LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette 19 May 2012 - #25

Status
Not open for further replies.
With respect, I can't come up with a definition of morally impossible.

What comes close is what was done to Jaren, that might be considered morally impossible ... yet it happened. I really don't know what you mean by this.

i could be wrong, but i think they mean morally it wouldn't be right to release a picture with her under the truck - since if it was so, LE would obviously know
 
Totally off topic but I remember awhile ago someone saying it was unsafe to hitchhike and someone saying that there was a guy travelling around writing a book about it. I believe that guy was probably Raymond Dolin, who was writing "The Kindness of America."

He got shot by a random passerby in Montana. How ironic.
 
With respect, I can't come up with a definition of morally impossible.

What comes close is what was done to Jaren, that might be considered morally impossible ... yet it happened. I really don't know what you mean by this.

Morally impossible - I don't care how blemished an LE division is, there's no way I could ever seeing them going so low as to post a picture of Micky under that truck as a VOI pic. In a court case - yes. But not for the public to use in locating a vehicle.
 
I work in print and hires graphis. My experience with graphics is like this...

We print catalogues for knitting companies. If a photo of a sweater doesn't match the colour of the wool, then I would colour correct the sweater to match.

We also print catalogues for car companies. If I'm given an image that isn't a high enough resolution, I might manipulate it to look cleaner and clearer. If I manipulated an image of a truck until it looked like Scooby-Doo was in the back seat, or a Jimi Hendrix poster was in the bed, or a girl on a bike was under the wheels, well I'd probably lose my job. But I bet the customer would supply an new image to be used!
 
To end this truck debate yet again, look at the two arguments using the logic of Occam's razor. Which argument has less assumptions?

Argument A (Under the truck)
Fact: Some sort of light under the truck. It's source is arguable
Fact: .....there are no other facts for this argument

Argument B (Not under the truck)
Fact: Physics says she's not
Fact: UV wand and luminol tests show no blood or bodily fluids in that spot
Fact: Highly reflective fresh pavement in said spot
Fact: The image is of poor and pixelated quality
Fact: LE has seen the video
Fact: Neither LE or the family have said Mickey was run over in said video
Fact: LE and/or the family would be facing prosecution if they were aware of Mickey being run over and didn't inform the public

Now, which of the two arguments has more facts in it's favor and uses the least amount of assumptions?
 
i could be wrong, but i think they mean morally it wouldn't be right to release a picture with her under the truck - since if it was so, LE would obviously know

Of course it wouldn't be right, but it's not impossible. Improbable, definitely. Impossible? No.

There are just so many things about this case we do not know. We've been given carefully selected snippets. They were carefully selected for a reason.
 
With Adalla saying he's not focused on the DWT, it's possible the driver of the DWT isn't the perp- just wanted for questioning. I did stumble across this article:

http://www.kait8.com/story/18746993/woman-warns-others-of-police-impersonator-near-batesville

If there's a serial killer, this would explain being more easily approached and no sign of trouble. Yes, it mentions a white car and not a white truck, however, we don't know if the DWT is the perp. Bundy killed in Colorado, Washington, Utah, and Florida and it took a while to link them. He also used the fake cop routine successfully.

Just a thought.
 
When did the white truck, LE escort thing going on? I'll go back and listen to the scanner archives
 
Working on a new thread, will be closing this one in a few...

Ima
 
When did the white truck, LE escort thing going on? I'll go back and listen to the scanner archives
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8036469&postcount=1224"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - LA LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette 19 May 2012 - #25[/ame]
 
Ok... closing thread in one minute, please continue here...

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175512"]LA LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette 19 May 2012 - #26 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
Of course it wouldn't be right, but it's not impossible. Improbable, definitely. Impossible? No.

There are just so many things about this case we do not know. We've been given carefully selected snippets. They were carefully selected for a reason.

I think this is where juries of late have had problems. Ex - Casey Anthony. Yes, she probably murdered her daughter, but no one saw her - so it's possible she's innocent. So ignore the preponderance of evidence since there is a slight possibility she is innocent.
 
Why not post the photo? Were there any LE around the the truck? Did it appear to be parked in a regular parking place? Was it a Z71? GMC or Chevy?

Without knowing it's the DWT, I don't want to post a pic of someone elses truck, I believe that would violate something or other and the mods would have to take it down. There was no one around said pic, the truck was in a gated section with barbed wire around the top. The truck was 4 doors, rounded wheel wells, black horizontal hadles, black rearview mirrors, the windows dont appear to be tinted., wasn't super fancy or anything, like chromed out. black grill in front, with chrome from bumper.
 
now you are assuming... how far was it run over... how hard was it hit..?

i bike hit hard should throw the bike and rider... a bike barely hit (by a vehicle) should run over or partially run over both...

i was barely hit on a bike in a crosswalk by a car turning right "from a stop"... my chain was off and wheel was bent, and i ALMOST went under the car and got run over before it stopped...
my wife was hit in a crosswalk hard by someone that didn't see her... bike and wife were thrown out into the middle of the intersection, neither were hurt (aside from pride) she rode home...

peace

And, if MS had been completely run over, there would have been no removing the blood or blood traces (dogs would have found along route) from the concrete. IMO, she wasn't completely run over. I would guess what happened was more like what happened to your wife and had she not be soooo shocked by what had happened, she would have been able to leave the scene with little damage to her person, though her bike may have had some damage. I would guess this is why the LE said the crime lab would have to confirm whether the bike had been hit.
Though I think we can all agree at this point, some of what the LE has released has been misinformation. Figuring out what is the real deal from what isn't has occupied many of us for weeks, while not focusing on the facts the LE isn't releasing. Then again, they may have nothing to release. That is the scariest possibility of all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
959
Total visitors
1,101

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,838
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top