Thu Jul 2 21:45:25 PDT 1998

[suzd]

Is anyone else getting worn out researching through the massive amounts of data on this case? It's becoming nearly impossible to reference previous comments, there are so many--which is great, but sometimes overwhelming. I keep repeating others' comments and accidently scrolling past some! And all these similar names, ugh!

Anyway, I've been trying to take Dixon's advice and boil things down to their essence. In my mind, the "primary essence" is what happened at the crime scene. You have these two seemingly contradictory situations:

1. Brutal violent murder, apparently spontaneous (note use of shovel on scene)

2. Apparent thoughful and effective removal of two children leaving scant reliable evidence (If the children were to be killed, there is no reason why it would not have happened on the scene, is there?)

I believe my lengthy theory of several days ago grew out of a subconcious need to reconcile these two contradictory aspects of the crime. This is why I suggested that two "groups" (for lack of a better term) were involved:

A. Hotheaded, drunken toughs who intend to "rough-up" Richard, but go to far.

B. Cooler heads called in to "clean-up" after group A.

Even if you don't agree on my particular theory, do you agree that there is a contradiction at the crime scene in the apsects of the murder and the abduction? If so, let's try to come up with other scenarios that could resolve the dilemma.

Perhaps the recent discussions of Bowlan and McPhail could be worked in. I can see Bowlan somehow involved in "Part 1" and I can see McPhail somehow involved in "Part 2." Let's hear more!

This doesn't mean I've tossed my theory yet, but I want to keep an open mind. (Besides, Det. Nelson said it would be impossible to exit the Izard property out the back in a truck--that puts a big hole in my theory, hohum.)

suzd

[PJ]

To Dixon Hill: Yes, I read your post concerning a conspiracy issue in this case. By the way, you write beautifully! I've posted a few thoughts that are colder than ice now which I've dropped as far as any further investigation goes. I wasn't sure if you were still thinking in that direction, I'm glad to see that "conspiracy" is still alive. Continuing to look at Det. McPhail as a conspirator may be wise, but at this time, I'm in agreement with you that he was most likely manipulated in some way.

The only connection I can find between McPhail and Bowlan is Det. McPhail's nephew.

Det Nelson: Would it be possible for you to interview John Weston Mchail? He currently lives in Oxford and is co-owner of McPhail and Elias, an accounting firm. He may be the accountant that Bowlan refused to pay. Bowlan believed his accountant of leaking inside information on BGF's finances to the county board of supervisors.

Is there any way to find out who the members of the county board of supervisors are? Is there a list of elected Oxford officials... from 1950 to 1958?

Now, how about "conspiracies"? The Izard case is so confusing, I'm thinking in the direction of multiple conspiracies or acts (maybe one planned, and one spontaneous, possibly even more), going on at the same time.

There's so much we don't know and the answers must be right under our noses.

Good luck, all!
PJ

[From: Dixon Hill]

To everyone: I propose that we start putting a "from" line (such as mine above) if your comment will run more than 5 lines long, so everyone can know who's commenting without having to scroll to the bottom of your message. (If you don't want to use your own name, an alias is fine!) It would be nice if everyone would start signing their messages, too (at least with an alias). That way each of us can direct our comments specifically when it's warranted.

Also, how many of our newest participants have missed the fact that this page is built from the bottom up? New messages are added to the top. Be sure to at least read all of the current comments page (bottom -> up) before posting!


To PJ: dunno if you've read my earliest posts ('sokay if you didn't), but I stated early on that this seemed strangely like a conspiracy case. Strange for me because those who jump to conclusions involving conspiracies tend to irritate me! But this certainly has the earmarks of such a case. I think you might be right about Bowlan.

To Det. Nelson: I hope retired Det. McPhail hasn't been reading these pages! :-) If he has, I think I owe him an apology. He should know, though, that a good detective doesn't exclude anyone without clear cause.

Back to you PJ: Based on our discussions on this page and my review of the evidence (and Det. Nelson's replies to the earlier comments) I think I was barking up the wrong tree with respect to McPhail. He didn't plan this, but if there was a conspiracy, he was sure manipulated by whomever did the planning.

To everyone (again): What we should do is go back to first principles. That great fictional mastermind detective Sherlock Holmes used to say, "once all other possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth."

What possibilities can we eliminate?

Let's start compiling a list right here.


--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Oops! I hit "send" accidently. See next post first.

Essence of Bowlan Bio:
He grew up poor
He struggled in school
He worked for uncle for 11 years
He sacrificed
He saved
He used his savings as a down-payment to buy
private and commercial property
He was a good worker, so his uncle cosigned a note for him
He opened his own business making work gloves
He persevered when times were tough
His gloves became the national standard for quality
He created 470 jobs

And he did all this to become... [from bio]a terse, unsmiling man who always looked for the bottom-line in both personal and business dealings? [I admit snideness here]

or...

He did all this to prosper in an economic system that allows anyone a better life if they have the desire and determination to work hard and persevere!

Up to this point I can't find anything wrong with what he did, in fact, I believe he should be admired... rags to riches on hard work and effort. Without the social commentary, at this time in Bowlan's live I can't see that he stepped on anyone, or treated anyone badly. Quite the opposite. BGF must have brought a lot of money into the local economy.

So what happened to him. Why did he become the awful man we all see him to be?

More bare essence bio:
He didn't make friends
He refused to go to any of the area churches
He shut himself off from his "lower-class" friends
He was crass
He was money-grubbing
He was "the snot-nosed son of ol' Thad, the moonshiner
He ...
He ...
Etc.

Note: He built this company... and this is what he was hearing? I suggest that as he started moving up economically, his friends started shunning him, people in the area started resenting his success, which left him friendless, angry and looking to lash out! Possible?

PJ

I've reduced a part of Bowlan's biography dow to the bare essence. Without all the negative commentary that surounds every sentence in his bio, we might be able to see him more clearly. I believe he is powerful and angry. I'm looking for why here he's such an awful character and what caused it! I come to some conclusions, but that doesn't necessarily make them right... please add to or correct if I'm off base.

Bowlan Bio - PJ Style:

To suzd: YOU'RE TERIFFIC!!! Thank you for the recognition, it felt good. It also got me thinking about human behavior, how people act, or react, on the basis of how they're treated. You treated me well, and I felt good, (cause and effect). I tried looking at some of the people in this case to see if I could find cause and effect relationships in their personalities. Looking for clues that presently aren't visible. I'll post one on Bowlan, then follow up with others.

To Dixon Hill, PI: I believe that Bowlan has a grudge against a huge number of people including McPhail. Bowlan is an angry, powerful man and I think there is an underlying current that, once the house of cards is built, he sets them into their fall, and it will then be clear to all of us, how each card fell and the Izare case will be solved.

PJ

thanx guys,for correcting my mistake about wes hannaford and howard hadley. oops! *smile* before this information about howard hadley came out, i could have sworn that doris was leann izard and wes hannaford was the person who took leann to detroit. but doris hadley and doris hammack, howard hammack, howard hadley, it's too close! she HAS TO BE doris hammack. it is true what rayson says, the personalities don't fit.... but she has to be doris hadley. any parents out there should know how headstrong two and three year olds are, especially a girl like leann izard. if you say your name is doris she'll say, no it isn't it's leann, she would not go along with that. doris would go along with her father saying your last name is hammack now, she was clearly afraid of the man. okay, doris is doris hadley. that doesn't mean that hadley wasn't involved... who's the "old biddy" doris didn't come up with that on her own. she heard an adult say that ( by the way, the old biddy can't be carmicheal, doris got that phrase from an adult, and NO adult would call a 30 year old woman an old biddy). I'm curious, did wes hannaford go to detroit with hadley? hadley was not able to take care of that little girl on his own. that's why he left her with beatrice carmicheal for so long, if he was willing to pass her off to the ott's to take care of, and then to beatrice carmicheal, he wouldn't have any qualms about passing her to someone else, especially if it was a friend in detroit who had moved from oxford, like him, after the layoffs.... say wes hannaford. remember that wes talked about moving with his mother, ("the old biddy") and doris kept waiting for her father to come get her. also, they found howard hammack, but his neighbors say that they don't remember a little girl being with him.... but rayson's point intrudes again... doris's dreams.... doris's dreams... where do the dreams fit in?......
sorry, i'm thinking out loud. maybe some of you can add something to my theory or make comments about things that you agree with, or disagree with...
niki

willaped,
frank and hannah did stay together. go back and read the detective's answers to viewer's comments. there was a comment about how frank abbott uses his "wife" as an alibi, but he was seeing hannah waithers. the detective clears it up by saying that frank was talking about someone else's wife, not his own, and that frank later married hannah waithers.
just wanted to make sure that you have all the facts.
niki

Oh, and regarding the last comment about the poor use of the search feature..... I'm not really being critical.. been there, didn't do that either! but having become enlightened, I want EVERYONE to be!(:

Well, duhhh...... Are there those who are confused about how to use the search feature of this site?
Go to investigative tools and check it out. Get ALL the info available on any given subject. i.e. Howard or Carmichael or biddy, abbott (you may want to specify which one). Any phrase and more!! Do some sleuthing first and let's avoid all the recent redundancy(:

In response to Dixon's question re: Abbott & Waithers, in response to Det. White's comment posted Jun 18 12:01 PDT, Det. Nelson states, "Abbott was...dating Hannah Waithers whom he did later marry."

Also, I believe the garden Det. Nelson referred to as having been excavated was the Izard garden, not the Hadley garden. Unless I missed something, the Hadley garden is still unexplored.

Hope this helps!

suzd

I have been going over the info again. Although it looks like Doris Hammack maybe Doris Hadley at this time I still think she maybe LeAnne Izard. I know I have been going back and forth on this but the girls individual personalities don't match. Doris Hadley and the Doris Hammack that lived in Detroit were very docile, she had sad eyes and bit her bottom lip. However LeAnne was a fire cracker the grown Doris Hammack had/has a personality like LeAnne headstrong determined etc.Carmichael spoke of a lovely child she read stories too, not a child speaking of blood,murdered parents,a child that had horrific nightmares.If Doris had them all through childhood, one would expect her to have them when she was with Carmichael as well.So somehow the switch was made after Howard Hammack was dead, the real Doris Hadley was raised by someone else, after the death of her father and LeAnne was taken to the orphanage and passed off as Doris Hammack maybe because of the dreams, maybe whoever was taking care of her could not live with her nightmares and was afraid everything would blow up in their face if they kept her.
What does anyone say about my observations? Comments welcome.
rayson-Sonya

I feel mrs carmichael knows more tham she is letting on. She got very scared when she heard doris was going to be hypnotized to reveal hidden memories. Hadley has something to do with the murders. he gave doris to carmichael to watch until he got employed in detroit. are there any records of a howard hadley in detroit at the time.

pel

I feel mrs carmichael knows more tham she is letting on. She got very scared when she heard doris was going to be hypnotized to reveal hidden memories. Hadley has something to do with the murders. he gave doris to carmichael to watch until he got employed in detroit. are there any records of a howard hadley in detroit at the time.

pel

I noticed in the replies from the det. nelson he said that the wounds to richard izard were of blunt force, not gashes that would have been left by a shovel. it could have left blunt blows if he was hit with the back of the shovel(flat side). or maybe the shovel wasn't the weapon, but maybe it was used to defend himself against, maybe hadley. that would explain his cut up hands better than him falling off a ladder.
wix

I'm fairly new to this case so if I've missed this answer some where please let me know.

Were finger prints taken off the shovel?
Or were finger prints taken off the playpen or door handles in the house?

Thanks
[email protected]

[From: Dixon Hill]

To the sender below: nah, Beatrice Carmichael was in her 30's, clearly not an "old biddy." As a previous participant mentioned, this not a term a two-year-old uses on her own; she overheard someone else say it. My bet is that this was an older caregiver in Detroit when she was still living with her dad, Howard Hammack[/Hadley].

Suzd: thanks for the compliment! [This is the first & last time I'll mention it here, but...] in Real Life [tm] I'm not a real detective. See http://www.crimescene.com/members/pages/Dixon_Hill.html for more information.

PS, Everyone: visit http://www.crimescene.com/members to set up your own Crime Scene web page. Thanks, Detectives Nelson & Armstrong!

Willapad: yep, I think Frank's definitely involved. Good question about his relationship with Hannah. Anybody found anything about this? (Okay, I'm too busy/lazy to do the research myself today!)

PJ: I too like your non-linear thinking. (If you are familiar with the Myers-Briggs tests, are you possibly an ENTP or INTP?) Your Bowlan conspiracy theory holds more water, motive-wise, than my McPhail conspiracy theory. For this to work, Bowlan had to be manipulating McPhail somehow, directly or indirectly, and covertly or overtly. Did he have some kind of control over McPhail? Blackmail? Payoffs? Or just subtle behind-the-scenes control to ensure McPhail kept barking up the wrong tree? Your guess is probably better than mine, here.

If Bowlan was behind it all, I wonder if this was all about hate, and proving something to the town, or whether it was about the "Communist Scare" ??? Maybe both?

rayson-Sonya: Good catch! The Izard garden was searched but not the Hadley grounds! Okay, I'm back to my original thought that a search warrant and some excavating / grounds-combing is due in short order. All Det. Nelson needs is justifiable cause....

Best regards to all!
   --- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Hi, I am new to crime scene but find it extremely fascinating. A theory: I think Elliot Perch was involved in the kidnapping of the children. He left town that afternoon and doesn't have a good alibi. I think the children were kidnapped to get Richard Izard to do something in regards to the union organizing. But when someone went to talk to Richard about it something went wrong and they argued and Richard and Lisa were killed. I think Howard Hadley was involved. How else would his daughter Doris end up with the ring setting. I think his girlfriend is the old biddy that Doris remembers. As for the memories of a mean man, that could very well be Howard. Did anyone check into adoptions or unidentified bodies of children in the area where Elliot Perch went that day. I think both of the children would be found together. It makes no sense that they would be split up.

"I know Frank didn't have anything to do with this" sets off a red flag for me. Why would Hannah say this when the questioning wasn't pointed toward Frank as a suspect?

The follow-up interview with Frank doesn't mention that he is still with Hannah. Why didn't they stay together?

Willapad

Det. Nelson,

In reply to your question about an earlier comment of mine, Walter was married, according to the bio, to Marlis who is in a nursing home in Sacramento. I was thinking that questioning her and Tommy Jo now, as they near "meeting their maker", may elicit more truthful responses about Walter's (possible) participation in the murders than they would have been willing to give at the time. I believe Tommy Jo saw Walter (or his truck) near the crime scene that day. I suspect that Marlis would have sensed something about Walter's behavior that would have made her suspicious, and perhaps he even told her what happened, but she kept it hidden all these years. Directly suggesting this to them make shake it loose.

suzd

Note to Dixon Hill: Thanks for your comments about my comments. Your ideas about Warren getting beat up trying to intervene really fit. It could also be that he was beaten by another group including Dahany which someone else suggested. I'm not on the same wavelength (yet?) as far as your ideas on McPhail, although I can totally agree that he was too intent on ONE suspect and was distracted from the truth. I share your agony! (See also note to PJHunter.)

Note to Niki: Thanks for the "kindred" support. (See also Note to All below.)

Note to PJHunter: I'm amazed by the originality of your ideas and the exuberent way they are expressed. Your portrayel of Bowlan is convincing. I bet you and Dixon Hill could solve this thing--two good detective brains!

Note to all: After reviewing all of the older comments and the Detective's responses, I more clearly see that a lot of our theories overlap, change over time, resurface again, and build on each other. I apologize to those whose ideas I may have subconciously absorbed and used without giving credit. I also apologize for introducing a negative, accusatory tone to the site in one of my comments. It was not necessary and I won't let it happen again.

suzd

Well now after viewing the most recent answers to our postings we now know that it was confirmed that Doris Hadley stayed with the Otis's the day of the murder and was picked up by Carmichael. Which means to me one of two things, to explain her dreams in childhood Doris has to be LeAnne Izard or if she is Doris Hadley then she witnessed the murders of LeAnne and Ricky. Her problems with nightmares are well documented by Social Services as the main reason why she was returned over and over again. No child would have continuous nightmares unless they suffered from post-tramatic syndrome which is now widely recognized due to Vietnam War veterens suffering after they came back due to the horrors they saw.

Lie detector test to Thomas Joe Hinkley, Elbert Warren, and
Harvey Booker. The cap and blanket from who? from Ricky Izard or the killer. Keys on Ford pickup. Someone was waiting on the Ford pickup? Why is Ford pickup with the keys and unlocked? Did maybe Ricky Lizard see or hear something
that made him run? Checked the area for any grave? Did any of the suspects make a deposit of large money in his account? like 5000 US more or less? In the day of the crime or some days after it? Extensive resarch on Beatric Carmichael. If she is alive, lie detector test.

From PJ (3rd Post - first two aren't numbered)

Witness Interview: Mr. and Mrs. Elbet Warren, Jr.

[End of interview] If he saw Bowlan uptown, he'd make us all cross the street, avoid being on the same sidewalk with him. "Sorry old snake," he always called him. Way Daddy saw it, Bowlan sold'em all out - the union, the factory, everything - and walked off with a big hunk of money when he sold the factory the next year.

Yikes! I think Bowlan took retribution (sp?) on nearly everyone in Yoknapatawpha County with one (or more)calculated act(s)! Who all would Bowlan hate or want to hurt?

He refused to go to any of the area churches.

He shut himself off from many of his "lower-class" friends.

The county's elite - who called him "the snot-nosed son of ol' Thad the moonshiner."

Others who wanted a piece of the pie.

He fumed about the kickbacks, back-scratching and bribes he had to dole out in order to do business in Yoknapatapha Co.

Clashed with corrupt county board of supervisors.

Former Bowlan accountant for providing inside information on the factory to the board. (McPhail & Elias accounting firm? McPhail's nephew? [See McPhail's bio]

Help! Please read the other two posts and see if you think any of this makes sense. I can't put it all together, but I think it might fit with some work.

More later,
PJHunter

Detective Nelson, can we get records on Clarise Warren who married David Maxwell and moved to New York. Elbert and Jimmy Warren's bio's says they had two children, Jamie and Kelly. What are their ages? Could they be LeAnne and Ricky Izard? If so, I believe Det. McPhail is involved. You need to reinterview him. Also, could you check into Grayson Maxwell, Staff Reporter for the Oxford Eagle? Maybe Maxine Littleman, the grandmother at the Huggins house? Family relationships? If so, McPhail might have taken part in rescuing the Izard children... knows where they are and is not solving the case, or can't, (it is confusing) for fear of exposing the children's new identity????

In McPhails bio, he had a brother, John Maxwell McPhail, who was killed in action.

Is there a Maxwell in Bowlan's family? I didn't see anything in his bio, but maybe in the "Bowlan Collection" that was given to the univ. library?

The Coroner... he was an elected physician, not forensics... Bowlan mentions graft... kickbacks... county board of supervisors... hum? If the coroner lied about the time of death... this is getting too good ... he's Coroner William Graves, MD, he removed victims at 5:40p, they were taken to the BAPTIST HOSPITAL MORGUE.

I suspect a colossal cover-up.

One more thing. The "party-line"? Was the phone system an old crank style? Mrs. Hawkins, Organist, BPBC, I think she's a member of the underground. The party line could be a tracking system, information center.

More later,
PJHunter
(Sorry about all the posts and all the jumping around. My mind works this way and it gives me a headache)!!

More later,
PJHunter

I think I know why the case wasn't solved and it's possible that McPhail didn't want it solved.

6-16-98 Witness Interview: Frank Abbott

N. How about Perch? Could he have killed Izard?
A. Why on earth would he do that? Elliott liked Dick. Even dowright admired him a little. I think. Dick Izard was playing a dangerous game, staying neutral as far aas anybody could see but secretly supporting the union. Old man Bowlan would've had Dick fired in a minute if he'd known...

Bowlan knew!!!!

I'm sorry, I can't find the post to cite it... but someone brought up the people on the Lay-Off list who were laid off but NOT known union sympathizers ... Jestes, a drunk, but why the othe 6?

They were plants!!!! Information gatherers reporting back to Bowlan.

Further... I think they were Baptists!

(Comments May 28, Paul mentioned McCarthyism. Detective Nelson's response was really good). I'm looking at the visitation committee... maybe others. In the Background Interviews: Mable Anderson, Chairwoman of the Bethlehem Baptist Home Visitation Committee, and laid off BGF worker.
The visitation committee, other members of the church, formed a anti-Communist.. watchdog organization. Lisa!

If Lisa's involved (she visited Jestes in Oct. '97) then I'll bet Bowlan had the union money planted in Richard's drawer.

Bowlan tells Richard he's leaving town until things cool off. Does he suggest that Richard do the same... maybe Richard calls Lisa, asks her to start packing some things... they're going out of town. Lisa finds the money in the drawer! Uh...?

More later.
PJHunter

WILL YOU PLEASE *STOP SHOUTING* !

WELL FIRST OF ALL I HAVE LOOKED OVER ALMOST EVERYTHING BUT NOT ALL OF IT BECAUSE IT IS LATE BUT........ TWO THINGS I HAVE CAME UP WITH IS FIRST IREALLY DOUBT IT WAS THE KIDS I MEAN TWO AND SIX IT WAS THE 50 NOT THE 90S AND THE ADULTS COULD PROBABLY FIGHT THEM OFF COULD A TWO YEAR OLD REALLY HIT THAT HARD? IT WAS EITHER AN EX OF MRS.IZARD OR THE UNION MOSTLY PERCH . HE WAS HOT AND HE HAD SAID SOME THINGS TO MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH HE WOULD DO IT BUT WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS? WHY TAKE THEM ?? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND UNLESS IT WAS SOMEONE WHO WANTED CHILDREN AND NEW IZARDS AND HAD A MOTIVE ANYWAY FIRST THING IN THE MORNING I WILL TAKE THI FURTHER

after viewing previous posts here checked info again The Izard Garden was dug up and no evidence was found. Howard Hadley's Garden was not dug up so their might be something there, a wallet, a body,bloody clothes, who knows. And I do believe that Carmichael was hiding something in her room weather it was other pictures or what I don't know.But she knows something she ain't telling and Doris maybe the key if she is hypnotized.
Det. Nelson:
Did anybody ever interview the Otis's to see if Doris was there all day until Carmichael came to get her? If not and Howard did get her earlier then dropped her off again then Doris could have seen the murders. She had to see something tramatic for her to have dreams of blood and murder all her childhood.
rayson-Sonya

I'm just itching to see the results from the forensic hypnosis of Doris Hammack, and the questioning of Beatrice Carmichael! In the meantime, I've been re-reading the evidence, the interviews, and so forth.

Maybe Det. McPhail did indeed have enough motive to plan and execute a first degree murder...

From the bios...

   Jack [McPhail] married Oxford native, Jean Louise Dreher on January 8, 1949.
   They were divorced in May of 1950.
   Elbert married Jean Louise Dreher McPhail of Oxford December 2, 1950.

From the 16 June 1998 interview of Frank Abbott by Detective Nelson...

   N: How about Elbert Warren? Could he have killed the Izards?
   A: Again, all I can say is that anything's possible. But I can't imagine it. Elbert talked a big game, but he was mostly hot air and everybody knew it. He might've taken a swipe at Dick, if he was drunk, but kill him? I don't think so.

   N: He was a prime suspect at the time.
   A: I know that. And it was worth considering. But most everybody figured the main reason Elbert stayed a suspect so long was because Jack McPhail had it out for him. Nearly won, too.

   N: Nearly won? Who? What? You lost me there.
   A: Jack McPhail. All that pushing and prodding and insinuating he did with Elbert Warren nearly drove the poor fellow right over the edge. He couldn't get a job for nearly two years, partly because of suspicion. People who knew him didn't think he could have done it, but not everybody in the county knew Elbert personally. And a lot who did know him only knew him as an unemployed drunk. Yeah, Elbert got pushed right up to the brink, mostly because McPhail was still mad about his wife. You know about that, right? [Emphasis mine.]

   N: I've heard, yes.
   A: Man'll do funny things when he's had his pride wounded by a woman. [Emphasis mine.] But McPhail didn't quite win out, in the end. My daddy said it was religion made the difference for Elbert Warren.

What this fails to explain is why McPhail would want the Izards dead.

Another possibility is that the case was never solved just because McPhail was so fixated on "getting" Elbert that he missed the real perpetrators of the crime.

This case is becoming agony for me. I think we are so close but everything doesn't quite hang together yet. When I grasp at a theory, something else comes unhinged!


Yours in investigative pain...
   --- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Wix:

Sorry to post two consecutive posts. I just re-read your message below. Good call about the Otts!!

They weren't interviewed because either:
   (a) it wasn't thought to be germane to the case at the time, or...
   (b) the interview would reveal something McPhail didn't want revealed.

I think you are at least partially right about Carmichael knowing that some "tracks were covered." I believe her, however, when she said that little Doris was "the only little girl she ever cared for." I don't believe she is/was a good enough actress to fake that emotion, since she seems pretty transparent about letting other things upset her.

-- Dix Hill

Your comment about Hadley's mother is correct. I think Niki got this confused with the interviews concerning Wes Hannaford. (Hey, the names in this case are enough to confuse anybody!)

Also, if one of the little girls was killed and buried, it wasn't in the Hadley garden. I rechecked the evidence. Det. Nelson stated that the garden had been excavated and nothing found. If there was a burial, it had to happen somewhere else.

More later!
--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Niki,
Howard Hadley's mom died in 1949 according to his bio. So, the old biddy has to be someone he met in Detroit(more than likely an alocholic like himself).
I still think the Izard children are alive. and carmicheal could have raised them. In her interview, she gets upset at the first mention of the names saying she knows for sure there is no proof of them.WHY???? maybe cause she covered her tracks to keep them hidden.
Like others and I have said, this could explain Doris's big brother thing she was going through as a child in foster care, if she was raised around Ricky for a year with carmicheal.
We need an interview with the OTT'S the supposed babysitter, who had the girl more than Hadley. WEIRD how they were never interviewed.
wix

HEY!!!!!!!!!!
Suzd,
Det. White took credit for parts of my theory too. We talked about a week and a half ago in the chat room, and then we talked a couple of days later.... Now I see my theory posted as Det. White's. you know Det. White, plagerism is illegal in any form.......
niki

Everyone seems to still be unclear about who the "old biddy" is. It's very clear: Howard Hadley stated in his report that he discussed moving to Detroit with his mother.....HELLO!!!!! A five year old does not come up with a phrase like "old biddy" on her own, she heard the old woman called that by someone. Possibility - could Hadley have relocated with his mother, and in drunken rages referred to her as old biddy?
Niki

I think it was suicide...no question about it!!
They wanted to die and sended their children away for summerschool..but the summerschool burned down and they never found their bodies....witch means,....no one could proof that these two children were there....

ThanX!!

Hello, all. Dix Hill here with more comments.

Suzd: BINGO!!

I am sure this is awfully close to the truth; it hangs together and has very few lapses I can poke holes in. I am envious you came up with this first! :-)

In particular I'm now fairly certain that your theory explains what happened to Ricky. Sure would be interesting for him to turn up right about now...

The only thing it doesn't account for is Elbert Warren's being "ambushed."

I read all the new material and then re-read the bio information on the Warren's, Hinkley, and Hadley. Here are some possible alternatives to your basic theory:

1. What if Elbert Warren was really the good guy and got hurt trying to defend the Izards from his brother Jimmy (& others)?? He might still cover for his brother after the fact.

2. What if, instead of Elbert, it was Howard Hadley who tried to stop the fight? I think this is less likely than my item #1 above. Elbert's bio seems to reveal a hot-tempered but basically decent man. Hadley seemed to be just hot-tempered. And Jimmy Warren was hot tempered, mean, and nasty.

It seems clear the wallet and ring were stolen either to make it seem like a robbery, or possibly by Hadley in the confusion because he needed money. He pawned the most valuable part of the ring in Detroit but kept the ring itself because it would likely link him to the murders. He gave it to his daughter Doris as a convenient way to "lose" it. Beatrice Carmichael knew little to nothing about this which is why she was so surprised --- she put two and two together and realized this linked Hadley -- and thus herself -- to the murders!

The only other theory that seems to hold water is the idea that McPhail set up the whole thing. That would explain why the case never got anywhere after so much effort. (Of course, so would the simple fact of there being so many accomplices who had something to cover up.)

Here's my bet: Jimmy Warren was definitely one of the perpetrators (or perps as we like to say in the trade). Walter Hinkley was almost certainly involved.
And maybe Elbert Warren is the good guy (relatively speaking since he would have had to cover for the murders).

What am I certain of? I'll bet my bottom dollar that Doris Hammack is Doris Hadley, not LeAnne Izard. (I was wondering if I had that right for a while.) Howard Hammack and Howard Hadley are one in the same. The "old biddy" was a woman who cared for Doris in Detroit.

And what am I wondering?

I am wondering whether retired Detective McPhail ought to be taken into custody for further questioning. I said early on that this looked like someone very smart might be manipulating things. Police detectives are smart --- they have to be. But I don't believe we've established enough of a motive for McPhail to want to do something as serious as premeditated murder. This could be a real red-herring.

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Reading the Hammack interview with Carmichael it's interesting to see what makes Carmichael nervous. First she seems shocked that Doris has the ring from the murder scene. Perhaps she realises this means either Doris (as Doris Hadley) was there at the murders, or that Howard Hadley stole the ring and gave it to Doris; both possibilities suggesting he he killed the Izards. This would then explain why she panics when Doris tells her she's considering being hypnotised.
Det. Hippo
p.s. just saw the photo of Ricky. What a cute kid! How could anyone kill him?

Come to think about it.... I'd like to see the Izards' garden excavated as well. Maybe Richard would come home from firing people all upset and want to work off his problems in the garden, or maybe he was hiding or retrieving something.
Ciaral

I think Doris Hammack is Doris Hadley. Someone said there was no proof that Howard Hadley had a daughter but on his employment record it shows that a week after his wife died he changed the beneficiary of his life insurance to his week old daughter Doris. Then 16 months later he cancels this insurance and gets $1200. This was probably to help pay for the people who were taking care of her for him. I think the fact that Doris Hammack remembers being afraid that the bad man would come back and be her daddy was because she was hardly raised by him. From the time she was born she was taken care of by other people and probably when she was with him at night and on weekends, he probably was drinking and loud and would have been scary to a small child. She was only 3 when her father left her with Miss Carmichael in Sep 1958. Did Miss Carmichael babysit other children, such as boys, to help with her own living expenses. If there was an older boy in this home, Doris being so young might have thought this was her brother. She stayed with Miss Carmichael almost a year and it had to have been very traumatic when she was told that she had to go live with her father in the summer of 1959. I am sure that was the only secure home she had because she was able to stay in one place. Then just a year later, Aug 1960, she was left at the orphanage. I wonder who Mr. Hadley/Hammack had watching her while he worked in Detroit for that year. I believe it must have been some older woman for Doris to refer to her as "that old biddy". Remember Miss Carmichael was only about 34 in 1958. I don't believe a 5 years old child would have referred to a young woman as an old biddy.
Another point, when Mr Hadley left Doris with Miss Carmichael in Sep 1958 just 5 months after the murders, surely the police where still actively looking for the murderer and for the missing children. If there was a chance that Doris was really the Izard child, wouldn't the police or someone who knew what LeeAnn looked like have been suspicous?
I wonder who told the police that a ring was missing from Lisa's fingers and what it looked like? Had someone seen her on that day with the ring on?
How did the police know that the cap and blanket that washed up on the creek 5 days after the murders belonged to the Izard children. Was Ricky wearing a cap on such a hot day? In the newspaper article 2 years later it stated that the creek was almost always shallow. It the children had drowned in the creek surely their bodies would have washed ashore at some point in time.
I think it highly possible that Mr. Hadley was in on the killings and he probably stole the ring and wallet to make it look like a robbery. Remember Miss Carmichael told Doris Hammack that she couldn't possibly have the same ring. Why not? Unless Mr Hadley told Miss Carmichael that he had sold or pawned it. He probably did sell the stones but not the setting.
I think the Izard children were killed and buried. If not, who went missing for sometime after the murders? If someone took them, they would have had to leave town to give them away or put them somewhere so who disappeared right after the crime?
Just my thoughts,
Judi

In his dementia Tommy Jo would be spilling his guts about the murders if he knew anything, not just spouting postal regulations.... I think the fast moving car may hav ebeen driven by Warren, Hinkley and pals, but I think the killer came in from the creek. Maybe Tommy Joe DID see the car leave and knew who was in it (his brother included) and that would account for his guiltiness at the crime scene interview. Later his brother could have convinced him he had nothing to do with it. Hadley had at very least been beating someone up, Hadley is such a sleaze, maybe he's still alive... in Carmichaels bedroom?
I still would like to see Carmichaels garden excavated and Doris undergo hypnotherapy. I think she is Hadley's daughter and does have key information to the crime locked in her repressed memories.
Ciaral

I still believe Howard Hadley (Hammock) must be the murderer. I believe Doris Hammock is Doris Hadley. I believe Miss Carmichael is covering for him because she knows what really happened. I think that when she returned Doris to him in Detroit, he could not (or did not want to) care for her. Maybe she saw this and took her to the orphanage herself. Or maybe he left Doris with someone he met up there and they got tired of caring for her and took her to the orphanage. He probably changed his name to avoid prosecution for the murders. I reiterate that the garden and his house need to be thoroughly searched, and that his activities around the time need to be traced. I think the case is really that simple. And unfortunately I think that the Izard children are no longer living.

MTCW
rosie

The photographs of Lisa and Leanne Izard are not of very good quality. Nevertheless, when looking at Lisa's photograph next to Doris, their eyes look very much alike. The shape of the nose is very similar as well. Leanne's picture is too dark to tell.

The fact Doris has that ring in her possession ties her into
the Izard murder case. If she is Doris Hadley, and she
lived with Howard Hadley who was her father: why would she
refer to him as "that man" and dream of the "mean man was
going to come get me and be my daddy." It does not make
sense to me.

Answers could be found if Doris' past was investigated
closer. Like getting the description of the woman who
left her and tracking Hadley by his social security
number. Also, see if there is a social for Hammond.

Detective Nelson, Have you considered interviewing Beatrice Carmichael as well? I agree with the others who feel she
is not telling everything she knows about this case and Doris Hadley.

I hate to say it, but I think Ricky may not be alive. He
is the age where he would remember what happened.

It will be interesting to see if Doris is able to recall
any details of her past.

She should be proud of how well she has turned out
considering the life she led.

Nancy

Hi,
I still believe that Walter Hinkley killed the Izard's. His brother Tommy Joe kept wiping his han'd,but, that could have been a nervous reation.I think he knew his brother killed them,he was so cold about the murder.I don't believe Ricky Izard would have wondered off leaving his sister behind, they probably killed hi because he can name the murderer.I also still believe that Doris is Doris Hadley and not LeeAnn Izard,if you lok at the pictures she does not look like and Izard child. I think that Walter possibly conspred with Mr. Hadley and the neighbor Ms. Hawkin's also had a part in this plan, she's the person I believe left Doris with the nun's. We don't know what happened to her, she just vanished out of sight.

goldfeather

Well, well, well Det. White,

After talking in the chat room today, I see you have taken most of my theory to heart; really "made it your own" didn't you? I see that you haven't given kahluax any credit, either. I must say the part about Bowlan SOUNDS original; wonder who you got that from? And you talk TOO LOUD!

Well, hopefully this case will now come to a swift conclusion, even if we're all wrong.

suzd

OK HERE IS MY TAKE ON THE WHOLE THING. DET. MCPHAIL WAS TICKED AT WARREN AND WAS TRYING TO FIND AWAY TO GET REVENGE. THAT IS WHEN HE LEARNED THAT THE UNION VOTE FAILED AND REALIZED THEIR WOULD BE PEOPLE LOOKING FOR REVENGE OF THEIR OWN. SO HE TAKED TO HADLEY, HINKLEY, AND MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE POSSIBLY. HE CONVINCED THEM THAT IZARD WAS TO BLAME FOR MAKING THEM THINK THAT A UNION WOULD CHANGE THEIR SITUATION INSTEAD IT GOT THEM FIRED. HE CONVINCED THEM THAT IT WAS IZARD WHO WAS TO BE BLAMED. NEXT HE WENT TO DANAHY, COREY, AND BOOKER AND CONVINCED THEM THAT WARREN NEEDED TO PAY FOR TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THE UNION WOULD WORK. SO HADLEY, HINKLEY WENT OVER TO IZARDS KILLED THEM. MEANWHILE MS. CARMICHEAL IS LOOKING FOR HADLEY AND REALIZES THAT HE IS OVER AT IZARDS SHE FINDS THEM THEIR AND REALIZES WHAT HAS HAPPEN SHE TAKES LEEANN AND EVENTUALLY DROPS HER OFF AT THAT HOME. NEXT FRANK ABBOTT HAS LEARNED WHAT HAS HAPPEN AND SENDS OVER WAITHERS TO GET RICKY BEFORE HE SEES THE MESS. RICKY GOES WITH PERCH TO DETROIT AREA IS GIVEN TO ONE OF HIS UNION FRIENDS TO HANDLE FOR ADOPTION. THE POSTMAN HELPS HIS BROTHER AND HADLEY GET OFF BEFORE THE POLICE SHOWED UP. LASTLY DANAHY, BOOKER, AND COREY JUMP WARREN BEAT HIM PRETTY BAD. SO WITH WARREN BEAT UP PRETTY BAD IT LOOKS LIKE HE DID THE MURDERS AND THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR MCPHAIL TO BUST WARREN AND GET HIS REVENGE, BUT HE COULDN'T GET ANY MORE EVIDENCE ON HIM AND THE PROSCUTOR WOULDN'T PRESS CHARGES UNLESS HE COULD COME UP WITH MORE EVIDENCE.

DET WHITE.

I don't know if you will answer my questions on this page or send an email to me. My email address is [email protected].

Thanks,
Judi

Hi, a friend of mine gave me this web address and I am fascinated with what I have been reading. Is this a true case? Are there other cases to read about? I have read all of the interviews and the comments by readers back to June 4th. How far back does the comments go? There are several mentions of Miss Carmichael giving Mr. Hadley an alibi at the time of the murders but I have not found an original interview from 1958 for her. Where can I can this? Also someone mentioned that some of Ricky's things where found by the creek. Where do I find that information.

This is the most interesting case I have heard of even if it is not true.

Please keep me informed and tell me if there are any archived interviews and comments so I can read them and get caught up with everyone else.

Thanks,
Judi

well since the email i got today said we will solve the case soon means we are all pretty close to the truth. Looking at Doris's picture I agree she does favor Mr. Hadley especially in the face so she is probably Doris Hadley.Since Howard always had money problems trying to support his habit the motive could have been that Howard wanted the money back that he paid for layoff protection. Richard said it was gone a fight ensued blamm. He knew he didn't have much time so he just took money from Richard's wallet(probably his paycheck) and Lisa's ring(may have pawned the stones in Michigan).Maybe LeAnne is buried in Hadley's garden. I like the comment that someone else posted about him seeing LeAnne reminded him of his own daughter so he took her but since she was not docile like his own, he lost his temper since he was drunk and struck her down.Even though the hospital did say that his injuries could have come from a fall off a roof I disagree. Most people who fall off a roof suffer back injuries, broken necks,concusions, etc. Most of his injuries where related to punching something or someone over and over again and the eye injury sounds like he was hit in the eye so hard it bruised the cornea plus he was on light duty for
a short time. So either he was the murderer or he was with the bunch that attacked Elbert Warren since he was closer to the murder scene 5min. by car I think he is indeed the murderer.I don't know why he kept the ring itself,maybe as a reminder to keep him in line which he seemed to somewhat do.The nuns probably told her it could be her mother's cause they assumed it was plus abandoned children will cling to anything they think is family.
Det. Nelson we need statement from Otis family to insure that Doris was there all day when murders happened if she wasn't she may have seen the murders or she may have seen the murder of LeAnne and/or Ricky.Also the whole house and the grounds of the Hadley house need to be searched for clues and possibly bodies.
That is my synopsis at this time until next update.
rayson-Sonya

I was wrong, found the Hadley biography after my initial comment. I still believe Hadley committed the murders, but I believe Dorris, is actually Dorris Hadley, and that Hadley probably changed his name after he moved to Detroit, because he was affraid the police would find proof he committed the murders and come looking for him. I believe Miss Carmichael was the one who took her to the Catholic home. I believe Hadley was drunk at the time of the murders, and as usual was looking for a fight. I believe he went out to the Izards, and got into an argument with Mr. Izard, and they began to fight, I think Hadley grabbed the shovel during the fight, swung at Mr Izard, but Mrs. Izard got in the way and got hit first and died, I don't think he intentionally hit her. Then when Mr. Izard saw his wife dead went after Hadley, and Hadley then killed him, then left. I believe Ricky came home, found his parents grabbed his sister and fled, I believe in the confusion and being scared they drowned in the creek.

I believe Howard Hadley killed the adult Izards, stole the child, LeAnn Izard, and when the boy got home, he became scared and ran off, and drowned in the creek. I believe Hadley killed them in a fit of anger, blaming them for the layoffs. He probably had been drinking, and while drunk flew into a drunken rage. He then took the child and raised her as his own. His wife probably did die in child birth, but i believe the child that was his, also died that day, and he kept it hush, hush and gave the child LeAnn that child's idenity. There does not seem to be any mention of the child before the murders, and who,if the child did exist before then, who took care of the child before the layoffs, while he was working at the Bowlman plant. The lady who took care of her after the layoffs, did not watch her until after the layoffs. Also didn't one of the Izard's neighbors say that they had boys, could one of those boys be named Billy, could this be the neighbor boy that Dorris is remembering?

Here's what I'm thinking: A group including Walter Hinkley and Howard Hadley left the bar and headed to the Izards. They arrive and start arguing about the lay-offs; things escalate to violence, punches are thrown, Lisa Izard tries to intervene and gets accidentally killed by a whack from the shovel. Richard fights for his life but is killed as things get out of control.
Meanwhile, Ms. Carmicheal stops in the bar to find Howard Hadley. She speaks with Frank Abbot, who tells her what had been going on earlier at the bar, and that Howard had taken off with Hinkley, et.al. She knows Howard's temper and fears that he may do something crazy. She heads out to the Izard place in search of Hadley. Abbott heads home.
Back at the Izards, the men are in shock at what has been done. One of them made the fatal blows, but they all know they have caused this together. They are in shock at what has occurred, filled with grief and fear. Ms. Carmicheal races down the driveway to prevent what she fears might happen, but is too late. She hears Leann crying from the playpen and goes to get her. One of the men, now sobered, calls Frank Abbot to ask what to do. As a mentor to the group, one who was adament about non-violence, the news was a shock, but he did not want the violence to taint the union movement which he believed was right. He contacts Perch for help about what to do. Then he's receive's a call from Hannah Waithers. He pictures Ricky coming home from school to the horrible sight, and spontaneously asks Hannah to intercept Ricky at the school bus to save the boy pain. He doesn't tell Hannah why, just that "there's some trouble there." By the sound of his voice, she knows this is serious, so asks no questions and goes to get Ricky.
Meanwhile Perch arrives at the crimescene. Ms. Carmicheal has taken both Hadley and Leann home. Perch, also sickened by the pointless deaths, is now concerned that he will be arrested for involvement. He does a few things to cover the crime and the men disperse. Perhaps the men are in Walter Hinkley's truck, which Tommy Joe, the mailman sees leaving the property, bouncing out toward the woods. When he sees the bodies, he immediately thinks his brother is responsible, and is shaking with shock and fear. There is nothing he can do for the Izards now, but he feels he must protect his baby brother. He looks for the kids, but they are gone, and he is thoroughly sick inside, and calls the police with all this horror raging though his mind.
Meanwhile Perch contacts Abbott, to bring him up to date on what has transpired. Abbot tells Perch about Hannah having Ricky. Perch knows the situation is going to get very hot, and by taking Ricky, even temporarily and for innocent purposes, they are now all implicated in the crimes. Perch decides to take Ricky to some underground people in Memphis until the case cools down. Perhaps from there, these unscrupulous characters, transport Ricky to parts unknown, telling him that his family is dead, and that he is now going to be adopted by another family far away. Little Ricky, traumatized would have no choice but to accept this.
Meanwhile Ms. Carmicheal is hysterical over what to do about Leann. Soemthing critical happens here. Perhaps Hadley, still insane with drink and blood, kills Leann. She was crying and questioning and aggressive, unlike his own placid daughter Doris. He smacks her, and the strength behind the blow kills her, so he buries her in his yard. Ms. Carmicheal now knows she must call the police, but Hadley threatens her that if she does, she'll never see Doris again. Knowing what he's capable of, Carmicheal remains silent to protect Doris. As time goes by, however, Hadley wants his daughter back, and now tells Carmicheal that it's too late for her to tell the police, that she would appear as guilty as him (she's the one who took Leann.) She resigns herself and sends Doris to him. But in the meantime, Doris was the one having the nightmares--she had benn abused herself and saw him kill another little girl. She had also always spent time with other children, one of whom she may have accepted as a "brother."
So as the year's go by, everyone who had a small part in the crime or the cover-up, stays quiet because no purpose is served. No one of them really knows the entire story. Some don't know who actually killed the Izards--they don't even want to know. Others don't know what happened to the children--they don't want to know. The whole tragedy hangs over the participants and the town and is buried under years of remorse and denial. The drinking and the violence of that day were similar to days past--bar fights, fights at work, drinking on the job, adultery, domestic violence. All those prior occurences were swept under the rug, always had been. Life went on. Even the murders of the Izards could not shake the citizenry from its pattern of indifference. Life, as sad as ever, went on.
And so Doris is really Doris, just a sad woman with a sad history. Leann's innocent soul followed her parents to heaven. And Ricky, poor Ricky, is out there somewhere, all memory of his true family long suppressed. Another adoptee, who hopefully was given a decent life by stangers.
There was not an evil premeditated conspiracy. We may want Doris to be Leann, but she's not. We may want there to be buried treasure on the Izard property, but there's not. We may want Bowlan to be involved but he's not. We may want there to be a reason, but there's really not. We may want this case to have a little more "pizzaz", a more satifying conclusion, some good out of all the bad, but I don't think that's going to happen. Reality is usually a lot less satifying than tabloid stories. Friends killed friends, acquaintances covered up, human failings are now sickening and tragically exposed. Sad case.
suzd

Hello,

There is no doubt that Miss Carmichael knows more than she is willing to tell. Her age and health suggest that now is the time to get the truth from her gently and with the aide of trained professional medical help before she dies and what she knows dies with her. The fact that she is so assertive that Doris is not Leann Izard only shows that she knows more than she is telling. Perch is not the killer. His use for Richard Izard depended on his being alive. Isard's inside information would be useful to Perch even after the failed vote so why get rid of your inside informant before geting your money's worth from him? It would make more sense that Bowlan learned about Richard Izard's link to the union and Perch and decided to get rid of him and lay the blame on the union, Perch and any or all of the laid off employees that he could. Thinking this would end his problems at the glove company and get him back on track to making money again. Just a theory. He did after all have the means to pay for this type of action and probably the resources to find the type of people to pull off the deed. Which means the children are either dead or sold on the black market as orphans to homes with the means to purchase what they think are ligitimate adoptees from good standing families that met with accidents not murders. This would mean that had to be shipped far enough away from Mississippi that no mention of the case would have reached the potential parents nor the description and ages of the children. If the children were taken out of the U.S. to a country were they did not know the language by the time they had learned to speak and understand the language they may have blocked their past life and history out of their mind due to the trauma of both death and removal from all known and familiar surroundings. Again just a theory! Have not finished yet going over all the suspects so have not ruled out the possibility that this was also done by one of them. Will be back after going over the information provided to date.
[email protected]

I think that Beatrice Carmichael is lying about something. Otherwise, why would she be so animate on Doris not having a hypnotherapy session? I believe that Hadley's REAL daughter died in childbirth with the mother, so he stole LeAnne Izard to replace his lost baby. So either way, Doris Hammack is both LeAnne Izard and Doris Hadley. Ms. Carichael is afraid that if Doris has a hypnotherapy session, she'll remember that she was stolen and that, possibly, Ms. Carmichael was in on it.
~Faith

this is a follow up after reading some comments about my post(Rayson-Sonya)especially to LOL's questions.....
1) It was stated that Mrs. Hadley had Doris at home there would be no hospital records, births were recorded differently then, specially in rural areas, all a person had to do was go to city hall and sign a statement that a child was born to them. Sometimes there wasn't even a birth certificate involved that's why schools took christining or baptismal records shot records, family bible etc....Howard was in a domestic violence situation shortly before Doris's birth and they took her(wife) to hospital for an evaluation because she was pregnant.
2)The reason I said that Mrs. Warren could have taken her to the orphanage after Hammack(Hadley's) death was that Mr. Warren and Hadley lived in the same apt complex early on in life probably school chums and when Hadley left, He let the Warren's rent his house but since they were both out of work for almost 2 years not much rent was collected. Verified by Mz. CarMichael statement. Since a woman took Doris to the orphanage i said it could have been Warren because during that time the Warrens had gotten back in church, and Doris was taken to a religious orphanage. CarMichael could have taken her to the orphage as well since the letter said i just can't take her in, she sort of said the samething to Doris about that's why she sent her to live with her father in Michigan.
3)someone should check out Hadley's garden I bet it holds something major since Hadley basically controlled who lived there, first his buddy then his girl friend? Sounds fishy!
Rayson-Sonya

i think the kids killed their parents

Lol Laries:

(What's that stand for? LoL=Laughing Out Loud; but Laries?)

Anyway, I think your theory holds some water, too, except perhaps for the details regarding the little girls Doris and LeAnne. No one's theories about the two girls being the same person will hold up. We know Marilynn (sp?) Hadley died in childbirth and the child survived. This would be a matter of hospital records. We know there was a child LeAnne Izard, which would also be a matter of hospital records. Plus it's pretty hard to pass off one child as the other in a smallish community like Oxford was at the time.

So the girls didn't get swapped. And if you read Detective Nelson's comments in the earlier message archives, a DNA test isn't likely to be done except to verify a rock-solid case theory.

Well, actually, there IS a way the girls could have been swapped... one may have been taken out of state and THEN passed off as the other (or as a diguised other --- is that confusing enough for you?)!

Now, the "2nd woman theory" just might hold up. So might the idea of both Waithers and Carmichael being (partial?) accomplices. That would explain a lot.

Kate (AsianGrl4u): read all of the site before posting. C'mon, the children Ricky and LeAnne were 6 and 2 years old, respectively. Neither one could "whang" an awake adult hard enough, even with a full sized shovel, to kill them!

C.J.: it sure looks like there are either two separate crimes that have gotten mixed up, or else a lot of people with something to hide! Or both! Are you suggesting that Beatrice Carmichael was actually the birth mother of little "Doris Hadley?" That would mean both Marilynn Hadley AND her child died during the birth process. If that's your theory, then why wouldn't there be hospital records revealing this? Pretty hard to hide in a small community... Or were you suggesting something else?

Wix: your theory sounds interesting, especially the idea that all 3 children might have been in the same household at one time. Sure would explain adult Doris's history of wanting a big brother. But do you think Beatrice had enough wherewithal to claim (very naturally, it seemed) that (little) Doris was "...the only little girl I ever watched!" ???

Maybe, but I think she's telling the truth about that.
Hmmm... what if she watched a little girl PLUS Ricky, but not two little girls. The little girl would have grown up to be Doris Hammack, but we'd still not know with the current evidence whether that little girl was Doris Hadley or LeAnne Izard.

Whew! More later!

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

i think that Beatrice knows something about the murder. I think that the reason why she does not want Doris to be hypnotized is because she is afraid that Doris will remember something that will get her and a few other people in trouble. She acted too wierd when Doris told her she was going to get hypnotized. maybe i am wrong. i don't know. just a thougt

I do like Sonyas theroy but I think mine still hold some water.
Here is what I think: After the Layoffs a few of the guys like Elbert, Jimmy Warrens, Frank Abbott,Howard Hadley and Elliott Perch. Desided to go to Richard Izard and find out why he didn't warn them of the layoffs after they paid him for the protection. First I think they went and had a few drinks then headed over to the Izards House. I think the murders are Elbert and Howard both seem to have some sort of injuries when questioned. They ran into Lisa Izard First hit her to harder then they intended, at that time Richard Izard probabley saw or heard the noise and went to help his wife, he put up a struggle that is why he was beat so badly before he died. I thank they realized what they have done and didn't plan on killing them, so they grabbed Leann Izard and Fled the scene. Howard probably took Leann to Mrs. Carmichaels house for her to watch (I thank she would do anything for him because she loved him). I thank Frank Abbott tracked down Hannah Wathers and told her to grab Richie Izard when he got home from school, because she lived so closed and the kid would probably go wiht her (that is how she new he had a hidden place in the woods.) Also it seems Nobody seen her from 2:15 on. That is also why the two children where not together. Hadley went to Detroit then had Mrs Carmichael send Leann to Detroit, Because Mrs Carmichael was getting scared watching her, she might of thought he had another women to. Also that is why he probaly left her the house to pay for her silence. And if he did indead have another women in Detroit thay explains the women who dropped Doris at the orphanage, when he died using the name Howard Hammack.
Frank and Hannah Took Richies someplace else Maybe they sold him to make up for the money Izard was paid and for the layoff. Thats Just my theory.
Yes I do Think Doris is Leanne, Howard probably sent his daughter to some family somewhere and had no choice (because of Mrs Carmichael) but to raise Leann, so he called her Doris. She needs to do a DNA test to be sure. To bad her brother has not turned up yet then it would get interesting.

LOL LARIES

I think Rayson(Sonya) has a solid theroy as she states:As it now stands...Let's try this....LeAnne Izard was really Howard's child Doris...her Momma died in child birth Howard needed someone to take care of the child maybe the Izards stepped in and looked after her much like Mrs. Carmichael did after Howard went to Michigan to get a job. Miss Carmicheal did say that he would have given Doris to anyone because she was underfoot. Maybe that was the real motive, Howard went to the Izard's to get Doris back, since he had no job anymore. Maybe he told Richard if he could keep his job they could keep Doris as LeAnne. He went to the Izard's that day, caught Lisa off guard sufficated her with some laundry. He then took Doris/LeAnne home. Ms. Carmichael came over she watched Doris while he (gardened) . He snuck away driving the five minute distance from his house to the Izard's confronted Richard killed him and then hit Lisa in the head with the shovel to mask the true method of murder and to make it look like they both died at the same time. *Note her head wound had very little blood lose so she could have been dead when she was hit in the head. He grabbed little Rickykilled him and buried him in the garden he left town The Warrens rented the house from him. After he went to Michigan, he established himself as Mr. Howard Hammack later Ms. Carmichael sent Doris to live with him. After he died maybe Mrs. Warren went to Michigan got Doris and took her to the orphanage giving the nuns the letter and what was left of the ring so that one day maybe she would happen on the truth.
What do you think?
The only think I don't get is were you get that Mrs. Warren took her to the orphanage!!
Laries

Dear Detecive,Hi my name is Kate.Well in most cases I have seen to notice is that the children haved gotten angry and had enough,and took it out on their parents by killing them.It's their mental problem.I am 50% Pretty sure that the kids maybe have did this unspeakable crime.
Thanks,
[email protected]