LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette 19 May 2012 - #28

[justwannahelp]

i personally think whoever took her knew her whereabouts, route, etc. so today someone was asking about what car bretley drove (not insinuating Bretley took her) to taco bell. They wondered if maybe she was followed to taco bell then back to bretley's house then waited for her to leave and take her usual bike route. if this is what happened then maybe the perp is on video around taco bell

 

[Allusonz]

If true, Mickey and the bike would not have been in the frame. They would have been flying in the air, tens of feet to the right.

The laws of physics don't change.

There is only one thing I am certain of and that is one lady is missing whom has touched the hearts of many people.

Physics often times has a number of variables.

This would be basing an analysis on many absolutes of which no one here knows.

We do not know the speed or distance travelled of either mass.

We do not know the angle of impact if there was indeed an impact with the vehicle.

There are far too many variables to be able to state this as the only hypothesis.

To accept this as an absolute borders on tunnel vision and would not do justice in the quest to find Mickey.

There are many people here that have presented viable alternatives of which each as individuals can determine which makes the most sense to each of us.

 

[pjcitizen]

It is possible that the video captured her at 1:47.55 when the still was taken. Then at 1:48.02 the truck came through and was caught on camera applying the brakes. She could have been just out of sight of the still. It would be too revealing if the truck and bike were in the same pic. Where would the mystery be then?

Mickey was on Versailles at approx 1:47 and in front of Circle K approx. 1:48.

" At approximately 1:47 am the bicyclist is captured on Versailles Blvd traveling towards St. John Street. She then traveled on St. John Street and crossed over University Avenue, continuing west on St. Landry Street where she was captured on video at approximately 1:48 am"

http://www.lafayettela.gov/Police/Press_Releases.asp?PR_Id=4677

 

[Island hopper]

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, the DWT was breaking because there was a BIKER in front of him and he was passing? That maybe, just maybe, the DWT is not involved at all? And really, How does analyzing these pictures until the end of time, help us find Mickey?

Unfortunately, I don't know that any amount of the released evidence is going to help US find Mickey. Appears that will be up to LE and the PI's and I think that is the way they like it. If we stop talking about the trucks, the pics, the bike...then all we have to talk about is theories which we even have less evidence to go on. Wish there were other things to discuss.

 

[slowlybutshelly]

the bike is under the truck. Mickeyis not. The right front wheel is way the hell of the ground compared to normal conditions AND it is gouged at the 6:40 position in the place where the tire is wrapping around the bike frame. THanks for the Luminal to A.C.I, but the active roadwork, and the fact that the road work sign is gone makes that inconclusive. We don't know what roadwork was done on the day of May 19th, do we? I'm growing suspicious of all those diverting attention away from the truck with the bike underneath it. I don't know why LaPD isn't more vocal about that element, but it looks like they are covering something up. No public employee feels like they are being paid enough, and there is precedent for all sorts of moonlighting. The bike is under the truck. The right front wheel is high. The tail light looks like it has extra lights on, indicating...brake+reverse? the truck going the other way has a high wheel too, the left rear wheel. If we are going to start talking about lens distortions from the sec cams... it's like.. you know.. why bother at all?

If this is true, would MS have heard a car DWTIQ coming full speed behind her and gotten scared and parted with her bike? Would she have gotten off her bike; left it to get run over; and then a few seconds later PERPS get out of car and run her down out of view from camera? Where would that be?

 

[megsy]

There is only one thing I am certain of and that is one lady is missing whom has touched the hearts of many people.

Physics often times has a number of variables.

This would be basing an analysis on many absolutes of which no one here knows.

We do not know the speed or distance travelled of either mass.

We do not know the angle of impact if there was indeed an impact with the vehicle.

There are far too many variables to be able to state this as the only hypothesis.

To accept this as an absolute borders on tunnel vision and would not do justice in the quest to find Mickey.

There are many people here that have presented viable alternatives of which each as individuals can determine which makes the most sense to each of us.

I totally agree with you. But Chicken Fried was responding to someone who said they thought the truck was traveling at high speed.

 

[JennMonkey]

One of my best friends works as the IT guy for LUS but I can't say anything bc 1) I'm not verified and 2) everyone flips out if there's no link.

 

[shann76]

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, the DWT was breaking because there was a BIKER in front of him and he was passing? That maybe, just maybe, the DWT is not involved at all? And really, How does analyzing these pictures until the end of time, help us find Mickey?

This is the only post that makes sense to me out of all 28 threads. What is the point in over analyzing these photos, that isn't what is going to find Mickey. The focus should be on suspicious behaviors, locations, brainstorming, we need to find WHERE she is, and find her safe. It doesn't make any difference if she is under the truck, over the truck, in the truck, the fact still remains she is missing!

 

[Island hopper]

Yours is a scary tale, but do you think there's any chance it might not be as ominous as it sounds? Could he have picked up your phone by accident, realized it later, took a little time to find out (somehow, I'm not sure how!) your info to mail it back to you -- phone could have been damaged in the mail? Just trying to think of other possible explanations -- not trying to minimize the creepiness.

Could be! No way to know I guess. I am here to tell the tale so maybe. I am someone that doesn't believe in coincidences such as that I meet a friendly out of town stranger, far from the interstate, and my phone ends up missing. Never can rule it out though.

 

[maedlamsmom]

I know this based upon experience and not a link. I will do my best to find a source that does state it. Case studies I would assume.

OT kinda... I was interested, so did a (very) little research. Found this:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science/message/2922

> >3. Is it true that you can only use Luminol once?
>
>As I understand it (this is not my specialty), the reaction is irreversible,
>meaning that once the luminol has reacted with the heme groups of a specific
>bit of blood, there will be no free heme groups in that particular speck to
>react again, but why would it need to? If it reacts once, you get a
>positive test. If you mean can the same area of evidence be tested more
>than once, I would think yes. If the test is properly done, the garment or
>whatever won't be soaked with luminol solution, so there is a chance that
>something was missed the first time.

I have a friend who is a forensic investigator. She has told me that luminol is not the wonder-tool people make it out to be. And it doesn't "glow" like some shows will have you believe.

Off to find some more info on it, for my own curiosity.

 

[megsy]

OT kinda... I was interested, so did a (very) little research. Found this:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science/message/2922



I have a friend who is a forensic investigator. She has told me that luminol is not the wonder-tool people make it out to be. And it doesn't "glow" like some shows will have you believe.

Off to find some more info on it, for my own curiosity.

Thank you so much

 

[pjcitizen]

One of my best friends works as the IT guy for LUS but I can't say anything bc 1) I'm not verified and 2) everyone flips out if there's no link.

Did he let you know the refresh rate of the LCG camera or is it something else?

 

[Allusonz]

I totally agree with you. But Chicken Fried was responding to someone who said they thought the truck was traveling at high speed.

Once again there is only one thing I am certain of. Mickey Shunick is missing.

I have watched a community come together to try and find her in a way which is seldom seen on this scale.

There have been many viable theories presented and I would hope that LE is not just following one avenue of investigation unless they have information that is leading them down that avenue.

We do not have access to that information thus everyone should have the opportunity to present their theories, ideas etc., and those can be individually weighed by us all.

 

[RANCH]

About 30 years ago, I was driving my little brothers to school on a major 2 lane highway in our area. I was going about 45-50-the speed limit. In the blink of an eye, a little boy darted onto the highway, I slammed on my brakes and veered away from him. The passenger side light clipped him. He did not go very far-4 ft. at most and he didn't fly up in the air, he went forward. I had slowed down enough I guess in the extremely short period of time and the angle I hit him must have lessened the impact. The only blood was a scrape on his forehead hardly any at all. These are images burned into my memory. I understand physics is an absolute science but circumstances are not.
Also, we have not seen the film, just a clip.

Again, I am not saying I think this is what happened but wanted to clear up that being hit by a car does not necessarily mean someone flies up in the air or that they fly very far.

So the little boy in your accident was pushed forward by the impact and not "pulled" under your vehicle? That makes sense.

I think that momentum alone would make sure that a person's body would go forward after an impact with a car or truck. JMO

 

[chicken fried]

About 30 years ago, I was driving my little brothers to school on a major 2 lane highway in our area. I was going about 45-50-the speed limit. In the blink of an eye, a little boy darted onto the highway, I slammed on my brakes and veered away from him. The passenger side light clipped him. He did not go very far-4 ft. at most and he didn't fly up in the air, he went forward. I had slowed down enough I guess in the extremely short period of time and the angle I hit him must have lessened the impact. The only blood was a scrape on his forehead hardly any at all. These are images burned into my memory. I understand physics is an absolute science but circumstances are not.
Also, we have not seen the film, just a clip.

Again, I am not saying I think this is what happened but wanted to clear up that being hit by a car does not necessarily mean someone flies up in the air or that they fly very far.

My post was in reponse to someone who said the truck could have been going "very fast."

 

[JennMonkey]

Did he let you know the refresh rate of the LCG camera or is it something else?

All cameras, even the drive thru, are constantly on, some are 10-20 sec, others aren't up to date.

 

[Island hopper]

That's a darn good thought.,. and no one has said it before.

:cheers:

Sorry CajunCoDe....not trying to shut you down...but...the rider would have had to ride pass the camera in the 1 minute, plus or minus a few seconds, after Mickey but before the truck. It is possible but you would think that rider would be in the top wanted list of people to talk to. They may have braked to turn into the gas station and never even followed her down St. Landry.

Not you personally, but all of us in general, are making what is likely such a simple scenario into something much more complicated. I have thought out all sorts of scenario's when it's likely she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and whatever happened happened very fast.

Some of the more difficult crimes to solve are the ones that are crimes of opportunity committed by strangers.

 

[Foxfire]

Unfortunately, I don't know that any amount of the released evidence is going to help US find Mickey. Appears that will be up to LE and the PI's and I think that is the way they like it. If we stop talking about the trucks, the pics, the bike...then all we have to talk about is theories which we even have less evidence to go on. Wish there were other things to discuss.

'Patience, Island hopper'. Missing persons cases are seldom a sprint, but are usually marathons. There will be highs and lows; times of jubilation, and times of grief, frustration, and sadness. An emotional roller coaster ride.

Hang in there and latch on to the positives when given the opportunity. A.C.I. & his obvious determination & perserverance was added to the Find Mickey Schunick team today. That was a positive..

 

[Allusonz]

As for the type of camera's purchased/installed at City Hall often this information can be found out through their expenditures which is usually available to the public.

I would think that there would of been a motion made regarding the purchase of these camera's and the company which they were purchased from.

Additional information should then be able to be determined in order to help regarding frame rates etc.

ETA This information should be on record.....

 

[Bacalla1a]

I am available.

I am also available if a meeting is planned.