Thu Jun 18 21:25:27 PDT 1998

I'll tell ya: I'd be awfully surprised if it didn't turn out that factory owner Harold Bowlan was the culprit.

The interview with him plainly reveals that he didn't assign any actual "humanity" to his employees. He probably discovered that Ricky Izard was somewhat sympathetic to the union organizers, blew his cool, and did Izard in. Because he was a rich man, he would have had the resources to easily spirit the children away to a far-away locale.

I think Izard was secretly helping the union organizers, and that Bowlan found out about it on the day of the layoffs. The anger he felt at the discovery led to the murder.

Response: I'd have to agree with you about Bowlan's manner, I do believe he saw himself in the grand tradition of the "robber barons" of the north, but I don't see motive and opportunity for him in the murders. Tell me more about your theory on this. We do know that Izard was at the least somewhat sympathetic to the union effort. Not sure that's enough for a man like Bowlan to go to such lengths. I'm interested in hearing more on this though.

Wow, This is an old case. I did not read any details but the person that did it is probably dead anyway. I say move one.

Response: Yes, it's a 40 year old cold case, but we have some new lines of investigation here that could turn it into a solved case and help a young woman find her past.

I was just thinking- Mr Izard was hit on the left side of his head and had injuries to his back.Also, a shovel is pretty heavy and you would need some force in order to hit someones head, which makes me think the murderer must have swung it like a baseball bat. Since the injuries are to the left side, my guess is that our suspect is left handed.
Just a thought from a young detective.
[email protected]

Response: Entirely possible, we don't enough information to make a factual statement on handedness of the perp. This is a good observation.

So far, we know that a number of laid off workers were talking about going to Michigan to get union work. But, do you have a list of names of those employees who actually did leave Mississippi and go to Michigan? And if so, how long after the murder/kidnapping did they leave Mississippi? And, did any of the laid off workers have relatives/family or friends living in Michigan at that time?

Thanks for another great case....mona

Response: A good number of the laid off men, and others, left the area in '58 and '59 for work elsewhere. We are working on a list of associations there, we know Perch left shortly after, that Hadley and Walter Hinkley both left the area, we have others but not the details. We'll keep you posted.

Ok folks get this Frank Abbott was married, yet he was dating Waithers so do you think that could play a major part in the Murders? Mitchell and Rebstock's stories don't match Rebstock said they met at Pappy's but Mitchell never mentioned it in his interview. Could these two men be the kidnappers? There is a lot of holes to be filled.
DET WHITE

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. I'm afraid that's my fault, my notes were a mess in fairness to the transcriber. Abbott was not married, he was dating Hannah Waithers whom he did later marry. It was intended to read that Ibello's wife was at home, meaning the Ibello home, not Frank Abbott's. We'll post a corrected, and hopefully clear correction for you. Sorry to mislead you there. Mitchell and Rebstock's stories do match up in the larger picture, just not in details. Given the distances and timing, what was verified, they can be effectively ruled out I believe, as did McPhail.

I'm not sure if it means anything but there seems to be a lot of confusion about Rebstock and Mitchell. McPhail still lists them among the major suspects even though they are shown as cleared on the laid-off employees chart and their interviews are included among the "cleared" grouop. The laid-off employees chart, however, indicates they do not have verified alibis, which indicates the investigators realized major contradictions existed between their stories. Why were they cleared? Why did they tell contradictory stories? Which one lied? snerc

Response: It doesn't appear either lied, more like they weren't straight especially on their timing. Not a big surprise, often times are given based on guessing rather than a clock. In the larger picture, the movements of each match and the distances and verifications of where they were when eliminate them as suspects in the physical murders.

Does anyone have pictures of the young Hadley girl?
School photos of young Doris?
Did Hadley drive a ford?
Had Hadley recently bought boots or had his boots resoled

(probably too late for that info...)

Response: We're looking for more photos of Doris. Hadley did drive a Ford truck, but his tires were fairly new according to the reports and didn't match the tread pattern found on the scene. I don't see anything in the record about Hadley's boots, yes, probably too late for that one. Most of these workers seemed to get new boots on a regular basis or have them resoled on a regular basis and most wore the same type. The print in the garden turned out to match Richard Izard's own shoe though.

Show Doris pictures of Hadley and Carmichael.

Response: Hadley's photo can be viewed along with his bio information here. We are compiling a background on Miss Carmichael also, stay tuned.

Hadley's whereabouts are unknown.... when did he leave town? Did his daughter stay in Oxford while he took Perch's advice and went to Detroit Michigan looking for work? Ms Carmichael often tended her. Is ms Carmichael or relatives still around?
Did anyone besides Ms Carmichael see Hadley between the time of the murders and Sunday when he went to the Hospital?

Response: Hadley left Oxford in September 1958. We now know from Miss Carmichael that Doris Hadley stayed with her. See the transcript of her talk with Doris Hammack for details. Don't see anything in the records to indicate an eyewitness to Hadley between Friday and Sunday night other than the medical personnel who treated his injuries until Miss Carmichael returned Doris to the home.

How far away from Sid's did Hadley live (minutes)?
Ask the Otts what time they had his daughter there.
Ms Carmichael is Hadley's babe, she might be inclined to cover for him either out of misguided loyalty or fear.. she was a woman with low moral character (having an affair with Hadley before his wife died)
Did Hadley really get his injuries falling off of a ladder? How do you get corneal abrasions falling off a ladder? BUT you could grt them from having dirt thrown in your face.
How far away from the Izards did Hadley live?
The murders could have occurred right around two O'clock and Ricky really may have just wandered off in shock after coming on the crime scene ( with or without his little sister.....)

Response: From Sid's, Hadley's place was approx. a 15 minute drive, from the Izard's about 15 also. The Ott's confirmed that Miss Carmichael picked her up sometime between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. on that day (April 11). Excellent points on the injuries, I think that merits some research, too. Anyone with injuries has to be checked out. Thanks for the comments.

Does any of the Aunts and Uncles to the children still live or any of their children. What about the victims parents at the time where did they live and how involved were they in finding the children.

Response: We've not been able to identify any living relations to the Izards at this time, however we're looking. The parents lived in the area and were very much affected by the murders, assisted the investigation as far as we can tell.

"Doris" may have been in the car when Hadley went over to the Izards' (supposing Hadley did go to the Izards').
If she witnessed the killings, that would account for her nightmares.
Ms Carmichael would take Hadleys' daughter away from home, to keep her safe, when Hadley was drinking heavily.
Excavating Hadleys' garden might produce some clues, I think he was planting more than tulips....
Ciaral

Response: Possible. We'll look into that.

Just a thought - I am left handed, but do most non- writing things with my right hand - like hitting baseballs, cutting with scissors, using a mouse, etc. This would mean that the suspect could be left handed, but still have used their right hand to swing the shovel?

Response: Yes, excellent point. We can't say for fact what the handedness of the perp here might have been, only make an educated guess. Thanks for pointing this out from experience.

Niki drew my attention to Mitchell according to his interview he stated He left Sid's at 12:30 went to Farm but found know one to talk to got gas at 2:30 got home at 3:10, called mom at 3:30 talked about going to Michigan. The gas attendant stated he got gas but said it could have been from 2:30 to 3:30. Which means Michell had no alibi from 12:30 until sometime after 2:30, which was the time of the murders he was cleared why? More stuff to puzzle over.
Rayson

Response: Based on the relative consistency of statements relating to his interviews, the fact that he did get gas so far from the scene, and he had no motive.

Everyone is sosure that the killer is right-handed because the blows were struck on the left side. That would only be true if the victims were facing their attackers. If they were attacked from behind, then the wounds to the left side indicate a LEFT-HANDED ATTACKER.
Just a thought,
Niki

Response: True, we can't say for certain that the perp(s) was right or left handed. Right is the logical conclusion, but doesn't make it fact. Good thought.

Alrighty then, I think we need to look at the possibility that Doris is Actually Howard Hadley's daughter... Are his whereabouts still known?
His wife was pregnant in may of 1955, she had a baby girl, Hadley had a history of domestic violence, drunken binges and a violent temper.
He could have taken the ring and given it to his daughter after removing the stones.
He could have gone to Detroit seeking union work and changed his identity to avoid criminal prosecution of some kind.
Mz Carmichael could be the biddy.
Ciaral

Response: Hadley is a good possibility, yes we still have not traced him but are looking at the potential of Hadley and Hammack being one and the same. Interesting idea that Miss Carmichael might be involved.

If Det. McPhail had evidence that the killer was right handed, how many of the remaining suspects were left handed and which ones?
Was the wallet taken to make it look like a robbery or was there incriminating evidence in it? The ring was also taken, but the killer evidently didn't bother to look through the house, since money was left in there; so robbery was not the primary reason for the killings taking place.
Does Doris remember if the stones were ever in the ring? Obviously the person caring for her was poor and somewhat thoughtless ( no presents at all.... 5 year olds aren't hard to please.) But not a total bounder, she got cake.

Response: All the suspects not cleared were right handed. However, it's not 100% certain the injuries were inflicted by a right or left handed person, that's a supposition at best based on what we know. We don't know for certain what happened to the ring or wallet, only that the setting that Doris had matches the ring. I'd tend to agree that robbery was not the motive in this crime and that was the conclusion of the original investigation. Doris only remembers the ring as a setting, not with the stones in tact.

is there anyway for you to find any kind of DNA match to help figure out if Doris Hammack is really LeAnne Izard?

Response: Possibly, if the 1958 evidence can be tested. We'll let you know.

i think that you should try to find more on Howard Hammack. Even though he is dead, i think you should see if you could find someone who new him and new who he hung around with. Maybe that person will know something about the murders. also, they might know something about the little girl and might be able to tell if Doris Hammack is really LeAnne Izard. Just a thought.

Response: We are looking at the possible connection between Hammack and Hadley at this point. We aren't coming up with much yet. We'll keep you posted.

Hey, has everyone gotten a chance to look at the new evidence? I've created a timeline to make it a little easier, but I have two questions 1) There are two conflicting accounts for Joe Mitchell's whereabouts. One says that he went to Pappy's and played pool with Ed Rebstock from 3:00 to 5:00p and that he learned about the murders there at 4:45p, but the other says that he left Sid's at 12:15 drove to Sardis looking for a job, stopped at a gas station on his way back at 2:30 and arrived at home at 3:10. he then talked to his mother at 3:30and learned about the murders at 4:30 on the radio. Which one is right? 2) what motive would Wes Hannaford have for taking Ricky and LeAnn Izard? does he have a motive for killing the parents? Can we see his bioagraphy? Especially, did he move to Detroit? How long did he stay there? Did his mother go with him? Is he alive? Or did he die sometime around August of 1960?
Just curious,
Niki

Response: It appears that Mitchell did both, first the job drive out to Sardis then home and on to Pappy's for pool. The reports from the Harris and Rebstock both state that the news came over the radio there, too. It's possible there is a problem here, also possible that the times were estimated by all and off a bit. In the larger picture, the story hangs together. Hannaford doesn't appear to have a strong motive for taking the Izard children that I can see, but doesn't mean one does not exist either. We'll see what we can find out on Hannaford's movements since 1958. Thanks for the comments.

hey sleuths!!!
did anyone notice this????????
Wes Hannaford stated the following:
"He stated that he is seriously considering moving to Michigan to look for a union job ... He states that he then drove around for some time thinking about moving out of state. He stated that he decided to go to his mother's house outside of Taylor to discuss it with her, arriving there at approx. 1500 hours. Miz Hannaford confirms the time and told Deputy Kuhn that Hannaford had come to discuss relocating to Michigan with her."

Ummm.... HELLO!!!!! Does this sound like our "Mr. Hammack" and our "old biddy?"
Niki

Response: Good thinking, maybe. We'll see what we can do with that thought.

Detective Nelson,
Was there ever any thoughts in to the fact that mrs Izard seemed to have died before mr Izard. Her blood , according to the report seemed to have been more coagulated and more dried than mr Izards. Was that beceause she had less blood loss?
Was there an extensive amount of laundry in the garden, allready hung? Why would it take mrs Izard so long to hang a bit of laundry in any case. Mrs Catlett stated that she saw mrs Izzard before noon, hanging laundry. Mr Izard came home after noon and surely didn't start digging around in the tomatoes at once... By the time mrs Izard was killed she was supposedly still hanging laundry? Something does not seem quite right to me. Why was mrs zzard washing clothes and hanging laundry ll dressed up? Why was mr Izard digging in the vegetabile garden? Did it seem coherent with what was growing there at the time and the way the vegetabiles and plants were. Was there in fact a visible and viable reason for digging around there for any normal gardener?

Could it be possible that mrs Izard was all dressed up beceauce she was, in fact, leaving as mr Izard came home? Maybe she was going to take the money and run off with someone more suited for her needs (Perch?) ...someone that she would meet in secrecy, outside her house, in the middle of the night?Mrs Catlett stated she saw someone on the porch smoking late at night. She supposed it would be Richard I. Maybe the rendevous were between mrs Izard and someone else, who happened to smoke.. Also the fact that the children were gone so mysteriously. Mrs Catlett last saw the babygirl and mrs Izard around 10.30 am on the porch. Maybe she was waiting for someone to pick her girl up for "safekeeping" until she could leave her husband. Maybe the son came home and saw something , ran away and was later picked up?
Does it make sense?

Response: Mrs. Izard was likely doing quite a bit of wash that day. There was wash on the line which was behind the house, a basket of wet wash and those items dropped on the ground between the line and the location of the bodies. Her clothing was a dress, but I'm not sure we can say she was "dressed up". A house dress was a very common item in those days, still is in many places for many people. It's reasonable that gardening was what Richard Izard was doing, right time of year, everyone had a vegetable garden. Interesting things to think about here. Thanks for the comments.

Are there any autopsy reports on the Izard's? Has the blood found on the shovel been typed and what blood type is Doris Hammack? During the investigation in 1958, did anyone check as to where the tires on Elliot Perch's were purchased and the condition of his old tires? Were interviews and records searched of the two places in Oxford, Neilsons and Wiley's Shoe Repair? This is fun.

Response: We have summaries of the coroner's reports. As I've stated in some previous responses, the coroner was an elected physician, not a forensic specialist or pathologist and the reports are sparse. We'll post more information on that for you. Perch's tires were checked out and no match, no evidence he replaced them. The shoe print proved to be Richard Izard's shoe, not the perp's.

What about the other people who were laid off from Bowlan's,
(Frank Abbott, Lou Corbett, Steve Ibello, Glenn Johnson, Lou Nash, Fred Earle, Charlie Duncan, Wes Hannaford and Joe Mitchell). Were they interviewed? The bar tendered didn't know when Joe Mitchell left? Did anyone do a background check on the guy that Doris lived with for a while, before she was sent to the Sisters. Has anyone put out a description of Ricky (what he looked like as a child) to see if he is still alive now.

Response: I think you'll find most of the information you are looking for in the 1958 interview summaries, suspects and those who were later cleared. The 1958 investigation covered hundreds of interviews and they quite thorough. Hammack left very little trail, if indeed it was Hammack that Doris lived with. We think so. We're working now on the theory that Hadley and Hammack may have been one and the same and trying to prove it. We'll let you know if we can.

I don't mean to keep harping on this subject. But I agree with several people. What in the world is the problem with DNA testing. Especially if you have the blood evidence. But let's assum that that is not a viable source. You mean to tell me that there isn't a distant relative somewhere that can be used? They've traced Prince Charles back to some ancient guy by doing this.
I like the idea that the baby wasn't Richards but this doesn' seem in keeping with his wife's character. Unless she was raped and kept it a secret. Considreing the time that might be a thought.
Rhenish

Response: The problem is not with DNA testing per se, it's with how we obtain items to test. Keep in mind that DNA testing was not done in 1958 and the evidence was not preserved in a manner that would allow for later testing. We're hoping something might come of it, but we've not been given much hope. The issue is with exhumation. There is insufficient reason to exhume the Izard bodies at this stage. We don't have any distant relatives to check, but that's one of the avenues we're pursuing. We'll exhaust all the other options before we move to an exhumation unless stronger rationale for doing so comes up.

Did the police dredge the river or stream looking for Ricky.
If not I suggest that they do.
THANK YOU
SHADOW220

Response: Yes they did, the Hurricane Creek at that time was a fast moving body of water and they could conceivably have been swept down, but hard to believe no bodies recovered. Area ponds were also searched and nothing found. There were quite a few bodies of water in the area at the time, still are, so I'm certain not every square inch was dredged. A thorough search was mounted however.

Just a thought!

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the two children were taken in by a person living near by and not reported to the police for fear for their safety; and now the person who did this is also afraid they would become a prime suspect. They could either care for them or have a relative or friend in another area care for them.

BTW!!!!!!!!!

How crime scene examinations have changed! I don't know if I like those pictures of Jack McPhail at the scene. No Gloves! No boot covers! No crime scene protection suit! Where does his ashes and cigarette butts go? It makes it even harder but if there is none or little physical evidence left from the crime scene, it really doesn't matter.

CyberSleutH

Response: Very true, crime scene processing has undergone a major change since 1958. It would have been very difficult for someone to have kept the Izard children and raised them in the area in 1958, but for a time perhaps. Hopefully we will find some answers here. Thanks for your comments.

I can find nothing in the newly released evidence that eliminates Walter Hinkley as a suspect. I think it's time to interview Tommy Joe in the nursing home, and Walter's wife, if she's still alive.

suzd

Response: Walter Hinkley never married. I've talked to Tommy Joe and he has nothing to add far as we can determine. What questions would you like him to answer? Perhaps we've overlooked something there.

Just checked out new info. I'm more confused than ever.
Think it is interesting that Howard Hadley was working in his garden, Mrs. Carmichael was at his house from before 2:00 to 4:00 but if he was out in his garden maybe he could have left, done murders, came back we assume that the gloves and the shovel were Richard's because he usually worked in his garden what if the shovel and gloves really belonged to Hadley? Just a thought this case is too confusing still.
Also the way Danahy talked about he was glad Richard was gone, showed little concern saying why should I care about the kids they weren't mine? But maybe one was, his last encounter with the Izards was just before LeAnne's first birthday. Hummmm? Too many loose ends flapping about in the wind to really guess right now.
rayson

Response: Excellent points, we don't have good answers to them at this time.

ok, I'm going WAY out there. Say that the tire track
is the front, passenger side of a ford (pickup?). Why were there no other tracks from the same vehicle. The only such
Note the tire track photo. Were there ny others? How about
bald tires? there is an interview with Kenneth and Daisy Harrigill at box 213 and is the only, only mention of a ford vehicle with "bald" tires. SO if it WERE the front drivers side of a truck, it could implicate the Harrigiills. I know there is no motive, it could be a red herring, but notice it
is the only mention of a ford needing tires.
t.

Response: Good thinking. The drive was a gravel drive with areas where the dirt was clear of gravel. The most likely explanation is that the other tires rested on graveled areas. Regardless, that was the tire track found that did not match the Izard vehicles or the mail truck. It is still possible that the tire did not belong to the perp here, being left by someone else, however, the investigators were not able to match it with known visitors. None of the vehicles found on County 106 resident properties matched that tread pattern.

1) Elroy Murphy could've committed both murders. He was upset about the complaint to his superiors about his driving over the mailbox and surrounding new flowers made by Richard Izard. He probably knew that Richard wouldn't have done it on his own, and that he was spurred on in his complaint by his wife. What was Elroy doing before he had to pick up the children to drop them off at their respective homes? He could've gone there before he had to be at work to "have a talk with Mrs. Izard" only to find that Richard Izard was home early and working in the garden. Maybe they had some words, and overcome by rage, Elroy proceeded to do some damage to Richard Izard. At which point, maybe Lisa Izard heard the commotion and went out to see what was happening, and got in the way of Elroy's swinging the shovel around on Richard. (Why else would she be outside in a nice dress and WHITE shoes??? She's a country-bred girl, and they know not to go outside to do anything - even hanging laundry - in something nice that could get dirty. And what's with the laundry on the ground, anyway, in between the spot where the bodies lay, and the clothes line - especially in a diagonal line?) So, anyhow, since he struck the fatal blow to Lisa Izard, he knew that he had to finish off Richard, or he was going to be in hot water for sure. Then, he roars out of the drive to go to his job and drop the kids off, but when little Ricky's stop comes up, he doesn't let Ricky off the bus. He suppresses the child and dumps his bag at a spot that would be reasonable as being the absolute last spot where he could've seen him on his way back from turning the bus around. -- Of course if he was to have set it up, and had enough time to do so, then he could've washed the shirt, two towels, and the child's pink dress to make it look like Mrs. Izard was hanging out the wash...

However, he may not have done it, so I guess my questions as to the scene of the crime are these:

1) Why was Lisa Izard outside in a pretty blue flowered dress, wearing white shoes, to hang out her clothes, when, according to Mrs. Catlet, she liked the finer things in life, or rather owning them? People that like acquiring things, take care of what they have, and wear the appropriate clothes for the job at hand. My grandmother certainly didn't wear nice-looking clothes like that when hanging out her wash at her country home - she wore dark dresses with dark colored shoes, so they wouldn't show the dirt as much as something lighter colored would have done.

2)Why is Lisa's body found with her head pointing southeast, and Richard's body, which appears to be parallel to Lisa's, be with his head pointing northwest?

3)Why is the laundry on the ground between the bodies and the clothes line? If Lisa liked having nice things, she wouldn't have dropped them on the ground - especially not clothes - she would've dropped them in the basket, or as nearly in the basket as possible.

4)Why was it a man's white shirt, two towels, and a child's pink dress that was being washed? Was that it? What kind of foolishness is that anyway? That's not even a load. This brings me to another point: I can understand a white shirt and towels being put on the line to dry because the sun can help bleach them clean. But a pink dress? It would get faded in the sun - no matter what time - and Lisa does not seem the type that would do that to something they owned - especially not something of the children's. Plus, if they were that well off, or pretending to be, they would have dryer (sp?), would they not? I'm assuming that there were such things around the time of 1958 available to the public.

5)What was the angle of entry for the wounds anyway? The one report just says that it was the left sides of the faces of both Richard and Linda that were mangled by the shovel, by which, we can safely assume that the attacker was right-handed. Of course, assuming the reach of the shovel in the wielder's hands was the given distance of the area between the felled bodies of the Izards, the attacker would have had to swing the shovel around in a circle to get the bodies in the position in which they were found. Besides angle of entry, what was the depth and length of the wounds, as well?

6)If it wasn't the busdriver that did the deed, then it was someone else, and there would have had to have been more than one person involved to get both the children. This is assuming the killer also took the children due to them being witnesses - even though the one was almost three.

7)From information given, LeAnne is purported to be a mischievous child - into everything - she may have even been able to walk at this point in her childhood. What's to say that if she had been put in the playpen by her mother, that she would have stayed there? She may have been able to climb out - it's happened before. And where there's a will, there is generally a way with children.

8)Also, a cap and a blanket reported to belonging to Ricky and LeAnne being found by the creek - or in it by the edge? Come on! That's like the laundry being on the ground. It's too well-placed, and there were no bodies found in that creek or stream. The bodies would float sooner than articles of clothing like a cap and a blanket would. Besides, it's too coincidental.

This case looks like a crime of passion or extreme anger, but was it? It seems to me that things were too well-thought out here with the evidence found. The injuries, themselves, may have been passion, but the end result, of which was found by the investigators is too well-placed to be totally passion/anger. So, who's hiding what? And who's framing who? Maybe there were, in fact, two killers??

~ Private Shi

Response: Murphy was cleared of involvement in the original investigation. 1) Remember that we are talking about 1958 in Mississippi, sounds like a simple summer dress to me and that would be typical I think, I recall my own mother wearing similar items. I don't think it was a Sunday dress here. 2) The bodies were believed to be lying in the positions where they fell. They are not parallel, but rather at an angle to each other. The descriptions in the original crime scene report are considered to be accurate. 3) The theory developed by investigators was that Mrs. Izard was hanging the wash behind the house and ran to the aid of her husband dropping the laundry she had in hand as she ran. 4) There was wash on the line and in a laundry basket as well, the three items described seem to have been dropped by Mrs. Izard as she went to her husband. 5) The coroner did not detail the wounds as well as we might like. Most were blunt force wounds, not gashes believed to be from the head of the shovel. A circle is not the only explanation, one of the victims could have been attacked before the other, we don't know and can't that they were both in the same place at the same instant. 6) I'm not sure why taking two children requires more than one murderer. What's your thought on this? 7) Possible. 8) The cap and blanket were found on the bank on the opposite side of the creek from the Izard property approx. .3 miles downstream. There could have been more than one person involved, however, there was considered to be only one murder weapon, the shovel. Thanks for your extensive comments and good questions.

On Purity Knight case:
Some unanswered questions.
1. What did the writing on the sandstone & scratches on tree have to do with the case? PK are Purity's initials, did she write them there -- did she spend time there -- or did Ed write them there (in tribute?)?
2. There must be some connection with the Oregon box girl, if nothing else than Ed copied the Oregon technique after reading about the story.
3. Why have so many bizarre things happened to Purity? Why is she the focus of so much dementia? (Her sister's murder, the stalking and her own murder)
4. What is the connection with the Ego Shovels? Is it purely coincidental that both she and Ed were members? Did he have contact with her through the Shovels as well as through Lee (I know it isn't mentioned in his journal).
5. I don't see any other evidence against Ed except for his journal which certainly implicates him but is also a jumble of incoherent ramblings.
6. Who is Ed's Geena?

I don't think this case is really solved until we answer all of these (and other) questions!! Thanks. (I'm left feeling pretty unsatisfied)

Response: I didn't work that case as lead investigator, that was Det. Armstrong, however I was involved. The writing was felt to have been done by Ed Pierce not Ms. Knight. Certainly seems a coincidence. Dementia is a good word, sometimes people appear to be "natural victims", too long a discussion to get into in comments. I believe that the Shovel experience contributed to Ed's obsession and to the elements of "dementia" you bring up. Other evidence against Ed included finding the materials in his rented house for the box, a number of hard physical evidence items were recovered. Geena was a girlfriend of his who died in a car accident while he was driving, there's some indication from Ed's writings that it was not an accidental death, but there is no proof of that. The Purity Knight case can be viewed here.

Even the painters heard about the layoffs, surely the mailman who chats to everyone on the route heard about them earlier than he admitted.
If someone he knew committed the crime, he would suppress any knowledge or evidence about it. i.e. Maybe he really did see the fast moving car, it was his brother, and he was worried that his brother may have committed the crimes.
His brother may have been there, causing the postman to be concerned, but not the one who committed the crime sill.

Response: It does seem odd that the mailman would not have already heard the news, however, he did not talk to everyone on his route and apparently was only going to the doors of those with packages or who were too infirm to walk to their boxes at the road side. It's a stretch, but possible he had not heard the news.

If Richard had control of the shovel before the killings, perhaps it
was to bury the money found in the house.
the vicar

Response: Interesting idea, however, why would the money then be found in the dresser? It seems likely he was working in the garden as it appeared from what we can determine.

Very interesting case.

Are there autopsy reports from 1958? If you plan on publishing them, exhibit lists and any more crime scene photos, they would be extremely useful and interesting in determining the route the investigation should follow and helpful in the forming of any theories about who is responsible. Are you considering reinterviewing all the neighbours, witnesses and potential suspects? Any pressure or intimidation the union had on people, probaly would have subsided after 40 years. Friends drift apart and become enemies, more people had time to talk, some people's morals even change so that witnesses who wouldn't speak out in 58, will speak freely now. Have you directed efforts to find the whereabouts of young Ricky Izard? He was probaly old enough to remember, if he actually saw what happened.

Good luck and good hunting. A cold case is only defined by the effort being put in by the investigator or investigating agency.

CyberSleutH

Response: We have the coroner's summary reports from 1958. At that time the coroner was an elected local physician not a pathologist or a trained forensic examiner. The information is not as enlightening as one might expect or hope. We plan to post some information on the forensics done, however, the majority of the information excludes possibilities rather than pointing to suspects such as analysis of the tire tread which did not produce a match or any leads. We are interviewing a number of those involved at the time, watch for more information as it becomes available. Good points all, thanks for the comments.

Thanks for the response about excavating the garden. Did I miss that in the evidence, or do you have the Big Cheese's phone number?
There are four possibilities surrounding the missing kids:
1) They were both murdered.
This seems unlikely judging by the photos I just saw of LeAnn as a baby and Doris Hammack.
2) LeAnn was murdered but Ricky wasn't.
No evidence supports this.
3) LeAnn was kidnapped but Ricky was murdered.
Very possible. We've already discussed the fact that Ricky was old enough to be a danger to the kidnappers. This doesn't necessarily mean that the kidnapper was also the killer - maybe the kidnapper would have taken Ricky too if he hadn't already been killed.
4) Both were kidnapped.
Unless Ricky's suffered some kind of amnesia, this seems pretty unlikely. For a young boy to protect his parents' killer(s) by keeping quiet, he'd have to have a very good reason.

Basically, what was the motive for the kidnapping(s)? If the killer was also the kidnapper, the only motives I can see are that he wants to be a father (unlikely), he WAS the father (ie Danahy), or he wants to sell the kid (how many blackmarket adoption rings does the average Mississippian know of?) Unless the killer left town after the murders, the first two don't work as motives.
I think it's more likely that the kidnapper wasn't the killer. This then begs the question: why take the child? Who does it protect, the killer (in case LeAnn IS old enough to help the police), or the child? If the kidnapper was protecting the child from the killer, was it necessary to hide the child forever? Couldn't they just have hidden her in their back room for a bit?

Amateur Detective Newman

Response: Excellent questions. Add to the list of reasons to take the children keeping them from alerting someone to the scene too quickly, a female influence as some have mentioned. Hopefully, we will find at least some of these answers.

The Butler did it!

Response: Sorry, no Butler in this case!

The cap found by the river was supposed to be Ricky's, but when Elroy Murphy was asked to describe what Ricky was wearing, he never mentioned a cap. He gave a fairly detailed description of striped shirt & dark pants. Did anyone check with Murphy about this? Could this prove that the cap & blanket were picked up from the house by someone and planted near the river? - LP

Response: Good observation, Murphy did not see a cap or recall one. It might be possible these items were planted.

I don't understand why you keep saying that there isn't sufficient cause to do an exhumation in order to extract DNA samples from the victims. Isn't determining whether or not they are actually Doris' parents "sufficient cause?" Ands why do the authorities think there is little chance of making that determination if DNA testing were to be done?

Not long ago, Jesse James' body was exhumed to put to rest speculation that it was really someone else in the grave that bore his name. And right now, tests are underway on known descendants of Sally Hemmings and of Thomas Jefferson, to determine if Sally's children were actually fathered by Jefferson. Now if that kind of testing is possible, why can't science determine if Doris is the daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Izard?

Hypnosis can be a wonderful tool, but at this point, Doris knows enough details of the case to skew any investigation by way of hypnosis.

[email protected]

Response: No, determining a relationship between Doris Hammack and the Izard family on the basis of current information is not enough for an exhumation order. I think your question on the likelihood of determining something from DNA refers to whether or not the 1958 evidence is in sufficient condition to provide for DNA testing, that we don't know yet. A forensic hypnosis is being considered by Doris and several specialists have been consulted.

If the truck was parked directly behind the car, it is unlikely that Richard was the one driving the fast moving car....

If the rhyme has any reality based beginning, then someone who has children was invoved and had knowledge of Ricky's death.

Perch had Detroit connections... He's probably involved in some way.

Doris lived with a man only ( an unpleasant one at that) who had connections with " the old biddy" referred to by Doris.

Response: Mrs. Hawkins did not see the vehicle, it could have been a car or a truck that she heard. The chant may or may not have any basis in knowledge. At the time the theory was widely held that Ricky and LeAnne drowned in the creek. Many believe that Perch played a role in the murders, we have no proof there. Yes, that is consistent with Doris' statements. Thanks for the comments.

Ok, per my last comment, Catlett's grandson had a baby on the way, not necessarily a girl. Who is he anyway?

And if you want to get really crazy, could Bowlan's son Noah be involved in a plot with "Doris"???

suzd

Response: Right on Catlett's grandson and baby. His name is George and at the time he lived with his wife in Jackson, MS. What would Noah Bowlan's motive be for a plot with Doris?

Here's a really bizarre thought: What was Richard doing with the shovel? Was he digging for "buried treasure" he may have heard about in a last "ditch" effort before clearing out of town after the layoffs? Could this be why Mrs. Catlett is so adament about having her fence moved? Perhaps she knew about a treasure, too? It might even be motive for "Doris" to want a claim to the estate, if she's not really Leann, but was told of buried treasure on the land. She'd be about the right age to be Catlett's grandaughter. Catlett mentioned her son having a new baby girl, no?

Response: Mrs. Catlett's fence was on the other side of the Izard property to the north from the garden where Richard Izard was apparently working when he was attacked. The garden was dug up at the time and no other evidence found. Mrs. Catlett said her grandson's wife was pregnant. Thanks for the comments.

we learned in the bardwell interview that young doris claimed someone had taken her away to keep her safe. i believe that person was probably the only person we know who drove away from the murder scene in an otherwise empty vehicle - the school bus driver. otherwise it is hard to explain why it took him 10 to 15 minutes to travel a total of about 2.2 miles from the parker house to the izaed house to the turnaround and back and to county road 129. that would reflect a speed of less than 12 miles an hour. the turnaround is close to the creek ad also offers a clear view of the spot where the blanket andp were found. the driver could have seen the little girl in the creek amd rescued her or he may have seen someone taking ricky to the creek and drove back to the izard house where he would have found the girl. snerc

Response: Thanks for the comments, some interesting questions raised here.

i noticed that a comment on june 12 at 15:06 stated that the detective said there was an "excavation" in the garden but nothing was found in it. i believe this supports my theory that richard killed his wife and was trying to bury the body when someone else murdered him. remember, the description of the blood in the crime scene report indicates she was killed before he was. her blood was described as "drying and brown in color" while the report says his blood "remains liquid, red to brown in color." she also seemed to show more lividity. snerc

Response: The garden was dug up, nothing was found. There was no indication according to the crime scene reports that someone was in process of digging a hole. The differences in the bleeding do not necessarily indicate that Lisa Izard died first, she may have died more quickly and therefore bled less. The smaller amount of blood found would dry faster. You might be right here, but there are alternative explanations to keep in mind.

I think Walter Hinckley was involved in the murders and this is why his mailman brother Thomas was so nervous during interview.
It also explains his delay of some minutes in phoning police after finding the bodies.
Did Thomas supply an empty mail bag from his truck to carry the children away from the property down towards the creek?
Or was the little boy killed because he could identify the killer(s) and put in a mail bag to make it easy to shift his body while LeeAnn was small enough to carry easily.
Remember, when police arrived Thomas was down near the creek allegedly looking for the children.
Maybe Thomas pleaded with his brother not to murder the little girl and arranged to find a home for her.
There are two ways Walter could have arrived by road.
He could have been hiding in the mail truck.

Or maybe he arrived in the car (one of Richard Izard's vehicles) that was heard tearing up the driveway,but not leaving, by Mrs Hawkins.
So it would have to be someone he knew driving the vehicle. And maybe there was someone else in the vehicle.
Maybe Walter planned to hitch a ride on his brother's mail truck further down the road to catch up with co-conspirators with a vehicle, such as Elbert Warren. But he ended up walking.
The mail bag would have been burnt and I believe Ricky's body was buried somewhere far from the scene.

Hope this helps....I think there is a problem with the absence of vehicles around the crime scene and this is one way of solving it. the mail truck is presumably a covered vehicle where someone could hide.
Also, with the biggest employer in town laying off staff the mail man surely would have heard the news before his interview with police.

Cheeky1

Response: Interesting ideas here. Thanks for the comments.

Am I the only one who finds it really interesting that Detective McPhail's first wife was married to Elbert Warren? That is very interesting to me? Has anyone ever investigated that aspect of the case? Could the murders have been a botched attempt to frame Elbert Warren? Just a thought. Someone asked a while back about the newspaper article in which Doris saw the picture of the missing ring. The response showed a copy of the article written about Doris, not the one written on the murders 40 years ago. I would like to see that article.
Just out of curiosity, how long do these cases usually go before they are solved? The suspense is killing me!!=)

rosie

Response: Some feel that perhaps McPhail's personal biases may have made Elbert Warren more of a suspect at the time, but Detective McPhail is a highly trained and good detective, hard to see him going as far as attempting to frame Warren for the murders. Doris read about the evidence in the case in the papers, the description matched her ring setting, it is distinctive. Cases run until they are solved. We'll keep posting any new information we have.

Back Again!! I thought of more:
I think the bus driver could very well have taken the children away and be too frightened to admit that he was invloved. I think it is likely that between the mailman and bus driver, one of the men saw the actual killer. Knowing about the lay-off, they were both probably scared for THEIR lives....too scared to say anything.
Q: If the mailman called from the house, were there any bloody hand prints or fingerprints on the handset of the phone? If he had enough blood on his hands to feel he neede to wash them, then there should have been some blood on the phone...or else he stopped to wash his hands first...Why stop to wash if he is so concerned or upset by what he had found? [email protected]

Response: No blood on the phone noted in the records, and they were quite thorough, hard to believe that was overlooked but might have been. It is possible that Murphy took the children away, but not likely. Murphy was checked out very thoroughly in 1958 and was cleared.

After reviewing the evidence presented at your website, I have a few questions:
Q: Was there any evidence found by the river when the cap was recovered?
Q: You information says that the woman who dropped off the girl left as the nuns were calming the child down. Were the nuns ever interviewed? Asked to work with a sketch artist? I feel a vital question is "Who dropped the child off?"
Q: The tire track seems to indicate that the vehicle it was on had some front-end alignment problems due to the appearance of uneven wear or else it was taken on a muddy road. Did anyone check with local garages or check in to the Belair to compare tracks?
I will get back with you with more questions as I review the evidence again..Thank you [email protected]

Response: No other evidence than the cap and blanket found. No, the nuns never worked with a sketch artist, they did not recognize the woman. Yes, many tires were compared and no matches found, did not match the Bel Aire. Thanks for your comments.

How about LeAnne is really Danahy's daughter, hence her survival. Maybe Danahy argued with Richard and Lisa got in the way, thereby sustaining only a single blow. But... where was his car, and why didn't the busdriver or mailman see it come or go....also, why didn't they see the other car....

Response: Interesting theory, we're looking into Danahy.

how about some info on danahy?
why were perch and bowland in memphis the same night?
who beat up warren? why?
why were perch and warren both at the resivour?
perch said he went alone. warren said he saw no one.
how does catlett know that they are spending beyond thier means?
where does catlett's grandson live?
t.

Response: You can find some information on Danahy in the interviews conducted in 1958 including his, we are researching him further and will post whatever we find. It doesn't appear that Perch and Bowlan were in Memphis intentionally, but possible. Unknown who attacked Elbert Warren. Detective McPhail found that story suspicious and it does sound off. Warren said he went out to the reservoir to find Perch to talk about getting a union job. Lydia Catlett's grandson lived in Jackson, MS at the time.

I think that Doris Hammack is LeAnne Izard. In her interview she says that she hired a private detective to look into some of her clues about her past. The private detective found a family by the name of Hammack. She said that Howard Hammack was remembered by some people and they remember a little girl arriving a long time after he moved into the apartment. I think that Howard Hammack had something to do with the murders, I don't think that he committed the murders, but I think he knew who did it. I think that whoever killed the Izards took the children. I don't have any idea what happened to the little boy, but I think that the murderer took LeAnne Izard to the apartment of Howard Hammack to live there. That would explain why people said that the little girl moved into the apartment a while after he moved in. When she moved into the apartment they changed her name to Doris Hammack so the other people who lived in the apartment would think she was somehow related to Howard Hammack. I also think that the reason why they had to send her to the Catholic Home is because she started having these nightmares of whatever happened in the house the day that her parents were murdered and the murderer and Mr.Hammack were afraid that if she stayed with them, she might discover that the people she was now living with killed her parents or did somthing bad at her house the day of the murders. Because they couldn't take the chance of getting caught, they sent her away. That would explain why the people in the apartment never knew what happened to the little girl. Also the nightmares she had when she was younger sound a lot like what happened when her parents were murderd. I know that orphans make up a lot of stories about thier real parents, but her nightmares are too close to what actually happened. She was too young to read the newspapers and understand what they were saying so she couldn't be having these nightmares because of something she heard or read. I think these nightmares are her real memories. I hope this helps you at least a little.

Response: All good points. In light of Miss Carmichael's information in the transcript Doris has provided us, I lean toward Hammack and Hadley being one in the same, but we have to prove it. Haven't been able to do that yet.

Having the Postal Worker be involved would be way too cliche' , Money is most likely motive.... if Doris is LeAnne, the stones have long been removed from the ring.
Hows about some history on Mr Hammock? Past record, birth certificate, ties to the county the Izards lived in, (i.e. relatives, acquantatances, former cellmates..)

Response: None of the information you mentioned has been found on Howard Hammack, we're looking for more information.

What's on the other side of the creek? Did whoever took the children leave in that direction? Drowning Ricky, who was old enough to talk, and keeping LeAnne as a potential for making some money by selling her.
The busdriver could have actually turned around in the Izard driveway, killed the Izard parents, got back in his bus and left the childrens' fate to an accomplice..... his old biddy mother?
Where is their home in relationship to the Izard home?
Why can't DNA be obtained from the blood off of the murder weapon to assertain if Doris is indeed LeAnne?
Maybe Doris found all of this quite convenient and is looking to cash in on whatever is left of the Izard estate, eh?
[email protected]

Response: Marshy land and wooded areas, if on foot that way no trace was found in the searching done in 1958 Murphy's home was quite a distance to the east of the Izard location. Blood on the murder weapon may not be testable, we're waiting for results. DNA wasn't done in 1958 and not much evidence was properly preserved for that sort of testing. Not much of anything to cash in on regarding the Izard estate, without looking up the exact figure, it's under a hundred dollars. One of our first thoughts, too, but doesn't seem likely.

ive taken the pic of mother and the older one of doris and if you put them side by side you can see the resemblence in her and her mom is it possible the one boy that was also in the foster home with her was her brother i believe she took an instant liking to him because memory of him was there do you have any pics of the boy too older ones i mean

Response: No, the child in the foster home was Hispanic and his history was known. The memory issue may be quite valid.

The following excerpt from the interview with Thomas Joe Hinkley REALLY interested me:


M: What do you know about today's activities at the Bowlan Glove Factory?
H: Well, I guess they made gloves. What do YOU think everybody did?

M: Not everybody, my friend. About 150 of them won't be making any more gloves anytime soon.
H: No (expletive), I mean, no kidding? They laid 'em off? Well, I'll be. Wally's been worried about that for months now with all the problems
old man Bowlan's had with his money. Wally's got all those kids to support and that new mortgage is so high. I sure hope he's not one of 'em
laid off. Do you know who got the ax?

M: Yeah, Tommy Joe, your brother was one. I'm sorry. I just called to check.
H: Ah HELL! He can't do that. (Notation: Hinkley adjitated enough to cause Mason jar to drop and break on kitchen floor)

M: Sit down, Tommy Joe. Look at this mess you made. You just stop right now and you tell me just how mad your brother might be about
that lay-off.
H: Mad as he could be. He's worked there for years, you know, and him a veteran and all. How could Bowlan -- wait a minute, you're not
thinking Wally--

M: No one's thinking anything.
H: You got that right.

M: But I gotta ask you, Tommy Joe, do you think your brother might have been angry enough to kill either of the Izards?
H: (Notation: spits directly onto the floor and leans toward McPhail) No way. What did they have to do with the layoffs? Her anyway? And
Rick was just Bowlan's mouthpiece. And in case you're fixing to ask what I think you're gonna ask, me neither. I didn't even know about the
blamed layoffs being official until you told me yourself. And if I'd known, I wouldn't have gotten mad at Rick. It'd be old man Bowlan, that
dirty...


Is it just me or do others find it a little peculiar that Hinkley seemed to know that Richard Izard acted as Bowlan's "mouthpiece" in the lay-offs? Det. McPhail mentioned the lay-offs and Hinkley ASSUMED that Izard was the one who actually, um, executed them, for lack of a better word. Something DEFINITELY smells fishy here!! Spiderhead

Response: Maybe and maybe not odd. He would, of course, know that Richard Izard was foreman and as a friend likely knew that Richard Izard did not necessarily agree with Harold Bowlan's ways. That seems to be well documented among those interviewed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Hi i really don't think that the mailman had anything to do with the murders, however he may know something about it. I also believe that Doris is Leeanne, mainly because she knows too much info and her dreams as a child, even the foster parents remember her having these dreams so it's not something she has made up. I am really anxiously awaiting the interview with the ex-boyfriend though. I believe we will find what we are all waiting for in there.

Mallords Lady

Response: Thanks for your comments, see interview information with Danahy here.

I think Ricky is still very much alive and is liveing a someone else's son. No sighns of struggle near his book bag indicate that whomever met him after he got off the bus was a trusted family friend; or at least known well enough to the boy. The post man is an enigma to me. Something there I feel.

Response: Good points, we have no idea what happened to Ricky Izard at this point if we ever will.

I'm thinking that whoever took the children was not the murderer, but rather knew, or thought they knew the murderer and moved the children to safety. Also, whoever moved the children was probably a woman, or had children of their own at home.

Random point: But why does the chant assume the baby is missing and Ricky Jr. is dead? Why not assume the reverse, or rather, that they are both missing, or both dead? Is is that some child overheard some bit of a conversation between their parent(s) and unknowingly created the chant? Curious....

Response: Interesting point on the missing children. In 1958 there was a large volunteer search force of local people and one of the widely held popular theories was that Ricky took off with his sister in tow and drowned in the creek. That is considered to be the origin of the chant, no bodies were ever recovered though.

Investigators responses indicate that Perch and other union leaders may be involved as a "conspiracy." But why would the Union have a pre-planned conspiracy? Did they really think Richard Izard could GUARANTEE the union vote, and no lay-offs? He obviously did try to argue with the boss, probably took money for the support, probably actually believed in the cause. If Perch was a "professional" organizer, why would he conspire to kill Richard? I don't see what purpose would be served. Leaving Richard alone to "fight another day" would have been wiser.

But, a single union amateur could have gone off half-cocked, drunk, enraged...

I'm still thinking Walter Hinkley, because Tommy Joe came along to help cover up.

Also, I would like more description of the terrain behind and beyond the Izard house. Would it be possible for a vehicle to depart that way, say a big pick-up truck?

Of course, I'm still terribly suspicious of Hannah Waithers (having some involvement in Ricky's disappearance.) So, basically, I'm going in circles. Ugh!

suzd

Response: The area behind the Izard home in 1958 included the creek, marshy areas and wooded area. Not possible for a pickup to get in and out that way. Thanks for your comments.

Has anyone given any thought to the question, who's child was LeAnne? Maybe Mrs. Izard had an affair with her old boyfriend and LeAnne was the result of that. The man wanted her to leave her husband and her son and she refused. He went into a rage when her husband "got him fired" and killed them, taking his daughter. You did say he had no children, right? Thanks,
Melisa

Response: While I suppose anything is possible, that does not seem likely. As far as we know Danahy had no children, we're still researching his past and will post more on him as we go along. He was never cleared.

I was going to suggest that it was the mailman before I clicked on the Reality Check button. It's a very believable case, you had me fooled. Kelly

Response: Welcome to the Crime Scene, Kelly. What are your thoughts on the case? Thomas Joe Hinkley was cleared of the actual murders in the original investigation, but some do think it's possible he was covering for his brother Walter.

I think that the old boyfriend came to the izard home to maybe confront mr Izard and a fight or arguement occured and as that was going on mrs. izard maybe tried to break it up and the were both killed on the spot in a hurry. I dont think it was pre meditated. as for the kids I believe that the bus driver has something to do with at least the boys dissappearance. some one should check out adoption records during that period and see if maybe there are some real peculiar proceedings that took place. maybe he can be located. I do agree however that doris hammack has nothing to gain by thinking she is leanne izard. I for one am inclined to believe her. keep me posted this is a tricky one. thanks for all the late nights...this detective stuff is fun.

Response: Thanks for your support. Murphy might have been involved in the disappearance of Ricky Izard, however, the book bag found at the crime scene and the timing of Murphy returning to the bus shed with an empty vehicle etc. seemed to support his statements at the time. He was eliminated as a suspect by the original investigators. No adoption records or otherwise that have uncovered anything either back during the active phase of the missing persons case, or in our digging around today.

Hi,
Has Doris/LeAnne received any sort of threats since she came forward with her story?
The person(s) who comitted/instigated the crime may still be alive and in power and may be afraid the truth of the murders may come to light and I am unaware of any statue of limitations on murder.
So it stands to reason that Doris/LeAnne may receive some sort of threats asking(telling) her to keep her mouth shut.

Rimadi Faras
[email protected]

Response: Excellent point, no threats, no odd phone calls, no clandestine meetings that we know of.

Why does anyone get in the chat room it is a great way to get some good ideas together.
Detective White

Response: Please do use the chat rooms anytime you want to discuss the case. We hope to have some scheduled chats going again. Details here.

Anyone seen the Friday, June 12, update?

Response: Trust you've seen it by now, let me know if you have any questions.

I think we'd better listen and take the time to ponder a couple of questions asked by the person who began with:
"I just came upon this site...". FRIDAY, 1520 hrs.(3:20pm) and by the way, where are the diamonds smacked out of Mrs. Izard's ring? Or were they smacked out? The ring didn't look all that flattened as if KA-POWED! into orbit by a Mississippi maniac weilding a shovel. Roy Bob

Response: Forensics agrees with you on the pearls and diamonds from the ring. They were likely removed and sold or pawned, however, no trace of them has been found.

I noticed that no one has brought up the connection between Perch and Bowlan. They were in Memphis at the same time. Neither one of them thought very highly of Izard. Bowlan thought that Izard was a union symapthizer and Perch thought just the opposite. I just feel that it was a little more than coincidence that they happened to be in Memphis at the same time.

Response: Yes they were both in Memphis. Perch was only seen at the Kit Kat Klub and with one of the dancers there. There is nothing to put them together in Memphis that we are aware of.

I've just come upon this site, so these questions may be redundant, but:
1) How did the tire get the constant wear on one area? There's a patch of tread that's totally gone. That doesn't seem to be normal wear.
2) Who left town right after the murders?
3) Where's Ricky? The only possibilities would be:
a) killed and buried in area (not likely)
b) orphanage ( but wouldn't he remember his past and
come back? )
c) adoption ( a 6-year old would be considered able to
work)
4) Why did the mailman roll Mr. Izard over and not the Mrs? whatever gave him the idea that he might still be alive, but not her?
5) The call states that there was a possible homicide and children missing. Didn't the mailman say that he didn't notice the kids missing until he was waiting for the sheriff?
6) Was there any sign of a struggle or footprints where the bookbag was found? A child wouldn't just drop his book bag anywhere for no reason.

Response: 1) we don't know the answer to that one 2) Apparently no one from the area left immediately after, Elliott Perch did and was not traced. Within the year a number of people left the area looking for work elsewhere, we're compiling that information. We know that Howard Hadley is one at this point, so was Jimmy Warren. 3) We do not know. 4) He checked both the Izards, see the original crime report as well as his interview. 5) No, he was looking for them around the property while waiting for the Sheriff is his statement. 6) None. Agreed. Thanks for your questions and comments.

I checked with detective Nelson about the disturbed soil in the Izzards garden. There was an excavation - nothing was found. g

Response: Correct.

It is strange that the children would be taken unless the little girl was also outside at the time of the murder and was taken into the house afterwards but at the same time an accomplice saw the little boy and grabbed him and so they decided to take the little girl which still doesn't make sense. What other social services agencies were contacted in Michigan re: a six-year-old boy? Seems to me the focus should be Doris Hammack's "relatives" and their neighbors and this could lead to some clues that would lead back to the crime. Also, what other things could the first foster parents add that do not appear in Doris' social services files? What are the items that Doris possesses and claims identify her as the Izard girl? These need to be listed. But I guess the easiest interviews would be those who lived in the Izard town and would now not fear telling the truth.

Response: It was thought that LeAnne Izard was taken from the kitchen of the home. A search of the MI social services system database has been requested. Nothing has turned up to match with Ricky Izard so far. It's much like that old needle in a haystack to try to and cover all possible avenues of adoption or placement for Ricky Izard. There's no proof he was ever in Michigan either. There are no known relatives of Doris Hammack and the whereabouts of any neighbors to Howard Hammack in Detroit is untraceable. We've gotten as much information from the social services and foster families records and interviews I suspect we're going to find. The ring setting in Doris' possession has been confirmed to match that of the ring belonging to Lisa Izard, see the Eagle article on Doris for a photo and also Doris' interview for more information.

Hey, is that an Adam's Apple I see in the Michigan d.l. photo of Doris? Surely not. But what if.......??? Roy Bob

Response: Doris is definitely a woman if that's the implication here, not sure where you're going with this?

Just a note:
The house numbers seem to be confusing some people into thinking all these folks lived close together. But in rural areas, houses with numbers in sequence can still be acres apart. In a rural setting, there's no such thing as a "block."

Speaking from lifetime experience here. ;D

Response: Very true, the map of County Road 106 and the summary of interviews with County Road 106 residents helps with distance information between the houses.

Did anyone ever dig up the disturbed area of soil in the Izards' garden? I suppose there wouldn't have been time to bump off Ricky and bury him there, but possibly LeAnn (assuming Doris isn't LeAnn) or something else may have been buried there. From the crime scene evidence we can see that someone had apparently been gardening, there was dirt on the shovel, dirt on Richard's hands, two broken tomato plants... Is it possible for you to do some digging, Detective Nelson?

Response: Yes, the disturbed area of the Izard garden was excavated and no additional evidence was recovered. At the time there were young tomatoe plants in that part of the garden, some had been trampled. No bodies found.