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

[fairest of them all]

Do you have a theory? What would you like to talk about? I really do want to hear other people's wild guesses. Its easier to adopt Someone else's than come up with my own. I know it sounds sarcastic but I myself am running out of theories and possible scenarios. I really would like some food for thought.

Here's what I think.

I think if she was hit and the video captured that, LE would of told the family this fact. I think LE would of told the media this fact. I'd love to hear explanations as to why they would not tell the family that she was indeed hit and it was captured on video.

Second, and it was just brought up above, that corner would of been deemed a crime scene, there would of been more investigation of the ground (tire marks, blood, etc) at that corner and the media certainly would of caught on to that and reported it.

You can blow up pictures on here, put nice red circles around pixels and all that, but LE, plus whatever other agency is involved with this investigation have tons better investigative techniques on how to view pictures and video and if they made a sound determination that either the bike, human being or the tooth fairy was under that truck, they would of made some sort of comment on that, if not to the media than to the very least the family. I don't say this because I'm trying to shoot theories down. But you follow enough missing persons cases, especially on this forum, you pick up on patterns. Patterns by LE, patterns how the investigation seems to be going, etc.

There is nothing under the truck. I know some want there to be, because it's gives an answer to what happened to her. It also puts a potential perp on camera. But that is not the case here. And until either LE/FBI or someone can provide a photo or video that clearly shows an object under the truck rather than some blown out pixels, I will continue to believe there is nothing there.

 

[fairest of them all]

I love reading these argumentative posts that do everything short of blatantly calling someone an idiot and clearly stating their opinion is completely stupid and irrational, but then follow it up with an IMO or whatever. IMO - that stands for IN MY OPINION, doesn't it? I haven't seen anything that says BOTAF (based on the actual facts), which to me means everyone's theory is just that, their opinion. I read lots of things on here that I don't necessarily agree with. It would be exhausting to reply to every statement over and over that I didn't think made sense. It's okay to take a break sometimes. No one has enough information to disprove anyone's theory. To each his own. IMO, JMO, NBOAF (not based on ANY facts).

I believe that in real life Wed be bffs

 

[kgeaux]

It's equally frustrating that IMO Mickey is right under your nose and you refuse to see her, and spend a lot of energy and time, as well as ACI and CF, in 'debunking' when there isn't enough video evidence to do any such thing. I'd like to see you move MS beyond this point if you can. Offer something instead of shooting this down. Because IMO 'Mickey is right there'. There is no white/shifting light explanation for this figure.

Chevy Chase, you don't have an explanation for this!

I don't see Mickey there, either. I am not refusing to see her, IMO she just plain is NOT there.

Why would the physics not work in this scenario? Mickey was captured at 1:48am. The truck was captured at 1:49am. ....meaning that it could be as little as a second between the two stills up to a full minute.

Ok, peeps! THE Z71 IS NOT TIMESTAMPED AT 1:49! That is the timestamp for the truck in the left turning lane, facing UNIVERSITY!!!

There is NO TIMESTAMP for the Z71!

Well, I guess the only thing to do would be to find a white truck, place it a the exact same spot, take a photo with the exact same camer from the exact same place at the exact same time and without a bike under it and with a bike at various places under it and then publish the photos. We could try and recreate what we are debating here. LE is not going to do that because they already know, because they have more photos that they are holding close.

Has anyone else seen that story they are publishing about the guy they think
is a related case? It surprised me today to see that. Something about a Virginia case where a young blonde girl was hitch-hiking and was found murdered 10 miles away. They are publishing a photo of what they think the guy looks like. I think this is some FBI ploy ofsome type, but cannot figure out what the heck they are up to. The other thing that is odd to me is publishing photos of MS with different hair color. They did that in the Elizabeth Smart case too. Can anyone give me their ideas on what the FBI is up to - or their thinking -- publishing different haircolor?

This is how rumors start! Someone posted a link to a blog like source, in which a contributor offered her opinion that the POI in another case was related to Mickey's disappearance.

FBI did NOT say it was a related case, the "examiner/contributor" said that.

The video at the LCG building is not continuous video. Watch the LCG traffic cameras. See how the vehicle/road shots are taken every few seconds? It's not like watching a home video camera. We don't know the shot increments. So, Mickey and the Truck might only appear once (entering the shot from the left) or twice (another shot where we see her) on the video, or only once. Otherwise we would have a Hooptie shot right there, instead of another camera. The camera increments are spaced at length obviously and have not recorded everthing.
I think the truck photos are cropped in because the video/photo expert is bothered by those odd images by the tire too, thinks the same as we do and zoomed in to tweak it and identify it... and can't. That is why they released it, because they figure if they can't say it is 100% neither can we. You can only enhance pixelated video so much. They had great difficulty identifying Mickey, and her family only identified her by her stance and her hair color, basically. Again, I challenge you to take a screen shot of a LCG traffic cam pic online, then import it into a photo editing program. Can you see any clearer? I can't.

Now, I said I was getting off here.. but I can't. We have a missing girl in Sacramento.

You are comparing what we know about the TRAFFIC cameras to the SURVELIANCE cameras. We do not, in fact, know that the surveillance cameras take still shots. That camera may well be continuous video.

Also, LE and the family did not have great difficulty identifying Mickey in these stills. Once the stills were enhanced, her entire family recognized Mickey.

 

[Jkg005]

OOps, forgot to attach... am I wrong? close?

Why would the physics not work in this scenario? Mickey was captured at 1:48am. The truck was captured at 1:49am. ....meaning that it could be as little as a second between the two stills up to a full minute.

IMO it could ave been at 1:48.59 we just don't know.

 

[JBean]

PSA#2

Attack the post but not the poster. keep it in mind,please.

When the conversation turns to being more about members and less about the case it has gone off track. If you see a post that is attacking a member please alert on it-don't respond to it or point it out or otherwise acknowledge it-just report it by clicking the little triangle in the upper right corner of the offending post. A text box will open and you will be able to express your concern as to why the post is in violation. Please do not threaten the moderators to remove the post or you will do *advertiser censored*. Just let them know what the perceived problem is and they will taker the appropriate action.

Thanks.

Where is Mickey?


this post lands at random on the thread.

 

[Jkg005]

I agree. I have also wondered why the still captured the truck (going in the same direction as Mickey) being partially obstructed by the road work sign making it more difficult to identify. Why not capture a still of it just a few feet ahead? Same with Mickey. The still captures them in the exact same spot.

You would think that if it is a continuous video camera that they could capture the still in a variety of frames and see different angles of the truck and Mickey. It's difficult to tell if the truck is a crew cab or just an extended cab.

It's my opinion that either they cannot capture a still a few feet further because of what happened at this spot or because the camera only takes video once a minute.

I have questioned that as well. Just show her a foot beyond that last picture and you will have an answer to this theory.

 

[fairest of them all]

Any avid cyclist would not drop their bike in the road to chase someone. They'd use their bike to chase someone.

Interesting.....now do you think its possible she got farther down and someone may have ran off with her phone or purse and she chased them back to that spot? And dropped her bike there or saw wt turn and hopped off?

Lots of people are saying they think she got farther than that point.....
Lots of people saying that shed be farther down stlandry by the time of the pic of wt....

Do you think she could have chased someone back from the direction she was travelling back to that spot?
Its not the simplest of theories....and its just speculation but what else can we do?

 

[waiting1979]

I do not remember any statement by LE that the Z71 turned onto the road "right behind Mickey". Do you have a link for that?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7981447&postcount=78"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - LA LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette, 19 May 2012 - #10[/ame]
Q: Details about the vehicles
A; Well, that's very good. The car is an older model, 80s or 90s GM-type of vehicle, 4-door, it's got bondo on the rear right quarter panel, it's very obvious. That vehicle should be able to be spotted by the public. One truck that turned on St. Landry street directly behind MS is a Chevrolet white Z71 four-door. That picture has been circulated. And of course the truck with the cover on the bed, believed to be possibly a GMC or Chevrolet, which came from the direction from which Mickey had ridden her bike where she was last captured on video, was obviously, a vehicle of interest for that reason.

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8095827"]LA LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette 19 May 2012 - #31 - Page 17 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Speaking at a press briefing, though, Corporal Paul Mouton was quick to point out that such assumptions are premature:

“The one thing that we don’t want to jump to conclusions and the thing we didn’t want to release the damage to the bike initially is because the first initial assumption would be that it was struck by a vehicle. We do not know that for a hundred percent that that’s where that damage came from.”

Surveillance cameras show Mickey on Verseilles Blvd. heading towards St. John Street at 1:47am. Police believe she then traveled onto St. John Street and crossed over University Avenue, continuing West on St. Landry Street.

She was spotted again on St. Landry Street (Circle K) at 1:48am. A pickup truck identified as a white Chevy Z71 was seen in the same spot on St. Landry Street at 1:49am. This is the last confirmed and reported sighting of Mickey.

At 1:51am a white four door pickup truck was seen traveling in the opposite direction of Mickey on St. Landry Street in front of the Circle K. It is unclear if this is the same truck cameras caught at 1:49 on St. Landry Street or another vehicle of possible interest.

**Time elapsed between last Shunick pic and Z71 pic = 1 minute.** Can't get physics with a gap like that. She was traveling 0.4 miles a minute up until this point. Another 0.4 miles is a ways farther down St.Landry, and she did not make an appearance on video according to LE.
We can speculate about it might mean to shave or add 01 to 59 seconds, but it's speculation. Other municipal cameras in the area have been described as being on 1 minute intervals. That makes it more likely there is a full 59 seconds between stills from the Consolidated Government building, no more, no less.

 

[JBean]

Mickey on bike ....
http://www.katc.com/images/mickeybike.jpg

Truck pic....... (VOI...cropped)
http://www.katc.com/images/newtruck.jpg
.............

And also other truck pic from same spot (I think this vehicle has been ruled out but I am not certain and would like for someone to set me straight on the subject)

http://www.katc.com/images/news/2012-06/Truck.png.jpg
(and this one is cropped/zoomed in to show even less....count the bushes etc....)
MMMKAAAAAY.........SUBJECT OF THIS POST IS THE CROPPING OF THE IMAGES!!! CERTAIN DETAILS NOT INCLUDED IN VEHICLE PICS..... I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT AND TRYING TO ENHANCE IS THE PICTURE OF MICKEY.......SEE WHAT WE CAN MAKE OF THE BACKGROUND AREA FROM ACROSS THE STREET LIKE ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF UNIVERSITY......IN SHADOWS IN RIGHT AND LOWER AREAS OF THE PICTURE......IN THE BUSHES AND ETC.....TRUCK PICS DO NOT SHOW *ANY* OF THAT AND WE KNOW LE SEES THE WHOLE PIC .......I THINK THE ANSWERS TO A LOT OF OUR QUESTIONS LIE IN WHAT LE HAS CROPPED OUT!

COW SAYS WHAT?? EXACTLY!

(MOO)

OK so you mean zoomed in which naturally eliminates foreground and background. I thought you meant the actual images were tampered with.
Thanks for clarifying.

 

[HouDat]

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.

I think you're confused over something here.

No one is claiming that it's impossible for a cyclist to be hit by a truck, have their bike go under a truck, for there to be no debris and the cyclist not be hurt. (We cannot see underneath the truck, so the question of whether or not there were any scratches or scars on the street remains un-answered.)

Physics was evoked because of this:

Another poster claimed that MS was "under the sign". My repeated statements about physics have been to dispel the notion that MS could have been hit at the point where she was photographed, and then thrown backward by 8+ feet to a resting point under the sign.

I can see a scenario where a rider was hit from behind and the rider's torso lurched backward upon impact. We see this routinely when a wide receiver jumps up to catch a pass and has his legs cut out from underneath him, from behind. Feet fly forward, torso flies backward.

But MS was not thrown beneath that sign if she was hit at the point where some allege she was standing still. That's where physics comes into play.

 

[HouDat]

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.

I just checked it out on the Googles. It's a flag pole. Good catch.

I also discovered what looks to be the probable light source casting that shadow, and the line-of-sight seems (at first glance) to be fairly consistent with the nature of the shadow being thrown. There are several lights in the LCG parking lot, and one of the aligns well with this scenario.

 

[liltexans]

But where is Mickey NOW? How does knowing if Mickey was run over in front of the Circle K help us locate her now?

Even if the driver mowed her down, he/she/they still removed Mickey from the scene.

 

[Soulmagent]

In the picture of Mickey on her bike , across the street and in the yard or on the sidewalk the seems to be a person standing near the house on the left which also has its lights on, Hard to tell if it really is a person or not but it sure looks like one.

that might have been mentioned but the truck photo excludes that from veiw.

 

[fairest of them all]

In the picture of Mickey on her bike , across the street and in the yard or on the sidewalk the seems to be a person standing near the house on the left which also has its lights on, Hard to tell if it really is a person or not but it sure looks like one.

that might have been mentioned but the truck photo excludes that from veiw.

yup and all that is all cropped out in truck pics

 

[fairest of them all]

What time do baseball games that start at 6:30 end?
It was discussed there was a dwi checkpoint or something and an anime convention in Lafayette.there was also a baseball game (ulm) the 18th........maybe players or out of towners from Monroe in town hitting up the bars perhaps?

 

[courtneyb]

When a person is hit by a car, they are usually thrown backwards onto the hood or into the windshield. We've all seen it in the movies. Since she isn't strapped to the bike, I think it is possible, even likely, that Mickey could have been thrown backwards, past the point of impact. If she was just "bumped" at a lower rate of speed, she could have rolled onto the hood and off the side of the truck. However, I cannot see Mickey in the pictures, no matter how hard I try. I just see Darth Vader, for some reason. I do see the bike under the front tire, always have.

 

[redhairedgirl]

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.

I am still curious as to the light source that is causing the reflection on the front passenger side of the truck. The way that it hits the truck makes me think that a vehicle is sitting there and that would be why the still is cropped the way it is. There is no corresponding reflection on Mickey's bike, so I think they were in the parking lot, saw Mickey go by and turned on their lights to pull out behind her when the truck came by.

 

[Soulmagent]

There is another odd thing in the picture with Mickey. I guess it is a fluke or shadows or I dont know ,but it appears there is a person in the tree closest to where Mickey is.

Like standing in the tree . I checked the truck picture but that area is extra blurry in the next photo. It is really freaky considering it seems like a figure looming over her head and she is missing.

 

[cluciano63]

But where is Mickey NOW? How does knowing if Mickey was run over in front of the Circle K help us locate her now?

Even if the driver mowed her down, he/she/they still removed Mickey from the scene.

This has been my question for many weeks of this discussion...

 

[Isabelle]

Thats how rumors get started! Here's the link. http://theadvocate.com/home/3197776-125/baby-death-investigated-in-lafayette
http://www.klfy.com/story/18885876/child-left-in-car-dies

My concern with the story is the Lafayette PD would not release the name of the father. It seems Kentucky does things a little different:

www.gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/k...t-hot-car-113307039--abc-news-topstories.html