Thu Jul 9 23:07:11 PDT 1998

-- Driza--

Did anyone think to interview the bartender on the day of the murders? Or perhaps a few weeks afterwards? Drunks tend to talk alot when they get high. Perhaps someone might have actually admitted to the bartender and it was passed off as "drunken talk" by this person and never commented on?

just a thought
( sorry for dropping out of chat Sonya )
( Driza47@Hotmail.com )

Please, oh please, Detective Nelson, toss us a scrap, so we have a shot at solving this thing before the hypnosis!

PJ Hunter: Where are you when we need ya'?! LOL

Maybe Dixon, Sonya, snerc, niki, or ANYONE will have the answers revealed in a dream tonight and post them tomorrow. Then maybe I'll get some sleep. Sweet dreams, sleuthers!

suzd

Ciaral again:
Did someone see Perch leave the Izard residence? Could that have been the catalyst to the murders?
About the Ott's...... so, Ms Carmichael picked up Doris in the evening.. what was Doris' schedule during the afternoon? Out for a stroll? Walking in the woods? Was she there All Day?
Another thought on the blood splatterings..... if you hit someone in the head from one side (i.e. leftside) does the blood splatter to the opposite side? Was Richard attacked from behind? I don't think so. anybody given this more educated thought... forensics is not my thing.

From Ciaral:
Richard Izard was found at the crimescene (by police),
face up with his head SW. He was turned over by Tommy Joe.
The blood splattered toward the NE. So, IF the perp was
right handed Richard would have been facing SW when he was
attacked (from the front). So, was someone IN his garden
when the violence began? OR did someone come from over the
pasture area fence (to the south) and confront him?
There was either a conversation going on first, where
the individuals moved around OR the killer came in from the
creek or the pasture area and confronted Richard, not from
the driveway area. Possibly the person driving the fast
moving car was not the killer. It could have been someone
else who was upset and came over to confront Richard (with
less lethal results).
If the car did not carry the killer, then the murder
time would be narrowed down to between 2:00 and 2:45. When
Tina Hawkins saw the cloud of dust, did she say which
direction the car was going? North (away from her) or South
(toward her). The car could have been driven by Perch, he
left the bar at about 1330 and if it were going North (the car) is that the way to Memphis?

FYI - Chat-ers:
Alot of us couldn't do chat if we wanted too... the chat roms available here are not WEB-TV friendly. Yes,,it's true.... some of usreally aren't using computers ):
One a da poor relatives

I agree whole-heartedly with Chris about the hypnosis.
It is not a definitive solution, it's not hard evidence and it won't PROVE anything. It will be interesting at least and something to evolve from at best.
Ciaral

Just a thought as I was re-reading Tommy Joes interview. He said he saw the bodies and all the bloody tools on the ground and Richards head and guts all bloody. Does that mean there were more than one murder weapon other than the shovel and was Richard mutilated other than being struck in the head. Is this a sign of more than one murderer? And did they ever find any vehicle that may have been the one with the tire track found at the Izards' home? As well the foot print could have been just about anyone from the factory as well as Tommy Joe himself if he was used to wearing heavy boots during his mail route. Was he asked what type of boots he wore during that day? Just more questions with fewer answers!! And if Doris does go under hypnosis does her knowing much of the murder facts help? Will this influence her knowledge under hypnosis? Has Doris been thrown in to get us all mixed up with the large amount of information we have already about the case? If there is a chance that Doris is really an Izard family member what is the chance that little Ricky is still out there? How about trying hypnosis on more than Doris? How about Tommy Joe. And many others? Hmmmm. How sure can we be of the evidence Doris have come up with under hypnosis? Is she so sure she is from the family that this will give her a false past even though she may not be an Izard? Chris

Rayson-Sonya
I think the natives are getting restless....lol.It just shows we are frustrated a mark of a true puzzler,we turn on ourselves. Niki is right we first thought it was Perch but it was too obvious, Denahy,Hinkleys,now Hadley and Co.he definately needed help. Makes me think of a post a while back.....the butler did it! I'm sticking to my senario unless something earth shattering happensbetween now and then. We created a senario for each time we thought we nailed it, really anyone could be right like I said before we will have a good laugh when this is over cheers to the one who is the closest.....
see ya

[From: Dixon Hill]

Khruhschev: Your theory certainly works from purely a nuts-and-bolts perspective, but I'm not sure it agrees with what we know of Bowlan's personality. What motive did he have? [My guess: If I were defending your theory, I'd say he knew that Izard was double-timing him. Was he that bitter of a man that he would plan and execute a murder just for payback?]

Also, I'm not sure I really believe Bowlan could intimidate or encourage his whole family to be accomplices in first degree murder --- an offense punishable by death in 1958 Mississippi. So who actually carried out the murder act?

I'm asking these questions not to attack you or your theory but to try to arrive at the truth. I believe this crime was planned and orchestrated by a single very smart person. The only other "global" explanations I can believe are: (a) there were separate multiple crimes and the evidence is all mixed together, or (b) it really was a crime of passion with lots of people acting independently and every one covering it up.

I don't really believe (b). I've never heard of a case where someone didn't have something to gain by blabbing, or where everyone had the nerves to keep quiet. Someone always cracks --- nobody did on this case, so I don't believe (b).

Suzd: I vehemently agree, why hide the kids? Maybe there was a planned kidnapping that went awry or got interrupted by a separate murder? Now I am the one coming up with crazy and ridiculous theories. You're right, this is getting harder, not easier.

The only way I can see that the hypnosis will close the case is that it will reveal "the end of the thread in the knot." What I mean is that maybe she saw something that will point us at a person, a location, and an act/thing/time/whatever. I assume it would be enough to start an investigation and people would start pointing fingers and "opening up" in order to avoid or reduce their criminal charges.

That's my bet and I'm sticking to it! :-)
My goal is for us all, as a team, to solve the case before the hypnosis session occurs and the results revealed. I think it's a pretty stiff challenge and I'm not at all sure we can even do it.

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Bowlan was 60 at the time of the murders. Bowlan's wife would be around his age, wouldn't you think? His children would be in their 20's or 30's, right? The whole family got together that day. Doesn't this sound like the perfect set-up to you? We have the person who could have orchestrated such a well-planned murder (Bowlan), an "old-biddy" (his wife or even an out of state family member who was older), several out of state family members who could have easily removed the children from the Oxford area. There is no need for a big conspiracy theory. One family could have done it all, and it could have all been organized by Bowlan. he even had the resources to rough up Warren and some of the others, so their injuries looked suspicious, and kept suspicion away from him.
Niki said that it was a well planned murder, who knew that the layoffs were going to be that day, and that there would be 153+ suspects? Even Richard didn't know there were going to be layofs until an hour before he announced it. Why wouldn't you tell your own foreman that you were going to lay off so many people? Wouldn't you need to prepare to hire people to replace them? Bowlan has an ironclad alibi, like he PLANNED to make sure he was never under suspicion.

Khruhschev

Suzd,
As I wrote before, my only intention was to teach the poster something new. To ignore a mistake does not help him or her to learn. I wanted to let that person know of his or her mistake, so that, when he or she needs to use a similar sentence structure on something more important than this website, they would know the proper way of doing it. I'm very disappointed that my efforts to help someone else have been criticized. If, in fact, I had been passing judgement on this person, what makes your attempts to pass judgement on me any different?

The English Teacher

Response:Discussion of this sort would be best left to e-mail. Lets keep the great conversations about this case the focus here.

To all: I think everyone is doing an excellent job in this forum.
Nelson

I keep thinking about the garden. Did anyone every think about digging it up to see if Ricky was buried there?

[from suzd]

Two comments made today that especially drew my attention:

1. RLockH mentions, why conceal children's dead bodies? No effort to conceal adults. Why indeed? My answer would be that they were NOT killed. Assuming this, they were either spirited out of town, or hidden (disguised). It seems clear that Leann's disappearance is tied to Hadley. My earlier theory includes a part about Ricky be adopted out through Perch's underworld connections. I think this still holds up. If it turns out that Ricky is dead, I'd still wonder about the bus driver...his biographical info and interview contains some things that read to me like signs of a potential molester.

2. Niki's "rediscovery" of Perch's feelings toward Richard Izard really rocked me, too. How did I overlook/forget this? Who the heck could have been paying Richard off then? The locals were newly introduced to Perch's union ideas, they wouldn't have had the cash. Could the money really have come from Bowlan? Was Richard Izard double dealing? Every day there are more, not less, doubts created in my mind about this case!

Also, the more I think about the planned hypnosis session, the more I fail to understand how it will supposedly bring a swift conclusion to this case. Regardless of WHO Doris is, what could any small child really have seen clearly enough to explain all the complexities of this case? Even if she witnessed the murder of the Izards, would hypnosis reveal enough concrete details to close the case? Would the child even have known what happened to Ricky? Or will the publicity about the hypnosis session bring one of the original participants out of the woodwork to confess!?!? Perhaps that's the angle.

Addendum to Dixon: I also find more enjoyment from the sight when I feel I'm exchanging ideas directly with others--positive reinforcement of my ideas or eye-openers from others. I have tried the assigned chat room several times, but usually no one is there. If sharing ideas and having friendly exchanges were not part of the game, we could all just go read a book! Also, as a former English major, I certainly appreciate the use of good grammer, but as a member of the real world, I try to have a tolerance of poor grammer, naive theories, utterly stupid babble, and off-topic comments. Hopefully, people will have the same tolerance for me when I'm clumsy with words, naive, stupid and off-topic. Aw, heck, just ignore me! :-)

suzd

More on the Lisa-first element of the Snerc Theory-----In my Snerc Theory, posted July 5 6:23:50, and in earlier postings I have contended that Lisa died first, killed by Richard who was later killed by Danahy. The opinion that Lisa died first was based on the finding that her blood was drier than Richards. However, Det. Nelson did raise some doubt by noting that Lisa bled less which might account for the quicker drying.-----However, I have noted some additional evidence to support this part of the theory. The clean, bloodless spots on the handle where the shovel were held are about two feet apart. A strong enraged killer like Danahy would be more likely to swing the shovel like a baseball bat with both hands together. The clean spots on this handle suggest the shovel was held in a digging position. During an argument Lisa was probably standing behind Richard while he was digging. He probably swung arond without changing his grip and hit Lisa. She would have fallen backward away from the garden into the position where she was found.-----When Danahy arrived, probably while Richard was scooping the hidden payoff money from the ground and getting dirt in his hands, he probably killed Richard with some other weapon which he took away with him. Richard's blood on the shovel from the extensive spatter from his wounds.

I may be wrong about the garden and the child, or children being burried there, but I still believe one, if not both are dead, and burried somewhere near the house, maybe near the creek, or in or by Ricky's playhouse that was mentioned, I still believe that is what stopped Ricky before he got up the driveway, and that would also explain why the backpack and blanket were found where they were, and the car speeding out of the driveway before the schoolbus got there, and the blood on Tommy Joe and his nervousness. I still believe Danahy committed the murders, and Booker, and Tommy Joe's brothers were there, and they took off scared when Danahy killed the Izzards, in a state of panic, because they had gone there to talk to Mr. Izzard and Danahy got carried away and killed them, they left fast leaving Danahy behind, and probably passed Tommy Joe, and Tommy Joe knew his brother was there. When he got there, I think Danahy threatened Tommy Joe that if he did not help him, in disposal or removal of the children and their bodies, he would tell the law that his brother was part of the murders, I think then Danahy made his escape while Tommy Joe was making the call. I think Hadley if he had any part in it it was a small part, maybe Danahy called him to get a ride, or hid out at his house or Danahy, Booker, and Tommy Joe's brother, one or all blabbed it to Hadley. But I definitely believe Danahy committed the crime.

I think that hypnosis has it's place,but I don't think
it should end this case. There are too many false memory
things to show it may not provide proof.
Ciaral

I think that hypnosis has it's place,but I don't think
it should end this case. There are too many false memory
things to show it may not provide proof.
Ciaral

[From: Dixon Hill]

Snerc: I could buy the idea that Carmichael was the woman who dropped off Doris Hammack at Immaculata. Can't say that I buy the idea she was the "old biddy" though. I like your analysis of Doris' dreams. The Izard garden was thoroughly examined and excavated, though. How do you reconcile that with your idea the Richard was digging up the bulk of the payoff money?

Cheeky1: Nope it wasn't my theory that the girls were switched. I'm against it, not for it... (Guess I'll wear some egg on my face if it turns out otherwise!) Maybe it was rayson-Sonya's?

The bit about the childhood photos is really bugging me because we haven't seen the photo of young Doris Hadley. But I thought is was worth noting that (grown) Doris Hammack reacted much more emotionally to that photo (which she has seen but we haven't) than she did to anything else in the website.

Niki: So was Perch a part of the actual murder act, a part of the cover-up, a part of the planning, or what?

English Teacher (and others): as I wrote, "Some folks won't understand..." I hope you didn't think I was accusing you of being critical or picky. Apologies in advance if I came across that way.

To "Get a Life:" Did you honestly think I was trying to be superior? I hope not. Let me clarify my point... this entertainment website is, after all, a very public forum. We know absolutely nothing about each other aside from what we read here. My understanding of the purposes of this comment page is that they are twofold: (1) to ask questions of Det. Nelson and his staff, and (2) to collaborate with other amateur sleuths in attempting to solve the case ourselves. There are plenty of automated writing aids available... we are using computers! So what I have been expressing is frustration at the occaisional lack of care demonstrated by some. It grates on the nerves a bit. Perhaps I was being a little too harsh -- I apologize.

Now, I'll guess your mystery. A wild guess. Perhaps you're the anti-mystic who chants "Oh What A Loon I Am" in response to the person who suggested a psychic?

About the "mutual admiration society." I think it's nice that most posters here have very good manners AND that they often try to affirm each other in their strengths. There's precious little of THAT going around these days. Being nice to total strangers is part of A LIFE.

Finally: I guess you've proved your superiority over me. I haven't the foggiest notion what ABEO stands for.

[SoapBoxMode=OFF] [OffTopicTangentMode=OFF]

This case is a lot of fun trying to solve, but it's like trying to put together a spring-loaded puzzle set with a few EXTRA pieces. Every time I think someone's got it solved, something comes apart.

--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

does anyone know if danahy and hammack were friends and if so...could they possibly be working as a team to kill the izards?
also, what has happened with the boy child?...i think someone mentioned that he wass a boy scout, but could that be enough for him to survive in the wilderness...and where would he go afterward?...if he could survive would anyone have taken him in and not reported it?...
i think that danahy(sp?) killed the izards and was somehow taken in by the young girl leann, maybe she was his child from an affair?...but keeping the child with him would be too risky so he pawned her off to hammack for money...
just a thought
-jIV

[niki]

I've been rereading everything, starting from scratch trying to remeber some of my initial impressions. While rereading perch's interview, I came upon something that I've overlooked the millions of times I've reread this data - Perch didn't think that Richard was on their side. He didn't seem to be under the impression that Richard Izzard supported unionization:

Perch says "He just fired everybody. Him and Bowlan. Got their way. No union, sure. Sure. Make everybody scared of the union, then give 'em the ax."

Then McPhail says "He wasn't interested in your union ideas was he?" to which Perch replies "He was management. They never are."

niki

Many people have mistaken my intent when correcting the grammar of someone who posted two days ago. My intent was not to embarass the poster, to be extremely picky, or to point out "horrendous" grammar. My intent was only to teach someone something, and to expand their knowledge. I naturally assumed that the poster was a child, and wanted to teach that child something new. Good writing skills are important in this age, and I believe that we can learn new things in the most unexpected places. there was no malicious intent behind my comment, and I apologize if it seemed malicious. I only wanted to help someone improve.

The English Teacher

[niki]

Becky, there's one problem with your theory. Howard hadley didn't want Beatrice Carmicheal to send his daughter to Michigan. He wanted Beatrice to take care of her, and kept postponing the time when Doris was supposed to come stay with him.

[from RLockH]
Whoops! Just posted an incomplete comment. Hope it doesn't show up.

Here's my guess ('fraid it's not too detailed):
Doris Hammack is Doris Hadley, not LeAnn Izard. Howard Hadley killed the Izards (probably because he was angry about the lay-offs) and Doris may have witnessed the murders. This could be possible; as someone mentioned in an earlier posting, Beatrice Carmichael's statement is the only one that says Doris Hadley was staying with the Otts, and she's not exactly an unbiased witness. However, the background interviews were just supposed to be representative of the 100s of other background interviews we didn't get to see, and I suppose it's possible there are some collaborative statements among them. If so, then maybe Doris didn't see the murders, but did see her father afterwards, perhaps covered in blood.
The description of Howard Hammack (loud, and a drunk) fits Howard Hadley. He could be the bad man of Doris' dreams, he sounds pretty scary to me. Maybe her being 'rescued' refers to the Otts looking after her when Hadley was on the rampage, or maybe it refers to Beatrice Carmichael taking her in.
I don't know how much Carmichael knows about the murders, or Howard's part in them. Having reread her interview with Doris, the things that scare her are discovering Doris has the Izards' ring (maybe then she realises that for his daughter to have the ring, Howard must have been involved in the murders), and Doris talking about being hypnotised (why would this scare Carmichael unless she wanted something kept hidden?)
Unfortunately this theory probably means the Izard kids were killed too (though if they didn't drown, why conceal their bodies? The killer had no qualms about leaving the parents' bodies where they'd fallen).
I still think Doris Hammack resembles the photo of LeAnn Izard, so I'm really not sure about my theory! I wonder if Doris has seen the photo of Howard Hadley (I know she had to ask Beatrice Carmichael if she had a photo of him, so maybe she hasn't) - it would be interesting if she recognized Hadley having failed to recognize Richard Izard...

from Cheeky1
Well I have to agree with snerc about the upcoming hypnosis.
Just because there is a hypnosis session coming up and the case will be solved after that does not mean Doris Hammmack is Leanne Izard.
Doris Hadley went through trauma and apart from bad memories of her dad may have terrible hidden memories of people coming over and shouting after the murders. Also she may remember being given the ring by her father.
I have also thought about the dead Doris/take Leanne theroy..as posted by someone else (maybe Dixon) but ruled it out as too far-fetched given that there is a payback element.
Cheeky1

My personal therory is totally different from everyone elses. I believe Henery Hadley, being a drunk, and known for haveing tantrum fits when drunk, killed his two year old daughter Doris. He sees liz and is amazed by how much the two children look alike. He becomes obsessed with the child and has to have her. He"ll do anything to get her and he does. He comes over and kills the parent with the shovel, and if stories are correct, he drowned the boy in a lake. Then he posses the child as his daughter. He hires Ms. Carmmichael and finds a job at a store... that would explain his injuries. Mrs. Izard probably struggled at one point and scratched his cornea. The Knuckles being cracked and bloody was probably from beating the couple to death. Anyways, after working there and poissing the child for a year, he feels its safe to leave. He moves to michigan, and later his daughter goes to him. Then they change their last names. He becomes sick, probably from his drinking, and when he dies, Ms. Carmmichael comes and takes her to the orphange... I think she knows more than she's telling... or else she wouldn't have been so jumpy. Well that's my theroy.

Becky

Snerc Theory Loose-Ends-----This posting attempts to tie up a few additional details to support the Snerc Theory which I posted July 5, 6:23:50.-----(1) Doris' dreams--The dreams of murdered parents and a lost daddy and a mean bad man initialy seem more like the dreams of LeAnne than of Doris Hadley, until you remember Hadley's personality change when Doris was about two years old. Apparently, he was a relatively reatrained and caring father for two years and then that side of his personality disappeared and he became a loud and abusive drunk.-----(2) Woman in Detroit--The Snerc theory identifies Carmichael as the "old Biddy" and there is strong evidence that she was also the woman in Detroit. The letter statedthe little girl had no living relatives which is information no casual acquaintance or neighbor would have, but which was repeated by Caremichael in her interview with Doris Hammock. Of course, LeAnne had living grandparents who are major figures in the Snerc theory.-----(3) Stolen Package--Hawkins claimed a package of linens was stolen from their mail. This may be extraneous to the case - or it may be more significant. Someone, perhaps Perch, who was unsure of addresses may have thought it was a package for the Izards which might contain payoff money from the union.-----(4) Digging in the Garden--The idea of Izard playing in his vegatable garden while the layoff anger was erupting in town seems unreasonable. It is more likely that Izard was digging up the bulk of the payoff money. Remember, payoffs were rumored to exceed $5,000 and only $500 was found in the house. The chance to steal a large sum of money may have been part of the motivation to kill and not just beat Izard. You have to wonder if any of this money was used to fund Danahy's commune.-----(5) Hadley's Injuries--The hospital confirmed his injuries were cosistent with a fall and that may be all there is to that. However, with all the other fights going on, you have to wonder if Hadley did not realize that Danahy and his boys killed the Izards, confronted them and was badly beaten The fight and related admissions about
the killing may be the only information that Doris can provide under hypnosois.

To Dixon Hill,English Teacher and ilk....
This is just a web site, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to participate AND grammar is no sign of intellect, it's a sign of education. Maybe the person you're criticizing is young and their creative thinking processes shouldn't be stiffled by nit-pickers who think they're superior. GET A LIFE!
Here's a mystery for you.... who am I?
P.S. Also, could the mutual admiration society do their thing in private or through chat? ABEO!

[From: Dixon Hill]

To rayson-Sonya: Sorry I dropped out of chat. The channel got hung and I couldn't see any updates. Hope you got my e-mail address.

-- Dix Hill

See Below...

Repeat after me: taloo niam ohwha taloo niam ohwha taloo niam

[From: Dixon Hill]

The Izard garden has already been excavated. Nothing was found. The Hadley grounds, however, were not excavated.

Different topic... When looking at the map of the crime scene, there are several very large trees on the opposite side of the road from where Ricky was last seen after being dropped off by the school bus. Is there any possibility that he saw or heard something, turned tail and ran across the street, and hid amongst the trees (maybe even climbing one)?? I think there is a remote possibility that a small boy could have hidden in such a way that a group of adults would have had difficulty finding him.

Of course, if that's what happened, it only begs the question of where he went next.

Just a thought.
     --- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Have you thought of using a psychic detective to solve the murders?

Just a thought, could Danahay, Hinkley(Tommy Joe's brother), and Booker, gone out to the Izzard's, in Booker's car, tto talk to Izzard, or fight with him. Danahay already had qualms with Mr. Izzard, namely him marrying his old girlfriend,the layoffs (I think Bowlan knew the people layed off would be mad, and planted the idea in their heads it was Izzard's fault, then purposely took off out of town), I think Izzard was in on the union meetings, or at least supported them, but the people layed off felt betrayed by him, when Bowlan laid the blame on him. I think Danahay, Hinkley, and Booker went out there drunk, and argued with Izzard, they argued, Danahay got mad swung the shovel, Mrs. Izzard got in the way, she accidently got hit and was killed, Mr. Izzard saw what happened and came at Danahay, who swung the shovel again and hit Mr. Izzard, and stunned him, or killed him, and in his anger continued to hit him, that is why he was so mutalated. Booker and Hinkley paniced, jumped in Booker's car and took off as fast as they could, that is the dust and car the neighbor heard.
I think then Danahay realized the child was still in the house, and either killed her then, and burried her, or took her, and was planning on making an escape, I think he took off maybe with the child down the driveway, but heard the bus comming, before he could make his getaway, ducked down in the ditch to hide, Ricky got off the bus, the bus left, ricky started off up the drive, but stopped, maybe he heard his little sister cry out, maybe he just saw movement. That would explain why he had not gone to far up the driveway when the bus passed by again, and what the driver said he seemed to be looking at.
After the bus drove on by, I think Danahay jumped out, grabbed Ricky, maybe Ricky put up a struggle, and Danahay either purposely, or accidently killed him. I think Hinkly and Booker by then had passed by Tommy Joe in a hurry, Tommy Joe continued on his route, he either got to the driveway at the Izzard's in time to see the struggle going on between Danahay and Ricky, or after Ricky was dead. Maybe he even tried to help Ricky, but Ricky died anyway, that might explain the blood on Tommy Joe, and I think Danahay threatened Toommy Joe, that if he told, or did not help him he would tell that his brother was there to when the murders took place, I think then they had either already killed Leann, or had killed her, but I think either way she was there at the driveway when all this happened, If they did not kill her I think they took her with Danahay. I think if you dig up the garden, you will probably find one or both children's bodies.
If Danahay kept Leann, he could of easily gotten rid of her, through the blackmarket, and he did not really have to worry about Leann talking. I think Hadley was among those that beat up that other guy, and that would explain his appearences after the murders. I think Danahay had taken the ring during the murders, and given it to Hadley, or sold it to him. I think Doris is Hadleys daughter, not Leann Izzard.
I think he took and went over to Hannahs, and hid out there, until later when the coast was cleared, and wlaked out, or waited there until Hannah got home, and then left, but either way I think Hannah, knows something about it, I think Hadley, also knew something about it, what I am not for sure, but I think if you dig up the garden, you might find answers to alot of these questions.

Rayson-Sonya

Also I noted Niki's work, a handful of people did return in 1960 also noted that several of those joined Jessie's commune. Thinks they were involved with Warren's beating.
I believe that Niki suggested once that maybe 1960 was when the case was officially closed if so that is why so many returned during that year it would make sense.

Since I read the comments when I can I don't always remember who posts an idea especially when I am typing in the comment section, yes I am guilty of paraphrasing from time to time I don't mean to offend if I don't get something completely accurate it is meant to show that I consider all opinions.

[From: Dixon Hill]

PS: The only evidence I've found that Doris Hadley was at the Otts' at the time of the murders was from Det. McPhail's notes of a short interview he held with Beatrice Carmichael. I haven't found anything to suggest that there was any attempt at corroborating this story. And it seems the Otts' were not interviewed at the time. (Hmm... "English Teacher," what's the proper form of the possessive, plural possesive, and simple plural, for "Otts?" The babysitters were Mr. & Mrs. Steve Otts.)

regards,
    -- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Rayson-Sonya

To: Niki
I did not mean to offend, I read the comment a couple of days ago and was paraphrasing when I included it in my theory but I figured whoever had her may have been working on her for sometime possibly as long as a year and she may have accepted name change.I was just saying it was possible. In this case anything is possible and we will see how far off we maybe or whose is the closest in two weeks. All the senarios I have seen are all good ones I expect we will all share a laugh when this is over......
But I cannot wait until the next case to start.

[From: Dixon Hill]

Niki: You are so right when you say that this case contains TOO MUCH information. I think we could use a threshing machine here. BTW, I didn't get to have my "spread out the notes session" yet. I did, however, try a little experiment with my three-year-old son. We played "change your name!" It was very easy to convince him to change his last name to virtually anything. But no matter how I tried, he always responded to his real first name, and couldn't remember to use any other name.... "I'm Davy!"

I think this bears out your theory that someone could convince little Doris Hadley to "be" Doris Hammack, where they couldn't convince a little girl named LeAnne to become Doris. Imagine something like the following exchange... "I'm Dorrie." "'Dorrie' who?" "I dunno..." "Well, it says here 'Hammack'."

Suzd: Your point about the Otts is exactly one of the things that's troubling me. Now, I'm treating this case the way I'd solve a mystery film or book... in that there's a storyteller who puts things in either to further the story or to deliberately mislead. Everything is a facade to simulate more being there than actually is. In Real Life [TM] the "Real Storyteller" puts in a humongous number of details, many of which are *totally* unrelated and which may mislead but were not intended to do so.

Sorry for the tangent. Guess I'm "thinking aloud." Anyway, because of the above reasoning, I've reached the conclusion that Doris had to have witnessed the murder, because you cannot presume the case automatically ends after that unless you know beforehand that what she will reveal will wrap up the case.

So... working backwards... the question is 'Was she really "safely ensconced at the Otts'"' or were they involved? Or did we miss something? Or have I blown it and she really is LeAnne?

Although I still believe Doris Hammack is Doris Hadley, I think part of Rayson-Sonya's idea, that she ("Hammack's little girl" -- whichever she might be) was cared for by Wes Hannaford and his mother, could make sense. The "old biddy" was certainly an older woman. The "mean man" could have been Howard Hadley, or it could have been Wes Hannaford. Or, as her memories dimmed with time, it could have been both.

"The Cheeky One's" observations are right on! Boy did I miss that one. Wish we had asked for more information about the farm supply...

And... someone left an unsigned message below proposing that the getaway car didn't go very far. Bingo! I think that would explain a lot. Why did we miss that?

Shansynn1 asked if we were forgetting about Richard. I assume she means Richard Jr., i.e. little Ricky. I don't think we're forgetting about him at all. From my point of view, at least, there is simply too little evidence to allow his disappearance to be directly solved, so I keep hoping that if we can piece together the rest of what happened that day, the story of what happened to Ricky will naturally "fall out." Or... we may simply never know. I know it's unsatisfying but it sometimes happens that way.

Finally: Thank You, "English Teacher." Some folks won't understand, and some may accuse you of being picky, but you're doing the world a service. Typos are one thing. Horrendous grammar and misspelling as a repeated habit are another.


    --- Dixon Hill, P.I.

maybe the old man who owned the glove factory had the Izard's knocked off after finding out Mr. Izard had been taking payoffs from the union guy.He really seemed like an asshole.


Smokey

[from Niki]

fellow amateur sleuths,
I have found more things that went on in 1960. I'll list them for you below, but I'd like to make this one comment: In this case there is TOO MUCH information. This is like putting together a puzzle, with pieces from other puzzles mixed in. We must go back to the bare facts, and find what fits.

*Pete corey, Harvey Booker, and Jesse Danahy returned to Oxford in 1960 from being in New Orleans and Memphis for two years.
*Frank Valenti moved to Georgia in 1958 and then marrieda Russian immigrant in 1960, and the two of them moved to Miami.

Thank you so much, Dixon Hill P.I. and Cheeky1 for your support, and the validation of my observations. I must admit that if this were a contest to figure out the murderer, you two and rayson would be tough competition, the three of you really get me thinking.

Niki

I think Mr. Hadley killed the Izards. The little girl saw her parents get killed. He couldn't kill her. He fell in love with the child. He took her and raised her as his own. She could be the daughter that died along with his wife. So he hired Ms. Carmmichael. He thought maybe he could get a family back to him since they both died. She refused to marry him so he decided to move. People would a reconize the girl if they saw her. He couldn't take that chance. He told her to watch the child untill he found a job. Which he did and then when he got her, he changed their last name. well he got sick, cause of his drinking. He died and the a lady came to take her to the convent.

To the person who posted a comment at 16:16:49 PDT on Monday, July 6, 1998:

The correct phrasing is not "he would of had to," but "he would have had to," or "he would've had to"; not "could she of," but "could she have"; not "could Tommy Joe's brother of done it," but "could Tommy Joe's brother have done it"; not "how little Ricky could of," but "how little Ricky could have." The word "of" is a preposition, the word "have" is a verb. The two words are not interchangeable

The English Teacher

whoever that was that saiid that doris hammack can not be one of the children because of the year difference is not reading dates very carefully. LeAnn Izard disappeared on April 11, 1958 at the age of two. On June 21, 1958 LeAnn Izard would have been three years old. On June 21, 1959, LeAnn Izard would have been four years old. On June 21, 1959 LeAnn Izard would have been five years old. On August 23, 1959 doris Hammack a five year old girl (the same age as LeAnn) was dropped off at the orphanage. There is no age difference, and it is very possible that Doris is LeAnn. I believe that it is not LeAnn, but it is still possible that it is her, and age difference is certainly not a valid reason for ruling out the possibility that she is LeAnn. The reason being that there is no age difference.
Niki

[from: Niki}
to Rayson
I said that LeAnn Izard would object to a drastic name change rom LeAnn to Doris because of the type of child she was. I said that Doris Hadley, a docile, submissive child, would not react to someone telling her that her last name has changed. Please do not misquote me.
Niki

I think Ms. Carmicheal may have been the one who dropped Doris off at the Catholic school. Or she is hiding something. Because of the way she reacted when Doris said she was going to get hypnotized.
If she really is Doris Hadley then I think Howard Hadley killed Richard and Lisa and took the ring and gave it to Doris. Or if she is Le Ann then I think who ever killed her parents took her. And Ricky Jr ran off somewhere or is dead.
J.D.

Rayson-Sonya

Well since we have only two weeks left to wrap up this case I will post my theory. I believe that Howard Hadley committed the murders.I also believe that he moved to Michigan changed his identity and became Howard Hammack. Ms. Carmichael took care of Howard's daughter Doris then sent her to live with him in 1959. Hammack/Hadley died in 1960 then Ms. Carmichael received the house after he died. I believe that LeAnne was taken to Michigan and raised by Wes Hannaford and his mother (mean man and old biddy) after Hammack/Hadley died, LeAnne was taken to the orphanage and passed off as Doris Hammack(someone said before that a small child will argue if you change their name not necessarily plenty of kids have been adopted or are in hiding and have their names changed all the time small children can be persuaded very easily). I believe this because the grown up Doris remembers her nightmares,remembers the mean man, remembers the old biddy, remembers going to the orphanage, remembers the blanket being cut and the ring, she was in therapy for years as a result of her dreams most more than likely a therapist would have encouraged her to see if her dreams were based on reality starting her search process.She hired a detective to search for anyone who knew Howard Hammack she spent alot of time and effort to find the truth. Since the real Doris Hadley was safe at the Otis's during the murders, the grown up Doris has to be LeAnne Izard . I think her hypnotist session will verify this it is the only thing that make since at this time.

I have AOL 3.0 and 4.0. First, my AOL 4.0 stopped working, for some reason it just stopped responding! Then my AOL 3.0 stopped working, it says AOL put an invalid page vault in or something? I don't know what's wrong! So I decided to download a new AOL 3.0, but it said the same thing. I don't know what to do! I love AOL, and I want to keep it, but it's hard when I can't even get my AOL to come up!! What's the problem?

I AM WOUNDERING IF THER IS A STANDARD REGULATINS FOR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION THAT CAN BE FOLLOWED BY EVERY SOCO, IN THE FIELD. FURTHER WHAT IS THE STANDARD PROTOCOL FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK.
FAHAD ALDOUSARI
KUWAIT POLICE FORCE

[suzd, part II]

Another thought, probably from left field:

Reference background interview: "1020 hours, Mrs. Mable Anderson, Chairwoman of Bethlehem Baptist Home Visitation
Committee... stated that Miz Izard particularly looked out for the children and the elderly people on their list, checking with a sharp eye on their medical conditions."

As a nurse, with her "eye" out, might Lisa have noticed signs of abuse on Doris Hadley? Perhaps she hounded Hadley or threatened to go to the police. This might have added to Hadley's rage at the Izards. His muddled thinking may have led to the thought, "You're not going to take my baby, I'm gonna take YOURS!" or something like that.

Heck, I don't know!

suzd

Well, the new information doesn't seem too helpful. I'm interested in Cheeky1's questions about why Hadley was hired at the farm supply. (Good observation!) And the perosn who commented on Jul 6 16:16:49 PDT 1998 mentioned the possibility of the "speeding" car disappearing into another driveway (possibly Hannah's). That's worth thinking about. And Dixon, I guess you're right about Doris witnessing the murder because of the hypnosis angle. Unfortunately it still doesn't ring true to me. If she witnessed it, then she is LeAnn, because Doris Hadley was safely ensconced at the Otts' at that time. If she is LeAnn, I just can't figure what happened to her, unless you (or was it PJ, sorry) are right about McPhail orchestrating the children's disappearance. Still, even if it was for their own protection, how cruel for the grandparents! Were they later told? Was there any inofrmation about what happened to the grandparents in the case files? I don't remember.

Still frustrated,

suzd

In all the talk about Doris Hammack/Doris Hadley/Lisa Izard aren't we forgetting Richard? Yes he was older and if you beleive the rhyme then sure he drowned in the river what really happened to him??? Ms. Carmicheal stated that she watched other children could he have been one of them???
I haven't the slightest clue about who killed the Izards because there are so many unanswered questions. The suspect list is too great.
I think Mr. Izard was taking kickbacks for getting the union organized in the plant and when it fell through some one killed him most likely whoever was supplying the money and from the looks of things Valenti could definately be a candidate but I thought this was a case of who Doris really is and not neccessarily who killed Lisas parents. It may turn up that this case never gets solved and she may or may not be the Izard child, either way she was too young to remember what happened the day her parents were killed and even if she did it would be too jumbled. Things look very different from a childs eyes and their perception at sucha young age is off.
Well thats all I have to say and hope we come to some conclusion real quick casue this is all too confusing.

Shansynn1

doris hammock cannot be one of the children because there is a two year difference between her being put in a foster home and the date of the murder. By the way, doris was five when she was put in foster care the age of the children were two and six. this is a three year gap. This proves that doris must have been on the street for two years and she would have had to be three when she dissapeared. But the age of the child was two.

I belive that you should do a full DNA check with doris and the izzard blood. They must have kept it in some kind of lab as evidence. I don't belive that doris would have waited this long to tell people that she was one of the children missing. By the way, where are the other children who were also missing. I would ask doris if she knows who they are and where they can be found.

From Cheeky1

An observation which I don't think has been in the comments yet....
Why, when so many people at the Bowlan Glove Factory had been laid off, would the Farm Supply company employ Howard Hadley?
Presumably there was hot competition for the job he got.
And he was employed despite a history as a troublemaker and union sympathizer AND having injuries from the alleged "roofing accident." He was on light duties the first week.
So who hired him?
And why was he hired?
Cheeky1

can't see anything much yet in the new info.

How about comparing DNA from Doris and the victims? Either from the evidence taken at the crime scene or exhuming the bodies.

Det. Nelson;

Be careful of Hypnosis. Doris knows to much about the case and this will taint the process. The reason courts will not accept information from hypnosis.

A few things are not making sense. For one Tommy Joe the mailman said he got the blood all over him when he tried to revive Mrs. Izzard and then he said he did not move the bodies, in order for him to try to revive her, he would of had to of moved her, espescially with all that blood all over him. Also Mrs. Hawkins said she heard a car tear out of the Izzard's driveway before the bus got there, and then she heard the bus pull up. She also distinctly said that it was a he driving the car, but did not see the car, but saw the cloud of dust the car left in the driveway, I think she knows more then she is saying, I think she knows who the killer is, and saw the killer and the car. I think either she is covering up for whoever killed the Izzards, or is afraid to tell, but either way I think she needs to be requestioned, possibly even take a lie detector test, but I am pretty convinced she knows something she is not saying. I also believe Mrs. Catlet knows more than she is telling to. Could she of possibly found the Izzard children after the murder and took and hid them,afraid to say anything, and afraid for the children's safety, maybe sent them off to live with some of her relatives, for their own protection. What about Hannah, I think she too know's who the murderer is, and maybe was part of the murder? Has anyone checked out her alibi about shopping the day of the murder, she seemed awful quick to come up with the alibi, and seemed kind of nervous, espescially when Frank Abbotts name was mentioned. Could she of maybe seen the murderer, known who it was, and lured Ricky away that day, after he got off the schoolbus, and by then maybe the murderer had allready left before the schoolbus got there. Maybe then the murderer went over to her house, and that would explain how the car disappeared so quickly and noone saw it?
Maybe the murderer was hiding at her house after he committed the murders, and saw Ricky come home, and get off the school bus, and grabbed him then, then he killed or stole Ricky, by then he either had LeAnn, or had killed her and didposed of the body.
This all would explain how the car Mrs. Hawkins heard and the cloud of dust disappeared so fast, and noone saw it after that. The car simply went over to Hannahs, and was hidden. That would explain how Ricky disappeared even thought the car was supposedly allready gone by the time the bus arrived, and it also explains how come Ricky disappeared so quickly between the time the bus driver last saw him and the mailman arrived.
Also could Tommy Joe's brother of done it, and Tommy saw him leave the Izzard's, went to check out what was going on at the Izzard's after he saw his brother speed away, and found the bodies. Then Ricky got home, also discovered his parent's bodies, and Tommy Joe, and paniced, maybe then Tommy Joe in his own state of panic killed little Ricky, and that would explain the amount of blood on him, he probably also killed Leann, worried that Ricky would tell, something. Did the blood on him ever get checked to see if it really did belong to the two older Izzards, or not? Were there any finger prints, on the shovel, were the neighbors yards examined for possible evidence, and possibly fresh dirt dug up? I still think it would be worth our time to dig up the Izzard garden, I think we might turn up something. Also did anyone check out Ricky's playhouse, maybe he, and or Leann went there to hide from the murder? It might be worth a look. Also it would be interesting to find out if Frank Abbot, or Dunahy smoked cigarettes, and if there were any cigarette butts around the Izzard porch, where Mrs. Catlet saw someone smoking with Mr. Izzard, and if any of the suspects smoked those brands. I think I would like to know who Izzard was talking to, on those nights, when the union meetings were going on across the road. I think whoever it was either involved in the murders, knows who it was, or maybe was the cause of the deaths.
It just does not make sense how little Ricky could of disappeared that quickly, between the time the car pulled out fast, to the time the busdriver let him off, turned around, passed by him again and the mailman got there, unless one of the neighbors was involved,or the bus driver, or mailman, I think most likely Hannah was involved, if nothing else with the coverup.

You might want to have DNA test for Doris Hammack, to the Izard's.

Miss Carmichael is not telling the whole truth. What else was left at the house when he moved to Detroit?

it seems too simple to connect doris to this hadley-hammock man. the old woman seems to not want the hypnosis to occur and the story that she tells about the little girl is too convienient. i don't buy it, even if there is no reason for her to lie, it looks like she might be doing just that.

Have they tried bringing in the dogs, that can smell corpses, and decay, maybe someone killed Ricky, and burried him somewhere on the property, they could not get away as easily with Ricky, as they could with LeAnn, they could not just kidnap him, and he would keep his mouth shut like a 2 year old would, for that matter maybe both were killed and burried. KFor one I still have one unanswered question, the bus driver said that Ricky had not moved very far, and was looking at something when he got turned around, and went back by. What could the child of seen, could he of seen the murderer trying to make his getaway, possibly carrying LeAnn, and set off after the murderer, and when the murderer was coanfronted, he then killed Ricky and possibly Leann to. could he of at first decided to steal Leann, and thought he could get away with it, but was surprised by Ricky. Have they tried searchng the property for any sign of a shallow grave or fresh dirt at the time of the murder? Have they tried to dig up the garden plot, to see if one or both of the children are burried there? Something just does not jive either, I can't believe two people get killed, and 2 children are missing, and NO ONE hears anything or sees anything, but yet people know who is sitting on the Issard porch, and the cars parked out in the yard, and stuff like that. It just doesn't make much sense.

[Dixon Hill]

At this week's "news" page, Detective Nelson wrote "The Izard case will wind up following Doris Hammack's upcoming session with a hypnotist." Does anyone have any remaining doubts that Doris witnessed the murders?

Tonight, after the rest of the family turns in, I think I will spread out all my notes and try to go over this again. I think this time, we amateur sleuths could solve the case ahead of (or at least at the same time as) our good friend Detective Nelson. Let's go for it.

PS: Has anyone else besides me spotted the fact that the Great Seal of Yoknapatawpha County contains the words "Veritas Faulkner" ?? :-)

     --- Dixon Hill, P.I.

This case is intriguing, however, updates seem to be coming less and less frequently. When there is an update, it is minimal. We are all going crazy for more information. Thank you for providing us with this wonderful form of entertainment.

MzBhaver here. I've been gone for a week (ironically, to Detroit). No, I didn't see Doris Hammack nor did I seek her. I couldn't wait to get back to see what new info was posted, but after I read everything, I still stick by the theory that I posted before I left. If there is something that I missed, then I don't see it. Doris Hammack is LeAnne Izard, the woman who called and tipped about Miss Carmichael is Doris Hadley, and Howard Hadley and Howard Hammack are one in the same (he's dead by the way). I want to say "next case" but I might be wrong as hell! :) MzBhaver

I'm new to this case, but have read alot of the material. I haven't checked the dates yet, but isn't it coincidental that Howard Hadley had a daughter named Doris and moved to the Detriot area after the layoffs? Perhaps Miss Hammack is actually Howard's daughter.

Howard could have been invovled in the murder some how and came into possession of the ring. The notes stated Mr. Izard's wallet was missing as well, probably an attempt to make it look like a possible robbery. Their small wedding bands didn't stand out as much as the shiny heirloom ring of Mrs. Izards.

I haven't read all of the comments yet, but have summized this murder had everything to do with the fact that it was widely known Mr. Izard was receiving kickbacks from the union organizers. His pockets were found pulled out of his jeans, I think there was some words before the fight about people wanting their money back.

I don't think they were meant to be murdered, but when the temper's rose and the shovel was picked up, it just happened. Mr. Izard was hit on the left side of the head indicating the assailant was possibly right handed. Mrs. Izard had clean hands when found so was probably out doing the wash and heard the comotion, interrupted the beating and ended up getting it herself.

Was it ever determined who's blood that was found on the playpen? Have you taken blood samples from the shovel to determine how many types are on there?

Also, I saw on the map there was a blanket and cap found near the river, I couldn't find mention of that in notes, was that found on the day of the crime or later?

[Dixon Hill]

To PJ: Thanks for the compliment! I think the nephew is a good angle to investigate and hope that Det. Nelson will get back to us regarding your questions.

Yes, this case is confusing. That's what makes it fun! :-)

But, seriously, as others have pointed out in various ways, when you see so much contradictory evidence, that in itself suggests either there are more than one crime, or a cover-up.

Who was it who suggested (on a previous page) that perhaps the murders were directly committed by one or more angry drunks in the heat of passion, but were only the tool someone else put in place to accomplish the deed?


To Suzd: I'm getting worn out, too! And I think the "Great Detective in the Sky" :-) is getting inordinate pleasure with this huge group of similar names... it must have been deliberate. Aaaigh!

Yes, I agree on the contradictions... this is part of the "evidence" I'm suggesting above. PS: Maybe the only part of your theory that "got a hole blown in it" was the escape plan.

To Niki: Good comments. Only with exceedingly bad luck (on the part of the investigators) does a crime of passion go unsolved. And certainly not one with as much media play as this one. Which, as you suggest, points to someone extremely smart doing the planning. (Chris: please read that again! You stated "I think that we sometimes try to read to much into the actions of others" and that is so true! But in this case, Danahy just wasn't a smart enough person (IMHO) to have kept this murder unsolved for so long. There had to be planning [with a capital 'P'] involved.)

To Cheeky1: How very kind of you to wish us a "Happy 4th!" Thanks! (PS: I know Canada Day is July 1, but does Australia have a similar holiday? If so, when?) [To everyone else: Sorry! Off topic!]

[Back on topic] Aha! Cheeky1 may have the key to proving the Hammack/Hadley identity question. If an autopsy was performed on Howard Hammack, and if those records are available, and if healed corneal abrasions leave any scar tissue observable in an autopsy, then if Hammack had these scars it would the last nail in the coffin, so to speak. [Actually, if there are any residual injuries we could use to tie the two men together....]

To Snerc: Interesting theories. But Carmichael was probably not the "old biddy." #1: she was in her 30's at the time and no one would have called her that. #2: when Doris "Hammack" was little, she evidenced extreme dislike of the "old biddy." There's nothing to suggest in her interview of Carmichael that little Doris Hadley would have had any reason to dislike Carmichael --- who provided a safe haven from a violent drunk father.

The idea that the ring was stolen and then later given to Hadley as payment is pretty interesting. If Hadley wasn't involved previously, though, this would have been a very foolhardy action!

The "love triangle" theory is pretty interesting too. Lots of murders committed over them. [Wonder if the term "noir" in the URL's for this case is any clue... :-) This is like an old film noir plotline... Where's Bogart when you need him?]

Anyone else buy into the "grandparents theory?"

Fatlady: you should look for a job writing this stuff!


Finally: Okay, I give up! Yep! Six year old Ricky became a brilliant nuclear physicist working in the former Soviet Union. It was he who planned the union, he who planned and executed the murders, and he who cleverly blackmailed Bowlan's fortune out of him. He and his sister had a clandestine incestuous relationship, and used the money to buy a villa on the French Riviera.

Somebody put me out of my misery with the kid theories!



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

I a'm 75% sure that the kid's killed them;and made it seem it was an outside job!

I hoped you checked inside the house to see if there was any struggle!

Seems like this case is moving awfully slow, need more info. Dannyboy

Yo buddy.
Somethin was goin on with Lisa. How could she go fer that no acount Jessie to a straight arrow like Richard. I know sumthin about nurses I'm married to one, and Flow Nightengale died from VD. She may a seemed like an innocent church goin women, but still waters run deep. I gotta stand behind Fatlady on this in. JOeBoB

Richard and Lisa had a yen for the finer things in life. Richard began accepting money from Perch for inside info about the plant. Perch would visit the Izard home late at night. Lisa became enamored of Perchs slick charm. Richard was a failure in her eyes financially and in the bedroom.(bad back). She longed for the days with her wild bad boy lover Jesse. After the failed union takeover, Perch convinced her to run away with him. Richard discovered them together and killed Lisa. Perch killed Richard and the boy who could identify him. He made arrangements for the girl to be taken care of by Hadley/Hammack by finding him a job in Detroit. Fatlady

I think too much is being said about all the different people in this investigation. They cannot all be tied in on some type of consiracy case. I believe that it is a matter of quick action by Denanhy. He could not take any more and was tired of seeing Richard with his ex-girlfriend. He decided to kill her if she did not want him and then did in Richard as well for taking Lisa from him. He then took both children away from the area eventually splitting them up. Now we have Doris coming back to find her family. Union, commies and wife swapping have their own stories and are not to be mixed up with the double death of the Izards. I think that we sometimes try to read to much into the actions of others and put our own feelings in as their motivations. Chris

Snerc"s Timeline -- To further clarify my theories, I have constructed the following timeline of key events. 1.) 1030 - 1200 hrs - Lisa takes her daughter to a safe location which is probably her granparents. 2.) 1200 - 1230 hrs - Both Lisa and Richard are kome. 3.) 1300 hrs - Elbert Warren, Danahy, Covey and Booker leave the bar. 4.) 1300 - 1400 hrs - Warren is attaked by Covey and Booker and possibly Danahy. 5.) 1345 - 1405 hrs - Richard kills Lisa. 6.) 1345 - 1405 hrs - Danahy kills Richard. 7.) 1405 hrs - Warren races up driveway and takes wallet and ring. 9.) 1405 - 1430 hrs - Someone close to the grandparents (pobably the preacher) comes to the scene and takes Ricky away.

Snerc"s Izard Theories 1.) LeAnne is alive and well but she is not Doris Hammock. Like her brother, she was not at the Izard house at or near the time of the murders. Remember, her mother was frightened about the outcome of the unionization controversy. After a likely phone call from Richard to warn her about the layoffs, she would have driven the child to a safe location -- probably with her grandparents. The "overprotective" grandparents shared the widespread fear of unionists and communists and could be expected to protect the child from further union revenge by concealing her location and identity among out of town relatives and fellow Baptists. 2.) Doris Hammock is Doris Hadley. This is the inevitable conclusion if you accept Theory #1. 3.) Howard Hammock is Howard Hadley. Again, an inevitable conclusion if you accept previous theories. 4.) The Izard ring was given to Hadley by Elbert Warren instead of paying rent for the Hadley house. (More later) 5.) Beatrice Carmichael is probably the "old biddy." 6.) Ricky Izard is also alive and well. The murders probably took place around 1400 hours or a little earlier and well before Ricky got home from school. The grandparents or someone they sent (I would bet on the preacher) came to the Izard house to check on the family and found the murder scene. This person planted the blabket and cap to make those wild-eyed commies who might seek further revenge to believe the children drowned. This person waited around the tree line for Ricky to arrive so the child would not see his parents" bodies. Ricky would have been concealed and sheltered like his sister. 7.) Elbert Warren was ambushed by Danahy"s friends, Covey and Booker and possibly Danahy himself, although Danahy may have gone to the Izard"s home by himself. It would have taken at least two men to whip someone as tough as Warren. Both Covey and Booker showed signs of being in a rough brawl. During or after the attack, Warren probably heard something said about Izard being next. Warren and Izard were the targets of revenge in place of Perch and Bowlan. 8.) When Warren recovered from his beating he raced to the Izard house to help Richard or to get another shot at Covey and Booker. It was his car that raced up th driveway half an hour before the school bus arrived. Warren found the bodies and took Richard"s wallet and Lisa"s ring from the table in the kitchen. 9.) In my earlier postings I stated that I thought the blood evidence sowed that Lisa died first and was killed by Richard. There are two possible motives. Richard and Lisa might have argued about the end of the payoff money. Also, it is possibke Lisa was having an affair with Perch and Richard found out. Remember, Mrs. Catlett hinted at something more she knew or suspected about Lisa -- perhaps some of Perch's late night visits took place on weekends when Richard was away playing poker. Perch"s trips to the reservoir may have something more than "think" sessions. 10.) Finally, Danahy was Richard"s killer. The years of jealousy and hate and if I"m right about Richard killing Lisa, the anger over her murder can help explain why the attack on Richard was so brutal. And that does it for me. Sorry about the typos.

from the side by side comparison i think leanne and doris are one in the same, i'd try dna test to make sure.

I see suzd had that Tommy Joe theory basically on Jun 4th, good theory on why too.
Ciaral

Theoretically, Postman Tommy Joe could have run in and grabbed LEAnne, run to the fence by the pasture and flagged down the busdriver, handed LeAnne over and somehow Ricky could have been hustled off in the same fashion? But it raises the question - why conceal the children forever? They had grandparents..
Three in a row, I guess that's quite enough speculating for one day! Looking forward to next update. Ciaral

to cheeky1 from Ciaral
I think the corneal abasions could have been caused by Richard Izard throwing or rubbing dirt in Hadley's eyes during the attack, it was stated that Richard had dirt in his hands.
I think the murder was spontaneous, Hadley went over to confront Izard, an argument ensued, Hadley was a violent man, the shovel was there, Lisa wasn't the intended victim, although from the evidence we can tell Hadley had no problem hitting women.

My theory is simplistic compared others:
I think Doris Hadley and Doris Hammack are one in the same, but Niki (?) is right, the dreams don't fit...
What we need:
1) Blood typing done on the shovel or from medical records to determine the blood type of the Izards, Howard Hadley and Doris. It may come to nothing.. maybe they're all type "O", but it's the cheap and easy precursor to DNA testing , which has thus far been determined impractical.
2) Hypnosis: It won't be defining, there are false memories out there, but it might enough to consider exumation of the Izards' bodies for DNA testing.
I think Howard Hadley committed the murders. he always had financial difficulties, he may have grabbed the wallet and the ring for quick value, he probably didn't know about the money in the house.
He may or may not have taken LeAnne, blood on the playpen only signifies that whoever took they baby went past the parents first. Ricky could have seen his parents, run over to them and then ran to the baby.
3) digging up Hadley's old garden would possibly provide some clues.
4) did anyone ever find the old treehouse or search the area where it was for possible remains of the children. A scared 6 year old would run to someplace he thought would be safe.... true or not.

I think Danahy and his gang are responsible for Warrens' beating. Can it be proven without a confession? probably not. Is anyone left alive to confess? Why, while Warren was being beaten, didn't he catch a glimpse of his attackers? was h face down the whole time? Were his eyes covered? Were their faces covered?
Ciaral (cara)

from Cheeky1
Has the Howard Hammack-Hadley identity been confirmed yet?
After all, Miss Carmichael said Hadley's house had been signed over to her (in a will???) and the Warrens rented it to August 1960....Hammack died on August 20 1960.

I now believe Doris is Doris Hadley but the ring is a puzzle. Did her dad snatch it and sell the stones?

Hope the next update has the photo comparison between Doris as a young girl (the Miss Carmichael photo), Doris today and the young LeAnn.

Also, Howard Hadley had corneal abrasions after starting his new job...from being hit in the eye with a ring?? A punch would not cause corneal abrasions. They are scratch-type injuries on the cornea, the clear outer covering of the eye. Did he rip off Mrs Izard's ring after she lashed at his eye and hurt him?

Thanks to Niki for your support and observation about the Warren rental of the Handley place...I missed that!!! (Along with heaps of other things, I suppose)
Happy Fourth of July to all you Americans.
Cheeky1

To PJ

The conspiracy theory definately applies. There had to be more than one killer. And someone to take the child.

Ms. Carmicheal seem a little defensive. She admits to an realationship with Hadley and she would have been the one to take care of the child, who probably saw everything. Where is the boy? The old lady is an accomplis and she probably threatened to tell and thats how she got the house. Just out of curiousity, I wonder if a psycic could maybe help. The ring and the blanket keep coming back to me. I would love to hear a reading on that.

Just one quick question was Walter Hinkley at work the the day of the Izards' death?

I happened to notice that in the interview with Doris she states that she has nightmares and bad memories of a man coming to kill her and her father. But later on down the line she says that she has looked at all of the printed pictures of Richard Izard and he looks nothing like the man in her nightmares. So what if in fact, Doris remembers what the man's face looks like? What if she is the real LeAnne and Knows the identity? Is it possible for us to show her all of the male suspects that you are questioning and see if any of them may relate to the man she just so happens to see in her dreams?
Aisha

[from: niki]

cheeky1- on your suggestion I used the search engine to find all information on August 1960. here are some of the interesting facts that I overlooked the first time, or that become significant in light of the possibility that doris hammack may be doris hadley:

*like you said howard hammack died august 20, 1960
*also, like you said doris hammack was dropped off august 23, 1960 these dates are too close for this to be a coincidence. howard hammack is either doris's caretaker, or her father
*(to rayson) doris hammack's initial mental health assessment states: child seemed subdued but aware of her surroundings... borderline depressive... developmentally delayed in her social skills, possibly due to a restrictive home environment, but may thrive in the right setting. her attitude and failure to thrive is indicative of being reared in a non-supportive home atmosphere. does this reconcile the inconsitencies you see in the three year old doris and the forty three year old doris. her subdued nature, as described by beatrice carmicheal, was a result of her present environmnet. After forty years of varied environments, she has thrived into a more confident, more assertive woman.
*the letter that doris was found with states: "Please look after doris as she has no one else in the world. her mother and father are both dead (note: it doesn't say that they died at the same time, just that they are both dead) she has no living relations. i have no way to take her in. she is a good child and will surely give you no trouble. she was born in north mississippi in 1955. she is five years old. that is all i know (second note: leann izard had grandparents living at that time, but only doris hadley had no living relations, other than her father)
*child reported that "that man" referring to the person she was living with had died "a while ago" (between a few days and a week or more) says she stayed with next door neighbors who found him dead and an unknown woman came and got her.
*neighbors had a child named "billy" can we find someone with a son named billy or william?
*there is no information to confirm that the person the child was staying with shared the last name hammack
*the warrens rented the hadley house from september 1958 through AUGUST 1960!!!!!
*in 1960 Elroy Murphy changed jobs to work in the maintenance department at the school district. i wouldn't think it's significant, but i think anyone who made a major life change in 1960 is suspect.
*Jimy Warren worked in a meat packing plant from October 1958 until February of 1960 whenhereturned to Oxford
*extra tidbit, unrelated to doris hammack. this one is for all of you who suspect Danahy. Richard and Lisa were married in 1951, but it doesn't say what month. Ricky was born March 17, 1952. If Lisa and richard were married after June 17 in 1951, then Lisa was pregnant before they were married. Detective can you let those fans of the Danahy theory know when exactly Lisa and Richard were married?

I know it was long, I'm sorry. But I wanted to share these things with you.

Niki

[from: Niki]
I'm sorry, I forgot the name of the person who said it but whoever made the Sherlock Holmes comment captured the essence of it. That's the motto of mystry writers of all times, from Sherlock Holmes to Hercule Poirot. We must fit together the puzzle until we find the one scenario that fits, we must find the scenario that fits EVERYTHING. If everything doesn't fit, don't try to make it fit, there's something wrong with the theory. We'll get it if we work together. My suggestion is that, like someone else said, we must look at the bare facts and find the thing that fits. It is possible that there are two perpertrators, one responsible for the kidnapping and one responsible for the murder, I have long since suggested that this is a possibility, but let's keep in mind the other possibility, the seemingly dual "personalities" (for lack of a better word) of these crimes, may have other explanations. Perhaps the murder seemed brutal and has the markings of a crime of passion because the perpertrator wanted it to seem that way. This could be a crime that was exceedingly well-planned. the perp, started rumors about Richard taking bribes for the union, timed the murders to coincide with the union vote, this person may have or may not have expected the layoffs, planned these crimes to look like it was union related, and removed the children for reasons unknown to the investigators. The murder wasn't a crime of passion, an unplanned crime of passion doesn't go unsolved for 40 years. Someone planned very well, and with their perfect timing of the murders, managed to keep the wrong people under suspicion for a very LONG period of time.

Niki

From Cheeky1 - evidence linking Howard Hammack and orphanage drop-off.
From the answers to comments(use the search for August 1960) Howard Hammack died of a heart attack on August 20 1960.
Doris arrived at the orphanage on August 23.
If Doris Hammack is Howard Hadley's name-change daughter then she is not LeAnn Izard. She got the ring from her bad dad (how he got it I don't know)and suffered nightmares from his rages and neglect as a child.
Cheeky1