Does anyone remember watching this case, probably from the 2000 season. Leonard Dirickson, who was a dairy farmer, was sitting down having breakfast with his 19 yr old son at their house, when an unknown white pick-up truck pulls up to thier house. Neither Leonard or his son recognize the truck, so Leonard goes outside to see what is going on. Leonard comes back in and tells his son that the guy in the truck is interested in seeing some horses. Leonard is never seen again by his family. A waitress at a restaurant saw Leonard with a guy having breakfast, the same day Leonard disappeared. Six months later, Leonard was seen drunk at a dance club, but the person who called in the sighting was never found. Some people speculated that Leonard left at his own free will, but his family doesn't believe that.

I found this short article about the case. Sheds some light on his situation I think. -

Investigators, family search for answers to man's disappearance

ELK CITY, Okla. (AP) -- It has been more than two years since Jared Dirickson saw his father at his Strong City farm climbing into a truck with a stranger to view stud horses.

Nowadays, Jared sees Leonard Dirickson only in his dreams, in photographs or on tattered fliers still taped to the doors and windows of area businesses.

''I love him a lot,'' Jared Dirickson said. ''I wish I could see him again. I pray to God he will let me see him again.''

Leonard Dirickson's family would celebrate his 42nd birthday Tuesday, but few things have been normal for the family since March 14, 1998, the day he drove out of their lives.

Investigators also have been confounded by the disappearance.

''We really don't know what happened,'' said Joe Hay, Roger Mills County sheriff. ''We know as much now as the first day he was reported missing.''

Dirickson and his wife, Kathy, built their own dairy business in Strong City. They divorced in 1996, splintering the family with a bitter battle for the couple's two children.

Jared's 16-year-old sister, Connie, lives with her mother in Hammon. Jared lives with his grandparents.

After the divorce, plummeting prices and high feed costs forced the Dirickson's dairy business to fold. Dirickson sold out in December 1997 -- three months before he vanished.

''Leonard was having a lot of financial problems,'' Hay said. ''I don't even think his family realized how bad it was.''

In January, Dirickson found work at a local metal company and told his parents he liked it. He enjoyed the work so much, his father thought about buying the company for his son.

Then he was gone.

Relatives believe he had less than $150 cash on him that day. His last paycheck was not cashed. His credit cards, although maxed out, have had no activity on them.

''Now every time I read in the paper or hear on the news that a body was found, I wonder,'' his mother, Norma Dirickson, 69, said. ''I have to check to see if it's Leonard. I've even walked all the canyons around here to see if I might find him.

''In my heart, I know something bad has happened. He wouldn't have left Jared. They were just too close.''

Investigators have their doubts.

In September 1998, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation received a call from a man in an Amarillo, Texas, bar. The man claimed he knew Dirickson and that Dirickson was in the same bar.

''By the time authorities could check on it, no one could be found,'' Hay said. ''Not even the guy who made the call. We've gone down there, and sat in that bar all night long. Nothing.

''We don't know if he's still alive, but I'm convinced he's still out there somewhere.''

Don Dirickson, Leonard's Dirickson's 73-year-old father, hopes the sheriff is right.

''If he's alive, I just want him to come back home,'' he said. ''Jared needs him worse than we do.''

Thanks for posting that article. The fact that Leonard was in financial trouble would make everyone believe that he ran away to start a new life but he was very close to his son. I personally think that he's not alive because way too much time has passed and I truly think that he would've tried to make some type of contact with his family. Maybe the man in the white pick-up truck was a violent criminal. It was said in Unsolved Mysteries that Leonard's horses that were for sale, was never advertised.

This case recently re-aired and I had never seen it before. Its odd to me that the guy who made the phone call from the bar is taken so seriously by the investigator. The investigator says he believes him 100% that he saw Leonard at tat bar. I wonder what would make him say that even though he didn't leave his name or why he was so sure?

There doesn't really seem to be a motive for killing Leonard as the horses Leonard says the man in the truck wanted to look at were never stolen. Some of his ranch hands said that Leonard didn't even stop by that day to look at horses. Just a very very strange case. Does anyone else have any opinions?

There doesn't really seem to be a motive for killing Leonard as the horses Leonard says the man in the truck wanted to look at were never stolen. Some of his ranch hands said that Leonard didn't even stop by that day to look at horses. Just a very very strange case. Does anyone else have any opinions?

1. Leonard in all likelihood knew this man that he left with that day. Maybe it's the D.C.'er in me, but I find it odd that he would up and go just then and there to leave with a stranger.

2. Seems like going to see a horse, was an excuse Leonard gave. I think the meeting had some other purpose. He didn;t want to alarm Jared.

3. What could be that important that would require that urgent a response from Leonard? Especially that early in the morning.

4. If you buy the eyewitness report..the conversation and meeting was civil.

5. If Leonard wanted to leave town, he could have found a more opportune moment to vanish. That early before eating breakfast seems strange(he didn;t finish his breakfast, right?)

6. Leonard was having financial problems before his death.

My going theory is that was killed because he couldn't pay up a drug debt.

For some reason it's quite common for your drug dealers or mobsters to eat with the victim before offing him. I guess, maybe because it puts the victim at ease.

I've heard stories of drug dealers in DC, taking their victim out for MacDonald's, and then later bringing him back to his house to kill him.

My going theory is that was killed because he couldn't pay up a drug debt.

For some reason it's quite common for your drug dealers or mobsters to eat with the victim before offing him. I guess, maybe because it puts the victim at ease.

I've heard stories of drug dealers in DC, taking their victim out for MacDonald's, and then later bringing him back to his house to kill him.

What do you make of the man in the club in Amarillo claiming he knew Leonard and that Leonard was in a bar in Amarillo? Do you think this guy was mistaken, lying or do you think it could have been Leonard?

What do you make of the man in the club in Amarillo claiming he knew Leonard and that Leonard was in a bar in Amarillo? Do you think this guy was mistaken, lying or do you think it could have been Leonard?

I believe it is credible.

I believe it is credible.

Any specific reason? Only reason I ask is because the LE agent that was interviewed for the segment seemed like he knew for a fact that the caller was correct and that it was Leonard. To me, that seems odd that the cop would believe him even though he wouldn't leave name or phone number, then he wasn't even at the bar when the cops came. To me, it just seems like another person with a bogus tip. If its legit, why not stay and wait for the cops to arrive and tell them where he was sitting, which beer bottle he had, etc... Then the cops could possibly try to get a print and match it to Leonard's.

The only way I believe that the sighting was credible is if the caller was one of Leonard's kidnappers/abductors/accomplices and was starting to have second thoughts or doubts and wanted the cops to intervene right then and there. Who knows, maybe they were getting him drunk just to kill him later that night and the caller didn't want to be in on that. But then again, if they are trying to harm Leonard, why wait 6 months? UM stated that the bar sighting came 6 months after he vanished. Seems odd.

Any specific reason? Only reason I ask is because the LE agent that was interviewed for the segment seemed like he knew for a fact that the caller was correct and that it was Leonard. To me, that seems odd that the cop would believe him even though he wouldn't leave name or phone number, then he wasn't even at the bar when the cops came. To me, it just seems like another person with a bogus tip. If its legit, why not stay and wait for the cops to arrive and tell them where he was sitting, which beer bottle he had, etc... Then the cops could possibly try to get a print and match it to Leonard's.

The only way I believe that the sighting was credible is if the caller was one of Leonard's kidnappers/abductors/accomplices and was starting to have second thoughts or doubts and wanted the cops to intervene right then and there. Who knows, maybe they were getting him drunk just to kill him later that night and the caller didn't want to be in on that. But then again, if they are trying to harm Leonard, why wait 6 months? UM stated that the bar sighting came 6 months after he vanished. Seems odd.


I've thought the same exact thing since the 1st time I saw that segment. Why is so much credence given to someone who insisted on being anonymous and split before investigators got there?

The only thing I can come up with is that its easier on the investigating authorities to treat Mr. Dirickson as a willfully missing adult rather than devote the manpower and energy to treating it a fou play investigation when there is no evidence to support this. That's not to put the investigators in a negative light, just a practicality.

I've thought the same exact thing since the 1st time I saw that segment. Why is so much credence given to someone who insisted on being anonymous and split before investigators got there?

The only thing I can come up with is that its easier on the investigating authorities to treat Mr. Dirickson as a willfully missing adult rather than devote the manpower and energy to treating it a fou play investigation when there is no evidence to support this. That's not to put the investigators in a negative light, just a practicality.


I agree. I'm not sure if its because they are taking the easy way out, but I do believe that they may be hiding something. I can remember the LE agent's face when adamantly said he believed the tip to be credible. I wonder if it was someone he knew or possibly another cop that didn't want his name released. It just seems so strange that this mystery caller is believed without ever talking to him face to face or describing the alleged person that he supposedly saw. Just saying "I know Leonard Dirickson and I know that I'm looking at Leonard Dirickson.", just doesn't do it for me. (Supposedly, that is what the mystery caller told the cops when he called to report seeing Leonard) I would need more proof or evidence before I adamantly declared this sighting to be credible.

Any specific reason? Only reason I ask is because the LE agent that was interviewed for the segment seemed like he knew for a fact that the caller was correct and that it was Leonard.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the investigator knew something else that verified the witness claims. Something that was not and will not be released to the public.

1.Perhaps the witness had been a source or informant at some time?

2.It was a bar. Not unusual for barflies and bartenders to be good sources of information on people.

They see a lot, hear a lot and know a lot.

Not to mention alcohol loosens tongues and lets people say things that they shouldn;t.

3. There may have been some identifying feature, mark or whatever that made it very obvious to the police that the subject was Leonard. What that was probably is being withheld for the investigation.

Didn't someone else at the bar confirm the guys story? A woman working at the bar? I'm not saying this makes the sighting credible just because there's someone else who said they saw the same thing or anything like that, just wondering if that's why they believed the account.

Didn't someone else at the bar confirm the guys story? A woman working at the bar? I'm not saying this makes the sighting credible just because there's someone else who said they saw the same thing or anything like that, just wondering if that's why they believed the account.

I could be wrong but I don't think there was anyone else there that verified the story. The LE agent said that once they got to the bar, they couldn't find Leonard or the man who called. He said they waited there til the bar closed hoping that one of them would return but never did.

Hmm...I seem to remember someone corroborating the story but I would have to see the segment again to be sure.

Hmm...I seem to remember someone corroborating the story but I would have to see the segment again to be sure.

One of the more baffling UM cases to me. Yes I do believe UM stated that LE did go to that bar and showed Leonard's picture and the bartender corroborated the story that he was there. I can see Leonard being stressed out with bills but it was the way that he disappeared. Having this "stranger" pick him up. I don't really think he met with foul play as like the segment said why would you be seen in public eating breakfast with a man you're soon going to kill? What I don't get is if he did leave on his own what he has done to his poor son. He had to have known that Jared would be worried sick that day when he never arrived and every day he was missing. The only thing I can think of is that Leonard, in his possibly deeply depressed state, wasn't thinking clearly and thought Jared would be better off without him and left to avoid all his financial problems. Still a lot of things about this case make no sense.

I don't really think he met with foul play as like the segment said why would you be seen in public eating breakfast with a man you're soon going to kill?


1. Well it;s not a murder till the body is found. So he really runs no risk. If he's going to hide the body, it doesn;t really matter.

2. He may have not been the person that ultimately killed Leonard. All this guy may have done was to pickup Leonard. For all we know this guy may be completely innocent and was just planning to do some business with Leonard when they ran into

3. The killer may not have had a choice. Leonard may have been the one that requested they stop for breakfast. Rather than draw suspicion at

4. Murder may not have been the goal of the meeting. It may have been much later that the decision to "off" Leonard occurred to the killer.

5. The person Leonard met with may be "missing" as well.

6. It's one thing to be seen with Leonard...it's another thing to be identified by name. Apparently nobody knew the guy so he was never identified. Which probably means that this guy wasn;t local or known to the people in the town or the bar.

In most missing persons cases, I definitely do believe family and friends when they claim that the person would never leave on their own and abandon them and never try to contact them.

However, the Alex Cooper case they did on UM definitely gave me a different perspective on things. Here was a someone who looked like a sweet old man that genuinely loved his family and no mental illness issues, but because of personal pride, made a pretty stupid and seflish mistake by disappearing and giving his family the impression he had with foul play. And this was all because he was worried about them finding out he changed his name after committing some petty theft crime 35 years beforehand where the statutes of limitations had probably expired. Before the guy was found, I'm sure almost NO ONE who originally watched this segment would have thought that he disappeared on his own.

As rare as it is, sometimes people who genuinely do love their family will abandon them for a silly reason, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Leonard Dirickson did the same thing.

I don't put much credence into the sighting; I just find it odd that Dirickson would yell out his name in a bar, and have another person coincidentally be there who knew about his case.

Would Dirickson willingly skip out on his life, when it was already well established that he was in financial dire straits and his farm was already sold? No mention of official bankruptcy but I assume it wasn't far off; suicide is a possibility.

Apparently his father was willing to purchase a business for him (I am curious why there was no mention of Dirickson's father attempting to refinance or purchase the farm, though), so he did, to some degree, have financial options. So for what purpose was the guy there? A man who apparently knew how to find his isolated farm and never, as far as we know, checked back in about purchasing a horse.

If it wasn't murder, Dirickson may have decided to run off due to threats from criminal elements that he had been involved with. UM doesn't provide much information about his life in the months prior to his disappearance.

The only way I could see Leonard Dirickson willingly disappearing from his family and breaking off all contact with them is if (much like Alex Cooper) he had some secret that he was just too ashamed to share. I'd always like to believe that if someone who genuinely loved their family willingly disappeared, the least they could do is make a quick phone call to them to clarify that even though they won't be coming back, they are still alive and well. As cruel as it is to be abandon one's family, it's even crueler to force them to live in painful uncertainty about what's happened to you.

This case is very fishy. I always thought the bar event was very shady. But interestingly enough, the waitress there coorborated the witness' story. I think, though, sadly the man in the truck was there to commit foul play. It just seems the most logical explanation.

This case is very fishy. I always thought the bar event was very shady. But interestingly enough, the waitress there coorborated the witness' story. I think, though, sadly the man in the truck was there to commit foul play. It just seems the most logical explanation.It certainly is interesting that the waitress did back up the witness' story. Because of that, I think there's a good chance Leonard is still alive.

Still, it's a bit ominous that Leonard was last seen with some unknown guy. It's also bizarre that Leonard went with the guy on his own will. Maybe he was involved with shady people.

BTW, this would be a great case for ID's show 'Disappeared.'

I know this has no relevance at all to Leonard's disappearance, but I always thought he looked like Wyatt Earp.

There are two schools of thought here:

For starters I don't think the fact that his last cheque wasn't cashed gets brought up enough. Not to mention his credit cards not being used. This leads you to believe he was murdered/missing unvoluntarily.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the sighting of Leonard 6 months later at a bar in Texas. It's weak at best. The witness never stuck around, he never gave his name and even though the waitress corroborated the story how in the world can she be sure it was him? She didn't know him, the guy was from out of state. I have believed eye witness accounts in the past, but this was is fishy.

If you abandon your family I hardly doubt you would be whooping it up at a country bar with ease.

I am also not convinced that the guy who came by the house was the killer. Leonard was a farmer, there was legitimate business that could have been done. It wouldn't have been hard for someone to refer them to Leonard, I'm sure that happened all the time. Maybe he is the killer, who knows, and maybe Leonard got into some trouble that caused him to go missing.

All I can say is that I think he is likely dead now and did not leave by choice. Too bad, because the interview with his son kind of broke your heart

Something people are overlooking: The segment said he just went through a bitter divorce and had been in a custody battle at one point. I say look at the wife. The man in the white truck obviously appeared to be using the horse as a ruse to get Leonard to leave with him. Was he a hit man? Possibly. Though, I admit driving to his home to pick him up is quite brazen.

Another possible scenario, as others have pointed out, is a drug deal gone bad. I think the "start a new life" theory is sort of weak because of the circumstances of his disappearance. He wasn't prepared, had only a $150 on him and left absolutely everything behind. The caller at the bar could have been someone involved in his murder trying to throw the authorities off. Or it could have been a simple case of mistaken identity (as is so common in these cases).

Other thoughts: the sketch of the man in the truck looks like Toby Keith, the country singer.

Something people are overlooking: The segment said he just went through a bitter divorce and had been in a custody battle at one point. I say look at the wife. The man in the white truck obviously appeared to be using the horse as a ruse to get Leonard to leave with him. Was he a hit man? Possibly. Though, I admit driving to his home to pick him up is quite brazen.

Another possible scenario, as others have pointed out, is a drug deal gone bad. I think the "start a new life" theory is sort of weak because of the circumstances of his disappearance. He wasn't prepared, had only a $150 on him and left absolutely everything behind. The caller at the bar could have been someone involved in his murder trying to throw the authorities off. Or it could have been a simple case of mistaken identity (as is so common in these cases).

Other thoughts: the sketch of the man in the truck looks like Toby Keith, the country singer.

I get the feeling the wife has been cleared. Nice point though and this wouldn't be the first divorce to end up in murder. Dennis Dupue, possibly Steven Page for those that believe he did it (I don't) are examples.

But the son looked like he was 19 or 20. And the daughter was in her teens too. That wouldn't be much of a custody battle in my mind.

In all honesty the amount of debt Leonard could be the sole factor in his disappearance. Whether or not he left on his own is up for debate. I personally think he borrowed money from some shady people, they sent an intermediate person, who was friendly with Leonard (the "mystery guy" his son saw that morning) to pick him up (under the pretense of a meeting as to when Leonard would come up with the money). I think when he was brought to these people he was ultimately killed and his body hidden.

In all honesty the amount of debt Leonard could be the sole factor in his disappearance. Whether or not he left on his own is up for debate. I personally think he borrowed money from some shady people, they sent an intermediate person, who was friendly with Leonard (the "mystery guy" his son saw that morning) to pick him up (under the pretense of a meeting as to when Leonard would come up with the money). I think when he was brought to these people he was ultimately killed and his body hidden.

Very plausible. The waitress at the cafe said the unknown fellow did all the talking while Leonard just listened. It seems to me that he may have been "laying the law down" about paying the debts.

I still think the guy at the bar who claimed to have seen Leonard might have been a ruse in an attempt to make authorities believe he was still alive.

Very plausible. The waitress at the cafe said the unknown fellow did all the talking while Leonard just listened. It seems to me that he may have been "laying the law down" about paying the debts.

I still think the guy at the bar who claimed to have seen Leonard might have been a ruse in an attempt to make authorities believe he was still alive.

If the witnesses at the bar are correct, and they in fact really did see Leonard then this is nothing more than a case of a man who was in over his head in debt who just decided to leave and start a new life. Alex Cooper is a great example of a "disappearance" profiled on UM in which the guy was really alive and well the whole time, and not once did he make any effort to contact his family until after the authorities found him.

wow weird case! just watched it on youtube.
One of the first things i thought was maybe it was a date? maybe he was secretly gay and put in a personal ad and this guy responded, and leonard gave him his address, then then guy randomly turned up (thats why he didnt recognise him) went to talk to him found out who he was and made up the story about the horse. (WHY would somenoe wanting to buy a horse off you agree to go out to breakfast?)

Still i dnot know what would make him completely up and walk out of his life, while is teenage son was at home alone

Even though he was in financial trouble, it said his father was rich, willing to buy him a business etc. so its not like he was going to be homeless, unless he had got himself into alot more debt then anyone realised.

Maybe the anonymous caller WAS lenoard and it was a way to let his family know he is still alive without directly telling them coz he is in hiding

wow weird case! just watched it on youtube.
One of the first things i thought was maybe it was a date? maybe he was secretly gay and put in a personal ad and this guy responded, and leonard gave him his address, then then guy randomly turned up (thats why he didnt recognise him) went to talk to him found out who he was and made up the story about the horse. (WHY would somenoe wanting to buy a horse off you agree to go out to breakfast?)

Still i dnot know what would make him completely up and walk out of his life, while is teenage son was at home alone

Even though he was in financial trouble, it said his father was rich, willing to buy him a business etc. so its not like he was going to be homeless, unless he had got himself into alot more debt then anyone realised.

Maybe the anonymous caller WAS lenoard and it was a way to let his family know he is still alive without directly telling them coz he is in hiding

The gay angle makes no sense. It's not that uncommon that people will go out over a meal to discuss a business matter. Maybe this "mystery guy" was hired by the people Leonard owed money to, to go their under a ruse to buy a horse only to kill him.

yeah but how would they go from being on his property looking at a horse, to being in town having breakfast?

yeah but how would they go from being on his property looking at a horse, to being in town having breakfast?

If the horse was being kept and "trained" at another property, it would make perfect sense to go out to breakfast before heading over there.

There are two schools of thought here:

For starters I don't think the fact that his last cheque wasn't cashed gets brought up enough. Not to mention his credit cards not being used. This leads you to believe he was murdered/missing unvoluntarily.
100% agree. This is something I always bring up when a person goes missing or is presumed missing; is their ongoing transactions with the bank and/or credit cards.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the sighting of Leonard 6 months later at a bar in Texas. It's weak at best. The witness never stuck around, he never gave his name and even though the waitress corroborated the story how in the world can she be sure it was him? She didn't know him, the guy was from out of state. I have believed eye witness accounts in the past, but this was is fishy.

Agree as well. I think that in some cases, a few yahoo's will get word of a missing person, do research on this person including their height, weight and appearance and then call the police claiming to have seen them. It happens all too much and almost every time, when the police arrive at this place they were supposedly at, they "just missed them."


I am also not convinced that the guy who came by the house was the killer. Leonard was a farmer, there was legitimate business that could have been done. It wouldn't have been hard for someone to refer them to Leonard, I'm sure that happened all the time. Maybe he is the killer, who knows, and maybe Leonard got into some trouble that caused him to go missing.

Agreed. Leonard could have been hit by a drunk driver and had his body hidden. We just don't know. However, I would not write off that guy as a suspect just yet. Leonard and his son seemed to have a close relationship. When I was growing up and living at home, I would always tell my parents when I was leaving and when they could expect me back and they did so vice versa just to keep each other in the loop. Leonard's son seemed to indicate that they did the same and he found it odd that his Dad went off with this guy and did not tell him who it was. His son seemed to genuinely love and respect his father. I've always assumed that Leonard was in with some bad people by force due to his debt and did not want his son to know about it.

His financial trouble could also be his motivation to get into the truck of a stranger to sell his horse. He likely wanted the money and perhaps this person offered an above market price for it.

Although his family might have not known about his financial trouble, other could have.

We all assume that this person Leonard was last seen with was a "mystery person" but for all we know, this could be someone Leonard knew well and did business with alot but just did not tell anyone about. Just throwing that out there.

Also, one avenue that tends to be overlooked is that during the segment, Stack said Leonard had just been through a bitter divorce and custody battle. Is it possible that his ex wife had anything to do with this. Maybe the mystery person was someone acquainted with the ex who killed Leonard.

We all assume that this person Leonard was last seen with was a "mystery person" but for all we know, this could be someone Leonard knew well and did business with alot but just did not tell anyone about. Just throwing that out there.

Also, one avenue that tends to be overlooked is that during the segment, Stack said Leonard had just been through a bitter divorce and custody battle. Is it possible that his ex wife had anything to do with this. Maybe the mystery person was someone acquainted with the ex who killed Leonard.

That's an interesting theory. It actually makes sense that the wife would have motive to "off" Leonard as a way to regain custody of their son. I am convinced the guy Leonard was last seen with had something to do with his disappearance. If it were a legitimate business transaction, or a friend of Leonard's, I'm sure he would have surfaced by now to clear himself of any wrong doing. If he was a friend of Leonard's he most certainly would have known he was missing and would have wanted to come forward to provide information about what he knew (since he was the last person seen with him).

That's an interesting theory. It actually makes sense that the wife would have motive to "off" Leonard as a way to regain custody of their son. I am convinced the guy Leonard was last seen with had something to do with his disappearance. If it were a legitimate business transaction, or a friend of Leonard's, I'm sure he would have surfaced by now to clear himself of any wrong doing. If he was a friend of Leonard's he most certainly would have known he was missing and would have wanted to come forward to provide information about what he knew (since he was the last person seen with him).The one thing that baffles me about this guy being the one who killed Leonard: why did he let himself be seen in public with Leonard? IMO, the guy would have to be extremely stupid to let himself be potentially identified.

In regards to the call, there's a good chance that it's legitimate. The caller identified himself as an Elk City native like Leonard Dirickson. Plus, the waitress backed up the eyewitness. I'm not saying that it's fact but it seems hard to write it off as a prank call.

The one thing that baffles me about this guy being the one who killed Leonard: why did he let himself be seen in public with Leonard? IMO, the guy would have to be extremely stupid to let himself be potentially identified.

This guy simply could have been a "middleman" that was an acquaintance of Leonard's, who ultimately took him to the people or person who killed him. If Leonard owed someone money, perhaps this guy took him out to breakfast under the pretense of a possible business transaction, but led him to his death. It was probably a ruse to not arouse suspicioun in Leonard.

In regards to the call, there's a good chance that it's legitimate. The caller identified himself as an Elk City native like Leonard Dirickson. Plus, the waitress backed up the eyewitness. I'm not saying that it's fact but it seems hard to write it off as a prank call.

I just don't think Leonard would willingly leave his son behind. If he intended on starting a new life, why not take the boy with him?

I just don't think Leonard would willingly leave his son behind. If he intended on starting a new life, why not take the boy with him?

I agree. Something definitely happened to Leonard Dirickson but without knowing the ins and outs of his personal life, its hard to determine exactly what may have happened. Could he have been in with some bad people? Did he owe money to the wrong people?

I just don't think Leonard would willingly leave his son behind. If he intended on starting a new life, why not take the boy with him?With his failing dairy, perhaps Leonard felt ashamed of himself as a father. If he couldn't provide for his son, maybe Leonard didn't want to face the music.

Still, if he did leave his family, it's strange that he's been able to hold out for so long. IMO, there's probably a lot of details that weren't highlighted on UM.

With his failing dairy, perhaps Leonard felt ashamed of himself as a father. If he couldn't provide for his son, maybe Leonard didn't want to face the music.

Still, if he did leave his family, it's strange that he's been able to hold out for so long. IMO, there's probably a lot of details that weren't highlighted on UM.

He could have at least left a note to let his son know he was alive and well. Or even a phone call after all of these years.

Something that I just thought of is that the mystery man could have been a loan shark Leonard owed money to. That would explain why Jared didn't know him and why he was willing to leave with him perhaps to shield Jared from any possible danger. Still not sure about the bar sighting though. It could have been him but we all have lookalikes out there. Maybe it was something similar to height and weight to Leonard that also had that rather distinctive mustache.

Something that I just thought of is that the mystery man could have been a loan shark Leonard owed money to. That would explain why Jared didn't know him and why he was willing to leave with him perhaps to shield Jared from any possible danger. Still not sure about the bar sighting though. It could have been him but we all have lookalikes out there. Maybe it was something similar to height and weight to Leonard that also had that rather distinctive mustache.

Definitely could have been a loan shark. Leonard did have some financial issues so that's a good theory.

As for the bar sighting, I just don't believe it. Too many "eyewitness accounts" have sworn up and down that they saw person X alive and well yet later it turns out to not be the case. I very rarely believe any eyewitness accounts unless it comes from the family.

Definitely could have been a loan shark. Leonard did have some financial issues so that's a good theory.

As for the bar sighting, I just don't believe it. Too many "eyewitness accounts" have sworn up and down that they saw person X alive and well yet later it turns out to not be the case. I very rarely believe any eyewitness accounts unless it comes from the family.

Thank you. Yes I was surprised to read that even law enforcement seems somewhat skeptical about the bar sighting. They said the waitress who corroborated it was him saw a photocopy of a picture and they think it could have been someone with a mustache like Leonard's.

Unless the particular witness personally knew the missing person, you usually have to take their "eyewitness" account with a grain of salt. Most of the time it's a simple case of mistaken identity. This is what I think happened with the bar sighting of Leonard.

In most missing persons cases, I definitely do believe family and friends when they claim that the person would never leave on their own and abandon them and never try to contact them.

However, the Alex Cooper case they did on UM definitely gave me a different perspective on things. Here was a someone who looked like a sweet old man that genuinely loved his family and no mental illness issues, but because of personal pride, made a pretty stupid and seflish mistake by disappearing and giving his family the impression he had with foul play. And this was all because he was worried about them finding out he changed his name after committing some petty theft crime 35 years beforehand where the statutes of limitations had probably expired. Before the guy was found, I'm sure almost NO ONE who originally watched this segment would have thought that he disappeared on his own.

As rare as it is, sometimes people who genuinely do love their family will abandon them for a silly reason, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Leonard Dirickson did the same thing.
that's what I think.something about his disappearance seems all too convenient.I think he had it all planned out,even not eating b-fast that day to make it seem he hadn't planned it.or maybe the guy just showed up too soon,and that's why they were seen getting bfast later.it could be he went to work as an under -the- table ranch hand or something,getting free room/board in exchange.ppl who meet with foul play just don't tend to do so in such an obvious manner,generally speaking.
I suspect not cashing his last check was also planned.and it would be interesting to know just when his cc's were maxed out,and what were the last items he bought.it could be he stocked up then with what he needed to make a run for it,hoping his son would be able to use the last check for himself. (would be interesting to know if he'd signed it).
Idk if he's still alive,tho,possibly.he may just be too embarrased by the wrong choices he made back then to return.
Idk what penalties applied back then to things like not paying child support,but that could have been another factor..if he would have lost his license/gone to jail,etc. for not being able to pay it anyway,then why not just give up the fight without 'giving in' to the ex and save face by disappearing?some ppl just don't have much in the way of emotional strength (also ref. to as emotional liability),so they just give up,yet want to save face at the same time.just a few thoughts,i'm not firm on it.

Besides taking the bar sighting so seriously, I also have a few nitpicks about the LE theories.

Why so shocked Leonard would go to a restaurant with the man? Maybe the man wanted to talk and they decided to eat because that's a great way to settle business deals and break the ice. LE acted as though it was crazy for him to have two breakfasts. I think if the man is responsible (which seems the most plausible out of all the theories) he would have wanted to make Leonard comfortable.

This case is really weird though. It seems premeditated, as he needed to know the complex location of his home and he knew about a horse for sale that wasn't advertised as for sale.

What could the motive have been? Not robbery. Could someone have wanted to off him for another reason not disclosed on UM?

What could the motive have been? Not robbery. Could someone have wanted to off him for another reason not disclosed on UM?

The only other motives I could think of off the top of my head would be revenge or a debt that Leonard owed. Anyone ever considered the possibility that a jealous lover may have killed Leonard?

well,imo he wasn't very handsome,but who knows.

well,imo he wasn't very handsome,but who knows.

He very well could have been seeing someone who was married or had a boyfriend.

He very well could have been seeing someone who was married or had a boyfriend.
yes that kind of thing will do it.my cousin barely survived such an attack and it took him well over a yr to recover.
perhaps the guy interested in the horse was really a jealous lover?jat,i don't have any firm thoughts on this case,given the lack of info.i wish UM could have revealed more,like what his last cc purchases were,etc.

Leonard is deceased. I just don't see it being any other scenario.

Leonard is deceased. I just don't see it being any other scenario.

The majority of us agree that he is dead, but we still would like to know how and why. I think if they find the guy who was last seen with him this case would be solved.

The majority of us agree that he is dead, but we still would like to know how and why. I think if they find the guy who was last seen with him this case would be solved.

It looks like this is another case bungled by law enforcement in Oklahoma. Just like the disappearances of Wendy Kamp, Cynthia Britto, and Lisa Kregear as well as the case involving Ashley Freeman and Lauria Bible.

About the bar sighting...............look, it was probably nearly last call, but even if it wasn't how hammered was the guy in the first place? How many things sound like a good idea when you are drunk? We know that excessive alcohol impairs your judgement. The guy was probably just hammered. I don't doubt that a ton of country bar patrons would look similar to Leonard and that would only magnify with alcohol. The fact that he didn't hang around leads me to believe no one was there in the first place and this could be the killers throwing people off.

Also, I don't find the breakfast thing weird either. But here's a thought, what if it wasn't Leonard at the breakfast table? I mean, we are relying on an eyewitness - a waitress - who could have her days mixed up and would have had enough patrons to worry about at the time. It probably was them because the sketch of the suspect seemed to match the one Leonard's son gave but it is possible he was never at that restaurant.

I think he had money trouble. He isn't going to let his son know about that and he certainly isn't proud of it. So he runs in with some shady people and the rest is history

About the bar sighting...............look, it was probably nearly last call, but even if it wasn't how hammered was the guy in the first place? How many things sound like a good idea when you are drunk? We know that excessive alcohol impairs your judgement. The guy was probably just hammered. I don't doubt that a ton of country bar patrons would look similar to Leonard and that would only magnify with alcohol. The fact that he didn't hang around leads me to believe no one was there in the first place and this could be the killers throwing people off.

While I usually don't hold much stock in eyewitness sightings profiled on UM, the detective interviewed in the segment thought the sighting was credible. IIRC, he was pretty adamant that the sighting was reliable because he says the caller to 911 was "screaming and hollering that "It's Leonard!" so it sounds to me like this caller was extremely adamant on the phone that the man seen was Leonard. If this caller really did see Leonard then that tells me he did not meet with foul play of any kind, and simply ran off to start a new life due to finanical strain and a bitter divorce.

Also, I don't find the breakfast thing weird either. But here's a thought, what if it wasn't Leonard at the breakfast table? I mean, we are relying on an eyewitness - a waitress - who could have her days mixed up and would have had enough patrons to worry about at the time. It probably was them because the sketch of the suspect seemed to match the one Leonard's son gave but it is possible he was never at that restaurant.

I've never thought about this, but I could see this as a possibility. If the waitress did indeed see two different men, then it would explain why neither has come forward nor has the suspect been identified. It's interesting to note that on the Charley Project website it's stated that the authorities believe the waitress misidentified Leonard. It never occurred to me until just now, but Leonard ate breakfast with his son right before this guy showed up at his ranch, so why would he go right back out and eat again? Maybe the waitress's description of the man seen eating with Leonard didn't gel with what Leonard's son had described. I can't remember if they mentioned that in the segment or not...

One final eerie part mentioned on the Charley Project website, they say that although Leonard's family believes he would have never abandoned his son, but there is little to no evidence to support any theory. Which, IMHO, strengthens the possibility that Leonard did in fact run off to start a new life.

While I usually don't hold much stock in eyewitness sightings profiled on UM, the detective interviewed in the segment thought the sighting was credible. IIRC, he was pretty adamant that the sighting was reliable because he says the caller to 911 was "screaming and hollering that "It's Leonard!" so it sounds to me like this caller was extremely adamant on the phone that the man seen was Leonard. If this caller really did see Leonard then that tells me he did not meet with foul play of any kind, and simply ran off to start a new life due to finanical strain and a bitter divorce.

I am pretty sure you and I talked about Elizabeth Campbell's two sightings. I thought they were credible. They were very similar. She is with an Asian man who pretty much has his thumb over her. They buy gas, she never talks and both clerks describe the same mood, the same atmosphere and the same man. So I believe that. But I have trouble with believing a likely intoxicated man who never gave his name and never stuck around at a bar.

But in this case? Not so much. I'd barely be able to keep my composure if I saw Leonard knowing he is missing. I'd have called the cops, waited for them and probably in the meantime confronted Leonard. But if he books it from the bar, I still wait and give a report to the police. Why chicken out if its a reliable eye witness encounter? Also, why would Leonard be spotted so close to home? Why not go over a couple of states where no one would recognize you? Nothing makes sense. And how as he not been spotted since then either? Usually when something like this happens there is a reason, and the person is dead and always was dead.


One final eerie part mentioned on the Charley Project website, they say that although Leonard's family believes he would have never abandoned his son, but there is little to no evidence to support any theory. Which, IMHO, strengthens the possibility that Leonard did in fact run off to start a new life.

I think there is at least SOME evidence that he would never leave his son. For instance, they worked together daily. I know there are lots of deadbeat dads out there and some don't think anything of it. But nothing points to Leonard being a deadbeat prior to this. No one ever said he was a bad father. As a father myself to a son I cannot fathom leaving him and not seeing what kind of man he ends up being or me not having anything to do with how he ends up. But I'll keep it open to the suggestion that even a son may not know who is father really is. This case just didn't strike me as an abandonement case.

I am pretty sure you and I talked about Elizabeth Campbell's two sightings. I thought they were credible. They were very similar. She is with an Asian man who pretty much has his thumb over her. They buy gas, she never talks and both clerks describe the same mood, the same atmosphere and the same man. So I believe that. But I have trouble with believing a likely intoxicated man who never gave his name and never stuck around at a bar.


I can think of two other cases off the top of my head on UM where the eyewitnesses were known to be dead wrong even though they were adamant. One was the Kerry Lynn Nixon case where the older woman said she was positive she met her in another state (didn't happen, as her body was found not far from her home). The other case was that of Lisa Kimmel. Several people swore they saw her car with the license plate. However, now we know they were either mistaken all together or had the wrong day because her car was buried at Dale Eaton's property the whole time (as was found out later). Keep in mind one of the witnesses in her case was the wife of a Sheriff.

So, yeah, the studies that show eyewitnesses are often mistaken are accurate imo.

But in this case? Not so much. I'd barely be able to keep my composure if I saw Leonard knowing he is missing. I'd have called the cops, waited for them and probably in the meantime confronted Leonard. But if he books it from the bar, I still wait and give a report to the police. Why chicken out if its a reliable eye witness encounter? Also, why would Leonard be spotted so close to home? Why not go over a couple of states where no one would recognize you? Nothing makes sense. And how as he not been spotted since then either? Usually when something like this happens there is a reason, and the person is dead and always was dead.

Yeah, I don't understand why the caller left before the police arrived. It very well could have been some sick prank, or the guy was just mistaken. But didn't the bartender corroborate the caller's story when the police arrived? And the sighting was in Amarillo, TX and Leonard was missing from Cheyenne, OK...I'm not sure how close in proximity that is to one another. Leonard could have easily shaved his moustache and cut his hair, and I think he would look extremely different than what people remembered him as looking. So that might be why he hasn't been spotted since. The reason I don't want to write off this sighting is because police seem to believe it was authentic, so maybe they have more information then we don't have (or what was shown on UM).

I think there is at least SOME evidence that he would never leave his son. For instance, they worked together daily. I know there are lots of deadbeat dads out there and some don't think anything of it. But nothing points to Leonard being a deadbeat prior to this. No one ever said he was a bad father. As a father myself to a son I cannot fathom leaving him and not seeing what kind of man he ends up being or me not having anything to do with how he ends up. But I'll keep it open to the suggestion that even a son may not know who is father really is. This case just didn't strike me as an abandonement case.

There have been several recent cases (profiled on "Disappeared") were "family-men/women" just up and abandoned their family to start a new life. No one ever believed they would ever walk away from it all but that's exactly what they did. I don't think we should necessarily rule that possibility out in this case either just because Leonard was close to his son.

Yeah, I don't understand why the caller left before the police arrived. It very well could have been some sick prank, or the guy was just mistaken. But didn't the bartender corroborate the caller's story when the police arrived? And the sighting was in Amarillo, TX and Leonard was missing from Cheyenne, OK...I'm not sure how close in proximity that is to one another. Leonard could have easily shaved his moustache and cut his hair, and I think he would look extremely different than what people remembered him as looking. So that might be why he hasn't been spotted since. The reason I don't want to write off this sighting is because police seem to believe it was authentic, so maybe they have more information then we don't have (or what was shown on UM).

It is a little over two hours away from each other. I don't know if I start a new life and barely get out of the same area code. I know the bartender corroborated the story but that's easy to corroborate. The bartender could have been aware by the caller that he was waiting for police to come. She could have been pointed to the man in question (Leonard). Basically all we know is that she was aware of it, not that she even knew Leonard.

There have been several recent cases (profiled on "Disappeared") were "family-men/women" just up and abandoned their family to start a new life. No one ever believed they would ever walk away from it all but that's exactly what they did. I don't think we should necessarily rule that possibility out in this case either just because Leonard was close to his son.

The reason being that I don't think it is an abadonement issue is because we have an eyewitness account of the last person Leonard was seen with. We have his potential abductor (and the last man he was ever seen wife) drive off with him.

The reason being that I don't think it is an abadonement issue is because we have an eyewitness account of the last person Leonard was seen with. We have his potential abductor (and the last man he was ever seen wife) drive off with him.

This guy could have been a friend who drove Leonard to a bus stop/train station/gave him a lift, etc. anywhere to help him start a new life. It's probably not likely that this is what happened, but I still wouldn't discredit it totally.

This guy could have been a friend who drove Leonard to a bus stop/train station/gave him a lift, etc. anywhere to help him start a new life. It's probably not likely that this is what happened, but I still wouldn't discredit it totally.

Well I guess not, but the more time goes on the more I think its is a murder. I mean, we are living in the age of information right now. How hard can it be to hideout nowadays? Leonard was a farmer, so I don't think he'd be living in Manhattan or parts of Europe. He would likely still be in the south in the States still. There is one questionable sighting and then nothing for 20 years. How could no one have seen him. Things like this happen for a reason. Look at Mike Reimer. The guy was a borderline suspect, but if he were alive someone probably would have seen him.

Leonard isn't a suspect at all. You would think there would be some trace of the guy wanting to see how his family is doing, his mother might be dead by now, his son could be married and he's probably a grandfather. You would think at sometime a non-criminal would want to check on that stuff right? Which would lead to the chances of him being spotted much higher. But no, I think the guy died.

http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/zaba_messages_thread.php?fid=696694

how bout this link? it even mentions a few names??????

http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/zaba_messages_thread.php?fid=696694

how bout this link? it even mentions a few names??????

Wow thats really interesting!! Maybe there's more to this story than we're being told.

This guy had the best mustache as stated in another thread.

it appears he is still alive.....or atleast was for a while since he disappeared.....

Wow thats really interesting!! Maybe there's more to this story than we're being told.

Yes, very interesting.

http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/z...php?fid=696694

More strange comments about Leonard here (http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/zaba_messages_research.php?mquery=Dirickson). I wonder if Leonard's family have any knowledge about what this individual is claiming. Also some articles here (http://search.amarillo.com/fast-elements.php?type=standard&profile=amarillo&querystring=%22LEONARD%20DIRICKSON%22).

Elk City, OK, where Leonard's parents lived, has other connections to Leonard's disappearance:

-He was last employed at a metal company there and his father was considering purchasing the company for Leonard. Did Leonard discuss this or his financial issues with the owner(s) or any of the employees?
-Elk City was one of the places the he told his son that he and the unknown individual were traveling to.
-The possible sighting of him at the restaurant in Elk City.
- The Amarillo tavern sighting was called in by someone claiming to be from Elk City as well.

Although there's no certainty that it was Dirickson in Amarillo, the bartender corroborated the caller's story to police. We don't know if the bartender actually witnessed some guy yelling that he was Leonard, or if she just corroborated that someone used the establishment's phone to call in the tip. Elk City is around 150 miles from Amarillo; it's not that uncommon for someone in that region to travel to the nearest large city to drink and socialize, but the whole event seems off.

Mobeetie, TX, the place Leonard told his son that he might be traveling to see horses, is a town with less than 200 people, 85 miles driving distance from Amarillo and around 60 from Cheyenne, OK (the town nearest to Dirickson's farm). Leonard stabled one of his 15 horses at a stud ranch there: http://newsok.com/searchers-for-rancher-confounded/article/2608215

More strange comments about Leonard here (http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/zaba_messages_research.php?mquery=Dirickson). I wonder if Leonard's family have any knowledge about what this individual is claiming. Also some articles here (http://search.amarillo.com/fast-elements.php?type=standard&profile=amarillo&querystring=%22LEONARD%20DIRICKSON%22).

Elk City, OK, where Leonard's parents lived, has other connections to Leonard's disappearance:

-He was last employed at a metal company there and his father was considering purchasing the company for Leonard. Did Leonard discuss this or his financial issues with the owner(s) or any of the employees?
-Elk City was one of the places the he told his son that he and the unknown individual were traveling to.
-The possible sighting of him at the restaurant in Elk City.
- The Amarillo tavern sighting was called in by someone claiming to be from Elk City as well.

Although there's no certainty that it was Dirickson in Amarillo, the bartender corroborated the caller's story to police. We don't know if the bartender actually witnessed some guy yelling that he was Leonard, or if she just corroborated that someone used the establishment's phone to call in the tip. Elk City is around 150 miles from Amarillo; it's not that uncommon for someone in that region to travel to the nearest large city to drink and socialize, but the whole event seems off.

Mobeetie, TX, the place Leonard told his son that he might be traveling to see horses, is a town with less than 200 people, 85 miles driving distance from Amarillo and around 60 from Cheyenne, OK (the town nearest to Dirickson's farm). Leonard stabled one of his 15 horses at a stud ranch there: http://newsok.com/searchers-for-rancher-confounded/article/2608215

Reading all those messages made my blood run cold. They seem legitimate.

Reading all those messages made my blood run cold. They seem legitimate.

The comment that stood out for me was "Your brother told me he paid your bills that everything is okay, whenever you're ready,". It also sounds like Leonard's son at some point did reside in Leedey, OK, not Reedy as the poster put. I'm generally cautious about random online postings unless corroborated by the family or media articles, but this case gets stranger the more you read up on it.

Social Security Death Index lists Dirickson's death as 1998, did Leonard's family have him declared legally dead? I'm curious if his estate was solvent (due to the sale of his farm) or not.

The comment that stood out for me was "Your brother told me he paid your bills that everything is okay, whenever you're ready,". It also sounds like Leonard's son at some point did reside in Leedey, OK, not Reedy as the poster put. I'm generally cautious about random online postings unless corroborated by the family or media articles, but this case gets stranger the more you read up on it.

Social Security Death Index lists Dirickson's death as 1998, did Leonard's family have him declared legally dead? I'm curious if his estate was solvent (due to the sale of his farm) or not.

Once during a search I did uncover some information confirming Jared did live in or around a Leedey, OK at one point.

I wonder why, if his family did have him declared legally dead, it would have been so quickly done. Leonard disappeared in mid-March of '98. Interesting find!

After re-reading the Charley Project page for Leonard, I don't think the caller who id'ed him at the bar was right. The guy vanished before the cops got there...why would he leave? Makes no sense. Wouldn't he do everything in his power to keep Leonard there at the bar until the cops arrived? Especially if he was as "adamant" as the investigator said he was on the UM segment. I think it was probably either a prank or a drunk guy who honestly thought he was sitting next to Leonard. Maybe the guy found out it wasn't Leonard and left because he was embarassed? I definitely think Leonard met with foul play.

wow i commented on this like 3 years ago haha. i wish i had proper internet so i could rewatch the story. i vaguely remember it though from reading the posts. those messages are really strange!! they seem kind of legit. how incredibley strange. maybe he is alive! i wish we knew more or there was more updates.

Watched a re-air of this case on a UM Farina version I dvr'd last week. Up until I read the comments on that zabasearch website I was leaning towards Dirickson being deceased having met up with foul play. However, after reading those comments on there and doing a little research I'm now 60/40 Dirickson is alive and just up and left. The poster "Kim" on the zabasearch comments said "i am writing you about leonard he lives in cheney washington going by the name jim williams and don williams is telling people that he is his brother." I googled James Williams Cheney WA and found something that shows a James S Williams who is 55 (Leonard Dirickson would now be 55) living in Cheney,Washington and related to a Don Williams as "Kim" on zabasearch explained. Here is the link http://www.peoplefinders.com/d/james+williams/1-1298413699 . The more I read into this the stranger it gets. What do y'all think?

Watched a re-air of this case on a UM Farina version I dvr'd last week. Up until I read the comments on that zabasearch website I was leaning towards Dirickson being deceased having met up with foul play. However, after reading those comments on there and doing a little research I'm now 60/40 Dirickson is alive and just up and left. The poster "Kim" on the zabasearch comments said "i am writing you about leonard he lives in cheney washington going by the name jim williams and don williams is telling people that he is his brother." I googled James Williams Cheney WA and found something that shows a James S Williams who is 55 (Leonard Dirickson would now be 55) living in Cheney,Washington and related to a Don Williams as "Kim" on zabasearch explained. Here is the link http://www.peoplefinders.com/d/james+williams/1-1298413699 . The more I read into this the stranger it gets. What do y'all think?

The whole story is bizarre as hell. I wonder if Leonard's family has had some of these claims checked out. Or if the investigating authorities are aware of them.

More strange comments about Leonard here (http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/zaba_messages_research.php?mquery=Dirickson). I wonder if Leonard's family have any knowledge about what this individual is claiming. Also some articles here (http://search.amarillo.com/fast-elements.php?type=standard&profile=amarillo&querystring=%22LEONARD%20DIRICKSON%22).

Elk City, OK, where Leonard's parents lived, has other connections to Leonard's disappearance:

-He was last employed at a metal company there and his father was considering purchasing the company for Leonard. Did Leonard discuss this or his financial issues with the owner(s) or any of the employees?
-Elk City was one of the places the he told his son that he and the unknown individual were traveling to.
-The possible sighting of him at the restaurant in Elk City.
- The Amarillo tavern sighting was called in by someone claiming to be from Elk City as well.

Although there's no certainty that it was Dirickson in Amarillo, the bartender corroborated the caller's story to police. We don't know if the bartender actually witnessed some guy yelling that he was Leonard, or if she just corroborated that someone used the establishment's phone to call in the tip. Elk City is around 150 miles from Amarillo; it's not that uncommon for someone in that region to travel to the nearest large city to drink and socialize, but the whole event seems off.

Mobeetie, TX, the place Leonard told his son that he might be traveling to see horses, is a town with less than 200 people, 85 miles driving distance from Amarillo and around 60 from Cheyenne, OK (the town nearest to Dirickson's farm). Leonard stabled one of his 15 horses at a stud ranch there: http://newsok.com/searchers-for-rancher-confounded/article/2608215
Bizarre....who is Kim? What the....?

Can someone help with a timeline? ontarioboi posted the first zabasearch link in June 2012, but that post on zabasearch is dated November (no year), as are most of the posts made by "Kim" (one says March, no year). I'd initially assumed these posts were made in November 2012 since that is the most recent year since 2007 to have the corresponding days of the week/dates listed on the ZS posts (e.g. Friday November 30th), but if the dates on ZS aren't even reliable...

Anyway, it looks like somebody named Kim seems confident that Leonard is living in Cheney, WA and has assumed the identity of James S Williams, pretending to be the brother of Don Williams (full name listed at the peoplefinders link). Don and somebody named Carlos are possibly hiding Leonard against his will, though Kim is questioning whether he wants to leave.

Kim met Leonard somewhere and thinks he's handsome, says she loves him. She invites him to come to where she lives (implying that he knows) and he can use the phone in the rec room to call his son. She says that people who live there won't let Don and Carlos into the area where the phone is, suggesting that Leonard will be safe to make the call. It seems clear that she lives in the Cheney/Spokane area as well and has been watching these people and tracking their vehicles/license plates.

She seems to have been in touch with Leonard's son. I wonder what made her think this zabasearch site was somewhere that Leonard might look? It could obviously all be a hoax (Kim acknowledges having seen the Unsolved Mysteries episode) but I wonder if it's something that should be reported...?

WTF!? This is just weird. If this is legit, this person seems to have a lot of detailed info. I am curious with info like this, why hasn't this "Kim" contacted the police?

Also, she hints at Leonard being held by these people yet he is supposed to have Internet access and means to get to the safety of her rec room? Why the handsome remarks? They do t make sense in context of the rest of the messages.

Weird.

One thing I noticed is that "Kim" refers to "Jared" as "Derek" in one of the notes. That tends to lean towards a mistake made by a prankster to me. Anyone with detailed facts down to license numbers on captors vehicles doesn't seem to me all that likely to mess up the kids name like that.

I suppose anything s possible but these just seem a little too weird to be real to me.

Looking back on the "Kim" messages, I'm not sure what to think about them. What does stand out for me, however, is the reference to Jared living in Leedey, OK. I came across information by happenstance about two years ago when I was researching this case that Jared had been issued a traffic ticket in Leedey just a year or so before. I wasn't specifically searching for it and had combed through at least fifteen or so search result pages or so before I even found it. Leedey is a VERY small town (the population is about 450), so I figure "Kim" is either a pretty thorough (or obsessive) researcher, or she actually does have contact with the Dirickson family in some way.

Does anyone remember watching this case, probably from the 2000 season. Leonard Dirickson, who was a dairy farmer, was sitting down having breakfast with his 19 yr old son at their house, when an unknown white pick-up truck pulls up to thier house. Neither Leonard or his son recognize the truck, so Leonard goes outside to see what is going on. Leonard comes back in and tells his son that the guy in the truck is interested in seeing some horses. Leonard is never seen again by his family. A waitress at a restaurant saw Leonard with a guy having breakfast, the same day Leonard disappeared. Six months later, Leonard was seen drunk at a dance club, but the person who called in the sighting was never found. Some people speculated that Leonard left at his own free will, but his family doesn't believe that.
I think the person who saw Leonard 6 months later is either mistaking about the person or lying. Last week I saw a guy that almost exactly resembled my classmate from high school from long ago. I mean he resembled how he looks today on Facebook. I shouted hello to him at night but then was embarrassed when I found out it was not him. This was across the gas station parking lot. Kind of like the man who saw Leonard across the bar room dancing while drunk. Outside at night or in a bar room are both dark places and can be misleading when IDing someone. Some people have someone who almost exactly looks like them. And some have someone who looks just like them from across the room but when you get up close to them you know its not them!

Question - that guy knew Leonard and knew he was missing. Why the hell does he not at least walk up to him to confirm its him and say hello. Then he could ask him why he ran away. Heck if I saw someone I KNEW or heard of that was missing Id approach them and say - do you know you are missing or your son is looking for you?

Plus the so called witness abruptly ended the phone call with police. Why didn't he stay around? Seems fake and fishy to me.... like he made it up.

The only thing that supports the mysterious caller from the tavern is the waitress or bartender lady. Yet this was 6 months later and not in the same town or area. So she don't really know Leonard either. I think its just 2 witnesses who saw a man that resembled LD and it was not LD.

If Leonard did run away because of his money problems then it would be no surprise since some fathers have killed all of their kids and wife due to financial difficulties. Leonard running away would be less evil then killing his own kid and running away. Nonetheless running away without hurting his child physically is still bad cause it took a mental and emotional toll on his kid.

Now if Leonard ran away why the hell would some unknown man pull up in front of the house and his own kid. If leonard planned on moving away with some secret gay lover or just to run away from it all - there is no way he'd hire some guy to take him away. Cause the dad may not realize his son may write down the license plate or truck model and call the police.

Then the police may be able to track down the man who helped hide LD from everyone and tell the man to confess where LD is hiding. If a man wants to run away then there would be no mysterious man who pulls up at the same exact time! LD is dead I think.

Also, if LD did run away how come no one has found him alive in another part of the country or in mexico or Canada?

The horses that were for sale, but not advertised: Well if someone is selling something expensive like a nice house or horse they might talk about selling it with friends and family or bar patrons before officially advertising it in a newspaper or town flyers, - like "I am thinking of selling my horse, but need to think about it for another day or so" or "I am gonna try to sell my horse starting next week when I stop by the newspaper place to place an ad"

....Maybe word got around town that this man out on highway-so-and-so out in county X has a horse for sale. Word might have gotten out and someone like the killer knows where he lives. My best friend's parents and grandparents both live 10 miles outside of town and one is on a horse ranch. I can easily get to their place since I know where they live. but if I did not know where they lived I could never find it unless given written or verbal directions. I am not good with directions, especially out in the country. However if a stranger told another local or farmer or rancher at a bar where this person lives (my friends parent's ranch) they could still find it despite it being hard to find or out on a seldom used road.

Now we all know that the man with the no fear hat never got the horse because UM did not mention this. Perhaps the killer wanted to get Leonard alone and threaten to murder him for his horse. First he had to have breakfast with him to make it seem like a legit deal. Then he could tell LD that he has the money at his house and they drive out into an old road where he kills LD just for the heck of it. Some people do this.

Or perhaps the killer wanted to get the horse for real, but at a lower price and got ticked off at LD refusal and murdered him.

Also another thing - if Leonard wanted to run away and start over as a single man with a new identity and no debt there is NO WAY in hell he would only move 2 hours away to that other town or city where the man saw him at the bar drunk! If you move away you go very far away like the other side of the country or up into Canada or Alaska (dont need passport) or down in Mexico or the Caribbean. Granted some criminals or runaways are dumb and stay in the same state or area. But otherwise most move far away.

Plus, lets say Leonard did move away to start over. Perhaps after a couple years he felt really guilty for what he had done and called or wrote his son or mom asking if he could come back. Obviously the mom and son will forgive him. This is why I support the death theory. He was killed. And if Leonard got used to being away from his mom and son for over a decade why not write a letter to his kid telling him he still loves him but cant come back. Just give your kid a hint you are at least alive.

This UM segment is similar to Dale Kerstetter. The police and co-workers think Dale helped stage this robbery because of his money problems. There are plenty of people with money problems who steal cash via wire fraud from banks or businesses who run away. (Some don't run away and get caught in their hometowns). Yet there are even more Americans who have money difficulties and they never steal. I think Dale never helped that other man steal platinum. Its just another fairy tale brought on by the police which says: if person A did that, then person B did it too!

Leonard's money problems could be cured in the long run whether it meant shutting down his farm or ranch or trying to get a bigger loan to help improve his farm or land or whatever. There is also bankruptcy where a man can start over.

in a strange way cases like these are like those murders where everyone thinks the husband killed his wife because he cheated on her. In these true scenarios yes many times the cheating spouse does eventually murder the other spouse to be rid of him/her. Yet not all the time. There are times when the husband did cheat on his wife, yet she died accidentally or was murdered by some unknown traveling serial killer.

One person mentioned online long ago that perhaps the man who pulled up was innocent and met with Leonard, but Leonard was killed by someone they both knew of - not a friend, but an acquaintance (friend of a friend). Then the man who pulled up got scared because he felt he would be arrested for a crime he did not commit. This is why he never came back to ask about the horse again or give police help.

Just like the person on this site said - if you ran away why would you be dancing it up @ some country bar with a woman? the only thing that makes sense for the bar scene is if Leonard got into the mans truck and got kidnapped and beaten to almost death. The mystery man may have wanted to kill a stranger for a practice kill and bludgeoned him leaving him their to die. But LD never dies and survives the attack (like some victims do). Then he has head trauma and cant remember where he lives or who he is. Even if he is hours from home there should be some witness who saw him at a hospital getting surgery or at a homeless shelter or walking in a strange manner next to a road. so confusing

I don't think the caller was Leonard because the lady bartender or waitress said she recognized a man calling on the payphone. And she also recognized a man dancing that looked like Leo. If the man on the phone looked like Leonard shed share that info with the police I am certain.

I also first thought perhaps there was a secret gay affair. But when the man pulled up LD asked his son first if he knew him. If the man was his secret boyfriend I doubt his dad would go as far as to ask the son if he knows the man in the truck all the while knowing its his very own boyfriend. Too bad the son doesn't come on here with more information.

And if LD was gay and placed an ad in the newspaper I doubt he would first meet this man at his house where is son lives, nor give out his home address to a complete stranger. Another person on this forum mentioned why the killer would show his face in public at the house in front of the boy and at the restaurant. I can only think that this is some traveling serial killer who stays in motels for a bit of time planning his next murder. Then kills and moves on. Since he is not from the area and will be moving again he has no fear of showing his face before the murder

100% agree. This is something I always bring up when a person goes missing or is presumed missing; is their ongoing transactions with the bank and/or credit cards.



Agree as well. I think that in some cases, a few yahoo's will get word of a missing person, do research on this person including their height, weight and appearance and then call the police claiming to have seen them. It happens all too much and almost every time, when the police arrive at this place they were supposedly at, they "just missed them."




Agreed. Leonard could have been hit by a drunk driver and had his body hidden. We just don't know. However, I would not write off that guy as a suspect just yet. Leonard and his son seemed to have a close relationship. When I was growing up and living at home, I would always tell my parents when I was leaving and when they could expect me back and they did so vice versa just to keep each other in the loop. Leonard's son seemed to indicate that they did the same and he found it odd that his Dad went off with this guy and did not tell him who it was. His son seemed to genuinely love and respect his father. I've always assumed that Leonard was in with some bad people by force due to his debt and did not want his son to know about it.
Perhaps Leonard got a loan from a regular man in the farming industry, not mafia or mob boss. Some farmers or ranchers don't make much money and a few may resort to crooked loans with crooked people.

And LD got behind on payments and the man wanted his horse in exchange for the previous months he got behind on the loan. then there was an argument which led to murder.

if he takes off with his son then the ex-wife could file kidnapping charges against him if he were to be found some day.

I still think the waitress at the restaurant saw both of them there because its in the local area. I just watched it again on my dvd. They said he met the man for breakfast 2 hours later. I forgot about this! I thought they had breakfast like immediately after leaving the house such as 5 or 15 minutes later (and then they would go look at the horse). 2 hours later seems weird! So I guess Leonard may have shown the man his horse at another horse ranch that was not near his home. This explains the 2 hours they spent with each other.

They probably talked about the horse for a while, then drove over to the restaurant.

And since it was a LOCAL waitress at the restaurant I am sure she would not confuse Leo for some other man who looks like him. I also find it impossible that there are 2 men who look just like the killer and Leonard.

good point about the police really thinking the call was legit. Remember Matt Flores case in California? The police did not want the real video tape of the suspects vehicle in the parking lot to be shown on national tv. Instead they allowed UM to use a re-enacted black and white video similar to the real one. Us fans and viewers of UM obviously want the real video so one of us can help catch the killer.

But there is a reason why police do not give all the information. Perhaps the man who called from the country bar and/or the female bartender gave important info that could not be used on tv because it would hurt the investigation even more? This would explain why we think its so odd the police think 100% he is alive and perhaps they have evidence to support it.

Is it possible the man who called police actually confronted Leonard somewhere private like in a bathroom or outside where no one was around at the moment. The confrontation may have pissed off Leonard which is why the caller took off and then Leonard took off too. Perhaps the caller called police again and police did not want to release that info.

Or did the caller only give part of the story and the waitress was the one who gave police better info in regards to Leonard

Well I guess not, but the more time goes on the more I think its is a murder. I mean, we are living in the age of information right now. How hard can it be to hideout nowadays? Leonard was a farmer, so I don't think he'd be living in Manhattan or parts of Europe. He would likely still be in the south in the States still. There is one questionable sighting and then nothing for 20 years. How could no one have seen him. Things like this happen for a reason. Look at Mike Reimer. The guy was a borderline suspect, but if he were alive someone probably would have seen him.

Leonard isn't a suspect at all. You would think there would be some trace of the guy wanting to see how his family is doing, his mother might be dead by now, his son could be married and he's probably a grandfather. You would think at sometime a non-criminal would want to check on that stuff right? Which would lead to the chances of him being spotted much higher. But no, I think the guy died.
I think Leonard is dead-was killed by that chubby no fear mystery man. there are some cases where the killer or runaway was never found for over two decades despite us now living in a more technological savvy world with better satelites and DNA equipment. For example, Tom Johnson killed long ago and we still never caught that guy! He too had a witness who survived and told police what he looked like and his vehicle desc.

Regardless if we live in the 70s or 2010s with great technology - we can never catch all the killers, nor the runnaways. Yes, DNA and forensics has brought many killers from the past to justice. It cant do everything though

I think the family knows about the online articles. All it takes is for some neighbor or relative or detective to look online about Leonard and see that website and then call Leonards son and mom. I am with the other person on here who thinks the chances of Leonard being alive is a little more likely! Just minutes ago I said he was dead. Now I dunno.

Those emails to Leonard online could be fake because everyone knows it was a white truck that he entered. People know about cities where Leonard has his horses and stuff. Seems like a person made up those emails.....until I was reading about Spokane, WA. I used to live in WA state with the military. Been through Spokane a few times. Looks legit with that Kim person urging Leo to come back. Feels more trustworthy when she said the man in the Unsolved mysteries video (no fear hat) is one of the 2 guys! and apparently she said they are holding him which explains why he has been missing forever. how come Kim didn't tell authorities both in OK and WA about this? She could at least write an anonymous letter to police. Or maybe she is scared they will think its her snitching on them. sounds like she lives near them or in that region.

I am sure detectives have checked out the online emails to Leonard and his family has money (most likely) to send some detectives to Spokane and do a steak out of the area Leonard is in. You would think the detectives could do a raid of the house or whatever and bring him back safely home if he is indeed under capture.

The lady Kim in the emails said Leo should not hang out with those 2 losers. The older guy in the truck with the no fear shirt or hat seemed kind of shady as if he would be one of the losers. In one email Kim says Leo is being held captive (not in those words), but in another email she tells him not to hang out with them. As if he can just run away. Seems like a fake email. Or if its real maybe he can run away anytime he wants but the kidnappers will hunt down his family and kill all of them which is why he don't leave - he wants to protect his son and family back home or Stockholm syndrome.

I think Kim is a fake name. Its probably a name that Leonard can recognize as her real ID, but she uses Kim to protect her identity from those 2 men. if one of the men's names comes up online as a real address in WA state I am certain a detective checked it out already.

I'm not sure I buy those online emails or whatever that is. Those can easily be traced if the police believed them to be real. I also just do not believe Leonard is still alive, sadly. As clockworkhigh put it a few years back, we live in a world now that is so technologically advanced. I find it hard to believe that if this man was still alive, that he wouldn't pop up on the grid by accident at least once over the past fifteen years.

That website with those emails seems to me to be another example of some morons out there pretending to know first hand knowledge of Leonard's whereabouts, while giving the family false hope.

yea I thought so to about those letters being fake. Anyone could make up stuff that they saw on the segment about Leonard. Also the writer of the emails put the wrong name of the son's name on one email! Like another poster on here said - how can someone write a wrong name about young man whose father is missing. If she knows the family really well she is not going to mistake the name of the boy, especially if he is looking for his missing dad! that sounds fishy to me.

Plus the emails were written more than a few years ago. I am sure local detectives or the family's own detectives (or the family themselves) would have flown to the area to question the locals if they saw Leonard in the past year and they would definitely put up posters or flyers around the area in Spokane where he really is. I also think contacting the local media (news stations and newspapers) is a great idea that the family obviously will do but only if the emails are real.

To bad UM wasn't still on today. Maybe they would show someone reading the email notes - you know one of those funny voice actors who try to sound really creepy while reading a letter lol.

your right about the online email letters being traced by police. all it takes is for police to find the IP address of the emails and if they are not written from a computer in WA state then they are fakes.

The thing that convinced me this person wasn't making this up was the James S Williams that showed up was same age as Leonard and relative of a Don Williams like she said. Either she knows a Jim Williams that's the same age as Leonard and has a brother named Don or that Jim Williams really is Leonard which is what I'm still leaning towards. Just too much coincidence for me. To make things even stranger, I clicked on that link I posted from peoplefinders and that same James S Williams profile now doesn't show his age and the Don Williams has been removed from his relatives list. That's really odd in my opinion. Why would the 2 things that could prove that lady to be right now not be showing up?? Could they have seen this thread and that people are onto them and had it removed?? IDK, but it's all really strange and way too much coincidence for me to believe it was made up.

Reading this thread really opened a bunch of new scenarios to me, especially those odd online messages from people claiming to know Leonard and saying he's living in Washington under a different name. Let's go over what has been theorized:

-Leonard was murdered by the man who picked him up, possibly someone Leonard owned money to and couldn't pay him back due to debt, but Leonard had no way of knowing he was going to be killed.

-Leonard and the man, who may have been someone he conducted business with but not enough so that everyone else knew who he was, went out and had breakfast to talk over the money situation or something entirely different, and then later went to a bar. Could possibly be that Leonard was alive for awhile after leaving his house, but was later murdered because the money agreement fell through.

-The man could have been a "secret gay lover", and Leonard ran off with him to escape his unhappy divorce and debt problem, even at the cost of being away from his family and son, whom by all accounts, he loved very much, but was too embarrassed to come out as gay.

-The man could have been the lover/boyfriend/husband/ex of a woman Leonard could have been seeing, and was killed by the man, but why would Leonard go with this man if that was the case, unless Leonard felt like he could talk it over with the man?

-The man could have been someone Leonard's ex-wife knew and had him kill Leonard for custody of their son Jared.

-Leonard might have been in fear for his life/someone was out to kill him, and even at the risk of leaving behind his son and everything he knew, had help creating a new identity and went into hiding, far from Oklahoma.

-The people at the eatery and/or the bar might have mistaken someone else for Leonard and could possibly be unrelated to the case, or perhaps it is but who knows for certain. Why would the caller leave before police got there if he was certain it was Leonard, who was missing at the time, and not stay and make sure whom he thought was Leonard stay there until the police got there to question him? Even if it wasn't Leonard, why not stay anyways and find out?

When I first watched this case, I did have a feeling that Leonard was still alive, at least up to a certain point, and he might still be alive, who knows, could be possible. On the other hand, he could be dead, and we and the police are being distracted by these messages by "Kim" to divert away from locating Leonard, dead or alive, because they might be involved in the case or know about it secondhand and want to help. I honestly don't think Jared Dirickson hates his father, he just wants to know what happened to him, if he doesn't somehow know already. I want this mess to end just as much as anybody else who knew Leonard or his case, even if it's not positive news.

Has anyone contacted authorities in Oklahoma to check into these leads? (580) 497-2417 is the number for the Roger Mills County Sheriff's Office, where the city of Strong City, Oklahoma is (where Leonard Dirickson lived/disappeared from).

I believe he owed money because he had financial problems before his disappearance. Whether drugs are involved I'm not sure but i definitely think the guy came and they went to talk about the money he owed and things escalated from there. I don't think he's still alive.... but stranger things have happened....

I believe he owed money because he had financial problems before his disappearance. Whether drugs are involved I'm not sure but i definitely think the guy came and they went to talk about the money he owed and things escalated from there. I don't think he's still alive.... but stranger things have happened....

I was thinking about this case this morning. I've never really considered this scenario, but it seems to fit. Leonard was reportedly in dire straits financially. Perhaps the alleged loaner and loan were not something Leonard wanted Jared to know about. Perhaps the alleged loaner--supposedly having waited on a repayment long enough--showed up unannounced at the house that morning, looking to collect that day. Leonard, becoming rather alarmed at seeing this individual unexpectedly, tells Jared to stay in the house. He returns with a story about going to look at a horse to cover some time and assuage any concern Jared may have had. (This would also shed light on another unusual detail of the case: that the horse this individual was supposedly interested in purchasing was never advertised as for sale.)

What I can't readily envision though is that the two would then be seen in public together at the restaurant that morning, by all accounts appearing quite calm, with Leonard doing more sipping coffee and listening to the unidentified subject speak than talking (as one would presumably do if he were attempting to escape a debt). Nonetheless, it's still a very interesting theory.

I thought Leonard left on purpose. A failed marriage, a child being taken away, and being financially strapped to the point where his parents had to support him, I thought he was depressed/had enough and just left. I mean I'm sure a lot of men in this situation wouldn't feel like "the man" they ought to be, especially to his son.

But people here bring up a good point about him being murdered. The drug angle is interesting, or maybe he went to a risky loan shark. It is possible he is living somewhere under a new identity, but no sight of him since then means he's more than likely dead.

People keep mentioning that he was close to his son, and wouldn't do such a thing to him, but as someone who grew up in that environment it happens - it happens a lot. Especially if drugs are involved. But, you never know what a person is capable of during depression or bleak times. I've seen loving parents leave their children out of nowhere, for drugs or different reasons. Maybe he figured his son had his grandparents and his mother and that he'd be alright? He was 19 so maybe Leonard left thinking he couldn't bare to tell his son the news, but his son would be taken care of regardless.

So was he killed have there been any leads.

Rewatched this one yesterday. It's always been one of my favorite cases and I hadn't seen it in a while.

I still can't think of any blatant reason why anyone would want to kill this man--if that is what happened.

Reading Leonard's Charley Project page, I considered the possibility listed there that this was a case of mistaken identity. The actual target would almost certainly have to run in the same horse community circles as Dirickson, I would imagine. And the blunder would have to be pretty severe, given the remote location of Dirickson's farm.

I also never really considered Leonard's ex-wife. Apparently, the divorce was a big factor in upturning the dairy business he built with her, and there was a pretty bitter custody battle for the couples' two children. Just some things I noted:

-Leonard sold the dairy farm in December 1997--three months before his disappearance.

-He recently acquired a new job at a metal company that he reportedly enjoyed--so much so that Leonard's father offered to buy the company for him.

-Jared refused to go live with his mother in the aftermath of the divorce, and only began speaking to her about two years after Leonard's disappearance.

I don't know about Leonard's ex-wife's holdings in the dairy business--or if she even had any--but it would seem at first blush like a plausible motive in conjunct with the children. If she was financially ruined as a result of the failed farm, devoid of the affection of her son, and THEN learned Leonard was reportedly doing better and may even acquire a new business with a proverbial snap of the fingers mere months after this devastation, I could see an ex-spouse becoming extremely bitter and angry about this.

Also, found this today on the unsolved.com site:

Relative
MARCH 14, 2017 AT 1:06 AM
Our family has no clue what happened to Leonard. My dad used to receive letters from someone stating that would see him all the time in Oregon, but nothing was ever found. Leonard never seemed like the one to walk away. The episode didn’t mention a suspect in Texas that Leonard had ties to. Don’t believe the man ever let the authorities gain access to his properties.

Assuming it might be one of Leonard's siblings, as Jared and his sister Connie are both too young to have children able to express themselves in writing like that.

Interesting that the letters stated Dirickson was supposedly sighted in Oregon. I remember those crazy message board posts from several years back in which the author adamantly claimed Leonard was living in Washington state.

Interesting that the letters stated Dirickson was supposedly sighted in Oregon. I remember those crazy message board posts from several years back in which the author adamantly claimed Leonard was living in Washington state.

I've always wondered if this was just a guy who was a dead ringer for Leonard.

I've always wondered if this was just a guy who was a dead ringer for Leonard.

It's definitely possible. Not to quote a criminal who was recognized from UM....but...I'm gonna... "Everyone has a twin."

One really odd aspect of this case is the fact that law enforcement has admitted from day one that they have no clue what happened to him. No suspects, no theories, nothing.

One really odd aspect of this case is the fact that law enforcement has admitted from day one that they have no clue what happened to him. No suspects, no theories, nothing.

That's probably part of the reason I find the case so fascinating. It really is kind of Aileen Conway-ish in some respects.

One thing I've never understood is why the sheriff seemed so sure the caller in the Amarillo bar really did see Leonard Dirickson. To me, that call (two calls?) had every hallmark of being a phony report.

That's probably part of the reason I find the case so fascinating. It really is kind of Aileen Conway-ish in some respects.

One thing I've never understood is why the sheriff seemed so sure the caller in the Amarillo bar really did see Leonard Dirickson. To me, that call (two calls?) had every hallmark of being a phony report.

Yes! This sort of reminds me of the Lisa Marie Kimmel case. How many people were *sure* they saw her after she went missing? In the end, they were all wrong for one reason or another.

The more UM I've seen (especially solved cases) the more you realize how truly unreliable eyewitness testimony can be.

That's probably part of the reason I find the case so fascinating. It really is kind of Aileen Conway-ish in some respects.

One thing I've never understood is why the sheriff seemed so sure the caller in the Amarillo bar really did see Leonard Dirickson. To me, that call (two calls?) had every hallmark of being a phony report.

The police, at the time, seemed to think it was possible that he was still alive at the time of the bar sighting. The only thing I could figure is this guy who called it in was insistent that he saw Leonard at the bar, and when the cops showed up the guy was gone but the bartender verified that Leonard (or someone who looked just like him) was there. Due to the passage of time, I have to think they do not believe this sighting to be credible. I do find the ex-wife's motivation intriguing. It's one of the overlooked aspects of the case, IMO. I don't think it's a coincidence that 3 months after the bitter divorce, he goes missing. And the ex-wife is not mentioned at all in the UM segment. Which is another oddity.

Rewatched this one yesterday. It's always been one of my favorite cases and I hadn't seen it in a while.

I still can't think of any blatant reason why anyone would want to kill this man--if that is what happened.

Reading Leonard's Charley Project page, I considered the possibility listed there that this was a case of mistaken identity. The actual target would almost certainly have to run in the same horse community circles as Dirickson, I would imagine. And the blunder would have to be pretty severe, given the remote location of Dirickson's farm.

I also never really considered Leonard's ex-wife. Apparently, the divorce was a big factor in upturning the dairy business he built with her, and there was a pretty bitter custody battle for the couples' two children. Just some things I noted:

-Leonard sold the dairy farm in December 1997--three months before his disappearance.

-He recently acquired a new job at a metal company that he reportedly enjoyed--so much so that Leonard's father offered to buy the company for him.

-Jared refused to go live with his mother in the aftermath of the divorce, and only began speaking to her about two years after Leonard's disappearance.

I don't know about Leonard's ex-wife's holdings in the dairy business--or if she even had any--but it would seem at first blush like a plausible motive in conjunct with the children. If she was financially ruined as a result of the failed farm, devoid of the affection of her son, and THEN learned Leonard was reportedly doing better and may even acquire a new business with a proverbial snap of the fingers mere months after this devastation, I could see an ex-spouse becoming extremely bitter and angry about this.

Great theory, Meg. The wife being behind it could make sense depending on how the divorce proceeding went. I'd like to know the outcome to determine if she had motive.

The biggest thing in this case to me is the first restaurant sighting. If it was a legit sighting then why would he be seen in public with the man he was about to kill?

I thought Leonard disappeared on purpose and assumed a new identity and he was paying the guy to help.

Another theory I had was that Leonard was selling drugs since he took a financial hit, and he got in trouble with the drug supplier. Maybe Leonard was pocketing money or coming up short.

Not sure though

I also read an article from shortly after the disappearance--maybe like within a few months--referencing the cafe scene, and the sheriff sort of spoke like he was skeptical of that particular sighting (at least at that time):

https://newspaperarchive.com/wayne-highsmith-crime-clipping-jul-09-1998-377485/

Thought that was kind of interesting, in light of the way UM presented it.

I also believe that a sheriff in the segment seemed skeptical because he had something about having two breakfasts as being odd.

I'd go with it being a bunk, or mistaken eye witness.

You're right Meg, this is like Aileen Conway no matter what theory I come up with I start back at the beginning. All I can do is just shrug

I’m currently working my way through all of UM on Amazon Prime and just finished watching this very, very bizarre case, and I just wanted to share my two cents.

THE WAITRESS SIGHTING AND THE TWO BREAKFASTS

http://charleyproject.org/case/leonard-neal-dirickson
https://unsolved.com/gallery/lenny-dirickson/

Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that, according to Charley Project, “investigators believe that the employee may have confused Dirickson with another individual. He had breakfast at home prior to his disappearance and Dirickson’s family members said it was uncharacteristic of him to eat again shortly afterwards.”

Two things with this.

First, I’m surprised so much fuss has been made about Leonard possibly having two breakfasts, and so this invalidates the witness’ statement. According to unsolved.com, “Clif Gann... inspector for the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation [said]: They were sitting there in the restaurant. And the unknown man... was doing most of the talking, and Leonard was just drinking coffee listening to the... man talk.”

He may not have been eating at all, just having coffee while his companion ate (and talked).

Second, that being said, I still think it’s possible that either:

a) this may indeed be a case of mistaken identity on the waitress’ part, or
b) since this is a small town, the waitress did identify Leonard correctly, but was mistaken regarding the date.

However, the UM segment clearly states that “the man at the diner matched the description of the man who picked Leonard up at his home. According to the waitress, there was nothing suspicious about the man’s behavior.” At the very least then, her sighting places the unknown man in the area, but maybe not with Leonard.

Honestly, my gut feeling says the sighting is credible, just as the waitress said it happened.


“THOSE DAMN E-MAILS!” (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)

http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/zaba_messages_research.php?mquery=Dirickson

I honestly don’t know what to make of them. They’re very vague, and I don’t really know how Zabasearch functions. The site says this is all public domain information, but where does this info live before Zabasearch can find it? Could it be on a forum like this one, and then Zabasearch just pulls it and displays it on their end?

The one thing I can offer is that, even though there’s no year listed, it is still possible to date the e-mails because the weekday is given. Weekday and calendar date repeat fully every 28 years (7 weekdays x the 4-year leap cycle), with near repetitions within that timeframe. (Exceptions occur at the century mark, but did not apply in the year 2000.)

Now, we know that Leonard Dirickson disappeared in 1998. So if these e-mails refer to him, and if we assume they were sent after his disappearance, then they could’ve been written only in 2001 and 2007. The dates repeated in 2012, but we can eliminate this year because ontarioboi found and posted the link on June 26, 2012 (Post #63), and most of these e-mails date to the end of the year.

Now there are two exceptions, the e-mails dated:

1) Saturday, March 8
2) Tuesday, December 12

The only possible years between 1998-2012 for these are:

1) Saturday, March 8, 2003, 2008
2) Tuesday, December 12, 2000, 2006

Zabasearch doesn’t appear to list the e-mails in chronological order, so it’s up to us to try and make sense and order out of this. From here I give two options:

1) The Tuesday, December 12, 2000 is the first e-mail, followed by the rest of the e-mails written in 2001, and ending with the one written on Saturday, March 8, 2003.

This is the closest to the year of disappearance, while the event is still fresh.

2) The Tuesday, December 12, 2006 is the first e-mail, followed by the rest of the e-mails written in 2007, and ending with the one written on Saturday, March 8, 2008.

This still fits chronologically, but now we’re talking about 10 years after the disappearance!

Other combinations can be made, of course. But the point of all of this is that, at the very least, these e-mails were sent three years after Leonard disappeared. What’s the reason for this gap? And why write then? What changed in 2001? There’s also a gap of about one year between the bulk of the e-mails, and the one on Saturday, March 8. What’s up with that?



THE BAR SIGHTING

My gut instinct is to discredit the bar sighting. Funny enough, I don’t discredit the caller. He may very well sincerely have believed he saw Leonard. But that doesn’t mean it was him. And yes, the bartender confirmed the event, and in the UM segment, she was shown a picture of Leonard and she confirmed she saw him. But again, how can she be sure it was him, and not someone that looks like him?

However, if “those damn e-mails” are true, then it very well might have been Leonard!

WHAT I THINK HAPPENED

I don’t want to believe that Leonard just ran off to start a new life, especially not with the way his son almost cried on television at the thought of his father’s disappearance. He clearly loves his father, and from the UM portrayal and other accounts, it appears Leonard really loved him. This could be a case like Alex Cooper, mentioned above. We admittedly cannot rule this out. But at the same time, foul play is statistically more probable than an “Alex Cooper” type of disappearance.

I think that if Leonard didn’t know the mystery man per se, he probably knew why he was there, who may have sent him, etc. I get the feeling that he wanted to shield his son from information he didn’t need to know. In the re-enactment, I believe “Leonard” tells his son “stay in the house.” I don’t know if that happened, or if that’s just artistic license for the portrayal, but the delivery of the line made me think of a father wanting to protect his son from someone trying to take care of business.

I agree with a poster above who said Leonard may have used his horse as an excuse made up on the spot, obviously not thought through because the horse wasn’t advertised. That’s what Leonard said the guy said, but we don’t know that for a fact. Also, I think someone else earlier mentioned that the horse may have been kept on another property. I’m from New York City, so the closest I get to horses are unfortunately the sad ones drawing carriages in Central Park (ugh!). But those of you who own and are selling horses at off-site properties, would you get into the vehicle of someone who shows up at your doorstep asking to see your horse? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give the interested party the address and say you’ll meet them there in your own vehicle?

Okay, sorry for going on long enough. I hope this helps, and sparks more ideas in others.

First, I’m surprised so much fuss has been made about Leonard possibly having two breakfasts, and so this invalidates the witness’ statement. According to unsolved.com, “Clif Gann... inspector for the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation [said]: They were sitting there in the restaurant. And the unknown man... was doing most of the talking, and Leonard was just drinking coffee listening to the... man talk.”

Nice post, JSoltNYC. I agree that the whole "he already ate breakfast" argument is bunk. Maybe he just had coffee, or maybe he had a bowl of cereal earlier and now he was having a little more. That isn't totally unusual and even if he did eat twice, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I think all leads need to be run down in missing persons cases, but it's things like this that drive me nuts. It doesn't help and only distracts from the real clues that could help solve the case.

The thing that has always bothered me the most about this case is, the unknown man shows up one random morning and asked about a horse for sale that had never been advertised as for sale. With this being 1998, and the internet still in it's infancy, it's just not likely that he would have listed a horse for sale anywhere online. So it would have had to have been in either a newspaper or other print publication. That is, IF he had listed it, which he clearly did not. Not to mention, where Leonard and his son lived was not exactly the easiest place to find. So, that man would had to have known exactly where he was going. Or, followed detailed driving directions. But who would have given this man directions? Did Leonard and the guy have a mutual acquaintance? If so, then it seems like that would have come out by now. It's possible that the guy did in fact know Leonard, but had just not seen him in awhile. But, even if that were the case, Leonard would have told his son "it turns out I do know this guy. He so and so from such and such". But, he just said he was interested in buying Leonard's horse...but, again, how could he have known that Leonard was going to sell a horse? One other possibility is, Leonard told someone he was thinking of selling a horse, and the guy found out through word of mouth. However, why didn't he call Leonard first before just showing up at his house unannounced? That just seems like an awfully presumptuous move.

This case was posted to reddit about 6 months ago and the majority of the comments seemed to think that Leonard ran off with his gay lover to start a new life. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never got that vibe from the case. Leonard's son told his story that the guy driving up in the white pickup was unknown to both of them. Leonard left without taking any of his possessions. I think the mystery guy was sent by whoever wanted Leonard dead and sadly, he was murdered shortly after being last seen alive by his son.

This case was posted to reddit about 6 months ago and the majority of the comments seemed to think that Leonard ran off with his gay lover to start a new life. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I never got that vibe from the case. Leonard's son told his story that the guy driving up in the white pickup was unknown to both of them. Leonard left without taking any of his possessions. I think the mystery guy was sent by whoever wanted Leonard dead and sadly, he was murdered shortly after being last seen alive by his son.

Same. There is absolutely nothing I know about this case that ever gave me that impression.

I kind of hate reddit--especially the UM reddit.

Same. There is absolutely nothing I know about this case that ever gave me that impression.

I kind of hate reddit--especially the UM reddit.

I agree 100%. It seems like some people are bent on turning every missing/murder case into a gay conspiracy.

I can't do reddit either. I never joined, but I would read some of the stuff once in a while. It seems like any logical discussion quickly turns into bashing, crazy conspiracy theories, and/or outright lunacy. No thanks.

I agree 100%. It seems like some people are bent on turning every missing/murder case into a gay conspiracy.

I can't do reddit either. I never joined, but I would read some of the stuff once in a while. It seems like any logical discussion quickly turns into bashing, crazy conspiracy theories, and/or outright lunacy. No thanks.

lmao, very true. reddit is a cesspool

I felt AWFUL for his son to go through this segment. His father was obviously kidnapped from a gambling debt. LEAVE the kid alone!!

I kind of hate reddit--especially the UM reddit.

To be fair, some of the comments were just as baffled as we are at the gay angle. I think reddit skews young, "inexperienced", and left leaning. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to keep that in mind when reading some of the comments there. The biggest reason people thought of the gay angle was literally because of his moustache. No straight men from Oklahoma in the 90's had moustaches apparently.

Robin covered the case of on this weeks TTWC podcast:

https://www.trailwentcold.com/2022/05/04/the-trail-went-cold-episode-275-leonard-dirickson/

Robin covered the case of on this weeks TTWC podcast:

https://www.trailwentcold.com/2022/05/04/the-trail-went-cold-episode-275-leonard-dirickson/

Great episode. This case is just bizarre, I truly have no theories. I hope LE knows a little more. We aren’t given too much about his ex wife, and the cause of the divorce and family living situation (daughter lived with mom a little ways away). Scary a grown man could just disappear like that…

I felt AWFUL for his son to go through this segment. His father was obviously kidnapped from a gambling debt.

has that, or any other debt for that manner, been substantiated? His son's testimony is striking and for me eliminates the idea that he left on his own accord. It's pretty clear that there was foul play. perhaps it was related to business/robbery/fraud etc. Not the same, but sort of like what happened to Dale Kerstetter or Gary Simmons. Someone needed to use Lenny in order to get something that they wanted, there just are not any known motives.

Robin covered the case of on this weeks TTWC podcast:

https://www.trailwentcold.com/2022/05/04/the-trail-went-cold-episode-275-leonard-dirickson/

Fantastic episode

I think he's dead, unfortunately. They talk about his financial situation, how he needed money. I think the guy that killed him was either the guy he owed money to or working for the guy he owed money. I think him showing up at his house was basically a way to give him one last chance to pay up.

Leonard knew him, Jared didn't, but Leonard I feel knew exactly what he wanted. He made up the story about him wanting to see one of his horses. And left it at that. I don't believe that story. I might believe the whole idea that they were at a diner a couple of hours later, but I don't believe he was spotted 6 months later drunk as a skunk at a bar. I think that was a phony call to throw the case in a different direction. I think Leonard was dead by then.

Maybe the guy in the truck didn't kill him, but he led him to the one who did, I feel.

His son Jared turned out alright though, on the surface at least. He's married, still living in Oklahoma and has three kids. Lovely family from what I see. I think there has to come a time when you accept your dad is gone and move on. It could make you go crazy otherwise.

Just noticed as i re-watched this case today that this was one segment they didn’t film on location in the state or city where it happen instead i looked up the cafe they were both in during the re-enactment and turns out they filmed this segment in Santa Clarita California not Cheyenne Oklahoma. I wonder how many times they filmed on location and how many times they filmed in California because it was easier? Anyway i agree Leonard likely owed the guy or someone the guy knew money i keep envisioning a scenario where he was taken to a farm in Texas or Oklahoma and likely murdered and buried there over a debt he owed the guy.

i looked up the cafe they were both in during the re-enactment and turns out they filmed this segment in Santa Clarita California not Cheyenne Oklahoma. I wonder how many times they filmed on location and how many times they filmed in California because it was easier?

By the time this segment was made (for Lifetime TV), the show was nearing the end of its run and had an aging host and a lower budget. I believe that pretty much all of the CBS and Lifetime segments were filmed in/around Los Angeles. Maybe even some of the later NBC run too.

Amazingly, in the glory days of the show (when even Stack would travel and film on location and the producers had no problems crashing cars and blowing up churches) it was considered a cheap series to make!

Leonard's mother Norma, who was interviewed, died last October. Both her and Leonard's father's obituaries list Leonard as predeceasing them. Can't imagine having to be a parent and coming to the conclusion that your son is dead.

So are we in agreement here that the phone call from the bar that said Leonard was there was phony, right? Maybe even called by someone involved who meant to throw the cops off the case.

So are we in agreement here that the phone call from the bar that said Leonard was there was phony, right? Maybe even called by someone involved who meant to throw the cops off the case.

I believe it was someone who thought they saw Leonard, but was mistaken. Other threads have discussed at length how eyewitness testimony is not always the most accurate.

It could’ve also been a way for Leonard Killer to throw police off since the guy refused to give Elk City Police his name he very much might have been the guy who picked Leonard up that day and he was afraid the police were somehow closing in on him so he made up the sighting to throw police off there investigation.

I believe it was someone who thought they saw Leonard, but was mistaken. Other threads have discussed at length how eyewitness testimony is not always the most accurate.

Why didn't he hang around until the police came? Or approach the guy he thought was Leonard? None of this happened. He never followed Leonard out to the parking lot, never got a description of the vehicle he may have gotten into.

No, I believe it was just a hoax. An intentional hoax. It was meant to throw the police in another direction.

Why didn't he hang around until the police came? Or approach the guy he thought was Leonard? None of this happened. He never followed Leonard out to the parking lot, never got a description of the vehicle he may have gotten into.

No, I believe it was just a hoax. An intentional hoax. It was meant to throw the police in another direction.

Perhaps he didn't hang around because after making the call he realized he was mistaken and didn't want to embarrass himself?

Did we ever find out how long it took the cops to get there after the person called? Maybe the cops didn't respond right away and the caller got tired of waiting?

Your explanation is plausible too, so please don't think I am trying to sound like a b-----.

Perhaps he didn't hang around because after making the call he realized he was mistaken and didn't want to embarrass himself?

Did we ever find out how long it took the cops to get there after the person called? Maybe the cops didn't respond right away and the caller got tired of waiting?

Your explanation is plausible too, so please don't think I am trying to sound like a b-----.

All possibilities. I would say all unlikely though. This is a missing person. At the very least leave your number with the bartender/manager if you are tired of waiting. I can't imagine a missing person's case not being a major priority for the cops, so they would have gotten there rather soon.

But it still begs the question, even if he was there, which I don't think he was, but why is he there? Why dancing and drinking and not having a care in the world? He owned a business, he had a son whom he was close with.

I'm really starting to think that this was a case of someone intending to rob someone under the ruse of a horse sale. I think it's possible that the mystery guy seen at the diner believed Leonard had a substantial amount of money. IIRC, there was an article that mentioned a new job that he had started shortly before his disappearance and how much he enjoyed it. The article mentioned that Leonard's father offered to buy the company for him. Seems like Leonard's father came from money. Maybe this person thought Leonard had more than he really did, set up the ruse of being interested in a horse, before ultimately killing him when everything went South.

What do you make of the man in the club in Amarillo claiming he knew Leonard and that Leonard was in a bar in Amarillo? Do you think this guy was mistaken, lying or do you think it could have been Leonard?

I think it was a ruse created by the person or persons responsible for Leonard's death to throw both his loved ones and the investigators off the track.

I recently came across an obituary for Leonard’s mom that said he preceded her in death. It made me wonder if this case was actually solved or whether the family is just presuming he was dead after all these years? I couldn’t find anything to indicate the case was actually solved, but wondering if anyone else has heard anything

I never understood why police took the nightclub sighting so seriously. Robert Stack's narration says it best "why would Leonard be hanging out a nightclub?" The woman employee who corroborated the caller's story probably just backed up seeing someone similar, at best.

Another stance I found weird of the investigators: They believed the nightclub story but balked at the idea of Leonard having two breakfasts in one day to account for the sighting of him at the diner. His first breakfast was interrupted, first and foremost, and secondly if he was doing business with someone, why would it be hard to believe he would join the guy for a meal? If anything, it would be a good place to have a friendly discussion about purchase terms/possibilities. I don't think the guy intended to kill him from the outset, or he wouldn't have met him in a public at a restaurant.

I never understood why police took the nightclub sighting so seriously. Robert Stack's narration says it best "why would Leonard be hanging out a nightclub?" The woman employee who corroborated the caller's story probably just backed up seeing someone similar, at best.

It's never made much sense to me either. Especially when you consider that the man calling the police repeatedly refused to identify who he was or how he knew Leonard.

It's never made much sense to me either. Especially when you consider that the man calling the police repeatedly refused to identify who he was or how he knew Leonard.

Definitely meant to throw the police off. It was deliberate. Why else does the guy leave and not hang around? If anything you'd want to co-operate with the police.

Clearly the phone call was sent to lure him to his (likely) death. I think the person who did this had the motive to both rob and kill him. I don't think he would've ever been left alive. The issue is who did it and that's the hardest thing to answer.

Clearly the phone call was sent to lure him to his (likely) death. I think the person who did this had the motive to both rob and kill him. I don't think he would've ever been left alive. The issue is who did it and that's the hardest thing to answer.