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

[Richard]

If it was his first goose hunt, is it likely he would have attempted it alone?

Good question, and a hard one to answer since we are dealing with so many unknowns.

It sounds like Dickie had his heart set specifically on hunting geese. That is what he told a number of people, including his parents. In fact, he was actively seeking others to hunt geese with him early Friday evening.

He did have previous experience hunting pheasants, and possibly other small game like squirrels and rabbits, but this was said to be his first goose hunt. He had made arrangements with at least two of the three other boys to meet and hunt geese.

It has been stated that Dickie awoke late and missed going with the other boys, that he was upset about this, and that he set out on his own on a bicycle to hunt.

What were his intentions at that point? It is possible that he was simply going to where he had hunted previously to hunt pheasants (and possibly geese), all on his own. But it is also quite possible that he was headed out to a pre-arranged place to catch up with the other boys for that planned goose hunt.

If we knew what type of shotgun shells were found with the bicycle, we would have a good idea of what he intended to hunt. Pheasant/squirrel/rabbit shells are usually loaded with size 6 shot. Shells for geese are usually loaded with a larger size 2 or 4 shot.

 

[Richard]

RICHARD JOHN ‘DICKIE’ HUERKAMP, age 15
Missing since 2 October 1965 from Mapleton, MN

 

[SerenaLeigh]

To believe that the father killed and disposed of Dickie's body would mean that he also staged the bicycle and hunting supplies (minus the borrowed shotgun) four miles south of town. It would also require Dickie's mother and two sisters to keep such a secret all these years after the father's death in 1968. Probably the least likely scenario of them all.

Hello all - I'm new to this tragic story having just heard about it for the first time 2 weeks ago. I can't believe I've lived my whole life in the Mapleton area and never heard or read anything about this. I've read all the posts and am eager to discuss the story, even though I'm late to the party.

Richard - I'm really curious and would like to understand why you think what you described as being the least likely scenario?

 

[Richard]

Hello all - I'm new to this tragic story having just heard about it for the first time 2 weeks ago. I can't believe I've lived my whole life in the Mapleton area and never heard or read anything about this. I've read all the posts and am eager to discuss the story, even though I'm late to the party.

Richard - I'm really curious and would like to understand why you think what you described as being the least likely scenario?

Welcome to Websleuths and to this cold case.

There could be many different scenarios in regard to the 1965 disappearance of Dickie Huerkamp.

The opinion I expressed in the quote was in the context of a comparison of four scenarios being discussed.

Those possible scenarios were:
1. Dickie ditched his bicycle and supplies, wandered off on his own, fell in the river and drowned.
2. A person or persons unknown abducted Dickie from his bicycle, taking his shotgun in the process.
3. Dickie entered the field to hunt, and was accidently shot by another hunter (someone he might or might not have known).
4. Dickie was killed by his father, who then planted a lot of specific evidence south of town to mislead police investigators.

There are problems and questions with all four possibilities. The main problem being that no trace of Dickie ever turned up. Another problem being the suspected staging of the bicycle, lunch, and shotgun shells (possibly also a gun case).

I based my opinion that the least likely scenario of the four was the one in which Dickie was murdered by his father on the rather detailed story of Dickie wanting to go goose hunting, and making so many plans and preparations. Those plans and previous hunting practices were verified by several other persons who were not family members.

To believe that his father killed him, one would have to believe that his father successfully disposed of his body, then staged the items 4 miles south of town. He would have had to make a lunch to include. He would also have to know that Dickie's own bicycle was inoperable and his sister's bicycle would have to be part of the staged scene.

Additionally, Dickie's mother would have to be in on it - assisting in the cover up, and keeping silent about it.

Just too many specifics.

IF his father staged all those items so carefully, why did he omit the shotgun?

 

[stone-turner]

SerenaLeigh, welcome from another new user! I respect everything that Richard posts. I think it would be interesting if each contributor could order the stated scenarios in the order they think likeliest to least likely. Personally, I re-order them in my mind each time I read the postings. But I'm never quite ready to put any "evidence-planting" scenario at the bottom yet.

Because we are missing so much pertinent information, we are each relying on our own diverse knowledge and experience to fill in the missing pieces. Without the original police files we have a lot more room to guess. It bothers me that we lack any witness testimonies (from non-family) stating that Richard Huerkamp was observed: leaving town, on a bike, with a gun, wearing specific clothing, etc. I wouldn't expect a lot of people to be up and around at that time in the morning, but it bothers me that we don't have access to any recorded statements other than from family members. One similar scenario that I would pose is that Richard might have taken his own life and his parents tried to cover it up. (After they argued the night before, is it possible his parents then refused to let him go hunting? All conjecture.) It is also concerning that two different contributors have claimed to be cousins of Richard Huerkamp and both have stated that members of the extended family expressed suspicion of foul play involving the father. If there were a murder or suicide, possibly even in the home, could the parents have prevented the sisters from finding out? Is it possible the sisters wouldn't have known?

In the Klobuchar article, the author writes a statement as if he had posed this question to the the parents directly: 'Had he heard the alarm, or been awakened by the doorbell, Dickie would be with his family today, presumably. "Who knows?" his mother says. "Who knows how things happen?"'

The first time I read this statement, my gut said, "What an odd response." Why? I don't have a solid answer. I think I just would have expected an answer more like, "I may never know." or "I guess we'll never know that." But when his mother is quoted as saying, "Who knows how things happen?", it has a little ring to it that, to me, implies: "I know what happened." It just seems like an odd way to answer the question.

 

[Richard]

SerenaLeigh, welcome from another new user! I respect everything that Richard posts. I think it would be interesting if each contributor could order the stated scenarios in the order they think likeliest to least likely. Personally, I re-order them in my mind each time I read the postings. But I'm never quite ready to put any "evidence-planting" scenario at the bottom yet.

Because we are missing so much pertinent information, we are each relying on our own diverse knowledge and experience to fill in the missing pieces. Without the original police files we have a lot more room to guess. It bothers me that we lack any witness testimonies (from non-family) stating that Richard Huerkamp was observed: leaving town, on a bike, with a gun, wearing specific clothing, etc. I wouldn't expect a lot of people to be up and around at that time in the morning, but it bothers me that we don't have access to any recorded statements other than from family members. One similar scenario that I would pose is that Richard might have taken his own life and his parents tried to cover it up. (After they argued the night before, is it possible his parents then refused to let him go hunting? All conjecture.) It is also concerning that two different contributors have claimed to be cousins of Richard Huerkamp and both have stated that members of the extended family expressed suspicion of foul play involving the father. If there were a murder or suicide, possibly even in the home, could the parents have prevented the sisters from finding out? Is it possible the sisters wouldn't have known?

In the Klobuchar article, the author writes a statement as if he had posed this question to the the parents directly: 'Had he heard the alarm, or been awakened by the doorbell, Dickie would be with his family today, presumably. "Who knows?" his mother says. "Who knows how things happen?"'

The first time I read this statement, my gut said, "What an odd response." Why? I don't have a solid answer. I think I just would have expected an answer more like, "I may never know." or "I guess we'll never know that." But when his mother is quoted as saying, "Who knows how things happen?", it has a little ring to it that, to me, implies: "I know what happened." It just seems like an odd way to answer the question.

Well stated. Hopefully the Blue Earth Sheriff Office will find the original case file to review and re-investigate.

Without solid information, there is much room for speculation and widely differing scenarios. It is a bit like writing "alternate endings" for a mystery movie script.

 

[SerenaLeigh]

As others have noted, we're missing a lot of vital information—and unfortunately, newspaper reports are often inaccurate.

After reading the articles and many of these well-written posts, I can't shake the feeling that Dickie was killed by his father. I believe the goose hunting plans were real—the preparations were made. But Dickie's death could still fit within that framework.

Here’s my theory: On Saturday morning, Mr. Huerkamp is either woken by Dickie’s alarm clock or by Dickie crying. Already irritable from his late-night tavern hours, he's pushed over the edge by Dickie acting upset and perhaps whiny about missing the hunting trip. Mr. Huerkamp loses his temper, and things escalate. Dickie is fatally injured—possibly beaten with the very gun he hoped to use.

This theory could explain away many questions about the teenage boys. Maybe they came to pick Dickie up. Maybe they rang the doorbell and were met with Mr. Huerkamp’s fury. Or perhaps they overheard yelling or violence and quickly distanced themselves from the Huerkamp house. I tend to believe the latter.

Maybe the boys came back from Hungry Hollow later, tried to check on Dickie again, and—getting no answer—headed toward Minnesota Lake hoping to find him. If they did hear or suspect something, would they have been brave enough to speak up? Maybe they, or their parents, felt powerless. In those days, accusing someone without hard proof—especially someone intimidating like Mr. Huerkamp—was rare. Fear may have kept them silent. Too many maybes.

Stone-Turner, to your point: perhaps the sisters never knew what happened. Or maybe they did and were forced into silence. In 1965, it wasn’t uncommon for families to bury dark secrets. What if it was an abusive household?

Dickie wasn’t reported missing until Sunday morning, leaving all of Saturday for the parents to create a cover story. They could have buried his body and the gun at the worksite Mr. Huerkamp knew through Krengel Bros. On Sunday, just before reporting him missing, they plant the bike and untouched lunch—items curiously unscathed by animals overnight, despite being in a paper bag. Disposing of the gun would further support the hunting story.

It’s heartbreaking to be approaching the 60th anniversary without answers. I want justice for Dickie. I know many of you have pushed for law enforcement to take action. Are there any updates? What’s the current status? What can we do?

 

[Richard]

As others have noted, we're missing a lot of vital information—and unfortunately, newspaper reports are often inaccurate.

After reading the articles and many of these well-written posts, I can't shake the feeling that Dickie was killed by his father. I believe the goose hunting plans were real—the preparations were made. But Dickie's death could still fit within that framework....

... It’s heartbreaking to be approaching the 60th anniversary without answers. I want justice for Dickie. I know many of you have pushed for law enforcement to take action. Are there any updates? What’s the current status? What can we do?

You lay out a well stated theory. It could certainly be a possibility worth looking into by cold case detectives.

I have personally corresponded with and spoken to investigators within the Minnesota BCA, the Blue Earth Sheriff's Office, and the Mapleton Police about this case.

The Mapleton Chief of Police stated that although they are aware of Dickie's disappearance, it was never a case in their jurisdiction, but rather that it was in the jurisdiction of the Sheriff's Office. This was due to the bicycle and items being found south of town at the side of County Road 7 - an indication at the time that this was the last known place he had been.

The Blue Earth County Sheriff stated that the case file could not be located in their current records system and speculated that it might have been transferred to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), which is sometimes done with older unsolved cases. He suggested that I contact the BCA.

I sent a detailed message summarizing the case to the BCA and was contacted by phone by a detective. He told me that the BCA had never had this case and that the Blue Earth Sheriff's Office was still the agency with jurisdiction. He further stated that he was going to work together with the Sheriff's Office in re-opening the investigation.

Both the Sheriff's Office and the BCA have all the information discussed on this site. Hopefully they will be able to locate the original case file in the archives which might resolve some of the many questions and theories.

Something that the BCA could do is to include Dickie's photo and information on their Minnesota Missing Website. There are a few older cases already included there. Additionally, they could contact other websites like Doenet with their permission to post his photo, information, and their contact numbers.

 

[SerenaLeigh]

The Blue Earth County Sheriff stated that the case file could not be located in their current records system and speculated that it might have been transferred to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), which is sometimes done with older unsolved cases. He suggested that I contact the BCA.

So I really doubt what I'm about to suggest but obviously, it's not stopping me. The Healy farm is located on the line between Blue Earth and Faribault counties. Would there be any reason the case file would be located in the Faribault Co. records system?

 

[Richard]

So I really doubt what I'm about to suggest but obviously, it's not stopping me. The Healy farm is located on the line between Blue Earth and Faribault counties. Would there be any reason the case file would be located in the Faribault Co. records system?

There have been cases which were transferred to other jurisdictions, but this is not one of them. At least not at this time.

Often, a Missing Person case is handled by the agency where the person is reported missing, but if that person were to be found dead in a different jurisdiction, the case would be reclassified and investigation responsibility could possibly be transferred.

It is more likely that the case file was archived somewhere by the Sheriff's Office and just not included in whatever computerized system they now use.

There was no evidence that Dickie went to the Healy farm on 2 October 1965 - or that he intended to go there. His mother stated that because he had stayed overnight there previously, she thought he might have done so again.

 

[SerenaLeigh]

Since finding out about this tragic story, I've been bringing it up when talking to some people in the Mapleton community, to see if they've heard of it and what they know and remember, if anything. So far the majority of people I've talked with say the belief was/is the father did it. Allegedly he was a heavy drinker and could be a really mean drunk. Poor Dickie could have been a victim of some fatal physical abuse.

One can't help but wonder if the body and the gun were buried in an opposite direction than the search area. I also can't help but be curious about the LE interviews with the parents. Were his parent's even considered suspects? Were they interviewed separately? Did their stories match? I also wonder about the investigative process in a rural area in 1965. I realize DNA profiling wouldn't come onto the scene for another 20 years, although I'm not sure that would have even been helpful in this case anyway. Did LE search the home? Even if they did, the parent's would have had plenty of time to clean up. And bloodstain analysis was relatively new.

Poor Dickie.
Blessed be his memory.

 

[Pressureandheat]

My family has been in Mapleton for generations. I grew up hearing the story of Dickie’s disappearance. I know his family, friends. My aunt and uncles were in classes with him. I have ridden my bike countless times on the same path he allegedly took that Saturday morning. Having recently spoken at length to the dear friend that was with Dickie at the Mapleton Cafe the night before he disappeared, here’s what we feel strongly happened:

Dickie wanted to go hunting on Saturday morning. On Friday night, while in the Mapleton Cafe Dickie asked his dear friend to join him. Unfortunately the friend could not due to a church obligation the next morning. Several local high school boys were driving up and down main street that night. It is assumed that Dickie ran into them at some point after leaving the Cafe as these are the same boys reported in the papers to have made plans to go hunting with Dickie the next morning.

Now herein lies the problem… everything we know from here out is based on the word of those boys and Dickies parents. And having worked in child protective services for the past 15+ years, something has never added up…

The dear friend believes that “if” those boys made plans to go hunting with Dickie there was a stipulation, Dickie had to steal alcohol from his parent’s tavern for them. Apparently this wasn’t the first time that had been proposed so it wasn’t something new.

It was well known in town that Dickies father had a very volatile temper, esp when he was drinking. So it’s pretty safe to assume that since Dickies father was working the tavern that Friday night, he probably had a few.

So did Dickie try and steal alcohol for the boys to go hunting with? Did his dad catch him and a fight take place and Dickie was fatally injured? This is what Dickie’s friends and family that have spoken out believe happened.

For those that don’t believe the parents could have staged the bike, etc. Mapleton doesn’t have a single stop light. It’s smaller than small. And once you’re outside the main street lights, it’s dark. I cannot express how easy it would have been to load up the sister’s bike drive it out along with a fabric gun case and a paper sack lunch and leave it along side the road without a single person seeing. Until the new school was built a few years back, there is nothing out that way but farm land and farms tucked back from the road. Staging the scene is totally plausible. Remember, no one outside of Dickies family reported seeing him after Friday night. No one can verify that Dickie ever made it home from the tavern that night.

The parents reported he slept through the alarm. The parents reported no one heard knocking at the door. And no where is it reported on whether the sisters were even home. According to relatives that when the parents worked the tavern late, the sisters often stayed with friends and family.

So who’s to say they were even home. And if that’s the case they were young, what they know is what they were told by their parents.

Dickies father also worked for Kriengle Brothers. He had access to all the tiling equipment that was taking place all around town at that time. Dad easily could have buried Dickie and staged the bike, etc along side the road without anyone ever seeing him. And that’s why nothing has ever been found. No clothes, no gun, not a single thing to ever truly point that he made it to the river that Saturday morning. Dickie and any evidence are buried either somewhere below the streets of Mapleton or on the family farm. (Which some of his family members believe)

Those boys, maybe they did knock on the door that morning and when no one answered they went on with their weekend. Or maybe they never showed. But something about the parent’s story has never added up. Not for me, nor Dickies dear friend, his classmates, and local towns people that knew the family.

I don’t believe Dickie’s father intended to kill Dickie. But I believe based on the little evidence we do know & reports from those there that weekend, that Dickie unfortunately probably never made it to the river to go hunting.

I hope for the upcoming anniversary of his disappearance the town of Mapleton does something to remember Dickie, a sweet boy and friend to many.

 

[DD Byrd]

Interesting. And if that is the case, it's possible Dickie's mother could reasonably assume what happened, but may not have been a witness to the murder. That would make it easier to lie by omission. Meanwhile, the father may have been operating in a black out as many professional alcholics do. If he 'knew' he did it but had no memory of specifics, that also makes it easier to lie.

I would love to know if Dickie's sandwich could have been made in the tavern or if whatever was in it was also found in the house.

 

[Richard]

Interesting. And if that is the case, it's possible Dickie's mother could reasonably assume what happened, but may not have been a witness to the murder. That would make it easier to lie by omission. Meanwhile, the father may have been operating in a black out as many professional alcholics do. If he 'knew' he did it but had no memory of specifics, that also makes it easier to lie.

I would love to know if Dickie's sandwich could have been made in the tavern or if whatever was in it was also found in the house.

It was mentioned in a news article that Dickies mother said that she "gave him a licking" at the tavern because he arrived later than he was supposed to have after claiming to have been at the scene of an accident. So, she was present at the tavern during the time in question and would have known whether or not his father struck him or killed him.

Dickie's mother related most of what occurred at their house after the tavern: Dickie borrowing the alarm clock, missing the other boys, asking his sister to borrow her bike, and setting out on it to go hunting. It is difficult to tell from the newspaper accounts if his mother was interviewed by reporters, or if the information ascribed to her might have been given to them by a police spokesman quoting her.

It does not seem logical for his father to have blacked out or become so violent that he killed his son - and yet so calm, collected and crafty as to lay out all of the specific details of the hunting story and carefully stage a scene to mislead investigators.

IF he had just killed his son, he would have had to carefully clean up any blood, transport the body somewhere and so successfully bury him that he has not turned up in 60 years, and THEN make a lunch for him, locate the box of shotgun shells, gun case (minus the shotgun), and his sister's bike to be placed at the side of the road south of town. And Dickie's mother certainly would have known and would have had to have been complicit. Possible - but probable?

What was his father's level of participation in the search? Besides making a statement about how safe a hunter Dickie was, did he say anything else to police or press?

Thinking this scenario through - why weren't more "clues" left to solidify the story/belief that Dickie fell in the river? The shotgun, his hat, etc. could have been placed near the river, but nothing beyond the bike and associated items ever surfaced. A very specific description of Dickie's hunting clothing was given to investigators. If he was murdered and then his body buried somewhere, none of that clothing could be present in the house, in case investigators decided to do a search.

It would indeed be interesting to learn how closely Dickie's parents were questioned by investigators.

 

[Richard]

My family has been in Mapleton for generations. I grew up hearing the story of Dickie’s disappearance. I know his family, friends. My aunt and uncles were in classes with him. I have ridden my bike countless times on the same path he allegedly took that Saturday morning. Having recently spoken at length to the dear friend that was with Dickie at the Mapleton Cafe the night before he disappeared, here’s what we feel strongly happened:

Dickie wanted to go hunting on Saturday morning. On Friday night, while in the Mapleton Cafe Dickie asked his dear friend to join him. Unfortunately the friend could not due to a church obligation the next morning. Several local high school boys were driving up and down main street that night. It is assumed that Dickie ran into them at some point after leaving the Cafe as these are the same boys reported in the papers to have made plans to go hunting with Dickie the next morning.

Now herein lies the problem… everything we know from here out is based on the word of those boys and Dickies parents. And having worked in child protective services for the past 15+ years, something has never added up…

The dear friend believes that “if” those boys made plans to go hunting with Dickie there was a stipulation, Dickie had to steal alcohol from his parent’s tavern for them. Apparently this wasn’t the first time that had been proposed so it wasn’t something new.

It was well known in town that Dickies father had a very volatile temper, esp when he was drinking. So it’s pretty safe to assume that since Dickies father was working the tavern that Friday night, he probably had a few.

So did Dickie try and steal alcohol for the boys to go hunting with? Did his dad catch him and a fight take place and Dickie was fatally injured? This is what Dickie’s friends and family that have spoken out believe happened.

For those that don’t believe the parents could have staged the bike, etc. Mapleton doesn’t have a single stop light. It’s smaller than small. And once you’re outside the main street lights, it’s dark. I cannot express how easy it would have been to load up the sister’s bike drive it out along with a fabric gun case and a paper sack lunch and leave it along side the road without a single person seeing. Until the new school was built a few years back, there is nothing out that way but farm land and farms tucked back from the road. Staging the scene is totally plausible. Remember, no one outside of Dickies family reported seeing him after Friday night. No one can verify that Dickie ever made it home from the tavern that night.

The parents reported he slept through the alarm. The parents reported no one heard knocking at the door. And no where is it reported on whether the sisters were even home. According to relatives that when the parents worked the tavern late, the sisters often stayed with friends and family.

So who’s to say they were even home. And if that’s the case they were young, what they know is what they were told by their parents.

Dickies father also worked for Kriengle Brothers. He had access to all the tiling equipment that was taking place all around town at that time. Dad easily could have buried Dickie and staged the bike, etc along side the road without anyone ever seeing him. And that’s why nothing has ever been found. No clothes, no gun, not a single thing to ever truly point that he made it to the river that Saturday morning. Dickie and any evidence are buried either somewhere below the streets of Mapleton or on the family farm. (Which some of his family members believe)

Those boys, maybe they did knock on the door that morning and when no one answered they went on with their weekend. Or maybe they never showed. But something about the parent’s story has never added up. Not for me, nor Dickies dear friend, his classmates, and local towns people that knew the family.

I don’t believe Dickie’s father intended to kill Dickie. But I believe based on the little evidence we do know & reports from those there that weekend, that Dickie unfortunately probably never made it to the river to go hunting.

I hope for the upcoming anniversary of his disappearance the town of Mapleton does something to remember Dickie, a sweet boy and friend to many.

I feel that your conclusion that Dickie never made it to the river is correct - regardless of what scenario led to his demise.

The other boys confirmed to police that two of them did, in fact, go to Dickie's house, but that nobody answered their knock. They stated that they then went to the home of the third boy and went hunting with him.

 

[Richard]

Since 1947 the state of Minnesota has been keeping records of all hunting licenses sold, hunting accidents/incidents, and hunting fatalities. Since the requirements for Hunter Safety Class Certifications and the mandatory wearing of Blaze Orange hunting clothing, accidents have been dramatically reduced, as can be seen in the below linked statistics.

In the past 25 years, fatal hunting accidents in Minnesota have been between 0 and 4 per year. Back in the 1960's, the incident and fatality rates were much higher.

Here are the figures for the 1960's:

Year: Number of incidents, Fatalities
1969: 140, 18
1968: 128, 19
1967: 130, 16
1966: 100, 11
1965: 139, 20
1964: 149, 10
1963: 3, 3
1962: 130, 10
1961: 29, 29
1960: 82, 6
(Note that for 1961 and 1963, only fatal accidents were recorded)

1961 saw the highest Minnesota hunting related fatality rate on record (29), with 1965 coming in second with 20 deaths.

The possibility that Dickie Huerkamp met with a fatal hunting accident on Opening Day of hunting season, 1965 is something to be considered. He was not wearing Blaze Orange (not required in 1965) and was wearing gray coveralls, so he would not have been very visible to other hunters if he entered a field alone to hunt in the early morning hours before daylight.

LINK:

Hunting incident summary - 1947 to current

www.dnr.state.mn.us

 

[SerenaLeigh]

It does not seem logical for his father to have blacked out or become so violent that he killed his son - and yet so calm, collected and crafty as to lay out all of the specific details of the hunting story and carefully stage a scene to mislead investigators.

IF he had just killed his son, he would have had to carefully clean up any blood, transport the body somewhere and so successfully bury him that he has not turned up in 60 years, and THEN make a lunch for him, locate the box of shotgun shells, gun case (minus the shotgun), and his sister's bike to be placed at the side of the road south of town. And Dickie's mother certainly would have known and would have had to have been complicit. Possible - but probable?

I respectfully disagree...I think it seems very logical for his father to have blacked out and become extremely violent. Research concludes that many people who drink alcohol experience blackouts, especially when drinking heavily. Some studies indicate that over 50% of drinkers have experienced a blackout at some point. Memory loss and amnesia are especially common side effects of binge drinking.

I think the "calm, collected, and crafty" part was all Mrs. Huerkamp. The reports seem very one sided - hers.

You are absolutely right about questioning why weren't more items found by or in the river to sell the story. Why not throw the gun in the river where it was almost certain to be found? Place his hat near the bank? Guessing the Huerkamps weren't quite calm and collected enough to implement these ideas.

 

[Richard]

News paper accounts are about all we have to go on at this point. The initial reporting mainly covered the search efforts which focused on the river and adjacent fields, adding the same basic background information about the bicycle, lunch and shotgun shells found beside the road.

It wasn't until the Jim Klobuchar article six months later that more specifics came out. In his article, Klobuchar quotes Winnie Huerkamp (Dickie's mother) directly regarding Dickie's whereabouts and actions right up to his departure from the home on Saturday morning. So he definitely interviewed her.

She stated, "He used our alarm clock, but apparently did not hear it go off. The boys said that they came to our house and rang the doorbell about 5 a.m. but we didn't hear it. Dickie was crying a little when he got up because he missed going with the boys."

"He brought the clock back to our room and went to ask our daughter, Ann, if he could use her bicycle. He had packed his lunch the night before. He took the gun, the lunch, and the bicycle and went by himself."

So, the other boys had either spoken to Mrs. Huerkamp, or to police who related to her their statements about ringing the doorbell at about 5 a.m. Their presence at the Huerkamp home comes from their statements. The boys are named in the Klobuchar article, as well as in another article. So it is likely that investigators interviewed them.

News reports state that Dickie left home about 5 a.m. but it probably would have been a little later in the morning. How much later is not clearly stated.

Mrs Huerkamp's statement to Jim Klobuchar clearly places Dickie's sister Ann in the home that morning, speaking with him about her bicycle prior to his departure.

 

[Pressureandheat]

It was mentioned in a news article that Dickies mother said that she "gave him a licking" at the tavern because he arrived later than he was supposed to have after claiming to have been at the scene of an accident. So, she was present at the tavern during the time in question and would have known whether or not his father struck him or killed him.

Dickie's mother related most of what occurred at their house after the tavern: Dickie borrowing the alarm clock, missing the other boys, asking his sister to borrow her bike, and setting out on it to go hunting. It is difficult to tell from the newspaper accounts if his mother was interviewed by reporters, or if the information ascribed to her might have been given to them by a police spokesman quoting her.

It does not seem logical for his father to have blacked out or become so violent that he killed his son - and yet so calm, collected and crafty as to lay out all of the specific details of the hunting story and carefully stage a scene to mislead investigators.

IF he had just killed his son, he would have had to carefully clean up any blood, transport the body somewhere and so successfully bury him that he has not turned up in 60 years, and THEN make a lunch for him, locate the box of shotgun shells, gun case (minus the shotgun), and his sister's bike to be placed at the side of the road south of town. And Dickie's mother certainly would have known and would have had to have been complicit. Possible - but probable?

What was his father's level of participation in the search? Besides making a statement about how safe a hunter Dickie was, did he say anything else to police or press?

Thinking this scenario through - why weren't more "clues" left to solidify the story/belief that Dickie fell in the river? The shotgun, his hat, etc. could have been placed near the river, but nothing beyond the bike and associated items ever surfaced. A very specific description of Dickie's hunting clothing was given to investigators. If he was murdered and then his body buried somewhere, none of that clothing could be present in the house, in case investigators decided to do a search.

It would indeed be interesting to learn how closely Dickie's parents were questioned by investigators.

So I too respectfully disagree. My experiences in life have given me a totally different perspective. On any given day there are over 400,000 kids in the United States foster care system from abuse and neglect. Some of those acts that led the child to be taken into care were intentional and some were not. There would be no need for the foster care if people didn’t hurt their children. In my 15+ years working directly with these kids and families, I’d say 80% of my case load had substance abuse involved whether that be alcohol or drugs. Dickie was a tiny kid. One drunken back handed swing could have knocked him across the room. Hit his head and was fatally wounded. It happens every single day all across this country. It was well known that Dickie’s father had a wicked temper and that he often took it out on Dickie. In my job, it’s about seeing what goes on behind closed doors. If townsfolk knew about his temper, then one can imagine how bad it was when he was drunk and no one was watching. Like I said I don’t think he planned to hurt Dickie, I think it just happened.

There is something about how Dickie’s mom detailed certain things in her story that make me not believe her. And it’s not just what she did and didn’t say, but how she said it. I have had parents tell me all sorts of wild stories & completely lie to my face. My very first case was a guy that swore to me in court that he never m*lested his 7 yr old stepdaughter, all the while he did it while being recorded on a live feed “adult” site. People do horrible things to their kids and then most lie about it. And accidents do happen. Sleep deprived parent forgets to drop a quiet infant off at daycare and goes into work, leaving that baby to die in a hot car. Did the baby die due to an act by the parent, yes. Was it intentional, not at all.

In Mapleton at 2am no one would have seen or heard a thing if they buried Dickies body on the family farm. In fact, he could have done so probably in broad daylight and no one would have been the wiser. Planting the bike, lunch, etc, probably would have taken 20 min max. No one can corroborate their story. Or at least as far we know. Guess we won’t know until either more info/details are released or someone talks. Hopefully someday Dickie will see justice.

 

[Richard]

... In Mapleton at 2am no one would have seen or heard a thing if they buried Dickies body on the family farm. In fact, he could have done so probably in broad daylight and no one would have been the wiser. Planting the bike, lunch, etc, probably would have taken 20 min max. No one can corroborate their story. Or at least as far we know. Guess we won’t know until either more info/details are released or someone talks. Hopefully someday Dickie will see jujustice.

To be clear, I never said that home physical abuse couldn't have happened or played a part in Dickie’s disappearance.

There are numerous possible scenarios to consider and to question.

Nobody knows the answers at this point based only on the limited information available.

However, there ARE two persons still living today who were present in the house, and who would be able to confirm or refute the story related by Mrs. Huerkamp.

And there are two other living persons who might be further questioned about events of that day regarding the planned goose hunt.

Again, locating the case file would be a major step toward re-opening the investigation. What exactly was said back then? Who was questioned? And what were investigators' thoughts, theories or conclusions?