Discover more from Frederick R. Smith Speaks
Boys on the Tracks - Part 1
The Boys on the Tracks case refers to the deaths of two teenagers, Kevin Ives and Don Henry. A Union Pacific freight train ran over Kevin and Don near Alexander, Arkansas, in August 1987.
Now that I have flagged Thee, lift up my feet from the road of life and plant them safely on the deck of the train of salvation. Let me use the safety lamp of prudence, make all couplings with the link of love, let my hand-lamp be the Bible, and keep all switches closed that lead off the main line into the sidings with blind ends. Have every semaphore white along the line of hope, that I may make the run of life without stopping. Give me the Ten Commandments as a working card, and when I have finished the run on schedule time and pulled into the terminal, may Thou, superintendent of the universe, say, “Well done, good and faithful servant; come into the general office to sign the pay-roll and receive your check for happiness.”
Railroader’s Prayer (dedicated to Kevin and Don)
Foreword - Part 1
The books and other items listed under the “Resources” section (see forthcoming Part 2) provided the material to write this essay. It is about intrigue in Arkansas during the late 1980s. While in the middle of my 45-year railroad industry career (the early 1990s), the news cycle included limited coverage of the Arkansas “Boys on the Tracks” case. With this information buried in the back pages, whispers of intrigue permeated my circle of coworkers and associated parties. It all served as a poignant learning experience. That is, not all railroad trespassing fatalities are “accidents.”
Enter the case of Kevin Ives and Don Henry, brought to you from a retired railroader’s perspective.
Introduction
The “Boys on the Tracks” case refers to the deaths of two teenagers, Kevin Ives and Don Henry. A Union Pacific Railroad freight train ran over Kevin and Don near Alexander, Arkansas (Saline County) in August 1987. Kevin Ives was 17, and Don Henry was 16.
On Sunday, August 23, 1987, Kevin and Don were out late at night, hunting for deer near a remote railroad track. The circumstances surrounding their deaths raised suspicions. It seemed unlikely they would have failed to notice an approaching freight train and move out of harm’s way. The local medical examiner, Dr. Fahmy Malak, initially ruled their deaths accidental. He claimed that Kevin and Don were likely unconscious due to extreme marijuana use and did not react to the train’s approach.
As investigations into the case progressed, inconsistencies and evidence pointed to foul play. Witnesses suggested that Kevin and Don had stumbled upon a drug drop-off operation. It involved law enforcement personnel and individuals with connections to drug trafficking. Allegations of a coverup involving law enforcement and the justice system arose. That fueled public suspicion and outrage.
Over the years, several theories have arisen to explain the circumstances and motives behind Kevin and Don’s deaths. These include suggestions of a botched drug deal. It also points to witness elimination or mistaken identity. Despite the persistence of family members and investigators, the case remains unsolved. It left the families of Kevin and Don seeking justice and answers.
The Mena Arkansas Airport, also known as the Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport, links to the deaths of Kevin Ives and Don Henry. That is due to its alleged involvement in illegal drug trafficking operations during the 1980s.
According to various accounts and testimonies, the Mena Airport was a hub for smuggling drugs. The drug of choice, cocaine, came into the United States. Some sources claim a vast drug trafficking network was operating in the area. It allegedly involved individuals with ties to the CIA and other government agencies. This network transported narcotics with protection from corrupt law enforcement officials.
Kevin and Don likely stumbled upon an airplane drug drop-off in progress. Perpetrators murdered Kevin and Don to prevent them from exposing the operation. These theories imply a coverup involving influential figures within law enforcement. The justice system protected those involved in the drug trade.
The Train Incident
The train incident involving Kevin and Don, often called the Boys on the Tracks case, occurred on August 23, 1987. It happened near the small town of Alexander, Arkansas, about 25 miles south of Litte Rock, Arkansas. Their deaths and the investigation have raised important questions and controversy.
On that fateful night, Kevin and Don were out near the railroad tracks, reportedly hunting for deer. At around 4:25 a.m., a Union Pacific Railroad freight train passed through the area. The mile-long Union Pacific Railroad train with 6,000 trailing tons of cargo and freight cars behind the engines was northbound from Texarkana toward Little Rock.1 At the time of the incident, the maximum authorized speed of the track, as designated by Union Pacific Railroad, was 55 miles per hour.2 The Union Pacific Railroad establishes this line as the Litle Rock Subdivision and consists of two tracks. This line (subdivision) hosts over 40 million gross tons of traffic annually. As a “high-density” operation, freight traffic occurs frequently.3 The crew consisted of an engineer, conductor, and brakeman.
Before the incident, the train passed through the Shobe Road highway-rail grade crossing. The engineer sounded the horn at the crossing as required, and the headlight was in the “bright” position. The track ahead is tangent (straight) north of the crossing to the incident site and beyond. As the crew approached the bridge over Crooked Creek (1 mile north of Shobe Road crossing), they noticed a dark spot in the track. They focused on the dark area about ten to fifteen car lengths ahead. When they were about 100 feet away, they were able to see that it was two people lying on the track. The crew had less than five seconds to respond at the reported speed of 55 miles per hour.4 The engineer instinctively initiated an emergency brake application and sounded the horn.56
Kevin and Don were lying perpendicular to the track and beside each other just off the Crooked River bridge. Their hands were at their sides. A pale green tarp covered their bodies from the waistline to below the knees. With the rails gauged four feet eight and one-half inches apart, their heads were against the inside of the west rail and feet over the east rail. See my essay Battle of the Gauges for more about the designated space between the rails.
Kevin and Don did not move as the train approached. A rifle was lying on the track between the rails next to them. The train crew testified that Kevin and Don did not move or flinch as the train approached. The inevitable occurred: the train ran over Kevin and Don.
The train crew called for emergency response, and after coming to a stop, the engineer remained in the lead engine to keep in radio contact with railroad officials. The conductor and brakeman departed the lead engine and walked on the ground back toward the train’s rear. They found the first body parts, about thirty-five cars, back from the engines. The conductor was a hunter and noted little blood and its dark purplish color. The responding EMTs had similar observations. Those observations indicate that Kevin and Don were likely dead before the train strike.
At the urgent request of the frantic train crew, a nearby approaching train was brought to a halt. However, the Saline County deputies permitted the halted train to continue. Consequently, that train proceeded alongside the involved train on the adjacent track. That train movement likely disturbed some evidence of an active investigation scene.
While diagraming the site, Deputy Chuck Tallent committed a significant and immediate error. He selected the corner of one of the train cars as his point of reference and mapped the entire area based on it. Several hours later, when the train was finally permitted to resume its movement after the majority of the evidence had been collected and taken away, that crucial reference point was permanently lost. Consequently, the diagram illustrating the precise locations of each piece of evidence became worthless. Furthermore, the officers appeared to be treating the deaths as an accident despite the railroad men’s urgent accounts of seeing the boys lying side by side, unmoving, as the train approached. The deaths did not look like an accident to the train crew.
A disagreement arose concerning the presence of a green tarp that three train crew members had observed covering the boys. The crew found it perplexing that law enforcement showed reluctance and skepticism in accepting their collective testimonies regarding this detail. The train crew couldn’t comprehend why their statements about a seemingly impartial piece of evidence faced doubt. The train conductor was particularly disturbed by this reaction. He had meticulously scoured the tracks using his flashlight and eventually located the tarp at the base of the Crooked River bridge, evidently blown off the boys upon impact. Promptly, the conductor had directed Deputy Tallent’s attention to the tarp by illuminating it with his flashlight. However, he distinctly remembered how the deputy later denied being informed about the tarp’s discovery, despite the insistence that he had communicated this information.
Initially, authorities treated the scene as a typical traffic accident. Consequently, they sent the bodies to a funeral home, as such cases in Arkansas did not typically require autopsies. Along with the train crew, two paramedics, one deputy, and one state trooper harbored doubts about the incident being treated as a mere accident. However, within a few hours, Tallent experienced a change of heart and chose to redirect the bodies to the state crime lab instead. They made this decision to subject the bodies to autopsies and further investigation.
On the day following the incident, the broadcast of the deaths on television and in the newspapers spurned relatives and curious individuals to gather at the tracks. Someone stumbled upon a severed foot in the track area among them. The deputies’ apparent carelessness was shockingly unprofessional and challenging for the train crew to comprehend. They were still reeling from the criticism directed at their professionalism.
Medical examiner Dr. Fahmy Malak concluded that Kevin and Don had “fallen asleep” on the tracks. He claimed they were under the influence of marijuana, which caused them to be unresponsive to the approaching train. Families of the victims and others suspected foul play. Malak faced skepticism and disbelief from the people.
As investigations into the case progressed, many inconsistencies and evidence emerged. That led to suspicions that Kevin and Don’s deaths were not accidental. These accounts and indications of potential prior physical trauma on the bodies fueled fears of foul play.
Over the years, more evidence, including the presence of a flashlight at the scene and reports of suspicious individuals. That further suggested that the deaths may have resulted from a deliberate act. These revelations prompted renewed investigations and various theories. Kevin and Don likely faced murder in a drug-related conspiracy. An alleged coverup involving law enforcement officials occurred.
The events following the train incident itself remain a subject of controversy. Differing interpretations and conflicting evidence abound. The case continues to be the subject of ongoing scrutiny and speculation. The involvement of influential individuals fuels distrust within the community.
As someone professionally involved in many other rail accident investigations, it is clear this element of the story is akin to a session of the Keystone Cops.
Law Enforcement Coverup
In the aftermath of the deaths, law enforcement officials denied any wrongdoing. They maintained that Kevin and Don’s deaths were accidental. These denials and dismissals of suspicions of the families and the public fueled speculation. They saw coverup and corruption within the law enforcement system.
Despite Dr. Fahmy Malak’s claim that Kevin and Don had fallen asleep on the tracks, the teenager’s families believed there was more to the story. Witnesses came forward about hearing the gunshots near the railroad tracks before the train passed. Law enforcement dismissed that information. They disregarded the claims of foul play, and the investigation focused on the theory of accidental deaths. The local sheriff and Arkansas State Police resisted a reopening. This refusal only deepened suspicions of a coverup.
Confidential information gradually surfaced in the months following the tragic deaths of Kevin and Don. It became known that the state medical examiner’s office had initially categorized Kevin and Don’s deaths as suicides in their documentation. However, just before the release of official records, the cause of death was unexpectedly changed, as undisclosed sources leaked this revelation to the media.
Independent investigators and journalists began delving into the case. Law enforcement officials reportedly obstructed their efforts. Witnesses’ intimidation, deaths, disappearance, and evidence tampering occurred. Officials withheld evidence and blocked access to records. That hindered attempts to uncover the truth.
Law enforcement agencies denied any involvement in drug trafficking or corruption. Despite the link to Mena Airport, allegations and evidence point to their potential involvement. These denials perpetuated the belief that influential individuals were protecting their interests. That contributed to the perception of a coverup and a lack of accountability. Public suspicions increased along with conspiracy theories surrounding the case.
Mena the Epicenter
Kevin and Don likely stumbled upon a drug operation near the railroad tracks, possibly involving individuals connected to law enforcement or other influential figures. According to this theory, Kevin and Don witnessed illegal activities and ended up murdered to cover up the operation.
Mena Airport, located in Mena, Arkansas, is the center of allegations of drug running and smuggling operations during the 1980s. These allegations suggest that the airport was a hub for transporting illegal drugs. The prime product of cocaine came into the United States at Mena. With Mena about 120 miles away, locals whispered about planes making drug drops in the Alexandra area.
Mena Airport was the base for smuggling cocaine from South and Central America into the United States. The operation involved planes loaded with drugs landing at the airport. The “products” go to various destinations within the country.
Mena Airport’s operation included notorious drug cartels, including the Medellín Cartel based in Colombia. The evidence points to cartels working in collaboration with local drug traffickers. Corrupt individuals within law enforcement and government agencies collaborated with the cartels. The allegations surrounding Mena Airport have sparked controversy. It led to various investigations over the years. These investigations have sought to uncover the extent of the drug operations.
The drug running at the Mena Airport points to allegations of corruption. It included law enforcement and government agencies. Influential individuals protected the drug trafficking operations. They obstructed investigations, tampered with evidence, and intimidated potential whistleblowers.
A former pilot and drug smuggler, Barry Seal, is often associated with the drug running at the Mena Airport. Seal had connections to the Medellín Cartel and smuggled cocaine into the United States. He allegedly used the airport as a base for his operations, further implicating the airport in the drug trade.
Despite the extensive cache of evidence, implicating the Mena Airport and its personnel in drug running has been elusive. Particularly so in the sterile worldview of lazy legacy media. The exact details and extent of the drug operations at the Mena Airport during the 1980s remain a subject of ongoing debate and speculation among cogent folk.
The FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assisted in investigating Kevin and Don’s deaths but has been scrutinized and controversial. The primary responsibility for the investigation fell to local law enforcement agencies.
The FBI had limited involvement because local authorities decided it was an accident. It aided and provided resources to the local law enforcement agencies, such as the Arkansas State Police, when requested. The aid included forensic analysis, technical expertise, and access to specialized resources.
State and local authorities, including the Saline County Sheriff’s Office and the Arkansas State Police, took the lead. Suspicions of foul play and potential coverups emerged. Allegations of drug trafficking and corruption came to light. Some individuals and groups called for federal intervention, including the involvement of the FBI. However, Assistant US Attorney Robert Govar stated the following about the investigation of Kevin and Don’s deaths:
The FBI didn’t seem too interested. They didn’t want to dedicate any investigative resources to it. At the time they were convinced that there wasn’t anything to the investigation.
Govar also stated that the DEA was not much help either.7 Some critics argued that their limited involvement hindered the pursuit of justice. That prevented the uncovering of possible corruption. Perhaps the FBI knew what was happening, and considering today’s FBI, they were in on it or at least paying no heed to it. Nowadays, the FBI is more interested in terrorizing people opposed to abortion.
Missing Evidence
In the case of Kevin and Don, there were allegations of evidence stolen from a locker. That added to the controversy and suspicions surrounding the investigation. Here’s an overview of the evidence theft:
Missing physical evidence. Allegedly, crucial physical evidence related to the deaths of Kevin and Don was stolen or tampered with. This evidence could have shed light on the circumstances of their deaths and the possible involvement of others.
Mysterious disappearance. Reports suggest much evidence was in a Saline County Sherrif’s Office locker. It included blood samples, clothing, and other items. At some point during the investigation, this evidence went missing or was allegedly stolen.
Implications of a coverup. The disappearance of evidence raised suspicions of a coverup and corruption. It occurred within the law enforcement agencies involved in the case. It fueled speculation that influential individuals were trying to hinder the investigation. They prevented the truth from coming to light.
Obstruction of justice. Theft or tampering with evidence is a severe crime (obstruction of justice). It not only hindered the investigation but also further eroded public trust. It highlights the handling of the case and the integrity of the law enforcement agencies involved.
The specific details about who was responsible and the exact nature of the stolen evidence remain elusive. The allegations of evidence theft and tampering contribute to the broader narrative of a coverup.
Medical Examiner
Dr. Fahmy Malak was the medical examiner involved in the initial investigation into the deaths of Kevin and Don. He provided controversial findings and contributed to public skepticism surrounding the case. His conclusions, later challenged, raised doubts. That raised questions about the accuracy and credibility of the official explanation for Kevin and Don’s deaths.
The medical examiner ruled the cause of death for Kevin and Don accidental. He suggested that Kevin and Don had fallen asleep on the railroad tracks. He claimed marijuana consumption led to the train strike. This ruling resulted in skepticism and disbelief by the families, who questioned its validity.
The theory about marijuana-induced unconsciousness was central to Dr. Malak’s determination. He claimed this caused Kevin and Don to become incapacitated and unaware of the approaching train. Dr. Malak concluded no signs of physical trauma or foul play on the bodies. According to his initial findings, Kevin and Don’s deaths resulted from accidental circumstances. He also claimed there was no sign of external interference.
Dr. Malak’s explanations and theories faced significant criticism and scrutiny. Skeptics argued that it was unlikely for Kevin and Don not to react to the noise and vibrations of an approaching train.
It is important to note that Dr. Malak’s initial rulings and findings came under intense scrutiny. He faced challenges from independent experts and the families of Kevin and Don. The controversy surrounding his conclusions contributed to ongoing doubts and suspicions. In addition to the Boys on the Tracks case, Dr. Malak has made numerous controversial rulings. 📕
This ends Part 1 of Boys on the Tracks. Stay tuned for Part 2.
A mile-long train at 6,000 tons indicates many empty cars. A fully loaded coal train a mile long would be about 12,000 trailing tons.
See the “Speeding Trains” section of my East Palestine Derailment Deep Dive essay for more about the speed designation of railroad tracks.
Source: US Railroad Traffic Atlas, Harry Ladd, Ladd Publications, 1995
Some of the coverage of this case indicate the train was moving at 50 mph.
Assuming a freight train is traveling at a constant speed of 50 miles per hour (mph) and experiences average braking conditions, it would take a significant distance for the train to come to a complete stop. Freight trains are much heavier than passenger cars, requiring a longer stopping distance. On average, stopping a train with a “service reduction” of the brake pipe can take a freight train traveling at 50 mph up to 2 miles to come to a stop. A fully loaded freight train takes 1 to 1.5 miles to stop in an emergency brake application. These figures include the time required for the brakes to engage and the train’s momentum gradually decreasing.
Train engineers often experience significant trauma when accidents occur involving their trains and highway vehicles at crossings or trespassers on the tracks. These traumatic incidents can have long-lasting emotional and psychological effects on the engineers. Here are some aspects of the trauma they may experience:
Train engineers often have a front-row seat to the accidents that occur. They may witness the collision or impact, which can be a deeply distressing and traumatic experience. The suddenness and violence of the incident can leave a lasting impression on their minds.
Engineers usually cannot prevent crossing/trespasser accidents despite their best efforts. They may blow the train’s horn, apply emergency brakes, and follow safety protocols, but in most events, it is impossible to avoid a collision. The sense of powerlessness and guilt that accompanies such incidents can be overwhelming.
When accidents involve fatalities, train engineers witness the loss of human life. The weight of knowing that they were unable to prevent someone’s death can lead to feelings of guilt, self-blame, and immense sadness. They may struggle with intrusive thoughts and vivid memories of the event.
Train engineers often form a solid connection to their profession and their responsibility for the safety of passengers and pedestrians. The trauma they experience can lead to various emotional responses, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and survivor’s guilt. These feelings may affect their ability to continue their work or lead to a diminished sense of self-worth.
Traumatic incidents can spill over into an engineer’s personal life, affecting their relationships, sleep patterns, and overall well-being. They may withdraw from social activities, experience difficulty concentrating, and have increased irritability. The trauma can permeate various aspects of their lives, making it challenging to find solace or normalcy.
Train engineers may not always receive adequate support after such traumatic incidents. While some organizations offer counseling or debriefing sessions, the stigma associated with mental health issues can discourage engineers from seeking help. This lack of support can exacerbate the long-term impact of the trauma.
Recognizing the profound emotional toll that train engineers may experience following accidents involving pedestrians is crucial. Providing them with access to counseling, psychological support, and resources to cope with trauma is essential for their well-being and the overall safety of the railway system.
Other train crew members or officials in an engine operating compartment witness the same incidents as the engineer. Thus they can experience PTSD as well. Been there, done that.
Subscribe to Frederick R. Smith Speaks
The Frederick R. Smith blog is the ramblings of an uncommon man in a post-modern world. As a master of few topics, your author desires to give readers a sense of the thoughts of a senior citizen who lived most of his life before the new normal.
I read a great deal..and this is one of the most intriguing articles I've read in some time. Much to consider and learn here. Bravo and thank you.
Thank you for writing about this old and seemingly forgotten case. For reasons I have yet to figure out, I have been fascinated by "the boys on the track" story for years now. It's so much bigger and more involved then it seems, on the surface. I know several witnesses were subsequently "arkancided", some were clearly murdered and others in suspicious accidents, prior to their trial dates. I believe Danny Casolaro was looking into this, along with other suspicious deaths and " suicides" connected to this case, many of which made it onto the infamous "Clinton kill list". How terrible it must be for the parents of those boys to know, in their hearts, that their boys were murdered and our government had a hand in it. And there's absolutely nothing they could do about it. My God.