5 Year Old Hostage in Alabama Freed

I drove past the hostage situation everyday on the way to work. It was a media frenzy for sure. What gets me about the whole deal is that jimmy lee dykes clearly stated that he would swap the kid for a national reporter so he could tell his story about the government to the world. I just thought he was just some crazy old man, until I heard from a reliable source that Mr. Dykes was actually a "spook" and was trained by the CIA. I also heard days before that they tried to infiltrate the bunker thru the sides but were unable to because dykes had explosives buried all around the bunker, I honestly thought this rumor was way to far fetched... But this actually turned out to be true...everyone talks around here so it's hard to believe what anyone says, but when you hear from someone that was on the scene, tell you that Mr. dykes was a "spook" well you can't help but to think that this really was some sort of cover up. So it makes sense why they would never give him a chance to speak, And now we will never know what Mr. Dykes really had to say.

reply to post by Beckholliday


That is some interesting information. I would certainly like to hear some more about it, but unfortunately, it is only rumor at this point. I will make a note that there has been a rash of CIA associated people gone missing/dead of late. Someone just posted a story about some kids he went to school with whose dad went crazy and killed them. It was disclosed afterwards he was in the CIA.

Interesting, thanks for posting.

Originally posted by Beckholliday
I drove past the hostage situation everyday on the way to work. It was a media frenzy for sure. What gets me about the whole deal is that jimmy lee dykes clearly stated that he would swap the kid for a national reporter so he could tell his story about the government to the world. I just thought he was just some crazy old man, until I heard from a reliable source that Mr. Dykes was actually a "spook" and was trained by the CIA. I also heard days before that they tried to infiltrate the bunker thru the sides but were unable to because dykes had explosives buried all around the bunker, I honestly thought this rumor was way to far fetched... But this actually turned out to be true...everyone talks around here so it's hard to believe what anyone says, but when you hear from someone that was on the scene, tell you that Mr. dykes was a "spook" well you can't help but to think that this really was some sort of cover up. So it makes sense why they would never give him a chance to speak, And now we will never know what Mr. Dykes really had to say.

Your theory here makes a lot of sense, because obviously some high tech measures were taken dealing with this case...they somehow got a camera on the suspect. But, my only question would be, why did he kidnap a child...why not just kidnap a reporter right from the start? You lose any credibility when you harm a child, IMO anyways.

I live close to the crime scene and I am also puzzled about why we never heard what the motive was, why was he gaurding his property at night, why take a hostage, something had to be bothering him. His actions were that of someone having to go up against powerful people. We hear now that he was "anti-government", had a few charges against him with the law. He acted like he was paranoid and was being backed into a corner. The neighbors still aren't allowed back in their homes. The man must of had some pretty important info of something because they won't let anyone go near the shelter. They are looking for things,etc... Just some unanswered questions that we will never get answers to.

reply to post by Rezlooper

Your theory here makes a lot of sense, because obviously some high tech measures were taken dealing with this case...they somehow got a camera on the suspect. But, my only question would be, why did he kidnap a child...why not just kidnap a reporter right from the start? You lose any credibility when you harm a child, IMO anyways.

Getting the camera in there was easy. That was done inside a toy. They stated on multiple occasions they were allowed to send comfort foods and toys, including crayons and coloring books, hot wheels cars, etc. Imagine, firstly, how small remote cams can be. Secondly, how easy it would have been to place one, and how easy it would have been for him to overlook it.

Just think about the sharpener on the crayon box. Perfect place for a camera. Sitting on a table, usually facing outwards, the sharpener is on the back of the box... Or, in the "light" on top of a hotwheels police car or ambulance or even a DOT type toy vehicle.

I would even go so far as to say they had not one, but multiple cameras, in case something was discovered, or for some reason one didn't work.

Now, if he was CIA, maybe not so much. He would have known better, and would have practically torn things apart looking for both cameras and bugs. If he was paranoid delusional, perhaps not, but, we don't know for sure.

I would wager they had both placed in items they sent in. They stated the child was threatened, and he was seen with the gun. This implies a lot.

As for kidnapping the reporter, for some reason he either didn't consider that angle, or had been turned down for interviews after having tried. Would be interesting to find out if that indeed had occurred. Chances of someone admitting that now, though, may be slim to none, it would almost be admitting complicitness to furthering his agenda from negligence to his plight.

I know if I were a reporter he had contacted, I would think twice about admitting it after all that has happened.

ETA: Hm. I wonder if he DID find something, perhaps a camera, and this is why the negotiations broke down? This just occurred to me.