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

[CajunStrong]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

abbielynn

:welcome4:

Thanks for joining the discussion!!!

 

[andalso]

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]

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]

And, would you like that spicey or mild?

Mild...definitely mild, please!!!!

 

[CajunStrong]

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]

]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.[/B] -----------
:clap:
My bold above.

 

[Ihavenoname]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.