well, that's weird / independent

a leprechaun has been reported to the news desk.

well, that’s weird. · case file 003 · crichton, mobile

by mobizarre · published 2026-10-09 · updated 2026-10-09
verified 2026-10-09 · geography: mobile-city

documented television and internet history, with unverified folklore claims.

a crowd gathered around a tree in mobile. some people said there was a leprechaun in it. a television crew came to investigate.

this is where the evidence becomes unusually cooperative. we have a news report, interviews, a drawing, and a broadcast that acquired a much larger audience online.

the tree’s alleged occupant has supplied considerably less documentation.

first, there was a crowd.

crichton is a neighborhood in mobile, not a separate town. according to wpmi / nbc 15’s retrospective, reporter brian johnson went there on march 14, 2006, after the station learned that large crowds were gathering. the assignment began with a practical question: why were so many people there? nbc 15’s account

the resulting report records people looking toward a tree and describing what they believed they had seen. binoculars, cameras, and camera phones appear in the story. participants offer different explanations, including a leprechaun and a shadow among the branches. the original report

the camera establishes a gathering and a collection of claims. it does not establish a supernatural animal inventory for mobile county.

that distinction leaves plenty of story.

the newsroom had a photographer. the leprechaun had a sketch.

news photographer kevin sibley, who filmed the piece, later recalled visiting during the day and returning at night. in a 2017 interview, he described the difficulty of recording in low light and participants objecting when he switched on his camera light. those are his later recollections of making the report, rather than independent proof of what anyone saw in the tree. sibley’s interview

then there is the drawing.

the broadcast presents it with the wonderfully administrative label “amateur sketch.” a hat, two eyes, and a spare outline do considerable work on a piece of yellow paper. local reporting later described the drawing’s missing nose and mouth and recorded competing claims about who made it. its authorship should remain unresolved here. lagniappe’s reporting

the sketch is memorable partly because television treats it as a piece of supporting material. the familiar machinery is all present: field reporting, interviews, an illustration, and a return to the studio. the subject happens to be a possible leprechaun.

the filing procedure has encountered an unusual applicant.

the broadcast acquired another address.

nbc 15 says the piece aired on an evening newscast and again on its morning newscast. the morning version, introduced by anchors scott walker and nikole patrick, became the familiar viral broadcast. the station’s retrospective

that sequence matters. gathering, reporting, broadcasting, uploading, and anniversary coverage are separate events. an online date attached to a surviving copy cannot automatically serve as the date of the original television report.

for example, nbc 15’s official youtube copy is dated march 16, 2017. it preserves a report from 2006; it does not move the gathering forward eleven years. the station’s upload

sibley’s retrospective describes the video circulating virally in march 2006 and subsequently inspiring spoofs. the precise first-upload date is not established by the sources used here. the photographer’s account

what the clip offered online was unusually compact: a specific place, an extraordinary claim, several voices, an instantly recognizable drawing, and the formal packaging of local news. that combination helps explain its memorability. it is an editorial reading of the report, not a scientific formula for internet fame.

the record does not read minds.

a television interview records what someone says in that interview. it cannot settle everything that person believed, intended, or understood.

the people in this report do not all offer the same explanation. collapsing them into one supposedly unanimous neighborhood belief would misrepresent the footage. assigning private motives would go further than the evidence allows.

the same restraint applies to the mystery itself. these sources do not confirm a leprechaun. they also do not establish a coordinated hoax.

there is no need to manufacture either verdict to make the history interesting. the extraordinary collision is already documented: neighborhood folklore entered a local newscast, and the newscast entered internet culture.

the humor belongs to that collision. residents are people in the record, not evidence that a neighborhood deserves ridicule.

mobile kept the file.

by 2020, lagniappe was documenting the story’s local commercial afterlife through interviews with business owners. the leprechaun and its sketch had appeared on items including shirts, stickers, cookies, and beer labels. those examples describe the story’s history, not a promise that particular products are available today. the local follow-up

that afterlife makes the report more than an old clip somebody remembers. a neighborhood name became recognizable far beyond mobile, while people in mobile continued finding ways to reference the broadcast themselves.

remembering it well means keeping the place attached to the video, the people attached to their own words, and the claims attached to their actual level of evidence.

we can leave the tree’s occupancy unresolved.

the broadcast is on the record.

sources

next case file / 004

next case file 004: the club's business was staying. ↗