Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't know. This is still a big unanswered question for me - from the beginning. She should have been caught on HooptyCam, unless she was taken in the very short distance between Circle K and 216 St. Landry.
Hadn't seen this article from the DW posted yet. Quotes several of BSL's neighbors: http://www.dailyworld.com/article/20120706/NEWS01/207060316
With LE being on to him and watching, they most likely "manufactured" something to pull him over: no turn signal, weaving, didn't stop at a stop sign, tail light out, etc. Once pulled over, the altered license came into play, or something regarding his RSO statis, enough to detain him.
They must have conclusive evidence that there was an aggravated kidnapping on or off St. Landry St. between W. St. Mary Blvd. and Blackham Colosseum.
But the LPD chief basically did tell us that this cannot be Mickey or the bike on or under by the Circle K, since he answered one of the reporter's who asked him where they believe Mickey was taken as "between St. Landry & St. Mary streets (I take that to mean the intersection of St. Landry & St. Mary) and Blackham Coliseum." The intersection of St. Landry & St. Mary is blocks up from the Circle K. So to me, that answers that question. Mickey made it to at least the corner of St. Landry & St. Mary before being hit and taken, so the Circle K pic of the DWT following behind Mickey cannot show us Mickey being hit. So we know from Chief Craft that Mickey was hit/taken between St.Mary & St. Landry intersection and somewhere near the coliseum. Seems to me this liekly happened around the St. Landry extension by the coliseum. Nothing but fields immediately around.
It does, but it probably took a lot fewer back when BSL enlisted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/americas/13iht-13recruits.6652316.html
Coincidence?
http:///viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981388440
I'm not sure he was trying to pretend it was the same truck. After all, he told the dealership his other one was stolen. You'd htink that he'd think that once the burned truck was found, they would come talk to him - and then does he want to have that GPS? Would there be a good reason at all to keep that GPS? I can't think of one benefit for him of keeping that GPS, but maybe I am overlooking some benefit?
One thing - I wonder if he filed a police report about the stolen truck?! That's a huge puzzle piece.
Catching up on people's theories:
I see renewed discussion of the white truck, and distorted stills from someone's big-screen TV.
1. Regarding whether Mickey is seen on top of the truck - no. All you have to do is look at the original photo (not cropped/enlarged), and it's clear that there is not a person on top of the truck.
2. What looks like something draped over the right-rear window looks to me like classic lens flare, combined with one of the jagged vertical breaks in the still that LE released. If you compare the pic of the DWT heading right, and the DWT heading left (both at Circle K), you can see the same area of white oversaturation on the rear window of the truck heading left. Looks to me like a light source that reflected off the rear part of the roof of the truck heading right... then was both distorted by the vertical break in the still - and then spilled over through the lens-flare effect, to look like something (a tarp, etc.) hanging down over part of the window.
If you want to see what I mean, look at the picture of Mickey coming toward the camera on Versailles, then look at what looks like a big white blob ahead of Mickey. I and others have compared this blob to night-time photos a WS poster took, and agree that it was created by the bright lights of the bus overhang to her right. Now look at how the light appears to spill around the front side of the 25-mph sign, even though it's not really doing that. This apparent spillage made it look almost like LE had whited something out in the photo. But the more I looked at it, it became apparent to me that it was a lens-flare effect, falsely adding a white smear to the front of the 25-mph sign that really wasn't there.
I believe that this same effect on the 25-m.p.h. sign created the optical illusion of something hanging over the right-rear window of the truck heading right (following Mickey), when it actually wasn't there. Lens flare can do weird stuff, and then when the picture is blown up and the contrast altered, it can look like something it isn't.
3. It seems that BL's m.o. would have been to take someone alive. Note that BL didn't kill his 1999 victim. It would have taken one heck of a high-speed hit to knock Mickey up onto the hood or roof. The fronts of those trucks are tall and vertical and higher than the bike and rider. I doubt that a bump that only bent the back bike rim would have thrown her up there - and I think that at that speed, the bike would have shown a lot more damage. And if he wanted to take her alive, then a hit required to actually knock her up that far would almost certainly have had to be high-speed enough to be fatal, and so why would he hit her that hard? Seems to me he would have wanted to hit her hard enough to knock her off the bike, but not hard enough to kill her outright.
BSL disposed of the truck in San Jacinto county, and reported it stolen in Montgomery county. I'm thinking that he probably tried to report it stolen to his insurance company in order to get a loaner car issued so he could get back home. Insurance companies won't take any action on stolen property until you've filed a police report. Otherwise, I'm not sure he would have involved LE at all at that point. He was probably sweating it out for a few days wondering if LE was going to make a connection.
MOO
Yeah I saw your post after the fact. I wasn't making any wild speculations. Just throwing spaghetti at the wall![]()
This truck was ruled out at the time by ACI.
Unfortunately, I find myself hoping he kept Mickey somewhere (even if she's deceased) as his trophy and her remains are somewhere he frequented so he could check on them. I still hope there's a slight possibility some of her remains (but badly decomposed, perhaps skeletonized) were recovered from his property and they are just waiting for lab tests to prove it's her.
To me, just driving the truck to Texas showed a level of planning. Also, he had a long drive to think about what he was doing. If the GPS burned up with the truck, it would cover his tracks better, just my way of thinking. On the other hand, the GPS unit being missing could be explained by a thief stripping the truck...
Which leads me to his problem: a burned "stolen" truck is more believable if it has been stripped - rims, etc.
Unless he had an accomplice - which opens up a can of worms - how would he make the truck look stripped? And how did he get from where the truck was found back home?
Did he walk back out to the road and hitchhike? Hitchhiking to me seems like about the only way to do it..... unless he took a bike to Texas and used it to get away from where the truck was found. Just brainstorming here....