Hi y'all. I've been off the radar for the past month due to some training (I'm in the Army Reserve) in Washington state (which was quite a journey for me, as I'm on the other side of the country). I'm back and currently reading through all the threads from the past month, which is a pretty good way to spend a relaxing day off. :-)

While I was in Washington, I finished Mara Leveritt's The Boys on the Tracks, about the 1987 Arkansas case surrounding Kevin Ives and Don Henry. Of course, the Mena conspiracy theory is explained and explored, and the author makes no secret that she supports it, but I found the book to be an extremely interesting account nonetheless and a very concise explanation of the "Mena theory" (which is why I bought the book in the first place). I'm unsure if one of our members has a copy and it's already been passed around, but I've searched through old threads and have thus far found nothing. So, if anyone is interested in borrowing the book, please do message me and let me know. I'd be happy to send it to you.

In any event, it's good to be back and I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the threads!

what was the mena theory again?

what was the mena theory again?

The short version is that Kevin Ives and Don Henry, along with others, have been victims of a government coverup involving cocaine trafficking. This was the "drug smuggling" briefly (and vaguely) mentioned in the update on the case with RS and Detective Garrett.

Apparently an area near the tracks where the boys were found was reported to have been a cocaine drop, as multiple low-flying aircraft had been seen there coming in from the direction of the Mena, Arkansas airport (which already had a reputation in the mid-1980s for being an alleged trafficking hub). Proponents of the Mena theory hold that Kevin and Don walked upon one of these supposed cocaine drops (whether intentionally or not) and were subsequently murdered. Allegedly the authorities of Saline County were aware of what exactly had happened to the boys, but continued to investigate and present it as a suicide rather than a homicide in order not to "cause trouble."

I was watching this case again last night and there was a mention of an almost identical case in Oklahoma in 1984. Two teenage boys were found on railroad tracks in almost the identical position as the boys in this case. Does anyone know anything about that Oklahoma case and whether that also has to do with the "Mena connection"?

I was watching this case again last night and there was a mention of an almost identical case in Oklahoma in 1984. Two teenage boys were found on railroad tracks in almost the identical position as the boys in this case. Does anyone know anything about that Oklahoma case and whether that also has to do with the "Mena connection"?

The book actually does make mention of the Oklahoma case, and the author seems convinced that it's connected to Mena. The interstate running through Oklahoma into Arkansas (I-30? Forgive me) was known to be an avenue for trafficking. I'm not so sure that they're necessarily connected, however. I'd need far more information than the blurb in the book about it gave me (although it was better than that quick mention of it on the segment).

Yes to me this case has always been a strange one! Why would this person(s) go through all that trouble to murder 2 teenage boys and in such a cruel manner? Just because they saw some drug dealing, it doesn't make sense! And if they did see that and tell someone, who would believe them? The killer(s) must have realized this if they were smart, that it would be their word against 2 kids, like I stated, who would believe them? It has to be something else. Maybe they came upon a murder or robbery of some kind and the bad guys realized they were there. The boys were young and strong and would have ran, that's why I think it's a group of guys who somehow incompacitated the boys and tied them to the tracks to get squashed like grapes!

Today marks the 21st anniversary of Kevin Ives and Don Henry's murders. May their families find some sense of comfort, solace, and hope in some way, the individuals still investigating it never rest, and the case soon be solved.

The Mena connection was discussed at length in a 1997 book entitled "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton" by London correspondent Ambrose Evans Pritchard. It was an open secret that Mena Airport in Arkansas was being used by the CIA to supply the Contras in Nicaragua. The rumors were that the airport was also used as a drop point to bring drugs into N. America. The Southwest and Florida were scrutinized so closely that the powers that be in the cartels were looking for a "back door" corridor. They supposedly found it in the form of Mena Airport, which was located in a state with local and state officials who didn't mind dipping their beaks into the wine in return for looking the other way.

Dan R. Lasater, a FOB and (I believe) a convicted drug supplier, and owner of a Ski Resort named Angel Fire (also the alleged site of much skulldugery) in New Mexico features pominently in Pritchard's account. I believe he even alludes to the Boys on the Tracks case. Given that there were 2 teenage boys with guns who knew the area were found lying on the tracks, it's difficult to see how 1 drifter or maniac could get the drop on them. I've always felt that it was at least 2 people, perhaps more. And remember, a maniac or drifter wouldn't likely take the time to fake a suicide. All of these factors give credence to the Mena connection theory.

The 2 boys are routinely linked to the supposed "mysterious body count" associated with the Clintons. I was reminded of that recently when the private jet carrying Barack Obama experienced mechanical difficulties (1 of the emergency chutes accidently inflated cutting off the power lines controlling the steering [a bizarre and infrequent occurence to say the least) and declared an emergency. Turns out the jet was last used by the Clinton campaign. Obama nearly became the next Ron Brown, et al. No question in my mind why he didn't select her as VP. He knew he would qualify for life insurance after that.

Given that there were 2 teenage boys with guns who knew the area were found lying on the tracks, it's difficult to see how 1 drifter or maniac could get the drop on them. I've always felt that it was at least 2 people, perhaps more. And remember, a maniac or drifter wouldn't likely take the time to fake a suicide. All of these factors give credence to the Mena connection theory.

I don't see how anyone could think that there wasn't more than one assailant, especially since

A) Kevin and Don were armed with a hunting rifle and could've easily incapacitated a single attacker,

B) The boys were not exactly small or unconditioned at the time of their deaths, and could've easily overpowered one person,

C) The blow to Kevin's head suggested that he had been struck with the butt of Don Henry's rifle. Considering the boys' sizes and the fact that they were armed, it only makes sense that in order for someone to have taken the weapon there would've had to have been another person disabling one of the boys,

D) There have been at least two testimonies placing multiple individuals near the scene of the crime on the night of 23 August 1987,

E) Exactly as you said, no maniac or drifter would've taken the time to make a murder look like a suicide.



In any event, someone wanted the murders covered up, whether it be the FBI, the state of Arkansas, or an influential local who had something to hide. Given this, it doesn't make the Mena connection exactly unbelievable in the least.

Indeed this is a rather bizare case and on which always sticks out to me as well.. I just dont't have a theory on this one I am back and forth with this one.. however I am convinced that there were more than one person to execute this crime

TGiven that there were 2 teenage boys with guns who knew the area were found lying on the tracks, it's difficult to see how 1 drifter or maniac could get the drop on them. I've always felt that it was at least 2 people, perhaps more. And remember, a maniac or drifter wouldn't likely take the time to fake a suicide. All of these factors give credence to the Mena connection theory.

I’m not convinced at all. Let’s be realistic: anyone can get the drop on anyone or figure out a way to kill multiple people. I could easily envision a scenario where a stranger would make contact with Kevin and Don, gain their confidence relatively quickly (maybe offer them a joint) and then kill them by surprise. How many cases have we seen on UM where one attacker has killed multiple people, including men?

Does this case make sense? No, but murdering two boys doesn’t make any sense. I think it’s very likely that the killer acted in a bizarre and irrational way in committing these crimes. In his mind it made sense in the moment. Staging the murder to look like a suicide is likely to be a thought held by someone crazy enough to pull off this crime. If they would kill two teenagers for no apparent reason (an irrational act), why wouldn’t they do something else irrational to try to cover it up? In our minds, it makes no sense, but that doesn’t preclude it from happening.

I think the drifter/serial killer theory makes a lot more sense than a conspiracy theory.

I’m not convinced at all. Let’s be realistic: anyone can get the drop on anyone or figure out a way to kill multiple people. I could easily envision a scenario where a stranger would make contact with Kevin and Don, gain their confidence relatively quickly (maybe offer them a joint) and then kill them by surprise. How many cases have we seen on UM where one attacker has killed multiple people, including men?

I could understand one person killing multiple people if they had a firearm. But Kevin and Don weren't shot, and I'm not so sure just anyone is really capable of incompacitating than one person at once---that's the stuff of action movies and Level IV combatives courses. If we're to assume that the "man in military fatigues" is A) the same person who fired at the Bryant police officer a week before, and B) a murderous drifter, why did he not just shoot Kevin and Don the way he had at the officer?

As well, those tracks run right alongside residential areas, and it was/is relatively common for individuals to be in those woods the tracks run through, mainly for hunting and the like. If it's a maniac, why would that individual not just lie in wait in those woods for more victims? There's far too much evidence that substantiates the "conspiracy" theory for me to believe that the boys' deaths were the work of a random killer. That, and I've actually never seen an abundance of UM cases where a single attacker has murdered multiple fully conscious people.

I fear this case will never be revealed.

Originally Posted by Or So It Seems
I’m not convinced at all. Let’s be realistic: anyone can get the drop on anyone or figure out a way to kill multiple people. I could easily envision a scenario where a stranger would make contact with Kevin and Don, gain their confidence relatively quickly (maybe offer them a joint) and then kill them by surprise. How many cases have we seen on UM where one attacker has killed multiple people, including men?


I don;t know that there have been that many cases where a single man took down two other men, like that. Could you name one?

The Mena connection was discussed at length in a 1997 book entitled "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton" by London correspondent Ambrose Evans Pritchard. It was an open secret that Mena Airport in Arkansas was being used by the CIA to supply the Contras in Nicaragua. The rumors were that the airport was also used as a drop point to bring drugs into N. America. The Southwest and Florida were scrutinized so closely that the powers that be in the cartels were looking for a "back door" corridor. They supposedly found it in the form of Mena Airport, which was located in a state with local and state officials who didn't mind dipping their beaks into the wine in return for looking the other way.

Dan R. Lasater, a FOB and (I believe) a convicted drug supplier, and owner of a Ski Resort named Angel Fire (also the alleged site of much skulldugery) in New Mexico features pominently in Pritchard's account. I believe he even alludes to the Boys on the Tracks case. Given that there were 2 teenage boys with guns who knew the area were found lying on the tracks, it's difficult to see how 1 drifter or maniac could get the drop on them. I've always felt that it was at least 2 people, perhaps more. And remember, a maniac or drifter wouldn't likely take the time to fake a suicide. All of these factors give credence to the Mena connection theory.

The 2 boys are routinely linked to the supposed "mysterious body count" associated with the Clintons. I was reminded of that recently when the private jet carrying Barack Obama experienced mechanical difficulties (1 of the emergency chutes accidently inflated cutting off the power lines controlling the steering [a bizarre and infrequent occurence to say the least) and declared an emergency. Turns out the jet was last used by the Clinton campaign. Obama nearly became the next Ron Brown, et al. No question in my mind why he didn't select her as VP. He knew he would qualify for life insurance after that.
You know that the "mysterious body count" associated with the Clintons has been thoroughly debunked, right? This type of ridiculous conspiracy-mongering has done no help for the investigation into these murders.

You know that the "mysterious body count" associated with the Clintons has been thoroughly debunked, right? This type of ridiculous conspiracy-mongering has done no help for the investigation into these murders.

For presidential administrations with"mysterious body counts" check the Richard Nixon administration. :lol: The only thing the Clintons are guilty of are questionable business activities (and really what politician isn't :rolleyes: )

I don;t see why the "Boys on the tracks' case has to involve some massive govt conspiracy to it. There are lot of smaller conspiracies that happen all the time in life. This doesn;t have to be a 'grassy knoll" type deal.

Personally i think this case is rather simple to figure out. The boys saw something they shouldn;t have. Two or more people killed them and put them on the tracks to avoid them telling.

It could be as simple as two independent low end drug dealers who got frightened and went overboard with this murder. Or it could be part of some police coverup or drug organization.

I don;t think we'll ever find the true culprits. They are probably dead, in jail,

The only way this case gets solved is if someone talks in jail. and even then I think there will be a limit to who gets named as taken part in those boys murders.

I think a single man could kill two teen kids in the woods a guy that was trained in the Army or an ex Militia member would know how to sneak attack two teen boys in the woods wouldnt take much specially if the guy was a big man.

Not saying thats the case here but I dont think it would be that hard given some of the crazys you get out their.

I think a single man could kill two teen kids in the woods a guy that was trained in the Army or an ex Militia member would know how to sneak attack two teen boys in the woods wouldnt take much specially if the guy was a big man.

Not saying thats the case here but I dont think it would be that hard given some of the crazys you get out their.

No. I disagree. I'm in the Army. No matter how good someone is, or how long someone has studied at hand to hand combat, it's still very difficult to learn how to incapacitate two people at once (especially one who has a firearm!)--even for service members who receive constant advanced combatives training, such as Rangers or SEALs. That's why hardly anything we do is an individual, solitary effort. All that Rambo stuff is 99.9% pure Hollywood B.S.

Don carried a .22 rifle. It's a small caliber, but it does the job. (I'm always amazed when I hear things to the effect of "it was only a .22." The I-70killer, Morris Davis' murderer, and the Sacramento thrill killer ALL used a .25 or smaller. They work. But I digress.) I find it hard to believe a single individual would take a great risk of being shot by accosting two people by himself, even in a so-called "sneak" attack.

Don was stabbed and was not alive when he was run over by the train. Acting alone, his killer would've had to:

1. Take Don's rifle
2. Prevent Kevin from getting to the rifle
3. Pull a knife
4. Prevent Kevin from attempting to attack in any way
5. Stab and kill Don

...All while keeping Kevin from fleeing to attempt to kill him next.


Kevin was rendered unconscious from a blow to the head and was alive when the train ran over him. He was struck with the butt of Don's rifle. Suppose the order was reversed, with the killer attacking Kevin first. Acting alone, the killer would've had to:

1. Take Don's rifle
2. Bludgeon Kevin in the head hard enough to knock him out
3. Prevent Don from attempting to attack or regain his (prize) rifle in any way
4. Pull a knife, stab and kill Don (when a firearm is readily available)

...All while keeping Don from fleeing before he can be killed. They were only less than a mile from Don's house, after all.


The point is, it's extremely unlikely, in my opinion, that the boys' deaths were the result of a single individual who has managed to solely utilize advanced combatives training. I strongly feel Kevin and Don were attacked by two or more people.

In my opinion...I think there were two killers. If was related to any drugs related and the boys stumbled upon something they should not have seen it would have been easy for two men to overpower them. My guess is that the boys saw something and to "befriend" them the killers probably offered the boys some pot...then once they were slightly high one killer stabbed Don while the other grabs the falling gun and hitting Kevin on the head...assuming he killed him...one lay dead...the other unconscious. This probably happened off the tracks... then the killers needed to dispose of the bodies so they used the green tarp to drag them to the tracks...they then laid them out to make it look like a suicide/murder (I think they assumed both boys were dead) then put the tarp that they dragged the boys with over their legs and just let them get hit...hoping to destroy any evidence as they got mangled. As to where the tarp went...well my theory is that in the heat of the train stopping...it just simply burned up as the sparks were hitting it. Sure there would have been some kind of evidence of this...except that all of this happened at night and anything left from the fire could have just been blown away in the wind. I know this is far fetched...but it's just my opinion.

One thing I've never understood re: the tarp (and it's not that big a deal in the scheme of things) is why, if the killers were trying to make it look like a suicide, they would put a tarp over the bodies at all.

One thing I've never understood re: the tarp (and it's not that big a deal in the scheme of things) is why, if the killers were trying to make it look like a suicide, they would put a tarp over the bodies at all.

I think it just may have been the killers morbid sense of humor or if they were trying to make it look like a murder/suicide then it may seem comforting to have Kevin "murder" Don then lay down next to him like the friends they were and put the tarp over them while he "waits" for the train to kill him. I know that one is a stretch...but the entire story is just odd to begin with.

But as I said at the beginning...I think it was just a morbid sense of humor of the killers...but like you yuppielawyer...I don't actually think the tarp is that significant...and who knows...maybe the people in the train were wrong and there was no tarp at all...although I find that doubtful...unless there was somehow a shadow that was cast over the boys to make it appear like there was a tarp. Just my opinion!!!

Regarding the fact that two armed boys were overpowered and killed, but not shot...

These two were teens, they were really just kids. Even with the fact that they were armed, maybe their guns were slung over their shoulders or inaccessable in a surprise attack.

But also, being kids, they would have been easily intimidated by one or more armed burly men. If they weren't expecting to be confronted by an armed person(s), then all of a sudden, a gun is stuck in their face, they may cooperate and lay down their guns.

There have been many, many cases where people have been abducted from public areas at gunpoint, only to cooperate with the gunman, and be taken to a remote location where they are raped/tortured/murdered. That's why I've told my kids, "If you see the gun, run. Make them shoot you in public, where there are witnesses. Because if you leave with them, you're dead anyway. Better to get it over with than to suffer the rape and torture before they finally shoot you."

Starting to ramble.... So my point is, what if the two boys were just meandering around, or even sitting around, not holding their guns, or having them slung over their shoulders, when they encounter something very bad.

A killer with an uzi, or shotgun points it at one kid's head and demands that the other boy throw both guns into the bushes. If the kid doesn't throw the guns away, then the other kid gets shot to death, so he throws the guns aside. Now they are both unarmed and completely under the control of the killer.

Then you have the rest of the story. Maybe an accomplice took the boy's guns and hit the one boy in the head. At this point the other boy runs, but is tackled and stabbed to death.

Anyway, all this yapping is me just trying to figure out why they weren't shot, how they could have been overpowered, even though they were armed, etc...

No. I disagree. I'm in the Army. No matter how good someone is, or how long someone has studied at hand to hand combat, it's still very difficult to learn how to incapacitate two people at once (especially one who has a firearm!)--even for service members who receive constant advanced combatives training, such as Rangers or SEALs. That's why hardly anything we do is an individual, solitary effort. All that Rambo stuff is 99.9% pure Hollywood B.S.

Don carried a .22 rifle. It's a small caliber, but it does the job. (I'm always amazed when I hear things to the effect of "it was only a .22." The I-70killer, Morris Davis' murderer, and the Sacramento thrill killer ALL used a .25 or smaller. They work. But I digress.) I find it hard to believe a single individual would take a great risk of being shot by accosting two people by himself, even in a so-called "sneak" attack.

Don was stabbed and was not alive when he was run over by the train. Acting alone, his killer would've had to:

1. Take Don's rifle
2. Prevent Kevin from getting to the rifle
3. Pull a knife
4. Prevent Kevin from attempting to attack in any way
5. Stab and kill Don

...All while keeping Kevin from fleeing to attempt to kill him next.


Kevin was rendered unconscious from a blow to the head and was alive when the train ran over him. He was struck with the butt of Don's rifle. Suppose the order was reversed, with the killer attacking Kevin first. Acting alone, the killer would've had to:

1. Take Don's rifle
2. Bludgeon Kevin in the head hard enough to knock him out
3. Prevent Don from attempting to attack or regain his (prize) rifle in any way
4. Pull a knife, stab and kill Don (when a firearm is readily available)

...All while keeping Don from fleeing before he can be killed. They were only less than a mile from Don's house, after all.


The point is, it's extremely unlikely, in my opinion, that the boys' deaths were the result of a single individual who has managed to solely utilize advanced combatives training. I strongly feel Kevin and Don were attacked by two or more people.

Oh really I do see where the woods would be a really good hiding spot for someone especially that late at night they werent thikning about someone being out thier watching them that was probably the furthest thing from their minds I would think the shock factor of someone coming out at you in the pitch black woods would be enough to give anyone a fright of their life,if he had grabbed one of the kids by the kneck with a large knife and gotten the other to drop his gun.

I get what your saying about Hollywood dramatizing the Army, I could also see how two kids could be caught unawares.

Yeah, I agree that it is entirely possible that it was a single person responsible. They could easily have put their guns down for all sorts of reasons, before they were ever attacked or confronted. There's really nothing that points definitively to two killers--or one or three or ten, for that matter.

One thing I've never understood re: the tarp (and it's not that big a deal in the scheme of things) is why, if the killers were trying to make it look like a suicide, they would put a tarp over the bodies at all.

I always assumed that the tarp was so that nobody could see that it was two bodies. They probably thought the train engineers would not notice and stop suddenly. In the end they did, but the killer probably didn;t know that. I would have done the same in their case.

Yeah, I agree that it is entirely possible that it was a single person responsible. They could easily have put their guns down for all sorts of reasons, before they were ever attacked or confronted. There's really nothing that points definitively to two killers--or one or three or ten, for that matter.

Kevin and Don were not little boys, they were decent sized kids. They could both look as intimidating and as any drug dealer or malcontent. Not to metion they had weapons.

It's kind of a moot point whether there was multiple people. We just need one at the moment. if we find one suspect the others if any will come.

I don't see how the case parameters change if it;s one or multiple people.

I personally favor multiple suspects.

Maybe very small portions of the Clinton body count have been debunked but the list as a whole is far too extensive to ignore. Please show me where the Clinton body count has been debunked to anyone's satisfaction. Gennifer Flowers said pubicly that the reason she was so vocal about her affair with William Jefferson Clinton was because she feared for her life if she didn't make herself a public figure. It is far more than coincidence that these people just happened to have ties to the Clintons in one way or another and most died under very mysterious circumstances.

Maybe very small portions of the Clinton body count have been debunked but the list as a whole is far too extensive to ignore. Please show me where the Clinton body count has been debunked to anyone's satisfaction. Gennifer Flowers said pubicly that the reason she was so vocal about her affair with William Jefferson Clinton was because she feared for her life if she didn't make herself a public figure. It is far more than coincidence that these people just happened to have ties to the Clintons in one way or another and most died under very mysterious circumstances.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

It has been most thoroughly debunked. It being "extensive" is meaningless:
Don't be swayed by the number of names listed on screeds like this. Any public figure is bound to have a much wider circle of acquaintance than an ordinary citizen would. Moreover, the acquaintance is often one-sided — though many of the people enumerated on this list might properly claim to have known Clinton, he wouldn't know or remember having met a great number of them.

"Body count" lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly "suspicious" deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version:
List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of Clinton's mother's chiropractor.

Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't contradict with hard evidence.

Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."

If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claim to have the most damaging goods on Clinton — Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr — are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.

Most importantly, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff . . .
Oh, and as for Gennifer Flowers, I'm sure her fear for her life was what motivated her to go public and not the six figures she got paid by whatever tabloid it was for her exclusive.

I wouldn't consider snopes as an authoritive source in something as big as a bunch of mysterious (or not so mysterious) deaths.

Snopes is good for benign humorous stuff, but when it comes to anything political, they have a definite bias in favor of liberals or democrats, a grouping that includes former president bill clinton and current secretary of state hillary clinton.

Personally, I have witnessed 2 things happen that snopes swears never happened. I witnessed one event with my own eyes and the other event actually happened to me (no, I was not abducted by a ufo). If I can't trust snopes for little piddly crap like that, how can I trust them on the big stuff?

As to whether the Clintons are connected to murders, they're probably connected to a few and then the "list" snowballed from there. Really, what politician isn't dirty? I can only think of about 3 politicians who I would even trust to house sit and not steal the family silver while I was gone.

what do you mean?

Kevin and Don were not little boys, they were decent sized kids. They could both look as intimidating and as any drug dealer or malcontent. Not to metion they had weapons.

It's kind of a moot point whether there was multiple people. We just need one at the moment. if we find one suspect the others if any will come.

I don't see how the case parameters change if it;s one or multiple people.

I personally favor multiple suspects.

They were just a couple of kids they wouldnt have intimiadated a drug dealer those guys have seen it all.

They were just a couple of kids they wouldnt have intimiadated a drug dealer those guys have seen it all.

Drug dealers can be teenagers as well. Just cause you deal drugs doesn't mean your an enforcer or soldier or that your armed.

Were'nt Kevin and Don consider the type of kids that picked and bullied on people? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. They also smoked pot, as well, didn;t they. Or am I mixing up cases.

Drug dealers can be teenagers as well. Just cause you deal drugs doesn't mean your an enforcer or soldier or that your armed.

Were'nt Kevin and Don consider the type of kids that picked and bullied on people? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. They also smoked pot, as well, didn;t they. Or am I mixing up cases.

Exactly. There was an idea floating around Bryant (and apparently still does today) that the boys had just happened to run into small-timers who mainly operated locally--not someone like the soldier or enforcer of Scarface imagination. Kevin and Don were both larger boys--especially Kevin, who had held a job requiring extensive manual labor over the summer of 1987 and was a football player.

According to what I have read, Kevin and Don had just developed their friendship over that summer. Kevin was at odds with his long-time best friend for dating a girl Kevin had just broken up with, and Kevin started hanging out with Don. Kevin was rather quiet and serious; Don was the opposite. They had gotten into a little mischief here and there, but nothing serious.

According to a footnote in Leveritt's book, when Kevin was fourteen he and a friend were walking along a road in a nearby town visiting relatives when they were stopped by a police officer, who discovered they were carrying a joint. Kevin and the other boy were subsequently placed on probation. Kevin's father Larry required his son to submit to random urine tests which were examined at the county hospital, and all had come back clean. As far as Don's previous involvement with marijuana, I'm unsure. Whatever the case, they certainly didn't deserve what happened to them at all.

Drug dealers can be teenagers as well. Just cause you deal drugs doesn't mean your an enforcer or soldier or that your armed.

Were'nt Kevin and Don consider the type of kids that picked and bullied on people? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. They also smoked pot, as well, didn;t they. Or am I mixing up cases.

If it was a drop off point like some claim they probably would have been pretty dangerous people Colombians or Mexicans not your local pot dealers I wouldnt have wanted to be those kids gun or no gun.Your probably right about the kids being bullies they dont really scratch the surface on what the vicitms were really like in their everyday lives.

I wouldn't consider snopes as an authoritive source in something as big as a bunch of mysterious (or not so mysterious) deaths.

Snopes is good for benign humorous stuff, but when it comes to anything political, they have a definite bias in favor of liberals or democrats, a grouping that includes former president bill clinton and current secretary of state hillary clinton.

Personally, I have witnessed 2 things happen that snopes swears never happened. I witnessed one event with my own eyes and the other event actually happened to me (no, I was not abducted by a ufo). If I can't trust snopes for little piddly crap like that, how can I trust them on the big stuff?

As to whether the Clintons are connected to murders, they're probably connected to a few and then the "list" snowballed from there. Really, what politician isn't dirty? I can only think of about 3 politicians who I would even trust to house sit and not steal the family silver while I was gone.

Agreed. Snopes is great for e-mail hoaxes, common scams, stories (i.e. whether a cell phone can be used to unlock a car), assorted urban legends regarding celebrities (Jimi Hendrix was never interviewed by Johnny Carson) etc. For other categories, Snopes is about as useful as an udder on a bull.

Sorry, but I trust snopes far more than some unsigned "body count" list that's going around via e-mail or some crazy conspiracy-theorist videotape being peddled in infomercials. If you read their takedown of the body count e-mail, they take each case, and give information on each one. They have extensively documented and referenced their response, while the "body count" list is nothing more than a bunch of innuendo and suppostion, much of which has been demonstrably proven to be untrue. Just look at the Starbucks murders in Washington, D.C. That case was solved, the perpetrator was convicted, and yet, it still persists as being something attributable to Clinton based on the fact that the manager who was killed had once worked as a White House intern and her name started with "M." At some point, you either choose to believe the crazy, completely unsubstantiated conspiracies, or the documented facts. I choose the documented facts.

If it was a drop off point like some claim they probably would have been pretty dangerous people Colombians or Mexicans not your local pot dealers

Yeah, you never know about those "dangerous" Colombians or Mexicans. Always wrapped up in some drug scheme. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you never know about those "dangerous" Colombians or Mexicans. Always wrapped up in some drug scheme. :rolleyes:

I was refering to Drug Cartels do you live a cave.:(

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86
Yeah, you never know about those "dangerous" Colombians or Mexicans. Always wrapped up in some drug scheme.


I was refering to Drug Cartels do you live a cave.

If those boys were killed by "pros" such as a cartel, the dumbest thing they could have done would be to kill two boys

So what if Kevin and Don did see them, what were they going to say? We saw two or three guys unloading a truck somewhere near a plane?

By the time the authorities got to the drug dealers, they probably long gone and could easily find another drop point to use.

Killing two boys would have brought unbelievable attention their activities.

The only way I could see a "cartel" killing Kevin and Don would be if one of them raised the gun on those people.

One theory that I think has been overlooked is the possibility that Kevin and Don were copping or even involved with the people that killed them.

Though I don;t know why you would bring a rifle with you to cop drugs.

I was refering to Drug Cartels do you live a cave.:(

I'm aware of what you were trying to express, and I think it is prematurely speculative and utterly ludicrous.

If those boys were killed by "pros" such as a cartel, the dumbest thing they could have done would be to kill two boys

So what if Kevin and Don did see them, what were they going to say? We saw two or three guys unloading a truck somewhere near a plane?

By the time the authorities got to the drug dealers, they probably long gone and could easily find another drop point to use.

Killing two boys would have brought unbelievable attention their activities.

Thank you.

The only way I could see a "cartel" killing Kevin and Don would be if one of them raised the gun on those people.

One theory that I think has been overlooked is the possibility that Kevin and Don were copping or even involved with the people that killed them.

Though I don;t know why you would bring a rifle with you to cop drugs.


There was a theory going around that Kevin and Don were actually looking to steal drugs from a dealer's personal residence that evening, and if I remember correctly I think the drug in question was actually cocaine. It's a weird story and I'm not so sure I put much stock in it myself, but it is an interesting notion. I'll go through my research materials and see if I can dig it up.

If those boys were killed by "pros" such as a cartel, the dumbest thing they could have done would be to kill two boys

So what if Kevin and Don did see them, what were they going to say? We saw two or three guys unloading a truck somewhere near a plane?

By the time the authorities got to the drug dealers, they probably long gone and could easily find another drop point to use.

Killing two boys would have brought unbelievable attention their activities.

The only way I could see a "cartel" killing Kevin and Don would be if one of them raised the gun on those people.

One theory that I think has been overlooked is the possibility that Kevin and Don were copping or even involved with the people that killed them.

Though I don;t know why you would bring a rifle with you to cop drugs.

If it were that crazy where would this Mena theory come from I only brought up Cartels because of the drop off theory. People get killed by drug dealers all the time I dont think your theory would be that much of stretch at all,do you remember the segment about the white suburban kid that was found murdered in his car in a abandonded garage it was in a rough part of town I think it was in Michigan or Illinois no one could understand why hed be their but the rumours were drugs.

I'm aware of what you were trying to express, and I think it is prematurely speculative and utterly ludicrous.

Thank you.


Well you obviously didnt you tried to make me out to be a bigot, their's nothing ludicrous about drug cartels using drop offs in Arkansas in the 80's if it was a drop off spot where do you think the drugs were coming from.

If it were that crazy where would this Mena theory come from I only brought up Cartels because of the drop off theory. People get killed by drug dealers all the time I dont think your theory would be that much of stretch at all,do you remember the segment about the white suburban kid that was found murdered in his car in a abandonded garage it was in a rough part of town I think it was in Michigan or Illinois no one could understand why hed be their but the rumours were drugs.

Think about the Scott Johnson case in Arizona. Don and Kevin;s killers were more like those guys. Low level drug dealers.

The Mena theory is a conspiracy theory gone wild.

Here's my problem with this case guys, and please help me with this one because I find if incredibly interesting.

The only thing out there, at least that I've found, on this case, is the UM segment, and then a bunch of right wing anti-Clinton books, documentaries and articles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there hasn't been corruption, but you always have to question the agenda behind such political attack pieces.

Based on what I have seen and read, the boys were found on the track and were run over. There bodies were in the identical positions and had a tarp over them (this was based on eyewitness testimony SOLELY from the train conductors). The tarp was never found. I don't doubt the honesty of the conductors, but I question how accurate their accounts were, given that the conductor himself said that the time between sighting and impact was between "3 and 5 seconds."

I next think about the initial Arkansas coroner's ruling: 20-something pot joints (obviously that is patently absurd). First of all, nobody smokes that much EVER, and certainly not in a three hour time period. The next coroner said that they had smoked between 1 and 3 joints. Three joints is a lot, and if they smoked three joints in a short amount of time, I could see them passing out, or being totally stoned to the point of not hearing or caring about a horn. I know that sounds silly, but I've smoked pot, and we all know that if you smoke some strong stuff, and three joints (which is a lot), it can knock you out. The tarp, which was never found and based on the conductors 3-5 second eye witness account may not have been there.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Further, was there ever any thought that they might have committed suicide? Just an idea.

The thing that stands out is the coroner (the new one) saying that "there was evidence that one of the boys MIGHT have been dead before the train hit him." Now, this doesn't sound very conclusive to me, but it could be true. Maybe the pot was laced with something, who knows.

Regardless, I need some of you UM researches to fill me in on what makes you all think this was a murder. I'm only finding the UM segment, and right wing govt conspiracy stuff which I don't really rely on because there is an agenda. I mean, there are lots of people out there who think Clinton was responsible for 100's of murders, so let's try and keep it objective. Cool?

Based on what I have seen and read, the boys were found on the track and were run over. There bodies were in the identical positions and had a tarp over them (this was based on eyewitness testimony SOLELY from the train conductors). The tarp was never found. I don't doubt the honesty of the conductors, but I question how accurate their accounts were, given that the conductor himself said that the time between sighting and impact was between "3 and 5 seconds."

I next think about the initial Arkansas coroner's ruling: 20-something pot joints (obviously that is patently absurd). First of all, nobody smokes that much EVER, and certainly not in a three hour time period. The next coroner said that they had smoked between 1 and 3 joints. Three joints is a lot, and if they smoked three joints in a short amount of time, I could see them passing out, or being totally stoned to the point of not hearing or caring about a horn. I know that sounds silly, but I've smoked pot, and we all know that if you smoke some strong stuff, and three joints (which is a lot), it can knock you out. The tarp, which was never found and based on the conductors 3-5 second eye witness account may not have been there.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Further, was there ever any thought that they might have committed suicide? Just an idea.

The thing that stands out is the coroner (the new one) saying that "there was evidence that one of the boys MIGHT have been dead before the train hit him." Now, this doesn't sound very conclusive to me, but it could be true. Maybe the pot was laced with something, who knows.

Regardless, I need some of you UM researches to fill me in on what makes you all think this was a murder. I'm only finding the UM segment, and right wing govt conspiracy stuff which I don't really rely on because there is an agenda. I mean, there are lots of people out there who think Clinton was responsible for 100's of murders, so let's try and keep it objective. Cool?
I agree 100%
The boys smoked something too "good" and they fell asleep.
The tarp was "seen" cause the witness was in shock.
If somebody tried to make it look like a accident why the hell would they/he cover them with a tarp? And then later go back to the "crime scene" and find something nobody else found? It makes no sense cause it never happened. This was just a tragic accident, so tragic the parents could not comprehend.
And one last thing The blow to Kevin's head suggested that he had been struck with the butt of Don Henry's rifle Hey, they was run over by a train a TRAIN!

Even if the boys passed out stoned, railroad tracks seems like a very uncomfortable place to sleep it off. Wouldn't they be more likely to sit on the ground with their backs up against a tree or something, and then spark up? They were supposed to have been out "hunting" and had their gun(s) with them. The woods just seems like a better place than the tracks, to me.

Train tracks seems like an odd choice, but I'm sure it's possible that they could have been just sitting on the tracks, talking or whatever, when they passed out.

I wonder what position they were laying on the tracks. If they were laid out "silent movie" style, then I would say they were put there by killers. If they were laying just sort of any which way, it sounds more like they were just passed out.

Also, I always thought that one of the boys had stab wounds that were said to have been inflicted before the train hit them.

I haven't read any of the conspiracy books but I have read the email fwd claiming that there is a clinton hit list. I think the email list is partly to blame for this mess, even more so than the books, since the emails have such a vast audience. Since that email has been circulated, the general public just said, "Well, these boys were murdered by the Clintons." And that was it. Once it was accepted as a political murder, most of the public never thought to look at it objectively.

To answer some of my own questions, I went to the UM site to read the case again.

UM says that a total of 4 people on the train saw the green tarp partially covering the boys. If it was just the one guy, panicking as he saw that he was about to run over some people, I could say that he was just mistaken. But four witnesses makes me think that it's very possible that the tarp was there.

Kevin and Don were lying "exactly parallel on the tracks" with "their arms straight down by their sides". Don's rifle was lying parallel to both of the boys. If that's true, it sounds like they were placed there. How could both of them pass out perfectly parallel to each other and both with their arms neatly at their sides?

Also, an investigation discovered that Don's shirt did have cut marks that indicated that Don was stabbed before being hit by the train. With that information, a grand jury changed the deaths from "probable homicide" to "definite homicide".

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Further, was there ever any thought that they might have committed suicide? Just an idea.

1. They had a gun, why wouldn't they use the gun to committ suicide?

2. The two boys seem to be more the type that would go on a killing rampage than committ suicide.

To answer some of my own questions, I went to the UM site to read the case again.

UM says that a total of 4 people on the train saw the green tarp partially covering the boys. If it was just the one guy, panicking as he saw that he was about to run over some people, I could say that he was just mistaken. But four witnesses makes me think that it's very possible that the tarp was there.

Kevin and Don were lying "exactly parallel on the tracks" with "their arms straight down by their sides". Don's rifle was lying parallel to both of the boys. If that's true, it sounds like they were placed there. How could both of them pass out perfectly parallel to each other and both with their arms neatly at their sides?

Also, an investigation discovered that Don's shirt did have cut marks that indicated that Don was stabbed before being hit by the train. With that information, a grand jury changed the deaths from "probable homicide" to "definite homicide".

Very interesting points.. Thanks for responding :) I'm still trying to figure this one out, because the 4 eyewitnesses that are mentioned were all in the train, as it was barralling towards the boys, and the conductor himself said that the time between seeing the boys and hitting them was "3-5 seconds." It's hard for me to understand how in that time, esp. given the horrible situation, how they were able to observe how the boys were laid out, their positions, the tarp, the fact that they were parrallel to each other, etc. It just seems like a lot of detail to pick up on in such a time frame, particularly since it was night, and the boys were being seen from a moving train.

The cut marks are puzzling to me as well. How could a coroner determine that a shirt had knife marks after the boys were run over by a train for "over a half a mile" as was mentioned on the segment. I would imagine that the boys were pretty well in pieces by that point, or at least sliced up. If there is a way to definitively show that the boys had knife marks on the shirt (and they were not already there; remember, these were young boys out hunting, and it wouldn't surprise me if they went out and one boy had a shirt that had tears in it already), then yes, that is very strange.

I'm not saying they weren't murdered, I just worry, as you said before, that the conspiracy idea was thrown out there, and it stuck, and no one has considered the accident idea anymore.

Also, I thought that the grand jury changed the findings from "accidental death" to "probable homicide." Where did you find that it was changed to "definite homicide." That is interesting. I will def. go an re-read the UM website. Anyway, what a great mystery huh?

1. They had a gun, why wouldn't they use the gun to committ suicide?

2. The two boys seem to be more the type that would go on a killing rampage than committ suicide.

Mastermind: Great point on the gun comment. I had thrown the suicide theory out there as just an unlikely one, but I would think accident or murder before suicide.

As to your second point, I think that might be a bit harsh. We knew they smoked pot (as do at least 40% of Americans at some point in their lives), but I don't think it's fair to say they'd be the type that might go on a killing rampage. I know you were just making a point, but since they are dead, and the families could be reading this, let's be careful with judgments.

UM says that a total of 4 people on the train saw the green tarp partially covering the boys. If it was just the one guy, panicking as he saw that he was about to run over some people, I could say that he was just mistaken. But four witnesses makes me think that it's very possible that the tarp was there.
.
Sounds strange, so there where 4 people in the front of the train looking out? Sound like a UM-fact.


Kevin and Don were lying "exactly parallel on the tracks" with "their arms straight down by their sides". Don's rifle was lying parallel to both of the boys. If that's true, it sounds like they were placed there. How could both of them pass out perfectly parallel to each other and both with their arms neatly at their sides?

I guess "exactly parallel on the tracks" also had to be seen by 4 people. If this is true my guess is that the two boys played chicken run with the train and they misjudged cause of the pot smoking. The first one that moved was a chicken.


Also, an investigation discovered that Don's shirt did have cut marks that indicated that Don was stabbed before being hit by the train. With that information, a grand jury changed the deaths from "probable homicide" to "definite homicide".
I never trust investigation like this. Sounds like something the parents wanted to hear.

I know you were just making a point, but since they are dead, and the families could be reading this, let's be careful with judgments.

As well as the killers of Don and Henry, if you think about it......


But point taken. My apologies if anyone was offended.

The only problem with the suicide or passed out stoned theory is their blood was solid (or whatever the term is) when they were hit, meaning they were dead already.

As far as people scoffing at "rifle butt marks" and "shirt knife cuts"...we have not seen the crime scene photos or autopsy pics, so we can't discount what the authorities say they saw

Sound like a UM-fact.
... my guess is that the two boys played chicken run with the train and they misjudged cause of the pot smoking. The first one that moved was a chicken.

First, I gotta say, I love your "UM-fact" comment. That's the perfect name for some of the stuff they present.

And I hadn't thought about playing chicken. That's a really interesting theory. I could definitely see teenage boys doing something like that and misjudging it or falling asleep while waiting for the train to come, and then be too impaired to help themselves once the train finally got there.

The tracks were near one of the boy's house. Maybe they were familiar with the train schedule and knew approximately when one would be coming by, or they knew how often trains came by, and that spurred along the idea of playing chicken.

my guess is that the two boys played chicken run with the train and they misjudged cause of the pot smoking. The first one that moved was a chicken.

If they were playing chicken, I would think that they would be standing and the train operator would have seen two standing boys on the tracks. You don't play chicken by lying on the train tracks. That would be blatant suicide.

Again...if they were playing Chicken why was their blood already solid when they were hit?

If they were playing chicken, I would think that they would be standing and the train operator would have seen two standing boys on the tracks. You don't play chicken by lying on the train tracks. That would be blatant suicide.
You never know what stupid stone kids does. I have read about strange "games" where people lay completely still on a highway to see if they get hit by a car. Not exactly the same but still unbelievable stupid..

You never know what stupid stone kids does. I have read about strange "games" where people lay completely still on a highway to see if they get hit by a car. Not exactly the same but still unbelievable stupid..

Your choosing a theory that's possible, rather than probable. In all probablity they were not playing chicken.