MN MN - Richard John ‘Dickie’ Huerkamp, 15, Mapleton, 2 Oct 1965

[Brightchaser47]

According to family, Mr Huerkamp worked for Krengel Brothers in Mapleton at the time of Dickies disappearance. It’s an Excavating contractor and they were actually doing some work not far where the bike was found.

Could a body have been buried on that jobsite?

 

[Richard]

This is interesting. Do you have any sources for this? I would like to learn more on this aspect. I'm a MN-Native and enjoy looking into cases. I hadn't heard of this one.

As with so many of these old cold cases, we often get information from news reports that is inaccurate or contradictory. And sometimes "facts" are inferred from reporters' writings. Often, in stories about cases such as this, they include rumors, theories, and speculation. Sometimes editing of the story will induce errors as well.

According to the rather long report by Jim Klobuchar (father of Minnesota's US Senator Amy Klobuchar), Dickie had made plans to go goose hunting with three boys from his school. They were: Jerry D. McGregor (18), George Johnson (16), and Gary Fitzpatrick (15). They stated to investigators that they did go Squirrel Hunting in Hungry Hollow, an area north of Mapleton, near Mankato. They said that they later drove to Minnesota Lake, southeast of Mapleton.

A review of the case file would be in order to see exactly what the boys said to investigators. Two of them are still living. It would be interesting to hear what they might say today.

They did not pick up Dickie as planned, but whether or not they stopped at his house is questionable. Jim Klobuchar's story implies that if Dickie had heard the doorbell, he might still be alive. But if those boys DID ring the doorbell, why didn't anyone else in the house hear it?

Dickie evidently had not hunted geese before, since this was said to have been his first goose hunt. So was he actually going out to hunt Geese? And why did the other boys go squirrel hunting instead of goose hunting? My guess is that Dickie was simply going out to a place where he had hunted before for pheasants, squirrels, and perhaps rabbits. Going to a river or lake to hunt waterfowl seems odd since he did not have waders or a dog to retrieve any downed ducks.

A few things just don't ring true. I don't know if his father ever hunted with Dickie, but it does not sound like it to me. If his father was a hunter and had a shotgun, why would Dickie have to borrow one from a neighbor? Also, anyone who had ever hunted with a 12 gauge shotgun would know how hard they kick. The recoil would be especially hard on a 78 pound, 4 foot 10 inch tall boy. A father who knew hunting and shooting would get his son a more appropriate shotgun, like a 20 gauge.

The news reports are all pretty specific as to where the bike, lunch, gun case, and shells were found. They were said to be four miles south of Mapleton at the side of County Road 7. Dickie's mother said that the bike was found before she reached the home of Stanley Healy.

LINKS:

Richard Huerkamp

Clipping found in The Minneapolis Star published in Minneapolis, Minnesota on 3/9/1966. Richard Huerkamp

www.newspapers.com

Richard Huerkamp-2

Clipping found in The Minneapolis Star published in Minneapolis, Minnesota on 3/9/1966. Richard Huerkamp-2

www.newspapers.com

Jim Klobuchar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pressureandheat]

Could a body have been buried on that jobsite?

Apparently those were the rumors back then. I was told boats were put in with the nose on the shore so that they could rev the engines and try to get the bottom stirred up, but nothing was found tied to Dickie. After all these years, nothing has floated to the surface if he did fall in and drown. But that doesn’t prove anything, just seems odd.

 

[Richard]

According to news paper reports, Dickie Huerkamp (age 15) told his parents on the evening of Friday 1 October 1965, that he intended to rise early the next morning and go hunting with TWO high school friends.

In preparation for that hunt, he made a lunch of sandwiches, potato chips and candy bars. He readied the shotgun (in a case) that he borrowed from neighbor Roger Charles Otto Schultz (1921 - 1995) and a box of shotgun shells. He then borrowed his parents' alarm clock to assure his early wakening.

Supposedly two of his Mapleton High School friends - Jerry D. McGregor, age 18 (DOB 31 May 1947) and George Carl Johnson, age 16 (DOB 28 January 1949) came to the Huerkamp home and rang the doorbell prior to 5 am - although none of the five residents of the house reported hearing it. The boys then proceeded to the home of Gary Edward Fitzpatrick, age 15 (5 May 1950 - 16 December 2005) where they picked him up and drove to a place to hunt. It is probable that McGregor was the driver.

Although, the stated intention (to Dickie) was to go Goose hunting, the three boys later told investigators that they went north to a place near Mankato, Minnesota where they hunted for squirrels.

Dickie, upon awakening, was upset that he overslept and missed going with his hunting buddies. He returned the alarm clock to his mother, dressed in his hunting clothing, and then asked to borrow his younger sister's bicycle in order to go hunting with his shotgun, shells, and lunch.

The big question here is: What was Dickie's intention at this point? Was it to catch up with the other boys and join them in a goose hunt? Or did he intend to simply go out on his own to hunt?

If it was the latter, why would he need to borrow the bicycle? Since he had done a lot of hunting previously, was it his normal practice to ride a girl's bicycle to his hunting grounds? Or was this an out of the norm occurrence?

If it was not his normal practice to ride a bicycle to his previous known hunting places, the bicycle would then be a critical piece of evidence, linking Dickie to the other three boys, as it would indicate that it was his intent to join them at a pre-agreed upon hunting area.

How big was the lunch he packed? Had he made enough for himself and others? A whole box of shotgun shells would hold a quantity of 25. More than enough for one boy to hunt squirrels or pheasants in one day. Was he providing shells for himself and others for a goose hunt?

The type of shells in that box would be an important clue. Normally shells used on Geese contain size 2 or 4 shot, whereas shells used on pheasants, squirrels, or rabbits would contain size 5 or 6 size shot. Of course, Dickie might have had other shells in his pockets or worn on a shell belt.

While there have been a number of possible scenarios mentioned and discussed, it would seem that a very plausible one would be that Dickie knew exactly where he was going and wanted to meet up with the other boys.

The possibility of a hunting accident occurring with four adolescent boys is much more likely than a random or targeted abduction or an unsubstantiated incident of family violence.

The finding of the bicycle, shells, gun case, and lunch alongside the road, with a scent trail (of whom?) leading to the river seems much more like a planted clue meant to misdirect any subsequent searching. Why was the shotgun missing from the case?

It would be interesting to know what hunting experience or training the three other boys had, and to see what exactly each boy told investigators regarding their activities on 2 October 1965. Did they have hunting licenses and Federal Duck Stamps? Had any of them hunted with Dickie previously? Also of interest would be what legal or emotional problems any of them experienced later in life. And what is their story today regarding that fateful date?

 

[cenazoic]

Federal Duck Stamps

For the years 2020-23, they’re only required for 16 and over. (In fact, they don’t mention anyone below 16 for general hunting licensure.) I wasn’t able to find rules for 1965, but they’d be interesting to see.

The 2023-2024 MN waterfowl regs for reference, although obviously not applicable to Dickie’s case.

 

[Brightchaser47]

According to news paper reports, Dickie Huerkamp (age 15) told his parents on the evening of Friday 1 October 1965, that he intended to rise early the next morning and go hunting with TWO high school friends.

In preparation for that hunt, he made a lunch of sandwiches, potato chips and candy bars. He readied the shotgun (in a case) that he borrowed from neighbor Roger Charles Otto Schultz (1921 - 1995) and a box of shotgun shells. He then borrowed his parents' alarm clock to assure his early wakening.

Supposedly two of his Mapleton High School friends - Jerry D. McGregor, age 18 (DOB 31 May 1947) and George Carl Johnson, age 16 (DOB 28 January 1949) came to the Huerkamp home and rang the doorbell prior to 5 am - although none of the five residents of the house reported hearing it. The boys then proceeded to the home of Gary Edward Fitzpatrick, age 15 (5 May 1950 - 16 December 2005) where they picked him up and drove to a place to hunt. It is probable that McGregor was the driver.

Although, the stated intention (to Dickie) was to go Goose hunting, the three boys later told investigators that they went north to a place near Mankato, Minnesota where they hunted for squirrels.

Dickie, upon awakening, was upset that he overslept and missed going with his hunting buddies. He returned the alarm clock to his mother, dressed in his hunting clothing, and then asked to borrow his younger sister's bicycle in order to go hunting with his shotgun, shells, and lunch.

The big question here is: What was Dickie's intention at this point? Was it to catch up with the other boys and join them in a goose hunt? Or did he intend to simply go out on his own to hunt?

If it was the latter, why would he need to borrow the bicycle? Since he had done a lot of hunting previously, was it his normal practice to ride a girl's bicycle to his hunting grounds? Or was this an out of the norm occurrence?

If it was not his normal practice to ride a bicycle to his previous known hunting places, the bicycle would then be a critical piece of evidence, linking Dickie to the other three boys, as it would indicate that it was his intent to join them at a pre-agreed upon hunting area.

How big was the lunch he packed? Had he made enough for himself and others? A whole box of shotgun shells would hold a quantity of 25. More than enough for one boy to hunt squirrels or pheasants in one day. Was he providing shells for himself and others for a goose hunt?

The type of shells in that box would be an important clue. Normally shells used on Geese contain size 2 or 4 shot, whereas shells used on pheasants, squirrels, or rabbits would contain size 5 or 6 size shot. Of course, Dickie might have had other shells in his pockets or worn on a shell belt.

While there have been a number of possible scenarios mentioned and discussed, it would seem that a very plausible one would be that Dickie knew exactly where he was going and wanted to meet up with the other boys.

The possibility of a hunting accident occurring with four adolescent boys is much more likely than a random or targeted abduction or an unsubstantiated incident of family violence.

The finding of the bicycle, shells, gun case, and lunch alongside the road, with a scent trail (of whom?) leading to the river seems much more like a planted clue meant to misdirect any subsequent searching. Why was the shotgun missing from the case?

It would be interesting to know what hunting experience or training the three other boys had, and to see what exactly each boy told investigators regarding their activities on 2 October 1965. Did they have hunting licenses and Federal Duck Stamps? Had any of them hunted with Dickie previously? Also of interest would be what legal or emotional problems any of them experienced later in life. And what is their story today regarding that fateful date?

Some very good points and questions. And yes, a hunting accident involving juveniles is very plausible, assuming he did meet up with them. I'm still stuck on the scent trail, though...

 

[Brightchaser47]

Regarding the hunting licenses and stamps, I don't know what that would've cost, but we've been given the impression Dickie didn't have much money to work with. So had he been hunting where a license wasn't needed (like with landowner's permission)? I did find some old regs from 1963, but there was no mention of stamps, so I don't know... jmo

 

[Brightchaser47]

The possibility of a hunting accident occurring with four adolescent boys is much more likely than a random or targeted abduction or an unsubstantiated incident of family violence.


It would be interesting to know what hunting experience or training the three other boys had, and to see what exactly each boy told investigators regarding their activities on 2 October 1965. Did they have hunting licenses and Federal Duck Stamps? Had any of them hunted with Dickie previously? Also of interest would be what legal or emotional problems any of them experienced later in life. And what is their story today regarding that fateful date?

RSBM
It would also be interesting to know who started the rumors involving Dickie's father, and when. My point being that maybe he was innocent, but someone was trying to throw suspicion onto him, and away from someone else. jmo

 

[Richard]

Regarding the hunting licenses and stamps, I don't know what that would've cost, but we've been given the impression Dickie didn't have much money to work with. So had he been hunting where a license wasn't needed (like with landowner's permission)? I did find some old regs from 1963, but there was no mention of stamps, so I don't know... jmo

Here is the 1965 Federal Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp. This would have been required to hunt ducks or geese in all states, attached to the State hunting license. Minnesota did not have their own State Duck stamps until 1977.

I could not find the Minnesota state hunting regulations for 1965, so do not know what the seasons and laws were, but it is likely that each of the boys would have been required by law to possess a valid hunting license to do any kind of hunting - especially since they were not hunting on their own land.

LINK:

Duck Stamp 1965-1966

www.fws.gov

 

[Richard]

Some very good points and questions. And yes, a hunting accident involving juveniles is very plausible, assuming he did meet up with them. I'm still stuck on the scent trail, though...

I have trained tracking dogs, and they can be very accurate and useful in locating missing people. However, they are only as good as their handler and their experience working together as a team.

If the dogs were simply taken to the site of the bicycle - prior to persons walking all over the area and contaminating it with their scents - then the dog will pick up the scent of the person who left the bike there and commence tracking him/her. This might or might NOT have been Dickie Huerkamp.

The question I would have in reviewing the records is this: "Did the dog handler present the dog with an item of Dickie's for him to get the scent BEFORE taking him to the bicycle?" Or was he simply taken to the bicycle and given it as a starting point?

 

[ifindedout]

This

snipped
There's no link, is this the location you meant?

43°52'35.2"N 93°57'36.9"W · Jade Rd, Mapleton, MN 56065

Jade Rd, Mapleton, MN 56065

www.google.com

 

[Richard]

snipped
There's no link, is this the location you meant?

It would be nice to see a Mapleton township plat map for a year close to 1965 which would show the names of property owners.

It would also be helpful to know where Dickie had previously hunted, and who he had hunted with. Knowing that might suggest some possible search areas or lead to some clues regarding his disappearance.

Dickie had told his parents that he was planning to go goose hunting with TWO friends from his high school. Who were those two, and how did a third boy become part of the hunt group the next day? Had Dickie hunted with any of those three boys before? If so, it is a good possibility that he knew the location of the planned 2 October goose hunt.

When Dickie overslept the early morning of 2 October 1965, he was very upset because he missed going hunting with his friends. At that point he could have decided to try and catch up with the others - or go out hunting on his own. My feeling/opinion on this is that he decided to meet up with his friends for the planned hunt.

Several clues point to this. He was really upset that he missed the other guys. He borrowed his sister's bicycle to get to the hunting area - a place somewhere within bike riding distance, but too far to walk. He took a lunch (perhaps packed for more than just himself?), and he took a whole box of 25 shotgun shells (perhaps in addition to other shells he carried in his pockets). Was he bringing shells for the other guys as well? He had hunted south of the town before, as indicated by his mother stating that he sometimes stayed overnight at the Stanley Healy family home.

An odd part of the puzzle that does not really fit is the statement of the other three boys that they went north to a place near Mankato to hunt squirrels. Why the change in plans? How carefully were those boys questioned by police investigators?

 

[Brightchaser47]

Dickie had told his parents that he was planning to go goose hunting with TWO friends from his high school. Who were those two, and how did a third boy become part of the hunt group the next day?

RSBM
The 3/9/66 article in The Minneapolis Star states he'd arranged to goose hunt for the first time with  three friends. So we have a discrepency there.

Also, in the Minneapolis Star 10/4/65 and 11/2/65, Mrs Huerkamp reported finding the bicycle, lunch bag, and box of shells--no mention of gun case.

Minneapolis Star 3/9/66- shotgun case is mentioned, but not the box of shells.
Was this an honest mistake, or did the story change?

The last oddity I'll mention here is in the St Cloud Times 10/27/65-- "the boy was alone on a Saturday afternoon hunting expedition along the Maple River". We don't know that...jmo

 

[Richard]

RSBM
The 3/9/66 article in The Minneapolis Star states he'd arranged to goose hunt for the first time with  three friends. So we have a discrepency there.

Also, in the Minneapolis Star 10/4/65 and 11/2/65, Mrs Huerkamp reported finding the bicycle, lunch bag, and box of shells--no mention of gun case.

Minneapolis Star 3/9/66- shotgun case is mentioned, but not the box of shells.
Was this an honest mistake, or did the story change?

The last oddity I'll mention here is in the St Cloud Times 10/27/65-- "the boy was alone on a Saturday afternoon hunting expedition along the Maple River". We don't know that...jmo

Perhaps small discrepancies, but an indication of how news reports can add, detract, or change things.

Dickie clearly wasn't hunting on Saturday afternoon, since he hadn't eaten his lunch. He was reportedly last seen leaving his house around 5 am.

 

[Pressureandheat]

snipped
There's no link, is this the location you meant?

So this is where I am confused and think filing a FOIA will only reconcile. I grew up with the story that he went missing off of 7. There is a bridge just after the turn to Daly Park and I always thought that was the location. But apparently that is not the case. The area they searched was further south east from there. And actually just yards from Stan Healy family’s driveway. (The place he stated he might sleepover. And also it wasn’t to stay w Stan, it was to stay with Stan’s son, Chuck. They were friends)

Attached are photos of the location a family member took for me this morning 2/1/2024. Obviously keep in mind it was a gravel road back then but really not much has changed. There was a bridge marker added in ‘71. But other than that, I believe it really kind of looked the same. The old Stan Healy farm driveway you can see on the first photo. But it’s pretty desolate, even still today.

 

[Pressureandheat]

It would be nice to see a Mapleton township plat map for a year close to 1965 which would show the names of property owners.

It would also be helpful to know where Dickie had previously hunted, and who he had hunted with. Knowing that might suggest some possible search areas or lead to some clues regarding his disappearance.

Dickie had told his parents that he was planning to go goose hunting with TWO friends from his high school. Who were those two, and how did a third boy become part of the hunt group the next day? Had Dickie hunted with any of those three boys before? If so, it is a good possibility that he knew the location of the planned 2 October goose hunt.

When Dickie overslept the early morning of 2 October 1965, he was very upset because he missed going hunting with his friends. At that point he could have decided to try and catch up with the others - or go out hunting on his own. My feeling/opinion on this is that he decided to meet up with his friends for the planned hunt.

Several clues point to this. He was really upset that he missed the other guys. He borrowed his sister's bicycle to get to the hunting area - a place somewhere within bike riding distance, but too far to walk. He took a lunch (perhaps packed for more than just himself?), and he took a whole box of 25 shotgun shells (perhaps in addition to other shells he carried in his pockets). Was he bringing shells for the other guys as well? He had hunted south of the town before, as indicated by his mother stating that he sometimes stayed overnight at the Stanley Healy family home.

An odd part of the puzzle that does not really fit is the statement of the other three boys that they went north to a place near Mankato to hunt squirrels. Why the change in plans? How carefully were those boys questioned by police investigators?

I believe my family has an old plat to the area. I can double check. I’ve attached photos of the area that were taken this morning.

Regarding the friends, Hungry Hallow is much more of a wooded area near Mankato that would make sense for hunting. But def need a car to get there from Mapleton. One could easily ride (and as kids we often did) a bike to Lura Lake, the area Dickie supposedly rode his sisters bike to. From what I’ve learned in recent days is that he was a friend of the Healy family and the location they searched was near the Healy’s house. The river is much deeper there as well so that makes more sense.

 

[Richard]

So this is where I am confused and think filing a FOIA will only reconcile. I grew up with the story that he went missing off of 7. There is a bridge just after the turn to Daly Park and I always thought that was the location. But apparently that is not the case....

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request mainly applies to Federal type records, however it could be considered applicable to State or local records as well. Generally it means a lot of paper work on the part of government agencies. Police files might be exempt from a FOIA request if they state that it is an "open investigation" or if the request would in some way violate the Privacy Act.

I have had more success simply contacting the head of the agency responsible for a cold case investigation, and asking to speak with the current case officer. Sometimes they play their cards close to the vest, but usually are happy to discuss the case. On occasion, they have allowed me to actually see the entire file. Either way, you can get a point of contact and, if nothing else, get the file number(s) which you would need should you later decide to make a FOIA request.

There are some obvious questions regarding this case which might be answered with a simple phone call or visit to the case officer. A big one would be what is the classification and status of the investigation? Is it simply a "Missing Person" case or is it considered a homicide?

 

[Richard]

In the mid 1960's studies were done by the US Army to come up with the best color for hunters to use which would make them stand out visually for safety.

A condition termed "Early Blur" had been identified as a visual perception in which a hunter "sees" a target which he is hoping to see (that is a game animal that he is hunting for) when, in fact his mind is forming a picture based on limited visual clues. This occurs usually just at Dawn or Dusk when light is limited.

Certain colors like red are seen as black in limited light, while other colors like florescent orange or florescent pink are visible earlier and later and are readily recognizable as a color not found in nature. Studies also showed that these colors stand out to persons who are color blind and have difficulty distinguishing the color red from green.

The reason I mention this here is that Dickie was very likely entering a hunting area in the dark, or in very early light, wearing a set of gray coveralls. Wearing of "Hunter Orange" had not yet been made mandatory in 1965. If Dickie walked into an area where other hunters were already stationed, he might have appeared to them as a game animal - or could have been in the line of fire and not recognized as a person.

The following link is to a 2027 magazine article which discusses Early Blur.

LINK:

Deadly perception can be tragic in deer woods

We all think of mistaking another hunter for game is inconceivable — until we are awakened by the experience.

www.pressconnects.com

Minnesota's current Blaze Orange Requirements:​

During deer firearm season, hunters and trappers must wear a blaze orange or pink hat and exterior clothing above the waist must be blaze orange (excluding sleeves and gloves). Camouflage that is at least fifty percent blaze orange or pink is acceptable. Outside of firearm season, hunters of small game (other than turkey, migratory birds, raccoons, and predators) must wear at least one article of blaze orange or pink clothing above the waist. Exception: migratory bird hunters on water or hunting from a stationary position; trappers on the water; in areas only open to archery hunting.
LINK:

Blaze Orange Hunting Requirements, by State (USA)

Planning a hunting trip? Read up on the blaze orange hunting requirements in your state at DSG Outerwear! We've created an easy-to-read state by state guide.

dsgouterwear.com

 

[Brightchaser47]

It would be nice to see a Mapleton township plat map for a year close to 1965 which would show the names of property owners.

It would also be helpful to know where Dickie had previously hunted, and who he had hunted with. Knowing that might suggest some possible search areas or lead to some clues regarding his disappearance.

Dickie had told his parents that he was planning to go goose hunting with TWO friends from his high school. Who were those two, and how did a third boy become part of the hunt group the next day? Had Dickie hunted with any of those three boys before? If so, it is a good possibility that he knew the location of the planned 2 October goose hunt.

When Dickie overslept the early morning of 2 October 1965, he was very upset because he missed going hunting with his friends. At that point he could have decided to try and catch up with the others - or go out hunting on his own. My feeling/opinion on this is that he decided to meet up with his friends for the planned hunt.

Several clues point to this. He was really upset that he missed the other guys. He borrowed his sister's bicycle to get to the hunting area - a place somewhere within bike riding distance, but too far to walk. He took a lunch (perhaps packed for more than just himself?), and he took a whole box of 25 shotgun shells (perhaps in addition to other shells he carried in his pockets). Was he bringing shells for the other guys as well? He had hunted south of the town before, as indicated by his mother stating that he sometimes stayed overnight at the Stanley Healy family home.

An odd part of the puzzle that does not really fit is the statement of the other three boys that they went north to a place near Mankato to hunt squirrels. Why the change in plans? How carefully were those boys questioned by police investigators?

In the mid 1960's studies were done by the US Army to come up with the best color for hunters to use which would make them stand out visually for safety.

A condition termed "Early Blur" had been identified as a visual perception in which a hunter "sees" a target which he is hoping to see (that is a game animal that he is hunting for) when, in fact his mind is forming a picture based on limited visual clues. This occurs usually just at Dawn or Dusk when light is limited.

Certain colors like red are seen as black in limited light, while other colors like florescent orange or florescent pink are visible earlier and later and are readily recognizable as a color not found in nature. Studies also showed that these colors stand out to persons who are color blind and have difficulty distinguishing the color red from green.

The reason I mention this here is that Dickie was very likely entering a hunting area in the dark, or in very early light, wearing a set of gray coveralls. Wearing of "Hunter Orange" had not yet been made mandatory in 1965. If Dickie walked into an area where other hunters were already stationed, he might have appeared to them as a game animal - or could have been in the line of fire and not recognized as a person.

RSBM
Are you suggesting Dickie was accidentally shot by one of the boys he was to hunt with, and if they'd hunted with him previously, they'd know where to plant his things to throw people off?

 

[Richard]

RSBM
Are you suggesting Dickie was accidentally shot by one of the boys he was to hunt with, and if they'd hunted with him previously, they'd know where to plant his things to throw people off?

It seems a likely scenario, and one which investigators at the time could have considered, but apparently chose not to, in preference to concentrating all their efforts searching the area between the bicycle and the river.

The bike and supplies dumped at the side of the road were almost certainly left there by some person or persons hoping to mislead search efforts.

Other theories, such as his parking his bike and supplies by the road and then walking to the river only to fall in and drown (and never be found), or being abducted within a 15 minute time frame in the early morning hours by a passing pedophile on a little traveled stretch of road, are rather remote possibilities which stretch the imagination.

IF one of those other scenarios is true, then the boys would have to feel some responsibility for NOT picking Dickie up that morning, or at least leaving him a note to let him know where they were going. Most likely they proceeded to the originally planned hunting area - contrary to their later claims of being 15 miles North of town.

Driving in a car, they would have arrived at the hunting area ahead of Dickie, having a head start and with Dickie riding a bicycle. It is likely that they didn't expect to see Dickie there that morning.

Sunrise would not occur until about 7 am, with perhaps a half hour of twilight preceding it. With various reported estimates of Dickie leaving the house around 5 am, this would place him 4 miles south of town as early as perhaps 5:15 - 5:30 am - a full hour before day light.

We don't know for certain where Dickie and the boys planned to hunt, but Dickie DID know and was very likely headed there to meet up with the others. An early morning hunting accident, followed by hiding of the body and shotgun, finding and staging the bicycle and supplies, and then a made-up story about being well north of town at the time is a scenario well worth considering.

LINK:

Minneapolis Fall 1965 Historical Weather Data (Minnesota, United States) - Weather Spark

weatherspark.com