Where was I, I didn't realize the case had already been solved. Cannot
wait to start on the next one.[From: ray].

After reading the biography on Howard Hadley and hearing the hypnosis
tapes, I believe that Doris is Howard Hadley's Daughter. He had a
daughter named, Doris and she recalls someone named Howard.
[From: ray].

Test Theory

How charming. One of the main suspects is a "union agitator". Obvious Communist Sympathizer. Knows how to take care of management.Pluuuexe. Give me a break.

Thanks for the case!

Mon Aug 10 03:49:11 PDT 1998

[Drainer PI]

Oh, and I still have hope that this case isn't really over....that there will be further questions and investigations regarding the Izard children or the sudden reappearance of Howard or something along these lines. At least I hope so. Perhaps then we can get our questions answered (as"Anonymous of Thu Aug 6 17:29:19 PDT 1998 so aptly listed).

[Drainer PI]

[Drainer PI]

First of all, what's with all these anonymous comments? Post your name with the comment so everyone will know to whom to respond.

Also, people are berating me, Snerc, Sudz, et al, saying we're 'cry babies' or something because we don't like the solution to this particular case. No, not cry babies. Just disappointed. Everyone thought early on that Howard was the killer. Had this been an actual case, more attention would have been focused on his post-Oxford life. In reality, a detective would likely have been to Detroit to find his friends and neighbors. That didn't happen here. So, based on that, many of us thought the case MUST have a twist somewhere.....but where? That's what kept us coming back day after day after day. And, because the clues kept indicating a twist, we just dug harder in the information provided us. To be told after over two months of digging that what we needed was found in the first layer was quite a disapppointment. Can't you all understand that?

All foreplay, no orgasm.

Well, maybe next case. I'll still be here, though with my eyes much more open, and a LOT less time spent reviewing the minutia...... skip the foreplay altogether!

[Drainer PI]

[[email protected]]

Even at this late date, I believe it's worth taking a long, hard look at the possibility that Howard Hadley did not kill the Izards on his own initiative.

The union surveillance tapes clearly show that though Hadley/Hammock was a violent man, he usually needed somebody to spark his fury and point him in one direction or another. Even now, I can't help but wonder if the factory owner, Harold Bowlan, didn't discover Dick Izard's sympathies for the union -- and send Hadley out to punish what Bowlan would no doubt have regarded as an act of betrayal.

Just thought I would write a comment in... I found the website by mistake. I also entered the case after it had been solved. One question. Was any samples taken from under the nail of Mrs. Izard? Love the website... can't wait for the next case!!!
[kjg]

[Jao PI]

I realize that I came into the case late, and perhaps I would be as frustrated as those of you who have been in since the beginning, I don't know. What I do know is that on the main 'Crime Scene' page it says.. "The public is invited to participate in these investigations by asking questions, offering observations and providing leads. Updated weekly." I get the impression that the 'weekly' updates have been lacking, however, in week 7 (July 1)was the death of Bea Carmichael and the discovery of the telegram, did anyone 'suggest' an interview with Robert Duffy? That seems to have been THE lead that the investigators were looking for and would have solved the case two weeks sooner. If no one did... then, that's where we all 'blew it'.

If someone did ... Please disregard this comment.

So many of you want to play like you're a REAL investigator, then when the solution is not an unbelievable, farfetched fantasy, you whine and complain. The solution to this case was realistic and something that could happen. Reading back through all of the comments, it appears that you all had a great time trying to figure this out and spent numerous hours working on the case, thus being entertained. Isn't that your intent, to be entertained? So why all of the complaints that the solution was too simple? Sometimes things are simple and sometimes not all of the questions get answered. Some mysteries are never completely solved or solved at all. So do you want it realistic (which is what makes it great) or do you want a "fairly tale" feel to every case?

Response: You are right, some questions are never answered in criminal investigations. We'd like to try to get as many answers possible in regards to these web cases.

Regarding the finding of the femur.. I would like to add to the comment that carbon testing would be innapropriate, not only for the reason listed but because it had been touched the children's hands (at least). Once in contact with organic material (such as human skin), the carbon tests go out the window -- useless. It is also extraordinarily doubtful that the bone would be old enough to make carbon testing an option, given the wide time period in which it would be placed. Surely, a paleontologist would be *well* aware of this...

Response: Agreed. Thanks, I hope you're able to follow the case.

To sudz.
I'm sorry if you feel cheated that this case ended simply,but
in an actual murder case ,there's lots of angles ,sometimes many suspects,and a great deal of evidence and or clues to wade through.
I think the lack of certain aspects to the cases wouldn't hold our inter
rest,and from what I see you were very interested.Don't be discouraged or feel like you wasted your time, what you did was all in
good detective work.Sometimes things pan out ,sometimes they dont
By the way I like this website.Keep the cases coming..And don't consider that other guy's suggestion of charging us a fee!

Response: Appreciated. A fee does not appeal to anyone here either.

[from:Momie_d]

I have a question concerning the kids who found the bone at the abandonned Y building. The anthropology professor is suggesting carbon dating to know how old the bones are. The problem is that carbon dating is very effective in extremely old samples, but on a human bone, the error margin is to great to give a really accurate reading. (>1000 years error margin)

Response: I'll pass that information on to the university police. Thanks.

[suzd]

Hi folks. I must add my agreement to snerc's well-stated comments expressing disappointment in the conclusion of this case. For those of you who came in late in the case, it may be difficult to understand our feelings, but please consider: This case began on May 15th. I'm quite sure that many of us have checked in daily since then. Initial responses to our questions did not come for about three weeks, I think. Then on June 27th (Week 7) we were notified to "post our theories, the case could be solved very quickly now." Little did we know there would be another MONTH to go. The continuous delays in updates and responses to comments (or complete disregard for them) led me, and I think many of us, to believe there was much more going on and that we would find at the end a thorough explanation of all the quirks we had so extensively researched and discussed, and perhaps even a twist or two.

In other words, it is not so much that the solution was "simple" as it was that the presentation of the case and so much detailed and realistic evidence and character exploration, not to mention the immense amount of time spent, by both the authors and the viewers, led us down a path of great expectation.

I don't think it should be considered sour grapes for me or anyone to feel a bit cheated after a near three-month investment of time, especially since many of us went the extra mile to "click on" ads we weren't even interested in in order to help the site.

The authors certainly have great talent, but there are a lot of entertainment options out there. I haven't decided yet if I will follow the next case--it may be difficult to break the daily addiction. But hopefully, these comments will be taken as the constructive criticism they are meant to be, and no future case will leave its amatuer detectives feeling quite so disappointed.

Thanks to the other sleuths who helped make this case enjoyable, among them: Dixon Hill, PJ, snerc, niki, krucheav, Cheeky1, and many others who have been in since the "beginning." Long live the Sherlock Holmes in all of us! :-)

--suzd

Response: I hope you'll be back. I've enjoyed hearing your thoughts. We shall endeavor to improve. And, thank you for clicking those ads!

[Jao PI]
My thoughts to some of the questions asked by anonymous -[aug 6, 17:29:19]
1. Hadley put the cap and blanket near the creek to keep detectives from the real place the kids were dumped, the pond on his property.

2. I would rub my hands if I had touched a couple of corpses (a compulsive reaction).

3. Hadley could have hid when he heard Ricky's bus coming and caught him unaware.

4. I recall a few references to Izard being sympathetic to the union and the old lady (I forget her name)even saw a car similar to Perch's parked near the Izard home on several late evenings.

5. The social worker didn't know Doris until Hadley's abusive ways had changed her personality from the child Bea knew several years earlier.

6. The $362 could have been kept with the pawn slip for Hadley's future use, therefore Bea saved it till he died then deposited it as her own.

7. The yellow and white cage could have represented a fire escape on a hot, arid sunny day in the inner city (white heat).

8. As far as Bea's reaction to the ring, wouldn't you be shocked that it would show up after forty years? I would have thought it long gone.

My biggest disappointment in the case was the fact that Duffy obviously knew where to get in touch with Hadley's past (telegram to Bea) Why didn't he simply look into any murders or report the vulgar bragging to someone anonymously, even if he thought it was the ramblings of a drunken slob, specially when he heard children were involved?.... Shame on him!

I found this site near the end of the case, and by all means there were a lot of 'red herrings' tossed in, but how else could it have kept us interested? I enjoyed it. Obvious ending or not.

Response: Very good suppositions. Thanks. I'm not a firm believer in the abstract, so item #8 is pretty out there for me. And, as for item #2. Agreed. I'd not just rub my hands, I'd shower.

[From: Dixon Hill]


Hi folks. The rumors concerning my disappearance have been, uhm, greatly exaggerated. :-) Actually, I was called out of town on an important case. I'll be back home on Monday; looking forward to partipating in another interesting and exciting whodunnit.

BTW, I think it's worth keeping the Perch investigation on the back burner. It's still up for grabs whether he was involved, though it certainly doesn't seem that way, based on Bob Duffy's interview.

Gotta go now! More later....
--- Dixon Hill, P.I.

Response: Nice to see you back. Agreed, Perch is worthy of a whole separate case. Until then, I hope to see your expert hand helping the kids solve the Mystery of the Confederate Bones. It is hoped that regular Crime Scene viewers will show the young set how participate in an appropriate manner. The kid's case is at http://www.kudzukids.com, send the address to your young friends.

More questions in response to the July 27 promise to provide follow-up answers. Did drunk old Hadley put the cap and blanket in the creek? Can we come up with any reason why? Why was Hinkley rubbing his hands so excessively? Was Izard's payoff buried in his garden? Who attacked Elbert Warren? What was Catlett hinting about Mrs. Izard? Why didn't Ricky run away from the killer? Who stole the Hawkins package and was it related to the case? Was Izard really on the union side? Did Perch sell out to Boland? Did Perch go to Memphis to meet Boland? How was Hadley injured? If Hadley was hurt on Friday, why did he wait until Sunday for treatment? Why did the social worker's description of Doris Hammack differ from Bea's description of Doris Hadley? What was Bea hiding in her bedroom? Why was the deed filed a week after Hammack's death? Why would it take ten months to find Hammack's death records, particularly since he would have been autopsied if not under a doctor's card? Was The $376 deposit related to the similar loan value of the ring? What was the yellow and white cage in the hypnosis if it was not LeAnne's playpen? I am still waiting for explanatios of the telegram mix-up and Bea's shock over the ring.

Snerc's final commeny -------- Before I express my criticism, I want to be fair and compliment crime scene on what they did well. This started out as a beautifully constructed wdodunnit. The case was truly addictive with interesting events, characters, and many subtle and intriguing clues. I would rate the set-up of the case as far superior to the "Robbins Family" reader contest runaway best seller of about ten years ago. Where this case failed was the solution or rather the lack of a solution. The purported solution is worst than just simplistic. It is uncreative, shallow and BORING. It ignores key questions and events, even contradicts important facts, and leaves dozens of loose ends unresolved and dangling. No competent editor of mystery fiction would permit so many unresolved questions and even in a true-crime story the writer virtually always attempts to acknowledge incomplete solutions and unanswered questions. -------- This site asks the viewewr to invest much time and effort in evaluating huge amounts of detailed information and then betrays the viewer by ignoring this same evidence. The use of logic and deductive reasoning is wasted here. (I know that few people agreed with the "Snerc theory" but I don't believe any other theory integrated as many facts and bits of evidence. I would challenge anyone to find a fact in this case, excluding the silly Duffy interview, that clearly contradicts or invalidates the theory.) I am truly sorry the staff could not effectively close the case and live up to the creativity with which it began. I certainly will not waste any more of my time on a site that was ultimately such a terrible disappointment. -------- Snerc

[Niki]

To all of those people who are dissapointed in this case:

Please do not criticize detective nelson and his staff for not making this case interesting enough. That is not their fault. They have a book that has the dossiers of a bunch of cases, and they pick one and give us info based on what we ask for, they stick to their "case bible" and do not "take the easy way out." Sometimes what seems very complicated is really very simple, and I think that it would be very dull indeed if every case was full of fantastic and unbelievable twists. Sometimes simple is best. i think that the fact that they offer us both simple and extraordinary cases for FREE and volunteer their time to update this site (I'm sure they all have other jobs) is very noble. These are people working hard to provide you with free entertainment. Also, I think that you shold encourage your wife to give them one more chance. It is not their fault that the case bible provided a very simple solution for this case. I think it's noble that they DIDN'T change the solution just to appease all of you critics out there.

Niki

Response: Thank you for your kind words of support. We try to improve with each case.

Yeah, where IS Dixon Hill? Haven't heard from him in ages. Maybe that'll be our next case: "The Disappearance of the Internet Sleuth"...

Response: You took the words out of my mouth.

[from RLockH]
To Drainer PI: Yeah, I like whodunnit shows too. Columbo's actually one of my favourites, but I wouldn't call it a whodunnit 'cos you see the killer 'do it' right at the start! I also like The Rockford Files, and my boyfriend's a big fan of Banacek. Cheesy 70s detective shows are fun. But for a show with a bit of bite, I'd rather watch something like "Homicide: Life on the Streets". I'm just rambling now, so I'll shut up.
Okay, so Hadley was quite an obvious suspect from pretty early on, but then so was most of the town! Remember Perch, Bowlan, Danahy; even the Izards' nosy neighbours... I was personally less interested in the motive for killing the Izards, and more interested in what had happened to LeAnn and Ricky. I suppose the twist was that it was the murderer's own daughter that inadvertently exposed him; this woman searching for a family, believing herself to be a girl missing since 1958, and finding she was not LeAnn Izard at all but the child of the monster that had killed her. Nice irony.
I haven't really followed the previous cases as they were finished by the time I first came across this site, but if the twists are generally as fun as you say they are, I'll be looking forward to them!

Response: Thanks. You are very astute in your summation of central incident--the missing children.

[Drainer PI]

MDS55 said "I think [wait n c] was just mad because he was not smart enought to figure it out." What was to 'figure out'? It was painfully obvious from the first or second week. I'm sure wait-n-c assumed the obvious, just didn't like it. Lilke most of the rest of us. No reason to slam him and say he 'wasn't smart enough'.

In fact, I think many of his comments were on the mark. But I have faith in the next case being quite entertaining, so I'm staying.

[Drainer PI]

Response: Thanks. The next case, The Mystery of the Confederate Bones, is a lot of fun. It aimed at kids, but will be very difficult to solve. Expect a few twists--plus appearances by Dave Woolworth and his Ego Shovel cult.

[Drainer PI]

Okay, I've have nearly four days to calm down, take a few deep breaths, and organize my thoughts (as if I ever can], but now I need to respond.

This site is one of my favorite sites and I at least look at it every day. The new information, when it is forthcoming, and the viewer's comments are all fun to read and really start my brain thinking - often I find myself thinking of the crime throughout the day. I think the Yoknapatawpha County staff are quite good and work hard at the 'crime dujour'. Now for the negatives...

I hate to have this crime investigation end this way. I was so mad when I read the Duffy interview, figuring that the staff sold out to the 'easy way' and just wanted to get to the next case. Had this been a real case, sure I'd understand the obvious. But to lead us all to believe in complications and twists and give us Howard as the sole killer, with no twist to the Doris story, is unthinkable. When my wife and I read the Duffy interview together (this is her first case), I told her not to worry....there would be more twists and not to get upset at its simplicity. If we wanted simplicity, we'd go to the FBI site (never any twists there!). Well, I've eaten crow all week. My wife said she will probably not get involved in the next case, since this case was basically solved in the first week. Why get all excited over the obvious? Yeah, I know what she meant.

But, I will be back. Guaranteed. Although this case was disappointing in the end, the last two weren't. And this case was the better of the three (except for the result). So, Detective Nelson and staff, thanks for all your work and I hope the next case gets under way soon.

[Drainer PI]

p.s. I LIKE television whodoneit shows - much more interesting than real life!

Response: Thank you very much for the well-considered comments. We enjoy the twisting paths of the investigations and agree that this one was simple in many regards. We'll do our best to improve.

Another question to take advantage of your earlier promise to answer follow-up questions about the Izard case, If Beatrice spent a full day with Doris in Hammack's apartment and then took her to Immaculata, how could she fail to notice the ring? Why would she be so shocked about the ring when she met Doris Hammack?

Response: You are absolutely right. It is very likely that she was misrepresenting the trurth. It is a popular contention that she was surprised to see the child after so long--and did not want to admit her role in the Hadley girl's past.

[from RLockH]
I agree with MDS55. You go to all this trouble and people just criticise you for it! The fact is that most homicides ARE straightforward cases, and it's far more likely that some drunk hothead decided to take his anger out on his boss than that there was some huge conspiracy involving the whole town. I'd rather see a clever but realistic case than some bizarre Columbo thing where the killer is some kind of genius. (The kids in the pond was a nice creepy touch though. You guys are mean! Imagine killing off that cute little Ricky Izard! :-{ )

Response: Thanks. We accept all comments for their instructive potential.

Snerc's E-Mail question -------- On Monday, August 3 I sent "Detective Nelson" an E-Mail to question the identification of Doris Hammack as Doris Hadley. His reply was, "Our conclusion based on the evidence is that LeAnne Izard is dead. The opposite couldbe true. What we lack is witness testimony to corroborate it either way." But in a reply to Rayson-Sonya Jul 28 10:14:42, he referred to DNA testing underway and in at least 3 other replies he referred to autopsy or forensic results due in a few days to identify the bodies. What is going on? Are there scientific results? Or was Detective Nelson just confused about the status of the case?

Response: An attempt was made at a DNA match, but the bone material was far too deteriorated to yeild comparison results. More sensitive tests are available--at a considerable expense.

Doris probably did not want to return to Hadley or Bea, therefore maybe she simply didn't offer the names of people when she was left at the Sister's Girls Home and just said "I don't know" so she couldn't be sent back to them. Any parent knows that a 5 yr old can remember names.

Response: Agreed.

Doesn't the conclusion that Doris Hammack is Doris Hadley and that Bea took her to the girl's school contradict all the evidence about childhood memories, different descriptions from the social worker and from Bea, and the affection reported between Doris Hadley and Bes? How could Bea have been described as the "unknown woman" and Doris communicate no sense of recognitiom after being cared for by Bea for more than a year? These conclusions are completely illogical.

Response: There is little to indicate any bond formed between the little girl and her caretakers. That might include a failure to bond in the Carmichael/Hadley relationship. The interview with Beatrice Carmichael clearly raises and discusses the likelihood of her identity as the Hadley child.

[CHarrisonB]
Okay much to my shame the case was all there and I was so busy looking for things that were not that I coudn't see it. It was great case and I really enjoyed working on it. Looking forward to the next case.

Response: Thanks.

I recently found this site and immediatly bookmarked it! Unfortunately I came into the middle of the Izard case, but have followed it as well as I could. As a college student with her aspirations set on a career in Law Enforcement, I'm anxious for the new case to begin so that I may test my thought process!
Thank you for the reading!
(DM)

Response: This site is used in mny forensic training programs--maybe it'll be a homework assignment for you.

Great case. I think [wait n c] was just mad because he was not smart enought to figure it out. Keep up the good work and don't let the few ingrates bother you. MDS55

Response: Thanks, we're glad to hear from everyone--ncluding wait n c and others with criticism.

[from Elbertha]
Well, here I was thinking that Hadley was just *too* obvious a suspect and that there had to be others involved in a major way. There do seem to be some loose ends about this case, though.
The funny thing is that it looks as though *none* of us caught the real clue--the signature of Robert Duffy on the telegram. Didn't anyone ask who the heck Robert Duffy was and suggest tracking him down?
Well, on to the next case! I'll be following this one all the way through instead of coming in late. :)
Elbertha

Response: You're right. No one asked about Duffy.

I have been told that these cases are fictional. Is this so? Was even the Izzard case fictionalized? If so how do you get away with using pictures of real people as victims and suspects?

Tommie

Response: They are actors.

Detective Nelson: Thanks for providing this site. The writing is wonderful and this medium presents great entertainment as well as some fun brain exercise.

I, for one, sure didn't "keep it simple" in the Izard case, and so, it was very tough. I didn't even recognize that the end... was the end! The experience gained from this case though should make a difference in future cases.

Thanks so much, PJ

Response: Appreciated.

[Lzrqueen]
Great site!! I got in on this last case a little late so things were pretty much hashed out allready. Am waiting for new case to start so I can follow all the way through this time. All the exicitment of sleuth work without getting my hands dirty!
Lzrqueen

Response: The next case will surprise you.

That's it? You've got to be kidding me.

suzd
Response: No kidding.

Rayson-Sonya
Nelson is correct most of us figured out about a month ago that Hadley had done the deed we just didn't know Bea's involvement or what happened to the kids cause we really didn't want to believe that the kids were murdered like they were...since Hadley drove the opposite way; Bet Thomas was talking to CarMichieal when Hadley snagged Ricky,it was just pure luck Hadley got away without being seen between the bus driver and the mailman was pretty close call

Response: Yes, he was very lucky.

[Jao PI]
p/s - Pay for the Case Bibles?....uh... I sorta like reading 'em for free in motel rooms!

Response: Same here.

[Jao PI]

Gee, I should stick with my first instinct! My basic error was thinking Perch was a killer too. I liked the obvious ending... never have been good at picking long-shots!

I, too, am curious about the meaning of the error in the telegram and is there an answer to when Hadley signed the deed over to Bea? He died on Aug 20th and the house was legally turned over on the 26th... Did she forge it?

Response: We haven't found a known sample of Hadley's writing to compare the signature of the deed against. It is suspected that she forged the signature due to the circumstances you describe.

The July 27 E-Mail indicated we could get follow-up answers to Izard questions. What was the story on the mix-up about the telegram?

Response: The telegram was sent by Robert Duffy. What mix-up do you mean? We found this earlier question--

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?

Bea wrote a note on the bottom of the telegram venting frustraion at the Western Union Office's typos. There were two errors, a misspelling of the word of and the date, Sunday, when was actually the Monday train.

Bea kept the telegram, along with other items. Perhaps she wanted to prove her role in the events of Doris Hammack's life. But, since Hadley was dead at the point the telegram was sent--who could she be using this information against?

you blew it crime scene. for ten weeks i thought you people were really clever and creative. no more. i can't believe i spent ten weeks wading through a pile of evidence only to find out almost none of it was part of your lame solution. i think what happened is you created a puzzle that was so detailed and so complicated that no one including me could solve it. i think you got scared to death when you saw from the comments that no one was getting close. probably why your replies and updates were so delayed. finally you decided to slop together a simple minded, lowest common denominator solution to appease most of your viewers and shelved the complicated solution. how about going ahead and posting the original solution to put some of us frustrated souls out of our misery by showing us how the evidence was really supposed to fit together. i would even pay to see the real solution. just wishful thinking so i will say goodby. you just lost a viewer. (wait-n-c)

Response: Allowing you to pay to see our case bible is an interesting concept. Thanks for the suggestion.

Sorry to hear you won't be back. Who is to say that Perch wasn't involved--and that the union didn't play a factor? All of the information was relevant on some level.

Regarding the identification of the killer: As long-time subscribers to the Crime Scene mail are aware, the endings to these cases are determined in advance. They do not change based on last minute whims. The whodunnit and why are immutable facts.

As for the tardy comments answers, we're an all volunteer staff now. This case had 100 documents. We hope by trimming the number of documents, we can allocate more time to respond to comments.

PBAS1
Glad to finally see this case solved.. There's just a couple of things
There was alot of speculating ,and most of it farfetched.It seems that this case was very simple ,however it was the simplest clues and most
obvious that was over looked by many

Response: Many viewers had theories that were amazingly accurate

[Niki]
Well this case was alot simpler than we all thought it was. I remeber at one point saying that a case that seems so difficult must be really simple. But I obviously didn't heed my own advice, because I came up with a farfetched theory of my own. I gues we're all feeling a little sheepish right now.

Niki

Response: Several previous cases have had some wild twists and surprises. You were correct in assuming the bizzare. In keeping with that, I think the next case will stun you.

Rayson-Sonya Well we now now how sick and demented Howard and Beatrice really were. He shot little Ricky in the back and strangled poor little LeAnne. Still wonder's if the Otis's heard anything especially since Little Ricky was killed by a gun. And Beatrice ended up being just in it for herself..bet she faked the signature on the deed to the house since she went through all his personal papers..if so Doris could claim the house and grounds..she will probably want to tear down the house but at least she could have the property also tearing down the house could lead to finding something hidden under the floorboards(possibly Beatrice hid something there.*Note Doris probably remembers Billy as her older brother because they probably played house and Doris probably played she was Billy's sister cause she certaining didn't want her father to be her father so she disassociated herself.

Response: There is sense to that. Disassociation would be a natural response.

Q: Is human bone found at "Y" construction site the
beginning of a new case? Got sidetracked from the
Izard affair.

Sorry. Y'all are great.

[from BadNewsJL] TampaBay Florida

Response: We're looking into the case. Look for details next week.

[email protected] here again...I was finally able to view the Bob Duffy interview with the help of the crime scene search engine, but now I cannot view the news item about the children who found the human leg bone...again, if someone could email the DIRECT link to me, and not just a link to the "news" category, please, please do so...my email address is listed above. Thanks in advance.

Response: That's been a problem. Try this: Go to the page, then press the reload button on your broswer, while holding down the shift key, the new page may appear. The problem is that your broswer "cached" a copy of the page the lst time you visited. It doesn't realize the page has been changed. We have a more elegant solution in the works.

It appears that it is just me, but I cannot seem to get to the new evidence file!!!!! Could someone who is on the AOL server please email me a direct link to the article, and not just a link to "news"? I would appreciate it greatly...my email address is [email protected] you

Response: See above.

[From: PJ]

Oh...yuk! Just read new information and wanted to take a bath and wash off the scum from reading Duffy's account of Hammack in his interview with Det. Nelson. Crazy! What's the deal, did he sniff too much glue in the shipping department at BGF?

The funeral, however, was tastefully done with it's sad sense of closure for Doris and eternal peace for the Izard children after 40 years. Very touching, don't you think?

The case isn't closed yet, I guess that's why I'm still hanging onto hope that the LeAnne and Ricky are still alive. I'm developing a real suspicious nature... or stubborn!

So what will it do to the above information if they find that the bone is that of Howard Hadley?

Best wishes finding something in all this!

PJ

Response: The case is being closed. We are responding to pressing questions from viewers, to give full closure to all aspects that can be resolved. The next case will be available this weekend.

[from: Misty]

could we find out if hadley had any relatives with hammack for a last name?maybe on his maternal side?

Response: None. Do you suspect something in particular?

[from: Elbertha]

Well, while waiting for the latest update, I've been looking through the biographies.

I find it interesting that Frank Valenti, Jr.'s father was a "popular restauranteur, and his mother, Josephine, was a dancer." Bea was also a dancer. I just can't see, though, how to connect them, as Frank was from Augusta, GA, and Bea was brought up in New Orleans--unless Bea, in her travels, may have performed at Valenti, Sr.'s restaurant. Equally interesting was how "Valenti disappeared mysteriously in the Florida Keys in 1981." Mob connection?

Another thing that I just made a note of was the statement in Booker's biography that "Booker and Corey were reportedly the "strong men" for Danahy's crew of roughnecks." Would they have killed the Izards for Danahy?

To Detective Nelson: Who were Danahy, Corey, and Booker supposed to have assaulted in the incident for which they were all arrested on New Year's Eve, 1957?
Elbertha

Response: At this time it has been established that Hadley acted alone. As for the previous assault. The victim was a local Jewish business owner. It may have been a racial incident.

[Jao PI]

I just read Bea Carmichaels bio and see that she is referred to as Biddy... Is it possible that Bea sent the $500 to the 'Sisters of Immaculatta Girls Home' because she had an illigitimate child and left it there in her lurid past? Perhaps the child was hers and Hadley's as their affair began while he was still married in 1953 (re:carmichael bio)? Although, I see no relevance to this theory and the murders, just thinking out loud.........

Response: That is possible. It is more likely that any of her babies would have gone to memphis, which at the time had a market for Caucasian babies.

[prazebabe]

It sounds to me that Danaby is the only one with the motive to kill both of them. Consider that Lisa's wounds to the head was much more merciful then Richards wounds. This would to me suggest that the person that murdered Lisa loved her, and wanted it to be painless for her. Now who else would come along to help with the gardening , but Danahy. And why did they argue so much, all three, Danahy, Lisa, and Richard. And why did Danahy show up after almost a year of not showing up around the time of the great lay off?Why was he even present during this time? What connection did he play in the union? Or what connection did he play with the mob? Why did his car go out of control? After killing Richard and Lisa, I think Danaby took the kids to Howard Hadley. Howard Hadley was paid to keep those kids for a time at least, and when things seem cleared enough, Howard was ordered to kill them. Possibly Danaby was there too, when the kids where killed. I dont think the mailman killed them at all. Figuring that someone was there looking for what ever they thought was coming through the mail , and had already thought that the mail man made it there with the package. And not finding the package that he was hoping to find , he therefore killed them. Now who was in a better position to know about an expectant package other then the mailman, and the Izards. That probably would be Danaby. As for one, Lisa knew him and would more then likely trust him. That strange man was probably Danaby meeting with Richard in the evening.So why were they meeting? possibly for the union and Danaby with the mob connection thing. IT might be that Danaby was supplying Richard money for the union from the mob. Now I am wondering what two kids were killed and why. It seems to be that Doris looks a lot like Lisa Izard. ( Did they do a DNA match to see if Doris DNA matches Lisa or Richards)? I am thinking that Bea Carmichael saved Doris for some reason who is really LeAnne. I suspect that Bea convinced drunk old Howard that LeAnne is Dorris, as he probably would not even know what his own kid looked like. He was so distance from his own kid. Anyway whether Doris is LeAnne or not, Bea Carmichael, met Howard and at the train station. However, Howard brought some other lady along. Possibly Mrs. Catlett, someone that LeAnne might trust. After Bea Carmichael, saids her good byes, which was probably short. Howard gives Doris the ring as a testimony to who her parents really are. Now the mystery lady that Howard brings along (possibly Mrs Catlett) takes Doris to the home. Now I think that the evidence that Bea Carmichael has is non other then Doris. As she may hold the key to the entire mystery. or at least most of it. Somehow, Elliot Pearch, plays a role in this murder and Bowlan also. They are some how tied to the mob. And certainly know something more. I simply dont buy Bowlans alibi about family vacation. I think the mailman , was afraid, on the fact that he just came across to the murders, and he might have seen something more, or at least afraid someone would think he saw something more. Warren didnt do the murders, even in his old age , he is too clear cut on it, that he did not do them. And he may not know much about them either. Or someone else would have smoked him all ready.

Response: Interesting theory--and well presented. As for your inquiry regarding DNA matches. There was insufficient tissue for a DNA test at this time.

[Jao PI]

Drainer PI - I have to admit the 'big brother' thing bothers me too, since we know that Doris Hadley had none., but maybe Billy (RE: hypnosis session 3) told her that she was like a little sister to him and it's one of those jumbled things from her memory?

If not, the only other theory I can come up with is that Hadley killed Doris in a drunken stupor out of rage at being laid off and when he realized what he did he went with her dead body to show Izard what he caused, found Perch in the middle of the murders (Ricky had to have come upon the scene and Perch killed him, too) and Perch somehow convinced him to throw Ricky and Doris in the river with the promise of a new job and new life, he realized that Leann saw through the open kitchen door, and for a the only sympathetic moment in his life he felt that Leann could replace Doris, and took her. Bea Carmichael knew it was Leeann and thought she could blackmail him into marrying her, but just got the house instead. The rest of my original therory will fit this scenario, with the exception that Doris is Leeann.

Could you buy that ?

Response: The blackmail I can buy. The rest is disproved by the recent interview with Bob Duffy.

[From [email protected]]
Why do the interviews flow like movie script dialog?

Response: Perhaps the better question is, "Why do so many TV shows sound like the Crime Scene?"

[Drainer PI]

JAO PI - Good hypothesis! I think you may have some good points there. However, I still find it improbable that 'Doris's' memories would have been so involved with a couple of murders her Dad had committed, especially at such a young age. Furthermore, Doris was constantly referring to 'her older brother' while growing up, as if she had the memory of having one. No, I still maintain that Doris is LeAnn Izard. But the rest is still mysterious...

Response: Agreed.

[Murphy]

P.J., Drainer PI, et al - Your comments about the number of tools at the scene spurred me to do a little looking. The initial crime scene report does not mention any tools other than the shovel. However, Det. McPhail's notebook includes the following in the section describing the interview with Tommy Joe. "Hinkley moved body of Richard Izard from original position, did not move body of Lisa Izard or touch garden tools found at scene." (emphasis mine) It could be that other tools were present, but weren't mentioned because they were deemed incidental. The crime scene report states that blood spatter extended 3-4 feet in a couple of directions so anything in the area could have become bloody during the fight. The quickest way to clear this up would be to ask Det. McPhail if any other tools were at the scene.

Drainer PI - Your comments about the sequence of events when Tommy Joe called the police has me wondering too. The only explanation I have come up with, other than the one you presented, is this. The crime scene report was written after the investigation had begun, when they already knew the case involved both "possible double homicide and missing children". Could the police have written it that way to be concise? I don't know how plausible that is, but we should consider all possibilities.

--Murphy

Response: There were garden implements and hand tools. They were located in the garden and also in a small storage area near the house. None were disturbed or used in the attack.

[Jao PI]
A newcomers theory:
Perch did it, not planned, because it was too messy and too many open ends. He went to Izard to get back the 'bribe' money because the 'mob'supplied it and he was going to be in trouble for not winning the union vote. Izard (who wouldn't be 'working' in his garden so soon after laying off all those people) must have been digging for it when he arrived. When Perch approached, Izard, not expecting any trouble, took off his gloves to shake hands. A fight ensued, and Lisa came to the rescue only to be hit in the fray. Along comes Hadley to give Izard some grief about being laid off and sees the fight. He gets the ring, and perch gives him some money to shut him up, along comes the bus and Hadley grabs Ricky, and drowns him getting scratched and bitten in the process, then Hadley remembers LeeAnn and kills her too,leaving the blood at the playpen and dirt on the kitchen floor. I don't believe he had any feelings of sympathy for the children because he couldn't change even for his own daughter, who, I believe is Doris Hammack, therefore, he drowned the kids and Doris's memories are from bits and peices she overheard as a child during conversations by Hadley. He kept the empty ring after pawning the gems as a blackmail tool to get Perch to get him a job. When he died, Robert (Bob) Duffy who had befriended Hadley/Hammack in Detroit (re: Phillips surveillence record)and his wife (old biddy??)had Doris. Bea Carmichael told him to send her to the 'Sister's' after receiving the telegraph, Ms. Duffy went to Hadly's appt. and found the ring and put it around Doris's neck as all her father left her, and dropped her at the 'Home'. The End!

Long story but it's all I could come up with.

Response: Most of what you state can now be proven--with the exception of Perch's involvment. That may remain a mystery. One that we may one day solve.

[Drainer PI]

I noticed two things in the police report of that fateful day:

1. The pockets of Mr. Izard were turned out and his wallet missing. Perhaps the mailman went through them, hence the hand wringing.....

2. Mailman told Det. McPhail that he found the murders, looked around for killers, CALLED POLICE, went to porch to wait, THEN noticed kids were missing. But the police report said they received a call about a double homicide and MISSING CHILDREN. Sounds like the mailman new the kids were missing BEFORE he called police.

[Drainer PI]

Response: Very interesting observations. Perhaps the mailman did the robbery, but not the killings--yet in his haste to cover himself, he didn't get the story straight.

(Drainer P.I.)

PJ - I also saw the reference to 'tools' and was curious about that as you are.

Cheeky1 - The ring around little Doris's neck was without gemstones, as was the one Doris brought back to Oxford. Had Beatrice been the one to place Doris into the orphanage (with the ring) she wouldn't have been so surprised to see it again 40 years later with the girl she dropped off. I mean, her surprised comments would have been different, I think. But, admittedly, her comments don't PROVE anything, really.

On a further note, I notice that the bus driver mentioned he cleaned the bus after finishing his route that day. Normal? Probably. But he could have cleaned up evidence of his involvement. Perhaps his bus was the getaway vehicle for the killer (perhaps himself) and the children. Besides, how could anyone have gotten away from the scene without any suspicion?

Good puzzle. Everyone is really digging good stuff up. BTW, where is Dixon Hill? Haven't heard from him lately.....

Drainer P.I.

Response: Yes, where is Dixon Hill?

Did anyone ever check to see what sex the baby was of the Hadleys or if the baby even survived never saw anything about that in the evidence? I still think Doris favors Mrs Izzard. Also, if he was a child killer, I'm sure he would have done plenty to his own daughter.

Response: The child was almost certainly Doris Hammack.

I may have to eat crow for this, but I still can't accept that the Izard children are dead, (could be wishful thinking)! I think the remains found in the pond will be those of a 2 year old and a six year old ... both male.
PJ

Response: Why both male?

[PJ]
To Dixon Hill: Thank you for your reply. I'm sure you're a really neat dad!

Det. Nelson: I'm still concerned with Tommy Joe's statement, "And those bloody tools all the hell around him." It sounds like he initially saw numerous tools around Richard's body. I'm wondering about these possibilities:
1. Was he confused?
2. Did he see numerous tools, but the other tools were removed while he reconned around, only the shovel remained, indicating that someone else was there in hiding and had watched him discover the murder scene... and he realized he had seen too much?
3. He actually saw other people there, planned to cover up for them, made a slip of the lip with his statement about the "tools" and that caused his excessive hand wiping during McPhails questioning?
4. He knew about the lay-offs, suspected his brother was involved, and ditched the other tools in the creek but then slipped up with his statement since only the shovel remained at the scene?
5. He saw "tools" and reported "tools" but Det. McPhail didn't catch it?
6. He saw "tools" and their "kind" would be incriminating to someone he wanted to protect?

Also, where was the Izard's hall phone in relation to the kitchen? Could the playpen have been seen from the hall phone?

I was sure hoping you'd find all the children alive and well!
Thanks for providing this site! Best wishes.

PJ
Response: There were several small hand implements in the vicinity of the bodies. The murder weapon was coveredwith blood and the area near the boies well spattered. There were no bloody tools all around, it is likley he mispoke.