Thu Jul 30 19:32:48 PDT 1998

Rayson-Sonya
Ok if the Otis's are correct and Beatrice picked Doris up at between 6:30 and 7:00 we need to figure out what happened between say 3:00 to the dumping of the bodies which I figure had to be before sundown for Doris to be able to remember Howard going to the water while they were leaving. I estimate that sundown would be about 8:00pm. If we can trust part of Beatrice's statement she said she left Howard's and arrived home at 4:30 to get groceries and probably to shower and change her dress. The Izard kids must have been left at Howard's after all the police where everywhere looking for the kids and Beatrice couldn't chance having the kids with her when she went home. After she picked up Doris, she went back to Howard's to find out the kids weren't around ...where are they?...Of course Doris found out where they were when she sat in the blood. After the fact, Howard tied up the bodies and weighted them down then took them to the pond.

Det. Nelson since the Otis's lived next door to Howard, how far apart where their houses from each other? Wonder's if the Otis' ever heard anything suspicious.

[from: Elbertha]

To Murphy: Oops! My recollection was faulty by 4 days! In the detective responses updated 7/13, it was found that Lisa had ordered the boots two weeks earlier--not ten days. It still seems funny that Richard would have been worrying Thomas Hinkley about those boots for a month, but it could be that Hinkley just lost track of time and it *seemed* as though Richard had been waiting for those boots that long. Of course, Richard could have been looking for *another* package and *that* was what Hinkley was thinking about. Also, do you suppose that Walter Hinkley knew of the payoffs and maybe mentioned something to Thomas Hinkley? Maybe Thomas Hinkley was the one who stole the packages--perhaps hoping to get the money? I really don't think so, but just took a wild guess. It wouldn't explain why Mrs. Hawkins package was stolen--after all, *she* didn't have anything to do with the union.
Elbertha

Rayson-Sonya
Howard definatly did the dirty work but someone else probably either hired him to do it or just suggested that he would be rewarded some how if he took care of this problem.

rayson-Sonya
Regarding Beatrice's feeling about Doris as I see them. Beatrice wasn't particularly close with Doris..as I have said before it is natural for a small child to identify a mother figure in their life. Doris only referred to her as Howard's friend, remember basically the only two women in Doris's life were Mrs. Otts, who she really enjoyed being with, and Beatrice whom she said I don't want to be with her anymore. According to her remarks and other things it is known that Beatrice hit her, she was selfish and she drank alot. She was nice to Doris because she thought Howard was gonna marry her, once she knew that was not gonna happen she began to try to unload the girl. Remember she tried several times to get Howard to get his daughter but he always came up with some excuse. Finally she said enough I'm bringing her, meet me at the train(probably said if your not there I'm leaving her at the station). I don't believe that Beatrice took her to Immaculata, because she didn't know about the ring on the string around her neck..Doris said she had it for as long as she could remember.So Doris always wore it, if Beatrice had picked her up, she would have seen the ring and known. Personally I think that Beatrice got the house because Howard believed that Beatrice would care for his daughter after he was gone, but she didn't she left the girl there, cashed in on what she could get and sent the Home $500.00 thus ridding herself in her eyes of her obligation. Maybe she would have sent more but Doris was probably placed in a foster home so she figured that was it. I'm not saying that Beatrice didn't care for the girl, by the looks of it she probably saved her life while Howard was on his murderous rampage. But as Beatrice said often..she wasn't my daughter.

about 80% of the voters think hadley did it. what are the chances of the tricky devils who wrote this case making it that simple? not a snowballs chance in oxford. No way Howie-boy did it. there is a trick heading right at us. a big trick! (wait-n-c)

[Murphy]

If Doris had somehow located Bea without raising the Izard issue, I think Bea would have been more receptive to her. But Bea's fears about re-opening all the questions about the Izard murders probably overwhelmed any joy she had about being reunited with Doris. However, she might have been curious to see Doris again, so Bea could be the tipster who led Doris to visit her. We don't know how long Doris's conversation with the tipster was, so I don't know if Doris would have recognized Bea's voice as the one on the phone.

It would be interesting to know who worked in the Western Union office in 1960. Maybe that would give us a clue to the reason for the handwritten note on the telegram.

We don't know for sure if Bea went to Detroit after receiving the telegram or if she responded at all. The woman who left Doris at Immaculata could have been Robt. Duffy's wife/girlfriend/female acquaintance of some type. Duffy or his woman friend could easily have learned the sketchy information in the unsigned note from Howard before his death. I'm not conviced this is what happened, but it is a possibility.

As for Tommy Joe's inconsistent comments about the boots, it's possible he was willing to tell the police his opinion about the alleged stolen packages, but he didn't want the opinion published in the paper for everyone to see. The "white trash" he mentioned to the police might also have been on his route and he wouldn't want any trouble from them.

Elbertha: Do you know where you found that bit about Lisa ordering the boots only 10 days before the murders? I did a search on boots but couldn't find it.

--Murphy

Doris Hamlach is not Doris Hadley. Biddy would have been much more receptive to her if she hadn't *known* that Doris Hadley was dead. She truly loved Doris Hadley and would have been much more interested/excited about the prospect of Doris sitting before her. I agree, however, that she did not drop off the Izard girl at the convent, hence her lack of knowledge about the ring. This would also explain the wrong dates on the telegram -- someone else went to Detroit, possibly the tipster. The handwritten note was either a "false clue", but more likely Biddy did go, but got there too late. So who is this mystery woman/tipster?! Do we know who worked in the telegraph office -- is it connected to the post office?! Could the post-man have had access to the Western Union print-out? If so, he's the one who knows what happened to the children (remember, he searched for them)...

(from:SpaceDog)
I'd like to know if anyone has questionned Danahy about this whole affair. First of all, is he still alive? And what was he relationship with the other union workers?

[from Elbertha]

To Drainer: Thanks for pointing that inconsistency in Thomas Hinkley's statement regarding the Sears package. I also note that somewhere, I read that Lisa had ordered the boots only 10 days prior to the murders. So, I wonder what package Richard was looking for? Perhaps he was expecting money in one of those packages. Given that supposition, perhaps someone knew that money was being mailed to him and that could account for the theft of packages from the mailboxes.
Now, I just wonder who got Mrs. Hawkins linens.

Note to those who were wondering how Mrs. Hawkins knew about the package being from Sears: Back then, virtually every package that came in the mail was from Sears. Folks down here believe in Sears!
Elbertha

(From Cheeky1)
Well I was wrong about draining the well but the pond was not too far off!!
Also I should point out that I have not been able to access my home page on murder theories again - created in June before Doris even arrived on the scene. So I know things have progressed a lot since then.
Daimer PI - hope I have your name right - I believe that Bea thought the whole ring had been pawned, not just the stones. Maybe she thought it was assessed at stones value.
So I don't think there is any incongruity in her comments to Doris.
Still think the two Dorises are one and the same - Doris Hammack could only be LeAnne if the murderer somehow killed the wrong little girl but baed on the hypnosis sesison that didn't happen.

[from Elbertha]

Since Beatrice appears to have been paid off rather than bumped off, it seems that she *must* have had some evidence stashed away for protection, but what? I'm thinking about bloody gloves, although I'm not sure how the bloody gloves could be identified as belonging to any particular person--unless the owner had marked them prior to the murders. I'm sure that people working at the glove factory may have had problems keeping up with gloves when they laid them down anywhere. It would be normal for someone to write his name on his gloves so as not to get them mixed up with someone else's.

As for Howard being able to give Bea $150 on the 17th because he was starting a new job, I really don't think so. I doubt that he would have had any savings, and besides, $150 was a *very* large amount of money in Mississippi in 1958--probably nearly a month's pay. I could ask my mom how much my daddy made during the 50s, but I'm basing my guess on what my husband made in 1970. He had a gross monthly pay of $360, and his job was a fairly good one. I went back to work after our son was born in 1971, and my gross pay was $488/month--a *very* good salary for those times and this area of Mississippi.
Anyway, those payments continued, although they appeared to be somewhat sporadic. If Howard was paying her, what did *he* live on?
No, I still think there was someone with money behind the murders.
Elbertha

Aha! I found another inconsistancy for your perusal:

Police interview with mailman Tommy Joe Hinkley: "I figured it was some more work boots for him from the size and shake of it. Then I figured he'd want it safe, and I didn't want to leave it out by the side to the road. You know what a long ol' gravel driveway they got, and all that white trash that lives a way down the road, I think they might be the ones who've been stealing some packages and stuff on my route."

But he was quoted in the newspaper the following week: ""He'd been looking for them boots for a month or so, asking about them every so often," Mr. Hinkley said. "That's the reason why I took the box on up to the house when I saw it was from Sears. Didn't want to chance them boots getting lost or stole from out there on the road. Not that anybody around here would do that."

The statements contradict each other completely! Question now is: what role did he have in the murders or kidnapping? Appears he DID have a role, anyway.

- Drainer, P.I.

I have yet another quandry:

During the hypnosis, Doris is asked "Do you know this man, Doris?" after she mentions "he is loud...he is shouting...". Her comment, unusual for children, is "He's, he's Howard". Later she says "He's, I think he's, he says he's my father, I don't know". No child would simply 'think' someone is her father. Nor would a child refer to their father by his first name. Just not plausible, period.

So, with this in mind, I must believe that either Doris Hammack is the Izzard girl or, God forbid, another little girl, unrelated to the case so far. Unfortunanately, I have absolutely no clue as to Howard's reasoning for taking the Izzard girl to replace his own (perhaps the one in the lake). Just doesn't make sense yet.....YET.

- Drainer, P.I.

I was pretty convinced that Beatrice was the woman that dropped off little Doris at the Catholic orphanage, until I re-read some of the interviews with Doris and her interview with Beatrice.

In the police interview of Doris upon her return to Oxford, she said "she left me stranded there with just a small suitcase, this ring on a ribbon around my neck and a letter".

In the Carmichael interview with Doris, Beatrice was quite convinced that Doris couldn't have the ring. " That can't possibly be true. I know that ring you are talking about, you couldn't possibly have the same one. ... You couldn't have ended up with it. That's just too far fetched". If she were the woman who dropped off a child, with a ring around her neck, she would not likely be so surprised to see the ring again. In fact, would she have let the child have the ring in the first place, knowing its history?

But, if not Beatrice, then who?

- Drainer, P.I.

[From: Dixon Hill]


Murphy: Good point about Perch. I was pretty sure Perch had died. I did a search of the evidence files and --- sure enough --- I didn't find anything at all about his passing. For once, luck might be on our side, if the good folks at the Yoknapatwapha County Sherriff's Department can find him and catch up with him. I'll bet if he's still alive he isn't too keen on being questioned... any more than he was back in 1958.

Of course, I'm still holding to the theory that Perch hired Hadley to murder or rough up Richard Izard. Howard killed Lisa just because she was there as a witness -- same for the kids... he grabbed them, got them to his house, realized he was stuck and had to get rid of them somehow, so as usual he solved it with more violence.

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

An excellent mystery comming together nicely - however - would be interested in knowing who this "mystery woman"is who reported the remains in the lake and called Doris before and told her to check out Bea??? Someone seems to know a lot..
(From Too2Blond)

[from:brew to rayson-sonya]
Told you Little ricky was fish food, though I was wrong about Doris.
What's this about Danahy now? could I have been right about that too?

[From: TRISH] Outstanding!!! This has been the most exciting piece of PC literature that I have had the opportunity to read. All information was interesting and a "Couldn't wait to get my update notice e-mail" Great job.

[Murphy]

I'll admit to feeling a little blindsided by the revelation that there is a pond on the Hadley/Carmichael property. It does help make some sense out of the hypnosis though. However, even when the forensic analysis proves that the bodies found in the pond are those of Ricky and LeAnne and even if they determine the causes of death, I wonder if that will bring us any closer to confirming who was responsible.

Elbertha: Your point about the $150 Hadley paid to Carmichael on April 17 is good. That was the day Hadley interviewed at Yoknapatawpha Farm Supply and they may have hired him that day, though he didn't start until April 21. Knowing that he would have money coming in, Hadley could have felt financially secure enough to give her the money. However, it's also possible (more likely?) he had already received payment from Perch for services rendered. If Perch and Hadley didn't have an arrangement in place for the Izard murders, I can't think why Perch would have helped Hadley out in Detroit (e.g., the reference under the assumed name). I don't know of any other obligation Perch would have felt to Hadley, so what other motivation would he have had to help him?

Det. Nelson:
[1] Do we know if Perch is still alive somewhere so he could be interviewed?

[2] Have the police had the opporunity to search Carmichael's home, safe deposit box (if she had one), etc. to see if she left any other information or do we only have access to the items turned over by her attorney? Given that she kept the telegram, the pawn shop receipt, and the record of Hadley's payments for all these years, it seems reasonable that she may have held on to some other item(s) that could answer some of our questions, possibly a diary from 1958. (Could be just wishful thinking on my part...)

[3] Did Carmichael leave a will? If so, do we know its contents?

--Murphy

[From: Mandy]The creators and writers of this website have done a truly professional, interesting job of providing a good, old fashioned mystery. Those are hard to find anymore; so many rely on gore instead of actual brain work mystery. You are to be commended for a fine job on this case. Someday, you are going to be famous, these are going to be valuable archives and we will have had the honor of observing your work in the beginning. (I feel like I'm watching the filming of the first StarTrek!) And all this for free! Thank you for kindly for a fun case and good job.

Please solve this case soon .I'm seeing some really wierd speculations. Some of which are farfetched.


Respectfully ,
Impatient

[From: Dixon Hill]


PJ: Interesting question. I'm really not sure. The only two data points I have are (A) when I was gone on a LONG (2 month) business trip when my daughter (the eldest) was two, she recognized me right away. Of course, it might not translate for Doris; I have a close relationship with my kids; Hadley was cold, distant, and abusive. The (B) data point: I lost my own Dad when I was two... but I had photographs. My best guess is that the adult Doris probably wouldn't have memories, however deep, that positively identified Howard as her father, not only because of the 11 month separation, but also because he probably emotionally distanced himself in a multitude of ways -- requiring her to call him "Howard," for instance.

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

[from: Elbertha]

In your latest response, you said, in answer to the question about comparing a photo of the young Doris Hadley with a photo of LeAnne Izard: "We haven't come across any photos of Doris Hadley, daughter of Howard Hadley. But we've recently come across some strong evidence otherwise that Doris Hadley and Doris Hammack may be one in the same."

Well, what about the photo of Doris Hadley that Beatrice Carmichael showed Doris Hammack? (See conversation between Doris Hammack and Beatrice Carmichael. Or, is this actually a picture of LeAnne Izard, made when Beatrice was supposedly keeping Doris Hadley?
Elbertha

To Dixon Hill: You mentioned that you have a three year old son. Would he recognize you if you left for 11 months and then returned?

Thanks, PJ

An important modification to the Snerc theory and an explanation for the Mailman's strange behavior. --------- Murphy has caught me for the second time on a key fact!! The points about no blood on the gloves and too much blood spatter on the shovel to be just from Lisa's wounds can not be dismissed. --------- I have to concede that the shovel used to kill Lisa was also used to inflict the cuttin wounds on Richard before he was kicked to death. -------- There are too possible scenarios. (1) The gloves on the ground belonged to Lisa. Richard did kill her wearing his work gloves which he also dropped on the ground. Danahy then killed Richard while wearing gloves of his own. OR (2) The gloves on the ground are Richards and Danahy killed Richard and Lisa while wearing his own gloves. -------- I still prefer the "Richard killed Lisa" theory because the different conditions of their blood suggest that Lisa died first. Also, this version is more consistent with the idea that Danahy and Lisa had resumed their affair. As noted in a prior comment the only explanation I can immagine for keeping the Izard children separate Would be if Richard's parents rejected LeAnne because they knew Danahy was the father. -------- I suspect that the mailman was afraid his brother was the killer and thought that a bloody pair of gloves could be evidence against him. He pobably threw the gloves in the creek. Having to handle the murderers bloody gloves probably caused the excessive rubbing of his hands. --------Snerc

Response: Your theory is very interesting. I printed it out for thought. I'd be curious to hear your reasoning for painting Mrs Izard as such a floozy.

Snerc's views of the identities of the children in the pond and of the fate of the murderer. -------- The children in the pond are clearly not the Izard children. The strongest evidence in this case says that Doris Hammack is really LeAnne Izard. Evidence is akmost as strong that Doris Hadley was reunited with her father in Detroit. There is no compelling reason to believe Ricky was killed. ---------Who were the children in the pond if not the Izard children? Since there is no indication of any other known or reported missing children, I suspect these two children were probably born in Danahy's free love commune and their births were probably not even registered. I also suspect that we will find the children were killed by Danahy in one of his drunken rages and their bodies were placed in Beatrice's former pond to direct suspicion at Beatrice and Hadley. -------- I think this scenario also leads us to speculation about the actual fate of Danahy. This theory may seem contrived but it does utilize an additional piece of information which we are given and it appears that virtually every fact in this case is relevant and virtually noyhing is extraneous. The biography of Booker emphasizes his skill as a mechanic and as a hot rod racer. Since Danahy and Corey were killed in a car accident, it makes you wonder if Booker either tampered with their car or ran them off the road, perhaps in anger over the deaths of the two children latr found in the pond.--------Snerc

Response: Forenic tests will be available soon . It is expected that the tests will confirm that the remains belong to the Izard children.

Detective Nelson sent an email that said another crime would not be posted here on crimescene until the previous week's comments have all been answered...Well, at the rate they're moving at answering our comments, we may be gettin a new crime some time next year. Did you guys lose interest or what?

Its been over a month that we've been waiting for some answers, so why not just forget our questions, and lets get on to a new case...but, hopefully, with the next crime our comments will be answered a little more timely. .

Sorry for complaining, but it was kind of frustrating to watch the weeks go by and still no answers to our comments. What happened anyway?

I tried to do my part for you guys by always clicking on the ads at the top of the page...so, don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player....88 KEYS
Response: We are embarassed by the tardiness in answering comments here--but make few apologies. The investigator responsible for this area was overtaxed. Since no fees are charged, adding staff to assist is nearly impossible. Some restructuring is underway. Expect improvements.

However, rest assured that Yoknapatawpha County investigators view the comments page many times daily. It is an important and valued feature that we intend to maintain and improve.

[from: Elbertha]

The latest news article regarding the discovery of the remains in the pond says that Doris Hammack brought *two* unsigned letters and an heirloom to Oxford. Is this supposed to be a misprint, or was there another unsigned letter that I missed by coming into this case late?
Elbertha

Response: Oops. Sorry.

[from: Elbertha]

To: Rayson-Sonia: I would imagine that there are *lot* of waterways in and near Yoknapatawpha County, since it is convenient to the Sardis Reservoir, Wall Doxey State Park (which has a spring-fed lake) in Holly Springs, and loads of little creeks and springs. Not to mention that just about all farmers in the area have a pond or two on their land. It *would* be interesting to see a to-scale topographical map with the locations of the murder scenes and suspects' houses and a mileage scale so we can estimate the distances between various houses.

I still think that someone with money was behind the murders. Right now, Elliott Perch seems to have the strongest motive, but I also wonder about old man Bowlan. Maybe Richard knew something about him that could ruin him if it got out.
Elbertha

Response: I think you'd agree that we need to speak with Perch, and perhaps Warren again.

Rayson-Sonya
To: Detective Nelson and Armstrong

Also would be useful if we were given a detailed area map of Yoknapatawpha County to help in further cases so we will know the streets and water areas as well. That would be a great asset for us diehard sleuths.I realize that is a great undertaking but it really would be so useful to us.

Response: I agree, however, providing the maps is troublesome. They are too large for the small computer screen, and the files are huge. There are several online map resources that have the ability to give you exact sctreet info here in Oxford. Try Mapquest.

The Oxford Chamber of Commerce will also send you free maps and other information. We'll ask about getting a case to distribute here.

Rayson-Sonya
Although highly unlikely would be interesting if either senerios existed.
The bodies found in the pond are Ricky and Doris...
The bodies were put into pond later as if the kids were murdered sometime after the Izard's were murdered when they knew the kids were a liability and could not be controlled as well as Doris.
Just a thought.....Just waiting for answers and the results of the id of bones, which to me means they are gonna have to dig up the Izards to compare DNA...also would be interesting if one of the kids were proven not to be Richard's then they would have to excavate Danahy as well... Sorry my mind is working overtime now.

Response: DNA tests are underway to compare the known DNA samples on hand with the recently discovered remains. At present we only have samples from the Izards for comparison.

I don't know why I'm asking a question because it won't be answered anytime soon, but was the pond dragged when the case first started? If not, then why wasn't the pond dragged back then if you have two kids missing? Not trying to insult anyone or criticize, but why give all this information and then have the kids turn up in a pond? I still stick by my theory no matter what anyone says cuz mine sounds better. MzBhaver

Response: The ponds in the area were dragged. It is likely the pond in question was dragged as well. It may be that they bodies were well weighted. There was some wire tangled around one of the partial remains.

Is there more to the hypnosis session with Doris Hammack? If there is, when will it be posted? If there isn't, you should consider persuing it further. She has answered a lot of questions but leaves you with even more that requires you to ass-u-me the answer,(dangerous in any investigation). I think, through further hypnosis, she should be able to offer much more information then has been released thus far. Just a suggestion.
CyberSleutH

Response: Any hyponosis will have to occur at her expense. The county won't spring for it. At this point Hammack seems less interested in pursuing her past. Perhaps there are some things we aren't meant to know. She is, however, still in town. I suspect she may take up residence.

PBAS!
Like I said the Izard kids were dead.And I believe poor little Doris
witnessed the killing. Of course her dad (Howard Hadley) wouldn't
kill her ,so to keep her mouth shut and to stop her from crying he constently reminded her by saying "know what happens when kids
cry.To answer the question "How did Bea get the house ?" she got
it by keeping her mouth shut , but I don't know ,the timing
as far as us finding out about the 2 bodies in the pond seems funny.I
believe there's a twist..Ending it like this seems the easy

Response: I agree with your summary. As for easy--things usually are not as they seem.

[from: Elbertha]

So, part of Doris Hammack's memories proved to be correct. Now, I wonder if her memory of Biddy picking her up "early" is correct.

I don't think that Howard and Beatrice were in this alone. There was someone else involved--someone with money. Bea received the first of the payments ($150) on 4-17-58. Howard had just been laid off and wasn't well off, remember? In 1958 Mississippi,.$150 was quite a lot of money.

I'll be interested in seeing just what it was in Bea's house that helped Doris lead the Investigator to the pond behind Bea's house.
I'll also be interested in seeing if the bodies are indeed proven to be those of Ricky and LeAnne.

I tend to look to the suspect who had the strongest "money" motive. Elliott Perch was the one who had been paying Richard, but I still think that he instigated and goaded others into attacking Richard. The gloves at the murder scene,I have decided, must have belonged to someone other than Richard, but not the person who was wielding the shovel. The description of Richard's hands seems to fit that of a man who was working in the dirt with his bare hands, even though he grabbed a dirt clod--presumably to throw into his attacker's face.

As for the Izard kids, I can see the murderer killing Ricky to avoid being identified, but why take and kill LeAnne? She was in the house, and was too young to identify anyone anyway. I can buy that Beatrice went to the Izard house and got LeAnne to protect her. I can buy that she was screaming at Howard and wanting to know where Ricky and LeAnne were. I can buy that Howard may have killed them in a drunken rage because of their crying, but I think that the person who would be most interested in seeing those children dead was Jessie Danahy, and I can see him killing them.

I just can't consider that the discovery of the children's bodies means that Howard and Bea are the only ones involved.

Also a thought about the payments to Bea: Why pay her? Why not bump her off? What "connection" did she have that protected her? What about one of her old boyfriends? She'd certainly been around before returning to Oxford.
Elbertha

Response: Beatrice Carmichael was a loner in her declining years. We've been looking for any companions of hers that might shed light on her association with the crimes. We wonder why she was not killed as well. She must have had some way to tie him to the crimes. Whatever that item was, it has not been found.

Wher were the Izards' childern? Are they alive and well or were they drowned in the creek?
Please answer these questions for me.
thanh you for a most interesting site.
[email protected]

Response: Two bodies have been found. See a recent news item here.

Rayson-Sonya
Dumb-Dumb I am so Dumb...Howard's house was on Hopewell Road, the bodies were found in Old Taylor Road Pond.So unless Taylor Road was renamed to Hopewell Road the bodies were dumped on the property that used to belong to Beatrice's Aunt(?) I believe. The address we never got, remember all her correspondance and interviews just listed where she worked and later she owned the place(Nursery/Florist Shop). Since while she was under hypnosis she recalled being washed off by pond water and not water from a well,the Oxford police knew where to look Beatrice's 'old house'. *So does that mean that the kids were murdered at Howard's house and taken to Beatrice's(in the trunk)or were they killed at Beatrice's house and dumped in the pond?

Response: Howard's house on Hopewell Road is off Old Taylor Road. The road is a a county road and doesn't officially exist as Hopewell Road any more. Yet the house and the pond sit adjacent to the actual Old Taylor Road. So the question that we're left with is, if these are the Izard kids, how were they taken to Hadley's? Dead or alive?

Rayson-Sonya
*To Susie
I believe what triggered the pond to be drained was the fact that Doris said she knew that she had gone to the house on Hope Road, She sat in the blood, it grew bigger and bigger meaning bodies were bleeding next to her in the bedroom where she hid. She begged Bea to get if off her; the memory said she got it off by the pond( In Oxford they knew that the Hadley property had a pond) then there was the comment that he went to the water when they left, which means he disposed of the bodies while they were leaving. Also I wonder if indeed the Warrens knew what was lurking in their rented backyard?

Response: The only house that had a pond was Hadley's. From Doris' hypnosis session, she felt very strongly about the water and being with Hadley and Carmichael. Even days later, the images were clearer to her. It only made sense that if there were bodies to be found in water, it would be at Hadley's old place.

Rayson-Sonya
Although I am glad that the case is finally coming together at last. I just wish that the comments had been answered so that we would have had a chance to really solve it ourselves. We were really close just lacking some much needed info.. the layout of the Hadley/Carmichael house. Does still wish that the kids had survived some how but that is just personal. I wonder how Bea could have sent Doris to live with her father after knowing what he did. It's one thing to kill adults, it is another to kill children especially one so much like his own daughter. Looks like Doris saved her own butt by keeping very quiet and out of sight most of the time...after all we know what happens to children who cry...Wonder's if Doris will get the house at least to sell, Carmichael didn't have any relatives, still wonder's how she got deed to house, wonders if the signature signing the deed over to her was forged. It would be nice for Doris to get something out of this. I don't imagine that she would live in the house but she could sell it for a nice nest egg of her own.

Response: Sorry again for the delay on comments. But we've been watching the page and, as always, the comments have been helpful. I think everyone has done a great job maintaining the page and answering each other's questions and theories.

By the way...I made the post on Mon Jul 27 17:49:56 PDT 1998......if anyone would like to get in touch with me, my email is [email protected].

I believe Doris Hammack is truly Doris Hadley, the daughter of Howard Hadley (aka Howard Hammack) . I believe that Doris, as a child, was witness to the dumping of the bodies of the Izard children, and that is why she has the memories of blood and gore from her childhood. I believe Howard Hadley took the assumed name of Howard Hammack after murdering the Izards. Beatrice Carmichael, while probably not directly involved in the murders, knew about the murders, and most likely helped in dumping the bodies of the children in the pond near her home. I believe she loved Howard, and went along with the story that he had died, and I believe she is the one who dropped Doris off at the convent. She knew that Doris had seen them dump the bodies, and that as Doris was small, she would either forget, or that her mind would repress the horrible memories.

I believe in Bea's guilt in the matter because of her reactions to Doris when Doris came to inquire about her past with Bea. Bea kept telling her she was meddling and should let the past be past.

At any rate, I believe Howard Hadley is also Howard Hammack. I believe Howard Hadley/Hammack is guilty of the murders of the entire Izard family. I believe that Doris Hammack is the daughter of Howard Hadley. I believe that Beatrice Carmichael, while not directly involved, was an accessory after the fact to the Izard murders. And I believe that Bea took Doris to the convent because she was a semi-witness (at least she did not kill her). I believe that Howard Hadley/Hammack did not die when Bea said he did, and that he is most likely dead by now. Of couse, he could be alive, but he would be very old. It would be worth looking for him.

Response: Your theory makes sense, as we're finding. This explanation fits in with the evidence we've gathered. Although we're still anxious to get the results back from the autopsies. We've been promised that information will be in Tuesday or Wednesday.

As usual, this case has me stumped too. I was hoping that Doris was the little girl, and you would end up finding that the boy was raised in foster homes or adopted. Since you are now guiding us to believe that Howard did it, I hope you give us the details as to how this was derived and what exactly did Doris remember that triggered the pond to be drained. I love your sight, and have been an avid follower for the last 4 cases. Thanks for the time you spend keeping up this interesting sight.

[From: Susie Howe]

Response: If you haven't seen it already, read Doris' hypnosis transcript, which gave us the clue to drain the pond at the old Hadley place. Thanks for following the site.

[From: Dixon Hill]


Well, whaddya know... They actually found the kids' bodies in some water on the Hadley/Carmichael grounds! Funny how surprised I get every time a guess (however small) turns out to be right.

There's no doubt in my mind that forensic analysis will end up showing that these are indeed the Izard kids. My guess is that the cause (if determinable) will be blunt force or possibly a sharp object -- detectable even on fairly clean skeletal remains -- not drowning (not detectable given just a skeleton). I'm betting the blood little Doris sat in was the blood of one/both of the kids.

Det. Nelson: is there any more wrap-up you're going to do on this case before declaring it closed?

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.
Response: There will be more wrap-up. We'll let everyone know when we get the autopsy results. Even if the bodies turn out to be from the kids, there's still proving who the actual killer or killers was/were.

[from Elbertha]

I wonder where this week's update is, or do we have to wait until the 28th?
I'm coming to the conclusion that Perch *is* responsible for the murders, probably with the assistance of some of the guys who left Sid's early--mainly the ones with no alibi for the rest of the afternoon and who had unverified injuries. The report on the crimescene reported that there was a struggle, and it's likely that Richard was able to get in a few punches.
Elbertha

Response: Perch had some scratches on him after brawling with Jimmy Warren at 1300 hours, and Booker and Corey were banged up, supposedly after a fight in Sardis, which no witness could attest to. However, it was rare that these two would move into action without Danahy, who wasn't banged up but wouldn't give an alibi during the time of the murder. With seasoned brawlers like Booker and Corey, Danahy wouldn't have had to get his hands dirty. Also Howard Hadley, who told detectives he was at home during the time of the murder (a story which Beatric Carmichael attested to), had injuries to his hands, corneal abrasions and a cracked rib.

Rayson-Sonya
Just wanted to say hi to all my fellow sleuths, I know it is frustrating checking comments and previous comments for answers and not seeing any change So I just wanted to say:
BOO!!!!!
See ya later after we know something
Bye

Response: Sorry for the delays. It's been a busy summer this year.

(From Cheeky1)

Well, we haven't had answers to our posts from a month ago yet so that leads me to believe some of us, were close to the real situation so the replies can't be posted without giving it away.
We still have not seen the photo of Doris Hadley as a young girl.
Maybe that could be age-progressed by a police artist to see if it looks like Doris Hammack?
That is done in missing children investigations 20 or so years down the track...what would they look like now?
Cheeky1

Response: We haven't come across any photos of Doris Hadley, daughter of Howard Hadley. But we've recently come across some strong evidence otherwise that Doris Hadley and Doris Hammack may be one in the same. Check out Doris' interview with Beatrice Carmichael here, then read the transcripts of Doris' hypnosis session.

Note to serious sleuthers: While you're waiting for answers in this case, you might want to check out a REAL unsolved mystery on America's Most Wanted's site: www.amw.com about Judith Smith's bizarre disappearance and murder.

Rayson-Sonya
*Note to Murphy*
I believe the writing on the telegram refers to the two errors on the copy of the telegram, the first one was the misspelling of the word *of* it looks like the telegrapher put the word on then scratched it out and the usage of *Sunday* when the sender meant Monday train. Bea's telephone records should be able to confirm whether she called Detroit on Saturday to talk to Robert about the telegram, and/or Doris.

[Murphy]

Snerc: Your theory is interesting. I am curious about what evidence indicates Lisa Izard was having an affair with Danahy or anyone. Also, what evidence leads you to believe LeAnne was not Richard child, but Danahy's?

I also wonder about the scenario in which Richard kills Lisa with the shovel before being slain by some other instrument. First, if Richard had killed Lisa with the shovel while wearing the gloves found at the scene, the gloves should have had blood spatter on them just as the shovel handle did. However, they are described only as "well worn and dirt encrusted." Second, I don't think Lisa's injuries would have caused the kind of blood spatter seen on the shovel. She bled considerably less than Richard and I would think his injuries are more appropriate to the blood spatter found.

I agree with others who have said the idea that Howard Hadley/Hammack is still alive is certainly intriguing and would really help the resolution of the case. Even if he is, it doesn't preclude Doris Hammack being Doris Hadley. It would be much easier for him to disappear and establish a new life without the added burden of a child. He could have felt he was unable to provide a suitable upbringing for her and she would be better off with a foster family, since Bea wouldn't bring her back to Oxford.

The telegram mix up is possible. It would be interesting to know, possibly through handwriting analysis, if it was Bea who made the note at the bottom and, if she did, why? Was she making a note to herself? Why would she do that? Was she merely venting frustration at Western Union? Or did someone else make the note? If so, who and why?

Always more questions than answers... :)

--Murphy

Response: Unfortunately it's too late to discuss the matter of the telegram with Ms. Carmichael.

I think this Doris Hammack is Doris Hadley and not the Izard girl. It seems all evidence points to that conclusion. Biddy she talked about is probably Bea and she is probably the one who took her to the girls home. The old woman, Bea, seemed a little bitter about the whole thing. I also believe Howard Hadley had something to do with the murders in 1958. I don't think he killed the Izards alone. It was prbably him and one of the other hotheads. That is why he changed his name and moved to Detroit. Bea said he was a drunk and bad tempored. Doris seems to remember that about Howard Hammack. Also, He had all of those cuts and bruises around the time of those murders.
from: curiousgeorge

Response: In Doris' hypnosis session, she mentions "Bit," and then suggests that this is Bitty Carmichael, and as you've said, even in recalling her childhood, Doris seems to remember an angry man tossing bottles around. If he did commit the Izards and worked with someone, it may be reasonable to associate Hadley and Elliot Perch, with whom he was associated later in Detroit. Both had sustained injuries the day of the murder.

Hello,
Knowing that Elliot Perch lied several times and later finding out that he was connected to the union through the mob I believe that he knows who the killer is. I think the Izard's were killed by a mob hitman and that during the murder the guy left traces that weren't suppose to be there. So Perch sent Hadley to the house to clean up the mess. That is how Howard got the ring. When he saw the blood in the kitchen around the playpen Hadley got really mad and threatened to spill the beans so to speak and in an effort to keep him quiet Perch arranged for him to get a job in Detroit. Bea Carmical being Hadley's mistress was also his confidant and therefore knew what ever Howard Hadley knew. Her statement that the Izard children were dead was something she knew for a fact. Doris is really Doris Hadley and the ring she had did belong to Mrs. Izard and she found the ring after her dad took the stones out to be sold and probably put it in her pocket like most children would do. That is how she came to have the ring. I think the union had Richard killed to press the point that you do not mess with the union and if you take payments you had better come through with the payoff. They did not use town people due to the fact that so many of the union organizers and workers were familiar with Izard and liked him and his wife. I believe that Richard was the target and his wife was only killed because she witnessed his murder so they had to silence her after which they killed the kids trying to put a stop to more outside interference then hid or disposed of the bodies where noone was likely to look. Since a manhunt for missing children would pull some attention away from the crimescene and hopefully in the search for the children any clues from the murders would get trampled under foot.
From: [email protected]

Response: Your theory about Hadley being hired by the mob to hit the Izards is interesting, though I wonder if any mob in Detroit would have him associated with them after he threatened to rat on them once already. Check out the FBI's phone tap transcripts from 1959 here to find out more about Hadley's post-Mississippi mob ties.

Rayson-Sonya
Well at this point I'm just waiting for answers to our posts and waiting for the ending of this case. I have gone over all the notes and evidence and done all the thinking I can at this point. Wishes we would hear somthing soon at least a nswer some of our posts so we can work on that.

Response: Hope the answers are helping.

I agree that Tina (Yvonne) Hawkins was a big gossip. She was also a bossy ol' thing, too, from the way she told Titus what to say and from her own statement about how she advised Lisa.

However, she was just bursting to tell everyone in the count y about the layoffs, so she was on the phone most of the afternoon, according to Lydia Catlett. I think that being the first to tell everybody about the layoffs would have taken precedence over watching the Izard's driveway. I really think that, being s uch a *talker*, she missed a lot of what went on right under her nose--for example, the cars over at Hannah Waithers, although she did say that they went to bed early. Her husband, on the other hand, *did* notice, although he assumed that it was just Fra nk bringing Hannah home.

I do think that the car was gone by 2:41 or Thomas Hinkley and Lydia Catlett would probably have seen it coming out of the driveway.

I also think that Richard and Lisa were both worried about the union vote. Ric hard had, I believe, been taking payoffs to ensure that the union would go in, and was worried, according to Lisa's mother, who said that Lisa was worried about Richard's involvement with the union.

Because Perch had been paying Richard for insid er information, this gives Perch a good motive for instigating violence against Richard, as he seems to have done at Sid's.

Several people said that Walter Hinkley took his layoff really hard. I still think that Mrs. Catlett may have told Thomas Hinkley about the layoffs, and he was scared to death that his brother had killed the Izards, which would account for his nervousness during his interview.

*If* Walter Hinkley had killed the Izards and was still at the murder scene when Thomas H inkley got there, I think that Thomas would have done what he could to help his brother--even though Richard Izard was his friend. This could account for the fact that Thomas apparently never got over the trauma of the murders; the guilt must have eaten away at him.

As for Bea coming back to Howard's house with Doris and screaming at Howard, "Where are they?": I've been thinking about that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the children had been at Howard's when she left at 4 p.m. (if that's true). She may have learned about the murders and the children's disappearance while she was gone and assumed that Howard had committed the murders and done something with the children.

*If* Doris Hammack is LeAnne Izard, then Howard and Bea w ere in it up to their necks. If Doris Hammack is Doris Hadley, then any one else could have committed the murders, with Howard and Bea not having had anything to do with the disappearance of the children.

There are just too many "ifs" in this ca se!
Elbertha

Elbeartha,
Tina Hawkins said that she heard a car roaring up the driveway a little before the schoolbus was supposed to arrive. Then when asked to narrow down that time frame, she said between 2 and 2:30p. I agree that it could have bee someone goin g into the Izard driveway, but remember that Tina Hawkins said that it was about a minute before she walked upstairs and looked at the Izard driveway. that opens up some possibilities for your theory. There is just one problem I see with the theory that the car was going up the driveway. tina was the type of small time gossip that always wants to know what's going on. I think that once she saw that cloud of dust, she would hover around and look to see who it was, she would want to know what was going on. There is only one way on and off the Izard property by car. So if that car was going up the driveway, it would have to come by out that same way. I also think that Tina Hawkins would be watching the Izard house wanting to know what Richard was doing after he laid off all those workers, so she could be the first to know some gossip. If that car was going up the Izard drive, i think that Tina would have most likely seen it leaving.

Response: Since we interviewed Ms. Hawkins, we've had reason to believe that her statement may have been exaggerated, even as little as she offered us. She has tendencies toward what we like to call an "overactive imagination."

[from Elbertha]

To: Rayson-Sonya: I finally found where the Otts verified that Bea picked Doris up between 6:30 and 7 p.m.

I agree with you that there is a conflict between that and Doris Hammack's statement under hypnosis that Bea came to get her early.

Remembering that what is said under hypnosis is what the person *believes* is true, the conflict between the two statments may indicate that Doris Hammack is really LeAnne Izard--which means that Bea was the one who took LeAnne out of her playpen on the day of the murders. *If* LeAnne is the child that Bea took care of from 1958-1959, then Bea *could* have convinced the child that the nice home (actually the Izard home) she remembered was the Otts home.

At Sid's, Ell iott Perch seemed to have been trying to stir up sentiment againt Richard Izard, as well as Harold Bowlan. If Jimmy Warren became so angry that he took a swing at Perch, perhaps it's because Perch was razzing the men about being stupid to trust Izard, bl ah, blah. That's the only reason I can think of for Jimmy Warren's attack on Perch.

Also, Richard Izard had dirt under his fingernails, along with the clod of dirt in his hand. I agree with whoever said that he may have thrown dirt into his mur derer's eyes, but I wonder if Richard was actually wearing his gloves while he was gardening. If he was wearing his gloves while gardening, why did he take them off? Maybe the gloves actually belonged to his murderer. Whoever swung the shovel had glove s on (because of the blood spatters), so the murderer either arrived with gloves on *or* put Richard's gloves on (with the pretext of helping with the gardening. This is, I guess, a moot point, since almost everybody connected apparently worked at the gl ove factory, thus having easy access to the gloves.
Elbertha

Response: It seems unlikely that Carmichael could have convinced LeAnne that her home was, in fact, a stranger's home -- the Otts.