Detective's Notebook

Thu Jul 16 23:17:26 PDT 1998

Wow! was I taken in on the whole thing. What a fantastic writer this guy is. I'm hooked and I don't even like mysteries. I was looking for crimes for my high school students to solve with evidence and all- this fits the bill perfectly. Now, about Do ris.......

-What about the scrap of fabric that she still has. Does it match the blanket found near the scene?

Thu Jul 16 19:41:55 PDT 1998

Hello everyone. This is a great story! Now for anyone who has not "Made a Reality Check" and then press go, you will see that our beloved storyteller Det. Nelson is a great writer of Fiction.

Thu Jul 16 17:23:50 PDT 1998

WIX
I think Carmichael took Doris to the convent because, judging from Carmichael's background, she wasn't really experienced with kids or love(that's why she was holding or believing what Hadley was feeding her). I don't think (now) that she babys at any children; judging from her background. I think she is the ONE who took doris to the convent though, and maybe later she felt guilty(because of her own lonely upbringing as a child) and thats why she sent the $500.
I now think also, the Izar d kids are dead(but who knows with this case and all the turns).
I also knew Carmichael would probably go from cardiac arrest before she could tell all she knew. Which, judging from the bank book was more than she said.
Anyhow, this case is g etting old, and we need closure!
WIX

Thu Jul 16 15:04:04 PDT 1998

Rayson-Sonya
I have a question since Beatrice was not from the Detroit area wonder's how would she know about Immaculata,also Beatrice was not Catholic was she? So why would she take her there? I am not sure it was Beatrice who took her there. I think Beatrice couldn't make it in time(by Monday) or she just said I don't care not my concern anymore and someone in Detroit(who was probably Catholic) took her there..Later Beatrice sent some Money to the nuns. Maybe to eaze her conscience.

Thu Jul 16 14:02:44 PDT 1998

Snerc correction-----My mistake about the telegram date. It is in fact dated August 20. Yhis means we go back to the first idea idea that Beatrice did not get to Detroit simply because of late delivery of the telegram - Monday rather than Saturday.

Thu Jul 16 13:09:24 PDT 1998

[Murphy]

The telegram was dated August 20, 1960 and the address it was sent to was the flower shop. It's not inconceivable that the flower shop would be open on Saturday. Even if it wasn't, in a town as small as Oxford, the Western Union delive ry person probably would have known where Carmichael lived and delivered the telegram there, given the urgency associated with telegrams. So it's not likely that Carmichael received the telegram late.

Doris probably did know the name of t he woman who dropped her off, or at least the name she called her - Biddy. But the nuns assumed, just as we did, that it was not someone's name, but a slang term referring to a woman Doris knew.

I think Doris had to go to Immaculata because Carm ichael was afraid to bring her back to Oxford. Doris had witnessed something to cause all those nightmares. Imagine what would have happened if she'd told anyone in Oxford about the dreams! It wouldn't have taken someone in Oxford long to make the conn ection to the Izard case since they didn't have a lot of bloody events around town and she wouldn't have gotten it from tv or movies during that time period.

--Murphy

Thu Jul 16 12:41:17 PDT 1998

Why did Doris have to go to Immaculata?/What went wrong with the telegrtam? (The last loose-end for the Snerc Theory) To complete this story we need to understand why Doris was sent to Immaculat. If Beatrice, who loved Doris, had gone to Detroit she woul d have brought Doris back to Oxford. Why didn't she go to Detroit? Obviously, based on Beatrice's handwritten comment on the telegram, something was wrong with the telegram. What? This was an UNDATED telegram sent on a Saturday but probably not received u ntil Monday. Beaatrice probably thought that Hadley died that same Monday and she had until the following Sunday to get Doris. When Beatrice did not meet his deadline, Duffy arranged for some other woman to pick up Doris and take her to Immaculata and t hen shipped Hadley's possessions to Beatrice. (Note: I no longer believe it was Jeanie Warren who picked up Doris.)

Thu Jul 16 12:22:43 PDT 1998

Why did Doris have to go to Immaculata?/What went wrong with the telegram? (The last Snerc loose-end) ----- To complete this case is is important to understand why Doris was taken to Immaculata.. If Beatrice, who loved Doris, had gotten to Detroit, she wo uld have brought Doris back to Oxford. Why didn't she get to Detroit? Obviously, based on Beatrice's hand written comment on the telegram, there was something wrong with the telegram. What? This was an UNDATED telegram which was sent on Saturday but pro bably not received until Monday. Beatrice probably thought Hadley died the same Monday she got the telegram and she would have thought she had until the following Sunday to go get Doris. When she did not meet Duffy's deadline he arranged to have someone e lse take Doris to Immaculata and then he shipped Hadley's possessions to Beatrice.

Thu Jul 16 06:19:03 PDT 1998

[Dixon Hill]

Some Preliminaries before I get the the real comments
1. If you have what you feel is a legitimate gripe, mail it to [email protected], along with some constructive input. This web page is for discussion of the case. Spare us the flamage.
2. Please please please sign your message, even if you choose to use a pseudonym (a false name)... that way we can refer to your theories instead "the anonymous message posted at xx:xx:xx"!

The real com ments:

Why on Earth would Hadley (or anyone else besides the Izards, for that matter) want to redeem the loose stones from the ring? An intact ring is worse incrimination than a dissassembled ring (in 1958-1960). I believe you are presumi ng several things that are out of character for Hadley --- he was mean, violent, and a drunk. He was not particularly smart and not a good planner or organizer. He was never a ringleader but was always where the trouble was.

Further, it is not at all clear that Doris did not witness the murders. Beatrice cannot testify to anything; she's dead. I don't know whether the Otts are still alive or not. The only "alibi" the Otts had for Doris being there was Beatrice Carmicheal, who had a motive for lying about it and who has already been shown to have lied about several other crucial facts.

Perch didn't need protecting from the thugs; Perch hired the thugs. He didn't involve himself directly; I will be quite surprised if we find proof that he was at the Izards that day. If the mob bothered to teach him anything, it would have been "don't leave an obvious trail that leads directly to yourself." Perch wasn't the smartest of the bunch but he certainly was bright enough, a go od enough planner, and a good enough ringleader.

About Hadley & Warren: Hadley wasn't the type to repay a favor. For just about any of his actions, it seems, if there wasn't something to force the issue, he didn't deal with it.

More lat er.
--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Wed Jul 15 20:17:01 PDT 1998

Tying up loose ends for the Snerc Theory-----The $376 deposit. This looks a lot like what it would take to redeem the loose stones from the ring (loan value of $362). Perhaps Hadley-Hammack borrowed money from Beatrice to redeem the stones so they could o ne day be reset in Doris' ring. If so, the stones will probabky befound among Beatrice's possessions.-----Hadley's name change-- Why did Hadley change his name? Probably, so Danahy and his friends could not find him if they came looking for the payoff mon ey.----- Was Hadley a Mob killer? Probably not. He talked a good game with his mob friends but that may have just been bluster His only real opportunity for a hit ended with an FBI sting that he easily avoided. It seems likely that he tipprd off the FBI h imself to avotd the hit and to dive himself a way to break away from the mob.-----The $500 gift to Immaculata -- Beatrice gave the monet because she loved Doris and was upset that she had not been able to come to Detroit when Hadley died. Remember, she k ept Doris' framed ptcture in her bedroomfor 40 years.-----The "unknown woman" in Detroit-- As noted in an earlier comment today, I no longer believe it was Beatrice who took the child to Immaculata. The Intake Report says "Child states...an unknown woman came got her...Child does noy know...woman's name...." If the woman were Beatrice, Doris would have expressed recognition and familiarity after spending over a year living with the woman until after she was four years old.

Wed Jul 15 19:09:38 PDT 1998

Ifailed to note that this view of Doris' tetimony will be part of the Snerc Theory.

Wed Jul 15 19:07:25 PDT 1998

Since Doris hypnosis will be complete shortly, it is important to anticipate what she can reveal that will help resolve the case.-----Clearly, she did not see the Izard murders since both the Otts and Beatrice can testify that she was at the Otts when the murders took place.-----It is virtually certain that she did not stay with Beatrice from Friday night until Sunday. Surely, Howard would be expected to sober up overnight and Beatrice could have brought Doris back on Saturday when the key events Doris wi tnesses must have taken place.-----Based on Doris' dreams and Hadley's condition, she must have seen her father in a big time brawl.-----Hadley is probably the toughest man in this case and would not have received his injuries unless he fought two or more other people.-----Almost certainly, then, he fought the real killer, Danahy, and his buddies Corey and Booker.-----This is speculation, but I imagine Perch was involved in the fight. Perch is more likely to be the target of Danahy's revenge than is Hadle y. Perhaps, Perch visited Hadley to discuss the murders when he and Hadley were attacked. If Hadley helped protect Perch from the thugs it could explain why Perch helped Hadley get a job in Detroit.-----This is also speculation, but I think Warren may ha ve come on the scene to help Hadley. This might explain why Hadley was lenient on the Warrens with respect to their rent.-----I also believe Hadley may have somehow gotten Izaed's payoff money from Danahy and his friends and later buried it in his garden .-----I think the payoff money remained hidden until Hadley's death when directions to it were found in his possessions.

Wed Jul 15 17:28:20 PDT 1998

Hi

Well, as I see it... The Taylor case got a real lot of us excited about this site, because information was updated regularly, keeping us really interested and intrigued (at least that's how it was to me anyway). And although the Izard c ase started off great and had the potential of being just as intriguing as the Taylor case, the slow delivery of evidence and the fact that comments aren't being answered (for over a month) has helped me to lose my interest. And now, we're told that afte r hypnosis (next week) this case will be over. It came and went pretty fast with only drips and drabs of new material each week.

Don't get me wrong, I know it takes a lot of work and a lot of time and effort to operate this site for free (and I do click on the ads at the top of the page every time I come here to help out)....And I don't want to sound like I'm complaining...I'm just disappointed I guess.

Lets just hope that the next case and its comments are updated as frequently as the Taylor case was.

Thats all....sorry

Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player...88 KEEZ

Wed Jul 15 15:52:11 PDT 1998

I for one am deeply disappointed with the investigators falling so far behind in responding to the comments. I mean what are they, like a month or so behind? C'mon guys, let's get to work!

Wed Jul 15 15:48:33 PDT 1998

I, for one, am deeply disappointed with the investigators falling so far behind in responding to the comments. I mean they're only like A MONTH BEHIND? C'mon guys, get off your asses and let's get to work. How about a timely response to THAT?

Wed Jul 15 14:55:32 PDT 1998

i thought that the foster family father said that doris was always hanging onto billy but he never knew why and niether did the boy...doris could have had a preconcieved notion of having a brother before she was placed in a home with billy...
jIV

Wed Jul 15 13:39:47 PDT 1998

Carmichael obviously was lying first of all why did she pay 500 dollars to the place that Doris was left at, right about the time Doris' father died, and did she not say she heard nothing from Hadley after she sent Doris to live with him, and did she not say that she recieved no money for Doris' care, yet her savings statement shows clearly that he was giving her money, why didn't she want that known, or why did she not want people or Doris to know that she got a telegram after Hadleys death, telling her he had died and requesting her to come get the child, what was she hiding, could she of been lying because maybe she was also blackmailing Hadley, because she knew he had something to do with the Izzard murders, maybe he was afterall there with the others at the time of the murders, or orchestrated it, maybe Doris was there too and witnessed it.
Maybe hadley because of connections with the maffia, got the other mens, Danahay, and the others I listed befores ire up enough, blaming the Izzard's for the layoff (because the mob maybe had put a hit out on Izzard) and Hadley saw this as a perfect opportunity to do it, with accomplices, and considering Danahays feelings toward the Izzard's, Hadley used all this to get the others going, but I think the others except maybe Danahy paniced and left Hadley and possibly Danahy behind, and they took care of the children, disposing of them, and then hid out at Hanah's until the coast was clear, and I think Tommy Joe, still had passed his brother and the others when he was doing his route, and then came up on the scene, as they were either doing the children in, or shortly there after, and was threatened, and blackmailed because of his brothers involvement in it to keep his mouth shut, he probably helped to dispose of the children either by hiding them, or burrying them, and waited until Hadley, and possibly Danahy took off, and then called the police, and that would explain his nervousness, and the reason why he said he did not pass anyone else on the road, he was protecting his brother.
SI still believe Leann, and the murderer were hiding in the ditch along the driveway when the schoolbus showed up, that explains the hat, backpack and blanket laying where they were, and thy Ricky had not gotten very far up th e driveway when the busdriver had turned around and seen him standing there. I think Ricky either heard his sister call out, or heard or saw the murderer, or murderers hiding, and that is what he was stopped and looking at, that the busdriver saw him loo king at.
This would also explain what Hadley meant in the telephone transcripts by saying "I have busted heads before.

Wed Jul 15 09:57:42 PDT 1998

Well Iam sticking to my theory accept a few changes. I do now beleive that Doris is really Hadley's kid. But I still thank he and some of the others killed the Izards. As it show in the new evidence he sold some Diamonds and a Pawn shop. Which means h e stold Mrs. Izard ring off her finger after he killed her. And that is why Doris has the ring, maybe he gave it to her after he sold the dimonds out of it.
I would still like to know what happen to the Izard childern.
LOL (laries)

Wed Jul 15 09:44:01 PDT 1998

[Murphy]

Dix: I'm not convinced Carmichael still wanted to/believed she might marry Hadley at the time of or after the murders. In her 1998 interview, she said only that she thought "at one time" they might marry. Her bio states that sh e thought in 1955 they might get married, after the death of Hadley's wife. Certainly, she would have figured out in the next three years that Hadley did not intend to marry her. If he had, wouldn't he have done it during his "reformed" period when he w as trying to make a better life for Doris?

As for Doris' dreams, how do we know they were about the murder of adults? I couldn't find anywhere that Doris actually said that. I looked, but maybe I missed it. The only person who said the dreams were about her parents was the retired social worker, recalling a 30-odd year old case. I think all other references to the dreams say only that they were bloody and involved a "mean man" chasing her.

I admit I'm stumped about Doris' belief in a n older brother. Dix's theory about Billy in Detroit being a surrogate older brother is plausible.

Niki: OK, let's say Hadley was simply repaying Carmichael. Why was he? I don't think he would have felt morally or ethically obli gated to do so. Sure, he may have had some level of affection for her, but enough to part with such large chunks of his hard earned money? Remember he was earning $1.95/hr in Oxford. There is no indication of what his wages were in Detroit, but it's un likely they were a whole lot higher. So $100 would have been a significant portion of his monthly income. There had to be a reason he was sending Carmichael so much money.

Det. Nelson: I think we're all eager to see the results of the hypnosis. Will the transcript be posted soon?

--Murphy

Wed Jul 15 09:11:47 PDT 1998

[from: niki]

sorry, somethings screwy with my computer, to finish...
10/23/59 Howard gives Bea $150
11/20/59 Howard gives Bea $100
12/18/59 Howard gives Bea $100
1/25/60 Howard gives Bea $100
2/22/60 Howard gives Bea $100
3/??/60 Elbert Warren gets a new job
3/21/60 Howard gives Bea $100
4/25/60 Howard gives Bea $100
5/23/60 Howard gives Bea $100
6/27/60 Howard gives Bea $100
7/25/60 Howard gives Bea $100
8/??/60 Warrens get theri own house
8/12/60 Howard's last day day at work
8/20/60 Howard dies
8/23/60 Beatrice takes doris to Immaculata
8/26/60 Beatrice deposits $376 and files the deed for Howard's house

Remember all this time, Bea has been making up the diff erence between what Howard gives her and the mortgage. And for a year she took care of his daughter. She was also starting her own business. She said herself that Howard owed her a lot of money when he died, that why she got the house. Those aren't pa yoffs. That's just Bea demanding he help pay some of his own bills.
niki

P.S. sorry about how it keeps, screwing up the message, and repeating the same stuff.

Wed Jul 15 09:05:13 PDT 1998

To: Dixon Hill

When Doris went to Immacula they didn't know her last name. So they did a search of anyone dying around the time and came up with Howard Hammack.

Neiss

Wed Jul 15 09:02:39 PDT 1998

[from: niki]

Howard Hadley was not paying Beatrice Carmicheal off. When you have a woman taking care of your child, and paying your mortgage, you are going to be obliged to send her money. I'm sure, with only Jeannie working, whatever the Warre ns were paying Beatrice was not enough to cover the mortgage. If they could afford that much, they would have never left their own house. They left their own house because THEY COULDN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE MORTGAGE. I know that they certainly were not gi ving her enough to pay the mortgage AND take care of Doris. So of course, Hadley is going to send Beatrice money, if he wants her to keep taking care of his daughter and keep paying his mortgage. Anyway, if you look at the timing of the payments, everyt hing almost fits:

4/17/58 Howard interviewed for the job in Oxford, then gives Beatrice $150 (probably to take care of Doris for him).
5/23/58 Howard gives Bea $100
6/27/58 Howard gives Bea $25
7/2/58 Howard stops working at his job in Oxford, and is unemployed
9/??/58 Howard leaves Oxford for Michigan, Warrens begin renting the house
12/18/58 Howard gets hired in Detroit
1/23/59 Beatrice has probably been complaining that she isn't getting enough money, so Howard g ive her $50
2/27/59 Howard gives Bea $50
3/27/59 Howard gives Bea $150 (this may be when Jeannie Warren lost her job)
4/24/59 Howard gives Bea $100
5/22/59 Howard gives Bea $100
6/19/59 Howard gives Bea $150
7/24/59 Howard gi ves Bea $100
8/28/59 Howard gives Bea $100
8/??/59 Beatrice takes Doris to Detroit
9/18/59 Howard gives Bea $100
10/23/59 Howard gives Bea $150
11/20/59 Howard gives Bea $100
12/18/59

Wed Jul 15 08:58:03 PDT 1998

Wed Jul 15 08:58:02 PDT 1998

Wed Jul 15 08:01:49 PDT 1998

I meant Doris. I meant when she came to get Doris. I'm sorry. I don't know why I said LeAnn. It was a mistake.

niki

Wed Jul 15 06:45:16 PDT 1998

[Dixon Hill]

Rayson-Sonya: Which questionable "earlier statement" of Bea's were you referring to? I'm a tad confused. [PS: I think you're right about the implicit distrust little Doris might have had.]

Niki: Duffy di dn't come to get "LeAnne." Duffy had Doris and asked Bea to come up and get her.

Ariel's theory about Bowlan certainly could fit! Why would Bowlan's life end up as a bitter dead-end, though? (Pun not intended.) Good point about Perch and Hadl ey not knowing there'd be something handy. I'm pretty sure Perch was not on the scene, though. One of the important principles of the mob is that if you're not on the lowest rung, you cover yourself when your guys go take some action. Each "rung" consi ders those on the lower rungs to be expendable -- if they survive their "tenure" they get promoted.

Ariel's comments about Howard's payments to Bea are important. They're also confusing. It seems contradictory to me that Hadley would have to pa y her off if she were also hoping they would get married. Either seems sufficient to keep her quiet. Why pay off somebody who's hoping to cement the relationship anyway? But it sure looks like a payoff.

Howard's job in Detroit (and his move th ere) were promised to him as "payment" from Perch, but Perch's unspoken motive had to be to get Hadley out of the area to keep him quiet.

The Izard killing didn't "count" because (a) Hadley/Hammack didn't directly tell them all about it, (b) it w as done for someone else. Perch had ties but I don't think Perch worked for the same "organization" that "Hammack" began to work with. Also, a mob "test" is a way to ensure you have power over an individual; once he commits a capital felony in the st ate and the mob holds the incriminating evidence, they can get him to do just about anything.

Does anyone remember how Doris got the last name "Hammack?" I haven't been able to find it using the search engine. If she were presented to Immac ulata with the name "Doris Hammack," then the woman who brought her had to know Howard was using the last name Hammack. [Or did they just take her in as "Doris" and then guess "Hammack" based on recent Obits? I forget, and can't find it.]

Sn erc: When the intake report says "unknown woman" it is not referring to whether Doris (age 5) knew her. It refers to the fact that the staffers at Immaculata did not get her name or any identifying information.

It's a fairly good bet that Be a was the woman who dropped off Doris. How does it get us any closer to solving the case to assume otherwise?

I've thrown out my Elbert-as-semi-goodguy theory in favor of Murphy's. With an addition: they beat him up, then afterward (while the b ag was still over his head) they warned him not to say anything or he would be a dead man soon thereafter. That would explain both the physical evidence and why he would have kept quiet.

Murphy: are we to believe Bea still w anted to marry Howard, as her bio suggests? I think she'd marry him if she knew he killed an adult (or two). I don't think she'd marry him if she knew he killed a child (or two) as well. I think she would keep quiet if she were implicated and being paid off, though.

JIV and others: Doris's dreams/memories are vivid, and are of the murder of one or more adults coupled with a personal threat to herself. The threat to Doris could be real or imagined but the murder was an adult murder -- she thought her parents were murdered. Either (a) she witnessed the Izard murders, (b) she witnessed the Bello murder (or another Detroit murder), or (c) Hammack's "heart attack" was a murder too, and she witnessed it. So far these a re the only plausible explanations that fit all the facts.

Doris may have thought of Ricky Izard as her brother, or her neighbor "Billy" in Detroit, but there was no other synthesis of memories. I realize I'm going on very thin ice here on the b rother bit, but I'm very sure my view of this is correct.

On the Izard children's whereabouts: I think it's beginning to look grim. Right now my bet is that they're dead; buried either on the Hadley grounds or else the bodies taken so far away w e'll never know exactly what happened. The other option was that they've been effectively lost through the adoption system. Hope we get some surprise evidence that unravels this part!

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Wed Jul 15 05:49:21 PDT 1998

Additional clarification about 1960 dates-----Hadley died on Saturday August 20. The telegtram was sent on that day, Saturday, when the nursery was probably closed. Duffy said he could not keep the child past Monday August 22. The "unknown woman" picked Doris up from a neighbor and took her to Immaculata on Tuesday August 23. The deed was filed Friday August 26 when the last deposit was made. I don't think we know the exact date when the Warrens bought a new home - only that it was in August 1960-----Sn erc

Wed Jul 15 04:54:59 PDT 1998

Clarification-----It was the conrontation between Hadley ahd Danahy that Doris would have witnessed - not the killing - Snerc

Wed Jul 15 04:48:38 PDT 1998

The evidence in this case is never obvious. You have to look very closely to finally realize that it was NOT Beatrice who took Doris Hadley to Immaculata. Remember, the placement report quoted Doris as saying an "unknown woman" had brought her to Immacul ata. Doris had known Beatrice all her life and had stayed with her for over a year until after she was four years old. There is no way Beatrice was unknown to Doris at age five.-----Who did take her to Immaculata? The telegram in Beatrice's possession is a copy which was sent to a business address (the nursery) when it was probably closed. Beatrice may not have seen the telegram until Monday. The original was probably sent to Hadley's home which was occupied by the Warrens. It is probable that Jeanie Wa rren was the woman who went to Detroit. She could have known that Doris had no living relatives as stated in the letter to Immaculata.-----Interesting things happened after the Detroit trip. Beatrice was able to file a deed giving her ownership of the hou se. The Warrens were suddenly able to purchase their own home. Beatrice had a larger than usual depowit.-----Probably the Warrens found some money which was given to Beatrice, the pawn slip and directions to the payoff money which was buried in the garde n and was uaed for the house payment and the deed among Howard Hadley's possessions.-----Hadley probably took the money away from the real killer, Danahy, in a confrontation Saturday after the killing which would have been witnessed by Doris-----More will be added to the Snerc Theory later.

Tue Jul 14 19:52:53 PDT 1998

I think it is very suspicious and convenient that Beatrice Carmichael died when she did. My personal and professional experience has been
that 1). regardless of the REAL cause of death, heart failure is listed first on the death certificate. 2). A wo man of 74, with no significant support system
to raise questions-the task of taking her out would have been simple. 3) Given her age, she may have become more introspective and had given hints
(unconsciously) that she wanted to make peace before s he met her maker. 4) Thus making the others too nervous and to them, what was another body!
The Vicar

Tue Jul 14 19:37:47 PDT 1998

is it possible that Doris encountered LeAnn sometime before she (Doris) was sent to the orphanage but after the Izards had been killed? this would explain why Doris has some memories of a big brother coming to save her...kids sometimes become infatuated with one another and like to interchange information...is it possible that Doris and LeAnn played make-beleive with each other at young ages and Doris assummed part of LeAnn's identity?...this would explain the memories Doris has, but not the where-abouts of LeAnn...unless LeAnn was in the orphanage under another name...have the records for other children accepted in the orphanage been searched???...or can they be?
jIV

Tue Jul 14 17:03:09 PDT 1998

After seeing Mrs. Carmichael's picture, she could easily be mistaken for Lisa, and Doris and LeAnne could have been mistaken as well. Mrs. Catlett said, "I saw Mrs. Izard with the little girl this morning around about 10:30 [am] I'd say." This might be interesting.

Det. Nelson: In Bowlan's biography it says, "The lack of community support, coupled with financial reverses, finally killed the factory, it closed it's doors for the last time on December 2, 1958." In Mr. and Mrs. Elbert Warren J r.'s interview with you on May 21, 1998, Elbert Jr., said, "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." Which outcome is correct? Thank you!

PJ

Tue Jul 14 15:20:30 PDT 1998

[Murphy]

Niki: I think Hadley was paying off Carmichael because [a] she was getting the Warrens' rent money on Hadley's house to pay for the mortgage and for Doris so it's conceivable that the payments shown in her bank records were in ad dition to that. [b] Hadley's payments continued at a consistent amount long after Doris was sent to Detroit and I don't think Hadley was the type to feel any moral obligation to repay Carmichael for any of her expenses for Doris. The lump sum Carmichael received after Hadley's death was probably left to her with the expectation she would be caring for Doris. I can only guess that Carmichael donated the $500 to the convent because she felt guilty about abandoning Doris there.

Dix: I thin k you're right - "conspired" was too strong a word to describe what happened between Hadley and Perch. Perch just knew what buttons to push to get Hadley to do what he wanted.

Here's my problem with the kid(s) ending up at Hannah Waithers' - h ow did they get them out of there? Even if Waithers did get home earlier than she told police (~5:30) and got Ricky, what did she do with him? If she took him to her house, how did she get him out again? Tommy Joe arrived about 2:45 and police were on the scene by 3:01. It would have been too risky to try to move Ricky and/or LeAnne with all the police around and looking for them. Plus, wouldn't the police have noticed that Waithers was home earlier than she claimed? Seen her car or something? And if Ricky and/or LeAnne were at Waithers' wouldn't the police have seen or heard them when they interviewed her in her home at 6:30? The other possibility is that Waithers took the children somewhere else, but where?

As for Elbert Warren, I think what happened to him was exactly what he said. I think he was attacked at the reservoir by Danahy, Corey and Booker [even Warren said he suspected them in his 1998 statement]. Warren said they clubbed him from behind, threw something over his head, the n kicked and punched him. Presumably, he was down on the ground for some of this and, since they were in the woods, he could have been scratched up by sticks, rocks or any other debris on the ground.

I'm not sure how much of the Izard children's murder Carmichael may have seen, but I'm not sure she could have extracted herself at all costs because the cost could have been the death penalty. She was already deeply involved by that point as an accomplice after the fact. Plus, the fact that it was so scary would have been enough to ensure her further compliance to avoid the same fate for herself.

Finally, I'm not sure why we want Lisa Izard to have had a romantic involvement with someone other than her husband. It certainly makes the case spicier, but there's no evidence, real or circumstantial, that points to an affair. There are only Mrs. Catlett's comments which seem to be directed more at women in general of Lisa's generation, not Lisa herself, since she specifically stated Lisa was "not the sort to be loose and fast."

--Murphy

Tue Jul 14 15:02:00 PDT 1998

I believe that Perch tried to bring the mob in at Bowlan's.
Mr.Izard found out and was killed by Howard Hadley.Who took the little girl (question mark on Ricky).Then left for Detroit
where he changed his name and became Howard Hammack in light of his good job with the Izard's he was given a new hit.Doris is the crying child on the phone.Robert Duffy lower tier of the operation in Detroit.Sent telegram to Mrs.Carmichael but only had the name Howard on it and since Howard Hadley had kept his fi rst name she didn't become suspicous.She went up and took little Doris to the orphanage
instead of watch her.The timing fits.
PLEASE ANSWER THIS ,THANKS OXFORD
or e-mail me at
[email protected]

Tue Jul 14 14:49:29 PDT 1998

I like Murphy's theory, with some modifications. I think Bowlan is involved. He got greedy, and got involved with a fraud sceme (he was "scared to death to death he was going to lose it all" over some loans and complained about the kickbacks and bribes he had to pay). It caught up with him, and Perch was sent to collect. Perch set up the union committee as a front and recruited Hadley (and perhaps others) as henchmen. Bowlan laid off the men as a sign to Perch that he was going to pay him off. He (Bo wlan) didn't pay Perch off, or gave the money to Richard Izard to give to Perch. Perch sent Hadley to scare/hurt/kill/collect from Izard and Hadley screwed up (perhaps Perch was with Hadley). Hadley was only supposed to hurt Richard and got carried away or Richard was the only one who was supposed to be killed. I don't think that Perch and Hadley intended to kill Richard because the Izards were killed with their own garden tools (true, there is no way they can be traced to the killers - but how did Per ch and Hadley know there would be something handy they could kill the Izards with?). Hadley then needs an alibi, so he tells the police he was with Bea from 2-4 p.m. (thus dragging her into the whole situation). Perch goes to Memphis to inform Bowlan wha t has happened to get him to pay up. Bowlan knows he is in trouble, and it later forced to sell the factory to pay the debts. He then "manufactures" the Bowlan collection to cover up the whole thing. Perch takes Hadley to Michigan because he knows Hadl ey owes him and he is afraid that he will tell someone if he stays in Mississippi. I think that any other people who were involved stayed quiet because they were scared of the mob and knew what happened to the Izards.

However, I do have some qu estions:
1. As other people have said, Bea paying $500 to Immaculata for Doris to be taken as a charity case seems a bit excessive. Also, Bea paid them (according to her bank records) in December, over four months after Doris was taken in (in August ).

2. There is a gap in Bea's payments from Hadley from 6/27/58-12/28/58 (I know this when Hadley began working at Philips, all of the rest of the payments were made each month). I think he is paying her not to talk because he had Doris with hi m when some of the payments were made and the Warrens had not moved into the Hadley house when the first payment was made (also, I was under the impression that the Warrens paid Bea directly and she made up the difference between that and the mortgage her self).

3. Local 252's investment sceme began only six months before the investigation report (dated 11/9/59). Does this mean that the whole sceme only started six months before, or that the Garment Workers group became Local 252?

4. T he hit on Bello was a test for Hadley/Hammack. How come the Izard killing didn't "count"? Or is this a test for a "promotion" (into the inner circle)?

Also, I am not sure where any of this leaves Ricky and LeAnn.

~Ariel

Tue Jul 14 09:29:15 PDT 1998

Howard Hadley was not paying Beatrice Carmicheal off. Remeber? She said that he sent her money to take care of Doris and to pay the mortgage on the house. After Doris leaves, the amount of money he send gets smaller and smaller (just like Beatrice says) , but, after he dies, she gets one big sum? Did Duffygive it to her when she came to get LeAnn? and again, why did she gives the convent $500?
niki

Tue Jul 14 07:53:56 PDT 1998

Rayson-Sonya
ICQ number 14831852
Murphy has seem to tie everything into a nice neat bow, since we know that Carmichael's earlier statement is questionable due to her obvious knowledge of Hammacks doings. She seems so domestic, however we now know she wasn't very nice, that is why Doris's dream about not wanting the ole Biddy to come get her again makes since, although Bea says she took real good care of Doris, obviously Doris had hard feelings even for a small child about her.

Tue Jul 14 07:46:10 PDT 1998

[Dixon Hill]

(Rats! If you hit the escape key in Internet Exploder, it clears your entire entry screen. Be forewarned!)

Rayson-Sonya: Yeah, it had to be Doris in the background. Sorry I didn't communicate my thoughts more clear ly. Maybe you've also just explained why Bowlan, always such a private man, would spend so much time making a public record. Was he covering himself in case of an FBI investigation? Or maybe just setting up in the very long term for his own exoneration ?

Murphy: let me join Driz in the congrats. Good theory. Your point #1 is something I was trying to get across earlier --- and is the cause of one of the more puzzling aspects of this case. It looks like lots of people may have b een involved, yet no one spilled the beans.

I have some comments about and modifications to this theory, which I think is fairly close to the truth.

[1] I don't think Hadley conspired with Perch. Perch hired him, simple as that. Hadley wasn't the smart type to plan anything; in the Phillips surveillance tapes he was about to just zoom over to "Jeans's" place and blow him away.

[2] Did Carmichael pick up the kids, or did they end up at Hannah Waithers'? I'm not sure about this one. People can be accomplices while knowing very little about the crime.

[3] It isn't clear that Hadley was paying off Carmichael. If we believe her bio, she was waiting for him to propose marriage and bring her up to Detroit. Maybe she susp ected some unpleasantness but didn't know all the facts? Also note when she received the deed: August 26, 1960. Hadley/Hammack passed away August 20. Either it was willed to her or else the executor of Hammack's estate (Duffy?) figured this was an easy way to pay off the debt.

[4] I'll bet Duffy gave Doris the ring, not realizing what it was. Bea somehow missed this; remember her panic when she found the adult Doris had the ring and had spoken to police?

[5] I can believe the Izard k ids were killed in the Hadley home or on its grounds. I can believe the perps buried the bodies there. I'm not sure I believe Bea knew what happened; certainly she didn't witness it. Murderers are bad enough but someone who can cold-bloodedly kill two cute kids is scary and Bea would have extracted herself from that situation at all costs, I think.

Some unanswered questions:

What was Elbert Warren's role? Why was he scratched up and not just bruised up? Maybe Rayson-Sonya is right; he (nearly) stumbled onto a secret meeting? Or was he at the murder scene and then paid to shut up? Nah. Would have to be something stronger than just pay -- otherwise he'd have blabbed to get McPhail off his back.

Finally, a comment: w ouldn't surprise me a bit to find that there was some kind of romantic involvement between Lisa Izard and Perch. Maybe she wasn't supposed to have ended up dead, and that complicated things? [I know, I know, this little detail isn't necessary to explain ing the murders if you buy the Murphy theory...]

So, to recap -- if we believe this theory then the loose ends to resolve are: Hannah Waithers, Frank Abbott, Elbert Warren. And some details about how deeply Beatrice Carmichael was involved.

Here's hoping we've got this case nearly cracked!
--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Mon Jul 13 23:44:17 PDT 1998

To murphy:

that is a very good theory, very good indeed!

--Driz

Mon Jul 13 23:12:49 PDT 1998

it is a good case i would like to see some more casis like that.

from ehtexpl

Mon Jul 13 22:48:06 PDT 1998

[Murphy]

I'm new at this but, I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

1. The more people who know a secret, the harder it is to keep that secret.

2. Sometimes, things are just as they seem to be on the surface. Not everything [or everyone] has a hidden meaning.

That said, here's a theory. Perch, Hadley and Carmichael are the only ones involved in the murders of the Izard family. Basically, after leaving Sid's, Hadley and Perch conspired to take action against Izard for his betrayal of the unionists in exchange for a future job up North for Hadley.

Perch dropped Hadley off at the Izard home. Hadley and Izard argued and Hadley ultimately beat Izard to dea th with the shovel. Lisa was killed when she tried to intervene.

After being unable to find Hadley at home, Carmichael sought him out at the Izards' based on what she heard at Sid's. It was her car Mrs. Hawkins heard tearing up the Izar ds' driveway. Before leaving, Hadley turned out Richard's pockets and took his wallet and Lisa's ring to make it look like a robbery. Hadley and Carmichael collected Ricky and LeAnne and left the scene in Carmichael's car, while Tommy Joe was at Mrs. Ca tlett's door.

Perch probably met up with them at the Hadley place. Sometime after Doris had been brought home from the Otts, the Izard children were killed at Hadley's. These were the murders Doris witnessed, not those of her parents. Carmichael took Doris home with her while the men buried the Izard children on the Hadley property. Perch then took off for Memphis.

Perch paid off Hadley with the Detroit job. Hadley paid off Carmichael with [roughly] monthly payment s and the deed to his house. Carmichael delivered Doris to the nuns in Detroit after Hadley's death because she was afraid to bring her back to Oxford. Hadley gave the ring setting to Doris because he didn't think it would be identifiable without the st ones.

I'd be interested to hear your comments on this hypothesis, as the observations I've read so far are insightful and entertaining. In the interest of brevity, I haven't included every detail.

BTW, what ever happened to the hypnosis session for Doris?

--Murphy

Mon Jul 13 16:28:33 PDT 1998

Rayson-Sonya

I now think the motive for murder was these so called investment scams at factories. Which means to me that the so called pay-off money that Richard was supposed to recieve was kept by Perch and was a scam. Richard was silenced befor e he could reveil this to the townspeople. Since LeAnne and Ricky were not dead at the Izards I can only think that Hannah got Ricky after she spoke to Frank on the phone when she was at the pharmacy in Oxford, and Hadley must have taken LeAnne after the murders. He gave her to someone with connections. Warren was beat up because he stumbled into a secret meeting that Perch had with some of his mob friends at the reservior after the hit.
We now have a who, how, and why now we need to know what happe ned to the kids to really solve it completely
*Note to Dixon?
Carmichael sent Doris late summer phone conversations were taped in November so child in background was probably Doris.

Mon Jul 13 14:59:32 PDT 1998

[Dixon Hill]

Thanks Detectives Nelson & Armstrong!

(They must have added the footer on the telegram page. It wasn't there earlier.)

-- Dix Hill

Mon Jul 13 14:57:43 PDT 1998

[Dixon Hill]

Robert (Bob) Duffy was one of the lower-tier union locals who was involved with organized crime. His name appears alongside Hammack's in the investigative reports; both worked at Phillip's Aviation in Detroit.

Sounds l ike Hammack/Hadley got himself some pretty nasty friends who were involved in both the unions and organized crime. Notice who his job reference was when he signed aboard Phillips ... Elliott Perch!

Wonder if the Izards were bumped off as part of a Mafia hit? We have Perch and "Hammack" tied to organized crime. Hammack claims in one of the tapped phone conversations to have experience in the "something more permanent" form of silencing opposition.

Could it really be as simple as Perch hiring out a local "hit" to get back at Izard for doing the firing? Did Perch mislead Elbert Warren (into thinking he [Perch] admired Izard and was paying him) or did Warren have a reason to try to cover for Perch?

Ariel is right to point a fing er at Hannah Waithers. That also means Frank was involved. From the sounds of his 1998 interview, one could surmise that Frank later became disillusioned with the unions --- why? Was he an unwitting accomplice? Only peripherally involved... and only l ater realized this was part of organized crime? Or did he get into it (deeply) and then manage to get out? [This would be highly unusual since Mafia families don't take kindly to quitters -- you don't just submit a resignation and walk away from the job !]

It feels good to finally have some forward momentum in this case, doesn't it?

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Mon Jul 13 14:53:52 PDT 1998

To: Dixon Hill

If you read the text of the telegram it tells you what the hand writing says.

Neiss

Mon Jul 13 14:19:58 PDT 1998

Ok--Howard Hadley and Howard Hammack are the same person. So that would mean that Doris Hadley and Doris Hammack are the same person too. Right? I think that Beatrice was blackmailing Howard because she knew that he had killed the Izards. He was payin g her from 4/17/58 until he died. But what happened to the children? I think that they ended up in the river, creek, or pond. And how did Doris end up with the ring? Did Beatrice feel like she should give her a momento--perhaps Doris had seen her fath er kill the Izards? Did Doris ever undergo Hypnosis?

Jennifer

Mon Jul 13 13:45:24 PDT 1998

[Dixon Hill]

Okay, I goofed. You're right, Doris was with Howard up in Detroit. So he didn't have LeAnne. Well, that certainly holds up my original and longest held theory. Things aren't looking good for LeAnne having survived, though. Hope we get a few more surprises that suggest otherwise.

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Mon Jul 13 13:19:33 PDT 1998

Rayson-Sonya

Well by all looks of it Howard did indeed kill the Izards.And Beatrice knew about it after the fact. What still puzzles me is if Doris is really is Doris Hadley then why did Nina(the social worker)remember so clearly Doris's story that her parents were murdered and she was put into hiding to keep her safe, the story that her big brother was gonna come get her then they would all be sorry.Those are not the words of Doris but more like LeAnne.... But the other dreams a mean man being her daddy and why was the woman still there and the ole biddy coming to get her and taking her away sounds like Doris Hammack....Also why did Beatrice give the Catholic girls school $500.00 dollars in December the nuns called her a charity case but $500.00 in 1960 would have been like a 1/2 year's tuition......If Beatrice did take her to the orphanage how did she miss the ring on the chain? The little girl would have been playing with it on the train. Although this case looks pretty wrapped up I still have some unanswered questions and I hope that the missing kids issue will be resolved if in fact Doris is Doris Hadley....would be too bad to leave that open like that.

Mon Jul 13 12:12:57 PDT 1998

Niki -- the "Biddy" nickname is in Beatrice Carmichael's bio: "When his [Hadley's] wife died in childbirth in July 1955, Biddy hoped that she might get married at last." That's the only place it shows up!

-- Longtime Reader

Mon Jul 13 12:10:12 PDT 1998

I'm confused, where does it say that Beatrice's nickname is "Biddy." It makes perfect sense, and keeps us from having to find the "old biddy" she was staying with (which was complicating everyone's theories.) But I'm interested in knowing how you came up with that. Because from all accounts of her, the only nickname I find is "Bea."
Niki

Mon Jul 13 12:02:20 PDT 1998

I meant Doris Hadley. Freudian slip. Sorry

Mon Jul 13 12:01:37 PDT 1998

Well, well, well....
Mrs. Carmicheal had quite a few skeletons in her closet now didn't she. What this new information seems to indicate is that Doris Hammack is indeed Doris Carmicheal. She was sent to her father in August of 1959, and her father died in August of 1960. Then Robert P. Duffy had Doris for a couple of days until Beatrice came to pick her up and left her with the nuns. Although I am a little confused, why did Beatrice pay the nuns $500? We never heard about that money, why is there a check for $500 to the convent?
Okay. I'm trying to put a theroy together.
Be back later,
Niki

Mon Jul 13 11:27:37 PDT 1998

Dixon:

From enlarging the writing on the telegram, it looks to me like the writing on it reads "Always the Western U. can not copy right" -- probably a reference to the two corrections that were necessary on the telegram (the two crossed-out sections). Doesn't look like it really helps much, I'm afraid.

Also, it seems to me that the telegram actually indicates that Doris was with Hammack/Hadley in Detroit -- it's sent from Detroit by someone who says, "Have Doris. Can't keep her past Monday. Come Sunday train". Sounds like this Robert Duffy might be the neighbor who kept her after her father died, and is writing to Beatrice Carmichael to come get Doris. This would also account for the child's cries
on the Hadley/Hammack phone-tap -- wouldn't be too surprising that Doris was crying, from what we've heard about the man.

It does look like Doris' origins are pretty well tied up, like you say!

Ok, now -- what will Doris be able to tell us that will solve this murder? Should be interesting!

-- Longtime Reader

Mon Jul 13 11:16:03 PDT 1998

[From: Dixon Hill]

Anybody else seen the new evidence yet?

Okay, I've got a little pie on my face... to everyone with whom I contended about Carmichael not being the "old biddy" -- I was wrong! Well, not utterly wrong... she really wasn't the "old biddy," she was "Biddy." That was her nickname!! Someone else must have either added "old" (not knowing this was the nickname of a younger person) or it's source was something to do with the "old" flame or "old" girlfriend.

We now know that Beatrice was deeply implicated in the Izard murders as some type of accomplice. What nasty "luck" she had to pass away at such an (in)convenient time!

Guess I've got to modify my Doris Hammack theory as well --- now I believe she didn't witness the Izard murders. I believe she connected herself to the Izard murders only by a fluke! What she witnessed was another murder in Detroit, which Howard Hammack (Hadley) was involved in as well!

There is now no doubt in my mind that Howard Hammack and his daughter Doris were Howard & Doris Hadley.

The telegram to Beatrice dated 20 Aug 60 indicates that Doris was not with Hadley/Hammack in Michigan when he died. Carmichael had to "bring Doris up" there. Maybe she was indeed the woman who dropped off Doris at the girls home. In any case she certainly knew about it.

This raises an important question: during phone tap #1, who was the child heard crying in the background? Your guess is as good as mine but I'll bet it was someone named LeAnne or Ricky!

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

PS: Would someone with very good eyesight and a really high-resolution monitor take a look at the scanned-in image of the telegram? There's something handwritten in the lower right. I cannot make it out. If you zoom up the image on a big, high quality monitor, maybe you can?

Mon Jul 13 07:21:02 PDT 1998

Ariel,
You did read his interview right. Murphy said that he did not see any cars in the drive. But if you reread everyone's descriptions of their driveway, it was a long winding drive, and you couldn't see all the way to the house from the road. You couldn't see someone parked up at the house from the road. That's why Murphy didn't see anyone in the drive. He couldn't from the road.

Sun Jul 12 23:31:43 PDT 1998

Hello! I came across this site this weekend and must say it is quite addictive. I have read all the comments, but I think some of my comments might have been discussed before (sorry).
Some things I find wierd:
* Bowlan accused a former accountant of giving information to the board after he refused to pay him (why didn't he pay him?- surely Bowland expected some sort of revenge)
* Bowlan decided to fire workers to pay off large loans (to who?)
* Bowlan than spent 10 years collecting the Bowland factory records (including bookkeeping records) to give to the University of Mississippi library (why would a secretive man make it a point to make his bookkeeping records public?)
* Hannah Waithers has no alibi. She says she was out shopping for a dress to wear to dinner with Frank Abbott the night of the murders. She says she was in and out of shops all afternoon, but it would be very difficult to determine where she was every minute of the day if she was going in and out of shops and trying on dresses. Also, why was she going out to dinner that was so special that she bought a new dress with Frank who had just lost his job (and presumably would have had money trouble as a result). I think she is more involved than she lets on. The union met at her house. She claims to know little of the Izard children, yet she knows where Ricky's playhouse in the woods is and that he is a cub scout. And she immeadiately defends Frank without prompting. Since her house is close to the Izard's it could have been used as a hiding place (more on this later).
* Murphy saw no cars in the drive of the Izard's house, yet all of the Izard's vehicles were in the driveway when the bodies were found (maybe he ment no strange vehicles were in the driveway? - am I reading this part of his interview right?)
* Murphy dropped off Ricky at 2:35, turned around, and saw Ricky walking slowly. Tommie shows up at 2:45 and dosen't see Ricky. 10-20 minutes is a short time to kill a boy, remove the body, and make a getaway. Perhaps Ricky and Leanne were hidden at Hannah's house (I don't know what would have happened to them after that - I do like the theory that they were taken by Clarice Warren-Maxwell, I noticed there are no ages for her two children).
* I think Elbert Warren knows more than he is saying. He says he thinks that the killer is not a stranger, but is not the obvious, and also says he thinks the killer took pity on the children. Also, I find it odd that he has scratches on his chest (if he was in a fight, wouldn't it more likely be just bruising?). Also, he claims to be very close with Perch and says Perch was paying Izard off. Perch contradicts this, and says he dosen't even know where Warren lives.
* The washing is a setup. Mrs. Catlett say Lisa hanging up the wash at noon and Richard Izard coming home shortly after that. The wash that Lisa was found with is not consistant (a pink dress with a white shirt?).
* Richard Izard was found working in the garden with a white shirt on???

I am not sure who murdered the Izards, but i do have a theory about Doris. I think Doris Hammack is Doris Hadley. The mean man who is coming to get her is her father, as is the nice man (her real father). Hadley stopped drinking for a time when Doris was born, but relapsed. Perhaps Doris, as a child who did not understand what alcohol does, saw her drunk father as taking away her real father. While she was staying with Miss Carmichael, she must have heard stories of Leanne Izard. She knew her parent were gone, and maybe she somehow linked this with the murdered Izards.

As for the murder, I have no idea. I think there was a conspiracy. Yes, it is hard to have no leaks but there are so few people still alive to leak (and there were several who were isolated in a commune for several years). I still have my suspicions about Elbert Warren. He knew (or was at least under the impression) that Perch was paying off Izard. When he lost his job, he went to Izards to collect. He met Lisa and Richard, demanded to know where the money was and then in a rage killed Lisa and Richard. He then took Leanne and dropped her off with a neighbor. Hannah sees this, sees Ricky walking home and takes him to her house. Warren takes money, Izard's wallet and Lisa ring (which he noticed when he was scratched by it during the struggle). He pays Hadley with the ring as rent. First he gives them one jewel, then another, etc. until all there is left is a ring without a setting. He then gives this to Hadley, who thinks it is worthless and gives it to Doris. Perhaps Warren concealed the money (used as a downpayment on the house) for a time because he knew McPhail was on to him and knew having money while unemployed would look suspicious. I do not totally stand by this theory, but it is all I can come up with.

-Ariel

Sun Jul 12 21:56:07 PDT 1998

Bowland found out Richard was sympathtic to the union. He hired Little Ricky to knock-off his parents and sister. Ricky was sent to Hollywood where he became a member of the cast of "I LOVE LUCY".....
Manard G Krebs

Sun Jul 12 18:25:01 PDT 1998

The answer to the chat effort is ICQ
www.icq.com
a great program, and would make getting together in the chat rooms much easier.
Driz icq# 7039504

Sat Jul 11 23:59:09 PDT 1998

[Dixon Hill]

Okay, I might as well put my chips down on a theory before the site gets updated. This is extremely unsatifying since I haven't been able to tie things up into a neat, consistent package.

My bet is on Suzd's original "big" theory (near the bottom of this page), but with the following modifications: Elbert Warren was the (semi) good guy, got scuffed up trying to prevent something bad from happening. Ricky either ended up at Hannah Waithers house and from there to an out-of-state adoption, or else he was murdered to keep him quiet. (Hard to silence a 6-7 year old; I know from experience.)

The getaway was a short one, just across the street.

Beatrice Carmichael doesn't exactly know what happened to LeAnne and Ricky but she has her suspicions that Hadley did it and that she could be implicated as an accomplice.

There are a million loose ends to this and I'm having trouble keeping them all straight. My primary problem with this theory is that I cannot figure out how little Doris Hadley might have witnessed the murders -- so maybe Doris Hammack really was LeAnne Izard all along?

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Sat Jul 11 21:23:16 PDT 1998

Hey, this snerc stuff is gettin on my 3rd nerve JOeBoB

Sat Jul 11 21:21:15 PDT 1998

Still an all I feel that sex and money are usually the motivation. That there Lisa Izard wadnt no goody two shoes. She was involved up to her eyeballs. She was a havin ron day vues with that Mr. Perch, I'll bet a can a corn on it. He was always goin to the resorvore, but I dought he was a doin much fishen. I bet Lisa and Mr Perch was a spoonin whilst Richard was playing poker with the boys. Richard found out killed his woman an Perch killed him, an the rest is speculation. How ya like ma grammer Teacher. JoEBoB

Sat Jul 11 20:03:08 PDT 1998

Two Modifications to the Snerc Theory-----I have posted
several comments to tie up loose ends or add details to the
Snerc Theory as originally posted July 5. This additional
material has suggested only two modifications to the core
theory.--(1) I no longer believe Lisa took LeAnne to another
location. It would make no sense for someone to place the
child's blanket in the creek to fake a drowning unless the
child were present and alive.==(2) I now think it was Elbert
Warren who took both children from the Izard house to a safe
location, although I am not sure how a bleeding and badly
beaten man was able to talk Ricky into going with him.-----i
plan to post the expanded Snerc Theory with the additional
points and resolved loose ends, these two modifications and
any new insights from the hypnosis after this weekends final
update

Sat Jul 11 20:02:42 PDT 1998

Two Modifications to the Snerc Theory-----I have posted several comments to tie up loose ends or add details to the Snerc Theory as originally posted July 5. This additional material has suggested only two modifications to the core theory.--(1) I no longer believe Lisa took LeAnne to another location. It would make no sense for someone to place the child's blanket in the creek to fake a drowning unless the child were present and alive.==(2) I now think it was Elbert Warren who took both children from the Izard house to a safe location, although I am not sure how a bleeding and badly beaten man was able to talk Ricky into going with him.-----i plan to post the expanded Snerc Theory with the additional points and resolved loose ends, these two modifications and any new insights from the hypnosis after this weekends final update

Sat Jul 11 20:02:01 PDT 1998

Two Modifications to the Snerc Theory-----I have posted several comments to tie up loose ends or add details to the Snerc Theory as originally posted July 5. This additional material has suggested only two modifications to the core theory.--(1) I no longer believe Lisa took LeAnne to another location. It would make no sense for someone to place the child's blanket in the creek to fake a drowning unless the child were present and alive.==(2) I now think it was Elbert Warren who took both children from the Izard house to a safe location, although I am not sure how a bleeding and badly beaten man was able to talk Ricky into going with him.-----i plan to post the expanded Snerc Theory with the additional points and resolved loose ends, these two modifications and any new insights from the hypnosis after this weekends final update

Sat Jul 11 19:45:08 PDT 1998

The Case Against Danahy and the Snerc Theory-----i have contended in the Snerc Theory that Danahy killed Richard Izard. However, it is obvious that many others had motives and opportunity, so it is useful to outline the evidence against Danahy.--(1) There is no doubt that Corey and Booker attacked Elbert Warren. His fists were badly bruised from hitting someone and Corey and Booker are the only individuals to show marks of a fight.--(2) It is not likely that Danahy would miss that kind of action unless he had his own action.--(3) Corey or Booker must have said something that Warren heard during the fight to warn him that Izard was in danger or he would have had no reason to race to the Izard house and they would only have knowledge of Danaht's plans.--(4) Warren's fight could not have taken place at the Izard house or he would have certainly been killed to silence him.-----It is also important to speculate about a possible affair between Danahy and Lisa. Mrs. Catlett hinted that she knew or suspected something about Lisa. Danahy stopped bothering the Izards a few months after they married probably when he learned she was pregnant and they might subsequentky have resumed their long-standing relationship. It also seems strange that Lisa would order new work boots for Richard when, judging by the footprint photo, he had virtually new heels on his other boots - perhaps the new boots were a gift for her lover. Certainly, strong feelings by Danahy for Lisa could explain the brutal nature of the attack on her killer, Richard.

Sat Jul 11 13:19:51 PDT 1998

[Dixon Hill]

To PJ: It's true they would all be out of work if he didn't mind the bottom line. I worked for a little "start-up" company like that once.... What I meant was, the only things Bowlan would have cared about were the bottom line and how he would be affected personally. I'm not putting Capitalism on trial here (I'm personally for it) but rather commenting on Bowlan's rather stunted personality traits.

Sudz: I was being less nice in my thoughts about Beatrice Carmichael. Maybe she was more deeply implicated in all this than we think --- or, maybe she just thinks she's deeply implicated. That would be enough to entice her to "pretend" to be her own tipster. Then she could present misleading information to Doris under the pretext of Doris thinking she was digging out the information. One thing Beatrice didn't count on was how hard it is to lie convincingly unless you've had lots of practice or are a sociopath. (I don't believe she fits either description.)

Okay, like I said, I'm beginning to come up with crazy theories --- this is probably one of them.

PS: I've posted some information you were looking for on my crimescene web page. Beeeee careful out there!

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Sat Jul 11 13:07:38 PDT 1998

The Perch-Bowlan Connection---Another Possible Murder---and the Snerc Theory-----A number of earlier comments suggested that Perch and Bowlan had gone to Memphis for a meeting. There really does not seem to be any other logical reason for Perch to attempt to conceal his trip to Memphis. The inevitable conclusion has to be that Bowlan had bought Perch. Moreover, it looks like Izard was set up from the beginning. Remember, Perch never had Izard at any Union meetings and his own mmetings with Izard took place late at night under great secrecy. He always denied that Izard was helping the union. Apparently, he was spying on Izard, as reflected in catlett's Fuller Brush story, and he may have stolen the Hawkins package thinking it was intended fot the Izards. Perch's trips to the reservoir may have been to meet with Bowlan.-----When Bowlan forced Izard to make the lay-off announcement he probably knew that a lot of hatred would be focused on his disloyal employee although it is not likely he expected a murder. Richard's tears at the lay-off meeting were probably because he realized how hated he would become.-----You have to wonder about Perch's fate. If he did sell out to Bowlan, he certainly was betraying his union and perhaps organized crime associates. There does not appear to be any trace of him after the Bowlan organization attempt which may mean organized crime got its revenge.

Sat Jul 11 12:44:49 PDT 1998

The Tire Print and the Snerc Theory-----Detective McPhail's notes indicate that, at 1950 on the day of the murder, he noticed that Elbert Warren's tire tread was similar to the tireprint at the Izard house and he had a cast made. However, he never again seemed to refer to the tireprint except to say any car could have made that print even though the print looks extremely unique. I believe the print is in fact strong evidence that Warren was at the Izard house and that McPhail covered up this fact. Why? I believe that he and others knew Warren had been there because he brought the two Izard children with him and any public acknowledgement of Warren's presence would threaten the secret that the children were alive. McPhail knew that Warren had been at the house and may have still suspected him of the murder, but he certainly could not prove it.

Sat Jul 11 11:17:34 PDT 1998

Snerc Theory Loose Ends-----This is the first of several posts I plan to make today to tie up details of the Snerc Theory I originally posted July 5 @ 6:23:50.-----(1) Work gloves--Richard's dirt-encrusted work gloves were found at the murder scene and no fingerprints were found on the shovel. This is consistent with my theory that Richard swung around while digging up payoff money from the garden and hit Lisa with the shovel and killed her. His killer probably used a different weapon and so he left no fingerprints either.-----(2) Laundry--If Lisa was killed by Richard, she obviously did not run to his aid from another attacker, scattering wet laundry in her wake. The most likely explanation for the laundry is that Richard was filled with remorse or panic and raced to get towels from the laundry to try to clean Lisa's wounds. In his haste he scooped up a couple of other entwined items which he threw aside when he raced back toward the garden. He must have been intercepted by Danahy before he reached the garden.-----(3) Injuries--Richard had both cutting and blunt force injuries. The cutting injuries probably came from a weapon that Danahy briught with him. The blunt force injuries probably took place when Richard was on the ground and was kicked by the steel-toed work boots which were worn by Bowlan workers.--(4) Ricky in the driveway--Ricky behaved very strangely after getting off the school bus. He had not gone very far - only to the first turn - and he dropped his book bag well before he could have seen the crime scene. This behavior probably means someone was waiting beyond the turn and behind the tree line and was talking to Richard. This person was probably Elbert Warren who I believe took the children to a safe lacation (more detail to come in a subsequent comment).--(5) Ricky's cap--Ricky's cap was found in the creek along with LeAnne's baby blanket. However, Murphy did not remember Ricky wearing a cap. This indicates the someone, probably Elbert Warren, took these items from the house and put them into the creek to fool the killer into believing the children had drowned.----(6) Bus turnaround--Murphy appears to have a good view of the creek and fence line from the turnaround. Placement of the cap and blanket in the creek would have had to take place well before Murphy brought Ricky home or Murphy would have seen the individual placing the items.-----(7) Richard's parents--Richard's parents are apparently still alive and living in another town (Tocopola). It is likely that they sheltered the two children.-----(More to come)

Sat Jul 11 11:15:55 PDT 1998

Sat Jul 11 01:58:24 PDT 1998

FYI: If Bowlan didn't watch his bottom line... 470 workers would have been out of work!

PJ

Fri Jul 10 23:07:18 PDT 1998

[suzd]

So no one had the dream revelation? Well, Dixon's mini-revelation spurred me to review Ms. Carmicheal's interview again. Why would she have called the newspaper? It could be that the recent news about Doris Hammock stirred up old memories. Do you really think she had that photo of Doris out on a dresser for 40 years? Or had she recently pulled it out of a closet, and begun reminicing? She wanted to see for herself if this was Doris, and if she was OK. Notice at first she seems very welcoming and warm toward Doris. Then as things turn more toward the murders and the sadness of Doris' early life, Carmicheal gets upset. In particular she says,

"Well now, this can't be any good for anyone. Dredge up all the old dirt around here, not a good thing at all. I'm not feeling very well, young lady."

I wish I knew how to underline and bold like Dixon, but for emphasis: DREDGE UP ALL THE OLD DIRT AROUND HERE>How convenient that Carmicheal lives in the same house where the garden Hadley was digging in was NEVER EXCAVATED.

And so I went back and reviewed my own lenghty theory, from way back on June 27th. I think, with a few modifications, it actually still holds up.

Unless of course Niki's point (was it Niki? I wish I knew how to glance back at the comments without losing this posting) about BOTH victims being targeted is correct. Along those same lines, what if someone just wanted those two cute kids? Just came, killed the parents and outright snatched them for keeps. Did we have any suspects who left town who may have wanted kids that bad? I don't really think so, but I'm trying to keep thinking of other aspects (suspects)! LOL

P.S. Sure glad you're still with us PJ!

suzd

Fri Jul 10 15:46:15 PDT 1998

[From: Dixon Hill]

"Hey!!" He sat up in alarm. "What if Beatrice Carmichael were the tipster who phoned the Oxford Eagle?" he asked in astonishment. "What if... What if she set up the interview in order to throw Doris Hammack and Detective Nelson off course? So she could suggest to Hammack that 'Those Izard kids are dead, must be after all these years,' and that she is really Doris Hadley!"

(Yes, this just really happened.)

What motive might she have for doing something like that?

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Fri Jul 10 15:35:08 PDT 1998

[From: Dixon Hill]

Oh, Great!! Just when I was about to settle down to believing a modified version of Suzd's big theory (wayyy below), with a short across-the-street temporary getaway...

Rayson-Sonya posts another believable chunk of evidence causing me to question my denial of the possibility of the girls being switched...

Khruschev comes up with some believable theories regarding Harold Bowlan...

PJ does some brilliant "outside the box" thinking that clearly causes me to re-examine Lisa Izard's role in all this, AND re-implicates Tommy Joe after I figured he was more-or-less cleared...

And Ciaral, who claims forensics is "not my thing" does some awfully good analysis of the positions, timings, etc.

Boy am I confused now! :-)

Khruschev: I don't know if you were referring to me or not (regarding Bowlan's personality). If it was, then I guess I'd better clarify. I think you're absolutely right about him not being humane; he's absolutely a potential killer! But he's also meticulous and cautious --- what I was questioning was whether we've discovered adequate motive for him to have done it.

Even if you narrow down the number of family members who would have to have helped, I still don't think that's where he would have gotten his collaborators (if we assume for the moment he's guilty). They would have to have BIG motives to comply. Being an accomplice to a first degree murder could still get you executed by the state.

PJ: Nope, I haven't got anything more on the nephew. Been real busy with Real Life [tm]. I'll bet that's a dead end though. I don't agree with your "second thoughts" theory. Khruhschev is right: Bowlan was an inhumane man who just wouldn't have cared. Even if he second-thought his actions, his attitude would have been "Bah, I goofed up that one. Oh well. At least it's him, not me." Or he would be worried about how it would affect his own bottom line.

About liking Bowlan -- I admire his industriousness. He did do some good along with the bad. But I think we've had ample evidence (even from his own lips) that he was a callous, care-less, hard and bitter man. And nothing on the site has suggested that the rest of the town ever felt otherwise. I'll bet even his children feared him but didn't love him.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the Communists really were behind all this???

More confused that ever...
--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Fri Jul 10 13:48:07 PDT 1998

Rayson-Sonya
Was going over the Beatrice Carmichael interview and something struck me very odd...when she said I sent her (Doris) to live with her father, no matter what anyone else tells you, she went to live with her father. That is a very odd thing to say unless either there was talk that she raised Doris or someone else believes they raised Doris. Which means two Doris'....Doris H & LeAnne I. could have bit me on the nose...anyone want to try this one?
Would love some comments about this!!!!

Fri Jul 10 12:11:11 PDT 1998

This is a very simple murder. We are being blinded by excess information. We are making it more complicated than it really is. Doris Hadley was alive in 1958, the two little girls were not switched. Let's look at the bare facts. Two people were murdered, there children are missing. Who has adequate motive to kill them both? It seems as though there's noone who has a motive for killing BOTH of them, so we're trying to make the suspects for ONE victims death fit the second victim's murder. I think therein lies our mistake. Whoever killed them, killed them BOTH. Why would someone want to kill BOTH Izards? when we find that person, we solve the murder

Niki

Fri Jul 10 12:03:10 PDT 1998

Beatrice did admit to knowing about the layoffs before she went to Sid's. She said that she went to Sid's to see if Hadley had been laid off

Fri Jul 10 12:01:24 PDT 1998

Det. Nelson

Can we have the times on the receipts or possibly the maitre d' or the concierge's testimony about Bowlan? What times EXACTLY (or as close to exactly as possible) because if the poster is right and it takes 60 minutes to get to Memphis, that is only an hour or maybe back then an hour and a half drive. One could easily leave at ten, check in, have lunch, drive back to Oxford, "take care" of his union problem, drive back to Memphis, and be there in time for dinner. Does Bowlan really have an ironclad alibi? Probably not.

Khruhschev

Fri Jul 10 10:27:49 PDT 1998

I'd like more information on Beatrice Carmichael. I think she's lying. Did she always frequent Sid's at 13:30 on a Friday afternoon?? How come she didn't know about the layoffs until she reached Sid's when it was on every party-line by 11:05. Also, did anyone check her story with the Otts? Maybe baby Doris died in November '56 (just before Hadley cashed the life insurance policy).

Also, did we check the boot/shoe sizes of the suspects?? and their car/tire types?

Miss Grant

Fri Jul 10 09:07:21 PDT 1998

To Khruschev(sp?)
I think you missed the point, what I got from ABEO was he wanted everyone to stick to the subject... do you get it? This is not a chat page,it is a forum for exchanging ideas about the cases. Now I'm as guilty as you, but I too wish we'd all stick to the subject. When things get slow, we should use the search engine to ferret out things we may have missed, not turn this site into a common contest of snide remarks and insults, eh? If someone has responses to this, please E-Mail me @ ThreeOf [email protected], don't clutter up this site, there's enough stuff to wade through already.
thanx ( yeah, I know I spelled it wrong) (-;
Kari

Fri Jul 10 08:50:24 PDT 1998

Everyone is forgettin one thing. Tina Hawkins never said whether or not the speeding car was going in or out of the driveway. There is no way for her to know. She looked a minute later, and just saw the cloud of dust settling. It could very well have been someone speeding INTO the driveway. Keep that in mind

Fri Jul 10 08:39:34 PDT 1998

To ABEO,

Here's a riddle for you:

Privet Predurok ABEO! Tu durak, e is schitau chto tu dolshen shut up!

Khruhschev

Fri Jul 10 08:32:28 PDT 1998

I don't know if everyone else is assuming this also, but I always assumed that Richard Izard was keeping his union sympathies secret from Mr. Bowlan. But Mr. Bowlan knew. In his interview Bowlan talks about Richard's relationship with his employees: "Regard? What do their feelings have to do with work, for God's sake? I guess they liked him. Richard was always too soft, too quick to listen to their sob-sister stories and give shirkers "one more chance." Many's the time I fired someone after finding out secondhand that Richard had tried to give them special chances to take off too long for funerals, for sick kids and other personal stuff. "Personal is personal, and work is work," I always say, and the two should be kept seperate. But Richard was different. He couldn't stop being friends with the folks he worked with. I didn't keep up with who all it was, so there's no use in your asking me that. I just know he was too chummy with them sometimes. Fraternizing on weekends. Fishing and that kind of thing. I don't hold with it. And he always felt that he owed them an explanation at work when he told them what to do, it wasn't enough for their foreman to just say "Snap to it!" I told him time and again, "Don't complain and don't explain," But he never listened.

Then when asked whether or not Perch had any run-ins with Richard Izard, he answered:
"Durn commie, you mean. That man is dangerous and those like him. Coming around for no good reason than to undermine the very foundation on which business was built in this country. Unionizers are nothing more than commies in disguise, rabble rousers. You oughta check him out good. Advocating for less work and more money, easy street for the workers by gouging out the lining of the businessman's pockets. Come to think of it. Izard might have been a good target for that union bunch. A martyr to the cause so to speak. Not a one of thos organizers that doesn't have blood on his hands, McPhail.

These are my questions after reading this. Like Niki wrote, Perch didn't seem to be under the impression that Richard was a union sympathizer. Why did Bowlan think that Richard would be a "martyr to the cause?" Also, I think that a lot of Lydia Catlett's testimony is heresay. She thinks that Richard Izard and Perch were planning the union, but Perch didn't seem to think that Izard was on his side. Catlett never actually saw Izard and Perch together. All she saw was what she ASSUMED to be a lighted cigarette. What if Perch was watching Izard's house? I'm just trying to think of everything. but It is obvious, that Bowlan knew, or thought he knew that Izard was aunion sympathizer, and that Perch didn't think so.

Someone also said that Bowlan didn't have he personality to plan and organize a murder. NOT TRUE. Bowlan did not recognize the humanity of other people. There are people who fail to realize that everyone else is just as human as they are, and just as entitled to the same things they have. Bowlan is one of these people. He was angry when people missed work to care for sick children and to grieve over loved ones they had lost. He was not a humane man.
It is easier to kill something that you don't recognize as having feelings and emotions. that's one of the reasons they tell you that if you are ever kidnapped or taken hostage, to talk to your attacker about yourself, about what you love, about what you don't like about what you feel, then he/she is less likely to harm you, once he/she thinks of you as a person. Bowlan had the perfect personality to eliminate one of his workers and his wife (who he probably never even met). Also I wasn't talking about a conspiracy of a hundred family members, just Bowlan and his children.
Lat, to the person who criticized the "mutual admiration society." You sound like the type of person who needs a little admiration of your own. The purpsoe of this comments page is for us to get together, collaborate on a theory, help each other to see things we may not have noticed, say what we agree with(in each other's theories) and what we don't agree with. It's called cooperation. It is a good thing. Don't criticize it.

Khruschev

Fri Jul 10 05:32:44 PDT 1998

[PJ]

To Dixon Hill: McPhail's nephew didn't come to Oxford until 1972. Still no link to Bowlan? You got anything?

To Khruhschev: I really think you are on a good track with your theory concerning Bowlan. However, I had another thought about him that fits with yours to a degree, but does not include planned murder. I'm really hoping that Bowlan and his wife somehow took the children and Pearl Bowlan is the "old biddy". Memphis is only 60 miles or so from Oxford, they could have easily gotten back in the time frame of the murders and saved(?) the children. I was thinking that Bowlan might have had second thoughts about the dangerous position he had put Richard in by having him announce the lay-offs, or he had discovered something (?). It is only "a rumor" that Richard was accepting protection money, and I suspect that the money found in the drawer was a set-up as well as the rumor. I had initially thought that Bowlan was responsible for the murders but I've been studying Lisa lately and think she might really be behind Richard's death.

Hey, JOeBoB: "Still waters run deep, eh? I tried to look at Lisa from a different perspective... this could be ugly!

Lisa's parents were very overprotective. Why? The Graham's had had two sons, Tommy, who died of a broken neck at age 6, and Jimmy, who died of scarlet fever at age 2. Lisa never knew them. She was born two years AFTER the second child died. She may have blamed the little "MARTYRS" for her parents overprotectiveness, and resented them for her inability to enjoy reasonable freedoms. She dated Danahy twice. She probably longed to be wild and free, and was attracted to his wildness. [This has been mentioned a number of times on the comment pages]. Also Bowlan told McPhail that "Izard might've been a good target for that union bunch. A martyr to the cause so to speak".
Martyrdom may play a role in the crimes.

When Lisa went away to the University of Mississippi to study nursing [1948-1950], she was away from the stifling influence of her parents for the first time. What would she do? Go wild! I'm thinking that she was likely to get involved in anything and everything that her parents would have disapprove of! Lisa's mother was frightened of the Communists. Could Lisa have gotten involved in a student organization... like a "counterculture" group, or Communists, to spite her Mother?

Note: Bowlan's biographical information was taken from a Mississippi University Press publication. It wasn't published until 1976, but it was a venomous attack on capitalism. It could have come from information gathered in the 50's.

Note: The "Communist Scare", that Dixon Hill referred to, was the fear that the cummunist philosophy was being spread to undermine our values and or economy. The real chilling fear, was that it would be so slow and insidious that we wouldn't recognize it when we heard it and that our children would be the prime targets, and that their minds would be poisoned. We all read Bowlan's bio and hated him didn't we? I did, and it's still hard to "like" him, and I'm not a child! Does anyone see a connection here?

I'm thinking that Lisa appeared to break-up with Danahy, so she could continue to act the sweet, good natured girl she'd always been, but with some subversive objective in mind, and Danahy didn't fit the image she needed. She met Richard in the ER over an INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL BURN received at BGF. A "CAUSE"? She married Richard in 1951, who was everything Danahy was NOT! He was gentle, kindhearted, quiet and a CHURCHGOING man. They had Ricky and LeAnne. Could the "perfect family" be a cover? And, at the time of the murders/disappearances, the children were 6 and 2, the same ages of her brothers when they died! Odd coincidence? Lisa, was a member of the Baptist's Visitation Committee, which I have believed for some time was an Anti-Communist watchdog organization. Is it conceivable that Lisa was a spy in the organization? Could the late-night meetings at the Izard house that Mrs. Catlett talked about have been Lisa's meetings with her college friends? Could they have been setting up a conspiracy? To topple Bowlan? To subvert the thinking of ... the townfolks? Maybe Danahy involved? Valenti married a Russian. Booker liked racing cars. Peach attended the University of Mississippi on a GI bill majoring in phys. ed. after his efforts to enroll in a writing program were thwarted.

Did Richard know anything? I would think not, but there are two things that make me wonder. He called Lisa his little "Mona Lisa". The painting has always been controvertial... what does that smile mean? Did Richard's pet name for Lisa mean that what she appeared to be wasn't exactly what she was? The second is a statement in his bio, "He got along with all different groups of people". Was he a member of "this" group and sympathetic to the unionization of BGF and "management"? Frank Abbott indicated that Richard was playing neutral and sympathetic.

Was Richard just a mellow, even tempered guy who was being set up so that, when an "event" occurred it would appear to the union organizers and sympathizers, the Anti-Communists, Bowlan (any others?)that he was the bad guy and everyone would want his hide? Maybe everyone beat on him first, then the killer finished him off, leaving everyone thinking they might have done it?

I have some odds and ends thoughts to play with:
1. The shovel was near the site. A pair of gloves was found near the site. A pair of gloves laid over the shovel would leave no spatter where the gloves were placed to make it look like the murder weapon.
2. To play out a conspiracy, and planned murder, using the anger created by the lay-off's (the event) to cast suspition everywhere, someone would have had to know ahead of time that the "event" was about to happen. Besides Bowlan, the Paymaster was the only one who knew. Is he involved?
3. Someone may have placed the laundry along the path from the clothesline to the garden, to make it look like Lisa had run to save Richard.
4. The Mason jar in the Izard's kitchen. Couldn't it have been evidence with fingerprints, Tommy Joe suspected it would have given someone away so he asked about a "dip" hoping that McPhail would hand him the jar. Then he broke it.

This is all too much, huh? Sorry it's so long. Ah, just hit me with a shovel or something!

PJHunter

View Previous Comments