LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette 19 May 2012 - #31

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hemiwemi said:
It's very late but I can't sleep after catching up on this thread and thinking of Mickey alone somewhere. I've seen something under that truck since the first time I saw that picture, before I knew anyone else thought they saw it. I tried convincing myself otherwise but I can't shake it. Suppose LE did, as some have suggested as a POSSIBiLiTY, blur out the photo so that they weren't releasing some gruesome scene to the public...what do they seek to gain by that? I'm legitimately asking: What was the benefit of releasing a grainy photo of a truck that may or may not be involved? People on WS who have dedicated endless hours to it, can't seem to agree on the exact make, model and details of this truck. How is the rest of the general public, who may or may not give a second thought to this case, supposed to make anything of it? Why not say, "we are looking for the driver of such and such a type of truck who was out cruising Lafayette at 2 am." ??? Does the picture really help? I'm glad we have it but I'm just wondering....is there something else in that photo that we are meant to see and focus on instead? Is it a message from LE to the perp?
I don't know, all my opinions. Just had to get it out.
I'm sure someone way more logical than myself will have a really logical answer :)
All MOO!!!
Click to expand...
moo they released the grainy form of the pictures not in hopes of the public identifying a completely unidentifiable truck....but in hopes that the driver would know where he was at that time and know that is his truck and come forward with any info as a possible witness....IMO I believe that if they wanted the truck identified and felt strongly that this truck was the perp ......they'd release every single to ensure it would be identified and they would have found it by now through registration and whatever else......moo
 
Chicot said:
I'm hoping the police catch this guy. I bet they know who he is and are waiting for him to reenter the country or something? Can ex felons still recieve passports and visas easily? I'm thinking this guy has a rap sheet for terrible crimes similar to this one.
Click to expand...

If he's got a God awful terrible record he for sure can't get a twic card to work in the gulf......passport? I dunno. But a twic card......no way in he**.......felony on record=no twic for you! Most felonies...some exceptions but most felonies means you can't get one.
 
JBean said:
I am not following what you mean when you say "she appears stopped". It is a still,she has to appear stopped. I find this gif misleading in that it makes it appear as though the truck comes right on top of her and I don't think there is any basis for that notion. I mean I don't think anyone is assuming that happened here in that spot at that time are they?

Help me here, I may be missing something.
Click to expand...


This whole unending premise relies on the supposition that Mickey is stopped.

I can look at that photo 100 times and never see any indication that she is stopped. Mickey is only 5' 1" tall and, in addition, both Shunick sisters have a longer body and shorter legs. Unless Mickey had a custom cut-down/mini bike, if she were stopped, the bike would have to be leaned to the side to keep her foot on the ground. That bike is vertical. Straight up and down. As well, in the photo, her right leg is bent. Were she stopped, and the bike vertical, it would have been straight, if anything, for any possibility that she was stopped and the bike vertical. As well, I have never been able to accept the premise that she would come to a dead stop in the middle of the road on St. Landry near University, near a corner that a car could come flying around.

The only way that that could possibly be Mickey or the bike under the truck is if she was stopped. If Mickey was not stopped, physics forbid her being in the position she is seen in the first photo, and then her or the bike being under the truck in the second.

I do not see her as stopped. Therefore, due to the preceding problems with the recurring theory, I do not, cannot, and will not ever give any credence that either she or the bike is under the truck.
 
fairest of them all said:
moo they released the grainy form of the pictures not in hopes of the public identifying a completely unidentifiable truck....but in hopes that the driver would know where he was at that time and know that is his truck and come forward with any info as a possible witness....IMO I believe that if they wanted the truck identified and felt strongly that this truck was the perp ......they'd release every single to ensure it would be identified and they would have found it by now through registration and whatever else......moo
Click to expand...

I think this is the only image and best quality they have..due to the camera likely only caught one clear pic of it..
 
HouDat said:
I see an irregularity in that photo as well, in the wheel area.

As for the rest, it just defies logic that in addition to all of the physics we've covered, that nobody in LE or the family would have said anything; that nobody at the Circle K would have seen/heard anything, or said anything had they seen/heard something; that no physical evidence was left behind at this alleged point of impact (pavement scratches/scars, DNA, debris from the damaged bike, skid marks, etc.);

Further yet, that there is evidence that MS made it further down her route than the intersection in question (per A.C.I.); yet vigorous discussion still exists over whether or not the intersection in question is the point of impact.
Click to expand...

I am in full agreement. I, too, believe she made it past St. Landry. Without baiting, but still wanting to add a little info here, I have heard from two sources, whom I consider credible, that Mickey made it farther down St. Landry. What makes the sources stronger, IMO, is that one source was based upon a video sighting, and one source based upon a possible personal sighting..... so, two different types of sighting. I believe that ACI also believes she made it father down, though I don't recall the nature of his sourcing.

LE has been notified of both, some time back.
 
chicken fried said:
This whole unending premise relies on the supposition that Mickey is stopped.

I can look at that photo 100 times and never see any indication that she is stopped. Mickey is only 5' 1" tall and, in addition, both Shunick sisters have a longer body and shorter legs. Unless Mickey had a custon cut-down/mini bike, if she were stopped, the bike would have to be leaned to the side to keep her foot on the ground. That bike is vertical. Straight up and down. As well, in the photo, her right leg is bent. Were she stopped, and the bike vertical, it would have been straight, if anything, for any possibility that she was stopped and the bike vertica . As well, I have never been able to accept the premise that she would come to a dead stop in the middle of the road on St. Landry near University, near a corner that a car could come flying around.

The only way that that could possibly be Mickey or the bike under the truck is if she was stopped. If Mickey was not stopped, physics forbid her being in the position she is seen in the first photo, and then her or the bike being under the truck in the second.

I do not see her as stopped. Therefore, due to the preceding problems with the recurring theory, I do not, cannot, and will not ever give any credence that either she or the bike is under the truck.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Did you see the bike pic I posted from yesterday's..sorry, day before yesterday's accident? The bike and rider only moved approximately 1-1.5 ft. The rider fell with the bike, over and under the nose of the truck. She was traveling..moving with traffic..hit from behind by a white Ford Ranger. There was no debris, no blood, no pavement scrapes, no markings at all. Taken by helicopter to the hospital. Physically possible.
 
[yay! Somebody to talk to....I still think her bike is under the truck.....if someone walked off with her cell phone or wallet I could imagine her chasing after them.....IMO it is completely possible she could have chased them in the opposite direction that she was traveling if that is the direction in which the person went ALL MY OWN SPECULATION BY THE WAY....I KNOW WE HAVE TO SAY THAT EVERY COUPLE OF SENTANCES....anyway.....my theory would account fir a lot....
Lots of people see the bike light under truck.....some people see her but I do not so I agree she's not under there but I cannot help but agree with the people about the bike cuz I see that.....or what I THINK looks like that.moo
If she dropped her bike to chase someone she wouldn't scream....no screams heard
no belongings left behind less attention being paid to wt here lately....IMO they have it figured out or at least the just of it because they turned away outside help ALL MY OWN SPECULATION.....perp on foot went back and picked up pieces and bike after it was run over by truck........before truck circled back to see what he hit......
Are they the same truck?...
Even if they aren't the same truck, the one that IMO. I'm only speculating ran over the bike he might not have known what he hit...
Le seems IMO to have made it quite very crystal clear they only wanted to speak with the driver as a possible witness (to what is NOT shown in pictures) IMO if they thought that white truck was the perp or felt strongly that was their perp they would have given every single detail about the truck and IMO made more effort to find the truck through registration records and etc.......all my own speculation.
chicken fried said:
This whole unending premise relies on the supposition that Mickey is stopped.

I can look at that photo 100 times and never see any indication that she is stopped. Mickey is only 5' 1" tall and, in addition, both Shunick sisters have a longer body and shorter legs. Unless Mickey had a custon cut-down/mini bike, if she were stopped, the bike would have to be leaned to the side to keep her foot on the ground. That bike is vertical. Straight up and down. As well, I have never been able to accept the premise that she would come to a dead stop in the middle of the road on St. Landry near University, near a corner that a car could come flying around.

The only way that that could possibly be Mickey or the bike under the truck is if she was stopped. If Mickey was not stopped, physics forbid her being in the position she is seen in the first photo, and then her or the bike being undert the truck in the second.

I do not see her as stopped. Therefore, I do not give any credence that either she or the bike is under the truck.
Click to expand...
 
Island hopper said:
You are allowed to disagree but please at least do some research first. Lots and lots of bike accidents online that show the rider being throw backwards when hit from behind.

You actually proved a good point...the reason why whiplash occurs is because in a car you are fastened in. You are moving with the car. You get hit from behind and your body moves forward with the car but when the car stops, you are jerked back by gravity.

If you rear end someone you are thrown forward. Your body moves toward the point of impact.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, in that the phrase, "relative motion," is found nowhere in your comment.

Gravity cannot jerk one backward. A bike rider may appear to be jerked backward when hit from behind while riding, but that apparent backward "motion" is relative only to the vehicle and the bike, not to the ground. Were one to measure the position of the rider relative to the ground, one would still find the rider moving forward, in direct relationship between the friction of the rider and the bike as the rider is being thrown off.
 
HouDat said:
It's a shadow from the caution sign, IMO.

Just to the left of the caution sign in the frame is a light post. Given the estimated angle of the actual light source, the shadow on that door seems consistent with it being caused by the road sign.
Click to expand...

To add new information here, that is not a light post near the road-work sign. I had assumed it was, too, but when I went out there, it wasn't. I forget what it was, but I remember being surprised at my own assumption being wrong.

The light casting a shadow from the sign would be coming from somewhere else, which would change the projected location of the sign's shadow. Worth having a look at at night for those wishing to continue the old argument. Myself, I won't be making a special night-drive though.

Another tidbit for those wishing to pursue this theory, is that that road-work sign there is medium orange, not bright yellow as someone said the other day.
 
Mahouston69 said:
I think this is the only image and best quality they have..due to the camera likely only caught one clear pic of it..
Click to expand...

Hey! Same camera in same place took a pic of Mickey and two passing trucks ......pic of Mickey is VERY clear compared to either truck pic.....also shows a lot larger area! So I respectfully disagree.....because if pic of Mickey is as clear as it is, the truck pics would be or should be just as clear and show a larger area if they were not cropped. All 3 pics from same camera are cropped differently.

Moo
 
I feel like I am in a time warp from 4 weeks ago here...
 
HouDat said:
Perhaps...but one thing I can definitely say is that she would not have been thrown backward. So the "Mickey under the sign" idea is a non-starter.

At any rate, a very minimum of one second elapsed between frames. And in that one second, she would have made several feet of forward progress, thus placing her and her bike further along St. Landry street than the alleged point of impact.
Click to expand...

Every few days when I get the urge to drive to Chuck-E-Cheese and endure the lunatic kids to play Whac-A-Mole, I just come here to give my arguments against the "Mickey-under-truck" theory. It feels the same. Even my wrists get tired.

:back::treadmill::deadhorse:
 
chicken fried said:
Every few days when I get the urge to drive to Chuck-E-Cheese and endure the lunatic kids to play Whac-A-Mole, I just come here to give my arguments against the "Mickey-under-truck" theory. It feels the same. Even my wrists get tired.

:back::treadmill::deadhorse:
Click to expand...

Do you have any kind of theory? Thanks in advance
 
http://jbarcycling.blogspot.com/2010/02/local-cycling-safety-instructor-struck.html

Same, similar scenario..left an intersection, moving while mowed down by truck.
Bike under truck, Cyclist not hurt, no debris, Rim bent

I think claiming it goes against physics is completely false since I have found 20 pictures on google showing it's very possible.

I think the photos shows Mickey's bike hit and bike light under the truck. I think she is out of sight.
 

Attachments

  • truckbikeaccident.JPG
    truckbikeaccident.JPG
    47.3 KB · Views: 35
Island hopper said:
If the truck hit the back rim of the bike, it would have thrown her backwards. If you are riding your bike forward and you hit an object, you are thrown forward towards that object.

The truck would not have hit her body as she was riding but would have hit the back tire. Being that she is not attached to the bike with a seatbelt or something, gravity and the forward movement of the truck would cause her body to end up on top of or to the side of the truck.

Most bicycle accidents that result in damage to the back tire/rim resulted in the rider being thrown backwards into the vehicle.
Click to expand...

You're just not getting what HouDat and others are trying to say. A rider hit from the rear will be thrown backward relative to the vehicle, but you are completely missing the flaw in your argument, in that Mickey still would have moved forward relative to the ground - which she did not, when the two photos are compared.

And I am applying this logic especially to her being riding, not stopped. I can see no way to look at that photo and see her stopped.
 
JurysOut said:
I just want to know WTF is under that wheel. It's an object. I don't claim to know what it is anymore than anyone can prove Mickey ever made it past that intersection.

So to me, Mickey not existing (with proof!) past that intersection plus what the hell is up with that truck axle = further investigation is warranted.

We've been over the timing. It could have been a minute, it could have been three seconds.

If it's so easy to refute, if there's a 6" speed bump there that someone has driven anything over while videotaping it - in the dark - just show me.

If there's a still photo at any time of day of a bump substantial enough to contort a truck axle - just show me.

I promise to be delighted.

People are looking at what we have and working with it. So far, there's nothing that concretely demonstrates they are mistaken. I appreciate their continued efforts and interest. I'm not capable of analyzing images to any significant degree.

Wanting an explanation for what certainly appears to be something amiss with a full size truck axle 3 seconds to a minute after the missing woman is photographed in the same spot for possibly the last time ever doesn't make me a delusional whacko.

It makes me logically curious.

For a while I convinced myself that if conventional wisdom said I was a delusional whacko, maybe they were right. So I stepped away for a couple of weeks.

And I still haven't seen anything to explain the uneven truck axle, even in the unenhanced picture.


I'm gonna leave that there and come back in another couple weeks to see if any concrete evidence to the contrary is available.

If not, my curiosity will still be warranted and valid.
Click to expand...

There is a very noticeable distortion in the image. The front part of the truck is bumped upward. The same effect can be seen in the running board and the top of the windshield frame, heading down toward the front tire. The picture is quite distorted all over - quite subtly. The "ONLY" markings in the street have been hugely stretched in the horizontal direction. I believe that the odd blotches are a combination of changing lighting, and the clear, rippled, plexiglas dome over the camera. As well, I believe that the tires are turned slightly left because the driver sees Mickey up ahead of him in his lane, and he's beginning the process of changing lanes.

MOO. JMO.
 
JBean said:
I am still confused about what this idea that she was stopped is all about and where it is coming from. hasn't LE seen the whole tape and says she passed through here and the truck came by after she had already passed? What I mean is don't the police already know that she pedaled through here? I see a woman pedaling through a parking lot.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ickey-Shunick-bridge-police-search-river.html
>>The white pick up van appears in one of the surveillance cameras footage driving by where Michaela 'Mickey' Shunick had just passed<<
>>Police have said it has taken this long to release the new information because much of the surveillance footage had to be watched in real time and then enhanced to positively identify Miss Schunick<<
Click to expand...

Well, it keeps coming up because the argument of physics has been presented umpteen times to the same posters, but they either aren't processing the physics, or don't understand them. So it just doesn't end.

:(
 
paddleallday said:
I missed that the LCG camera is not continuous feed. That makes even more sense now. I'm still not letting go of her being alive.
Click to expand...

I was told that the LCG cams are continuous, but that was third-hand info. It would be worth trying to just sweet-talk someone in the LCG building to confirm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 186 more.
Total: 3,425 (members: 187, guests: 3,238)

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
3,238
Total visitors
3,425
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,827
Messages
17,959,731
Members
228,621
Latest member
Greer∆
Back
Top