TN TN - Dennis Martin, 6, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 14 June 1969

I don't understand why a Bobcat hasn't been considered to be the source of the scream, instead of an owl? This scream is terrifying, and will male the hairs on your arms stand up. I have heard it on several occasions. living in the Appalachians, and it's terrifying, If you don't know the source. I have heard every owl scream in these woods, and I'm more inclined to think it is the cat.
 
I was on that search 45 years ago. I grew up in east Tennessee and hiked in the Smokies from about age 12 on. I believe the most likely scenario is that Dennis wandered off after separating from his cousins and fell into a swollen stream (heavy rains in the area before he vanished) and his body was wedged under a rock. Years later an illegal ginseng hunter told a ranger he found a pile of bones and a small skull along a watershed that drains the Spence Field area. By the time rangers and a search party got back to that area animals had likely scattered the bones and carried them off. The search party never found any bones.
I never did buy into the kidnapping story and this one makes a lot of sense to me if you think it through.
At nearby Abrams Falls several swimmers have drowned in the swift currents there. I remember one incident a few years ago where an experienced swimmer dove in and never came up. A team of scuba divers found his body wedged under some large rocks where the currents had carried it.
We'll probably never know for sure what happened to Dennis but the falling into a stream theory makes the most sense to me.
On the last big push to find Dennis there were over 2,000 people on the mountain searching in all directions including tracking dogs, several helicopters, and about 40 special forces troops.
 
VolunteerJim, it's so nice to hear from someone who was on the search. I think of Dennis often and also Trenny Gibson. I am an E Tenn resident too and have often vacationed in the area where these disappearances took place. I am inclined to believe similarly as you do, that he wandered off and had some sort of accident like that. I don't think anyone took him out of the park. Trenny, on the other hand, I think was taken by someone.
 
Welcome Jim! Thank you for your part in searching for little Dennis. Does everyone seem to think the hunter was legit? If I remember correctly, Dennis' family seemed to be convinced it was an abduction? But I agree, your theory makes the most sense.
 
If Dennis ended up in the water, would the tracking dogs not be able to pick up his scent? I have heard that they cannot, and then again I've heard that sometimes they can.
 
Welcome Jim! Thank you for your part in searching for little Dennis. Does everyone seem to think the hunter was legit? If I remember correctly, Dennis' family seemed to be convinced it was an abduction? But I agree, your theory makes the most sense.

The ranger that the ginseng hunter told was Dwight McCarter. He tells about it in a book he wrote. He thought the story was credible. Whether the Park Service as a whole does, I can't say.

If anyone wants to read the book, it's "Lost!: A Ranger's Journal of Search and Rescue" by Dwight McCarter. The first chapter is about the search for Denny Martin.
 
The ranger that the ginseng hunter told was Dwight McCarter. He tells about it in a book he wrote. He thought the story was credible. Whether the Park Service as a whole does, I can't say.

If anyone wants to read the book, it's "Lost!: A Ranger's Journal of Search and Rescue" by Dwight McCarter. The first chapter is about the search for Denny Martin.

It makes sense,

Why would somebody make up a story like that? The Ginseng hunter story came out "a few years after Dennis went missing." He found "the remains of a small child near Tremont's Big Hollow. And it's not like the hunter said this right away. He wanted several YEARS to tell Ranger McCarter what he found. Maybe his conscience was bothering him all these years and he finally had to tell Mr. McCarter what happened. If the story is true, it sadly would almost have to be Dennis' remains, because up until that time, no little kids had gone missing in the park and had not been found.

How far is Tremont's Big Hollow from where the Martin's campsite was? I think if the hunter story is most likely true. IF those skeletal remains really WERE of a small child. That's what we don't know. Did the hunter believe this, was this evidence just assumed because Dennis has never been found? Furthermore, how do we know that the remains are not animal remains?

The hunter said he did not report it at the time because it is illegal to hunt for Ginseng and he feared the park authorities would prosecute him. However, obviously, he knew about Dennis Martin, and the first thing he should have done at earliest opportunity would be get the park authorities to Treamont's Big Hollow to inspect those remains. They didn't have DNA testing at the time, but today, those remains could have been analyzed for DNA, and if they match Dennis' the case is solved. He got lost or injured in the park. All help crews missed finding him, and he died of exposure.

The problem is, those remains were never analyzed because when the hunter told Mr. McCarter his story, I believe it was the mid-80's, can't remember, the evidence was long gone.

Satch
 
It makes sense,

Why would somebody make up a story like that? The Ginseng hunter story came out "a few years after Dennis went missing." He found "the remains of a small child near Tremont's Big Hollow. And it's not like the hunter said this right away. He wanted several YEARS to tell Ranger McCarter what he found. Maybe his conscience was bothering him all these years and he finally had to tell Mr. McCarter what happened. If the story is true, it sadly would almost have to be Dennis' remains, because up until that time, no little kids had gone missing in the park and had not been found.

How far is Tremont's Big Hollow from where the Martin's campsite was? I think if the hunter story is most likely true. IF those skeletal remains really WERE of a small child. That's what we don't know. Did the hunter believe this, was this evidence just assumed because Dennis has never been found? Furthermore, how do we know that the remains are not animal remains?

The hunter said he did not report it at the time because it is illegal to hunt for Ginseng and he feared the park authorities would prosecute him. However, obviously, he knew about Dennis Martin, and the first thing he should have done at earliest opportunity would be get the park authorities to Treamont's Big Hollow to inspect those remains. They didn't have DNA testing at the time, but today, those remains could have been analyzed for DNA, and if they match Dennis' the case is solved. He got lost or injured in the park. All help crews missed finding him, and he died of exposure.

The problem is, those remains were never analyzed because when the hunter told Mr. McCarter his story, I believe it was the mid-80's, can't remember, the evidence was long gone.

Satch

I asked someone who claimed to have read Mr. McCarter's book, and he said there was no mention of the skeletal remains. Maybe he missed reading that part, or doesn't remember? How much detail about the skeletal remains is found in Mr. McCarter's book?

Satch
 
I was on that search 45 years ago. I grew up in east Tennessee and hiked in the Smokies from about age 12 on. I believe the most likely scenario is that Dennis wandered off after separating from his cousins and fell into a swollen stream (heavy rains in the area before he vanished) and his body was wedged under a rock. Years later an illegal ginseng hunter told a ranger he found a pile of bones and a small skull along a watershed that drains the Spence Field area. By the time rangers and a search party got back to that area animals had likely scattered the bones and carried them off. The search party never found any bones.
I never did buy into the kidnapping story and this one makes a lot of sense to me if you think it through.
At nearby Abrams Falls several swimmers have drowned in the swift currents there. I remember one incident a few years ago where an experienced swimmer dove in and never came up. A team of scuba divers found his body wedged under some large rocks where the currents had carried it.
We'll probably never know for sure what happened to Dennis but the falling into a stream theory makes the most sense to me.
On the last big push to find Dennis there were over 2,000 people on the mountain searching in all directions including tracking dogs, several helicopters, and about 40 special forces troops.

Thank you Jim!

Very awesome to have someone here who participated in the search! I think your explanation is most likely what happened. I also never really bought the story that the other kids whom he was with wanted him to go another way because his bright red shirt would be easy to spot.

I think the other kids may have been tragically picking on him, or just wanted Dennis to stop bothering them. In a horrifying pun, they told him to "get lost." and made up the story "go the other way, because he had a shirt on that was easy to spot." for the adults, because how could they live with the awfulness of "we told Dennis to stop bothering us, and now we can't find him?"

Those kids have to be so devastated about this! But when your like seven to nine years old, I could see them feeling compelled to lie to get out of trouble for "picking on him." A seemingly harmless "scare the adults by sneaking up on them" prank, turns tragic. Just devastating!

Jim, do you think that Child's shoe print found was Dennis'? It could have been. However, I think the scream that Mr. Key heard, was an animal, and not related to this case.

Satch
 
I agree that if the story the ginseng hunter told is true then the remains would have to be Dennis. I suppose he knew they were of a child because of the size? Small bones of the arms or legs could be mistaken for animal bones but if part of the skull or mandible was present then he would have known it was human. Nothing else looks like a human skull, not really even primate skulls.

I wish we knew what year he saw the bones. Trenny Lynn Gibson also vanished from the park, but from a different area. If she were small boned enough her remains might have appeared to be a child's, especially if the long bones of the arms or legs were missing. I am surprised animals would have still scattered the bones after they were skeletonized. You would expect most of the animal activity to take place while there was still flesh. I wonder if there were any clothing fragments left when the ginseng hunter saw the bones.
 
I asked someone who claimed to have read Mr. McCarter's book, and he said there was no mention of the skeletal remains. Maybe he missed reading that part, or doesn't remember? How much detail about the skeletal remains is found in Mr. McCarter's book?

Satch

It's in there, pg. 42. The hunter said they were a child's bones including the skull. They looked like they had been scattered by animals. No further details about the bones.

The hunter went to McCarter in July of 1985. He said he saw the bones several years earlier, but there's nothing more specific.
 
I question why any remains (at least identifiable to an untrained person) might still be found those many years later. Also, why would anyone wait such a period of time to report it? In earlier threads, it was noted the person was reportedly fearful because his activities in the area would have been questioned. However, if he did make such a find, it's doubtful he would have been asked about that and, if he was asked, he could said he was hiking in the area, etc.
 
I believe he was taken and I will tell you why. I just read an article that stated that a ranger said re the rough looking man that had been seen, that the rangers were aware that there were a group of wild men living in the park that they could not control.

Also, it is very common for people and subcultures to live in or near state parks. That is true of the Pinewoods in Jersey-there are clusters of families living in and near the park who keep to themselves and that is also true of the area around the Mojave in Cali.

Remember that case of a government agent found murdered in a state park in Kentucky-that case was not solved.

I think that little boy was taken and I don't think it would have been hard. Say that the family had been tracked and didn't know it by that predator. Foliage could have hidden him. Say also that it was noticed that like clockwork, every summer, that family visited the park every year, same time and that Dennis had been noticed.

Moreover, the family thought the kid had been taken and gave a list of suspects.
 
I believe he was taken and I will tell you why. I just read an article that stated that a ranger said re the rough looking man that had been seen, that the rangers were aware that there were a group of wild men living in the park that they could not control.

I would like to hear more about this with some specifics. In all respect, it's difficult to believe that in 1969, authorities could not remove and prosecute a group of individuals like this in a national (federal) park - particularly since it appears to threaten the comfort and safety of visitors.
 
Hi, just jumping in to post a couple thoughts. Everyone reading at WS knows there are many cases were someone goes missing in a wilderness area and are not located despite full scale searches. I think getting lost and injured (drowning, falling into a sinkhole) or dying of hypothermia are the must likely. But a few questions I had:

1. The child's shoe print left in the mud--
It rained 2.5-3 inches the night Dennis went missing. Was the print made after, before or during the rainfall? Would it have lasted through the rain? I wish there was a map of the print's location and of where Dennis was last seen. And I wish there was a picture of the print. Was a tracking dog taken to the print to see if he would alert? If the print was Dennis', does that really narrow anything down--abduction, wild animal attack, lost and died due to injury or the elements?

2. The report by Harold Key of an "enormous, sickening scream" and then seeing a rough looking man moving stealthily through the woods. Seeing a rough man moving through the woods would be unusual, but just minutes after the scream? It's not like mountain lions are screaming nonstop. I've only heard them at nighttime, but I'm not a wild cat expert. I guess it could be an owl, you hear them in the daytime, but I wouldn't describe them as sickening screams. Basically, I think the proximity of the two things makes the possibility of relevance to Dennis more...possible.

3. The ginseng man's finding--does this narrow anything down? If Dennis died of injury, he'd still leave bones behind. If he was abducted and killed by a mountain man, there'd still be bones. If he was attacked by an animal, would they crush the skull? Don't animals do that for marrow? Is there marrow in the skull?

Sorry to sound detached from Dennis. He was just a little boy and I'm sorry his life ended so early on what was supposed to be an exciting outing.

No new articles, these were linked before, just sourcing my details:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.co...cases-are-scattered-throughout-national-parks
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/missing-dennis-martin
 
Just a few thoughts on each of the three paragraphs.

1. Based on the report of the large amount of rain that fell after Dennis disappeared, I tend to think any footprint in mud would probably have been made either shortly before the rain had stopped or after it stopped. Otherwise, I think all of the rain said to have fallen would have washed away the footprint. If the print could be established to have been from Dennis (and I don't think it ever was), then it would show that he had gotten to that point after becoming separated from the others.

2. I don't think a link has ever been made between the scream that was heard and the "rough man" who was reported seen about that same time. There is reason to believe that the area were the scream was heard and the sight of this "rough man" were some distance from the location where Dennis went missing and too soon after the disappearance to link those to the child. I don't think there were any other sightings of this man and if he is somehow considered as a suspect in the loss of the child, wouldn't he have attempted to strike again at some point?

3. Didn't the the report of the individual who said he saw possible remains while searching for ginseng come quite a period of time after he was supposed to have seen it? As such, you wonder why he would have waited so long to do so. Certainly he didn't have to indicate why he was in the area in making the report of what he saw.

Again, just a few thoughts
 

Where's Dennis Martin in that link? I know his case is not really considered a "death" but an unexplained dissaperence. A good source. But remember, anyone can edit Wikipedia content, so it's good to have other references when studying the cases.

My thoughts based on Cincinnati Kid's comments above:

1.) I remember that footprint. I think it was found near a river. If memory serves correct, it was found a few days after Dennis vanished. The reports were that it was only one print. It is strange if it was one one print. How someone could just make one print? I would think that there would have to be a path of footprints involved. Unless there were other prints involved and that one print was isolated from the others by being protected by trees or shrubs. It was said that this print resembled a child's shoe print. I am not sure, but I think it was found about three miles away from where Dennis was last seen. Park officials said that their investigation found, "No children in the area."

My take on 'No Children in the Area" may be misguided. There were THOUSANDS of people who walked the Smokey Mountains in the search for Dennis Martin. Presumably young people, middle-aged people, even elderly people. I know that that very afternoon, the grandfather in the family, I think Clyde was his name, when he found out that Dennis did not come back with the other kids, he actually traveled a good half hour going back to the ranger station that first day. Months after the search was called off, Clyde was said, "wore out hiking boots looking for Dennis."

We really don't know if that print was a child's print or an adult with small feet.

2.) Park officials at the time seemed to believe that the scream that Harold Key heard when looking for deer could have been a bobcat scream, which is said to sound terrifying and similar to a child's scream. However, park officials determined that the scream and the unkempt man were found about nine miles away from where Dennis was last seen. Dennis vanished sometimes between 3:30-4:30PM June 14, 1969. The screen and unkempt man were seen after 7PM, about eight to nine miles away from the Martin's campsite. (Too far for Dennis to travel.) Mr. Key it was said did not know about the search for Dennis until he got home. It appears that he would have reported the scream when there otherwise.

3.) Dennis vanished from the Smokey Mountains in June of 1969. Reports say several years later, the ginseng hunter, who found what was alleged to be a child's skull reported it to the head forest ranger. I was told this was 1985, a very long time for someone to withhold information if the story is true. I agree, why wait all these years? Illegal hunting of ginseng is nothing compared to what could have solved the mystery of what happened to Dennis Martin! What's the worst the park officials could have done to the hunter? I think he would certainly be granted immunity from any fines or park violations, by reporting that skull! And I believe if the hunter story is true, that skull is the remains of Dennis Martin. No one else went missing in the Smokey's who was not found alive prior to that time.

The only other thing, is if the skull story is true, how do we know it was a child's skull? The bones were never analyzed

Satch
 
There were THOUSANDS of people who walked the Smokey Mountains in the search for Dennis Martin. Presumably young people, middle-aged people, even elderly people.

It is understood so many wanted to help search and do all that they could to find Dennis. However, officials later indicated that with so many involved, it is thought that those searchers may have trampled through possible evidence and perhaps disturbed clues that may have led to him being located or at least learning what happened to the young man.
 
I've often thought about this case, but for some reason, never found this whole thread on here before today. A few thoughts -

- Poaching ginseng from national parks has been illegal as far back as the early 70's, possibly earlier. It's a federal offense, it's not like you get a $15 ticket you have to pay. In the late 70's, one single ginseng root sold for $64,000, not adjusted for inflation. I absolutely believe the poacher did find bones and did wait until 1985 to report it. He had *nothing* to personally gain by telling anyone earlier and everything to lose. Even if he wasn't prosecuted for poaching, "coming out" with the find would have gotten him on the radar of every ranger and a large number of park guests, making sure that he'd have no chance to hit the jackpot with ginseng roots. In his mind, the boy was already gone, his prompt reporting of the find wasn't going to bring him back. I'm guessing profit is more important than good feelings for most poachers.

- The family theory of abduction has always, to me, felt sort of half-hearted. Like they were going through the motions, but deep in their hearts, they knew it wasn't an abduction. Why? To take the responsibility the kids may have felt towards Dennis' disappearance away from them. If it was an abduction, there may have been nothing the other kids could have done to prevent it, but if it wasn't, it meant the older kids weren't looking out for Dennis like they may have been told to do.

- Animals, even herbivores like deer, will chew on bones. So not only is there the chance that the bones were moved, but it's likely that over the years, animals of all sorts would have completely consumed the bones to the point that only small fragments would remain, which would then be impossible to ever spot in leaf matter or even fairly short grass.

- I'd be surprised if Dennis survived beyond that first night, even if he didn't get killed in some sort of fall. He was a child in a short sleeve shirt (likely made of cotton) and I'm assuming shorts, but even if he was in pants, it gets chilly in the mountains at night. Combined with a very soaking rain that night, the chances of him not getting hypothermia would be slim to none.

- William Martin, the father of Dennis, died last year. http://www.gentrygriffey.com/obits/bill-martin/
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
47
Guests online
3,402
Total visitors
3,449

Forum statistics

Threads
592,490
Messages
17,969,797
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top