The "run over by the truck in front of Circle K " has been dually considered and needs to be put to rest (at least on this thread). Same with the "injured horse" ploy and the "runaway" theory.
I think all evidence points directly to a "hit and grab" type abduction that occurred soon after Mickey passed the Circle K. I think this guy had a "plan" all figured out and Mickey just provided the first opportunity.
The best lead available is the video of the white truck. It is possible it isn't involved but it's something. The second lead is the report of the guy in a white truck hitting on women on bikes. It is my understanding that this is the "hot lead" that two unrelated witnesses provided. The "white truck" connection gives it a lot of traction.
If I had nothing to do with Mickey's abduction but I was driving my white z71 in front of Circle K at 1:48 that morning, I would have come forward. I think pretty much everyone else would. There is a small chance that the owner is simply unaware that his truck is the focus of a criminal investigation, but it is pretty unlikely. Now, if I had been hitting on girls riding bikes late at night, would I come forward? Maybe not.
If all available evidence doesn't point to one suspect, which appears to be the case here, the only alternative is to work in reverse: focus on people who "fit the profile" but can't be ruled out. In this case, the white truck is the key. The problem with this approach is that it requires a lot resources and it can lead to "excessive attention" and even false conviction, of innocent "suspects". Further complicating the matter is the problem of folks deliberately making themselves suspects by claiming to know the victim, having been in the area at the time of the crime, etc. Also complicating the matter is the "good Citizens" that will call in leads and exaggerate/embellish/lie about the basis of their suspicions. You can bet the names of plenty of brother-in-laws, ex-boy-friends etc. have been reported.
The key is to "prioritize" the leads and work down. Community confidence in law enforcement is vital. A lot of men, most of whom own white trucks, will be contacted. None will have any obligation to answer questions or otherwise cooperate.
A.C.I. has a few "POIs", one of whom sounds very interesting, but anyone who has followed any of these cases know that often MANY "strong" suspects turn up and the investigators have to be able keep an open mind until there is enough evidence to "seal the deal". All too often investigations go afoul when a lead detective develops "tunnel blindness".
I think all evidence points directly to a "hit and grab" type abduction that occurred soon after Mickey passed the Circle K. I think this guy had a "plan" all figured out and Mickey just provided the first opportunity.
The best lead available is the video of the white truck. It is possible it isn't involved but it's something. The second lead is the report of the guy in a white truck hitting on women on bikes. It is my understanding that this is the "hot lead" that two unrelated witnesses provided. The "white truck" connection gives it a lot of traction.
If I had nothing to do with Mickey's abduction but I was driving my white z71 in front of Circle K at 1:48 that morning, I would have come forward. I think pretty much everyone else would. There is a small chance that the owner is simply unaware that his truck is the focus of a criminal investigation, but it is pretty unlikely. Now, if I had been hitting on girls riding bikes late at night, would I come forward? Maybe not.
If all available evidence doesn't point to one suspect, which appears to be the case here, the only alternative is to work in reverse: focus on people who "fit the profile" but can't be ruled out. In this case, the white truck is the key. The problem with this approach is that it requires a lot resources and it can lead to "excessive attention" and even false conviction, of innocent "suspects". Further complicating the matter is the problem of folks deliberately making themselves suspects by claiming to know the victim, having been in the area at the time of the crime, etc. Also complicating the matter is the "good Citizens" that will call in leads and exaggerate/embellish/lie about the basis of their suspicions. You can bet the names of plenty of brother-in-laws, ex-boy-friends etc. have been reported.
The key is to "prioritize" the leads and work down. Community confidence in law enforcement is vital. A lot of men, most of whom own white trucks, will be contacted. None will have any obligation to answer questions or otherwise cooperate.
A.C.I. has a few "POIs", one of whom sounds very interesting, but anyone who has followed any of these cases know that often MANY "strong" suspects turn up and the investigators have to be able keep an open mind until there is enough evidence to "seal the deal". All too often investigations go afoul when a lead detective develops "tunnel blindness".
