- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 12,647
Inspired by @GatorsNorth on this, am picking through here again, page by page and post by post. As I pick through, here are the theories I've seen advanced thus far:
Family involvement-- the whole family would have to be on board with this. A high level of collusion and lengthy period of coordinated outrageous lies. I just doubt it. If it was the father only, he had to conceal the crime from all other members of the family. Take incredible chances on moving that dead body around. I just don't think so, but jmo. Bad tempered people obviously can resort to murder, but they're usually not going to operate with the level of calculation necessary to conceal their crime to the extent this potential murderer did. And while I find it weird nobody heard the doorbell, they are associated with tavern work, that can involve late hours. Hunting accident with coverup. A bunch of young guys that age likely could not make a body disappear for decades while going through those decades having engaged in such collusion with closed mouths for that period of time, jmo. They'd need an adult participant to make it happen jmo, that's one more mouth that needs to stay closed for decades, and the adult would have to be of incredibly dubious character to hop on board. Any of these theories is possible, but don't think so. Drowning. But nothing ever found? How likely is this? Suicide to me is the same situation, how's nothing found? Vehicular accident, how so with no damage we're aware of to vehicle? Theft/to steal gun. I can't picture a gun thief risking murder charges for a shotgun. Runaway he'd need to eat, why leave the lunch and shells, and why leave the shells behind but take the gun? And how many vehicles are going to pull over for a young guy with his thumb up on one hand and holding a shotgun in the other? Even with some adult cooperating, why would the gun be gone but shells left?
@Richard mentioned an article that included a theory involving bogs/quicksand. Area had mind-blowing floods back in April '65, evacuated parts of Mankato, National Guard, saw pictures where like half a church was underwater. Record levels for Minnesota, St. Paul, Mississippi Rivers. So theoretically, this actually could have happened, which I find terrifying. But when I research this further, I'm not seeing this recognized in MSM as a legitimate life-threatening hazard except for areas like Utah & Arizona. With that said, the flooding they experienced in the area where Dickie went missing that year... It was incredible, someone may have been swallowed up in a bog.
The bike may hold the answers, jmo. Am making a guess that the boys Dickie was waiting for had a car. They at least drove for some of the distance that day per at least one source, if they had a car, no wonder Dickie was so upset. Now, he'd have to travel at 5am in pitch blackness on a bike with all his gear. While heading off into the woods in pitch blackness with other guys isn't so scary, I don't think it is nearly as approachable for a single boy without light, and natural light's not going to come until about 6:20 that morning, based on sources. He's going to be there before that time. So where is he, what will he do?
Moreover, don't necessarily think he was rushing to meet his friends because they may not have settled on an exact location for this venture, maybe only general reference points were discussed. It may have been unlikely to the point of impossible that once they left that doorstep he'd ever find them. That may be why they didn't feel bad changing the location later, too. Don't think anyone was trying to ditch Dickie, don't think the boys cared that much what they hunted or where at that point, it was mostly Dickie's idea to begin with, and he didn't show up, and maybe no settled, pinpointed location had been determined.
Dickie's bike was found at the roadside, his mother spotted it, she was actively looking for it. If he had it laid down in a ditch, he was likely (?) trying to conceal it. If he was trying to conceal it, he was conscious of the fact that theft was a possibility. If conscious that theft was a possibility, why leave shells with it? It's a calling card that a gun is nearby, if the shells, bike, and lunch aren't enough for the thief, maybe the gun will be of interest, provided thief has his own gun and the element of surprise. And wondering... why leave bike at the roadside at all, why not walk with it and wheel it in a small distance if he wants concealment? Some kind of incline might make not wheeling it in reasonable, otherwise, that doesn't make a lot of sense to just leave it at the roadside. But maybe it's still dark, so concealment's not such an issue.
But if it is still dark, going into the woods will be an issue, did he have a flashlight? Seeing others have already been wondering on this. If he didn't, he might actually be tempted to wait himself at the roadside for light, maybe hoping he'd see his friends on the road as he waited. This would increase opportunities for a potential abduction. If he does have the flashlight, he goes into the woods... He has gun and flashlight, two hands, why leave the gun case behind? Why not keep the gun in the case, which would possibly (?) free up one of his hands for lunch and/or shells? There had to be something he had that would have made free hands possible, as both hands were free to ride the bike to the site. If he didn't, and that gun was being awkwardly carried on that bike somehow, that opens the door to some potential perp curbing him and chastising him over the gun and that could develop into something incredibly perilous.
And if he had a flashlight-- where is it? It is gone like the gun.
The only way the placement of that bike really makes sense is with an abduction scenario, but it's jmo. (And apologies on the length of this post, I know it's large, but I made my way through the entire thread to write it up/editing as I try to shorten this)
Last edited:
