets shot with Pink Stinker pink pepper spray - YouTube

How long does the pink dye last on the skin?
http://www.pinkstinker.com/faq.php?topic=dye

"One test involved only eight seconds of exposure followed immediately with forty-five minutes of continuous rinsing with water. The result was a vivid baby pink coloration lasting over eighteen hours."

How long was it until we think he showed up at the ER? 8pm (ish)~that's 18 hours...
~jmo

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 04:11 AM

My Ipad has been invaluable looking at these pictures. The pinch pull feature makes it so easy to zoom in on a certain area.

I see what you see but I cannot tell what it is. Maybe just distortion as I see something similar on the front side of the hood. It could be something though!!

It's so funny because when I zoom in on what I think looks like a person bending over, I can see the curve of their behind and the space between what would be the legs and feet. Looks like they have on dark pants and a white shirt. Is it there? I don't know. But I just cannot unsee it. Something is there blocking a portion of the lower drivers side door.

I would bend over and take a pic to demonstrate but I don't think anyone wants to see that ;)

I love that feature of my Ipad and has definitely been awesome to see details without distortion. In fact, that gives me an idea. Tomorrow, I am going to connect my Ipad to my Tv with my Av adapter and pinch and pull to see what I can see on the big screen.

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 04:13 AM

ON HIS KNEES... HMMM....
The CEO ie. "perp" spends a little time on his knees after being "maced"
here is the video...
CEO gets shot with Pink Stinker pink pepper spray - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlxAKETY7mU&feature=player_detailpage)

How long does the pink dye last on the skin?
http://www.pinkstinker.com/faq.php?topic=dye

"One test involved only eight seconds of exposure followed immediately with forty-five minutes of continuous rinsing with water. The result was a vivid baby pink coloration lasting over eighteen hours."

How long was it until we think he showed up at the ER? 8pm (ish)~that's 18 hours...
~jmo

hmmm, and still had a "rash"...from poison ivy? or was it?

gngr~snap

08-12-2012, 04:14 AM

hmmm, and still had a "rash"...from poison ivy? or was it?
:dunno:

But man O man I wanna know!!!

gngr~snap

08-12-2012, 04:17 AM

Does the pink dye wash off?
"It takes serious scrubbing with lots of soap and warm water and even thereafter it's obvious that something out of the ordinary had occurred. The surface area of the skin can be rubbed raw with too much abrasive washing and that could cause issues that make evading detection difficult."
http://www.pinkstinker.com/faq.php?topic=dye

WE could be onto something here...

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 04:49 AM

Does the pink dye wash off?
"It takes serious scrubbing with lots of soap and warm water and even thereafter it's obvious that something out of the ordinary had occurred. The surface area of the skin can be rubbed raw with too much abrasive washing and that could cause issues that make evading detection difficult."
http://www.pinkstinker.com/faq.php?topic=dye

WE could be onto something here...

That's crazy... what if!

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 04:54 AM

Does the pink dye wash off?
"It takes serious scrubbing with lots of soap and warm water and even thereafter it's obvious that something out of the ordinary had occurred. The surface area of the skin can be rubbed raw with too much abrasive washing and that could cause issues that make evading detection difficult."
http://www.pinkstinker.com/faq.php?topic=dye

WE could be onto something here...

I think it would be good to post these links and info in the BSL Wounds and Hospital visits thread!

gngr~snap

08-12-2012, 05:54 AM

I think it would be good to post these links and info in the BSL Wounds and Hospital visits thread!

:seeya: DONE! post #107
BSL's Wounds and Hospital Visits - Page 5 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:twocents:

laura83

08-12-2012, 07:59 AM

Does the pink dye wash off?
"It takes serious scrubbing with lots of soap and warm water and even thereafter it's obvious that something out of the ordinary had occurred. The surface area of the skin can be rubbed raw with too much abrasive washing and that could cause issues that make evading detection difficult."
http://www.pinkstinker.com/faq.php?topic=dye

WE could be onto something here...

Didn't some people think that the rash could of been from cleaning products?! Seems to me he's not the smartest. Maybe he used bleach to clean it off in desperation. If he had to choose between bleach burn, or being suspected of attacking someone...

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 08:18 AM

Yes, I see the saddle-type thing, was just studying on it, as a matter of fact -- saw that before, but it seems clearer to me now. (My contact lenses must be in better shape than in earlier viewings -- either that, or my neurons are more, uhmmm, active. LOL)

The other "stuff" I'm "seeing" is to viewer's left of the black mark -- looks almost like somewhat skinny lettering, kind of hand-scribbled looking, in maybe a light color -- looks kind of like a V or W and then another letter (not a G), and then maybe more, smaller, just below those. (Very likely just some artifact that my eyes are tuning into tonight for some reason.)

ETA: I may have been looking at the pic posted by someone else on (I think) first page of this thread -- I think it is a little larger than yours ...?

Love the Ipad- so I "pulled" on the ipad, screen shot, imported into Adobe Photoshop Touch (Ipad version of Photoshop) "pulled" again just a tad.. and I can see your letters in pinkish lavendar. :))

chicken fried

08-12-2012, 08:33 AM

Thank you! I have been looking everywhere for this to confirm that the truck and Mickey were in this same spot at the same time....1:48am.

Although this article states she was seen there a minute or so earlier it is confirmed she was there at 1:48pm also.

"She then traveled on St. John Street and crossed over University Avenue, continuing west on St. Landry Street where she was captured on video at approximately 1:48 am."

http://www.lafayettela.gov/Police/Press_Releases.asp?PR_Id=4677

Y'all may find my map helpful. I made this map awhile back, based upon the actual LE statements about the timing of the various sightings. I have the source info somewhere in my notes, but this map is accurate, based upon LE statements, and not just upon repeated info from various posters:

http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx23/domerally10/Mickey%20Shunick%20Photos%202/MAP_CF-1_Rev1.jpg

chicken fried

08-12-2012, 08:45 AM

I have always wondered if she may have traveled a little way on foot (or, at least, not on her bike -- if injured badly, she might not have been able to truly walk :( )

LE has stated that the abduction occurred between [the intersection of] St. Landry & St. Mary, and Blackham [Coliseum Rd].

I know some have thought that the above sentence contains three locations.

But if you listen to the audio of the press conference, Chief Craft obviously pauses to recollect the name of St. Mary.... while in the midst of naming an intersection, instead of a range of locations. If he were trying to name St. Landry and St. Mary separately, he would not use the word "between." Those streets are perpendicular. There is no "between" possible. If he were trying to name three streets as a range, instead of two, he would have used the word, "along."

Using Chief Craft's statement as a basis, the only scenario I can entertain where her bike were truly hit in front of Circle K would be if her bike were hit up by Circle K, she got in the truck, and escaped somewhere between the hopsital and Coliseum, and he chased her down.

chicken fried

08-12-2012, 08:48 AM

i worked for the city of lafayette/lafayette consolidated government for over 12 years...i attended city council meetings in the building where this camera is located MANY times...the parking lot is very brightly lit...i guess i'm not answering your question the way you'd like me to, but knowing the area as i do, i think it is as simple as a shadow.

I agree with you. I believe the "mark" is a shadow from the road-work sign, cast by the lights in the LCG parking lot. That is the simplest solution.

chicken fried

08-12-2012, 08:50 AM

I have always thought it to be the shadow from the sign on the curb. The light source is up high to the left and shining down in that direction might only shadow the top portion of the sign at a slight angle. The wind might be blowing and distort it also.

Be aware that the pole near the truck is NOT a light pole; it's a flag pole. I know this from standing there myself. The lights are further back in the LCG lot.

Jkg005

08-12-2012, 09:50 AM

I don't know. I don't personally see anything else on the door other than the long black mark that does appear to be some type of substance. It's difficult to tell it is would be something poured down the door or splashed up from the ground.

There is something over the rear wheel well that we thought could be a Wood Group logo on a saddle type tool box. We were never completely confident what that is back there but it is something.

When I questioned my son about it he said it looked like a mechanics mat as in something you would lay over an area as not to scratch the vehicle while working on it and now knowing BSL is a mechanic I tend to believe that it what it is. Sorry can't remember the exact name for it maybe mechanics paint mat?

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 11:03 AM

OT, but this whole situation has reminded me how dangerous and violent the world can be...especially for women and children, and although i want to believe that this will change for the better within my lifetime, i honestly don't have much faith that it will happen...and i find that terribly disheartening...prayers for all here who care enough to try to make a difference.

You are right Simon and it's a scary thought. I am not too terribly old and I know that when I was a kid I rode my bike all over town and walked through the woods alone to a lake, wondered around the store while my mother shopped, all kinds of things. Now I have a neice that is 7 and she can't even be out in the yard alone for fear that she will be snatched off of the street.

I am small and blonde and I don't know if that is it or not (I don't think it matters) but as a teenager I had two stranger men chase me while exposing themselves and as an adult I have had a stanger follow me home off of the highway and then stalk me until he was arrested and then two other stranger men (together) that followed me out of a bar and tried to force me into a car. These were very scary men that would have probably killed me if it weren't for a savvy bartender that came out right behind them.

Needless to say I have become very observant and I think that is important in protecting yourself and your loved ones. Always know what is going on around you.

I don't think I would want to have small children in the world we live in today. I cannot imagine what it will be like as they grow up and have kids of their own.

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 11:04 AM

When I questioned my son about it he said it looked like a mechanics mat as in something you would lay over an area as not to scratch the vehicle while working on it and now knowing BSL is a mechanic I tend to believe that it what it is. Sorry can't remember the exact name for it maybe mechanics paint mat?

That is what I thought it looked like too and I remember seeing the pictures of the matts.

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 11:08 AM

Love the Ipad- so I "pulled" on the ipad, screen shot, imported into Adobe Photoshop Touch (Ipad version of Photoshop) "pulled" again just a tad.. and I can see your letters in pinkish lavendar. :))

I have Adobe Touch but am not that talented with it!! Took me forever to figure out how to draw that red circle!

danzn16

08-12-2012, 11:11 AM

Before I attempt to get some sleep before 4am for once :) I am going to throw one more thing out there for observation and feedback.

Does anyone see what appears to be a person bent over under the drivers side door? I swear I can see what looks like someone on their knees with the feet projected outward toward the camera and a full rear view of their behind as they look under the truck?

I am not saying it is related to Mickey. It could be that someone ran over some debri and stopped to look.

I think what you're seeing is his front tire on the passenger side and shadows. I don't know anyone that would stop in the middle of the road and look under their truck in the middle of the night and at least not leave their door open for a quick exit if needed.

Also their are people walking around at Circle K then. I would notice a stopped truck in the middle road and at least think WTF are they doing.

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 11:13 AM

I love that feature of my Ipad and has definitely been awesome to see details without distortion. In fact, that gives me an idea. Tomorrow, I am going to connect my Ipad to my Tv with my Av adapter and pinch and pull to see what I can see on the big screen.

I need an adapter!! Let us know what you find!!!

I have read that forensic video experts take the same small image and rather than enlarge the resolution which messes with the pixels, they make a very large image of the picture to see detail. Not sure I said that in a way that makes sense!

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 11:30 AM

I think what you're seeing is his front tire on the passenger side and shadows. I don't know anyone that would stop in the middle of the road and look under their truck in the middle of the night and at least not leave their door open for a quick exit if needed.

Also their are people walking around at Circle K then. I would notice a stopped truck in the middle road and at least think WTF are they doing.

I thought it could be a shadow as you are saying but a shadow would not have two protruding shadows that appear to be legs with a space in between where you can see the ground. And the shadow wouldn't come up that high to cover a small portion of the lower drivers side door.

If they just ran something over and it wedged in the tire or something else, they may not have had a choice where to stop. This is the picture where some of us thought the man walking is looking in that direction but who is to know for sure.

I drive a Jeep and it has a problem we jeepers refer to as the death wobble and I have to stop all the time to get it back on track. I have stopped in all sorts of places because you just have to. Surprisingly, no one has ever paid too much attention to me.

For all we know, someone could have come forward after the surveillance was released. There is no way to know.

I am not dead set on this being a person bent over but I saw it immediately when I looked at this photo and it made sense if this is Brandon's truck and he just ran over a bike.

heidisams

08-12-2012, 06:00 PM

Love the Ipad- so I "pulled" on the ipad, screen shot, imported into Adobe Photoshop Touch (Ipad version of Photoshop) "pulled" again just a tad.. and I can see your letters in pinkish lavendar. :))

I see what you are thinking may be pinkish lavender letters... But, I also see them repeated throughout the entire photo... I think this pattern is probably attributed to the poor quality of the photo...
All jmo.

Ravynne

08-12-2012, 07:44 PM

Regarding mahouston69's density examination:

I do not claim to be a Photoshop expert, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I have worked with Photoshop extensively for 13 years.

The problem I see with trying to match density numbers, using the color picker, etc., is this:

The truck headlight is "blown out." The density of the white color has reached one side of the spectrum and cannot go any higher. This is evidenced by the fact that the truck headlight looks much larger than its actual size. The light is so intense that it has overwhelmed the camera sensors to the extent that pure white pixels have been created that are not actually there. The same thing happened to the speed-limit sign in the Versailles Mickey pic. The white light from under the Cathedral-Carmel bus canopy overblew the sensor to the point where it wrapped around the sign and created false pixels.

This effect can be liked to a thermometer left in the sunlight reading at the very top of the scale, even though the air temperature may be 85 degrees, or that of an 85-mph speedometer on a car that is doing 110, pegged against the top stop at 85.

The intense white color of the truck light created an oversized, maxed out, splotch on the camera sensor that bled over to other pixels.

It is possible that the density of the reflection that I describe above, of the truck headlight reflecting off the camera lens, then bouncing off the inside of the plexiglas dome (the reflection that some see as Mickey's headlight), may also possibly be attributed to this maxing-out effect, as well as the density of the known picture of her headlight.

We don't know the percentage by which the incoming bike headlight overblew the camera sensor. It is possible that enough light from the truck headlight reflected off of the lens that its reflection on the inside of the dome (the alleged "bike-under-truck headlight") still had an intense-enough white light to max out the white color and make it appear to be the same density as that of the known photo of Mickey's headlight.

Simply put, an 85-mph speedometer on a car reads the same whether the car is doing 90 or 110.

This effect cannot be definitively detected using Photoshop alone, IMO, without taking into account the technical details of the camera, which we don't have.

To restate, if the light on Mickey's bike, seen in the pic of her in front of Circle K, is at one end of the density spectrum - which it could be, as it is brighter than its surroundings (and we have no way of knowing this without a very technical analysis of the camera specs), how do we know that the reflection of an "overblown" truck headlight, bouncing off the camera lens, wouldn't still be blown out enough to appear to be the same density?

Again, if our speedometer goes to 85 - and the truck headlight is definitely "blown out," as evidenced by its obvious oversized appearance, how do we know that both the actual picture of Mickey's light, and what I deem a reflection (which others see as "Mickey's light under the truck"), are not both figuratively traveling faster than 85 mph - and yet figuratively reading 85 on the nose, in Photoshop, and so falsely appearing the same?

Had the color been somewhere in the middle of the density spectrum, it would be different. But IMO it is not possible to use a blown-out light source, maxed against one end of the scale and thereby creating pure white pixels, to definitively conclude that the light source in the known picture of Mickey's headlight, and the light under the truck, are one and the same.

Just going to add, I haven't posted in awhile and tried to refrain from any DWT postings. Having said that I've been trained to use photoshop and have used it on a nearly daily basis for a good 20 years. No, I have not opened the image in photoshop and tried to analyze anything with the program. These are merely observations solely based on viewing that image through my iPad... Ok if you look at that image compared to the one with Mickey, there are many different areas the truck pic contains light that the bike pic doesn't. ( ie. behind the gas station it looks like there is a car out of view with light, albeit muted light in the image). Also, I cannot based on my own knowledge knowingly look at an image from a camera along the street and make reliable deductions, not knowing the original resolution of said image, if it was adjusted when published, if the image itself was altered when published for public consumption. Moo.

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 09:10 PM

I have Adobe Touch but am not that talented with it!! Took me forever to figure out how to draw that red circle!

You'll get it :) If you have mastered the tools and ins and outs of photoshop, the lighter tablet version is a dream. One thing you can try and is great fun is open a photo of the truck or any shadowed image in Touch, make a camera fill layer, shut off all your lights and use a small flashlight..shine it towards the camera on your tablet...walaa.. you now have custom light fill and take a look at some of those shadows you can't lighten up without distorting. so fun!

The adapter runs about 40.00 and nice also. I am plugging it in now to take a look!

Mahouston69

08-12-2012, 09:15 PM

I need an adapter!! Let us know what you find!!!

I have read that forensic video experts take the same small image and rather than enlarge the resolution which messes with the pixels, they make a very large image of the picture to see detail. Not sure I said that in a way that makes sense!

It makes perfect sense. You can use Photoshop or similiar programs to interpolate an image but you really disentegrate the image further in my opinion by adding similar pixels that aren't true data. So, the less of the two evils and to see the image clearer is to make a couple of new generation images with true data and "magnify" between them. Pictures of magnified pictures. Ok, not sure if that explanation made any more sense.. but I think we agree. lol

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 11:04 PM

You'll get it :) If you have mastered the tools and ins and outs of photoshop, the lighter tablet version is a dream. One thing you can try and is great fun is open a photo of the truck or any shadowed image in Touch, make a camera fill layer, shut off all your lights and use a small flashlight..shine it towards the camera on your tablet...walaa.. you now have custom light fill and take a look at some of those shadows you can't lighten up without distorting. so fun!

The adapter runs about 40.00 and nice also. I am plugging it in now to take a look!

I tried but it didn't do anything. I will keep playing wth it!

jujube

08-12-2012, 11:20 PM

A wonderful WS poster did post a photo of the DWT with the driver clearly shown. Now, I recognize that driver as BSL.

I don't know if you're talking about me or someone else but I did post a photo enhancement-just enlargement and focus, no funny business. It showed a man looking a bit to his right and he had what I would call 5 o'clock shadow. At the time, I said he looked like Popeye's enemy, Brutus, who also either had a beard or the shadow. After being ridiculed to death, I got rid of the picture in my photo bucket. This was before the arrest. When BSL's picture was published, I was shocked at how he resembled the man I saw in the truck.

CajunStrong

08-12-2012, 11:25 PM

I don't know if you're talking about me or someone else but I did post a photo enhancement-just enlargement and focus, no funny business. It showed a man looking a bit to his right and he had what I would call 5 o'clock shadow. At the time, I said he looked like Popeye's enemy, Brutus, who also either had a beard or the shadow. After being ridiculed to death, I got rid of the picture in my photo bucket. This was before the arrest. When BSL's picture was published, I was shocked at how he resembled the man I saw in the truck.

You were right! I remember that photo enhancement. When I enlarged the original on a large screen I saw the same thing. You could clearly make out some features of the driver.

LaffySleuth

08-13-2012, 12:06 PM

Alright, I've been avoiding this thread for a while.

I said 2009 -2011 Chevrolet Silverado.

This was a 2011, according to dates/facts. He wasn't in possession of the 2009 (according to the vehicle list) until 6/13/12...He, allegedly, brought the 2011 to Texas and burned it and filed an insurance claim on May 31st...exactly two weeks before he registered the 2009.

So what did the 2011 look like? I'm pretty sure it looked like this.

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 12:36 PM

Just going to add, I haven't posted in awhile and tried to refrain from any DWT postings. Having said that I've been trained to use photoshop and have used it on a nearly daily basis for a good 20 years. No, I have not opened the image in photoshop and tried to analyze anything with the program. These are merely observations solely based on viewing that image through my iPad... Ok if you look at that image compared to the one with Mickey, there are many different areas the truck pic contains light that the bike pic doesn't. ( ie. behind the gas station it looks like there is a car out of view with light, albeit muted light in the image). Also, I cannot based on my own knowledge knowingly look at an image from a camera along the street and make reliable deductions, not knowing the original resolution of said image, if it was adjusted when published, if the image itself was altered when published for public consumption. Moo.

LE stated that the still photo was enhanced before being released to the public. That is my main concern when the photo is further enhanced. If anyone choses to enhance/alter/whatever action is taken: you aren't starting off with the original, you don't know what was done to enhance, you don't know if the pixels you are enhancing were even a part of the original, unenhanced still.

So if any of the enhancers are wondering why some of us discount the enhancements, that's why. I don't know the base line of the original. And, forgive me please, neither do you!

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 12:51 PM

It's weird, but one thing that I am seeing now, since you re-posted the photos, CajunStrong (and by the way, thanks!), is the appearance of markings or something on the passenger side door of the truck in "the" photo -- right next to the black mark. I remember others talking about these before -- remember a suggestion that it might be a Wood Group logo. I don't think it's that -- it's kind of reminiscent, though. If there is indeed anything there (because I do realize it could be illusory), I'm almost starting to wonder if someone graffiti-ed his truck -- maybe the mark could be from some sort of vandalism, as well. (I know all this is reaching a little -- just posting sort of free-association here.)

It is definitely NOT a Wood Group logo. The Z71 was Brandon's PERSONAL vehicle, and Wood Group doesn't put its logo on personal vehicles.

Hubby worked for Wood Group, so I can "promise" you it isn't that!

HouDat

08-13-2012, 01:26 PM

No offense against you HouDat but it's exactly those types of statements that infuriate those of us that take these pictures seriously and are actually trying to make some real sense of these pictures.

It is also what leads some members to feel intimidated about posting on this subject.

There is nothing about about those types of statements that lead to any productivity. And I was really hoping we would have a sanctuary of sorts where we could express our thoughts on the white truck without being made fun of.

Now, with that being said, Houdat... I know that you mean no ill will.

It was an attempt at injecting some levity. Some get it, some apparently don't.

Cheers.

Ravynne

08-13-2012, 02:23 PM

LE stated that the still photo was enhanced before being released to the public. That is my main concern when the photo is further enhanced. If anyone choses to enhance/alter/whatever action is taken: you aren't starting off with the original, you don't know what was done to enhance, you don't know if the pixels you are enhancing were even a part of the original, unenhanced still.

So if any of the enhancers are wondering why some of us discount the enhancements, that's why. I don't know the base line of the original. And, forgive me please, neither do you!

Just wanna give a shout out to you kgeaux, and a very big thank you. Forgive me as I have forgotten what LE stated about the original. Agree with you 100%. The main point in all of this is that information shouldn't try and be gathered from an enhanced image because we Do Not Know how it was enhanced.

Only an original unaltered image should be used for those purposes, and that is in LE's hands.
MOO

Money Girl

08-13-2012, 06:23 PM

I don't know if you're talking about me or someone else but I did post a photo enhancement-just enlargement and focus, no funny business. It showed a man looking a bit to his right and he had what I would call 5 o'clock shadow. At the time, I said he looked like Popeye's enemy, Brutus, who also either had a beard or the shadow. After being ridiculed to death, I got rid of the picture in my photo bucket. This was before the arrest. When BSL's picture was published, I was shocked at how he resembled the man I saw in the truck.

Could you please post the photo enhancement again?

Thx.

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 07:12 PM

Could you please post the photo enhancement again?

Thx.

I tried to find it for you, Money Girl, but I don't have the time this afternoon to really do a good search.

Hopefully jujube will see your request and post the photo, if not, I'll try to find it tomorrow morning.

jujube's is not the enhancement I was speaking of earlier. Someone else painted in a driver, LOL, THAT is what I was talking about!

CajunStrong

08-13-2012, 07:54 PM

Just wanna give a shout out to you kgeaux, and a very big thank you. Forgive me as I have forgotten what LE stated about the original. Agree with you 100%. The main point in all of this is that information shouldn't try and be gathered from an enhanced image because we Do Not Know how it was enhanced.

Only an original unaltered image should be used for those purposes, and that is in LE's hands.
MOO

I am curious to what degree it was enhanced. Was it enhanced very little to just have some clarification or enhanced to blur out and cover things? No way to know of course.

Their enhancements could be why the pictures contain so many anomalies that do not seem to belong. Then I have to wonder why they would have the need...what was there?

As soon as they received the video from the LCG camera they really did hone in on Brandon's truck.

CajunStrong

08-13-2012, 08:06 PM

It was an attempt at injecting some levity. Some get it, some apparently don't.

Cheers.

I apologize HouDat. My comments were truly not directed at you personally per my last statement in that post. More so towards those types of statements. You have always been respectful. Just doesn't take much for those with less respectful intentions to follow.

I guess it is just a sensitive area for some of us that really do see something that makes sense to us in the pictures. It can be upsetting to have your thoughts devalued. And it is frustrating to see 'something' but have no validation of what that something is.

HouDat

08-13-2012, 08:11 PM

There is something over the rear wheel well that we thought could be a Wood Group logo on a saddle type tool box.

In the KATC report timestamped just after the 6PM news earlier this evening, there is reference made to the value of the truck which, when combined with the tool box which was also reported stolen, equaled over $30k.

Missing is a description of said tool box, but it has been speculated here once before, and now again here, that a tool box may be responsible for some of the peculiarities some WSers report seeing in the pic of the DWT.

LaffySleuth

08-13-2012, 08:44 PM

I don't know if it's the way it's worded or what...but it says the "red tool box was in the truck".

That could mean in the cab or in the bed.

HouDat

08-13-2012, 08:45 PM

I apologize HouDat. My comments were truly not directed at you personally per my last statement in that post. More so towards those types of statements. You have always been respectful. Just doesn't take much for those with less respectful intentions to follow.

I guess it is just a sensitive area for some of us that really do see something that makes sense to us in the pictures. It can be upsetting to have your thoughts devalued. And it is frustrating to see 'something' but have no validation of what that something is.

Thanks.

I have stated in some of the early threads (probably before you began posting here, granted) that I did see some sort of distortions in those images. There was much dialogue as to shadows, light sources, fisheye lens distortions of light, reflection, refraction, and so forth.

For instance, if you look at the bottom of the truck, where the line/shadow in question sort of intersects with what appears to be a step rail (or simply some black striping or other accenting), there appears to be a break in the line of the truck.

Another one discussed was what appears to be some sort of symbol on the back window of the truck. Some speculated that it was a West Coast Choppers logo; others said Sportsman's Fleur; still others said it was a Chevy logo; etc.

And then, of course, there are the discussions of the shadowy figures in the windows (Muslims, great horned owls, blue/green shirts, etc.).

At this point, of course, most of that discussion is now moot. But rest assured, a full-cavity search was given to that photo by members of this forum.

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 08:55 PM

I am curious to what degree it was enhanced. Was it enhanced very little to just have some clarification or enhanced to blur out and cover things? No way to know of course.

Their enhancements could be why the pictures contain so many anomalies that do not seem to belong. Then I have to wonder why they would have the need...what was there?

As soon as they received the video from the LCG camera they really did hone in on Brandon's truck.

When the stills were released, LE said that they had been enhanced to make them as clear as possible. They were working with FBI at the time, so we have their expertise to take into consideration when we look at the originally released photo stills. I see no reason to believe LE or FBI would "blur out" or "cover" anything up. If they would have been able to see the driver clearly enough to get a description, they would have released the description to the public. If they had seen Mickey or her bike run over or in distress by the Circle K, I think they would have stated that as a fact, and told the public, THIS IS THE TRUCK THAT WE KNOW TOOK HER.

They did not say what was done to enhance the photos (stills! I know!) just that there were enhancements made. (Without a base line of the original, unenhanced photo still, we can't deduce what enhancements LE/FBI made, can't take those enhancements into account, can't say that any further enhancements are accurate.)

This is really why I cannot "justify" anything that is seen in photos (stills) that have been further enhanced. IF LE AND FBI made the pictures as CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, why do we think we can do even better? Especially if we don't know WHAT was done, what program was used by LE and FBI? (I am going to assume they used something at least as good as PhotoShop.)

At this point, I'm not even sure what it matters. We KNOW the truck is a 2011 Silverado Z71, which later burned up in Texas. We KNOW that LE has stated Mickey disappeared between (the intersection of) St. Landry and St. Mary and the Coliseum. That statement, to me at least, means that Mickey made it past the University/St. Landry intersection (past the Circle K) so what are we trying to prove?

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 09:03 PM

I don't know if it's the way it's worded or what...but it says the "red tool box was in the truck".

That could mean in the cab or in the bed.

Y'all know I've got six sons, right? LOL, two of them drive trucks with a "tool box" that spans the width of their pickups, from left to right. These are silver, sort of hammered looking, they open up on the left, on the right and in the middle. Hubby has one like that too. These were purchased separately from their vehicles, but once installed, they would be VERY DIFFICULT to remove and steal. I personally haven't seen one that is red.

We also have a "red" tool box, which is portable. Looks like the first and second one at this link: http://www.sears.com/tools-tool-storage-portable-toolboxes/s-1025214

This tool box is pretty big. It is way, way heavy. But it IS portable, it is possible to steal.

I'm thinking we are hearing about one like the one in my link, but again, if I am wrong, it will not be the first time, or the last.

LaffySleuth

08-13-2012, 09:08 PM

Y'all know I've got six sons, right? LOL, two of them drive trucks with a "tool box" that spans the width of their pickups, from left to right. These are silver, sort of hammered looking, they open up on the left, on the right and in the middle. Hubby has one like that too. These were purchased separately from their vehicles, but once installed, they would be VERY DIFFICULT to remove and steal. I personally haven't seen one that is red.

We also have a "red" tool box, which is portable. Looks like the first one at this link: http://www.sears.com/tools-tool-storage-portable-toolboxes/s-1025214

This tool box is pretty big. It is way, way heavy. But it IS portable, it is possible to steal.

I'm thinking we are hearing about the one in my link, but again, if I am wrong, it will not be the first time, or the last.

I've got one of those too...

I've also seen the silver ones you speak of in black, but never red.

CajunStrong

08-13-2012, 09:31 PM

When the stills were released, LE said that they had been enhanced to make them as clear as possible. They were working with FBI at the time, so we have their expertise to take into consideration when we look at the originally released photo stills. I see no reason to believe LE or FBI would "blur out" or "cover" anything up. If they would have been able to see the driver clearly enough to get a description, they would have released the description to the public. If they had seen Mickey or her bike run over or in distress by the Circle K, I think they would have stated that as a fact, and told the public, THIS IS THE TRUCK THAT WE KNOW TOOK HER.

They did not say what was done to enhance the photos (stills! I know!) just that there were enhancements made. (Without a base line of the original, unenhanced photo still, we can't deduce what enhancements LE/FBI made, can't take those enhancements into account, can't say that any further enhancements are accurate.)

This is really why I cannot "justify" anything that is seen in photos (stills) that have been further enhanced. IF LE AND FBI made the pictures as CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, why do we think we can do even better? Especially if we don't know WHAT was done, what program was used by LE and FBI? (I am going to assume they used something at least as good as PhotoShop.)

At this point, I'm not even sure what it matters. We KNOW the truck is a 2011 Silverado Z71, which later burned up in Texas. We KNOW that LE has stated Mickey disappeared between (the intersection of) St. Landry and St. Mary and the Coliseum. That statement, to me at least, means that Mickey made it past the University/St. Landry intersection (past the Circle K) so what are we trying to prove?

Like many other questions we ask here, I think it is a matter of satisfying our own curiosity as to what we think we see and how each of us have formed our own theory based on what we think happened.

Much of the curiosity comes from this picture being the last confirmed sighting of Mickey and knowing that the truck, later determined to be her killer, traveled in this spot within the same minute.

The only bearing it will have on the case is just knowing exactly what did happen.

In the beginning I heard, and have read it posted here since then, that the detective/s that viewed this video snapped a picture of the actual video screen at the LCG building and this is the first still picture that we saw. Supposedly, in that original you can see some bluish on the otherwise greyscale photo, which was a bit of reflection of the detectives blue shirt. This was not incompetence on their part as they just wanted to get the truck picture released as soon as possible and knew it could be days before an enhanced still would be released.

A couple to a few days later another, clearer and slightly cropped, still that appeared to be identical was released. One of the mainstream news sites does show a timeline with the original photo released on the 25th and then a couple of days later show what they state as 'police released another clearer image of the same truck', something along those lines. I saw it ysterday and will have to go back and look. It was virtually the same still but again, a tiny bit clearer and slightly cropped.

And something I will stand by to my last day is that police WOULD release a still showing the bike underneath the truck if it wasn't obvious. They would NOT state any details of what is in the still unless it was very obvious. They are under no obligation to do so. It would be part of the investigation as many other factors are that are not released to the public. I believe the still was released before they really had a chance to see what was exactly on it.

I do believe that Mickey may have been seen further down St. Landry and perhaps that is where the actual abduction and/or crime occured. But that doesn't change my mind that what I see in the still picture can be explained by shadows and light reflections.

It seems obvious that her bike was hit at some point in this general area and no debri or obvious crime scene was found here or further down St. Landy/Blackham. In my opinion, this photo appears to have the possibility of being more of a crime scene than any other area. So why not explore it?

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 09:32 PM

I've got one of those too...

I've also seen the silver ones you speak of in black, but never red.

thanks. Sometimes I think I'm nuts! I think I've seen them in silver, black, and white. Mostly silver. But Never, Never, Never Red!

CajunStrong

08-13-2012, 09:39 PM

thanks. Sometimes I think I'm nuts! I think I've seen them in silver, black, and white. Mostly silver. But Never, Never, Never Red!

Some of us thought there was a saddle or bedrail type toolbox over the passenger side wheel well that looked like it had red lettering or a red patch. Could this be it?

thecrazyqueen

08-13-2012, 10:04 PM

This is the itemized description of tool box....

'HARBOR FREIGHT' RED TOOL BOX
CONTAINXNG VARIOUS WORK TOOLS

http://www.harborfreight.com/tool-boxes.html?dir=asc&order=name

danzn16

08-13-2012, 10:16 PM

When the stills were released, LE said that they had been enhanced to make them as clear as possible. They were working with FBI at the time, so we have their expertise to take into consideration when we look at the originally released photo stills. I see no reason to believe LE or FBI would "blur out" or "cover" anything up. If they would have been able to see the driver clearly enough to get a description, they would have released the description to the public. If they had seen Mickey or her bike run over or in distress by the Circle K, I think they would have stated that as a fact, and told the public, THIS IS THE TRUCK THAT WE KNOW TOOK HER.

They did not say what was done to enhance the photos (stills! I know!) just that there were enhancements made. (Without a base line of the original, unenhanced photo still, we can't deduce what enhancements LE/FBI made, can't take those enhancements into account, can't say that any further enhancements are accurate.)

This is really why I cannot "justify" anything that is seen in photos (stills) that have been further enhanced. IF LE AND FBI made the pictures as CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, why do we think we can do even better? Especially if we don't know WHAT was done, what program was used by LE and FBI? (I am going to assume they used something at least as good as PhotoShop.)

At this point, I'm not even sure what it matters. We KNOW the truck is a 2011 Silverado Z71, which later burned up in Texas. We KNOW that LE has stated Mickey disappeared between (the intersection of) St. Landry and St. Mary and the Coliseum. That statement, to me at least, means that Mickey made it past the University/St. Landry intersection (past the Circle K) so what are we trying to prove?

Trying to prove that they are seeing something in the photos, regardless of physics, camera refraction/pixels, LE evidence released, etc. I'm pretty sure after trial, if it is in fact found that nothing is actually in the picture other than BSL's truck, there will still be a DWT thread and still be claims.

Sorry JMO.

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 10:31 PM

Trying to prove that they are seeing something in the photos, regardless of physics, camera refraction/pixels, LE evidence released, etc. I'm pretty sure after trial, if it is in fact found that nothing is actually in the picture other than BSL's truck, there will still be a DWT thread and still be claims.

Sorry JMO.

No need to apologize to me. I totally agree.

Unfortunately, LOL, I "saw" a kitten looking up through the foliage in some of the crime scene photos from where precious little Caylee Anthony's body was found. I KNOW there is no kitten looking up through those leaves---the scale is completely wrong---but I never was able to "unsee" it after I "saw" it.

In this case, I am 100% sure that LE did NOT try to block out or hide identifying features from the public in these pictures. But I also KNOW I won't be able to convince anyone to "unsee" what they've "seen."

The best I can do is to try to dispute it. Even if it won't be received or believed.

gngr~snap

08-13-2012, 11:01 PM

Some of us thought there was a saddle or bedrail type toolbox over the passenger side wheel well that looked like it had red lettering or a red patch. Could this be it?

:what: This "tool-box" sounds more like a "rape kit" IMO something he could carry...

He probably had to burn it due to DNA evidence in it!

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 11:26 PM

:what: This "tool-box" sounds more like a "rape kit" IMO something he could carry...

He probably had to burn it due to DNA evidence in it!

Well, he was a mechanic. I don't know what he had in the tool kit, but I'm willing to bet it was tools!

vap27

08-13-2012, 11:40 PM

I've brought up this point before, but it was many threads ago and I'm sure it's gotten lost...I think we need to look at the reason LE decided to release this particular still of the DWT. If the camera on the building is taking continuous video, then the DWT would be clear of the road sign in just a few frames. In a matter of seconds we would have seen the DWT with no obstacles to obscure our view. We would have easily seen if it was a crew or extended cab. We would have had a much better chance of identifying whatever is located over the rear wheel well. But, for some reason, LE gave us this image. Why? Is it because frames beyond this one could not be released because of what they would show? I want those who think the discussion regarding the truck is ridiculous to explain why LE would ask the public to identify a truck and then show us a picture of it that obscures our view when we know it would have been unobstructed in a matter of seconds.

Jkg005

08-13-2012, 11:45 PM

No need to apologize to me. I totally agree.

Unfortunately, LOL, I "saw" a kitten looking up through the foliage in some of the crime scene photos from where precious little Caylee Anthony's body was found. I KNOW there is no kitten looking up through those leaves---the scale is completely wrong---but I never was able to "unsee" it after I "saw" it.

In this case, I am 100% sure that LE did NOT try to block out or hide identifying features from the public in these pictures. But I also KNOW I won't be able to convince anyone to "unsee" what they've "seen."

The best I can do is to try to dispute it. Even if it won't be received or believed.

Hey I am more than ready for someone to be 100% certain. Just tell me how you have come up with it. Did you see the actual video at LGC? We're you a witness when this video was shot? Did you actually release the still? Again I would LOVE to know.

kgeaux

08-13-2012, 11:47 PM

Hey I am more than ready for someone to be 100% certain. Just tell me how you have come up with it. Did you see the actual video at LGC? We're you a witness when this video was shot? Did you actually release the still? Again I would LOVE to know.

None of the above. I just know how earnestly and honestly LE wanted to find Mickey.

CajunStrong

08-14-2012, 03:26 AM

I've brought up this point before, but it was many threads ago and I'm sure it's gotten lost...I think we need to look at the reason LE decided to release this particular still of the DWT. If the camera on the building is taking continuous video, then the DWT would be clear of the road sign in just a few frames. In a matter of seconds we would have seen the DWT with no obstacles to obscure our view. We would have easily seen if it was a crew or extended cab. We would have had a much better chance of identifying whatever is located over the rear wheel well. But, for some reason, LE gave us this image. Why? Is it because frames beyond this one could not be released because of what they would show? I want those who think the discussion regarding the truck is ridiculous to explain why LE would ask the public to identify a truck and then show us a picture of it that obscures our view when we know it would have been unobstructed in a matter of seconds.

You are so right. I have said this many times.

CajunStrong

08-14-2012, 03:38 AM

Trying to prove that they are seeing something in the photos, regardless of physics, camera refraction/pixels, LE evidence released, etc. I'm pretty sure after trial, if it is in fact found that nothing is actually in the picture other than BSL's truck, there will still be a DWT thread and still be claims.

Sorry JMO.

I have not seen anyone disprove what we see and what some of us have heard. For every argument against it, I have seen another that supports it, not one side any more influential than the other.

Not one thing you have mentioned above has disproved anything at all to me. I don't know of any police evidence that disproves it. Physics has been explained on both sides and none of us are experts and able to give a true expert opinion. Same with camera refraction, etc., I have heard people claim to be well versed in this subject on both sides with differing opinions.

I have a feeling there will be a lot of "I told you so's' in the end. Not sure from which side.

If this goes to trial and/or is otherwise explained by police once everything is final and done, then I will believe what they have said. Once a sentence has been handed down there is no reason to not disclose all evidence. But don't be so sure that it will not be the other way around.

CajunStrong

08-14-2012, 03:51 AM

None of the above. I just know how earnestly and honestly LE wanted to find Mickey.

I don't think it has anything to do with how badly police wanted to find Mickey and her killer. It is a matter of the integrity of the investigation. There are many, many, many things police have not disclosed to the public. Most of the time, if not all of the time, the public is given information on a need to know basis.

By police not coming forth and saying that perhaps her bike was hit on camera, doesn't make them dishonest in the investigation or make them want to find Mickey any less. They haven't commented either way. And I can guarrantee you that they are very well aware of the controversy. In my opinion, there is a reason why much, if not almost all, of the information pertaining to Brandon's truck and the timeframe he passed behind her has been cleaned up on the inernet.

I am not 100% certain of anything in this case other than what police have released in either a press conference or in legal documents. In my opinion, based on the very loose description of where police believe Mickey was taken, that proves to me that they just do not know but think it was in one of those areas. If they knew for certain they would have been very specific with just one area.

How can anyone be 100% certain she wasn't hit on the LCG camera and then was actually abducted further down?

Backwoods

08-14-2012, 04:09 AM

Well, he was a mechanic. I don't know what he had in the tool kit, but I'm willing to bet it was tools!

Yeah, I agree! (But that there was DNA evidence there also, part of what gngr was saying, is still sure possible.)

LaffySleuth

08-14-2012, 04:10 AM

I mentioned in one of my first posts here how odd it was that they only released a still and not a video. It also made it difficult (but doable!) to identify the truck correctly.

I also found it curious that they said Z71 from the beginning...they would have had a better shot of it to clearly see "Z71".

EDIT: One more thing, they could see a "Z71" decal but couldn't say it was a Chevrolet Silverado?

I've got a feeling LE knew it was him after a few days or after MS's bike was found. It certainly makes more sense than "this guy is suspicious, let's put a tracking device on his truck".

Backwoods

08-14-2012, 04:19 AM

I don't think it has anything to do with how badly police wanted to find Mickey and her killer. It is a matter of the integrity of the investigation. There are many, many, many things police have not disclosed to the public. Most of the time, if not all of the time, the public is given information on a need to know basis.

By police not coming forth and saying that perhaps her bike was hit on camera, doesn't make them dishonest in the investigation or make them want to find Mickey any less. They haven't commented either way. And I can guarrantee you that they are very well aware of the controversy. In my opinion, there is a reason why much, if not almost all, of the information pertaining to Brandon's truck and the timeframe he passed behind her has been cleaned up on the inernet.

I am not 100% certain of anything in this case other than what police have released in either a press conference or in legal documents. In my opinion, based on the very loose description of where police believe Mickey was taken, that proves to me that they just do not know but think it was in one of those areas. If they knew for certain they would have been very specific with just one area.

How can anyone be 100% certain she wasn't hit on the LCG camera and then was actually abducted further down?

Very good points made, IMO.

Just want to add: I've long felt that Mickey's mom's early remarks that (paraphrasing) maybe someone hit Mickey and she was injured but alive and the person who hit her still had her, and her plea for her daughter to be dropped off at a hospital if this was the case -- those things may, and I'm saying MAY, mean that a few more details about the actual "bike hit" (if it happened) were known or suspected but never released publicly.

Of course, that could have just been a mother's heart talking, too, hoping for the best-case scenario. (My heart, a stranger's, was hoping the same.)

abbielynn

08-14-2012, 04:35 AM

Hi, this is my first post and something just popped in my head. Hopefully, I am doing this correctly, I have been lurking from just about the beginning of the case and have read all the threads.

If the DWT still is showing the bike under the truck, then wouldn't the
subsequent images show the removal? If so, why would the police not release a description of the person removing the bike along with the description of the truck?

LaffySleuth

08-14-2012, 04:37 AM

Hi, this is my first post and something just popped in my head. Hopefully, I am doing this correctly, I have been lurking from just about the beginning of the case and have read all the threads.

If the DWT still is showing the bike under the truck, then wouldn't the
subsequent images show the removal? If so, why would the police not release a description of the person removing the bike along with the description of the truck?

Why would you want to scare your perp off? If I was on the case, I wouldn't show my hand until I knew I could win.

Jkg005

08-14-2012, 06:41 AM

None of the above. I just know how earnestly and honestly LE wanted to find Mickey.

That is just it we ALL do. The only thing we had to start with are those pictures whereas some of us see irregularities. We just want to know what is happening in them. I don't believe that LE was trying to be deceitful at all. I do believe if it was done it was done for a very important reason. Although I as am sure others wish they would have released more information I am sure they had their reasons not to. My hats off to LE not matter who gave what tip BSL is now locked up. I don't know about anyone else but it has had to be very difficult for LE emotionally and physically for them in this case. I pray for everyone that has been involved in this case. We all just want to know why he did this. I go to sleep every nite seeing the face of an angel by the name of Mickey. May she rest in peace.

andalso

08-14-2012, 09:10 AM

abbielynn

:welcome4:

Thanks for joining the discussion!!!

andalso

08-14-2012, 09:19 AM

Trying to prove that they are seeing something in the photos, regardless of physics, camera refraction/pixels, LE evidence released, etc. I'm pretty sure after trial, if it is in fact found that nothing is actually in the picture other than BSL's truck, there will still be a DWT thread and still be claims.

Sorry JMO.

BBM:
I, for one, will eat crow if LE ever comes out publicly and says that the bike is not under the truck. I am guessing most of the fine sleuthers here would do so as well. Facts are facts and that is what we (IMO) would prefer to work with. Unfortunately, we do not have the facts...but we do know that there is some sort of anomaly in the picture of the DWT.

IMPondering

08-14-2012, 09:27 AM

BBM:
I, for one, will eat crow if LE ever comes out publicly and says that the bike is not under the truck. I am guessing most of the fine sleuthers here would do so as well. Facts are facts and that is what we (IMO) would prefer to work with. Unfortunately, we do not have the facts...but we do know that there is some sort of anomaly in the picture of the DWT.

And, would you like that spicey or mild? :)

andalso

08-14-2012, 10:48 AM

And, would you like that spicey or mild? :)

Mild...definitely mild, please!!!!;)

CajunStrong

08-14-2012, 12:19 PM

I can honestly say that I hope we are right in that she was hit there on the LCG camera. And not because I want to prove a point because in a case where there is a victim there is no victory in being right. But because it would be an excellent piece of evidence. I mean, how can he dispute his truck hitting her on video?

From the day police reviewed the video from the LCG camera there was speculation that she was hit by a white truck as part of an accident. The original speculation was that a white truck was right on her as she passed through the intersection, she was hit and injured but somehow walked or made it past the view of the camera, picked up by the white truck further down St. Landry, and then the truck turned around and went the opposite direction with Mickey and the bike in the bed of the truck.

I still believe that theory. This was all thought of before we even knew who Brandon was. Since that time, The driver of that white truck was arrested and charged with her murder. Her bike was found with damage consistent with being struck by a vehicle. The last confirmed sighting of Mickey was on the LCG camera. Police have stated that she was abducted in the near vicinity.

All of this just almost proves that this original theory is possible. And I hope it is right because that means police knew early on and have been working to prove the facts and have solid proof on video.

concentric

08-14-2012, 01:57 PM

[QUOTE=CajunStrong;8261055]I can honestly say that I hope we are right in that she was hit there on the LCG camera. And not because I want to prove a point because in a case where there is a victim there is no victory in being right. But because it would be an excellent piece of evidence. -----------
:clap:
My bold above.

Ihavenoname

08-14-2012, 04:33 PM

BBM:
I, for one, will eat crow if LE ever comes out publicly and says that the bike is not under the truck. I am guessing most of the fine sleuthers here would do so as well. Facts are facts and that is what we (IMO) would prefer to work with. Unfortunately, we do not have the facts...but we do know that there is some sort of anomaly in the picture of the DWT.

Remember cooked Louisiana style anything is good.

danzn16

08-14-2012, 05:33 PM

Why would you want to scare your perp off? If I was on the case, I wouldn't show my hand until I knew I could win.

if the perp saw a pic of his truck in the location in which he hit his victim, i'm pretty sure this would scare him just as bad as if they released a pic of him outside of the truck removing the bike (if that ever happened). if he saw that he was caught on camera at the site of the accident, then he would be aware that LE has evidence of the event. he would be scared off regardless

gngr~snap

08-14-2012, 05:46 PM

if the perp saw a pic of his truck in the location in which he hit his victim, i'm pretty sure this would scare him just as bad as if they released a pic of him outside of the truck removing the bike (if that ever happened). if he saw that he was caught on camera at the site of the accident, then he would be aware that LE has evidence of the event. he would be scared off regardless
BBM

As if saying we don't know WHO you are but we know WHAT you DID!
(and these people in these other pictures might have seen you too!)

I have always thought the photo was released more for the perp than the public... as a "stratedgy" of sorts...

It caused him to burn the truck, so maybe not?
I guess LE doesn't normally show their cards that way huh?

BUT... hey if video footage causes him to enter a "guilty" plea and avoid a trial, IMO it's a good thing!
~jmo

Kateinfl

08-14-2012, 05:53 PM

I think if he hit her across from the Circle K.....it would have been an accident ...why hit someone in that area where you have alot of light and people in the Circle K.....i think if she is under that truck in that area.....it happened fast and she was killed immediately....that would be a good thing..instead of thinking what might have happened to her. If he hit her bike in that area to kidnap her....wouldn't he know she could run across the street and get help? JMO

AdoraBlue

08-14-2012, 05:53 PM

An uninformed question (I missed a lot early on): What does the D mean in DWT? Dirty? And wasn't there an FWT? Is that 'first"? TIA

danzn16

08-14-2012, 06:08 PM

I think if he hit her across from the Circle K.....it would have been an accident ...why hit someone in that area where you have alot of light and people in the Circle K.....i think if she is under that truck in that area.....it happened fast and she was killed immediately....that would be a good thing..instead of thinking what might have happened to her. If he hit her bike in that area to kidnap her....wouldn't he know she could run across the street and get help? JMO

this is a really good idea. you don't know what would happen if you hit someone with a truck. it was said only the back tire had damage so it is possible that it wasn't a severe impact. She would have been capable of screaming, possibly running away for help, plus people seeing the incident. Even if he expected her to be knocked out or silent for whatever reason you don't know if the bike will be stuck under the truck in some way that you can't exit quickly without removing it from your truck by getting out etc, further things that put him at risk of getting seen. BSL didn't want to get caught. He spent his whole life building the guise of innocence. He would never take such a completely stupid risk IMO.

dontbringmedownbruce

08-14-2012, 06:08 PM

An uninformed question (I missed a lot early on): What does the D mean in DWT? Dirty? And wasn't there an FWT? Is that 'first"? TIA

The Damn White Truck. FWT is more like...friggin? Lotssss of stress over the DWT caused the FWT..

danzn16

08-14-2012, 06:10 PM

An uninformed question (I missed a lot early on): What does the D mean in DWT? Dirty? And wasn't there an FWT? Is that 'first"? TIA

The truck is a very hated thing due to all this discussion. So think of a cuss word that starts with a D and a cuss work that starts with an F. :)

AdoraBlue

08-14-2012, 06:20 PM

Thanks, y'all. Makes perfect sense now that I think of it. :crazy:

jarabie

08-14-2012, 09:23 PM

Don't mean to be rude or anything but I do think some of Micky's family was reading these threads. To me it sounds painful to read that it would be a good thing if she was killed immediately. I know everyone is just concerned and voicing their opinions or thoughts but please consider this in your future posts.

IMHO

abbielynn

08-14-2012, 09:35 PM

if the perp saw a pic of his truck in the location in which he hit his victim, i'm pretty sure this would scare him just as bad as if they released a pic of him outside of the truck removing the bike (if that ever happened). if he saw that he was caught on camera at the site of the accident, then he would be aware that LE has evidence of the event. he would be scared off regardless

And furthermore, if they were already on him as some suspect, wouldn't they have stopped him before he burned it?

danzn16

08-14-2012, 09:38 PM

Don't mean to be rude or anything but I do think some of Micky's family was reading these threads. To me it sounds painful to read that it would be a good thing if she was killed immediately. I know everyone is just concerned and voicing their opinions or thoughts but please consider this in your future posts.

IMHO

If they do read these threads I'd hope that they see the love and support of the members on Websleuths. There are hundreds of people that have taken hours out of everyday since Mickey has been gone to do everything they can to help find her or just to even get any information they can about Mickey because they are so touched by her. There is nothing ill meant by people saying that they hope she was killed instantly. If she was my daughter or sister or even myself I would wish the same thing. Dying instantly in a bike accident would be better than rape, torture, and murder that LE believes happened don't you think? The way it was written may have sounded insensitive but it was definitely meant in the kindest way possible or that person wouldn't even be here on WS right now.

txlams

08-14-2012, 10:14 PM

For some reason, the burned truck on Hues Rd. is bothering me so much. That road is out in the middle of nowhere, with so few residences even around it. I'm just thinking 'out loud' but for it to have been found at 4 a.m., I would think he would have had to park it somewhere near the intersection of either Stringtown Rd. or FM 223. My bets would be the farm to market road. I just don't see how anyone could have seen it, unless it was close to one of the few houses out there. All JMO.

LaffySleuth

08-14-2012, 10:56 PM

I think if he hit her across from the Circle K.....it would have been an accident ...why hit someone in that area where you have alot of light and people in the Circle K.....i think if she is under that truck in that area.....it happened fast and she was killed immediately....that would be a good thing..instead of thinking what might have happened to her. If he hit her bike in that area to kidnap her....wouldn't he know she could run across the street and get help? JMO

Two words: Bystander syndrome.

I remember reading about a case (I know there are more recent cases) were a woman was raped and killed in broad daylight while about 15 + people watched and did nothing.

He could have hit her with enough force to knock her unconscious.

katie78

08-14-2012, 11:03 PM

Two words: Bystander syndrome.

I remember reading about a case (I know there are more recent cases) were a woman was raped and killed in broad daylight while about 15 + people watched and did nothing.

He could have hit her with enough force to knock her unconscious.

That's awful :( and hard to imagine for most of us, but it DOES happen sadly enough. I could see that being the case here too.

heidisams

08-14-2012, 11:56 PM

this is a really good idea. you don't know what would happen if you hit someone with a truck. it was said only the back tire had damage so it is possible that it wasn't a severe impact. She would have been capable of screaming, possibly running away for help, plus people seeing the incident. Even if he expected her to be knocked out or silent for whatever reason you don't know if the bike will be stuck under the truck in some way that you can't exit quickly without removing it from your truck by getting out etc, further things that put him at risk of getting seen. BSL didn't want to get caught. He spent his whole life building the guise of innocence. He would never take such a completely stupid risk IMO.

I agree. Some are now theorizing, since reports by le put her abduction further down St. Landry, that perhaps he hit her in front of circle k, but she took off on foot and was subsequently captured down there... Why would Mickey run toward an area that is remote, dark, and, as many locals have described, scarey? When a few yards away there is a well lit, open, place with people present... Same goes for BSL, why would he bump her there, when down the road a little is an area that's dark and secluded?
Many have suggested le could've been on to him early on, but they were waiting and watching, or whatever... Didn't want to reveal their hand... IMO, they do that sometimes in investigations, but typically that strategy isn't used when someone's life is at stake. I believe finding Mickey was their number one priority, granted, they still consider the integrity of their investigation; to insure justice when the time comes. But, not at the expense of someone's life.
I have a question about the bike being under the truck... It's been asked before, but I still don't know the answer... How does her bike end up under the truck in the exact spot she was at seconds earlier? Even if he is one second behind her, how is it that the bike is already completely under the truck? IMO, if he hit her there, a second later even, I think we would've seen the actual collision in the photo of the dwt, not the end result... I don't think the bike would've been completely under the truck for several more yards... when factoring in motion...
It's my opinion that Mickey is in motion, which makes it even more unlikely her bike would end up under the truck in that spot. I know many think she appears be stopped in the photo, either way, I think they'd be further down...

All jmo

LaffySleuth

08-15-2012, 12:35 AM

I agree, some are now theorizing, since reports by le put her abduction further down St. Landry, that perhaps he hit her in front of circle k, but she took off on foot and was subsequently captured down there... Why would Mickey run toward an area that is remote, dark, and, as many locals have described, scarey? When a few yards away there is a well lit, open, place with people present... Same goes for BSL, why would he bump her there, when down the road a little is an area that's dark and secluded?
Many have suggested le could've been on to him early on, but they were waiting and watching, or whatever... Didn't want to reveal their hand... IMO, they do that sometimes in investigations, but typically that strategy isn't used when someone's life is at stake. I believe finding Mickey was their number one priority, granted, they consider the integrity of their investigation; to insure justice when the time comes. But, not at the expense of someone's life.
I have a question about the bike being under the truck... It's been asked before, but I still don't know the answer... How does her bike end up under the truck in the exact spot she was at seconds earlier? Even if he is one second behind her, how is it that the bike and the truck aren't further down the road, considering the bike is completely under the truck already? IMO, if he hit her there, a second later even, I think we would've seen the actual collision in the photo of the dwt, not the end result... I don't think the bike would've been completely under the truck for several more yards... when factoring in motion...

All jmo.

I love how people are using the phrase "their hand"...no sarcasm.

She could have been stopped; but again, we don't know that. There's that pesky "we're not releasing video" thing.

There's also something I neglected to mention...I had noted it, but I was waiting for someone to mention it here, and it never did, or it might have been and I completely missed it. Very possible as I didn't come here for weeks after my "time-out".

It, kind of, throws the entire "bike under truck" theory out.

Look at the DWT (affectionately also called the FWT) and look at MS's shot. Side by side. See what I'm saying?

No?

We (well some of us) say the truck is elevated slightly to which we say, "Hey something's under that truck!" and I agree with it.

But..and IMO

MS's bike shot is also elevated.

Mahouston69

08-15-2012, 02:48 AM

I agree, some are now theorizing, since reports by le put her abduction further down St. Landry, that perhaps he hit her in front of circle k, but she took off on foot and was subsequently captured down there... Why would Mickey run toward an area that is remote, dark, and, as many locals have described, scarey? When a few yards away there is a well lit, open, place with people present... Same goes for BSL, why would he bump her there, when down the road a little is an area that's dark and secluded?
Many have suggested le could've been on to him early on, but they were waiting and watching, or whatever... Didn't want to reveal their hand... IMO, they do that sometimes in investigations, but typically that strategy isn't used when someone's life is at stake. I believe finding Mickey was their number one priority, granted, they consider the integrity of their investigation; to insure justice when the time comes. But, not at the expense of someone's life.
I have a question about the bike being under the truck... It's been asked before, but I still don't know the answer... How does her bike end up under the truck in the exact spot she was at seconds earlier? Even if he is one second behind her, how is it that the bike is already completely under the truck? IMO, if he hit her there, a second later even, I think we would've seen the actual collision in the photo of the dwt, not the end result... I don't think the bike would've been completely under the truck for several more yards... when factoring in motion...

All jmo.

I believe that the image they released is the truck actually in reverse. I believe that is what is giving serious distortion to some parts of the image. I believe that LE froze it at this spot because it doesn't show Mickey and it's the clearest picture of the truck. She could be further forward out of the frame on the ground, already in the truck or tucked under the truck on the bike. I think she was stopped in the frame of her by herself or getting ready to stop.

I do not think they were on to BSL for sure until they got a call from Texas investigators around June 14th, and the photo was released to identify him and the truck. I believe it was the clearest image they had, when they released it, although it's very low resolution and you can't i.d. anyone from it. They needed Mickey's family to look at to help identify her. To know for sure that was her right there at that time. They could have just said, "this may be Mickey Shunick, help us out" when they released the image.

But, even with BSL following right behind her, and the fact he is an RSO- that is still really circumstantial if that is all they had at the time they arrested him and called it murder 1. They had nothing else (that we know of) until after he was in custody. They had to have something more concrete than that, so we obviously know not "all their cards" were on the table. I hope we find out what they all are at some point.

* I need to clarify, I believe the the video editor rewound and stopped in this spot, not stopped video of the truck actually moving backwards. I hope somebody understands what I am trying to say*

chicken fried

08-15-2012, 03:50 AM

I agree. Some are now theorizing, since reports by le put her abduction further down St. Landry, that perhaps he hit her in front of circle k, but she took off on foot and was subsequently captured down there... Why would Mickey run toward an area that is remote, dark, and, as many locals have described, scarey? When a few yards away there is a well lit, open, place with people present... Same goes for BSL, why would he bump her there, when down the road a little is an area that's dark and secluded?
Many have suggested le could've been on to him early on, but they were waiting and watching, or whatever... Didn't want to reveal their hand... IMO, they do that sometimes in investigations, but typically that strategy isn't used when someone's life is at stake. I believe finding Mickey was their number one priority, granted, they still consider the integrity of their investigation; to insure justice when the time comes. But, not at the expense of someone's life.
I have a question about the bike being under the truck... It's been asked before, but I still don't know the answer... How does her bike end up under the truck in the exact spot she was at seconds earlier? Even if he is one second behind her, how is it that the bike is already completely under the truck? IMO, if he hit her there, a second later even, I think we would've seen the actual collision in the photo of the dwt, not the end result... I don't think the bike would've been completely under the truck for several more yards... when factoring in motion...
It's my opinion that Mickey is in motion, which makes it even more unlikely her bike would end up under the truck in that spot. I know many think she appears be stopped in the photo, either way, I think they'd be further down...

All jmo

The simplest way I can answer that is that some people think that she was stopped, out in the middle of the road. That's the only physical way for the bike to go from being upright with no truck in the photo, to being under the truck in the same spot. That's unless that truck was going at an insanely high rate of speed - like 100 mph+ - so that it covered the ground between the left edge of the photo (where it's not seen in the picture of Mickey) and the spot where it is "on top of the bike," without the bike having moved forward at all. Were Mickey in motion, the bike would not be at that spot - the bike would be further down the road.

I can see no reason why an experienced biker would be stopped out in the middle of the road, near a corner, a sitting duck to be hit by any car coming around the corner.

So that means then that the DWT was doing at least 100 mph.

heidisams

08-15-2012, 03:52 AM

I believe that the image they released is the truck actually in reverse. I believe that is what is giving serious distortion to some parts of the image. I believe that LE froze it at this spot because it doesn't show Mickey and it's the clearest picture of the truck. She could be further forward out of the frame on the ground, already in the truck or tucked under the truck on the bike. I think she was stopped in the frame of her by herself or getting ready to stop.

I do not think they were on to BSL for sure until they got a call from Texas investigators around June 14th, and the photo was released to identify him and the truck. I believe it was the clearest image they had, when they released it, although it's very low resolution and you can't i.d. anyone from it. They needed Mickey's family to look at to help identify her. To know for sure that was her right there at that time. They could have just said, "this may be Mickey Shunick, help us out" when they released the image.

But, even with BSL following right behind her, and the fact he is an RSO- that is still really circumstantial if that is all they had at the time they arrested him and called it murder 1. They had nothing else (that we know of) until after he was in custody. They had to have something more concrete than that, so we obviously know not "all their cards" were on the table. I hope we find out what they all are at some point.

* I need to clarify, I believe the the video editor rewound and stopped in this spot, not stopped video of the truck actually moving backwards. I hope somebody understands what I am trying to say*
Yah, not sure I'm following you ... So, you think the distortion is because the editor paused it while rewinding? If that was the case, then why wouldn't they just play it forward and pause it, rather then have to go to the trouble of enhancing it for clarity?

Mahouston69

08-15-2012, 06:05 AM

Yah, not sure I'm following you ... So, you think the distortion is because the editor paused it while rewinding? If that was the case, then why wouldn't they just play it forward and pause it, rather then have to go to the trouble of enhancing it for clarity?

I called the planning commission to ask if this video was continuous video and was told no, it's video like the traffic cameras but possibly set to closer intervals than those on the road. If you go back through my posts you will find it. I posted the name and phone number of who told me this but mods removed it ( it shows they did) So, in theory, if she is stopped.. and I think she is... for several reasons.
1) she wanted to use her phone or got another text
2) she wanted to turn into the circle k and was waiting for any traffic to pass
(we know the truck was seconds behind and so was the hooptie at the corner)
3)she sensed BSL following, knew there were cameras there, and stopped to let him pass in a well lit, "safe" area where a business was open.

so if she is stopped, while motion continues, in between shots, it is not necessarily "captured" In the next "shot", The truck might be half or 3/4 out of the frame, and the police are releasing it to identify the truck.. and need a whole frame, and this is as good as they got. I don't know for sure why he wouldn't let it play forward micro seconds before stopping, it looks like the editor just stopped it at the clearest frame and that happened to be on rewind. I just think the distortion looks similar to when my son who is autistic stops and rewinds, and fast forwards his movies constantly.

jujube

08-15-2012, 12:41 PM

I called the planning commission to ask if this video was continuous video and was told no, it's video like the traffic cameras but possibly set to closer intervals than those on the road. If you go back through my posts you will find it. I posted the name and phone number of who told me this but mods removed it ( it shows they did) So, in theory, if she is stopped.. and I think she is... for several reasons.
1) she wanted to use her phone or got another text
2) she wanted to turn into the circle k and was waiting for any traffic to pass
(we know the truck was seconds behind and so was the hooptie at the corner)
3)she sensed BSL following, knew there were cameras there, and stopped to let him pass in a well lit, "safe" area where a business was open.

so if she is stopped, while motion continues, in between shots, it is not necessarily "captured" In the next "shot", The truck might be half or 3/4 out of the frame, and the police are releasing it to identify the truck.. and need a whole frame, and this is as good as they got. I don't know for sure why he wouldn't let it play forward micro seconds before stopping, it looks like the editor just stopped it at the clearest frame and that happened to be on rewind. I just think the distortion looks similar to when my son who is autistic stops and rewinds, and fast forwards his movies constantly.

We also know from BW that Mickey was not feeling well. It could be that she decided to stop for a breather.
When it comes down to it, in the picture of Mickey, there is nothing on the road and there is no doubt about that. When we see BSL's truck, there is very obviously something near the tire on the passenger side of the truck. It would have to be something miraculously appeared in an amazingly short span of time. I don't think it was a miracle. The trucks brake lights are on so he could have pressed the brakes in order to bump Mickey. There is also a light beneath the truck. Is it from Mickey's bike? In the picture of Mickey, we see the reflector on her bike tire. There is no reflector on the road at that spot. Besides, a reflector needs light and this is under the truck.

When I first studied the pictures, I was doing it to shush those who thought there was something under the truck because I was certain LE would never have released a pic showing anything. It was a Eureka, OMG, moment when I first saw the bag (or whatever is near the tire) and then the light under the truck. BTW, I do not think Mickey is under the truck.

kgeaux

08-15-2012, 02:15 PM

I think if he hit her across from the Circle K.....it would have been an accident ...why hit someone in that area where you have alot of light and people in the Circle K.....i think if she is under that truck in that area.....it happened fast and she was killed immediately....that would be a good thing..instead of thinking what might have happened to her. If he hit her bike in that area to kidnap her....wouldn't he know she could run across the street and get help? JMO

This! If Mickey was hit right there in front of multiple witnesses, then BSL can claim that he hit her accidentally. It would challenge the entire prosecution belief that Mickey was kidnapped, held and abused then murdered.

Ihavenoname

08-15-2012, 02:24 PM

But what is the Daily Advertiser camera showing concerning this DWT?

Kateinfl

08-15-2012, 03:04 PM

Don't mean to be rude or anything but I do think some of Micky's family was reading these threads. To me it sounds painful to read that it would be a good thing if she was killed immediately. I know everyone is just concerned and voicing their opinions or thoughts but please consider this in your future posts.

IMHO

I'm sorry if my words offended anyone. I would never want to write anything that would be disrespectful to Mickey's family. I pray every night that they are getting through this terrible time. I'll be more careful how i word things in my posts. My apologies.

kgeaux

08-15-2012, 03:48 PM

But what is the Daily Advertiser camera showing concerning this DWT?

I think it's his license plate....someone suggested that a while back, and it seems so reasonable to me! I don't think that the video is going to show Mickey in distress, or BSL getting stabbed, for instance....anything dramatic like that, LE would have pulled the video when they first saw it.

Donamena

08-15-2012, 04:04 PM

Thanks, y'all. Makes perfect sense now that I think of it. :crazy:
It used to have more initials, like $&€£#%¥

Donamena

08-15-2012, 04:14 PM

I mentioned in one of my first posts here how odd it was that they only released a still and not a video. It also made it difficult (but doable!) to identify the truck correctly.

I also found it curious that they said Z71 from the beginning...they would have had a better shot of it to clearly see "Z71".

EDIT: One more thing, they could see a "Z71" decal but couldn't say it was a Chevrolet Silverado?

I've got a feeling LE knew it was him after a few days or after MS's bike was found. It certainly makes more sense than "this guy is suspicious, let's put a tracking device on his truck".
And he was a local 3 tier SO..& he was the suspect in Lisa Pate's murder.

Jkg005

08-15-2012, 08:25 PM

I agree. Some are now theorizing, since reports by le put her abduction further down St. Landry, that perhaps he hit her in front of circle k, but she took off on foot and was subsequently captured down there... Why would Mickey run toward an area that is remote, dark, and, as many locals have described, scarey? When a few yards away there is a well lit, open, place with people present... Same goes for BSL, why would he bump her there, when down the road a little is an area that's dark and secluded?
Many have suggested le could've been on to him early on, but they were waiting and watching, or whatever... Didn't want to reveal their hand... IMO, they do that sometimes in investigations, but typically that strategy isn't used when someone's life is at stake. I believe finding Mickey was their number one priority, granted, they still consider the integrity of their investigation; to insure justice when the time comes. But, not at the expense of someone's life.
I have a question about the bike being under the truck... It's been asked before, but I still don't know the answer... How does her bike end up under the truck in the exact spot she was at seconds earlier? Even if he is one second behind her, how is it that the bike is already completely under the truck? IMO, if he hit her there, a second later even, I think we would've seen the actual collision in the photo of the dwt, not the end result... I don't think the bike would've been completely under the truck for several more yards... when factoring in motion...
It's my opinion that Mickey is in motion, which makes it even more unlikely her bike would end up under the truck in that spot. I know many think she appears be stopped in the photo, either way, I think they'd be further down...

All jmo

That is the problem I don't know about anyone else's inside information but I for one don't have all of the information to rule it in or out just my theory of what could have happened especially if Mickey was not in full motion. There has been some excellent information layed out about physics and logics but we just don't know the facts!

Jkg005

08-15-2012, 08:39 PM

:jail:I called the planning commission to ask if this video was continuous video and was told no, it's video like the traffic cameras but possibly set to closer intervals than those on the road. If you go back through my posts you will find it. I posted the name and phone number of who told me this but mods removed it ( it shows they did) So, in theory, if she is stopped.. and I think she is... for several reasons.
1) she wanted to use her phone or got another text
2) she wanted to turn into the circle k and was waiting for any traffic to pass
(we know the truck was seconds behind and so was the hooptie at the corner)
3)she sensed BSL following, knew there were cameras there, and stopped to let him pass in a well lit, "safe" area where a business was open.

so if she is stopped, while motion continues, in between shots, it is not necessarily "captured" In the next "shot", The truck might be half or 3/4 out of the frame, and the police are releasing it to identify the truck.. and need a whole frame, and this is as good as they got. I don't know for sure why he wouldn't let it play forward micro seconds before stopping, it looks like the editor just stopped it at the clearest frame and that happened to be on rewind. I just think the distortion looks similar to when my son who is autistic stops and rewinds, and fast forwards his movies constantly.

IMO I believe they were anxious to get the picture out as soon as they could in hopes of finding Mickey before it was too late. Time was of the essence. So they cleaned the photo up a little and honestly I don't think I would have noticed ANYTHING if another poster had posted his findings. I just bet it never entered their minds that that photo would have been picked apart. They just wanted someone to come forward with knowledge of anything that was witnessed and to find that truck. Again JMO

heidisams

08-15-2012, 09:10 PM

That is the problem I don't know about anyone else's inside information but I for one don't have all of the information to rule it in or out just my theory of what could have happened especially if Mickey was not in full motion. There has some excellent information layer out about physics and logics but we just don't know the facts!

BBM

The question I asked was, how does the bike end up completely under the truck, in the exact same spot it was at moments earlier? Whether she was in motion or not, I think the photo of the dwt would show the collision, not the end result... Considering forward motion, how did the bike end up completely under the truck at that spot? ... IMO, the only way the bike ends up under the truck like that is if the truck dropped from the sky, and landed directly on top...

All jmo.

Jkg005

08-16-2012, 07:56 AM

BBM

The question I asked was, how does the bike end up completely under the truck, in the exact same spot it was at moments earlier? Whether she was in motion or not, I think the photo of the dwt would show the collision, not the end result... Considering forward motion, how did the bike end up completely under the truck at that spot? ... IMO, the only way the bike ends up under the truck like that is if the truck dropped from the sky, and landed directly on top...

All jmo.

That is what we are trying to figure out. How could it possibly be? To my recollection no one has ever stated that this IS what happened but could it possibly be?

Jkg005

08-16-2012, 08:05 AM

BBM

The question I asked was, how does the bike end up completely under the truck, in the exact same spot it was at moments earlier? Whether she was in motion or not, I think the photo of the dwt would show the collision, not the end result... Considering forward motion, how did the bike end up completely under the truck at that spot? ... IMO, the only way the bike ends up under the truck like that is if the truck dropped from the sky, and landed directly on top...

All jmo.

Additionally maybe the video does contain the information. Even here we have heard two stories one being it is continuous video and one being that it is not continuous. Therefore we can only go on our assumption. Others have been told that she wasn't under there, which I never thought she was, but to my knowledge the bike under the truck has never been acknowledged.

jujube

08-16-2012, 01:32 PM

That is what we are trying to figure out. How could it possibly be? To my recollection no one has ever stated that this IS what happened but could it possibly be?

Another poster, wodalo, posted this gif back on June 1. IMO, it best shows what could have happened.

Click and watch:

http://i47.tinypic.com/efqirr.gif

The gif is excellent if you're trying to read though it can make you a little dizzy, so here are the pictures:

Mickey:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/jtmsp/1.jpg

Truck:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/jtmsp/2.jpg

Jkg005

08-16-2012, 02:53 PM

Another poster, wodalo, posted this gif back on June 1. IMO, it best shows what could have happened.

Click and watch:

http://i47.tinypic.com/efqirr.gif

The gif is excellent if you're trying to read though it can make you a little dizzy, so here are the pictures:

Mickey:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/jtmsp/1.jpg

Truck:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/jtmsp/2.jpg

Yes that is when my curiosity began! Thanks to posting I never could find it again.

chicken fried

08-16-2012, 03:58 PM

I cannot believe she would stop there. It's right around the corner from University, a high-speed main street with cars that can come slinging around the corner. She's in the far left half of her lane, a lot farther from the curb than from the double line that separates the westbound lane from the eastbound turn lane. (I've never seen anyone point that out here). An experienced biker would not stop there, totally blocking the lane, with her foot on the ground, a sitting duck for someone turning off University onto St. Landry. No way, especially at 2 a.m. with drunks on the road. If anything, she would have pulled to the curb to stop. And, you can see the front tire pointed left. If she's in a turning maneuver, she will be moving.

But my main argument - made months ago, is that the photo does not look like she is stopped. First, the gray "foot" would give her a lower leg that's way too long, if it were on the ground. Look at the bottom of the tires and draw a horizontal line. The gray "foot" is actually asphalt.

Second, Mickey was only 5 feet tall, AND both Shunick girls have long torsos and short legs. I have met them both in person. For her to have been stopped, she would have had to have been leaning the bike noticeably to the right, to keep her foot on the ground. That bike appears straight up and down. I just cannot believe that she would sit there, perched on one foot, totally blocking St. Landry westbound. That stretches credulity, in my opinion.

I know why folks don't like this, because a moving Mickey makes "wodalo"'s .gif harder to explain than a stopped Mickey, but please look at the photos and consider the key points I just mentioned that make her being stopped in that photo quite problematic.

danzn16

08-16-2012, 04:21 PM

Mickey's foot doesn't even appear to be down in that picture. Her leg is bent in a pedaling fashion. Her leg isn't that long! She is a short girl. Come on guys!

chicken fried

08-16-2012, 05:09 PM

In the interest of solving this argument, I have just spoken at length - half an hour - with an LCG official in a position to know about the photos. I explained the ongoing discussion of the photos. This official does not have the exact refresh rate, but can get it, and promised to call me back with the info, due to the trust we built up in a long conversation. The camera is not continuous.. the official thinks it's less than 1/4 second between frames, but agreed that it would be good to get the exact speed.

I will post the info when it comes in.

chicken fried

08-16-2012, 05:25 PM

I can also give thanks to the person who thought to check the LCG cameras, as Mickey's route was not known.

City-Parish President Joey Durel's secretary was the one who asked to have the cameras checked. We can thank her. I was told that the LCG cameras keep two weeks of images, and so it's good that she took the initiative. I got the additional info:

A 100% confirmation that Mickey was not seen on any other LCG camera. I was told that she was not seen on the Azalea-St. camera on the north side of the building. Also, the parking lot cams on the west side of the building catch only the lot, to protect employees, and the drive-through cams are tightly focused. She was seen on none of these.

She was seen only on the one camera, across from Circle K. The source also is pretty sure that that was the only frame she was seen in, due to the time-lapse camera, though can't recall for sure if there was a second frame. Also said that there was definitely no frame where Mickey and/or the bike, and the truck, were seen together, and was sort of stunned at the idea of the bike being under the truck.

So that definitely, for me, sinks the possibility that the camera was continuous, and that LE purposely withheld an image of Mickey being hit.

Now this source is not LE, and so just because the bike wasn't seen under the truck by this source, doesn't mean that LE didn't see it when they came to pick up the disc.

That's the info I got.

gngr~snap

08-16-2012, 05:42 PM

I can also give thanks to the person who thought to check the LCG cameras, as Mickey's route was not known.

City-Parish President Joey Durel's secretary was the one who asked to have the cameras checked. We can thank her. I was told that the LCG cameras keep two weeks of images, and so it's good that she took the initiative. I got the additional info:

A 100% confirmation that Mickey was not seen on any other LCG camera. I was told that she was not seen on the Azalea-St. camera on the north side of the building. Also, the parking lot cams on the west side of the building catch only the lot, to protect employees, and the drive-through cams are tightly focused. She was seen on none of these.

She was seen only on the one camera, across from Circle K. The source also is pretty sure that that was the only frame she was seen in, due to the time-lapse camera, though can't recall for sure if there was a second frame. Also said that there was definitely no frame where Mickey and/or the bike, and the truck, were seen together, and was sort of stunned at the idea of the bike being under the truck.

So that definitely, for me, sinks the possibility that the camera was continuous, and that LE purposely withheld an image of Mickey being hit.

Now this source is not LE, and so just because the bike wasn't seen under the truck by this source, doesn't mean that LE didn't see it when they came to pick up the disc.

That's the info I got.

Thank You so much!

kgeaux

08-16-2012, 06:54 PM

She was seen only on the one camera, across from Circle K. The source also is pretty sure that that was the only frame she was seen in, due to the time-lapse camera, though can't recall for sure if there was a second frame. Also said that there was definitely no frame where Mickey and/or the bike, and the truck, were seen together, and was sort of stunned at the idea of the bike being under the truck.

So that definitely, for me, sinks the possibility that the camera was continuous, and that LE purposely withheld an image of Mickey being hit.

Now this source is not LE, and so just because the bike wasn't seen under the truck by this source, doesn't mean that LE didn't see it when they came to pick up the disc.

That's the info I got.

Sorta stunned.....that is a much nicer reaction than the one I got when I mentioned this theory to my neighbor who is in a top IE position in Lafayette City/Parish.

She couldn't even keep a straight face!

Backwoods

08-16-2012, 11:43 PM

For those who wish to consider that the bike may be under the truck:

Rather than being stopped, maybe Mickey encountered that bumpy-looking spot where the asphalt had been repaired recently and veered or wobbled and had to slow down and try to regain control of the bike. I know she was an experienced cyclist -- but things happen. Especially when a road you are used to riding on has new damage or a new repair you're not expecting.

Mahouston69

08-17-2012, 05:56 AM

I can also give thanks to the person who thought to check the LCG cameras, as Mickey's route was not known.

City-Parish President Joey Durel's secretary was the one who asked to have the cameras checked. We can thank her. I was told that the LCG cameras keep two weeks of images, and so it's good that she took the initiative. I got the additional info:

A 100% confirmation that Mickey was not seen on any other LCG camera. I was told that she was not seen on the Azalea-St. camera on the north side of the building. Also, the parking lot cams on the west side of the building catch only the lot, to protect employees, and the drive-through cams are tightly focused. She was seen on none of these.

She was seen only on the one camera, across from Circle K. The source also is pretty sure that that was the only frame she was seen in, due to the time-lapse camera, though can't recall for sure if there was a second frame. Also said that there was definitely no frame where Mickey and/or the bike, and the truck, were seen together, and was sort of stunned at the idea of the bike being under the truck.

So that definitely, for me, sinks the possibility that the camera was continuous, and that LE purposely withheld an image of Mickey being hit.

Now this source is not LE, and so just because the bike wasn't seen under the truck by this source, doesn't mean that LE didn't see it when they came to pick up the disc.

That's the info I got.

I am glad you called. Great friendly people there. Although, I understand that the source was stunned at the idea as quite a few people have been. I did not "see" anything until I read other posts asking about it. Much like the white spots on the google image. However, with respect I will say that the source is not a video editing expert, nor LE that recovered the video. LE sent it to be enhanced for identification and investigation to a video expert because they needed as much information from those images as possible. In no way would LE discuss or update them on the findings. JMO

For those who have not seen these before, I encourage you to take a look, the link to the other LCG traffic/survellience cameras with refresh rates. Notice how little you can "see" and the distance the vehicles move from frame to frame:
http://www.lafayettela.gov/trafficcameras/traffic_cameras.aspx

danzn16

08-17-2012, 09:00 AM

I am glad you called. Great friendly people there. Although, I understand that the source was stunned at the idea as quite a few people have been. I did not "see" anything until I read other posts asking about it. Much like the white spots on the google image. However, with respect I will say that the source is not a video editing expert, nor LE that recovered the video. LE sent it to be enhanced for identification and investigation to a video expert because they needed as much information from those images as possible. In no way would LE discuss or update them on the findings. JMO

For those who have not seen these before, I encourage you to take a look, the link to the other LCG traffic/survellience cameras with refresh rates. Notice how little you can "see" and the distance the vehicles move from frame to frame:
http://www.lafayettela.gov/trafficcameras/traffic_cameras.aspx

BBM

chicken fried already stated this. this source also saw more frames than we have, etc so I would say it is very possible that they would know more than we do.

concentric

08-17-2012, 10:36 AM

That is what we are trying to figure out. How could it possibly be? To my recollection no one has ever stated that this IS what happened but could it possibly be?
-----------

Lots of us were posting that we thought the bike could be under the truck, and gave theories on how that could happen.

i.e. perp. hitting her a bit further up, the bike sliding under the truck, the truck backing up to try and disengage the bike from the undercarriage of the truck?

We also posted a closeup of the bike light, that had two distinct rectangles. We thought we saw that under the truck.

I'll go one further. I think it is possible that the truck shown going in the opposite direction past the Circle K then could still have the bike pinned beneath it.

I posted something to the effect that it might be possible the truck could have dragged the bike while still attached underneath out of the immediate vicinity.

danzn16

08-17-2012, 11:39 AM

-----------

Lots of us were posting that we thought the bike could be under the truck, and gave theories on how that could happen.

i.e. perp. hitting her a bit further up, the bike sliding under the truck, the truck backing up to try and disengage the bike from the undercarriage of the truck?

We also posted a closeup of the bike light, that had two distinct rectangles. We thought we saw that under the truck.

I'll go one further. I think it is possible that the truck shown going in the opposite direction past the Circle K then could still have the bike pinned beneath it.

I posted something to the effect that it might be possible the truck could have dragged the bike while still attached underneath out of the immediate vicinity.

he couldn't have hit her further up, she was pictured in the same spot as the truck.

and if you dragged the bike while still attached underneath his truck then surely the patrons at circle k would have heard this. i don't know if you have ever been around when someone runs over something and it is dragged. it is LOUD! also there would have been scrapings on the road due to this, which there was not. and then where was mickey in all of this?? she is sure not in the photos?

just not realistic IMO

kgeaux

08-17-2012, 11:48 AM

I am glad you called. Great friendly people there. Although, I understand that the source was stunned at the idea as quite a few people have been. I did not "see" anything until I read other posts asking about it. Much like the white spots on the google image. However, with respect I will say that the source is not a video editing expert, nor LE that recovered the video. LE sent it to be enhanced for identification and investigation to a video expert because they needed as much information from those images as possible. In no way would LE discuss or update them on the findings. JMO

For those who have not seen these before, I encourage you to take a look, the link to the other LCG traffic/survellience cameras with refresh rates. Notice how little you can "see" and the distance the vehicles move from frame to frame:
http://www.lafayettela.gov/trafficcameras/traffic_cameras.aspx

My understanding is that the enhancement of the original image was done by LE and FBI in a collaborative effort.

Not wanting to step on any toes, but I am willing to bet they ARE experts in enhancements..

chicken fried

08-17-2012, 11:54 AM

I am glad you called. Great friendly people there. Although, I understand that the source was stunned at the idea as quite a few people have been. I did not "see" anything until I read other posts asking about it. Much like the white spots on the google image. However, with respect I will say that the source is not a video editing expert, nor LE that recovered the video. LE sent it to be enhanced for identification and investigation to a video expert because they needed as much information from those images as possible. In no way would LE discuss or update them on the findings. JMO

For those who have not seen these before, I encourage you to take a look, the link to the other LCG traffic/survellience cameras with refresh rates. Notice how little you can "see" and the distance the vehicles move from frame to frame:
http://www.lafayettela.gov/trafficcameras/traffic_cameras.aspx

Thanks for the traffic-cam links. Looks like maybe a 1/2-second delay on those.

My source emphasized that the LCG cameras were not the same type as the traffic cams, were low-res and inexpensive, and did not have the resolution to capture a license plate. It will be interesting to see what refresh rate comes up.

chicken fried

08-17-2012, 11:56 AM

BBM

chicken fried already stated this. this source also saw more frames than we have, etc so I would say it is very possible that they would know more than we do.

The source watched 5 hours of video. Said that there were 3 or 4 more trucks within a few minutes of Mickey's sighting, and lots of bike, foot, and vehicle traffic at Circle K. Source also has extensive experience - decades of experience. Source is not a video expert IMO, but is quite experienced in all things LE. Don't want to say more.

kgeaux

08-17-2012, 12:50 PM

You're right, concentric. It isn't a contest.

We have found out. Mickey was hit between Dean and Coliseum Rds, way past the Circle K, an area that is secluded, dark and little traveled at 2AM.

I am grateful to learn that local LE and FBI did not engage in "covering up" an accident or blurring out details that would have led to BSL sooner.

Someone had said earlier that they would eat crow if they were wrong about the bike light under the truck at the Circle K. Please don't feel like you have to do that. One thing I know, whether we were right or wrong, everyone was here for Mickey.

danzn16

08-17-2012, 01:11 PM

It is now proven that Mickey nor Mickey's bike are under that truck in that picture. No one has to eat crow. It is just the way it is. Just take this knowledge of camera flaws on to the next abduction case, although I wish there would never be another one, we know this is just not reality.

IMPondering

08-17-2012, 02:36 PM

It is now proven that Mickey nor Mickey's bike are under that truck in that picture. No one has to eat crow. It is just the way it is. Just take this knowledge of camera flaws on to the next abduction case, although I wish there would never be another one, we know this is just not reality.

Translation: Told you so! :)

chicken fried

08-17-2012, 03:11 PM

Let's be kind to one another. Even if some of us became emotionally invested in low-percentage theories, those theories were not completely impossible, just very improbable. The emotion came because we all care about Mickey. If anyone has any ruffled feathers, please click this link (http://www.theadvertiser.com/videonetwork/1791285317001/RAW-VIDEO-Outside-the-courthouse-after-Lavergne-hearing?sf5608950=1) and listen to the statements from Josh Coen, Charlene Shunick, and Nancy Rowe Shunick. Listen to their grace, and wonder at the resilient, beautiful qualities of the human soul....

CajunStrong

08-17-2012, 03:11 PM

I still think it's funny/crazy how some people had/have such a strong reaction against this theory. That is all it was, was a theory. Whether or not the bike was hit here or there had little, if any, bearing on the case. It was more of a curiosity.

It really seemed to bring out the worst in some people (and I am NOT talking about those in favor of it) and I just don't understand why. I always saw 'something' in the pictures and will always wonder why I see what I see. And I have defended what I thought I saw but only when confronted.

I will now and always stand up strongly for the rights of people to post what they want and to be able to express themselves without intimidation. Any emotion from me was in defense of that right. I respect all people's opinions and theories and if I don't agree I just move on. I have no internal need to attack anyone's opinion.

Now we all have a good idea what happened if we can trust that Brandon told the truth. When I heard the details of what happened to Mickey I didn't even take notice of the fact she wasn't hit at the Circle K...it is that unimportant to me. I am surprised that it would be on the minds of anyone.

All I can think about is that she had to die for absolutely no reason. It was completely senseless. I have a child that is just a few days older than Mickey and I cannot help but to think of what it would be like for my child to have faced this monster.

When a killer like this confesses and there is enough evidence to prove without a doubt that they killed someone in this manner, as soon as the guilty plea is signed, they should immediately be led to a back room and be put to death. Someone like this should not ever have the opportunity to spend the rest of their life in jail. I always think about the victims last 30 seconds of life and the horror of knowing that that's it, everything you know is over. Every killer should have to experience that same feeling!

jujube

08-17-2012, 03:17 PM

In the end, I'm just glad that we found out the truth of what happened. The DWT was an emotional issue. It was good that we were able to discuss it. It has been discredited just as many theories have been over the last few months.
My hat if off to those who thought "out the box" in an effort to find Mickey.

CajunStrong

08-17-2012, 03:26 PM

Now, if anyone wants to criticize me personally for being such a TERRIBLE sleuther... have at it!!! There was very little I had right. I think we all had the general jist of things correct but I was really off on many of the details. Although, I did think it all happened very quickly and wasn't convinced there was a sexual assault.

What's crazy is that everything we now know is true I had heard somewhere. Even the gun. I just was so on the line with believing rumor.

Sure wish we could rewind everything and protect Mickey from him. I can't even bring myself to read the plea document.