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

[Donamena]

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

It used to have more initials, like $&€£#%¥

 

[Donamena]

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

Truck:

 

[Jkg005]

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:

Truck:

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

 

[chicken fried]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

-----------

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