now if Rob was lying, why would he create a truck that looked exactly like his ????

And the cops are quite willing to say that Angela could have mis-identified the truck to Rob "like in the old telephone game" where information changes as you tell it down the line to the next person, and the next, etc.

But if Rob had a truck that was so similar to the one that Angela was suspicious of, I would tend to think that her description would be reliable, since she would be familiar with that kind of vehicle.

I still don't believe that Rob was lying. That he was driving a truck or a car is nitpicking over a reenactment detail.

Other witnesses have situated Angela Hammond at the phone booth, so how could Rob talk to Angela over the phone while driving the car around to abduct her? Cell phones were rare in that period, and they were as big and heavy as a brick. I doubt anyone except the very rich had the means of possessing a cell phone in plain middle of country Missouri at that time, and I am certain Rob didn't have these means.

Angela described his future abductor as a filthy bearded man dressed in overalls, and I have heard that a composite sketch was made from other witnesses. That description does not match Rob in any way.

Finally, as far as I know, Rob's little brother never changed his story that Rob was at home baby-sitting him when he talked to Angie and sprinted out of the house. Loren could tell us more and confirm this, of course, if she so chooses.

Drakken,

I don't think of the truck issue so much of a nit picky reenactment thing, but more of a huge surprise that 20 years later, it's finally publicly revealed that Rob was driving a truck very much like the one described as the abductor's truck.

I would have thought that would be very significant detail early on, (although I still don't think Rob is involved in any way). Also, by knowing this, it makes me believe that Angela's description is reliable, even though the cops want to discount it as very possibly being innacurrate. If her boyfriend had a similar truck, then she's likely to know what she's talking about, imo.

Also, because we are just now hearing about this information, it makes me question the accuracy of the news articles. Especially because they are also claiming to have new DNA. News stories are notorious for their errors. That's why I wanted to go straight to the original source, if possible, to get to the truth.

I agree in part, but I tend to think that the main story of the abduction remains similar. I do not see how Rob driving a truck changes anything :

a) Angela deposes Rob to his home to babysit, then drives off.
b) Angela calls Rob home at the phone booth.
c) Angela sees the truck and the suspect, and describes both of them to Rob
d) Angela is kidnapped and screams into the phone
e) Rob springs out and take his truck to reach the crime scene
f) Rob spots the suspect's truck and makes a harsh 180 degrees, damaging his transmission box
g) Rob pursues the suspect, but his truck stops due to damage.

Each of these steps are accounted for either authorities, witnesses, or family members. The only thing that changes is that Rob was driving a truck.

The only way I could see Rob commit the crime is if he springed outside after talking to Angie, took his truck, rushed to the crime scene, abducted Angela while she still speaks on the phone to God-knows-who, and springs away in his truck to kill her.

That could still account for his little brother keeping with his story. But if witnesses situate her talking at the phone booth, then whom was she talking to? She could have hanged up, called someone else in tears without knowing that Rob was coming to abduct her. But if it were the case, I would believe there would have been at least a heavy argument, even a quarrel in public, between Rob and Angela... but not a sudden abduction.

And what about the filthy bearded man? Was he only a random individual passing by at the time? Strange coincidence, then, that he disappeared at the exact same time that Angie did.

To me this last scenario doesn't make any sense, and contradicts what witnesses have seen. Surely they would have recognized Rob, and Rob didn't have the time to disguise himself as a hobo.

Rob's story has raised questions quite a few times on the board, and not in just this thread alone. I'm thinking UM took special care to have Rob portrayed as completly cleared (which he was) and innocent (which I believe he was)--so in order to deflect undue suspicion, UM made a compromise and had him driving a station wagon in the reenactment, which is a "blend" of sorts between car and truck. I'm of Drakken's mind that the vehicle Rob was driving is of little consequence to the story as a whole--but it does show that UM is privy to taking a teeny bit of artistic license at times.

Could you tell us why the investigators now seem to be very confident that Angela's dissapearance is not related to other similar abductions that happened in the same general time period?
I'm honestly not sure if they're 100% positive or just saying this. I do know that this is how the Clinton PD detectives feel based off their ongoing investigation and when we find Angela's killer/killers we will determine it to be an accurate statement or not. I do know that the Clinton PD are diligently working to solve our crime; they've tripled the staff that is working on our case and started from square 1 as if they had never seen Angela's case file before. A lot has changed in Clinton since Angie's disappearance including most of the original staff on Angela's case. To my knowledge, the answer is probably being that Jess Rush and his gang were determined not to be involved. Currently, there is a lot of investigating going on into the leads that were not followed up on in the beginning given that we thought we had our killers based on the Rush letters. However, since these rumors/leads keep circulating we feel as if we are moving in the right direction. A lot of people in the KC MO area are talking again. Any media at this point, good or bad, is good media for us.

I still don't believe that Rob was lying. That he was driving a truck or a car is nitpicking over a reenactment detail.

Other witnesses have situated Angela Hammond at the phone booth, so how could Rob talk to Angela over the phone while driving the car around to abduct her? Cell phones were rare in that period, and they were as big and heavy as a brick. I doubt anyone except the very rich had the means of possessing a cell phone in plain middle of country Missouri at that time, and I am certain Rob didn't have these means.

Angela described his future abductor as a filthy bearded man dressed in overalls, and I have heard that a composite sketch was made from other witnesses. That description does not match Rob in any way.

Finally, as far as I know, Rob's little brother never changed his story that Rob was at home baby-sitting him when he talked to Angie and sprinted out of the house. Loren could tell us more and confirm this, of course, if she so chooses.
Just an FYI....I am of the male gender last time I checked.

For the last time, Rob was not involved, point blank!!!

Drakken,

I don't think of the truck issue so much of a nit picky reenactment thing, but more of a huge surprise that 20 years later, it's finally publicly revealed that Rob was driving a truck very much like the one described as the abductor's truck.

I would have thought that would be very significant detail early on, (although I still don't think Rob is involved in any way). Also, by knowing this, it makes me believe that Angela's description is reliable, even though the cops want to discount it as very possibly being innacurrate. If her boyfriend had a similar truck, then she's likely to know what she's talking about, imo.

Also, because we are just now hearing about this information, it makes me question the accuracy of the news articles. Especially because they are also claiming to have new DNA. News stories are notorious for their errors. That's why I wanted to go straight to the original source, if possible, to get to the truth.
Let me break it down for you all:

It's not like Angie and or Rob saw a Ferrari and called it a truck. The discrepancies lie in the specifics. For instance, the color was reported as green. How may times have you had an argument with someone over what color an item/object is? I know I have before on a number of different occasions. Also, maybe she said Ford and it was a Chevy, or she saw dark green, which was actually black. Maybe the trauma involved with loosing the love of your life and mother of your child plus the added pressure of police questioning makes your recollections a bit unclear...

I like the phone theory, details change as they are passed on from one to another.

The investigators are sure that jess and marvin were not involved in this case maybe about 90% sure. The story of the mural is to like the old phone gossip thing they are not sure if it was a mural of a fish or if it was a fish sticker, when people communicate stuffs gets drawn out of what it is actually really started out to be. Unsolved Mysteries is the reason why everyone believed that Rob was driving a car, in the police reports and from the beginning it was a truck that he was driving. They now believe this case is not linked to my mom's case and trudy darby, beings they haven't let the reason completely out why?, is probably to cover real evidence that they actually have, and don't want to blow any leads on it. The lead detective that is working this case is doing a damn good job and i give many praises to him for the damn good job that he is doing on this case. Now as for the missouri highway patrol and my mom's case i give them a big F they are not doing well at keeping in contact with me and the Nevada Police Department another bigF. I believe if it wasnt for the Nevada Police Department and their investigating officers they had at this time my mom probably could still been alive. But they decided to slack on this case and yeah they mention it once in awhile but do they investigate it No. They have since the beginning of her case over looked many tips that could lead them in the right direction but they don't care they got two guys behind bars for Trudy Darby's murder for life without parole, this means hmmmm they did it, bull**** work the case! In 2007 a detective read me the dna test results of the remains that everyone beleived were that of my mothers, I did not receive an actual copy, hint hint, it came back that of a male supposebly but did that make the papers or media HELL NO. Lets wake up Missouri and do some real investigating, will reply again soon.

The investigators are sure that jess and marvin were not involved in this case maybe about 90% sure. The story of the mural is to like the old phone gossip thing they are not sure if it was a mural of a fish or if it was a fish sticker, when people communicate stuffs gets drawn out of what it is actually really started out to be. Unsolved Mysteries is the reason why everyone believed that Rob was driving a car, in the police reports and from the beginning it was a truck that he was driving. They now believe this case is not linked to my mom's case and trudy darby, beings they haven't let the reason completely out why?, is probably to cover real evidence that they actually have, and don't want to blow any leads on it. The lead detective that is working this case is doing a damn good job and i give many praises to him for the damn good job that he is doing on this case. Now as for the missouri highway patrol and my mom's case i give them a big F they are not doing well at keeping in contact with me and the Nevada Police Department another bigF. I believe if it wasnt for the Nevada Police Department and their investigating officers they had at this time my mom probably could still been alive. But they decided to slack on this case and yeah they mention it once in awhile but do they investigate it No. They have since the beginning of her case over looked many tips that could lead them in the right direction but they don't care they got two guys behind bars for Trudy Darby's murder for life without parole, this means hmmmm they did it, bull**** work the case! In 2007 a detective read me the dna test results of the remains that everyone beleived were that of my mothers, I did not receive an actual copy, hint hint, it came back that of a male supposebly but did that make the papers or media HELL NO. Lets wake up Missouri and do some real investigating, will reply again soon.
I felt all along that the reason they seemed to quit pursuing leads was because they had the men that committed these crimes in prison so why bother charging them with more crimes. The investigators seem pretty sure that Rush and Company were not involved with Angela but ofcourse no mention of whether they have been looked at in your moms case. Whatever the case may be those men were convicted on the basis of those letters but for some reason the other women mentioned in the letters have never been identified and the other accomplices never brought to trial. And that in itself is disturbing.

I'm honestly not sure if they're 100% positive or just saying this. I do know that this is how the Clinton PD detectives feel based off their ongoing investigation and when we find Angela's killer/killers we will determine it to be an accurate statement or not. I do know that the Clinton PD are diligently working to solve our crime; they've tripled the staff that is working on our case and started from square 1 as if they had never seen Angela's case file before. A lot has changed in Clinton since Angie's disappearance including most of the original staff on Angela's case. To my knowledge, the answer is probably being that Jess Rush and his gang were determined not to be involved. Currently, there is a lot of investigating going on into the leads that were not followed up on in the beginning given that we thought we had our killers based on the Rush letters. However, since these rumors/leads keep circulating we feel as if we are moving in the right direction. A lot of people in the KC MO area are talking again. Any media at this point, good or bad, is good media for us.
Im glad to hear that Rush and Chaney were atleast pursued as suspects. That of course was never made public. I was beginning to think we were the only ones looking that way. I was wondering since you are obviously closer to this case then any of us, if you have your own theory as to what happened or who might have been involved?

Just an FYI....I am of the male gender last time I checked.

For the last time, Rob was not involved, point blank!!!

My mistake. I apologize. :crazy:

And I agree with you, Rob didn't do it. I was speaking rhetorically.

My mistake. I apologize. :crazy:

And I agree with you, Rob didn't do it. I was speaking rhetorically.
No apology necessary...I just want to be clear.

Im glad to hear that Rush and Chaney were atleast pursued as suspects. That of course was never made public. I was beginning to think we were the only ones looking that way. I was wondering since you are obviously closer to this case then any of us, if you have your own theory as to what happened or who might have been involved?
For a good majority of my life I have been under the impression that Jess and Marvin were "the killers". However, I believe they were really just a great scapegoat for temporarily closing all three cases. I was never convinced they were responsible and I have to speculate about their involvement in all of these cases. In regard to the letters: I don’t blame law enforcement for pinning them to the crimes either. If someone hands you gold you will assume its gold and want to believe it is. It isn’t until you create your own hypothesis and determine your own conclusion that you will know whether or not it really was. I think originally they just wanted to believe, as did our families. We all have a common goal in mind and it’s finding the closure we all deserve. Like my dad says in his interview, it’s the not knowing that hurts the most.

The investigators are sure that jess and marvin were not involved in this case maybe about 90% sure. The story of the mural is to like the old phone gossip thing they are not sure if it was a mural of a fish or if it was a fish sticker, when people communicate stuffs gets drawn out of what it is actually really started out to be. Unsolved Mysteries is the reason why everyone believed that Rob was driving a car, in the police reports and from the beginning it was a truck that he was driving. They now believe this case is not linked to my mom's case and trudy darby, beings they haven't let the reason completely out why?, is probably to cover real evidence that they actually have, and don't want to blow any leads on it. The lead detective that is working this case is doing a damn good job and i give many praises to him for the damn good job that he is doing on this case. Now as for the missouri highway patrol and my mom's case i give them a big F they are not doing well at keeping in contact with me and the Nevada Police Department another bigF. I believe if it wasnt for the Nevada Police Department and their investigating officers they had at this time my mom probably could still been alive. But they decided to slack on this case and yeah they mention it once in awhile but do they investigate it No. They have since the beginning of her case over looked many tips that could lead them in the right direction but they don't care they got two guys behind bars for Trudy Darby's murder for life without parole, this means hmmmm they did it, bull**** work the case! In 2007 a detective read me the dna test results of the remains that everyone beleived were that of my mothers, I did not receive an actual copy, hint hint, it came back that of a male supposebly but did that make the papers or media HELL NO. Lets wake up Missouri and do some real investigating, will reply again soon.
I wish I had the answers as to why they do not believe the cases are linked but I do not. I do know that even though they think this way they will never out rule the possibility. I agree, not only the lead detective though, but the whole task force of detectives in general is doing a damn good job. If any of them read our feeds, please keep up the good work. I can only pray and hope that some day the Neveda PD will wake up, get off of their lazy asses, and put some real effort into your mom’s case. It should be a crime to do any less than that. I agree and it’s my personal opinion and feeling that Jess and Marvin had nothing to do with either cases. If you were interested in trying to have a sit down with them to confirm our suspicions, I would be more than obliged to join you, if permissible of course.

On a positive note: Lets all do our part to encourage Neveda to take a step in the right direction as Clinton has already done. Maybe if we crack Angie’s case they will wake up and smell the fresh air. These crime were not perfect, they we just committed back in the day when little could be done by law enforcement to solve, especially without the bodies being present.

Best Regards,

Loren

I would like to say thank you Loren, We both have been through the same thing, a long miserable 18 years of wondering where are loved one is and how we can get them back. We know we wont bring back what has already been done to these women but let us at least know where these bodies can be found so we can put our families at rest. People talk how they feel for the families but i would like these people to take a moment and try these shoes on. Take the time if you turn in a tip to make damn sure it is right and that you are not going to lead these cases in a direction that they dont need to go. Over the years these cases have been done such to already. There are people out there who have information to these cases and I so heartedly say may GOD let me carry your soul to hell myself when you die knowing that you could have helped a family bring closure to their families, and if your the person that was involved in this in any way, may GOD have "NO MERCY" on your soul. After 15 years I finally came to the conclusion that there was no way that in my lifetime my mother would walk back through a door. Upon my back I carry the memorial tattooed stating "NO MERCY" "Rest in peace mom! My love for you is eternal." As I stated NO MERCY these persons involved in these crimes had no mercy for these women for what they did to them, so I feel damn sorry for you if we ever get to meet face to face! These women were at no means able to take on a grown man or two and probably as chicken **** as these people were to do this to a woman probably did it while their backs were turned. Just like in the Darby case where she was shot execution style, this shows they were not human enough to look her in the eyes, to let her at least have one more prayer of hope. I hope you feel the pain NOW! MAY GOD HAVE NO JUSTICE ON YOUR SOUL!

Do either of you know if there are any plans to re-visit these cases on the new unsolved mysteries? Alot seems to have changed since the original broadcast and with new evidence in the Hammond case they might open up some new lead?

Do either of you know if there are any plans to re-visit these cases on the new unsolved mysteries? Alot seems to have changed since the original broadcast and with new evidence in the Hammond case they might open up some new lead?
I've emailed unsolvedtips@unsolved.com and informed them about the new findings and requested they do an updated segment, yet I have not heard a serious response back. I'm guessing I probably need a better contact than just their tips email but I have yet to find one. I'm open to suggestions...

I've emailed unsolvedtips@unsolved.com and informed them about the new findings and requested they do an updated segment, yet I have not heard a serious response back. I'm guessing I probably need a better contact than just their tips email but I have yet to find one. I'm open to suggestions...
Have you tried calling Phone: 1 (800) 876-5353

will try that number also

Have you tried calling Phone: 1 (800) 876-5353
Thanks, I will be calling tonight. The more the merrier…

Loren, thank you for posting here. Your sister's case is one of the cases featured on Unsolved Mysteries that has haunted me since the day I first saw it. No one should ever have to go through losing a loved one to violence, but it must be even worse to have to go so many years without any answers as to what happened to her. I still have great hope that you and your family will someday find justice.

It is especially good to hear that the Clinton Police are putting so much time and energy into reinvestigating the case--starting as if from scratch. I hope that whatever it takes--new technology, people finally willing to talk, etc.--they are successful.

Please continue to post any updates you have. I know they are appreciated by all of us here who hope that this case will one day be solved.

sooooo...... do they have a suspect?

sooooo...... do they have a suspect?
Actually, quite a few.

Note: Just because they have new DNA doesn't mean it has been processed yet and or ran through CODIS. That is all confidential information I do not have access to. Also, our suspect/suspects may have clean records. Keep your fingers crossed and your prayers coming!

is the case open?

is the case open?
Have you read ANY of this thread???

People need to read this forum when coming in if they are recently new, there is so much talked about that if someone tries to reword everything that has been typed then it will wind up like the leads, all screwed up!

But welcome to the site your feedback on things need to be carried lightly, the case/cases we talk about are still very well open. The info in this forum will bring you to light on what is currently going on and what has happened in the past. Even though to the couple of us in here the case/cases talked about are family that we were very close to, so please if you have comments please try to keep them as nice as possible, as for I have read comments on other forums that are way out of line!

Have you been able to get in touch with anyone from Unsolved Mysteries? I will try again this weekend.

Actually, quite a few.

Note: Just because they have new DNA doesn't mean it has been processed yet and or ran through CODIS. That is all confidential information I do not have access to. Also, our suspect/suspects may have clean records. Keep your fingers crossed and your prayers coming!
Im just baffled as to where they are getting DNA from. Is it from the phone booth, the parking lot or possibly from someone that has been a suspect all along? Do you have any clues on this? If you cant devulge I understand.

is the case open?
Yes, for around 2-years now!

Have you been able to get in touch with anyone from Unsolved Mysteries? I will try again this weekend.
I have not yet, given that the # provided above is the main Tip line for UM. Regardless, I plan to leave them a message this week in an effort to test the outcome. I would also like to propose that we write to Unsolved Mysteries in regard to your mom's case to see if they might consider covering it. Someone needs to put some much-needed pressure on the Nevada Police Department’s detective unit, if that department even exists. What do you think?

Unsolved Mysteries / New Story Ideas
PO BOX 11449
Burbank, CA 91510

Im just baffled as to where they are getting DNA from. Is it from the phone booth, the parking lot or possibly from someone that has been a suspect all along? Do you have any clues on this? If you cant devulge I understand.
I can’t divulge much, considering that obviously the last thing I would ever want to do is jeopardize my sister’s case.

I would however like to take a second to clear it up for the record:

It is not in the interest of the Clinton PD to make up false claims about DNA evidence if it does not exist. I know this may be hard to accept, but the Clinton PD reopened Angie’s case to give us hope that we can solve the mysteries behind her disappearance once and for all, not to give us false hopes. I don’t mean to sound condescending but use your imagination and I’m sure you can think of a few different scenarios where DNA may have been left behind and or later collected.

very good idea will use the number and see if we can get some pressure on nevada pd.

Anything new on this one? Sounded like the police were getting close a few months ago.

i just watched it on an old VHS tape

When this happened, I was only 4. What peaked my interest in this is because Rob is my cousin and our grandmother just died Monday, and I saw him at the funeral and it made me remember about the time I watched this episode of UM that my granny had recorded of the TV. Most of you know a lot more about this and I'm related to the guy! I had no idea that people would still be talking about it, but I guess it is weird when cases are like over 15 yrs old and still not solved. I really didn't feel like reading through the 15 or so pages of posts, so if someone could like sum up the latest about it that would be great. I would ask my family, but I don't really keep in touch with that side anymore, and besides I don't think they talk about it anymore.

I discoverd on the charley project website that she was 4 months pregnant at the time of her disappearance and other woman cheryl anne kinney's body was found in a nearby field in 2000 and that she was murdered.

This case haunted me from the first time I watched it many years ago. Two years ago I read every post on this thread and then made a post of my own and now I've gone back and read everything since those 2 years.

Loren, I hope they find who took your sister. I honestly think about her every time I see a fish on the back of a truck (any kind of fish on a truck) and say a prayer for your family and that she will be found.

http://www.myspace.com/cheryl_ann_kenney

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/70/l_faf1102694544910b3103d22b2a7307c.jpg

I got with the local news in Joplin, Mo. and had my mothers picture and info about the case aired on the local news last night. This is the website to go to to view the video.....

www.fourstateshomepage.com

Go to the news button scroll to local news from there go through the videos of the local news it will have her pic and story

I got with the local news in Joplin, Mo. and had my mothers picture and info about the case aired on the local news last night. This is the website to go to to view the video.....

www.fourstateshomepage.com

Go to the news button scroll to local news from there go through the videos of the local news it will have her pic and story

Hey man, checked out the link to the news page you provided, was hoping there might be new info but it appears there is none. Good to see they are atleast talking about it and keeping the story alive. Hope you get something soon.
I know that the investigators in the Hammond case think they have ruled out Chaney and Rush as suspects. Im wondering since your mom was taken in the same manner that Trudy Darby was taken, have they also been able to rule them out as suspects in her case?? Do you have any theories of your own??

Oh my goodness...I just rewatched this April 5th, one day after the 19th anniversary of her disappearance.

I honestly wish this case could be solved...the pure fear Angela must have endeared is terrifying...not to mention Rob, who probably still has nightmares to this day.

I too can remember watching this story as a child. While I'm no expert in this case, the details seem way too suspicious.
1) The vehicle. Given the uniqueness of it and the publicity given to the crime, surely many people would've seen it or known someone that had the vehicle with the odd traits.
2) The rough looking man. Again, this guy along with his truck make him very unique. More people would know of him, as you don't get rough looking overnight - this was probably his appearance for a long time.
3) The dramatic rescue effort. If, as rob claims, Angela Hammond was in a struglle with the alleged perp, he must have subdued her and tied her hands behind her back at best. Let's say he didn't as it sounds like she was hanging out the window when he claims to have driven past her. I'd expect anyone to bail out of a moving vehicle in that situation or instigate a stuggle with the driver, who at a high rate of speed, isn't going to fight and drive well at the sae time.
4) The transmission going out. I just don't buy it. In order to turn around, he'd have to slow down considerably, make his turn.... and then throw it into R.... Just can't see it.
5) No witnesses to the entire event. Makes something here stink.



I suspect that Rob did this on his own, to try and cement truth in his story, her trashed the transmission on his car. He probably did a few neutral drops / other moves to trash it to make his story work.
Here's another reason why: We all remember Casey Anthony, which myself as well as most other, knew she did it from the start. In both cases, you have a victim, both to some degree vulnerable. Usually children (If their parents are any good) are seldom vulnerable and women too try and not be vulnerable. This is part 1, which is an uncommon occurrence. The other part you need in this story is even less frequent. You need a perp, looking to carry out a crime. So, what I'm saying is that in both stories, you need to very uncommon circumstances to occur at nealy the same time.
If this was to have happened, how come no one else saw it, the truck, parking lot, Rob joiing the chase, Angela hanging out the truck screaming for help. The fish decal on the back of the truck.
To summarize, too many strange, noticable things exist in this story for no one else to have seen it. I thought this before and still do. I used this reasoning with Casey Anthony and was dead on.
I'm not sure how this story has stood the test of time. Can anyone please help me understand that?

I too can remember watching this story as a child. While I'm no expert in this case, the details seem way too suspicious.
1) The vehicle. Given the uniqueness of it and the publicity given to the crime, surely many people would've seen it or known someone that had the vehicle with the odd traits.
2) The rough looking man. Again, this guy along with his truck make him very unique. More people would know of him, as you don't get rough looking overnight - this was probably his appearance for a long time.
3) The dramatic rescue effort. If, as rob claims, Angela Hammond was in a struglle with the alleged perp, he must have subdued her and tied her hands behind her back at best. Let's say he didn't as it sounds like she was hanging out the window when he claims to have driven past her. I'd expect anyone to bail out of a moving vehicle in that situation or instigate a stuggle with the driver, who at a high rate of speed, isn't going to fight and drive well at the sae time.
4) The transmission going out. I just don't buy it. In order to turn around, he'd have to slow down considerably, make his turn.... and then throw it into R.... Just can't see it.
5) No witnesses to the entire event. Makes something here stink.



I suspect that Rob did this on his own, to try and cement truth in his story, her trashed the transmission on his car. He probably did a few neutral drops / other moves to trash it to make his story work.
Here's another reason why: We all remember Casey Anthony, which myself as well as most other, knew she did it from the start. In both cases, you have a victim, both to some degree vulnerable. Usually children (If their parents are any good) are seldom vulnerable and women too try and not be vulnerable. This is part 1, which is an uncommon occurrence. The other part you need in this story is even less frequent. You need a perp, looking to carry out a crime. So, what I'm saying is that in both stories, you need to very uncommon circumstances to occur at nealy the same time.
If this was to have happened, how come no one else saw it, the truck, parking lot, Rob joiing the chase, Angela hanging out the truck screaming for help. The fish decal on the back of the truck.
To summarize, too many strange, noticable things exist in this story for no one else to have seen it. I thought this before and still do. I used this reasoning with Casey Anthony and was dead on.
I'm not sure how this story has stood the test of time. Can anyone please help me understand that?

I believe Rob Schaeffer to be innocent. I do not believe he had anything to do with her disappearance/murder. However, the fish decal thing is something I've always stuck on as well. Something that apparent would have to have been noticed by at least 1 person out there. I find it odd that no one has ever provided a credible lead for a person driving a truck with that decal. Not necessarily that they know the person driving the truck but at least a few sightings.

While I'm no expert in this case, the details seem way too suspicious.
agree, but it COULD happen
1) The vehicle. Given the uniqueness of it and the publicity given to the crime, surely many people would've seen it or known someone that had the vehicle with the odd traits.
not late at night. This is a small town and from the looks of it, it looks like it's 10 or 11, how many people are driving around in really small towns at 10 and saying, that's an unusual car, let's stop and look at it? not many
2) The rough looking man. Again, this guy along with his truck make him very unique. More people would know of him, as you don't get rough looking overnight - this was probably his appearance for a long time.
I have actually seen rough looking men around here and remember this is at 10 at night, no one was around the phone booth and if they were they were driving at (likely) 30 miles per hour and just getting a quick look at him.
3) The dramatic rescue effort. If, as rob claims, Angela Hammond was in a struglle with the alleged perp, he must have subdued her and tied her hands behind her back at best. Let's say he didn't as it sounds like she was hanging out the window when he claims to have driven past her. I'd expect anyone to bail out of a moving vehicle in that situation or instigate a stuggle with the driver, who at a high rate of speed, isn't going to fight and drive well at the sae time.
that is hard to explain, but explain this and tell me the answer to this?? IF Rob the crime, HOW did the body not get found??? how did his brother (who he baby sat) not notice his brother gone for a LONG period of time. In order for Rob to do this crime, he would have to kill Angela, bury her to where she wouldn't be found to THIS DAY and clean up the crime scene so it would look as if she's alive still. How could Rob do all that and not be noticed for a LONG abscence??? Add to that, where's the clues?? a first time killer will leave a clue and if Rob did the crime, where's his bloody clothes? why isn't any of the cars covered in blood??
4) The transmission going out. I just don't buy it. In order to turn around, he'd have to slow down considerably, make his turn.... and then throw it into R.... Just can't see it.
transmissions are tricky buddy, they can go out at any time and honestly, i am lucky that mine hasn't been destroyed yet. They are expensive too. i could believe his transmission failed, why you can't is just confusing.
5) No witnesses to the entire event. Makes something here stink.
like i said, look at the time. It's about 10, 11pm at night, whose all out in a small town at these hours??? not many and i bet people saw the truck, but didn't get a good enough look to notice all the other things.
I suspect that Rob did this on his own, to try and cement truth in his story, her trashed the transmission on his car.
That's where i think your suspect actually looks innocent. Do you know how much a transmission fix is!!!!?? Add to it, remember he's a teen who killed his girlfriend, so tell me how she isn't found???? There are easy answers to why Rob isn't suspected anymore and that's one of them. A first time offender usually leaves clues behind, yet Rob somehow hides a body perfectly, doesnt look bloody and doesnt leave clues?? either she's alive, he's a perfect criminal (which i can't agree with) or his story is true.
If this was to have happened, how come no one else saw it, the truck, parking lot, Rob joiing the chase, Angela hanging out the truck screaming for help. The fish decal on the back of the truck.
like i said, the TIME. Maybe if it happened in New York or Charlotte at 8pm we would have a witness or two, but the fact is, this is a small town at 10 or 11, the fish decal can be unnoticed if you are driving on the opposite side of the road and i bet she was screaming, but normally people don't jump out to help others, especially at night and especially when we think, oh, it's a husband/wife argument, maybe you get a good samaratain helping once in a while, but not all the time. There was one case where a woman screamed, at least 5 people heard her and not one helped because they thought someone else would or that it was a joke.

However, the fish decal thing is something I've always stuck on as well. Something that apparent would have to have been noticed by at least 1 person out there. I find it odd that no one has ever provided a credible lead for a person driving a truck with that decal. Not necessarily that they know the person driving the truck but at least a few sightings.
I think people have seen it or noticed it, but most likely didn't come forward because they only seen it for a second and didn't make a big deal out of it. The fact of the matter is, i think Rob is innocent too, people think the story is far fetched, but i think it is one that could happen and to me what's harder is to prove he's guilty, especially since the body hasn't been found.

I too can remember watching this story as a child. While I'm no expert in this case, the details seem way too suspicious.
1) The vehicle. Given the uniqueness of it and the publicity given to the crime, surely many people would've seen it or known someone that had the vehicle with the odd traits.
2) The rough looking man. Again, this guy along with his truck make him very unique. More people would know of him, as you don't get rough looking overnight - this was probably his appearance for a long time.
3) The dramatic rescue effort. If, as rob claims, Angela Hammond was in a struglle with the alleged perp, he must have subdued her and tied her hands behind her back at best. Let's say he didn't as it sounds like she was hanging out the window when he claims to have driven past her. I'd expect anyone to bail out of a moving vehicle in that situation or instigate a stuggle with the driver, who at a high rate of speed, isn't going to fight and drive well at the sae time.
4) The transmission going out. I just don't buy it. In order to turn around, he'd have to slow down considerably, make his turn.... and then throw it into R.... Just can't see it.
5) No witnesses to the entire event. Makes something here stink.



I suspect that Rob did this on his own, to try and cement truth in his story, her trashed the transmission on his car. He probably did a few neutral drops / other moves to trash it to make his story work.
Here's another reason why: We all remember Casey Anthony, which myself as well as most other, knew she did it from the start. In both cases, you have a victim, both to some degree vulnerable. Usually children (If their parents are any good) are seldom vulnerable and women too try and not be vulnerable. This is part 1, which is an uncommon occurrence. The other part you need in this story is even less frequent. You need a perp, looking to carry out a crime. So, what I'm saying is that in both stories, you need to very uncommon circumstances to occur at nealy the same time.
If this was to have happened, how come no one else saw it, the truck, parking lot, Rob joiing the chase, Angela hanging out the truck screaming for help. The fish decal on the back of the truck.
To summarize, too many strange, noticable things exist in this story for no one else to have seen it. I thought this before and still do. I used this reasoning with Casey Anthony and was dead on.
I'm not sure how this story has stood the test of time. Can anyone please help me understand that?

Maybe you should think about reading through the countless posts on this subject here on this site. Then maybe you would get clued in that there was no way possible for Rob to have done this. Angela's brother has posted several times on this site and he along with all of her family beileve Rob is innocent. Mainly because Rob was investigated and his story checks out.
I know its hard to stomach but the perpatraitor has no been found due to very bad police work directly after the dissapearance.

Maybe you should think about reading through the countless posts on this subject here on this site. Then maybe you would get clued in that there was no way possible for Rob to have done this.
thank you Kane, why anyone would think Rob did this is beyond me. I am one of the first to suspect the boyfriends too, but the fact is he's been investigated and he was a young adult and her body hasn't been found and young criminals will screw up, especially if they are young and add to it, someone would've noticed that Rob was missing for a long period of time.
I know its hard to stomach but the perpatraitor has no been found due to very bad police work directly after the dissapearance.
that and the body hasn't been found and i also believe that the man who did this isn't a guy who stayed after the abducution and may've moved to another city or even state.
Rob (Angie's Boyfriend) did not do it. It is not feasible considering the minute amount of time he would have had to cover up the evidence before he reported the news of her disappearance.
Thank you Loren!!! That's where people need to look at, not how unlikely the story is, but the time!!!! there's NO WAY that Rob or any guy could kill a girlfriend, cover up the crime to where no one would solve it in YEARS and not go unnoticed for being missing, if he did this, someone would've noticed that he was missing.
We need to out rule him completely as the police have done on multiple occasions and leave it that way.
i have ruled him out completely, if this was the Don Hanson or Paul Polis i agree, but this is Angela Hammond and the fact is, the time period is too short for Rob to do this.
I do believe are answers lie in the Clinton/Surrounding area and the persons involved are very close knit and most likely heavy drug users (rural Missouri so Meth is a good assumption).
i believe the answers will be found once someone speaks up, the man has seemed to disappear with Angela.
People know what happened and they are afraid of coming forward
i think maybe a family member of the man who abducted her knows something or maybe a friend.

Well, excuse me for having an opinion.
-Can anyone share what Angela's plans were between the 10pm drop off, and the 11:15 phone call, 6/7 blocks from where she just was? Surely Rob knew what she was going to be up to? Someone would've had to have seen her, being a small town and all. If she was there, alive and well, I would bet the farm that several people would've seen or heard from her in that time window. If she is completely unaccounted or spoken for in that time window, Rob stands out to me as even more of a suspect.
-Why would Angela call rob when she was just 6 or 7 blocks away from his house?
-Has anyone verified that Angela herself dropped Rob off at 10pm? Who's to say someone other than Angela dropped Rob off?
-Did anyone else know of any transmission problems with rob's car?

Inconsistencies people! If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and tastes like a rat, it's a rat! There are way to many instances of Rob hitting the bad powerball if so many holes remain.

As a young criminal, if he was, it's likely that he would've made mistakes. I'll agree there. What if there was a disagreement or fight between the BBQ and Rob being dropped off. That time window would've been large enough for something to happen. Perhaps Rob's mistake was creating a truck too unique to ever be found... although maybe that was the plan.

Does anyone know the answer to my questions above? I struggle with the details on this one. Yes, I know a thing or 2 about cars. I have replaced a few transmissions in my lifetime. They show signs that they're about to go and you often can drive on them for months before they completely crap out. Following someone at night, in a small town could be easier than during the day, as the truck's lights would have to be on, AND as we all know, there were no witnesses (i.e. other cars) to get mixed up with about which vehicle was the truck, it would've been as simple as slowing down, turning around and flooring it to close back in on the truck, which appeared to be traveling on a 2 lane highway.

I'm sorry, I just don't have the time to read every last post on this story. It fascinates me how quickly everyone has been on the attack because I don't agree with them. No one wants to think it could have been Rob. I too, hope it wasn't, but can't agree it wasn't at this point.

However, the fish decal thing is something I've always stuck on as well. Something that apparent would have to have been noticed by at least 1 person out there. I find it odd that no one has ever provided a credible lead for a person driving a truck with that decal. Not necessarily that they know the person driving the truck but at least a few sightings.

1. It would take nothing for the guy to smash the window, repaint it, burn the truck or just put something over the decal. The minute he heard of the information, the killer probably made preperations. That would explain why nobody recognized the truck after Angela;s disappearance.

2. As for why nobody noticed the van before Angela's disappearance......You make a good point.

considering this is an eyewitness account..the decal may be not be of a fish. It may be of something else.

Well, excuse me for having an opinion.
-Can anyone share what Angela's plans were between the 10pm drop off, and the 11:15 phone call, 6/7 blocks from where she just was? Surely Rob knew what she was going to be up to? Someone would've had to have seen her, being a small town and all. If she was there, alive and well, I would bet the farm that several people would've seen or heard from her in that time window. If she is completely unaccounted or spoken for in that time window, Rob stands out to me as even more of a suspect.
-Why would Angela call rob when she was just 6 or 7 blocks away from his house?
-Has anyone verified that Angela herself dropped Rob off at 10pm? Who's to say someone other than Angela dropped Rob off?
-Did anyone else know of any transmission problems with rob's car?

Inconsistencies people! If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and tastes like a rat, it's a rat! There are way to many instances of Rob hitting the bad powerball if so many holes remain.

As a young criminal, if he was, it's likely that he would've made mistakes. I'll agree there. What if there was a disagreement or fight between the BBQ and Rob being dropped off. That time window would've been large enough for something to happen. Perhaps Rob's mistake was creating a truck too unique to ever be found... although maybe that was the plan.

Does anyone know the answer to my questions above? I struggle with the details on this one. Yes, I know a thing or 2 about cars. I have replaced a few transmissions in my lifetime. They show signs that they're about to go and you often can drive on them for months before they completely crap out. Following someone at night, in a small town could be easier than during the day, as the truck's lights would have to be on, AND as we all know, there were no witnesses (i.e. other cars) to get mixed up with about which vehicle was the truck, it would've been as simple as slowing down, turning around and flooring it to close back in on the truck, which appeared to be traveling on a 2 lane highway.

I'm sorry, I just don't have the time to read every last post on this story. It fascinates me how quickly everyone has been on the attack because I don't agree with them. No one wants to think it could have been Rob. I too, hope it wasn't, but can't agree it wasn't at this point.

1. If Rob killed Angela....what did he do with her body? Angela should have been found at her murder scene. The fact that she is missing would indicate that Rob moved her body....in the same car that got damaged in the road due to transmission.

2. What did Rob use to kill Angela? A knife? Where;s the blood on his clothing or in the car?
If it was his fists, there should be bruising on his hands.

3. Don;t you think it would be an easy thing for the police to determine whether the transmission failure was real or not...along with checking the trunk for blood, hair.etc???

1. It would take nothing for the guy to smash the window, repaint it, burn the truck or just put something over the decal. The minute he heard of the information, the killer probably made preperations. That would explain why nobody recognized the truck after Angela;s disappearance.

Or just scrape the thing off, even. It's not like the window was made with it on there, permanently.

I wish I could understand how this keeps coming up. The police have cleared him, with much more evidence than we have, and Angela's family doesn't believe he has anything to do with it.

Mastermind, you have perhaps the best nickname for this sort of site.

Let me start with my hot issue. Who can vouch for Angela between the time she is alleged to have dropped Rob off and the time she made the phone call. Surely Rob knew her plans, surely someone else did too. I find it odd that she would drop him off, and then call him 75 minutes later while 6/7 blocks from where he was at. If there is not substantial, credible and verifiable information that proves her to be alive during that critical window, I can't buy the story. It was a small town. Seriously, there's no way she could've gone unnoticed for 75 minutes by anyone. She had to make some stops, phone calls, purchases, got gas, or something during this time window. Please, I beg someone here to prove me wrong on this point. Does this point make sense?
Second, what would a person do with 75 minutes in a small town. If I had to kill time, id take care of errands, go to the gas station... She couldn't have been driving the entire time, making no contact... and if she was... as we all know in a small town, someone would have seen her.
As far as the blown out tranny, I do believe the tranny crapped out. I'd sure there's way's to throw out a tranny. Heck, in the mind of a killer, a blown tranny is a small price to pay to sell a story.

Now, before someone asks how he held his emotions together (if he was the killer) when the police arrived, here's my answer. If he did it, the whole created scene with the pursuit would justify him sweating and being entirely frantic, a perfect, perfect I say, disguise for what may have happened.


I'm not trying to be a flamer here and piss people off, but here's some thoughts.

Transporting the body before the 11:15 phone call would've been easier than we may realize, as the car's transmission was not destroyed until Rob tried to chase the alleged perp down.

How she was killed/subdued.
1. A gunshot or 2 from a distance would keep him clean, and if he got blood on himself, he could burn/change/wash his clothes. Did he take a shower after being dropped off?
2. A sexual act that went awry. Perhaps they were into something far out and she suffocated? Or she could've been handcuffed, which would make a suffocation death easier to do, without as many, if any signs of a struggle.

As far as the decal, I think if the alleged perp busted his window that supply shops would hopefully remember someone ordering the window around the time of the dissappearance, sort of like when there's a hit and run and the PoPo's know what part of the car was damaged, and then they inform shops to look out for people ordering specific parts in an effort to fix the car and avoid detection.
Nonetheless, we all notice unique things about vehicles. Back then, custom things on vehicles were a lot less common than they are now, making them more noticeable. If the perp had any contact with the outside world, his friends, family, neighbors and acquaintances would've seen the decal. Of course, if he was a hermit(so unlikely), this theory goes into the recycle bin. Your thoughts?

As far as the decal, I think if the alleged perp busted his window that supply shops would hopefully remember someone ordering the window around the time of the dissappearance, sort of like when there's a hit

1. A lot of people don;t replace their windows. I'm sure you have seen numerous vehicles that just have a piece of plastic covering the window.

2. If the killer is a mechanic or went to a chop shop, there would be no paper trail.

Transporting the body before the 11:15 phone call would've been easier than we may realize, as the car's transmission was not destroyed until Rob tried to chase the alleged perp down.

You still haven't answered the question about why there was no evidence on the car. No blood, hair , etc.

How she was killed/subdued.
1. A gunshot or 2 from a distance would keep him clean, and if he got blood on himself, he could burn/change/wash his clothes. Did he take a shower after being dropped off?
2. A sexual act that went awry. Perhaps they were into something far out and she suffocated? Or she could've been handcuffed, which would make a suffocation death easier to do, without as many, if any signs of a struggle.

Do you really believe either scenario happened...or did you just choose those two scenarios because they accomadate the lack of phsyical evidence? I'm asking whether you are cherrypicking for solutions.

1. If rob used a gun that would indicate that this was a premeditated act. The reasoning for this is why did Rob have the gun on him that night in the first place.

2. Why did nobody hear the report of the gun? Where did he do this shooting? Wouldn;t bullet casings be found somewhere near to were Angela disappeared?

3. If they were having sex with handcuffs...that would indicate there was a place that this act took place and hence a murder scene. Where? Not either of their homes? a hotel? Someones place? Why didn;t anyone see them?

---PoPo's---

You from around PG County, Onlooker? ;)

Back then, custom things on vehicles were a lot less common than they are now, making them more noticeable.

I don;t follow your logic, there. In the 70s and 80s is extremely common to have your van tricked out with all sorts of decals, murals, etc.

Back in the 80s, it was the cool thing to have a tricked out van.

Nonetheless, we all notice unique things about vehicles.
Other than the decal on the window...what was so unique about the van?
If you think about it, there are several instances where an observer wouldn;t see the decal.


If the perp had any contact with the outside world, his friends, family, neighbors and acquaintances would've seen the decal. Of course, if he was a hermit(so unlikely), this theory goes into the recycle bin. Your thoughts?

If one;s going to abduct women as a hobby, having a van becomes a useful vehicle. It has not been uncommon for serial killers, sexual predators or child molesters to have a special vehicle that they use only for this purpose. The so called "child-molester van". Such a vehicle may not be known or may be locked in a garage someplace.

I wouldn't be surprised if he changes the decals after every attack to throw people off. It would be a simple thing to do.

2. I think a big reason nobody noticed the van is because the killer is not local. He may be several states away and chooses the cities in which to kill.

Mastermind, you have perhaps the best nickname for this sort of site.

Let me start with my hot issue. Who can vouch for Angela between the time she is alleged to have dropped Rob off and the time she made the phone call. Surely Rob knew her plans, surely someone else did too. I find it odd that she would drop him off, and then call him 75 minutes later while 6/7 blocks from where he was at. If there is not substantial, credible and verifiable information that proves her to be alive during that critical window, I can't buy the story. It was a small town. Seriously, there's no way she could've gone unnoticed for 75 minutes by anyone. She had to make some stops, phone calls, purchases, got gas, or something during this time window. Please, I beg someone here to prove me wrong on this point. Does this point make sense?
Second, what would a person do with 75 minutes in a small town. If I had to kill time, id take care of errands, go to the gas station... She couldn't have been driving the entire time, making no contact... and if she was... as we all know in a small town, someone would have seen her.
As far as the blown out tranny, I do believe the tranny crapped out. I'd sure there's way's to throw out a tranny. Heck, in the mind of a killer, a blown tranny is a small price to pay to sell a story.

Now, before someone asks how he held his emotions together (if he was the killer) when the police arrived, here's my answer. If he did it, the whole created scene with the pursuit would justify him sweating and being entirely frantic, a perfect, perfect I say, disguise for what may have happened.


I'm not trying to be a flamer here and piss people off, but here's some thoughts.

Transporting the body before the 11:15 phone call would've been easier than we may realize, as the car's transmission was not destroyed until Rob tried to chase the alleged perp down.

How she was killed/subdued.
1. A gunshot or 2 from a distance would keep him clean, and if he got blood on himself, he could burn/change/wash his clothes. Did he take a shower after being dropped off?
2. A sexual act that went awry. Perhaps they were into something far out and she suffocated? Or she could've been handcuffed, which would make a suffocation death easier to do, without as many, if any signs of a struggle.

As far as the decal, I think if the alleged perp busted his window that supply shops would hopefully remember someone ordering the window around the time of the dissappearance, sort of like when there's a hit and run and the PoPo's know what part of the car was damaged, and then they inform shops to look out for people ordering specific parts in an effort to fix the car and avoid detection.
Nonetheless, we all notice unique things about vehicles. Back then, custom things on vehicles were a lot less common than they are now, making them more noticeable. If the perp had any contact with the outside world, his friends, family, neighbors and acquaintances would've seen the decal. Of course, if he was a hermit(so unlikely), this theory goes into the recycle bin. Your thoughts?

Do you live in a small town? Because I do. There are plenty of ways to spend 75 minutes without being noticed. I've done it, many times. Maybe she wanted to have a little time to herself and drove around on the backroads. Not to mention, even if she did stop somewhere, at a gas station, or whatever, that's not a guarantee that the person would recognize her, or even remember it. Just because people from cities seem to think that everyone knows everyone in small towns, this is rarely the case, unless it's a town of like four or five people. And let's not forget the fact that Mastermind has brought up, constantly, she disappeared at night. He was dropped off a little before 10. In small towns, at least around here, most places are closed by 10, except for the odd 24 hour gas station, which I don't remember seeing much, when I was younger, back in the late 80s. So they may not have had one, where she was, back then. People are usually home, and those that aren't are at work. Because of this, do not assume that "She couldn't have been driving the entire time, making no contact... and if she was... as we all know in a small town, someone would have seen her." I've driven around for hours, at night, encountering only one or two cars. And guess what? Since it's night, and they're coming at you with headlights on, it is almost impossible to tell any specifics from the oncoming car, except maybe what kind of car it is, by the headlight shapes. You can't tell who is driving it, and most of the time, you can't tell color, unless you're paying more attention to the other car than you are the road. And normal people would not be doing so.

As for the decal, as I posted above, he could've simply scraped it out. Decals are far from permanent, so busting his window is very much a last resort. Thus, no repair shop would've ever seen it. The thought that he was a hermit is not "so unlikely," as you put it. Especially in the country. Also, it may not have been a fish. If I remember correctly, they said that they thought it was a fish jumping out of water, but that they didn't have a definate description of it. It could've been something entirely different. Have you ever looked at something that was clearly one thing, but when you first saw it, you thought it was something else? It's night, in a small town, which is generally not lit like a city. In the dark, from a distance, things often look totally different.

Well, excuse me for having an opinion.
I don't mind opinions onlooker, but on a site about mysteries, you got to be rational and think it through, the fact is, Rob is young!!! he's not the perfect criminal, so IF he did this, there WOULD be clues all over the place.
Someone would've had to have seen her, being a small town and all.
remember the time!!!! it's night, people are either asleep or at home, not many are driving around at night.
Rob stands out to me as even more of a suspect.
the ONLY reasons you suspect him is because he's the boyfriend and you think his story is far fetched, i am saying it could happen and the fact is the police investigated him and didn't find him suspicious, half of us don't find him suspecious
-Why would Angela call rob when she was just 6 or 7 blocks away from his house?
It's her BOYFRIEND!!!! my sister calls her boyfriend and they talk a lot.
Has anyone verified that Angela herself dropped Rob off at 10pm? Who's to say someone other than Angela dropped Rob off?
there's something called phone records, maybe they could check the phone records and see if there was a call made to a pay phone, unless he SET that up too, which i am sure you will likely think.
-Did anyone else know of any transmission problems with rob's car?
how many times do WE have to say this, you CANT make transmission problems, you know how you can tell, you drive the car!!! and it would be STUPID to screw up your own transmission, that is a very pricey fix.
Inconsistencies people! If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and tastes like a rat, it's a rat! There are way to many instances of Rob hitting the bad powerball if so many holes remain.
holes to you, not to me, i think the story makes sense, is it far fetched, yes, but the fact is it CAN happen. i have seen dirty looking men around and i am sure a man drives an ugly green truck.
As a young criminal, if he was, it's likely that he would've made mistakes.
and THAT'S one reason why i rule him out, if he committed the crime, the police would've found the body or the weapon that was used, the fact is, they haven't.
What if there was a disagreement or fight between the BBQ and Rob being dropped off.
that could happen, but.......
Perhaps Rob's mistake was creating a truck too unique to ever be found... although maybe that was the plan.
like i said, i HAVE seen those trucks before, the problem isn't the truck the problem is the man isn't known, which means i doubt he's a local and i doubt he's known by many people and if Rob's mistake was only that, he's a great criminal, but the fact is, that is usually NOT the case. he would've left a print or a hair.
I have replaced a few transmissions in my lifetime. They show signs that they're about to go and you often can drive on them for months before they completely crap out.
usually they show signs, BUT they can go out if you do what Rob did. It won't happen often, but IT CAN happen.
It fascinates me how quickly everyone has been on the attack because I don't agree with them. No one wants to think it could have been Rob. I too, hope it wasn't, but can't agree it wasn't at this point.
listen Onlooker, if the body was found and there was good hard evidence literally pointing at Rob, i would agree, but i don't. I think it was an unknown guy to both Angela and Rob and he took her out of town, killed her and hid her body.
You still haven't answered the question about why there was no evidence on the car. No blood, hair , etc.
There we go Mastermind, that's why i listen to you most, your posts are very wise and i agree, if not in Rob's car, the car WOULD've been found and we would have evidence looking at Rob and like i said, if Rob did this, then he needs to write a book on being the perfect criminal.
1. If rob used a gun that would indicate that this was a premeditated act. The reasoning for this is why did Rob have the gun on him that night in the first place.
yeah and the police would've noticed one of many things, either 1) a friend's/dad's gun is missing or 2) someone had their gun stolen or 3) Rob bought a gun recently.
2. Why did nobody hear the report of the gun? Where did he do this shooting? Wouldn;t bullet casings be found somewhere near to were Angela disappeared?
yep, agree, where is the gun?? how is it not found in YEARS? Where is the shooting?? where's the casings? how did he hide them for so long? and why did NO ONE hear the gunshot?
3. If they were having sex with handcuffs...that would indicate there was a place that this act took place and hence a murder scene. Where? Not either of their homes? a hotel? Someones place? Why didn;t anyone see them?
agree 100% with point 3, where's the scene? the woods? why didn't anyone see them?
2. I think a big reason nobody noticed the van is because the killer is not local. He may be several states away and chooses the cities in which to kill
my thoughts exactly, i think the killer is a traveler. he likely saw her and thought she was easy to target. From the description of the man, he's likely not a popular guy and i bet he's in another state or city or town right now.

I find it odd that she would drop him off, and then call him 75 minutes later while 6/7 blocks from where he was at.
remember this was before the cell phones, girls like calling their boyfriends and vice versa.
It was a small town. Seriously, there's no way she could've gone unnoticed for 75 minutes by anyone.
you are forgetting a KEY point, it's at NIGHT. how many people do you recognize at 10 or 11pm at night?? even in a small town, people can't remember people at night unless they are friends and likely many people were at work or at home, not on the road.
Please, I beg someone here to prove me wrong on this point. Does this point make sense?
ok, talk to the police where Angela was abducted and they will find a way to prove you wrong i bet.
She couldn't have been driving the entire time, making no contact... and if she was... as we all know in a small town, someone would have seen her.
maybe she went to a friends house?? you act like the story is so far fetched that it's stupid, like i said THE POLICE looked at him, talk to them if you think Rob should be in prison!!!!
Now, before someone asks how he held his emotions together (if he was the killer) when the police arrived, here's my answer. If he did it, the whole created scene with the pursuit would justify him sweating and being entirely frantic, a perfect, perfect I say, disguise for what may have happened.
yeah because lying is so easy when you just killed your girlfriend and it's so easy to create such a good lie like that.
Transporting the body before the 11:15 phone call would've been easier than we may realize, as the car's transmission was not destroyed until Rob tried to chase the alleged perp down.
Again, you forgot another KEY point. Rob would HAVE to transport the body to where the police haven't found it to THIS DAY!!!! Add to that, he would have to clean up the crime scene to the point that we don't know where she died, and he would have to clean up the weapon, hide evidence he was there and clean HIMSELF up and have no one notice there's blood on him, that's ALL easier said than done especially when your a young adult with basically little to no money.

Weren't there theories that Kenneth McDuff is responsible for her abduction/murder? He was released from prison a few months before this occurred and was in that area around that time.

I'll post my summary for all of you to hate me more in the not so distant future. Please keep an open mind.

Top remaining questions.
1. What did Angela do from 10-11:15 and did anyone see her.
2. Did anyone verify someone other than Angela dropped Rob off at 10PM, or that it was even a car that dropped him off? He could've arrived on foot.
3. What time did they leave the BBQ?
4. Was Angela forbidden to be at Rob's house? This would be in my mind the only reason why she wouldn't just stop by.
5. Was Rob under any surveilance after the crime. I doubt it. This would offer him an opportunity to finish up anything he needed to do.
6. Is there any evidence or witnesses that can vouch for Angela driving from the BBQ to Rob's house? (not sure of the distance involved.)
7. 1. If rob used a gun that would indicate that this was a premeditated act. The reasoning for this is why did Rob have the gun on him that night in the first place. Can someone better explain this? Rob had a gun on him? Is that correct?


When I read a bunch more on this case, it seems like so many here blame sloppy police work. If so, please elaborate. So will I.
Sloppy police work could be described as clearing a suspect too soon. There's plenty of time for Rob to have done the act. From the time they left the BBQ, until 10pm. For his story to check out, in part, Angela would have to be alive and well from 10-11:15. The fact that no one can confirm this is downright alarming. We don't know who dropped Rob off at 10PM. Do we know what Rob and Angela talked about, or was the entire conversation about the truck? Also, put yourself in a phone booth with a truck circling around at night and then pulling into the parking lot. Spotting a decal that is not lit would be a challenge from the vantage point of the phone booth. My answer offering a sex act that went to far was put out there merely as an example of how he could have killer her without any sign of a struggle whatsoever. Again, I'm attacked for offering a solid example of one way it could have been done. Same with a gunshot from a distance. Why was there no forensic evidence in the car? Because she may not have been killed in the car or transported in it. They could've gone to some remote / romantic location an hour away and things may have went sour. If the area was super remote, he could've left her out there without getting dirty.

10-11:15 is not terribly late by any stretch. I find it alarming that everyone here finds no suspicion in the fact that she is 100% unaccounted for from 10-11:15. Why would she simply go for a drive for 75 minutes and then return to a pay phone 6/7 blocks from where rob was at? I don't have any suspicion as to why a phone call would be made, but why not drive an extra 30 seconds to be face to face with your significant other? It's difficult to make sense of this. I feel like I'm personally arguing with Rob's family here.


---------So, as far as we all know, no one knows what she planned to do for 75 minutes after she dropped rob off, or where she was that entire time? Was she forbidden from hanging out at rob's? Why not just stay and hang out? Tell me this, from the people that knew angela, can any of them vouch that it would be normal behavior for her to drop Rob off, then vanish for 75 minutes, then call him from 7 blocks away? I doubt it as any reasonable person likely would.

-Why would Angela call rob when she was just 6 or 7 blocks away from his house?
It's her BOYFRIEND!!!! my sister calls her boyfriend and they talk a lot.

------------I understand that point, but why not go to his house and hang out? Do you follow Angela's sequence of events? People that are romantically involved generally would prefer to spend time face to face, especially when they are in close proximity. Put yourself in the early 90's. You're 1 minute from your boyfriends house at 11:15PM, rather than stop by, you call him from a pay phone? NO WAY.


the ONLY reasons you suspect him is because he's the boyfriend and you think his story is far fetched, i am saying it could happen and the fact is the police investigated him and didn't find him suspicious, half of us don't find him suspecious
---------This story is beyond supersensational. This one rivals Aliens taking her away.



Has anyone verified that Angela herself dropped Rob off at 10pm? Who's to say someone other than Angela dropped Rob off?
----------THIS QUESTION REMAINS UNANSWERED. --------

---------------We all remain uncertain as to whether phone records from a pay phone could be verified at that time.

----------------On the transmission, I think your point is very ignorant. Neither of us are mechanics. That being said, call a transmission shop if you don't believe me, and ask them if doing neutral drops at 7000rpm can blow out a transmission. Ask them if throwing the car from drive into reverse and vice versa at 20-40 miles per hour will destroy a transmission. The answer is yes. Older cars did not have some of the safety kill switches present on modern cars that would make a deliberate act to destroy a transmission more challenging. You say he wouldn't have done it because of the cost? Let's see, it cost no more than $1500 i'd guess to fix it back then. Do the math, $1,500 vs. being potentially convicted of murder? I'd say that's a great investment. Look at OJ, his freedom cost him Millions, but he'd say it was the best money he ever spent.

how many times do WE have to say this, you CANT make transmission problems, you know how you can tell, you drive the car!!! and it would be STUPID to screw up your own transmission, that is a very pricey fix.
-No it wouldn't be stupid if doing so preserved one's freedom. I'd take any wager that I couldn't destroy a transmission on a car like the one rob had in 5 minutes or less. Neutral drops at high speed, throwing it into reverse or drive while doing the other.. SEE: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_I_destroy_an_automatic_transmission No, i didn't put this there.

While I concede this point, stranger things, even stranger than Rob's story have happened.

As a young criminal, if he was, it's likely that he would've made mistakes.
and THAT'S one reason why i rule him out, if he committed the crime, the police would've found the body or the weapon that was used, the fact is, they haven't.

About a potential argument after the BBQ, you said...

that could happen, but.......
?

I'll post my summary for all of you to hate me more in the not so distant future. Please keep an open mind.
not many of us are keeping an open mind, the fact is, he's been ruled out as a suspect by the police and i bet they investigated him, really hard.
Top remaining questions.
1. What did Angela do from 10-11:15 and did anyone see her.
maybe she hung out with a friend, then left!!!?? the segment doesn't always tell us everything you know.
2. Did anyone verify someone other than Angela dropped Rob off at 10PM, or that it was even a car that dropped him off? He could've arrived on foot.
ask the police!!! that's my answer, we don't know this because we didn't investigate!! how should i, mastermind or YOU know if he was dropped off
5. Was Rob under any surveilance after the crime. I doubt it. This would offer him an opportunity to finish up anything he needed to do.
i bet he was, i bet he was interviewed and interrogated and that would take days and with police searching while they investigate Rob, they WOULD've found something.
Sloppy police work could be described as clearing a suspect too soon.
i dont think there's sloppy police work here, i think that the car and man is hard to find because the man is an out of towner, he may have just traveled through the town and saw an opportunity.
There's plenty of time for Rob to have done the act.
but a kid his age WOULD have left many many many clues, Rob is NOT the perfect criminal, he would've left hair, blood or the body would've been found, not to mention, his clothes would have blood on them.
Why was there no forensic evidence in the car? Because she may not have been killed in the car or transported in it. They could've gone to some remote / romantic location an hour away and things may have went sour.
Ah, there's the problem, how does the body not get found, did he have a shovel???? What about his clothes, where's the weapon, if he used his hands, you would tell, so he HAD to use a weapon, you act like it's the EASIEST thing in the world to tell a good lie AND kill your girlfriend and hide her body for over a decade.
If the area was super remote, he could've left her out there without getting dirty.
nope, he would've gotten dirty, especially if he didn't use a gun from far away, he would've had Blood spatter on him. and he would've gotten dirty because the body is still missing which means, he would HAVE to burry it, so dirt would be on him unless he's mr. clean or a neatfreak and cleans himself top to bottom perfectly.
10-11:15 is not terribly late by any stretch. I find it alarming that everyone here finds no suspicion in the fact that she is 100% unaccounted for from 10-11:15.
10pm, is late when you are ASKING for witnesses in a small town. in small towns in the 80s/90s, there weren't many businesses open at 10 or later.
Why would she simply go for a drive for 75 minutes and then return to a pay phone 6/7 blocks from where rob was at?
the segments dont tell you ALL the facts, maybe she went to a friend's house, then stopped by a pay phone.
I don't have any suspicion as to why a phone call would be made, but why not drive an extra 30 seconds to be face to face with your significant other? It's difficult to make sense of this.
Maybe she didn't want to drive back there and spend another hour there, maybe she wanted just to call and tell him, she's all right then go back to her house. Why is that SO suspicious???
I feel like I'm personally arguing with Rob's family here.
No, we're just being smart about this, the fact is, he's been cleared by police, yet people like you continue to doubt him and why do you want him arrested for!!!!?? what's your deal with him, he's not like Paul Polis who looked and acted VERY guilty.
------------I understand that point, but why not go to his house and hang out? People that are romantically involved generally would prefer to spend time face to face, especially when they are in close proximity. Put yourself in the early 90's. You're 1 minute from your boyfriends house at 11:15PM, rather than stop by, you call him from a pay phone? NO WAY.
put yourself in the early 90s, no cell phones, now it's 11pm, maybe she didn't want to go there because of that or maybe she's tired and wanted to go home and KNEW if she went to Rob's she would be there till 1am, so she decided to go home, BUT wanted to tell Rob, hey i'm ok or asking about what he's got planned for the next day and tell him she loves him.
---------This story is beyond supersensational. This one rivals Aliens taking her away.
Rob didn't say Aliens took her away, his story could be true. You act like there's no way a dirty man with an ugly truck can kidnap her.
---------------We all remain uncertain as to whether phone records from a pay phone could be verified at that time.
i bet they could, remember people pay phone bills and i bet they paid them back in the 90s too.
----------------On the transmission, I think your point is very ignorant. Neither of us are mechanics.
i think YOUR point is ignorant, you are saying, he either faked a transmission failure or he destroyed his transmission ON purpose.
Ask them if throwing the car from drive into reverse and vice versa at 20-40 miles per hour will destroy a transmission. The answer is yes.
see, so that COULD happen
You say he wouldn't have done it because of the cost? Let's see, it cost no more than $1500 i'd guess to fix it back then. Do the math, $1,500 vs. being potentially convicted of murder? I'd say that's a great investment.
does Rob look like he's made of money???? add to that he's a kid, so how could he afford a fix like that???? the Cost of a transmission fix is expensive and NO ONE would destroy their own transmission on purpose!!!!
Look at OJ, his freedom cost him Millions, but he'd say it was the best money he ever spent.
OJ is a former running back who made millions, a fix like that wouldnt hurt him, at the time.
-No it wouldn't be stupid if doing so preserved one's freedom.
your story makes less sense than Rob's, so he killed his girlfriend, made up a story and destroyed his own transmission JUST to avoid prison, If that was the case he's a moron because he could've came up with another story.

It's fine to have your own opinion on this.

But, the fact is Rob took a lie detector test, and passed. Not to mention his brother was asked questions about the situation, and they all collaborated with Rob's story.

I highly doubt Rob did it...a lie detector test is very hard to cheat...

It's fine to have your own opinion on this.
But, the fact is Rob took a lie detector test, and passed. Not to mention his brother was asked questions about the situation, and they all collaborated with Rob's story.
i agree, that's another reason i find him innocent, the victim's family believes him, but i RE-watched the segment and if you re-watch it too, that will explain ONE of your suspecions, listen carefully.

10-11:15 is not terribly late by any stretch. I find it alarming that everyone here finds no suspicion in the fact that she is 100% unaccounted for from 10-11:15

Did you not read my post? I'm assuming you live in some sort of city, either big or small, because if you lived in a small town, you'd know just how dead things get once the sun goes down. 10-11:15 is terribly late in a small town where there is NOTHING to do after work. It's not like there's all kinds of 24 hour shops open, nor are there arcades, and malls, and traffic jams. It's a small town. You obviously don't live in one. You can do a lot at night in a small town without being noticed.

/sigh. No arguments about the challenge of beating a lie detector... that takes some skills.

to the friendlies telling me to go to the cops: i ask this:
Did the crime occur inside of Hazzard County? Should I forward my thoughts to Roscoe P Coltrane, J.D. Hogg, Enos, or Cletus?

Most of my questions were for people that know a lot more of the case than I do. I was hoping for more answers than a collection of insults. The questions were legitimate. The police have cleared perps before. If you take out the police clearing Rob, it should be alarming that (I could be wrong here if someone can vouch for her in this timeframe) Angela is unaccounted for from the time of the BBQ.

On the point of the transmission, it gives Rob an alibi. It gives him credibility. For someone to say it would be too costly from a $ standpoint for him to do it, I ask you this. If you committed a major crime and had to destroy or dispose of something worth a few grand to give you a shot at not getting caught you'd do it. B/c if you were in jail, your possessions aren't worth crap anyways. /sigh. Does anyone around here go by Rob?

When I read a bunch more on this case, it seems like so many here blame sloppy police work. If so, please elaborate. So will I.

I for one do not see this as sloppy police work.

1. First off this is a missing persons case which is the hardest case to close.

2. This is most likely the work of a serial killer, which means the victim has no connection to the murderer.

3. There is no real physical evidence in this case.

to the friendlies telling me to go to the cops: i ask this:
Did the crime occur inside of Hazzard County? Should I forward my thoughts to Roscoe P Coltrane, J.D. Hogg, Enos, or Cletus?

A large majority of investigators in counties are ex-cops from large cities. There are also state police and state bureau of investigations. Your "Mayberry" view of county and small town police is a stereotype.

This case also potentially crosses state lines...so FBI may have involvement here.

Personally I would rather take my chances with a detective that is trying to solve 10 murders that one who has a sole murder. A small town investigator only has one murder case to work on.

-I understand that point, but why not go to his house and hang out? Do you follow Angela's sequence of events? People that are romantically involved generally would prefer to spend time face to face, especially when they are in close proximity. Put yourself in the early 90's. You're 1 minute from your boyfriends house at 11:15PM, rather than stop by, you call him from a pay phone? NO WAY.

1. 7 blocks is a pretty good distance away.
From a beat police officers point of view that's nearly 4 sectors. That's still a good amount of time to walk....Plenty of time for an abductor, if you ask me.

2. I don;t see how walking to your house prevents a serial killer from attacking you. I would think having another able bodied male arrive as soon as possible to escort you would be a wiser choice.

/sigh. No arguments about the challenge of beating a lie detector... that takes some skills.

Forget the lie detector...what about Rob;s story wasn;t true? Where was Rob caught in a lie?

Considering the police cleared him, I would have to assume that the police did not catch him in a lie.


On the point of the transmission, it gives Rob an alibi


1. Why would you sabatage your own escape vehicle?
2. Why does he need an alibi?....who;s been murdered? As far as we know...Angela Hammond has disappeared. Rob seemed to do a pretty good job of disposing the body? Why does he need an alibi?
3. Would Rob really have the know-how to purposely damage the car in that way?
4. The car is not something that Rob can just toss away like a bloody glove...He needs that thing to drive places.

Onlooker,

Maybe I missed it..but you still haven;t explained what Rob did with the body and why there was no evidence of the body in the car.....

Hey Mastermind, you indicated you might be interested in talking about my stance on the FBI. Kadrmas15@hotmail.com is where you can get ahold of me if you wish.

The Hazzard county thing was in jest.

Nonetheless:
I think the car shows clean because Angela was not attacked, murdered or transported (deceased) in the vehicle. That's why his car is clean. I thought I had mentioned this in one of my posts... maybe I forgot. If she was ever attacked in a car, or transported while not alive, it would've been in Her car, not Robs. As you said, Cletus or Enos, who sees one murder investigation probably during his career may have cleared Rob.


I'm totally in the dark about what you mean by these 2 points. I suspect that Rob may have parked Angela's car near the payphone and then hustled on foot to his own home and arrived on foot/bike around 10pm.


Yeah, there's some distance, but Rob could probably cover it in 1.5 minutes tops... figuring 7 blocks is less than 1/4 mile.
------------1. 7 blocks is a pretty good distance away.
From a beat police officers point of view that's nearly 4 sectors. That's still a good amount of time to walk....Plenty of time for an abductor, if you ask me.

I think maybe I was misunderstood. Rob would've been the one on foot, as he could have dropped the car off by the payphone.
--------------2. I don;t see how walking to your house prevents a serial killer from attacking you. I would think having another able bodied male arrive as soon as possible to escort you would be a wiser choice.

The sensational nature of the story along with the fact that no one saw the main event or the victim during the 75 minute time window, or perhaps the greater time window from the BBQ until 11:15 is too much for me to believe. Yeah, it's a gut feeling. Like I said before, if it's a guy that has a kill vehicle, it's unlikely that he finds a victim 5 minutes into his quest. He could drive for hours and days looking for a vulnerable subject. This would cause the vehicle to be seen.

1. Why would you sabatage your own escape vehicle? As I said many times, it makes this sensational story more credible. Give him a reason to release his emotions, as he nearly saved the day, etc. If you put a body through a wood chipper and needed to drop the chipper into a lake to protect your freedom, you would do it. Simply put, it makes the story more believable. It's a lot better than, I chased him for 80 miles and he wouldn't pull over and.... (also, he'd be way out in the sticks if it was to happen that way.)
2. Why does he need an alibi?....who;s been murdered? As far as we know...Angela Hammond has disappeared. Rob seemed to do a pretty good job of disposing the body? Why does he need an alibi? Come on. It's likely that Angela is no longer with us.
3. Would Rob really have the know-how to purposely damage the car in that way? Welp,when I was in high school, we all beat on our crappy cars and new some of the things that wore on the tranny. It doesn't take a lot of thought.
4. The car is not something that Rob can just toss away like a bloody glove...He needs that thing to drive places. Sure. He does need the car and probably got it fixed. Have you ever had a transmission fail? I have had one completely go out and another that slipped badly. I could aim to shoot a hole in the chase part of the story, but it would probably be followed up with another question no one here can answer.

Get over it---Rob was not involved!!!

Where's the beating a dead horse emoticons?!!!

:horse:

Thank you Hambone!!

Nonetheless:
I think the car shows clean because Angela was not attacked, murdered or transported (deceased) in the vehicle. That's why his car is clean. I thought I had mentioned this in one of my posts... maybe I forgot. If she was ever attacked in a car, or transported while not alive, it would've been in Her car, not Robs.

As you said, Cletus or Enos, who sees one murder investigation probably during his career may have cleared Rob.

I never said Cletus and Enos...you did...Why are you attributing the quote to me? Did I ever say that in a post???:confused:

I really think you need to research small town police departments. Your words are filled with stereotypes and misconceptions.

I think you need to step out of the city and take a drive into the outskirts of your county.

Nonetheless:
I think the car shows clean because Angela was not attacked, murdered or transported (deceased) in the vehicle. That's why his car is clean. I thought I had mentioned this in one of my posts... maybe I forgot. If she was ever attacked in a car, or transported while not alive, it would've been in Her car, not Robs. As you said, Cletus or Enos, who sees one murder investigation probably during his career may have cleared Rob.


1. Angela;s car would have been searched as well. It would have been a standard procedure. It's not like they need a warrant to do so...

2. Why does he need to take Angela;s car...what's wrong with the his own?

3.. There would have been evidence that Angela;s car was moved.

Yeah, it's a gut feeling.

That;s the problem with your whole argument. It;s based on your perception of Rob and the stereotype of small towns.

You have presented NO circumstantial evidence to make Rob a suspect.

Your entire theory is based on your belief that Rob;s story was a complete fabrication,. Even though there has been no lie that has been determined in his story. Even though the damage done on Rob;s car verifies aspects of the story.

That;s it! No evidence, no eye witnesses, no stories of past violent behavior.

Nothing.

Your also losing credibility with your "Dukes of Hazzards" comments. (which is really antiquated, since with crystal meth and growing expansion, small counties are becoming very crime infested.)

Everything about this case has the earmarks of the work of a sexual predator.

If I'm correct, there have been two other women that could be connected, no?

The Cheryl, woman? I forget her name...

Everything about this case has the earmarks of the work of a sexual predator.

If I'm correct, there have been two other women that could be connected, no?

The Cheryl, woman? I forget her name...

Yes, your right, Cheryl Ann Kinney. But also Kenneth McDuff was thought to be involved at one point since he was in the area and had just been released from prison. That man did unspeakable things. I hope Angela Hammond was not one of his victims.

1. Why would you sabatage your own escape vehicle?
that's the point, you wouldn't, i agree Mastermind, and Onlooker seems to think that Rob and his parents were/are made of money, 1000 dollars is not a cheap fix especially when (if guilty) he can make up a better alibi.
2. Why does he need an alibi?....who;s been murdered? As far as we know...Angela Hammond has disappeared. Rob seemed to do a pretty good job of disposing the body? Why does he need an alibi?
Well like Onlooker said, i dont think Angela is with us (sadly), BUT i agree with you Mastermind, why DOES he need an alibi??? if Rob did do this (which i dont agree with) then Rob is the perfect criminal and should write a book before he dies and leave it in his will.
3. Would Rob really have the know-how to purposely damage the car in that way?
anyone could, but like i said, why would you when you can make up a better alibi, Onlooker thinks making up fake alibi's is as simple as counting to 3, it's not, young criminals usually make up something like, i was with a friend, not i chased the stranger and my transmission failed.
4. The car is not something that Rob can just toss away like a bloody glove...He needs that thing to drive places
AGREE!!!! the car is not a 10 dollar glove, it's something you need for going to work among other things, you don't break it on purpose to CREATE an alibi, that's why i think that point is dumb, you don't ON purpose damage a transmission so you can have an alibi.

Mastermind brought up more good points about Angela's car being used.
1. Angela;s car would have been searched as well. It would have been a standard procedure. It's not like they need a warrant to do so...
yep, if the boyfriend was investigated i am SURE they searched through her car and evidence would've been found.
2. Why does he need to take Angela;s car...what's wrong with the his own?
agree, why take Angela's car?
3.. There would have been evidence that Angela;s car was moved.
there would've been evidence on her seat being moved, i am sure we would find Rob's hair among other things.
You have presented NO circumstantial evidence to make Rob a suspect.
Your entire theory is based on your belief that Rob;s story was a complete fabrication,. Even though there has been no lie that has been determined in his story. Even though the damage done on Rob;s car verifies aspects of the story.
That's my problem with your suspicions, you are only suspecting him because of a lack of witnesses (not good enough) and a story which you believe is false.

Nonetheless:
I think the car shows clean because Angela was not attacked, murdered or transported (deceased) in the vehicle. That's why his car is clean. I thought I had mentioned this in one of my posts... maybe I forgot. If she was ever attacked in a car, or transported while not alive, it would've been in Her car, not Robs.



I never said Cletus and Enos...you did...Why are you attributing the quote to me? Did I ever say that in a post???:confused:

I really think you need to research small town police departments. Your words are filled with stereotypes and misconceptions.

I think you need to step out of the city and take a drive into the outskirts of your county.




1. Angela;s car would have been searched as well. It would have been a standard procedure. It's not like they need a warrant to do so...

2. Why does he need to take Angela;s car...what's wrong with the his own?

3.. There would have been evidence that Angela;s car was moved.



That;s the problem with your whole argument. It;s based on your perception of Rob and the stereotype of small towns.

You have presented NO circumstantial evidence to make Rob a suspect.

Your entire theory is based on your belief that Rob;s story was a complete fabrication,. Even though there has been no lie that has been determined in his story. Even though the damage done on Rob;s car verifies aspects of the story.

That;s it! No evidence, no eye witnesses, no stories of past violent behavior.

Nothing.

Your also losing credibility with your "Dukes of Hazzards" comments. (which is really antiquated, since with crystal meth and growing expansion, small counties are becoming very crime infested.)

You're wasting your time, Mastermind. It's like arguing with one of the moon landing conspiracy buffs. No matter what logical things you tell them, no matter what evidence you show, they always have "indisputable proof," "facts," and "gut feelings." Angela, herself, could probably show up on this board, and tell us Rob wasn't involved, and Onlooker would still believe it was Rob.

Angela, herself, could probably show up on this board, and tell us Rob wasn't involved, and Onlooker would still believe it was Rob.
hahaha Bell, honestly, i could believe Rob did it if there was any proof of him lying, but the police (who are usually good at their job) believes him, i do too, the fact is, in the segment, there wasn't any part of him that looked suspicious. Rob looked like he was upset and not upset like "i did this" upset like "i could've done something to help" If this was a Paul and Charlotte Pollis thread, then i could agree that the husband/boyfriend did it because he acted suspicious in many ways, even in the interviews on the segment. I agree with Mastermind and think that it's a serial killer/rapist that did this and in my view, i dont think the killer even knew the town, i think he was passing through, then saw her as the perfect target. She was alone at night in small town, this guy hasnt been caught for this crime which tells me he did this before.

Seriously, Carolina, one of Onlooker's big things is the complete and utter disbelief that at the unbelievably early time of 11pm, in a small town, that everyone isn't all over the roads, stores, gas stations, and discotheques lit up...it's obvious Onlooker's not from a small town. I've written two posts, already, disputing the "facts" being put forward, and they've gone unread. I'm forced to believe that this poster is either reading only the things they think are relevant to their "facts," or simply doesn't care to have their theories debunked.

Seriously, Carolina, one of Onlooker's big things is the complete and utter disbelief that at the unbelievably early time of 11pm, in a small town, that everyone isn't all over the roads, stores, gas stations
yeah and i agree with you, i dont live in a small town, but i know people who have and i driven in them in georgia and your right, there isn't much business at night, and 11pm is not early unless you are in a big city that has clubs/bars all over the place.

Seriously, Carolina, one of Onlooker's big things is the complete and utter disbelief that at the unbelievably early time of 11pm, in a small town, that everyone isn't all over the roads, stores, gas stations
yeah and i agree with you, i dont live in a small town, but i know people who have and i driven in them in georgia and your right, there isn't much business at night, and 11pm is not early unless you are in a big city that has clubs/bars all over the place.

Exactly. I live in a small town. When I was a kid, back in the 80s, there was one 24 hour gas station between three villages spread out over approximately 20 miles. That was it. No convenience stores, nothing. People were at home or at work. Not out and about. And when it got dark, it GOT DARK. The only place you had streetlights, if you were lucky, was downtown. And if you come across a car on the street, at night, in the dark, and you've both got your headlights on, the only thing you'll be able to tell about the car is maybe what kind of car it is, by the headlights. You can't tell color or who is driving it. So someone, or several people, may have seen her during this "mysterious 75 minutes where she was unaccounted for" that Onlooker keeps mentioning, and just didn't know it.

I don't think Rob had anything to do with Angela's disappearance, but it did seem a little fishy to me how he was supposedly grilling her on the phone about what the guy hanging around the pay phone looked like.

Then again, I think perhaps Unsolved Mysteries took some dramatic liberties in the re-enactment. Also, the fact that he caught up to the truck was so Hollywood. Oh, the the guy saying "I didn't need to use the phone anyway" is unreal - and chilling.

I really wish Rob had been able to get at least a partial plate number of the truck. I don't know if he thought to do that. I'm sure his mind was going a mile a minute, but I think that's something I would have tried to do.

I don't doubt that it happened, but I can see how some people who don't have access to all the information that the police have can doubt Rob's story. It's a pretty amazing story.

I don't think Rob had anything to do with Angela's disappearance, but it did seem a little fishy to me how he was supposedly grilling her on the phone about what the guy hanging around the pay phone looked like.
not really fishy to me, think about it like this, there's a suspicious man driving around and he's making your girlfriend curious, don't you ask? that's not too fishy, but.......
Then again, I think perhaps Unsolved Mysteries took some dramatic liberties in the re-enactment.
i agree, they do tend to make it more dramatic, so SOME of those scenes could be overdone, like the chase being close.
Oh, the the guy saying "I didn't need to use the phone anyway" is unreal - and chilling.
i think that did happen
I really wish Rob had been able to get at least a partial plate number of the truck. I don't know if he thought to do that. I'm sure his mind was going a mile a minute, but I think that's something I would have tried to do.
agree, i wish he got the plate too, but he was too focused on helping his girlfriend
I don't doubt that it happened, but I can see how some people who don't have access to all the information that the police have can doubt Rob's story. It's a pretty amazing story
i can see where people think the story didn't happen, but to flat our ACCUSE him and say the times don't match and this and that is just wrong, you got to look at the facts and the facts are, you don't damage a transmission on purpose, NO ONE is perfect criminal and if Rob did do this (which i doubt HIGHLY) he should write a book on how to be a successful murderer.

The beating the dead horse emoticon was as sensational as the story! LOVED it! LOL...

If the perp was a creep with a kill car, who executed his plan with such precision that he was in and out in a flash, WHY, in God's name would he delay his escape by a few seconds to speak into the phone? Doing so only increased the chances he'd get caught. If he was such a phenominal criminal, he would've taken what he wanted as quickly as possible. Someone here would agree with me I hope.

Another note on the creeps words on the phone. I get the impression he allegedly spoke those words immediately after making contact with Angela, right? Think if you were Angela at that point in time. In the 2 seconds in which he made physical contact and then picked up the phone it is tremendously unlikely that she could've been in any way subdued. For the attacker to stop, reach for the phone, pick up the phone, and then finally, speak into the phone those words would allow Angela time to run like hell. Adrenaline would've kicked in, and likely, she would've ran like hell towards the main road or a place she thought likely to have someone else present. The old, dirty, scruffy guy was probably not a sprinter and likely would've had a little bit of a chore in catching up to and subsequently subduing Angela before making his alleged getaway.

As the people that accuse me of having never seen a small town or resided in one, with all your details of the darkness, you contradict yourself when you say it's so dark you can barely see who's driving past you. That being said, how: 1. Did she see him, know it was him and scream out to him 2. Did he know it was her? Seems fishy to me. Also, if she was able to scream out at him, that would indicate that she was able to lean out of the vehicle to do so, or at least move around in the vehicle to do it. If any of us were in that spot, as she is alleged to be, we'd all ditch & roll out the side and hope for a few broken bones.

Lastly, everyone loves to talk about money and how Rob wasn't made of it, and he wouldn't hurt his car because of financial concerns. I GET THAT. No one here has answered my question. If, you (for whatever reason whatsoever) killed someone (accidentally or not) and decided you needed to cover up that crime and try to not get caught, would you a) be concerned about a few thousand dollars or b) use every means at your disposal to avoid being caught.

Feel free to keep trying to pick me apart, but please quit ducking this question. A or B

As the people that accuse me of having never seen a small town or resided in one, with all your details of the darkness, you contradict yourself when you say it's so dark you can barely see who's driving past you. That being said, how: 1. Did she see him, know it was him and scream out to him 2. Did he know it was her? Seems fishy to me. Also, if she was able to scream out at him, that would indicate that she was able to lean out of the vehicle to do so, or at least move around in the vehicle to do it. If any of us were in that spot, as she is alleged to be, we'd all ditch & roll out the side and hope for a few broken bones.

Ok, first off, they were downtown when Rob passed. Downtown areas are well lit, generally. I don't contradict myself, at all. I was referring to how she could possibly be missing for 75 minutes without getting seen by anyone. If she's driving the backroads, no one would've seen her. So there is the answer to your 1 and 2.

As for her trying to escape...you're assuming the passenger side door opened. I used to have a car with a non functioning passenger side door. He could've forced her into the driver's side door (as most older trucks were bench seats) and drove off.

And his speaking into the phone...if I remember correctly, he didn't speak into the phone. He said it as he overpowered her, and Rob heard it over the phone.

DING DONG. RING THE BELL.

Feel free to keep trying to pick me apart, but please quit ducking this question. A or B

DING DONG. RING THE BELL.

Feel free to keep trying to pick me apart, but please quit ducking this question. A or B

Can I ask you a question? WHY are you so against the possibility of it being anyone other than Rob? You have two little pieces of "evidence" pointing to his unquestionable guilt amongst a substantial amount of evidence that points to his innocence. He has passed lie detectors, and there is NO EVIDENCE that he was involved in her disappearance. I am done with this, as there is absolutely no changing your belief in Rob's guilt. I don't bother with trying to change what people "KNOW." As I posted on here, earlier, Angela could show up here, and tell us he had nothing to do with it, and you'd still know he was the guilty party. Another thing you would've learned had you bothered to read up on the story...Angela was placed at the phone booth by other witnesses. So how could she have been murdered by Rob during the mysterious 75 minutes AND alive to be on the phone? See ya.:wave:

If the perp was a creep with a kill car, who executed his plan with such precision that he was in and out in a flash, WHY, in God's name would he delay his escape by a few seconds to speak into the phone? Doing so only increased the chances he'd get caught. If he was such a phenominal criminal, he would've taken what he wanted as quickly as possible. Someone here would agree with me I hope.

1. Your argument's invalid.

After the Zodiac killer attacked on Blue Rock Springs..Zodiac made a fairly lengthy and descriptive phone call...to the Police no less...

We've seen several cases were a killer found time to leave a calling card or make a phone call.

2. To steal a line from the late Heath Ledger
"Why so serious..., onlooker":)?
This guy is not a contract killer who has a schedule to keep and a job to do in killing Angela. This is fun time for the killer. He's doing all this for the joy of killing and raping a defenseless girl. Why not have a little fun and leave a cruel message for the husband/boyfriend. I'm sure the creep laughed about it while disposing of Angela.

I get the impression he allegedly spoke those words immediately after making contact with Angela, right? Think if you were Angela at that point in time. In the 2 seconds in which he made physical contact and then picked up the phone it is tremendously unlikely that she could've been in any way subdued. For the attacker to stop, reach for the phone, pick up the phone, and then finally, speak into the phone those words would allow Angela time to run like hell

1. Perhaps a chloroform doused rag was used.

A common tool used by sexual predators.

Would be a quick way to subdue Angela.

2. You might be judging the time based on the segment. For all we know there may have been some time before Angela's last response and the killer's comments.
Perhaps more than enough time for her to be rendered unconcious.

3. We have no idea the the size or girth of the attacker. Angela was a small woman, no? Seems pretty easy for a 6'4 muscular guy to subdue a small woman. In fact it;s not that impossible to gag and hold Angela with one hand and still pick up the phone handle with the other hand. You wouldn;t have to be an Olympic gymnast to do that.

DING DONG. RING THE BELL.
Be civil..I've been patient and civil with you. I would expect you to offer the same cordiality to myself and other posters.


If, you (for whatever reason whatsoever) killed someone (accidentally or not) and decided you needed to cover up that crime and try to not get caught, would you a) be concerned about a few thousand dollars or b) use every means at your disposal to avoid being caught.

Yes.

If I killed my wife, a good way hide evidence would be to burn my house.
But then I would loose all my possessions, my house, and be homeless. Which probably defeats the purpose..I would be better off going to jail than loosing my wife.

I would probably try and think of a method of coverup that doesn;t involve something so drastic.

Onlooker, I'm sure if you really sat down and thought about it...there are a lot of ways that Rob could cover up the murder....without having to purposely sabotage his automobile.


If he was such a phenominal criminal, he would've taken what he wanted as quickly as possible. Someone here would agree with me I hope.

Huh,?

I for one have never thought the murderer was "Phenomenal criminal"/
IMHO, this is a pretty standard case of a serial sexual predator. A sexual deviant that drove in his van looking cross-state, abducting women and hiding their bodies.

This guy is by no means Prof. Moriarty.

On the other hand, your depictions of Rob being the killer require Rob performing a masterful coverup involving
a. making up a strange story
b. hiding Angela;s body for so long
c. Leaving absolutely NO physical evidence of an attack
d. purposely sabotging his own car.

Pretty heady stuff for a guy like Rob if you ask, me.
If he can pull all that off, he should be working as a hitman.:lol:

As I posted on here, earlier, Angela could show up here, and tell us he had nothing to do with it, and you'd still know he was the guilty party.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yea, your probably right.

If the perp was a creep with a kill car, who executed his plan with such precision that he was in and out in a flash, WHY, in God's name would he delay his escape by a few seconds to speak into the phone?
first off, how do you know he spoke into the phone willingly???? maybe he was telling Angela that when he was dragging her away and Rob seemed to overhear it??? you act like he put her in the truck then took it and said i didn't need to use the phone.
This guy is not a contract killer who has a schedule to keep and a job to do in killing Angela. This is fun time for the killer. He's doing all this for the joy of killing and raping a defenseless girl.
i agree, this guy wasn't a contract killer, whoever this was did this because he wanted to kidnap, rape and possibly murder her.
1. Perhaps a chloroform doused rag was used.
A common tool used by sexual predators.
Would be a quick way to subdue Angela.
very true, very true.
If I killed my wife, a good way hide evidence would be to burn my house.
But then I would loose all my possessions, my house, and be homeless. Which probably defeats the purpose..I would be better off going to jail than loosing my wife.
agree with everything except the last line, you wouldn't be better going to jail.....but i am sure you will say something that i agree with in a second.
I would probably try and think of a method of coverup that doesn;t involve something so drastic.
AND HERE IT IS!!!!!!! There are OTHER ways to cover up a crime than say, my transmission failed and the killer got away and it's also CHEAPER. How about, she dropped me off and left and i didn't see her again?? or she went to a friends house?? She told Rob (in the segment) that she was going to a friend's house, so why not use that??
Onlooker, I'm sure if you really sat down and thought about it...there are a lot of ways that Rob could cover up the murder....without having to purposely sabotage his automobile.
i agree, those two are just thinking now, if i think long and hard there are cheaper and better ways to cover up a crime.
I for one have never thought the murderer was "Phenomenal criminal"/
A sexual deviant that drove in his van looking cross-state, abducting women and hiding their bodies.
i agree, the killer isn't a Phenomenal Criminal, he's a guy who kidnaps a girl/woman, takes her away to another town, possibly rapes and kills her then hides the body and it's hard to catch them at it, ESPECIALLY when he's not from the town.
On the other hand, your depictions of Rob being the killer require Rob performing a masterful coverup involving
Agreed, people KNOW Rob, they would know who he is and his famil and friends would notice.
a. making up a strange story
and a good one since people believe him.
b. hiding Angela;s body for so long
a young man like Rob would have to take the body out of the city to do this which takes time.
c. Leaving absolutely NO physical evidence of an attack
yeah and the police WOULD'VE fouund some.
d. purposely sabotging his own car.
That just would've been stupid because there's better ways to cover up a crime, Paul Polis is still not been charged with a crime.
Pretty heady stuff for a guy like Rob if you ask, me.
If he can pull all that off, he should be working as a hitman.:lol:
Yeah really Mastermind, hahaha, i have said if Rob did do this then when he dies or is getting ready to die, he should have a book printed that is titled how to be the perfect criminal

I'm really surprised they didn't find her body or any clues afterward. Assuming she was killed that is, and from the description of the case I think that is what happened. And that truck is pretty unique, I'm surprised it wasn't identified later on. Perhaps the man abandoned it later on or changed the description. In any case, I hope he gets whats coming to him one of these days. I mean how could you do something so insidious? What is this world coming to.

I'm really surprised they didn't find her body or any clues afterward.

1. It was an abduction, so all the attacker has to do is grab the abductee and stuff her in the van and leave. This process could take very little time if done right.

2. i think there was/is evidence at the crime scene where she was killed and/or raped. The problem is locating it. This guy could have driven across three states and murdered her in a shack in the woods in Tennesseee or god knows where.

And that truck is pretty unique, I'm surprised it wasn't identified later on.

Other than the window what else was unique about the van?

In any case, I hope he gets whats coming to him one of these days.

He may already have. It;s very much a possibility that he;s been arrested for a major crime already and we just haven;t linked Angela or Cheryl's death to him.

One of the ironies of cold cases is that some of the criminal your looking for is in jail already for the exact same crime.

It;s kind of darkly funny if you think about it. A detective is looking to do something that has already been done.

I'm really surprised they didn't find her body or any clues afterward.
i'm not because the killer/abducter seems to have done this before and may've kidnapped her and hid the body by driving out of state, hopefully they either find her (alive or dead) so they can solve this crime, i perfer her alive of course.
from the description of the case I think that is what happened. And that truck is pretty unique, I'm surprised it wasn't identified later on.
actually the truck isn't unique at the time, it was the early 90s/late 80s, i bet there were many trucks like that, except without the decal which may've been taken off. Add to that, he's likely a loner and out of towner, so he kidnapped her and took off to another state.
Perhaps the man abandoned it later on or changed the description.
i bet now he doesnt have it.
In any case, I hope he gets whats coming to him one of these days
like Mastermind says, he MAY already be in jail, guys like him usually don't do this once, he may be in jail or was in jail.

Onlooker keeps stating that Angela was unaccounted for after the BBQ. Did the segment not state that she has hanging out with a female friend after the bbq?

Also I still say this was sloopy police work. Why? Well we have an abduction late at night in an area were it would be imposible for the perp to blend in with traffic because quite simply there wouldnt be much if any traffic at that time of night. Second we have an eye witness who can describe the vehicle to a tee as well as which direction it headed. The witness got this info to police within minutes and he was never found. Think about it, what if the presidents daughter had been taken in this manner, you think theyd of found that truck? Ofcourse they would have.
T
he problem was they suspected Rob and never went all out to find her in the critical moments when she was more then likely still alive. Every cop within 100 miles should have been our covering every square inch of road with a description of the truck, roadblocks should have been set up as well as bringing in the helicopters from Kansas City.

But none of that happened. Instead when daylight broke they took the Henry country sherriffs deputies and a bunch of volunteers out in the woods looking for her body, thinking ofcourse they would find her and pin it on Rob. It didnt happen and the perp got away because of the way it was handled.

Onlooker keeps stating that Angela was unaccounted for after the BBQ. Did the segment not state that she has hanging out with a female friend after the bbq?

Also I still say this was sloopy police work. Why? Well we have an abduction late at night in an area were it would be imposible for the perp to blend in with traffic because quite simply there wouldnt be much if any traffic at that time of night. Second we have an eye witness who can describe the vehicle to a tee as well as which direction it headed. The witness got this info to police within minutes and he was never found. Think about it, what if the presidents daughter had been taken in this manner, you think theyd of found that truck? Ofcourse they would have.
T
he problem was they suspected Rob and never went all out to find her in the critical moments when she was more then likely still alive. Every cop within 100 miles should have been our covering every square inch of road with a description of the truck, roadblocks should have been set up as well as bringing in the helicopters from Kansas City.

But none of that happened. Instead when daylight broke they took the Henry country sherriffs deputies and a bunch of volunteers out in the woods looking for her body, thinking ofcourse they would find her and pin it on Rob. It didnt happen and the perp got away because of the way it was handled.

Very well said. I completely agree.

I don't want to hear how the things Kane mentioned that should have been done by LE, couldn't be done because it "wasn't procedure" or "too expensive". This is a human life we are talking about and the comparison to the presidents daughter is a good comparison as to the way it would have been handled.

Very well said. I completely agree.

I don't want to hear how the things Kane mentioned that should have been done by LE, couldn't be done because it "wasn't procedure" or "too expensive". This is a human life we are talking about and the comparison to the presidents daughter is a good comparison as to the way it would have been handled.

I have always been intrigued by missing persons cases and have studied many of them. I watched every episode of unsolved mysteries on this subject. Besided the Hammond case, I cannot think of another instance where an abduction happens and within minutes the police have a description of the vehicle, the perp and the direction the vehicle was going and the person was not caught.
I realize there have been many cases were witnesses saw a strange vehicle and came forward after they realized there had been foul play. Ofcourse by that time the suspect is long gone. But that is simply not the case here.
To those that may think Rob is behind this I would remind you that at least two other people told investigators that they had seen the green truck in the area that night. I dont think that was mentioned in the UM episode but it was in various newspaper articles.
And this nonsense that came out a year ago about there being new info and the police closing in on a suspect was just that, nonsense. Alot of people are still talking about this case and the police are simply trying to cover their ass. They have no more clues now then they did in 91.
To me this is no mystery. She was taken by a serial killer/rapist and was murdered. The police did not respond properly so he got away. Hes moved far from the area or is in jail for a similar crime at this time. There's really nothing else to figure out here.

The beating the dead horse emoticon was as sensational as the story! LOVED it! LOL...

If the perp was a creep with a kill car, who executed his plan with such precision that he was in and out in a flash, WHY, in God's name would he delay his escape by a few seconds to speak into the phone? Doing so only increased the chances he'd get caught. If he was such a phenominal criminal, he would've taken what he wanted as quickly as possible. Someone here would agree with me I hope.

Another note on the creeps words on the phone. I get the impression he allegedly spoke those words immediately after making contact with Angela, right? Think if you were Angela at that point in time. In the 2 seconds in which he made physical contact and then picked up the phone it is tremendously unlikely that she could've been in any way subdued. For the attacker to stop, reach for the phone, pick up the phone, and then finally, speak into the phone those words would allow Angela time to run like hell. Adrenaline would've kicked in, and likely, she would've ran like hell towards the main road or a place she thought likely to have someone else present. The old, dirty, scruffy guy was probably not a sprinter and likely would've had a little bit of a chore in catching up to and subsequently subduing Angela before making his alleged getaway.

As the people that accuse me of having never seen a small town or resided in one, with all your details of the darkness, you contradict yourself when you say it's so dark you can barely see who's driving past you. That being said, how: 1. Did she see him, know it was him and scream out to him 2. Did he know it was her? Seems fishy to me. Also, if she was able to scream out at him, that would indicate that she was able to lean out of the vehicle to do so, or at least move around in the vehicle to do it. If any of us were in that spot, as she is alleged to be, we'd all ditch & roll out the side and hope for a few broken bones.

Lastly, everyone loves to talk about money and how Rob wasn't made of it, and he wouldn't hurt his car because of financial concerns. I GET THAT. No one here has answered my question. If, you (for whatever reason whatsoever) killed someone (accidentally or not) and decided you needed to cover up that crime and try to not get caught, would you a) be concerned about a few thousand dollars or b) use every means at your disposal to avoid being caught.

Feel free to keep trying to pick me apart, but please quit ducking this question. A or B

First off I dont think there is any evidence the perp actually picked up the phone and spoke into it. I think Rob simply heard the man say that in the background. Hell if he picked up the phone now we have a set of prints right?? Im sure the cops never bothered to check that out either.
As far as why she didnt run away? I fully beileve there was more then one perp in this case. I think the nasty bearded man distracted her while another surprised her from behind. I think that explains why she couldnt get away from a man that was obviously not a sprinter.

You say that if Angela was able to scream out then she should have been able to jump out of the vehicle? Again I think there was second perp holding her while the other drove but consider this woman was terrified and the truck was travelling at high rate of speed. Not everyone reacts the same. Some may bail and others may freeze up.

I would like to point something out to you and have you address it.
Do you understand that for Rob to do this how much cooperation he would have to have had? First off two other people reported seeing the truck in the area that night. So did they lie?
Angela was with a female friend before calling Rob, did the female friend lie to police when she conveyed that?
Robs brother told police about Rob getting the phone call from Angela and then rushing out the door. Did he lie also?
Do you beileve that all these people lied for Rob and helped him pull off the murder of his girlfriend?

Onlooker keeps stating that Angela was unaccounted for after the BBQ. Did the segment not state that she has hanging out with a female friend after the bbq?
yeah, they dont mention it in the segment, BUT if you listen CAREFULLY, you hear her say, i'm going to (cant recall the name's) house and she would call him later.
First off I dont think there is any evidence the perp actually picked up the phone and spoke into it. I think Rob simply heard the man say that in the background.
agreed, there is not evidence he picked up the phone, he may have said to her while taking her, i didn't need to use the phone anyway.
You say that if Angela was able to scream out then she should have been able to jump out of the vehicle? Again I think there was second perp holding her while the other drove but consider this woman was terrified and the truck was travelling at high rate of speed. Not everyone reacts the same. Some may bail and others may freeze up.
Well, i dont know if there was a 2nd perp (it would explain alot), but i agree with the 2nd part, the truck was taking off, he may have been very strong too and not everyone reacts the same.
Do you understand that for Rob to do this how much cooperation he would have to have had? First off two other people reported seeing the truck in the area that night. So did they lie?
Angela was with a female friend before calling Rob, did the female friend lie to police when she conveyed that?
Robs brother told police about Rob getting the phone call from Angela and then rushing out the door. Did he lie also?
Do you beileve that all these people lied for Rob and helped him pull off the murder of his girlfriend?
yep, i didnt hear if the police talked to them (it's very likely they did though), but i agree, they wouldn't all cover for Rob, add to that, he would have to damage his own transmission (which isnt a cheap fix), clean up the scene of the crime SO well that the body won't be found in OVER TEN YEARS, Rob would have to be the perfect criminal to do this. I agree with Mastermind and others when they say, the person who did this is a serial killer and i will take it a step further and say, the man likely saw her as an opportunity, kidnapped and raped her and likely did the crime in another city or state and is now in another city or state.

Kane:


For everyone else that has deemed me an ass for not ruling out rob, please save our time. This is primarily for Kane.

As far as cooperation, I think there's less needed that one might think, and here's why:
1) when a crime is committed, especially an intriguing or major crime, a ton of tips roll in, 99% of them are junk. Some people love the attention they get when reporting them. This, IMHO, was illustrated by the old woman in the 3MW case in Springfield, MO, claiming to have witnessed a portion of the abduction. Her claim occurred 3-5 days after the initial story broke and I am of the feeling that she had heard reports of certain suspicious vehicles and went with it. (sorry for the sidetrack)

Everyone in this forum claims Angela hung out with a friend after dropping Rob off. That's what was "illustrated" in the UM episode. That's the hollywood part of the story. I have yet to see a credible news outlet verify or document that this friend she was going to hang out with saw her, which is VERY important in this case.

Rob's brother claimed that Angela called Rob and he ran out the door.
That's great. Did Rob's brother answer the call and hand Rob the phone? By the accounts I have seen and read, ROB answered the phone and took off. This is important too.

If anyone can help me find credible evidence that someone can verify Angela being alive from the time She dropped off rob until the time she made the phone call screaming for help, please share it here. My theory is made stronger by the absence of this information.

Kane: Thanks for the post and for resparking my interest in this story.

I would like to point something out to you and have you address it.
Do you understand that for Rob to do this how much cooperation he would have to have had? First off two other people reported seeing the truck in the area that night. So did they lie?
Angela was with a female friend before calling Rob, did the female friend lie to police when she conveyed that?
Robs brother told police about Rob getting the phone call from Angela and then rushing out the door. Did he lie also?
Do you beileve that all these people lied for Rob and helped him pull off the murder of his girlfriend?

I was reading through some articles and found word of another serial Killer who could have murdered Angela. Of course there is the Kenneth McDuff theory, but this guy may be an even stronger possibility, its a serial Killer named Larry Hall who crisscrossed the Midwest from 1979-1994 killing young women, supposedly he liked to visit Civial War battle sites. He definitely killed in Missouri before, he was suspected of a murder in Indiana not long after Angela's death. He is now in prison for kidnapping in North carolina, but strangely he's never actually been convicted of murder. The victims he chose were more in line with Angela Hammond than those of Kenneth McDuff.

I couldn't find any pictures of the guy, but he was 46 years old in 2009 when this article was written, which means he was around 28 or 29 years old at the thime of Angela's abduction. I got the impression Angela's abductor was thought to be older, but of course there is no way of knowing that.

Only thing I couldn't find was any information that he ever owned a truck like the one seen driving off with Angela, and I couldn't find a lot of information about how he liked to catch his victims. I think the couple I read about he actually broke into people's homes which would be a departure from the Hammond abduction.

Here is one article I could find on Hall I may post more soon:
http://s2.excoboard.com/UBTJ/163834/2139435

Definitely think he is at least someone to discuss as a posisbility.

and discotheques lit up

Of course we couldn't have those, bell! Our tiny, inept police departments couldn't respond to all the cocaine busts! :lol:


Onlooker, I've read the entire thread since your initial post, and almost immediately you became defensive when your ideas were challenged. :confused: Challenge is not the equivalent of insult. It seems far less like other posters are "deeming you an ass", and far more like you're becoming flustered because your opinion, as many have stated, is based on misconceptions and stereotypes and is now being scrutinized.

Of course we couldn't have those, bell! Our tiny, inept police departments couldn't respond to all the cocaine busts! :lol:


Onlooker, I've read the entire thread since your initial post, and almost immediately you became defensive when your ideas were challenged. :confused: Challenge is not the equivalent of insult. It seems far less like other posters are "deeming you an ass", and far more like you're becoming flustered because your opinion, as many have stated, is based on misconceptions and stereotypes and is now being scrutinized.

Not to mention that any time someone challenged his ideas, or even gave proof against them, the posts were ignored, or the person berated (i.e. DING DONG. RING THE BELL). Unfortunately, trying to change Onlooker's mind is an exercise in futility, Meg, because he KNOWS that Rob killed her.

Onlooker, the burden of proof in this matter lies with you. Rob has been cleared by the "inept/useless/lazy" police departments that we stupid, backwoods hillbillies have. Do you want to know part of the reason that there are no interviews or news articles online, that people can link you to? Because--surprise, surprise--the internet was not in use by the masses at the time. And many small areas with small local papers have not bothered to put their entire archives on the internet. My advice? If you actually care to learn more about the case, and you are unwilling to listen to the opinions of those who have already read up on and studied the case, then take a trip to Clinton, Missouri, and interview people there. Then, you can come back and tell us your findings.


An old adage about a dead horse comes to mind.

wouldn't Angela have mentioned it if there were two abductors?

Yes given that her description is based on secondhand infomation, I could understand that some of the details might be sketchy, but something like there being two men Angela would have undoubtedly mentioned. Rob also drove right past the truck and never mentioned seeing another man.

I agree though it would have been difficult for an abductor to keep Angela subdued and drive a vehicle at the same time. Would have taken a pretty strong man. Its certainly not impossible though given Angela was so small.

That she didn't jump out of the vehicle at a high rate of speed is not that unusual, she could have really hurt herself badly and all the abductor would have to do is go back and get her and she'd have been no better off.

Now if Rob had been able to keep the chase up, then she'd have something to gain by jumping out cause he would have been right there and could easily
have gotten to her before the abductor could turn around and go back and get her , and then its more likely the abductor would have just kept driving rather than going back and taking his chances with Rob, although that is not a certainty, particularly if he had had a gun somewhere in his truck.

Most likely he was able to keep her subdued just long enough to get away from Rob, at which point jumping out of the truck may have saved her life when he was still close enough to save her. But once Rob's car stalled it probably wouldn't have doner her any good.

Can't believe I've never posted on here, this was one of the first cases I saw in 1993 and personal to me (esp since it was still pretty recent then).

Even though at first glance it might've sounded far fetched, I totally agree that Rob isn't guilty. He struck me as a really nice guy who felt horrible that even by his most valient effort, he wasn't quite able to do anything to save Angie. :( In fact he seemed like one of the most sincere grieving boyfriend/husbands on UM (compare him to Paul Pollis or Mark Nichols!).

I should look up Clinton, MO on Google Street View or earth (I love using that). I bet it hasn't changed much since 1991 other than technology and a few more things built. Like some other people have said, I don't think it's a stretch to say that nobody was out at 11pm in a small town and therefore didn't see Rob chasing the truck. I live in a big metro area, and even here there's some streets that aren't exactly bustling at that hour either.

Judging by the reenactment (which Rob heard as it happened) the guy came up behind Angie when she was on the phone, so just by the shock value I wouldn't be surprised if he was able to overpower her. It did look like she was struggling as the truck was driving too.

I really do hope for the slim chance this case could be solved. I'd love if Angie was still alive (she'd be like 39 now) but chances are that she isn't. Most likely I'd say he took her out of town before likely murdering her, and he's either in jail for some unrelated crime or dead by now.

Even though at first glance it might've sounded far fetched, I totally agree that Rob isn't guilty. He struck me as a really nice guy who felt horrible that even by his most valient effort, he wasn't quite able to do anything to save Angie. :( In fact he seemed like one of the most sincere grieving boyfriend/husbands on UM (compare him to Paul Pollis or Mark Nichols!).
Exactly!!! that's what i told Onlooker, plus other things. I just dont get that rub that Rob is guilty, add to that, he's a teenager or young 20 year old. He would've made a mistake if he killed someone and would've been caught.

Like some other people have said, I don't think it's a stretch to say that nobody was out at 11pm in a small town and therefore didn't see Rob chasing the truck. I live in a big metro area, and even here there's some streets that aren't exactly bustling at that hour either.
agree and you live in a big metro area, imagine how it will be in a small town when people just either drive through to get somewhere else or arent out at all.

Judging by the reenactment (which Rob heard as it happened) the guy came up behind Angie when she was on the phone, so just by the shock value I wouldn't be surprised if he was able to overpower her.
good point there.

I really do hope for the slim chance this case could be solved. I'd love if Angie was still alive (she'd be like 39 now) but chances are that she isn't. Most likely I'd say he took her out of town before likely murdering her, and he's either in jail for some unrelated crime or dead by now.
yeah i agree, she likely got taken to another town, state or city, killed, buried, then he moved on. I think the abductor is either in jail, dead, or alive, but is hard to find because he's not a popular guy who talks to alot of people.

Onlooker, I've read the entire thread since your initial post, and almost immediately you became defensive when your ideas were challenged.
that's one problem i had. Onlooker became defensive and Onlooker shot down all the ideas and took them as garbage. Onlooker thinks the police didnt investigate, but it's not that hard to find evidence on a guy who makes mistakes and Rob would've made MAJOR mistakes.

Challenge is not the equivalent of insult.
you're right, all I am saying is look at the scenerio. First off, Onlooker claims that Angela was doing nothing for 2 hours or something, but in the Segment, she said she is going to a friend's house then she would call him. i am sure they talked to her. Rob is young, he would've left some type of physical evidence behind, either in his car or on the street or on his clothes, add to that a Transmission fix is not a cheap fix.

as many have stated, is based on misconceptions and stereotypes and is now being scrutinized.
that's why i have turned down his theory. No one destroys their own transimission so they can keep a story from looking good and if Rob did do this crime (which i HIGHLY doubt) then he needs to be known as a great liar.

^ Good points, I agree. :)

The local police probably should have worked harder to go after the suspect instead of focusing on Rob first. Obviously that's standard precedure, but valuable time got away. I wonder if even as late as '91 a relatively cozy small town might've just been unprepared or equipped to handle a major case like that, so they naturally assumed it was a lover's quarrel or something.

Even Angela's mom said she could see (from an outsider's perspective) how people might wonder if the boyfriend did it, but she also said Rob was a great guy she'd known his whole life. This dude would have to be the criminal of the century to pull off a first time murder having (I presume) never even having a run in with the law before, and get away with it.

If it happened just like the reenactment, Rob didn't make a u-turn and instead stopped to hit reverse to turn around (which threw out his transmission) because he was panicked, and also because the street didn't look big enough to make a wide turn. I doubt he would've thought of something like that if he were guilty.

Just spent the past two days reading the entire thread.

My thoughts about the guy getting away. This doesn't really surprise me. My folks both have worked at a small sheriff's office. There might be one, maybe two people patrolling the entire area. More urban areas are understaffed too, usually, so I can see why LE wasn't there immediately. My dinky hometown is even smaller than Clinton and there are an untold number of dirt back roads, even I don't know how they all connect after living there and driving along most of them. Either the guy knew where he was going and he got lucky or a combo of both.

In the stories I've read, Angela told Rob the truck was green. But Rob said when he drove by a truck he thought was yellow, he heard his name yelled. We can't even be positive the truck was either one of these colors. Nearby lights and our eyes change that, especially at night.

About "it was a small town and everyone knows every car." That is so not true. I didn't even know the cars of some of my fellow students. Lots of trucks, too, and I bet Clinton isn't that much different.

One final thought, though it may be outdated by this point, on possible DNA. In many cases, DNA was collected at the time of the crime but never mentioned or focused on because there wasn't anything to do with it. In some cases it was forgotten until a new investigator came across it while taking another look at the case. Don't know if that's the case here, but it's one possibility.

This dude would have to be the criminal of the century to pull off a first time murder having (I presume) never even having a run in with the law before, and get away with it.
agreed, that's what i tried to tell this guy. I think Rob isnt guilty because he would have to be a perfect criminal to get away with this. There isnt anything even suspicious about Rob's story really except the guy and that could happen. He didnt' come off like Paul Polis, who had footprints in the snow going towards a shed or a witness saying he wasnt doing what he said he was doing.

If it happened just like the reenactment, Rob didn't make a u-turn and instead stopped to hit reverse to turn around (which threw out his transmission) because he was panicked, and also because the street didn't look big enough to make a wide turn. I doubt he would've thought of something like that if he were guilty.
yeah i agree, no one could make up a story that good, destroy their transmission and use it in that story. It's harder to make up a lie when you are under pressure than many think.
In the stories I've read, Angela told Rob the truck was green. But Rob said when he drove by a truck he thought was yellow, he heard his name yelled. We can't even be positive the truck was either one of these colors. Nearby lights and our eyes change that, especially at night.
Very true, lights can play tricks on you.
About "it was a small town and everyone knows every car." That is so not true. I didn't even know the cars of some of my fellow students. Lots of trucks, too, and I bet Clinton isn't that much different.
agreed, just because someone lives in small town doesnt mean you know everyone there or their cars and like i said, the guy i think did this is an out of towner who came here, saw a young woman, grabbed her, took her in another town, likely raped and killed her, although i hope she's alive.
One final thought, though it may be outdated by this point, on possible DNA. In many cases, DNA was collected at the time of the crime but never mentioned or focused on because there wasn't anything to do with it.
i heard something about DNA with this case, but not much, i really hope they are able to find this guy, Angela's family NEEDS answers.

Everyone in this forum claims Angela hung out with a friend after dropping Rob off. That's what was "illustrated" in the UM episode. That's the hollywood part of the story. I have yet to see a credible news outlet verify or document that this friend she was going to hang out with saw her, which is VERY important in this case.
it's NOT a part of the story. Why in the world would the segment want to show Angela hanging out with her friend????? like i said, what i think happened (although you dont care) is Rob was dropped off, she went to hang out with her friend, then after that she went to a pay phone, called Rob to tell him she was going home and then the truck came and all the stuff Rob said happened. Like MANY have said, in order for Rob to have done this, he would've HAD to have help doing it. For example, who drove the car to hide her body so well that it hasnt been found to this day?? who cleaned up???? how has the police not found out about Rob and his helpers?? things like this are questioned.
Not to mention that any time someone challenged his ideas, or even gave proof against them, the posts were ignored, or the person berated (i.e. DING DONG. RING THE BELL).
Agreed, he's either shooting the posts down like we have no clue what we are talking about or starting a conspiracy theory. Onlooker wants to throw a man in prison without proper evidence. Take your theory to court and the jury will find him not guilty.
Unfortunately, trying to change Onlooker's mind is an exercise in futility, Meg, because he KNOWS that Rob killed her.
i know right, in Onlooker's mind Rob is the perfect criminal. He can kill, clean up the scene, come up with a story and even damage his own car to make his story credible.
Do you want to know part of the reason that there are no interviews or news articles online, that people can link you to? Because--surprise, surprise--the internet was not in use by the masses at the time.
very true, this happened before computers were as popular as they are now.
My advice? If you actually care to learn more about the case, and you are unwilling to listen to the opinions of those who have already read up on and studied the case, then take a trip to Clinton, Missouri, and interview people there. Then, you can come back and tell us your findings
agreed, because i think that's the only way Onlooker will get the info that Onlooker wants. I am sure the police did a good job investigating Rob.

RE: discrepancies in reports about the color of the abductor's vehicle.

Obviously, it's was dark outside because of the time of day this occurred. Then there are the different lights, traffic lights, parking lot lights, street lights, etc, that reflect off a car, altering the perceived color. I've even read about cases where the eye witnesses insisted a perp's vehicle was red, when it turned out to be a white vehicle with a red traffic light casting that color onto it.

Another possibility: color blindness. Three years ago, I realized that my teenage daughter is green/yellow color "blind". At that time, we also noticed that her father has the same problem, just to a lesser extent.

In my daughter's case, she sees green objects as having much more yellow in them than they really have.

Perhaps this was problem in Rob's description of the abductor's vehicle. And he may not even know he had this odd color blindness problem. At the time Angela was abducted, Rob was about the same age my daughter was when we found out she was partially color blind.

Of course, it could always have been reflections from traffic lights shining on the truck in Angela's case. After all, the same traffic light that casts a green glow on objects also casts a yellow glow as the light changes. That could account for why one person saw a green truck and one saw a yellowish truck.

Still, I don't know why there are discrepancies in the color description. Could have been fear, stress, mistakes, reflecting light, or even a rare condition limiting the viewer's perception of color.

RE: discrepancies in reports about the color of the abductor's vehicle.

I've even read about cases where the eye witnesses insisted a perp's vehicle was red, when it turned out to be a white vehicle with a red traffic light casting that color onto it.

Another possibility: color blindness. Three years ago, I realized that my teenage daughter is green/yellow color "blind". At that time, we also noticed that her father has the same problem, just to a lesser extent.

In my daughter's case, she sees green objects as having much more yellow in them than they really have.

Perhaps this was problem in Rob's description of the abductor's vehicle. And he may not even know he had this odd color blindness problem. At the time Angela was abducted, Rob was about the same age my daughter was when we found out she was partially color blind.

Of course, it could always have been reflections from traffic lights shining on the truck in Angela's case. After all, the same traffic light that casts a green glow on objects also casts a yellow glow as the light changes. That could account for why one person saw a green truck and one saw a yellowish truck.

Still, I don't know why there are discrepancies in the color description. Could have been fear, stress, mistakes, reflecting light, or even a rare condition limiting the viewer's perception of color.


I've done that; insisting a car was a certain color and I was totally wrong. I didn't know that about color blindness. Could be.

]
it's NOT a part of the story. Why in the world would the segment want to show Angela hanging out with her friend????? like i said, what i think happened (although you dont care) is Rob was dropped off, she went to hang out with her friend, then after that she went to a pay phone, called Rob to tell him she was going home and then the truck came and all the stuff Rob said happened. Like MANY have said, in order for Rob to have done this, he would've HAD to have help doing it. For example, who drove the car to hide her body so well that it hasnt been found to this day?? who cleaned up???? how has the police not found out about Rob and his helpers?? things like this are questioned.

Yeah, the segment also mentioned the police cleared Rob within a week. I do wonder though, if maybe they initially focused on him and as a result, the abductor was allowed to get away. I've heard the first 1-2 days are the most critical time in a kidnapping as far as them living or not, and that the victims are usually killed very close to home or taken way out of the area (both of these things were true in the Adam Walsh case, and according to John Walsh's book, some of the local police were really incompetent and just unequepped to know how to handle a situation like that as late as 1981).

Even though it wasn't mentioned, I'm sure they got fingerprints from the payphone as well as interviewed Angie's friend, as well as Rob's younger brother to back up the story.

That's a good point actually. For argument's sake if Rob was guilty, he definitely would've needed accomplices and they all must've been criminal masterminds or something. Plus, what motive could he have possibly had? The segment doesn't mention her being pregnant (but this thread does) but I could see him being the kind of guy who was thrilled to become a father, even if he was really young (18 in '91). You can clearly tell how upset he was about being so close but not quite being able to save her too. :(

Plus, what motive could he have possibly had? The segment doesn't mention her being pregnant (but this thread does) but I could see him being the kind of guy who was thrilled to become a father, even if he was really young (18 in '91). You can clearly tell how upset he was about being so close but not quite being able to save her too. :(

I haven't seen the segment in a long time, but I thought it was understood that Rob and Angela were going to get married some time in the very near future. If that's true, I find it hard to believe he would murder his own girlfriend merely because she was pregnant (if THAT'S true, and I think it is).

The way I see it, Rob simply didn't have the time to commit the crime. He couldn't have been babysitting his brother for the length of time that he did, abduct Angela, murder her, find some manner or hide/dispose of her body, and intentionally damage the transmission in his car all in that short amount of time before he notified authorities. It reminds me of Bob Bean being accused of killing Sammy Wheeler when he was a hundred miles away at the time.

I think it's hilarious that Onlooker came back for one post and stirred the pot this much. Based on the defensiveness, and the lack of paying attention to anything that anyone says that refutes the knowledge that Onlooker has as to the coldblooded murder of Angela by Rob...I've found myself asking if Onlooker is simply a troll, much like Sadie McKee, who used to post about the Wackers, incessantly. You'll notice that Onlooker appears nowhere but this one thread. :rolleyes:

I have never commented on this case here but it is being discussed elsewhere and this case was brought up in the context of the 3MW case of Springfield, which is my main interest. (I lived in Springfield for 26 years)

The name of Kenneth McDuff has come up and he is long dead but there is some question of whether he was in custody at the time Hammond was abducted. He was known to do this kind of crime and owned a pick-up at least some of these crimes. And of course he was captured on April 4, 1992. So far as I know he left custody in 1990 and was on the street. Can someone set me straight on these facts? Having gone through Clinton about a 100 times from Springfield to K.C., it would be an ideal place for someone passing through who had an "itch" to commit a crime such as this.

If McDuff could be ruled out, and I have a completely open mind about his involvement, then I would want to look at the last known individuals have had contact with the victim. I am concerned about the specificity of the pickup truck. So far as I know we are being told what Angela is alleged to have said over the phone. I believe that is called hearsay. There is no direct evidence that I know of but I could be wrong. But as I say, that is just my $0.02. Thoughts?

Good discussion here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whew!!

Just waded through this entire thread. I knew about this case because I lived in Springfield and it was a well covered case at the time. I didn't know all the details until now. Some observations:

1) The color of the alleged pickup truck is unimportant as the night lighting could alter our eye's perceptions of color. This was also a factor in the 3MW case I have been interested in.

2) The make and model of the vehicle is evidently not nailed down so far as I can tell.

3) The time line is a source of some concern as so far as I can tell cannot be proven.

4) After reading all that has been said by those close to the case I now tend to doubt that her fiance was likely involved. Unfortunately we don't have actual provable information to establish it was not possible. It is not particularly relevant that anyone believes or disbelieves someone is innocent. There are far too many cases where the sweetest most wonderful people are found to be the perps. On balance, I would not consider him a serious suspect after looking at the case.

5) I'm troubled by the Trudy Darby case.

6) It appears that the local police forces did everything that could be reasonably expected of them. On the other hand I was astounded at the hostility of the state police to the son of Cheryl Ann Kenney. I regard that as reprehensible.

7) I still regard McDuff as a potential suspect as by all accounts he was on the street at the time and he was apprehended on April 4, 1992 in Kansas City, just up the road. I don't know why he would be discounted as a suspect. And he did drive a pick-up truck as noted in two of his murders.

8) Assuming her fiance is uninvolved it is more likely than not that this was a serial murderer. Which takes me back to why I am even on this forum regarding this case. Having poured over everything there is about the 3MW case I came away with the unthinkable. Perhaps we are looking at an unknown serial killer something I thought very much in doubt.

9) Going back over the facts of the case, what exactly was the reason that Angela Hammond placed the call at this location? Where was she when she started home? Why not place the call then? Being out late at night anywhere is dangerous in and of itself. If someone could clear that up for me, I would be grateful.

10) That the Kenney case and this case are being linked in the Charley Project site is significant to me. What do we know about that we don't know now? What are the similarities? Is there a separate thread on that case? I will do a search and see if there is. Any thoughts would be appreciated. (Never mind, I have found it. More reading ahead.)

11) One final thing. I regard polygraphs and eyewitness testimony near worthless. Polygraphs are not admissible in court and I believe eyewitness testimony should also be inadmissible. Too many innocent people have been sent to prison or even executed on bad eyewitness testimony. YES, it is possible to beat a polygraph test. Psychopaths do this all the time and innocent people fail them as well. But I have great confidence in DNA PROVIDING it has a provable chain of custody.

Great site. Lot of good and informative information with a relative lack of rancor which is always appreciated.

haven't seen the segment in a long time, but I thought it was understood that Rob and Angela were going to get married some time in the very near future. If that's true, I find it hard to believe he would murder his own girlfriend merely because she was pregnant (if THAT'S true, and I think it is).
yeah, i think Rob had a motive, that's part is true, Rob had a motive but...................
The way I see it, Rob simply didn't have the time to commit the crime
That is one of my issues, TIME, Rob didnt have that time to do this. He would have to kill his girlfriend, hide her body, clean up the crime scene and do all that so her body wont be found for years. i bet that is hard to do.

haven't seen the segment in a long time, but I thought it was understood that Rob and Angela were going to get married some time in the very near future. If that's true, I find it hard to believe he would murder his own girlfriend merely because she was pregnant (if THAT'S true, and I think it is).
yeah, i think Rob had a motive, that's part is true, Rob had a motive but...................
The way I see it, Rob simply didn't have the time to commit the crime
That is one of my issues, TIME, Rob didnt have that time to do this. He would have to kill his girlfriend, hide her body, clean up the crime scene and do all that so her body wont be found for years. i bet that is hard to do.

I don't really have all the facts regarding the time line. I think it more important to focus on a possible motive. Just because there were no issues up to that night doesn't mean that something didn't come up, a minor argument turned into a bigger argument, things spin out of control and she is killed.

I never met the gentleman, haven't looked into his eyes or heard him answer the questions posed. He has come up as a suspect by several people simply because he is the last known person to have heard from her before she was allegedly taken. And it is what he alleged she said; there is no independent verification of what was actually said.

The two witnesses who claimed to have seen the purported truck argue in his favor and give his account considerable weight.

The reason he came onto my radar screen had to do with the specificity of the alleged abduction and what was said over the phone. Seems too detailed to me but perhaps he got it just right. How would we know?

If she screamed at him as they were passing on the road she had to be screaming out of the right window as she wouldn't have been driving. With the road noise, engine noise, etc., in such old vehicles would it have been heard? I'm dubious.

I do believe there is very possibly a connection to the Kenney abduction. That argues against him as the perpetrator. We then have to look to the Darby murder and those perps. It is not inconceivable that all three abductions were their handiwork. Note: I just watched the "new information" from last year and the police said they had physical evidence and ruled out the Kenney and Darby cases as being connected. That is most significant.

If he didn't do it and I've never claimed he did, I would look to someone like Kenneth McDuff simply because, so far as I know he was on the street at the time, had a pick-up and was eventually apprehended in Kansas City in April, 1992. But how would the physical evidence tie to him?

What is this new DNA evidence they are talking about? We don't know.

I don't really have all the facts regarding the time line. I think it more important to focus on a possible motive.
Well, here's the way i see it, he had motive, but the opportunity is hard. I am sure the police could check the phone records at that time, but for me the timeline wouldn't fit and in order for Rob to do this, he would have to be the PERFECT criminal. That's why i think he's innocent. Not enough proof that screams Rob. For example, if Rob did it, how did he clean up the crime scene so fast? if he did this, why hasnt the body been found and why didnt anyone speak up about him being missing for about 5 or more hours because it takes time to hide a body to where he won't be round for 10 years.
Just because there were no issues up to that night doesn't mean that something didn't come up, a minor argument turned into a bigger argument, things spin out of control and she is killed.
i am not saying that couldn't happen, i am just saying that Rob would have to either had help (highly unlikely) or be perfect at being a murderer (highly unlikely too). First off, it is VERY hard to make up a lie when you just did a crime, so i would expect Rob's story to have holes, how would a kid who just killed his girlfriend make up a good story like i chased the guy and my transmission failed. he would've said something dumb like, my transmission failed this morning or something.
The reason he came onto my radar screen had to do with the specificity of the alleged abduction and what was said over the phone. Seems too detailed to me but perhaps he got it just right. How would we know?
but you got to look at facts man. How could a man his age, not be caught in a lie??? his story hasnt even been questioned by the police or Angela's own family.
If she screamed at him as they were passing on the road she had to be screaming out of the right window as she wouldn't have been driving.
This is not impossible, first off what if his car isnt loud and second, what if she screamed loud.
I do believe there is very possibly a connection to the Kenney abduction. That argues against him as the perpetrator.
i dont know who did it, i dont follow Kenney much, need to look him up one day. I still think the guy who did this (and i have been questioned on this) is a guy whose not really got many friends. He's not known well at all. He's likely killed or raped and i think the man is an out of towner, he was likely driving through this town to somewhere else than in his sick mind saw an opportunity, and capitalized on it and likely kidnapped, raped and killed her and her body hasnt been found because he either buried her near where he lives (he's likely lives by himself) or he buried her in another town, city or state and maybe she was found, but because of where she was located, she is a Jane Doe. I want this case solved because there are so many questions that need answering.

I have read all of the various threads regarding this case and there were some interesting comments if you keep looking. I call your attention to the following for example:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=217153&page=4&highlight=angela+hammond ; post #56.

The time line is of absolute critical importance.

For example; there was a case for example, unrelated to this one, in which the perpetrator actually drove about 2,200 miles one weekend to murder his wife half way across the United States. His alibi was that he was not in town and couldn't have done it. When the time line was run with an actual trip back and forth by the police officers, it was indeed possible. Then it came down to motive. Do we have a motive here? I don't know. I just read what was posted. You decide.

Remember, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I just look at the objective facts and possible motives.

Just for the record, I doubt that pregnancy was the motive. Could be, but I doubt it.

The time line is of absolute critical importance.
yeah i know what you are saying, but i dont think he had time to do this which is why i think the killer is an out of towner. As for the guy who killed his wife, this is a different scene. First off, how old was the man??? Second, his reason for not killing her. His reason was how a normal person would answer. Rob's wasnt. Rob said he chased the guy and his transmission failed, that's a pretty good story to come up with if he's lying which isnt' easy to do when under pressure.

As for the motive, that SEEMS to be the only one i can see. I dont think Rob did it, he didnt come accross as suspicious in my view and his story seemed logical

I am the son of Cheryl Kenney and yes there is another thread for her just search Cheryl Kenney under search these forums!

I am the son of Cheryl Kenney and yes there is another thread for her just search Cheryl Kenney under search these forums!

I do intend to look at that case but have been wrapped up with the 3MW case in Springfield "forever" so to speak. Then I happened to run onto the Hammond case here and had no idea there was so much information. I was aware of your mother's case but would like to read it through its entirety. I wouldn't even want to venture an opinion at this point in time.

:horse:

Everyone needs to stop beating a dead horse:

Rob was proven innocent through witnesses (his brother) and a polygraph test.

There's like a 2% chance Kenneth McDuff was the abductor.

1) Didn't fit the profile of the killer.
2) Lived almost 5 hours away from there.
3) Didn't fit his usual crimes (i.e. prostitutes) the only time he murdered people who were not prostitutes, he had an accomplice. And the whole deal with someone ducking down in the passenger side of the car is "out there", because if Angela could see the truck, driver, and what he was doing inside of the car, don't you think she could have saw someone ducking down?

:horse:

Everyone needs to stop beating a dead horse:

Rob was proven innocent through witnesses (his brother) and a polygraph test.

There's like a 2% chance Kenneth McDuff was the abductor.

1) Didn't fit the profile of the killer.
2) Lived almost 5 hours away from there.
3) Didn't fit his usual crimes (i.e. prostitutes) the only time he murdered people who were not prostitutes, he had an accomplice. And the whole deal with someone ducking down in the passenger side of the car is "out there", because if Angela could see the truck, driver, and what he was doing inside of the car, don't you think she could have saw someone ducking down?

I agree that the chances of McDuff being the abductor are near zero.

However, I'm not clear how a polygraph clears anyone of a crime. There are numerous examples of criminals who beat these tests. I have spoken to a former polygraph examiner and he told me plainly they can be beaten. And they are also notorious for showing innocent people as being deceptive.

There must be a reason why they are not permitted in criminal proceedings.

Can you expand on this a bit? Sometimes I'm a little slow about these things.

However, I'm not clear how a polygraph clears anyone of a crime.
yeah, i dont really think a polygraph determines guilt or innocence. to me it's motive and oppourtunity and the timeline doesnt fit. For Rob to have done this he would've needed hours. When i say he needs hours, it's not to do the crime, it's to clean up the scene, hide/bury the body, and other things. Plus like this guy said, i think the motive isnt that great anyway.

Yeah, the segment also mentioned the police cleared Rob within a week. I do wonder though, if maybe they initially focused on him and as a result, the abductor was allowed to get away. I've heard the first 1-2 days are the most critical time in a kidnapping as far as them living or not, and that the victims are usually killed very close to home or taken way out of the area (both of these things were true in the Adam Walsh case, and according to John Walsh's book, some of the local police were really incompetent and just unequepped to know how to handle a situation like that as late as 1981).

Even though it wasn't mentioned, I'm sure they got fingerprints from the payphone as well as interviewed Angie's friend, as well as Rob's younger brother to back up the story.

That's a good point actually. For argument's sake if Rob was guilty, he definitely would've needed accomplices and they all must've been criminal masterminds or something. Plus, what motive could he have possibly had? The segment doesn't mention her being pregnant (but this thread does) but I could see him being the kind of guy who was thrilled to become a father, even if he was really young (18 in '91). You can clearly tell how upset he was about being so close but not quite being able to save her too. :(


finger prints off a payphone?

do u realize how many people have fingerprints on that phone? lol

Was Angela Hammond seen after the party by anyone else than Rob?

However, I'm not clear how a polygraph clears anyone of a crime.

yeah, i don't really think a polygraph determines guilt or innocence. to me it's motive and opportunity and the time line doesn't fit. For Rob to have done this he would've needed hours. When i say he needs hours, it's not to do the crime, it's to clean up the scene, hide/bury the body, and other things. Plus like this guy said, i think the motive isn't that great anyway.

Let me say this upfront. I don't claim to be an expert on this case as I really even didn't look at it until the past week although I had known about it for two decades. (I lived in Springfield) Let me pose a few questions and some comments.

1) Do we have a provable time line? When was Angela actually seen by another human being? What time was it? Ditto for her boyfriend. If it can be established he didn't have the opportunity he could be ruled out unless a contractor was called in which would provide an alibi. Judging from the description of the abductor I find that unlikely.

2) Do we have motive? Paying child support or not wanting to pay it might be a motive. A jealous girlfriend might push someone to put the "problem" behind them. As Joseph Stalin would say "no body; no problem." Her body has never been found.

3) I'm reasonably certain that the Hammond, Kenney and Darby cases were all sorta combined to form the idea of a mad serial murderer roaming the countryside. There is one significant difference, however. Hammond disappeared AFTER Kenney and Darby. If someone wanted to create a scenario where people would want to blame this on some mysterious mad man roaming the countryside this would be a plausible scenario. Concoct such a person and vehicle which somehow could never be identified. It's very easy to ramp up enthusiasm for that as people are always caught up in serial murderers and their crimes. One would think that they are everywhere but the reality is that it has been estimated that only about 50 of them are on the street at the same time in the entire nation.

4) At the very end of the TV segment discussing this case a categorical statement is made that the Hammond case was NOT connected to two other murders in the area. The only way I know that could be done is if the perps were known and/or DNA established this fact. We know who did the Darby case. That's one. I'm guessing the second would be Kenney. I wouldn't doubt that the murderers of Darby also abducted Kenney. I do not believe they are likely to have abducted Angela Hammond.

5) Roughly 85% of all murders are committed by relatives and friends and the rest are mostly committed by someone who was with them last. There are of course exceptions but before I would look far afield I would want to totally eliminate the most likely perpetrators. And lastly, I do not believe that polygraphs are reliable; nor for that matter eyewitness testimony. Polygraphs are not admissible in court and if it were up to me eyewitness testimony would not be either. It is simply too unreliable.

Finally, if a plan was hatched to eliminate her for whatever reason, the time necessary to carry out the crime was more than adequate even if it was only 45 minutes. Her body could have been secreted away and later buried. And if her body had been found, I believe this crime would have been solved many years ago. Many successful murders are carried out for this one factor alone. Without a body it is both hard to solve and also hard to convict someone on purely circumstantial evidence.

There is a problem with this theory, however:

A) There are witnesses to Angela's presence to the party, to Rob being at home, to the truck, and to the pursuit itself.

B) By now, Rob's little brother would have talked to someone if Rob had ever left anywhere before he did to attempt to rescue Angela. He was the main reason why Rob was cleared in the first place. He was old enough to remember, and the police certainly questioned him in front of his parents to know what he had seen. Now he is certainly old enough now not to fear Rob if he had threatened him to remain silent. Yet, as of now he never contradicted Rob's story, and I am sure the police has visited him when growing up to see if he could bring in something new in the case.

C) It's not because 85% of murders are committed by a relative that this murder is necessarily committed by a relative. Correlation isn't causation. So we cannot infer his innocence or guilt on a statistical trend, it has no impact on Rob's decisions.

There is a problem with this theory, however:

A) There are witnesses to Angela's presence to the party, to Rob being at home, to the truck, and to the pursuit itself.

B) By now, Rob's little brother would have talked to someone if Rob had ever left anywhere before he did to attempt to rescue Angela. He was the main reason why Rob was cleared in the first place. He was old enough to remember, and the police certainly questioned him in front of his parents to know what he had seen. Now he is certainly old enough now not to fear Rob if he had threatened him to remain silent. Yet, as of now he never contradicted Rob's story, and I am sure the police has visited him when growing up to see if he could bring in something new in the case.

C) It's not because 85% of murders are committed by a relative that this murder is necessarily committed by a relative. Correlation isn't causation. So we cannot infer his innocence or guilt on a statistical trend, it has no impact on Rob's decisions.

Well certainly I would never want to convict someone on the basis of statistical probability. I would, however, add that there are always three components to every crime. They are means, the motive and opportunity. Who best fits this criteria?

You say there are witnesses who actually saw Rob in hot pursuit of the alleged pick-up truck? I was unaware of that. What I had thought I read was that two people claimed to have seen such a pick-up truck in the area.

I would just go back to the time line and work from there.

But the fairly recent TV update on this crime clearly stated that "two murders" in the area were NOT linked to the Hammond case. In my mind that considerably cuts the playing field down in suspects. How could the police make this categorical statement using DNA? It must point to someone who was also eliminated as a suspect in the other two abductions committed prior to the Hammond abduction. It couldn't have been the Darby killers and it couldn't have been McDuff as all three would have had their DNA on file. But it must point to someone if the police state these other two cases are unrelated. So far as I know there is little to no forensic evidence in the Kenney abduction. If these other two abductions are ruled out, what murders are they talking about? If the DNA in this case rules someone in, the police must believe the killer didn't have the opportunity to have been involved in the Darby murder and Kenney abduction.

Well certainly I would never want to convict someone on the basis of statistical probability. I would, however, add that there are always three components to every crime. They are means, the motive and opportunity. Who best fits this criteria?


To quote Cicero, cui bono?

Who benefits from Angela's disappearance? Certainly not Rob Schafer, from everything we know he still has trouble coping with with.

Yeah, in front of a jury and told by a prosecutor hell-bent to have Rob sent to death row at any cost, it can be construed Rob would have the means, the motive, and opportunity. But not really: Rob didn't have the motive (no known history of marital issues known at all; on the contrary he was engaged to her and she was pregnant of his child, which if caught would have sent him to death row), nor the opportunity (he was with home, with his brother, and Angela was at her BBQ).

Plenty of people have motives, means, and opportunities to get rid of people or commit crime, yet remain innocent. Larry Race is a good example, he had cheated on his wife several times and the prosecutor did use the same language of "motive, means and opportunity" to have him thrown in jail, accusing him of wanting to get rid of his wife, even if he was in fact innocent.

It's all circumstancial rhetoric without evidence, and there is none, zero, nada evidence linking Rob to Angela's disappearance. No blood, no fiber, no witness, no discrepancy. Not even a iota of evidence.

To quote Cicero, cui bono?

Who benefits from Angela's disappearance? Certainly not Rob Schafer, from everything we know he still has trouble coping with with.

Yeah, in front of a jury and told by a prosecutor hell-bent to have Rob sent to death row at any cost, it can be construed Rob would have the means, the motive, and opportunity. But not really: Rob didn't have the motive (no known history of marital issues known at all; on the contrary he was engaged to her and she was pregnant of his child, which if caught would have sent him to death row), nor the opportunity (he was with home, with his brother, and Angela was at her BBQ).

Plenty of people have motives, means, and opportunities to get rid of people or commit crime, yet remain innocent. Larry Race is a good example, he had cheated on his wife several times and the prosecutor did use the same language of "motive, means and opportunity" to have him thrown in jail, accusing him of wanting to get rid of his wife, even if he was in fact innocent.

It's all circumstantial rhetoric without evidence, and there is none, zero, nada evidence linking Rob to Angela's disappearance. No blood, no fiber, no witness, no discrepancy. Not even a iota of evidence.

Last thing first. What blood, fiber or witness would there be to find? His vehicle obviously would have her hair fibers and other evidence of her being in the vehicle as they went together. She could have cut a finger and dropped blood onto the upholstery. And if she was murdered it didn't necessarily have to be done inside the vehicle. Both of their residences would show traces of the other.

I'm not familiar with the other case and in general; in fact virtually all the time, I am opposed to circumstantial evidence although in some instances that is the only case to be made. As for example the woman in Reno who had gambling habit and left the premises (all caught on camera) walking out to the parking lot near but not locked together by her killer. His car was seen leaving without her just three minutes and 45 seconds later. He was a wealthy person with an established reputation but a secret past. He denies being her killer but he was sent away for life based solely on circumstantial evidence. Was he guilty? You betha!

We cannot know his frame of mind not having access to it. A person can look the picture of innocence and yet be guilty as sin.

I AM NOT saying he did it. What I am saying is that we have the report that virtually eliminates everyone else and implies some unnamed person otherwise they could not say the DNA evidence ruled out the other two murders. If they have DNA evidence on an unnamed suspect they should be hauling him in and getting to the bottom of why this DNA evidence has now come to light and why it is not being acted on. Or were they just blowing smoke when they said these other murders unrelated. We don't know.

People kill for all kinds of reasons. I'm looking at a case of an 84 year old woman who was murdered and thrown into a nearby river weighted down by concrete cinder blocks after being beaten nearly to death with a baseball bat. Her body was actually paraded around by the perpetrators as though she was some kind of trophy to show off.

http://palestineherald.com/breakingnews/x546301461/Simpson-executed

Child support is not something to sneeze at. We cannot know how solid their relationship was. One hears different versions. Even today, we hear of the on again and off again relationship of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston. If they don't get married he will have to cough up several hundred dollars a month until the child reaches age 21 and will have to pay for the maternal costs up to the point the child support kicks in.

As I said, there is a possible motive, the means and the opportunity. Eliminate the other suspects and it dwindles down to the precious few.

Personally, I hope he is not the perpetrator. Don't know anything about him; never met him. He might be, for all we know, the salt of the earth. But for certain, this crime needs to be solved.

I understand what you're saying about a criminal proven innocent (I always refer to the Eileen Mangold case, where her murderer was caught, proven guilty by DNA and still the morons in Florida decided he was innocent.)

BUT, like it has been stated above, Rob still has problems coping with the grief over Angela, but then again, who wouldn't.

I'm not sure how the police are so quick to thinking the Hammond case has nothing to do with the Kenny case. We all know Trudy Darby was murdered by two people, but still, how are they so quick to say the other two aren't connected?

My suspicion is she was abducted by a serial killer and/or kidnapper, not anyone local or anyone related or close to her (i.e. Rob)

I mentioned earlier about a serial killer imprisoned in North Carolina who I hadn't seen mentioned here, Larry Hall. I think he is an intriguing possibility of someone who may have killed Angela. He definitely was active at the time of her dissapearance, I found a better article.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950120/ai_n10181856/

What do you all think about this guy? He may be a stronger possibility than Kenneth McDuff.

Was Angela Hammond seen after the party by anyone else than Rob?
people, re-watch the segment. IF you listen, closely, she said she was going to her friend's house (hard to hear the name) and she would call him later. I am sure the police questioned the friend and found out the timeline. I think the motive and the timeline pretty much rules him out, not to mention, the lack of evidence also makes the killer either experienced or a guy who knows other towns and wooded areas. That's why i agree that the killer isn't a local.

I mentioned earlier about a serial killer imprisoned in North Carolina who I hadn't seen mentioned here, Larry Hall. I think he is an intriguing possibility of someone who may have killed Angela. He definitely was active at the time of her dissapearance, I found a better article.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950120/ai_n10181856/

What do you all think about this guy? He may be a stronger possibility than Kenneth McDuff.

Was he in the area at the time? He has to have the opportunity to have committed the crime. Some have ruled out McDuff solely because he was allegedly in Waco, Texas at the time of the abduction. If that is true, it rules him out. If a serial killer did this crime; no matter how similar, he can't be seriously considered unless he can be placed in the vicinity which would fit a known time line. That is why the time line is so essential to a good investigation. Without that we are just throwing darts at a dartboard.

I will, however, look at him tomorrow.

Was he in the area at the time? He has to have the opportunity to have committed the crime. Some have ruled out McDuff solely because he was allegedly in Waco, Texas at the time of the abduction. If that is true, it rules him out. If a serial killer did this crime; no matter how similar, he can't be seriously considered unless he can be placed in the vicinity which would fit a known time line. That is why the time line is so essential to a good investigation. Without that we are just throwing darts at a dartboard.

I will, however, look at him tomorrow.

There may not be anyway to know for sure if he was in the area at the time. Bear in mind this was nineteen years ago.

Hall was a guy who traveled across country and visited Civil War reinactments, as far as I know he had no close family or friends, he was something of a drifter and didn't come into contact with a lot of people. So the only person who may be able to place him in the area in 1991 is he himself.

But Hall definitely killed in Missouri, and he was definitely active at the time Angela Hammond dissapeared as he wasn't arrested until 1994. The victims he targeted were similar to Angela Hammond.

I believe I read somewhere he is supposed to have murdered someone in Indiana in June 1991, two months after the Hammond abduction if I'm not mistaken. Thats the closest time frame to Angela's abduction I could find.

The fact is based on who was where at what time, with drifters and people who have no families such as Hall and McDuff it will be difficult to rule out whether or not they were in the area at the time, or not in the area at the time. Because there is no one close enough to them to be aware of their movements, especially when you are talking about remembering 19 years ago.

I would be interested to know if there was a civil war reinactment in the vicinity of Clinton, Missouri at the time of the Hammond abduction, because Hall attended them.

However, I've not been able to find anything that indicates he ever owned a truck like the one seen. But I'll keep looking when I have time.

Was Angela Hammond seen after the party by anyone else than Rob?
people, re-watch the segment. IF you listen, closely, she said she was going to her friend's house (hard to hear the name) and she would call him later. I am sure the police questioned the friend and found out the timeline. I think the motive and the timeline pretty much rules him out, not to mention, the lack of evidence also makes the killer either experienced or a guy who knows other towns and wooded areas. That's why i agree that the killer isn't a local.
"Angela said she was going to her friend." To who? Rob! Everybody in Rob's family is not credible witnesses. If Angela was observed after the party I want to know who the witnesses are. Angela's friend could have been Rob's secret lover for all I know. Just speculation, but what I want is believable witnesses not connected to Rob or Angela. She was alive 2 hours after she allegedly drove Rob home.

I think Rob fitted his story after what had happened. His car probably broke down so he fitted that into a fictive story. That's why the story seems believable.
I'm 80% that Rob did it, but it still 20% possibility that she was taken by a unknown abductor. So I think police should investigate both possibilities.

Let me pose a question which I don't believe has ever been addressed. Tell me what you think.

The story goes that Rob passed the pick-up truck bearing Angela and she screamed for him and he turned the car he was driving around and the transmission tore up. Or did it tear up as he was giving chase and the turning of the vehicle around is what tore up the transmission? If the transmission was already torn up how far did he drive with a broken transmission? Did it stop immediately or did he strip some gears out while giving chase?

Having worked on a few vehicles in my lifetime I'm a little dubious about the sequence of the transmission quitting when it did. Did he have an automatic or a stick shift?

One more question. Did the police actually disassemble the transmission to determine what was wrong with it? Was it actually damaged or did the linkage get bent and wouldn't engage properly? Did it lock up suddenly? Was it locked up when the police checked it out? Did they even try to drive it to see if it was in fact stripped or whatever was supposed to be wrong with it? If he stripped the reverse gear out of it or the parking pall that shouldn't have stopped the forward progress of the vehicle should it? If the transmission was really messed up, I should think that any transmission, manual or automatic would show on the gears what exactly took place. I'm surprised that the police didn't have that transmission taken completely apart by a transmission specialist to find out precisely what was wrong with it. If the parking pall was simply broken, would it have stopped the forward progress of the vehicle? If the reverse gear was stripped out, how did he manage to get it moving in a forward motion and why would it then stop abruptly? Has anyone connected to this case who has talked to the police ever inquired and received an answer to these questions?

My point is that I would nail this story down tight to further rule out Rob as a suspect. My view is that if this wasn't done, then the investigation is incomplete. But that's my view based on my knowledge of the case. Am I off base here? (I've wondered about the transmission story for a long time and thought I would simply throw it out for further discussion.)

"Angela said she was going to her friend." To who? Rob! Everybody in Rob's family is not credible witnesses. If Angela was observed after the party I want to know who the witnesses are. Angela's friend could have been Rob's secret lover for all I know. Just speculation, but what I want is believable witnesses not connected to Rob or Angela. She was alive 2 hours after she allegedly drove Rob home.
jeez, Slasherman, why dont you join up in the investigation and put Rob to death and then when you find out he didnt do it, feel guilty the rest of your life and be sued by Rob's family!!!! Give me a break!!!!! i am SURE the police investigated and talked with the FRIEND!!!!! Just because the segment did NOT show it does NOT mean it's false!!!!!
I think Rob fitted his story after what had happened. His car probably broke down so he fitted that into a fictive story.
Ok, smart guy, so how was the blood cleaned up?? how has the body NOT been found? how is it that Rob made up a GREAT story like he did??? These dont fit, what's the motive???
I'm 80% that Rob did it, but it still 20% possibility that she was taken by a unknown abductor. So I think police should investigate both possibilities.
the police DID investigate Rob and CLEARED him!!!!! i am sure they spoke with witnesses, just because you and others havent heard this does NOT mean they didnt speak with them.
The story goes that Rob passed the pick-up truck bearing Angela and she screamed for him and he turned the car he was driving around and the transmission tore up.
it tore up when he turned his car around. An example is when you have the gearshift in drive, then when you driving, you do a sudden move to reverse. It could happen, i have been told, not to switch my gearshift when my car's in reverse to drive so fast.
Did he have an automatic or a stick shift?
that i cant answer, but i would guess a automatic
One more question. Did the police actually disassemble the transmission to determine what was wrong with it?
i am sure the police checked it, that's why it's angering me, this isnt like Paul Pollis where Rob's story has hole after hole and witnesses who say he wasnt in another place.
My point is that I would nail this story down tight to further rule out Rob as a suspect. My view is that if this wasn't done, then the investigation is incomplete.
I am sure the police investigated Rob as well as they could've done. The boyfriend is ALWAYS first in these cases.
Am I off base here? (I've wondered about the transmission story for a long time and thought I would simply throw it out for further discussion.)
you are not off base, BUT it's hard to answer. We dont know what the police did, we are guessing, but with my knowledge of crimes, i am guessing that the police looked at Rob and investigated him, but found out he didnt do it by witnesses (not just Rob's family) and i am sure they also looked at the car.

I've had the transmission in my car go. For several months, it was slipping, and then one night, it just went. It cut out at 30 miles an hour and did nothing but redline the engine while I coasted to a stop. If the transmission was going (as mine was) prior to that night, it's entirely plausible that he caused the transmission to fail when following the truck.

Here we go, 'round the Mulberry bush...once again...:rolleyes:

People, it's highly doubtful that the police decided "Well, let's just question Rob and his family and call it a day." And for those who seem to think that the backwoods country cops will simply sweep this stuff under the rug, think about this: I live in a rural area in upstate New York (Not five minutes north of NYC, the real upstate, which is north of Albany). We have had several murders, kidnappings, and crimes of the like. Guess what. It isn't just the locals that investigate that stuff. The State Police do, as well. BCI is there. In some cases, the FBI is there, too. So the chances that all of these types of law enforcement organization would be in bed with a nobody like Rob? I'd have to call them pretty remote. And the chances that all of these groups would be inept, Keystone Kops-esque, investigators? I'd have to call that pretty remote, too.

We're not even beating a dead horse, anymore. We're beating an unrecognizable puddle of clotted blood and meat.

"Angela said she was going to her friend." To who? Rob! Everybody in Rob's family is not credible witnesses. If Angela was observed after the party I want to know who the witnesses are. Angela's friend could have been Rob's secret lover for all I know. Just speculation, but what I want is believable witnesses not connected to Rob or Angela. She was alive 2 hours after she allegedly drove Rob home.
jeez, Slasherman, why dont you join up in the investigation and put Rob to death and then when you find out he didnt do it, feel guilty the rest of your life and be sued by Rob's family!!!! Give me a break!!!!! i am SURE the police investigated and talked with the FRIEND!!!!! Just because the segment did NOT show it does NOT mean it's false!!!!!
I think Rob fitted his story after what had happened. His car probably broke down so he fitted that into a fictive story.
Ok, smart guy, so how was the blood cleaned up?? how has the body NOT been found? how is it that Rob made up a GREAT story like he did??? These dont fit, what's the motive???
I'm 80% that Rob did it, but it still 20% possibility that she was taken by a unknown abductor. So I think police should investigate both possibilities.
the police DID investigate Rob and CLEARED him!!!!! i am sure they spoke with witnesses, just because you and others havent heard this does NOT mean they didnt speak with them.

Police did a ****ty job in my opinion.
Why clear a man that was the last one to see Angela?
Rob was the the last one to see her and speak with her.
Why clear a man which had the motive and the opportunity?
A pregnant girlfriend, seen arguing many times. From they left the party to Rob call the police, 4 hours?
Why clear a man that have an almost unbelievable story to tell?
Bogeyman, phone call, not calling police, car breaking down and so on...

Police cleared Rob cause he passed the polygraph and they believed his story. Thats why this case has never been solved. The same with Jon Benet Ramsey case but the other way around, where police concentrated only on the family.
In Angela's case Police swallowed the abduction story to easy and forgot to look at other possibilities. Rob became a witness not a suspect, big mistake.

At what point did the transmission get damaged? How far did the forward progress continue? Did the police disassemble the transmission and shift linkage?

If the latter was not done, this investigation was not complete.

As to the child support matter, a typical amount of support today can run into the many hundreds of dollars; $400 or $500 per month and it will be collected through any means possible including garnishment, attachments of all assets, and is based on formula devised by the Missouri Supreme Court. There have in fact people murdered over motives to avoid child support obligations.

I'm seeing a lot "I believes" "assumes" and "am sure" that the police did this or did that. We can't know that unless we have the police file in front of us.

And this will be a dead horse once more. Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable. No investigation can "clear" someone on the basis of a polygraph and anytime a family provides an alibi it should be looked at with great skepticism. The actual time line is the single most important tool to identify what REALLY happened. The people LAST with the victim are the FIRST to suspect; always; especially family and close friends and enemies who have a motive for one reason for another. At least 85% of murders such as this come from family members or close friends.

And this coming on the heels of the Darby and Kenney cases (which I consider as possibly related), is a further red flag to me. It is always easy to concoct a boogeyman such as a roaming bushy headed serial murderer than it is to look to the most likely suspects.

But just to reiterate: Can anyone answer the question? Was the transmission and linkage disassembled?

:horse:

Here we go again...

ROB IS INNOCENT. Now move on to another theory.

:horse:

Here we go again...

ROB IS INNOCENT. Now move on to another theory.

That's stikes me more as a belief system; not a proven fact.

I really asked a very simple question. Was the transmission and shift linkage disassembled? The police should be able to respond to that question with an up or down answer. I suppose I could pick up the phone and ask them myself if necessary but surely someone knows here since they are so certain of his uninvolvement.

:horse:

Here we go again...

ROB IS INNOCENT. Now move on to another theory.
"Beating a dead horse" cannot be used in this case. Until you or other people produce credible evidence of Rob being innocent he will be a suspect. Not like "Rob looked like a nice and credible person in the UM sequence" kind of evidence. Hard evidence like credible witnesses, airtight alibi, forensic and so on...
Rob was the last person to see Angela alive that is according to Rob's own story. So he puts himself right in the middle of the crime. Either you know something that "we" don't know or you are just being stubborn....

Rob was cleared by investigators. Not us. Nobody on this site (either those who are against the Rob theory, those who are for the Rob theory, or those who don't give a damn) was involved with the investigation. Because of this, no one can give you details, here. If you want details, I suggest the same thing I suggested to Onlooker: contact the local and state law enforcement on it. They can tell you why Rob was deemed innocent, and you can run your theories about shoddy police work by them.

This does qualify as beating a dead horse, because the same questions keep getting asked, and the same answers keep getting given, with neither side accepting either.

At the risk of sounding repetitious it is in fact possible for the police to do an incomplete or poor investigation. Surely everyone would agree with that.

Let me pose a hypothetical question. If I were to contact the Clinton police department and ask them if they duplicated the transmission failure or did not disassemble it but took the version given as fact not needing confirmation would it make any difference?

I would call everyone's attention to all of this hullabaloo about Toyota "unintended acceleration." When it was all said and done not a single case of this problem could be attributed to the electronics as was first feared. Not even one. The floor mats and gas pedal were modified. That was it.

I'm just asking. Did the police duplicate the problem? Did they disassemble the transmission?

I'm just asking. Did the police duplicate the problem? Did they disassemble the transmission?

It's already been touched on, but Clinton, MO is a relatively small town, undoubtedly with a relatively small police department. Also, bear in mind this is the early '90s. Perhaps the police simply didn't have the resources to devote to such an experiment (not to mention how dangerous it would be) or an extensive investigation of Rob's vehicle.

More likely, though, the police found sufficient evidence to clear Rob before questions on whether the vehicle's transmission should be examined even came to fore. And that is why any question about whether tests and examinations on the transmission were conducted met with a negative response from the Clinton Police Department frankly doesn't mean a hill of beans--to me, anyway.


Ultimately, my sentiments run rather closely to these:


Because of this, no one can give you details, here. If you want details, I suggest the same thing I suggested to Onlooker: contact the local and state law enforcement on it. They can tell you why Rob was deemed innocent, and you can run your theories about shoddy police work by them.

This does qualify as beating a dead horse, because the same questions keep getting asked, and the same answers keep getting given, with neither side accepting either.

At the risk of sounding repetitious it is in fact possible for the police to do an incomplete or poor investigation. Surely everyone would agree with that.

Let me pose a hypothetical question. If I were to contact the Clinton police department and ask them if they duplicated the transmission failure or did not disassemble it but took the version given as fact not needing confirmation would it make any difference?

To your first point, it is absolutely possible that the police didn't do a complete investigation. But the fact is that none of us have the complete police file sitting here to check through, unfortunately. If you were to contact them and they told you that the transmission was never checked, it would absolutely make a difference. Then things would start to unravel, and I would recant my belief that he is innocent, and ask for more information. But as it stands now, that's the story, and the investigators accepted it, for whatever reason(s). I, personally, currently have no reason to believe otherwise, however.

And Meg, thank you. :)

To your first point, it is absolutely possible that the police didn't do a complete investigation. But the fact is that none of us have the complete police file sitting here to check through, unfortunately. If you were to contact them and they told you that the transmission was never checked, it would absolutely make a difference. Then things would start to unravel, and I would recant my belief that he is innocent, and ask for more information. But as it stands now, that's the story, and the investigators accepted it, for whatever reason(s). I, personally, currently have no reason to believe otherwise, however.

And Meg, thank you. :)

I'm reading the entire thread through from the very beginning. So far as I know this particular website covers the case better than any other. Especially interesting are the K.C. newspaper articles that were posted about page 5 or so. I have found that they had pretty good reporting on the 3MW case; in fact, somewhat better than the newspaper right in Springfield where the crimes occurred. What I am specifically looking to find is where and what the police actually said about clearing the BF. I want to see if they parsed their words or left any wiggle room and what they based their opinions on.

I've said this before but I want to say it again. I have no dog in this hunt. I don't know the gentleman; never met him, never spoke to him and have an animus toward him. He may have done his level best and everything correctly. But here is one thing we know for a certainty. About 85% of all such murders are committed by those close to the victim; not some bushy headed serial murderer. It may even be higher than that, actually. Always eliminate those who had access to the victims before moving elsewhere and when doing so, make absolutely positive that there are no mistakes. So I probably won't be commenting much more than about 48 hours from now after I get through reading all the available information in this thread and throughout the internet. That's going to take some time.

Rob was cleared by investigators. Not us. Nobody on this site (either those who are against the Rob theory, those who are for the Rob theory, or those who don't give a damn) was involved with the investigation. Because of this, no one can give you details, here. If you want details, I suggest the same thing I suggested to Onlooker: contact the local and state law enforcement on it. They can tell you why Rob was deemed innocent, and you can run your theories about shoddy police work by them.
Thank you Bell, jeez. At least this guy is asking good questions that we cant answer, but people like this next guy anger me.
Why clear a man that was the last one to see Angela?
Rob was the the last one to see her and speak with her.
how do you know that?? did you find out if Angela actually saw her friend like the segment said???
Why clear a man which had the motive and the opportunity?
A pregnant girlfriend
like someone told me, NOT a good motive and he didnt have opportunity. Why you ask, tell me this, where's the body????? How did a young adult HIDE a body SO well that we havent found it to THIS day???? How did he clean up the blood???? how did he come up with a GREAT story under ALOT of pressure.
Police cleared Rob cause he passed the polygraph and they believed his story.
how do YOU know that??? Did you talk to the police?????

There's always going to be conspiracy theorists who can't believe the credible evidence.

Stripping your transmission is much harder then it seems...you couldn't do it purposely, I'm sure. Rob ran down to where Angela was at when he heard her scream, therefore his little brother was right there and heard Rob say he had to go. He follows them as long as he could. END OF STORY...unfortunately.

The main thing is, a horrible crime was committed on April 4, 1991 and the criminal still hasn't been locked up for it. It's easy to blame Rob, just like it's easy to blame Jeff Oberholtzer in the case of the Orange Sock Murders. The fact is, they didn't do it.

There's always going to be conspiracy theorists who can't believe the credible evidence.

As I said earlier in this comment thread, it's like arguing with one of the Moon Landing Hoax believers. No amount of evidence will change their knowledge. Although, at least Curiouser is not attacking, nor is he ignoring posts that refute something he says, unlike another of the posters (who shall remain nameless) who believes Rob murdered her.

About 85% of all such murders are committed by those close to the victim; not some bushy headed serial murderer. It may even be higher than that, actually. Always eliminate those who had access to the victims before moving elsewhere and when doing so, make absolutely positive that there are no mistakes.

The Police know these statistics too. Indeed, it would have made their lives easier to just say that Rob lied, he did it, we don't have no crazy killer running about our town. That they didn't would seem to suggest that the evidence made this impossible.

Like others have said, without the police file in front of us, we have to accept LE at their word; but this also makes sense logically; Rob's story was complex. Complex lies are far easier to break then simple stories. Not only did LE not break it, they support it. Barring evidence of some massive conspiracy between Rob, LE, and Angela's family (unlikely and improbably, frankly), there's just nothing credible to show Rob's involvement. There's nothing inherently wrong with speculation, but rank speculation is not only useless, but it starts to border on libelous.

The Police know these statistics too. Indeed, it would have made their lives easier to just say that Rob lied, he did it, we don't have no crazy killer running about our town. That they didn't would seem to suggest that the evidence made this impossible.

Like others have said, without the police file in front of us, we have to accept LE at their word; but this also makes sense logically; Rob's story was complex. Complex lies are far easier to break then simple stories. Not only did LE not break it, they support it. Barring evidence of some massive conspiracy between Rob, LE, and Angela's family (unlikely and improbably, frankly), there's just nothing credible to show Rob's involvement. There's nothing inherently wrong with speculation, but rank speculation is not only useless, but it starts to border on libelous.

I've said I wouldn't comment for a period until I have had an opportunity to reread this thread. But upon reading your post I am concerned since you are addressing me personally. Are you asserting that I have libeled Rob? If so, in what way have I done that? Can you cite the statements I have made that border on libel? I would like to review those with my lawyer if that is the case. So far as I know I have not engaged in "rank speculation."

It's easy to blame Rob, just like it's easy to blame Jeff Oberholtzer in the case of the Orange Sock Murders. The fact is, they didn't do it.
Agreed. I just dont see the evidence that says Rob did it. At least Jeff Oberholtzer was suspicious. Jeff knew the other victim and his friend didnt seem to help him with his alabi, BUT Jeff didnt do it. As for Rob, there's little to no evidence that he did it. No blood at all to be found, not in his car, house, Angie's car, even the town which is why i think the killer is an out of towner, possibly even a guy who doesnt live in ohio!!!
As I said earlier in this comment thread, it's like arguing with one of the Moon Landing Hoax believers. No amount of evidence will change their knowledge.
i know right Bell, Slasherman and the other guy are just going to say Rob is guilty and throw him in jail, i hope they dont work for a police force anywhere, innocent people will be thrown in jail without credible evidence if that happens.
at least Curiouser is not attacking, nor is he ignoring posts that refute something he says, unlike another of the posters (who shall remain nameless) who believes Rob murdered her
yeah and at least his questions are wiser and smarter, Curiouser doesnt know the time frame either, which is understandable, however, the others on here assume the time frame and think Rob had all day to do this. like i said, i am sure the the police took their time investigating Rob. the first person investigated in a girlfriend's disappearance is usually the boyfriend. he likely told them the story about what happened and told the police about the friend she went to see, the police likely talked with the friend and she said that Angie was there and believed her which wouldnt give Rob much time.

It's easy to blame Rob, just like it's easy to blame Jeff Oberholtzer in the case of the Orange Sock Murders. The fact is, they didn't do it.
Agreed. I just dont see the evidence that says Rob did it. At least Jeff Oberholtzer was suspicious. Jeff knew the other victim and his friend didnt seem to help him with his alabi, BUT Jeff didnt do it. As for Rob, there's little to no evidence that he did it. No blood at all to be found, not in his car, house, Angie's car, even the town which is why i think the killer is an out of towner, possibly even a guy who doesnt live in ohio!!!
As I said earlier in this comment thread, it's like arguing with one of the Moon Landing Hoax believers. No amount of evidence will change their knowledge.
i know right Bell, Slasherman and the other guy are just going to say Rob is guilty and throw him in jail, i hope they dont work for a police force anywhere, innocent people will be thrown in jail without credible evidence if that happens.
at least Curiouser is not attacking, nor is he ignoring posts that refute something he says, unlike another of the posters (who shall remain nameless) who believes Rob murdered her
yeah and at least his questions are wiser and smarter, Curiouser doesnt know the time frame either, which is understandable, however, the others on here assume the time frame and think Rob had all day to do this. like i said, i am sure the the police took their time investigating Rob. the first person investigated in a girlfriend's disappearance is usually the boyfriend. he likely told them the story about what happened and told the police about the friend she went to see, the police likely talked with the friend and she said that Angie was there and believed her which wouldnt give Rob much time.

I wanted to add one thing and it may seem odd but it is important to note that in the 3MW case of Springfield, there has been speculation for a long time that all of these disappearances, the 3MW, Darby, Kenney and Hammond may have in some way been connected to the same individual or individuals. I have not invested any time in looking at this case until recently simply because my interest has been focused almost entirely on the 3MW case, which has been dead in the water. The matter of serial murderers was raised; a number of names were thrown into the fray and on one site the name of Kenneth McDuff was thrown in and it was stated it would have been impossible for him to have abducted Hammond because he was in jail at the time. That is not true. At best he was in Waco, Texas and it would have been a fer piece to get to Clinton, Missouri. But, as we know he was apprehended in K.C. Missouri on April 4, 1992 which makes it impossible for him to have abducted the women in Springfield. Since McDuff was a possible candidate for the Hammond abduction, that is why I started looking at this case. And in so doing I happened onto this thread here which, as I have said, is the most complete and informative I have found on the internet.

I just wanted to make clear why I have looked at this case. I am by no means an expert on this case. I've just looked at some issues that I am trying to clear up. My most salient question ultimately remains the time line which I am still at a loss to understand in the 3MW case. And as in this case, the last known people to have seen them alive are naturally the people that one looks to first before casting a wider net. Just wanted to make clear where I am coming from.

I'm sure (relatively sure anyway) that the police, FBI and whatever other department worked this case must have firmed up the time line. This should have been done almost down to the minute. I can't think of a single more important factor to solving a crime than the time line because it narrows down the suspects simply because of the critical factor of opportunity. If a person has no opportunity to commit a crime he can't, by definition, be the perpetrator. The sooner anyone can be eliminated as a suspect then permits the police to look at others and hopefully some answers are quickly determined. If all else fails then one has to look to various hypothesizes and theories as to what might explain what can't be explained by the known evidence. That's why "Jack the Ripper" is still discussed 150 years later. Yet Jimmy Hoffa is little discussed. The reason the latter isn't is simply because we know who whacked him. We just don't have the body.

In this case, we have no body. We have some possible suspects and then we have some exotic suspects such as roaming serial killers. Most of the time serial killers are not the ones who commit the crimes. If everyone else can be eliminated and there is no known motive it is then proper to look to serial killers. Are we there yet? I don't know. Now back to my reading.

I've said I wouldn't comment for a period until I have had an opportunity to reread this thread. But upon reading your post I am concerned since you are addressing me personally. Are you asserting that I have libeled Rob? If so, in what way have I done that? Can you cite the statements I have made that border on libel? I would like to review those with my lawyer if that is the case. So far as I know I have not engaged in "rank speculation."

The only part addressing you specifically would be the first paragraph, the rest is a general comment on the tone of some posters, not you specifically - besides, even if I did think anyone libeled Rob, that's an action for Rob to bring, not me.

The point, which I think is larger then this thread, is that sometimes we (all of us, myself included on occasion) can get so wrapped up in these cases that we forget that we have very few of the thousands of facts (and let's be honest, UM hardly gave full and accurate pictures in most of these cases) in each of these and we all have to be careful not to get so wrapped up in things we lose track of that.

In this case, would Rob have been the initial suspect? Absolutely, he should be. LE cleared him, however. If the file showed that they didn't check his alibi, etc., then they's a case to be made that he might have been cleared prematurely (although LE tends to be loathe doing this), but without that showing, it just isn't useful to keep beating a dead horse, at least until you make a FOIA request, look at the files, and then have the facts at hand.

The main thing is, a horrible crime was committed on April 4, 1991 and the criminal still hasn't been locked up for it. It's easy to blame Rob, just like it's easy to blame Jeff Oberholtzer in the case of the Orange Sock Murders. The fact is, they didn't do it.
I believe Oberholtzer innocent cause they have DNA evidence in that case which rules Oberholtzer out. I also believe the Ramsey's are innocent in the Jon Benet case but when it comes to Rob nothing has convinced his innocent. But he can be that's what this forum is for to discuss different things...

I believe Oberholtzer innocent cause they have DNA evidence in that case which rules Oberholtzer out. I also believe the Ramsey's are innocent in the Jon Benet case but when it comes to Rob nothing has convinced his innocent. But he can be that's what this forum is for to discuss different things...
Just because DNA hasnt been done doesnt mean Rob should be considered guilty as charged. If that's the case, then MANY people would still be in jail because of that because DNA hasnt been around for 100 years. Back then, you HAD to look at other things, like story, motive, opportunity and that's my issue. He didnt have time to kill his girlfriend, drive to another state or city that is FAR from where he lived, bury her, clean up the blood at the crime scene and the car and make up a story. it's all too hard for me to believe.

Again, the Eileen Mangold case. That scumbag Franklin Smith left DNA all over the place and he was still proven innocent.

Rob was proven innocent through witnesses and credibility. He's not guilty, people...I understand how you people can easily assume these things, but the FACT is, he's never been charged, and for good reason.

"Angela said she was going to her friend." To who? Rob! Everybody in Rob's family is not credible witnesses. If Angela was observed after the party I want to know who the witnesses are. Angela's friend could have been Rob's secret lover for all I know. Just speculation, but what I want is believable witnesses not connected to Rob or Angela. She was alive 2 hours after she allegedly drove Rob home.


Family-related witnesses make good witnesses in many, many criminal affairs and are used all the time, whether they are for and against the accused. I don't see why it would be different here in this case, as the police has a lot of data to countercheck their declaration.

I'm fairly certain Angela's friend wasn't the only person at the party... unless they were all Rob's lovers and/or secret accomplices as well and were in the plot to kill her for who-knows-why?

We can build conjectures all we want. Perhaps also Rob hired a hobo to kidnap Angela at the phone booth, fake being pursued by Rob, then disappear to rape her, defile her and murder her?

It may be so in truth that Rob is lying, but you still need evidence contradicting the story for this theory to hold. And there is none. Rob is innocent until proven guilty and as no evidence has ever been found contracting his story, it holds. You cannot just dismiss his story, just because in your mind he is the likeliest suspect around, and replace it by air. We still need a theory of how the crime has happened AND evidence that makes it probable that Rob indeed committed the crime. Until then his version of the story works with the timeline and the information available to the police, and so until new evidence comes he is deemed not a suspect.

There is this confusion going around that trials are about finding the truth. It isn't. It is about convincing a jury of the suspect's peers that he is guilty and how he did it, according to the evidence available and the theory around how the crime has been committed. And sometimes, evidence is insufficient to go beyond the shadow of a doubt and the guilty person goes away, or evidence can be constructed as beyond doubt to send an innocent to death row or a life sentence.

Angela said she was going to her friend." To who? Rob!
yeah and i bet the police asked that FRIEND if Angela was there and how long she stayed and all that stuff.

unless they were all Rob's lovers and/or secret accomplices as well and were in the plot to kill her for who-knows-why?
which i doubt highly. i mean you are talking about alot of people killing one girl, hiding her body and cleaning up the scene, besides, one of them will tell on the other.

We can build conjectures all we want. Perhaps also Rob hired a hobo to kidnap Angela at the phone booth, fake being pursued by Rob, then disappear to rape her, defile her and murder her?
dont give them any more ideas.

It may be so in truth that Rob is lying, but you still need evidence contradicting the story for this theory to hold. And there is none. Rob is innocent until proven guilty and as no evidence has ever been found contracting his story, it holds.
thank you!!!!
We still need a theory of how the crime has happened AND evidence that makes it probable that Rob indeed committed the crime.
i agree.

It is about convincing a jury of the suspect's peers that he is guilty and how he did it, according to the evidence available and the theory around how the crime has been committed. And sometimes, evidence is insufficient to go beyond the shadow of a doubt and the guilty person goes away, or evidence can be constructed as beyond doubt to send an innocent to death row or a life sentence.
agree here too.

Family-related witnesses make good witnesses in many, many criminal affairs and are used all the time, whether they are for and against the accused. I don't see why it would be different here in this case, as the police has a lot of data to countercheck their declaration.

I'm fairly certain Angela's friend wasn't the only person at the party... unless they were all Rob's lovers and/or secret accomplices as well and were in the plot to kill her for who-knows-why?

We can build conjectures all we want. Perhaps also Rob hired a hobo to kidnap Angela at the phone booth, fake being pursued by Rob, then disappear to rape her, defile her and murder her?

It may be so in truth that Rob is lying, but you still need evidence contradicting the story for this theory to hold. And there is none. Rob is innocent until proven guilty and as no evidence has ever been found contracting his story, it holds. You cannot just dismiss his story, just because in your mind he is the likeliest suspect around, and replace it by air. We still need a theory of how the crime has happened AND evidence that makes it probable that Rob indeed committed the crime. Until then his version of the story works with the timeline and the information available to the police, and so until new evidence comes he is deemed not a suspect.

There is this confusion going around that trials are about finding the truth. It isn't. It is about convincing a jury of the suspect's peers that he is guilty and how he did it, according to the evidence available and the theory around how the crime has been committed. And sometimes, evidence is insufficient to go beyond the shadow of a doubt and the guilty person goes away, or evidence can be constructed as beyond doubt to send an innocent to death row or a life sentence.

*Slow clap* THANK YOU! Incredibly well written, with great points made.

unless they were all Rob's lovers and/or secret accomplices as well and were in the plot to kill her for who-knows-why?
which i doubt highly. i mean you are talking about alot of people killing one girl, hiding her body and cleaning up the scene, besides, one of them will tell on the other.


I was being cheeky and making an assertion by the absurd. It's highly unbelievable there was a Clinton-wide conspiracy to kill Angela Hammond, or even a friends-wide conspiracy à la Bobby Kent, as Angela Hammond had no known enemy. No one had any reason to get rid of her in Clinton.

And anyway, the more you allow people in a conspiracy to commit a crime, the higher the likelihood someone will not shut up and squeal to either a third party or the police. Yet no one has talked for almost twenty years, which is nigh-on impossible if kids had indeed conspired to commit such a crime.

I was being cheeky and making an assertion by the absurd. It's highly unbelievable there was a Clinton-wide conspiracy to kill Angela Hammond
hahaha, i knew you were Drakken, i just had to point it out before someone believed that.
as Angela Hammond had no known enemy. No one had any reason to get rid of her in Clinton.
very true.
And anyway, the more you allow people in a conspiracy to commit a crime, the higher the likelihood someone will not shut up and squeal to either a third party or the police. Yet no one has talked for almost twenty years, which is nigh-on impossible if kids had indeed conspired to commit such a crime
again, very true. you make good points, i still think the person who did this is likely an out of towner who passed through Clinton and in his sick mind saw and opportunity and struck, he likely killed her, hid her body in another city or even state and is also likely a loner whose not known by many.

Let me say this upfront. I don't claim to be an expert on this case as I really even didn't look at it until the past week although I had known about it for two decades. (I lived in Springfield) Let me pose a few questions and some comments.

1) Do we have a provable time line? When was Angela actually seen by another human being? What time was it? Ditto for her boyfriend. If it can be established he didn't have the opportunity he could be ruled out unless a contractor was called in which would provide an alibi. Judging from the description of the abductor I find that unlikely.

2) Do we have motive? Paying child support or not wanting to pay it might be a motive. A jealous girlfriend might push someone to put the "problem" behind them. As Joseph Stalin would say "no body; no problem." Her body has never been found.

3) I'm reasonably certain that the Hammond, Kenney and Darby cases were all sorta combined to form the idea of a mad serial murderer roaming the countryside. There is one significant difference, however. Hammond disappeared AFTER Kenney and Darby. If someone wanted to create a scenario where people would want to blame this on some mysterious mad man roaming the countryside this would be a plausible scenario. Concoct such a person and vehicle which somehow could never be identified. It's very easy to ramp up enthusiasm for that as people are always caught up in serial murderers and their crimes. One would think that they are everywhere but the reality is that it has been estimated that only about 50 of them are on the street at the same time in the entire nation.

4) At the very end of the TV segment discussing this case a categorical statement is made that the Hammond case was NOT connected to two other murders in the area. The only way I know that could be done is if the perps were known and/or DNA established this fact. We know who did the Darby case. That's one. I'm guessing the second would be Kenney. I wouldn't doubt that the murderers of Darby also abducted Kenney. I do not believe they are likely to have abducted Angela Hammond.

5) Roughly 85% of all murders are committed by relatives and friends and the rest are mostly committed by someone who was with them last. There are of course exceptions but before I would look far afield I would want to totally eliminate the most likely perpetrators. And lastly, I do not believe that polygraphs are reliable; nor for that matter eyewitness testimony. Polygraphs are not admissible in court and if it were up to me eyewitness testimony would not be either. It is simply too unreliable.

Finally, if a plan was hatched to eliminate her for whatever reason, the time necessary to carry out the crime was more than adequate even if it was only 45 minutes. Her body could have been secreted away and later buried. And if her body had been found, I believe this crime would have been solved many years ago. Many successful murders are carried out for this one factor alone. Without a body it is both hard to solve and also hard to convict someone on purely circumstantial evidence.

I like the way you think, Cursior, and I appreciate where some of these questions are coming from. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the only recognized authority with access to have studied this case cleared Rob of any wrongdoing long ago. Police and district attorneys offices are evaluated based on their "clearance" of cases - cases where the police get a warrant for an arrest, and cases where the DA then converts that arrest into a conviction. Therefore, these agencies don't pass up opportunities to investigate, arrest, and convict the obvious suspect in murders very often: and let's face it, Rob would be the obvious suspect here. My point is, given that Rob was cleared by the investigating authorities, I think we can take it on faith they had ample reason for doing so, because it sure doesn't help their clearance rate to clear the obvious suspect on shoddy or incomplete evidence. Unless it can be shown that the police made a fundamental error in interpretation of the evidence before them, or that perhaps Rob was so connected in little Clinton that he could make this go away, etc.... but now we are assuming all kinds of facts and scenarios not in evidence, all in the service of contradicting the conclusion of the only agency with real access to evidence and witnesses to this crime.

When you are conducting an investigation, yes, you clear the most obvious suspects beyond a reasonable doubt first, then move on. But when investigating authorities have investigated and cleared a suspect, as they have with Rob, the burden of proof then lies with those who would call into question their assertions. What evidence does anyone have that the police that investigated this crime were incompetent, corrupt, or for some other reason incapable of or mistaken in clearing Rob definitively?

When you are conducting an investigation, yes, you clear the most obvious suspects beyond a reasonable doubt first, then move on. But when investigating authorities have investigated and cleared a suspect, as they have with Rob, the burden of proof then lies with those who would call into question their assertions. What evidence does anyone have that the police that investigated this crime were incompetent, corrupt, or for some other reason incapable of or mistaken in clearing Rob definitively?
i agree. It's very simple why the guy who did this hasnt been caught, he's not really known by many people. He likely hid her body and went back to his home which is likely in another town or maybe even state.

When you are conducting an investigation, yes, you clear the most obvious suspects beyond a reasonable doubt first, then move on. But when investigating authorities have investigated and cleared a suspect, as they have with Rob, the burden of proof then lies with those who would call into question their assertions. What evidence does anyone have that the police that investigated this crime were incompetent, corrupt, or for some other reason incapable of or mistaken in clearing Rob definitively?
i agree. It's very simple why the guy who did this hasnt been caught, he's not really known by many people. He likely hid her body and went back to his home which is likely in another town or maybe even state.

It even could have been some local redneck who just got lucky with not getting caught.

This case is split wide open, really anybody could be a suspect...fitting the description of course. I don't want the "ROB DID IT" conspiracy theorists to get on me again...

i just happened to run into a youtube clip at kmbctv on youtube that say there could be some physical evidence that was left at the scene on the 18th anniversary of it. a dective paul abbot in the clip say there may be a lead in the case. the title of the youtube clip is(new leads possible in missing woman case) kmbctv. it was posted in april 2009 i believe maybe you can find more on this?

i just happened to run into a youtube clip at kmbctv on youtube that say there could be some physical evidence that was left at the scene on the 18th anniversary of it. a dective paul abbot in the clip say there may be a lead in the case. the title of the youtube clip is(new leads possible in missing woman case) kmbctv. it was posted in april 2009 i believe maybe you can find more on this?

Could you post a link to those "youtube" videos please? If it is the one I am thinking of the video ends with the reporter stating they can rule out any connection to the Darby and Kenney murders. If it is another, I am unfamiliar with it. Thanx,

Could you post a link to those "youtube" videos please? If it is the one I am thinking of the video ends with the reporter stating they can rule out any connection to the Darby and Kenney murders. If it is another, I am unfamiliar with it. Thanx,

Can't post youtube vids on here my friend. It's the thing you've seen before though.

I hadn't heard that the possibility that this murder was connected to any others had been ruled out. Interesting.

Can't post youtube vids on here my friend. It's the thing you've seen before though.

I hadn't heard that the possibility that this murder was connected to any others had been ruled out. Interesting.

The end of that news segment (K.C. I believe) stated categorically that two other suspected murders had been determined not to be related to the Hammond case. They were not named, however. But the only two that came to mind were the Darby and Kenney cases. If there were others in the area I am not aware of them. Supposedly it had to do with DNA obtained. How that would eliminate the other two murders I haven't a clue.

I found it interesting that the most important part was left for the very end of the news broadcast as though the police wanted it to be put there to elicit something from the perp(s). The rest was fairly innocuous. At least that was my read on it and I watched it several times. Just my $0.02 for now.

OK, I read this whole thread. And there are some interesting comments on here. This case has haunted me. I have seen the UM segment many times and IMHO I believe Rob. He seems genuinely torn up over the whole thing.

I saw that Angie's sibling was on here too, that's great that he is keeping this case alive. If it were me, I would do the same thing. I hope that one day they find out who did this. Are they any closer today than they were when it happened?

I can't believe she was 4 mos. pregnant at the time, how sad.
I have to admit that the first time I saw the UM segment I suspected Rob, but just a gut feeling said, No, he's telling the truth.

So I guess Angie's case was NOT connected to the other 2 after all?

OK, I read this whole thread. And there are some interesting comments on here. This case has haunted me. I have seen the UM segment many times and IMHO I believe Rob. He seems genuinely torn up over the whole thing.

I saw that Angie's sibling was on here too, that's great that he is keeping this case alive. If it were me, I would do the same thing. I hope that one day they find out who did this. Are they any closer today than they were when it happened?

I can't believe she was 4 mos. pregnant at the time, how sad.
I have to admit that the first time I saw the UM segment I suspected Rob, but just a gut feeling said, No, he's telling the truth.

So I guess Angie's case was NOT connected to the other 2 after all?

Thats whats being said, but without a body or even having any idea what really happened to her, I don't know how they could possibly know this for sure.

In fact, has anyone considered the possibility that Angela might be alive? I know its highly unlikely, but what if she was abducted and brainwashed somehow, or sustained some kind of amnesia from an attack? It does happen. Look at Bobbi Parker and Jaycee Dungard.

Granted, I know if she was there would probably would have been a sighting
over something would have turned up by now, I think there is probably only about a 1% chance because abductions of people who are alive and missing for years is very rare.

nice to see police having strong leads and evidence. looks like a cold case episode now. lol. a/e get on it.

My $0.02 worth is that if they were able to categorically eliminate the Darby and Kenney cases (were there any others), they must surely know/suspect who did this one. How else could they otherwise make this claim? Or am I reading something into this story that is not there?

OK, I read this whole thread. And there are some interesting comments on here. This case has haunted me. I have seen the UM segment many times and IMHO I believe Rob. He seems genuinely torn up over the whole thing.

I saw that Angie's sibling was on here too, that's great that he is keeping this case alive. If it were me, I would do the same thing. I hope that one day they find out who did this. Are they any closer today than they were when it happened?

I can't believe she was 4 mos. pregnant at the time, how sad.
I have to admit that the first time I saw the UM segment I suspected Rob, but just a gut feeling said, No, he's telling the truth.

So I guess Angie's case was NOT connected to the other 2 after all?

I was never convinced ANY of those cases, let alone Angie's to the other two, were connected even when I initially saw the segment. Those women were abducted from convenience stores much in the same way Deborah Poe was, and I definitely think Trudy Darby's killers are not the same people who abducted Cheryl Ann Kenney. I think motive might be similar in Cheryl and Angie's cases, but that's about as far as it goes for me at this time.

My $0.02 worth is that if they were able to categorically eliminate the Darby and Kenney cases (were there any others), they must surely know/suspect who did this one. How else could they otherwise make this claim? Or am I reading something into this story that is not there?

I think this is the case. The reason the detective took this to the media is to put the heat on the person or perpetrators. It could be that there are people who know what happened or even abetted. It seems like the only thing thats stopping this is someone is gonna spill the beans.

it could be pure bluff on his part though. but i dont think the detective is bluffing.

It even could have been some local redneck who just got lucky with not getting caught.
true, BUT something in my gut tells me that this guy isnt one that stays too long in one place which is why i think he's from another town and likely drove past the place where Angela was abducted many times and that night he saw an opportunity.
This case is split wide open, really anybody could be a suspect...fitting the description of course. I don't want the "ROB DID IT" conspiracy theorists to get on me again
i agree, As for the "Rob did it" conspiracy therorists getting on you, dont worry about it. They get on to me to, BUT i will say he's innocent until i see good proof that he's guilty.

In fact, has anyone considered the possibility that Angela might be alive? I know its highly unlikely, but what if she was abducted and brainwashed somehow, or sustained some kind of amnesia from an attack?
here's hoping that she is alive, BUT i just have my doubts, BUT i hope she is alive.

I think this is the case. The reason the detective took this to the media is to put the heat on the person or perpetrators. It could be that there are people who know what happened or even abetted. It seems like the only thing that's stopping this is someone is gonna spill the beans.

it could be pure bluff on his part though. but i don't think the detective is bluffing.

As a general rule of thumb, most of the time the police know who committed the crime. But the case cannot be said to be "solved" until someone is apprehended and ideally convicted.

I do not believe the detective is bluffing. That is implied simply because two other cases have been deemed to be not related. In order for that categorical statement to be made the police have to know who committed this crime and through various means and logical deduction can rule the other cases out.

I really haven't changed my mind on this case having read as much as I can lay my hands on. The facts haven't changed.

I am Angela's cousin and they did find her. She is dead and they found evidence in the mans house who did it. He also had blood and other body's buried in his yard.

Where did they find her and whose house was her remains found?

I am not sure who's house. My Grand mother had clipings and letters from Angela's mother that she told me about. She said they found the truck burning in a barn, but they put the fire out before it burned and that she was found rolled up in a sleeping bag in a ditch beside the mans house who's truck it was. Along with others and there were bloody sheets and more inside his house. I don't know where the letters are today. I think my dad has all my grand mothers stuff. I haven't talked to any of the Family from Misouri since my grandma died in 1998. I have tried to search for them on ancetory.com My grand mother was a Dennis from Missouri.

What did the police do with this information?

I can't say I believe this. If that were, in fact, the case, she would not still be listed as missing on the National Missing Persons website, unless whoever found her never reported it. And if that's the case, then why wasn't it reported. This just doesn't hold water, to me. No offense intended, dgwagner, but I think you may be mistaken.

What!? She was confirmed dead and her remains were found? When did this happen?

As early as 2008, friends, relatives, and locals (including Angela Hammond's brother) posted here. At that time, they said that she's still a missing, abducted, person.

As of 4/2009, she was still considered missing. I'm not exactly sure if her mother and a detective were interviewed for an article in the kansas city star at that time or if the article is reporting their comments from earlier interviews. The article is no longer available but a copy of it is here:

http://www.helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12642

EDIT to add that IIRC, there's also a copy of that article earlier in this thread and some discussion regarding the Kansas City Star doing the article and/or a tv segment. Sorry I don't remember more details. I read through all 30 pages of this thread last night and it's all a blur.

NCIC Number: M-483974098

http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1299dfmo.html

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/hammond_angela.html

http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivisions/DDCC/Units/MissingPersonsJuvenileUnit/Documents/ProjectRestHalltownPoster0708.pdf

Yeah. That's what I'm saying...

Yeah. That's what I'm saying...

I have to agree. I'm sure that if Angela's body was found and her killer identified that it would have been reported.
Heck there would even be a seperate thread on this message board if breaking news in the Hammond abduction occured since this is one of the most discussed cases on this board.

Hell, even if her killer WASN'T identified, the discovery of her body would've been big news.

Today has sorta been "one of them days". We've had two people who are closely connected to cases pop in as new members.

One of them seems to be for real, imo, but I'm not sure about dgwagner. If s/he is really a relative of a murdered person, perhaps they're just confused.

Page 13 of this thread, post #186, says the following. Could the new member be referring to this info?

Greg Marshel Springfield Three Missing Women Ties

Jess Rush, in his appeal, mentions a Greg Marshel, who is listed at MissouriCase.net as having lived at 623 Montclair, Apt 3A, Springfield, MO in July (and August), 1991, just 4 miles from the Springfield 3 Missing Women's address at 1717 E. Delmar St., Springfield, MO. He lived in the area of the teenage grave robbers who knew Stacey McCall and Suzie Streeter and they all may have known each other in high school.

Does anyone know whether Greg Marshel went to high school with Suzie or Stacey in Springfield, MO and whether he had ties to Macks Creek, MO?

Also, Jess states that other murder evidence was destroyed in the barn fire.

Does anyone close to the case know whether police investigator's sifted through the ruins for evidence of other crimes, specifically evidence related to the reference in Marvin Cheney's appeal regarding his implication in the similar murders of three other women?

(Since I don't know exactly when the barn fire was AFTER the abduction, rape and murder of Trudy Darby, I am unable to determine whether evidence (skeletons) from the 3MW case was also destroyed in that fire or is still there waiting to be discovered. I'm assuming that a barn fire wouldn't cremate 3 skeletons. I'm also assuming that Cheney and Rush weren't arrested until several years later, after Trudy Darby was murdered and so wouldn't have had Greg Marshel burn the barn until that time, which would have also been after the disappearance of the Springfield 3MW.)

Does anyone know the full names of Cheever's or Parel?

MissouriCase.net

07/25/1991

(Defendant referred to is Jess Rush, co-defendant of Marvin Chaney)

Quote:
It is noteworthy that in two of Defendant's letters he expressly admitted his direct involvement in the murder of Trudy Darby. In one letter he wrote:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/file/Opinion_SD21014.rtf

------

Apparently, on the websleuths site, the name Greg Marshel has been discounted and the names Greg Cheevers Marshall Cheevers were possibly what the original poster was looking for. Just an fyi...

Today has sorta been "one of them days". We've had two people who are closely connected to cases pop in as new members.

One of them seems to be for real, imo, but I'm not sure about dgwagner. If s/he is really a relative of a murdered person, perhaps they're just confused.
I am pretty sure of what my grandmother showed me. The clips from them finding the truck in the burning barn and Going to the house were the owner of the truck lived and her talking about them finding a girl in a ditch out side his house and she was wraped in a sleeping bag. They even brought the shoe for her mother to id. She did say that the killer had moved the body at one point and after that she never told me any more til later. She said they even found boots and other stuff in the truck and the boots had blood on them. If I find my grandmothers things next time I go to visit my dad I will look.

We're simply saying that had she been found, this would've been reported. I saw articles from around 2004 that were saying that the cops had gotten new evidence, but that she still had not, as of then, been found.

I am pretty sure of what my grandmother showed me. The clips from them finding the truck in the burning barn and Going to the house were the owner of the truck lived and her talking about them finding a girl in a ditch out side his house and she was wraped in a sleeping bag. They even brought the shoe for her mother to id. She did say that the killer had moved the body at one point and after that she never told me any more til later. She said they even found boots and other stuff in the truck and the boots had blood on them. If I find my grandmothers things next time I go to visit my dad I will look.

Please do. I'm sure most here would like to quickly clear this up. This would be extremely interesting to those of us who have followed this case over the years.

At the very least I would want to know whose body that was. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies.

Just in case some folks don't have the time to read through the whole thread here, Angela's brother, Loren Hammond, posted in April 2009. His info was that Angela was still considered to be missing, at the time of his post.

But how odd is it that dgwagner has seen clippings of a murder relating to a burning truck and/or barn. Is it possible that these clippings were shared and dgwagner's relative just mentioned their opinion that the guys involved in that truck/barn fire crime could have been responsible for their cousin Angela's abduction.

I'm pretty sure that there are similarities to dgwagner's recollection of events, since a body was found in that case and there was a fire that was suspected to have destroyed evidence. Possibly there was just a bit of miscommunication?

I can't say I believe this. If that were, in fact, the case, she would not still be listed as missing on the National Missing Persons website, unless whoever found her never reported it.
Agreed, although many THINK she's dead, she hasnt been reported as dead yet.
Just in case some folks don't have the time to read through the whole thread here, Angela's brother, Loren Hammond, posted in April 2009. His info was that Angela was still considered to be missing, at the time of his post.
yeah, i wish he would come on this post and clear some things up, i feel for the Hammonds and Rob and hope they all get answers.
But how odd is it that dgwagner has seen clippings of a murder relating to a burning truck and/or barn. Is it possible that these clippings were shared and dgwagner's relative just mentioned their opinion that the guys involved in that truck/barn fire crime could have been responsible for their cousin Angela's abduction.
i havent seen much of what dgwagner posted, BUT hopefully, they find the killer, i think the only way the killer will be found is IF a relative knows of the case and turns him in.

i havent seen much of what dgwagner posted, BUT hopefully, they find the killer, i think the only way the killer will be found is IF a relative knows of the case and turns him in.

dgwagner deleted the first two or three posts. but if you go to page 29, you can see what was said on cursiorandcursior's posts

Please do. I'm sure most here would like to quickly clear this up.

Totally speculating, but I'm assuming that dgwagner won't able to get ahold of that info quickly. In a previous post, s/he mentioned that the clippings (the source of all this info) are stored at someone else's house in a different state.

dgwagner, if you can get that info and/or find out how it relates to Angela Hammond's case, you may be able to get the police investigation pointed in the right direction. It wouldn't be the first time that a poster here had info that was useful in assisting the police in solving a crime. :)

dgwagner, if you can get that info and/or find out how it relates to Angela Hammond's case, you may be able to get the police investigation pointed in the right direction. It wouldn't be the first time that a poster here had info that was useful in assisting the police in solving a crime. :)

Devil's advocate, Tracy, but when I hear "clippings" that implies newspaper clippings, to me. If these were newspaper clippings saying that they had found her body and all of that, it's already a matter of public record, and thus the police should already know, and have investigated. Just my two cents. Unless I'm reading your post entirely wrong, which I'll admit is a possibility. If so, I am sorry, as no offense was meant. :)

Devil's advocate, Tracy, but when I hear "clippings" that implies newspaper clippings, to me. If these were newspaper clippings saying that they had found her body and all of that, it's already a matter of public record, and thus the police should already know, and have investigated. Just my two cents. Unless I'm reading your post entirely wrong, which I'll admit is a possibility. If so, I am sorry, as no offense was meant. :)

No offense taken at all. :)

I also think dgwagner is referring to newspaper clippings. (Although I think there was also mention of letters between dgwagner's grandmother and another relative of Angela's, maybe her mom?)

Any information that made it to the news would almost positively have been known by the police who would have likely followed up on that right away.

Here's what I'm thinking so far... (Everyone, please correct me if I get anything wrong here.)

dgwagner says he/she is Angela Hammond's cousin. He/She was shown newspaper clippings about a murder, a body being found, and an arson of a barn. Something like that. I believe there was also the claim of either written or verbal communication between dgwagner's grandmother and Angela Hammond's mom.

dgwagner was fairly young (a teenager?) when the newspaper clippings were shown to him/her by the grandmother.

I don't want to scare dgwagner off of this site or discourage him/her from retrieving the newspaper clippings, but here's where my thoughts are going on this:

The family may have followed cases that were similar to Angela's in the newspaper. They may have saved the articles in case they could eventually connect a similar crime with Angela's disappearance. They may have kept letters from Angela's mom where they discussed her case in addition to the ones mentioned in the news.

This could all just be a miscommunication between a young person and an elderly person about a subject that neither was extremely familiar with. Possibly the grandma referenced the newspaper clippings and told dgwagner something like, "This is what they did to Angela" or "this is the person who killed Angela". Something along those lines, that led dgwagner to believe the articles were actually about Angela being found murdered.

Of course, it's possible that dgwagner is not related to this case at all, and has other motives for visiting here.

EDIT to remove unnecessary info. Please see my next post, #455 below, regarding who to contact if you have information that may be helpful to this case.

I'm sure it might be within this thread somewhere but if a person had potential information about this case is there an officer or someone that could be contacted to pass such information?

I'm sure it might be within this thread somewhere but if a person had potential information about this case is there an officer or someone that could be contacted to pass such information?

Yes. Here is contact info provided by the doenetwork and charleyproject:


http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/hammond_angela.html lists the

Clinton Police Department
660-885-5561

as the place to contact with any information regarding her case.



The http://www.doenetwork.org/ (case file 1299DFMO) gives this contact information:

Clinton Police Department
Detective D.J. Parsons
660-885-5561
d.parsons@clintonmopd.com

Agency Case Number: 91-0488

NCIC Number: M-483974098
Please refer to this number when contacting any agency with information regarding this case.

Yes. Here is contact info provided by the doenetwork and charleyproject:


http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/hammond_angela.html lists the

Clinton Police Department
660-885-5561

as the place to contact with any information regarding her case.



The http://www.doenetwork.org/ (case file 1299DFMO) gives this contact information:

Clinton Police Department
Detective D.J. Parsons
660-885-5561
d.parsons@clintonmopd.com

Agency Case Number: 91-0488

NCIC Number: M-483974098
Please refer to this number when contacting any agency with information regarding this case.

Thank you for your prompt reply. Probably nothing but it could be something.

Thank you for your prompt reply. Probably nothing but it could be something.

Since this is nearly a 20 year old case, I know that there are many people who feel that someone close to the crime "is gonna have to talk" for this to be solved.

I don't know if the discussion in the previous several posts will turn out to be helpful. I sure wish dgwagner would come back with a comment or an update.

Since this is nearly a 20 year old case, I know that there are many people who feel that someone close to the crime "is gonna have to talk" for this to be solved.

I don't know if the discussion in the previous several posts will turn out to be helpful. I sure wish dgwagner would come back with a comment or an update.

Perhaps not. This person was unfamiliar with the case and some information came to me quite by happenstance. I just wanted to know if anyone was actually working or interested in the case. I don't want to waste someone's time nor my own if they are not. All I can say is that it sounded potentially promising.

i just happened to run into a youtube clip at kmbctv on youtube that say there could be some physical evidence that was left at the scene on the 18th anniversary of it. a dective paul abbot in the clip say there may be a lead in the case. the title of the youtube clip is(new leads possible in missing woman case) kmbctv. it was posted in april 2009 i believe maybe you can find more on this?
Ya that was crap too. That was almost two years ago and still they have not revealed what the so called new evidence is.

Page 13 of this thread, post #186, says the following. Could the new member be referring to this info?

Greg Marshel Springfield Three Missing Women Ties

Jess Rush, in his appeal, mentions a Greg Marshel, who is listed at MissouriCase.net as having lived at 623 Montclair, Apt 3A, Springfield, MO in July (and August), 1991, just 4 miles from the Springfield 3 Missing Women's address at 1717 E. Delmar St., Springfield, MO. He lived in the area of the teenage grave robbers who knew Stacey McCall and Suzie Streeter and they all may have known each other in high school.

Does anyone know whether Greg Marshel went to high school with Suzie or Stacey in Springfield, MO and whether he had ties to Macks Creek, MO?

Also, Jess states that other murder evidence was destroyed in the barn fire.

Does anyone close to the case know whether police investigator's sifted through the ruins for evidence of other crimes, specifically evidence related to the reference in Marvin Cheney's appeal regarding his implication in the similar murders of three other women?

(Since I don't know exactly when the barn fire was AFTER the abduction, rape and murder of Trudy Darby, I am unable to determine whether evidence (skeletons) from the 3MW case was also destroyed in that fire or is still there waiting to be discovered. I'm assuming that a barn fire wouldn't cremate 3 skeletons. I'm also assuming that Cheney and Rush weren't arrested until several years later, after Trudy Darby was murdered and so wouldn't have had Greg Marshel burn the barn until that time, which would have also been after the disappearance of the Springfield 3MW.)

Does anyone know the full names of Cheever's or Parel?

MissouriCase.net

07/25/1991

(Defendant referred to is Jess Rush, co-defendant of Marvin Chaney)

Quote:
It is noteworthy that in two of Defendant's letters he expressly admitted his direct involvement in the murder of Trudy Darby. In one letter he wrote:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/file/Opinion_SD21014.rtf

------

Apparently, on the websleuths site, the name Greg Marshel has been discounted and the names Greg Cheevers Marshall Cheevers were possibly what the original poster was looking for. Just an fyi...
He actually says Gregs brother Marshall I beileve. If you go back on this forum you can find where I posted excerpts of Jess Rush writing where he talks about who all was involved in Darby's murder as well as describing killing other women. For some reason the Clinton Police have ruled him and Chaney out as suspects in Angela's case. I dont know why. Angeala's brother Loren also has stated they are not suspects. Again I dont know why.

My $0.02 worth is that if they were able to categorically eliminate the Darby and Kenney cases (were there any others), they must surely know/suspect who did this one. How else could they otherwise make this claim? Or am I reading something into this story that is not there?
It makes no sense. Especially with Kenney because they still have no clue what happened to her

I think unless someone knows something they're not supposed to know, the Angela Hammond case will go unsolved forever.

I honestly can't believe the case is still unsolved - it just seems so solvable. How many puke green pickup trucks with a fish painted on the back window are out there?

I honestly can't believe the case is still unsolved - it just seems so solvable. How many puke green pickup trucks with a fish painted on the back window are out there?

I felt the same way when I recently saw the clip. I'm shocked that no one could identify the truck.

The problem is that the "puke green" color seemed fairly popular on many 70s vehicles. I still see old Fords with that color paint scheme. On top of that, Rob said it looked like a fish jumping out of water, but he wasn't sure, as I recall. As it was a decal or paint (it would obviously have to be one or the other), the perp could've simply removed it, knowing he'd been seen by someone while committing a kidnapping, and sold the truck somewhere where he wasn't known.

I've actually seen a couple of trucks driving down the road with outdoors/lake themed decals and I always automatically assumed the person driving abducted Angela Hammond. Weird how UM sticks in your head, huh?

The problem is that the "puke green" color seemed fairly popular on many 70s vehicles. I still see old Fords with that color paint scheme. On top of that, Rob said it looked like a fish jumping out of water, but he wasn't sure, as I recall. As it was a decal or paint (it would obviously have to be one or the other), the perp could've simply removed it, knowing he'd been seen by someone while committing a kidnapping, and sold the truck somewhere where he wasn't known.

Still, this person had no family or friends who could have seen the truck even once with the decal in the back window? I doubt this person was a Buffalo Bill who planned his crimes thoroughly through.

And no matter what anyone says, the police really screwed up this case. The moment Rob went to them, they should have contacted the other jurisdictions and had road blocks set up. It was as simple as that.

I found a news story from the ABC affiliate in Kansas City. I can post it if anyone wants but the story and the accompanying video basically says they have new DNA evidence (although nothing said about a body) and that they now believe her disappearance was not connected to the two other cases in the area.

I found the article (from April 2009). Where do you think they got DNA evidence from? I wonder if there's going to be another update soon. I know DNA processing is backed up in just about all states, it could be years before it's processed.

I'm thinking they just had the evidence all these years and just recently have the technology available to analyze it (or possibly they misplaced it and just recently found it).

I found a news story from the ABC affiliate in Kansas City. I can post it if anyone wants but the story and the accompanying video basically says they have new DNA evidence (although nothing said about a body) and that they now believe her disappearance was not connected to the two other cases in the area.

I dont buy any of this. They don't have a shred of new evidence. This case has been getting alot of attention again lately and the police are simply trying to show people that they havent given up. If they had handled things right the minute Rob showed up at the police station then this case would have been solved. There is no way they can rule out Angela's dissapearance being related to the murder of Darby or the kidnapping of Kenney. Again they dont want the public knowing that the suspects have been right under their noses for 15 years.

I don't buy any of this. They don't have a shred of new evidence. This case has been getting a lot of attention again lately and the police are simply trying to show people that they haven't given up. If they had handled things right the minute Rob showed up at the police station then this case would have been solved. There is no way they can rule out Angela's disappearance being related to the murder of Darby or the kidnapping of Kenney. Again they don't want the public knowing that the suspects have been right under their noses for 15 years.

I don't know how any of us can make categorical statements one way or another. I know this case only because it was widely written up in the Springfield newspaper where I lived at the time. I can throw out a morsel of information that is not published anywhere. Recently I came into some information that seemed intriguing which I passed along. Whether or not it would be acted on is anyone's guess but it is unrelated to this story or anything previously published.

As for the television report I don't know what this new DNA evidence is but it seemed credible if it was not deliberate disinformation. If the police could rule out the other two cases all I can deduce is that the DNA must have been from an individual not previously connected to this case. It may be that this person's DNA was not in the database. It would be worthwhile to know where it was obtained and how the police would know it was relevant to the case. Very strange.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html

This article was posted on April 6, 2009, about 18 months ago. It's titled: New Leads Possible In Missing Woman Case

Is this the "new evidence" thing that everyone is talking about? Angela went missing on April 4, 1991. I just figured this was one of those obligatory "anniversary" pieces that are sometimes written to get a case back into the public eye.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html

This article was posted on April 6, 2009, about 18 months ago. It's titled: New Leads Possible In Missing Woman Case

Is this the "new evidence" thing that everyone is talking about? Angela went missing on April 4, 1991. I just figured this was one of those obligatory "anniversary" pieces that are sometimes written to get a case back into the public eye.

In the video attached to the article it says they have new DNA evidence. They don't specify exactly how new, or what kind of DNA evidence it is. As I've said before I think that it's simply evidence they had already had and have just now had the ability to analyze it. DNA analysis is relatively new and there is a backlog of DNA samples in most law enforcement agencies so it is possible.

In the video attached to the article it says they have new DNA evidence. They don't specify exactly how new, or what kind of DNA evidence it is. As I've said before I think that it's simply evidence they had already had and have just now had the ability to analyze it. DNA analysis is relatively new and there is a backlog of DNA samples in most law enforcement agencies so it is possible.

I would agree with that. However, they made a categorical statement that this DNA eliminated this case from being related to two other cases (most likely the Darby and Kenney cases). That to my mind is significant. I would doubt they would issue a blanket statement that is knowingly false.

Speculating on this, I would say that they have the DNA from the Darby convicted murderers. The DNA which they have identified to the Hammond case doesn't match those guys. I have always assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the Darby and Kenney cases are more likely than not related. If that is true, and those guys are ruled out as suspects on the Hammond case, this must mean they have DNA from the actual perpetrator. If they have a suspect or his DNA in the system, they can match them up and find out who carried out this crime. That's my take but I could be wrong.

they made a categorical statement that this DNA eliminated this case from being related to two other cases (most likely the Darby and Kenney cases). That to my mind is significant. I would doubt they would issue a blanket statement that is knowingly false.

(I didn't watch that video included with the article I linked. I usually skip them and just read the text. To watch videos, I have to keep the computer quiet and put on my headphones so it doesn't disturb others in the house. It's a lot less hassle for me if I just go ahead and read the article quietly, rather than going to all the trouble to eliminate the external sound so I can watch a very short video report.)

THAT being said.... I'm wondering if this could be one of those situations where they've got the DNA, but they deliberately publish false information to put their prime suspects at ease. If the suspects think they can't be linked, the cops may be able to get more info against them to eventually solidify their case.

It sure would be nice to finally see the perp(s) pay for this. I'm hoping that maybe the cops preserved cigarette butts or a beer can or something that fell out of the guy's truck in the struggle. They may have had the foresight to preserve that kind of evidence for future processing. DNA wasn't unheard of in 1991, so maybe they thought they'd eventually get their chance once the science caught up with what they gleaned from their crime scene.

(I didn't watch that video included with the article I linked. I usually skip them and just read the text. To watch videos, I have to keep the computer quiet and put on my headphones so it doesn't disturb others in the house. It's a lot less hassle for me if I just go ahead and read the article quietly, rather than going to all the trouble to eliminate the external sound so I can watch a very short video report.)

THAT being said.... I'm wondering if this could be one of those situations where they've got the DNA, but they deliberately publish false information to put their prime suspects at ease. If the suspects think they can't be linked, the cops may be able to get more info against them to eventually solidify their case.

It sure would be nice to finally see the perp(s) pay for this. I'm hoping that maybe the cops preserved cigarette butts or a beer can or something that fell out of the guy's truck in the struggle. They may have had the foresight to preserve that kind of evidence for future processing. DNA wasn't unheard of in 1991, so maybe they thought they'd eventually get their chance once the science caught up with what they gleaned from their crime scene.

It could be a bluff but I am more inclined to the cigarette butt angle with the DNA. One can imagine that while the perp is contemplating doing what he is about to do he is busily puffing away to build up his courage and then he jumps out of the truck, grabs her and drives away.

What I can but I won't speak to it again is that the police have been provided information on a new suspect recently. It would be very interesting to know if they bothered to match up his DNA, assuming it is available with the the DNA from the crime scene where she was snatched from.

Either they were flat out lying about having DNA and ruling out the other two crimes or they weren't. If so they must have something and I think foolishly trying to get the perp to reveal himself or make a mistake. I don't see that as going anywhere unless he keeps up with every aspect of the case. It would sure be a lifting of the cloud that has hung over this case going on 20 years now if something could come of this DNA evidence.

If the killer left a cigarette butt or a can behind how can you know it was left by the killer? How do you single anyone out? You can find butts and cans and trash on any street at anytime. There is now way to pin it to the killer. DNA evidence was nothing new in 91 so why does it take nearly 20 years to even talk about it? This is simply a game of show and tell by the cops, they tell us something and show us nothing. Therefore I dont beileve them and I still think the murders are related. I think that because the man who admitted killing Trudy Darby wrote about killing other women in the same way. His letters are actuall evidence that was introduced at trial. This carries alot more weight with me then the police blowing smoke up peoples asses.

If the killer left a cigarette butt or a can behind how can you know it was left by the killer? How do you single anyone out? You can find butts and cans and trash on any street at anytime. There is now way to pin it to the killer. DNA evidence was nothing new in 91 so why does it take nearly 20 years to even talk about it? This is simply a game of show and tell by the cops, they tell us something and show us nothing. Therefore I don't believe them and I still think the murders are related. I think that because the man who admitted killing Trudy Darby wrote about killing other women in the same way. His letters are actual evidence that was introduced at trial. This carries a lot more weight with me then the police blowing smoke up peoples asses. I'll venture a likely scenario. The perp was in his truck hemming and hawing and not able or willing immediately to snatch her. He probably sat in his truck and was chain smoking and several butts were found where the truck was. Other than that I don't know what DNA was available. If the police are just bluffing I don't get the point. If that was what it was, it didn't work, obviously.

I do believe the Darby and Kenney abduction/murder are likely related. I do not believe the Hammond abduction is related to either crime.

Personally speaking, I think I forwarded a very viable suspect onto LE several weeks ago but of course I have no way to know if it panned out. Certainly sounded promising and the identity was easily found if the information was actually looked at.

My guess as far as what the DNA evidence is would be that perhaps during the struggle pulling Angela out of the phone booth, that perhaps she bit, scratched or otherwise injured her attacker slightly to the point that some blood may have been left in the phone booth. This could have been cllected and stored as evidence.

To me this seems much more likely than cigarette butts that could be anyone's and would likely never stand up in court unless other evidence could be introduced as well.

My guess as far as what the DNA evidence is would be that perhaps during the struggle pulling Angela out of the phone booth, that perhaps she bit, scratched or otherwise injured her attacker slightly to the point that some blood may have been left in the phone booth. This could have been cllected and stored as evidence.

To me this seems much more likely than cigarette butts that could be anyone's and would likely never stand up in court unless other evidence could be introduced as well.

That's conceivable. But my larger point was in the identifying a viable suspect. If that could be accomplished he may simply confess and the DNA might be largely irrelevant. At this point in time, what is needed is a suspect. To my knowledge we don't have one.

Wasn't there something posted on here a while back about a suspect in the other two murders being possibly linked to this case? Maybe I remember wrong, but it seems that was brought up as more than just a theory. Either way, if the police are telling the truth, maybe that person has already been ruled out.

I really hope something comes of the (relatively) new leads. Actually I mildly disagree with some posts concerning DNA and forensics. Even though it was probably SORTA around at the time, I'm pretty sure it wasn't commonplace until the mid 90s. And even that would probably be more in big city police departments.

The police clearly didn't do as much as they should have (and it is possible they don't want to be embarrased by being so close and so far on a suspect this whole time), but I wonder if they simply didn't have the resources to do so.

It kinda reminds me of the Adam Walsh case. I've read John Walsh's book from the late 90s called Tears of Rage (part autobiography, part development of America's Most Wanted, and mostly in depth about Adam's kidnapping and murder). It's really heartbreaking and can be hard to read in places, but basically John was saying about how archaic and unequipped their local police department was in 1981 in dealing with missing children (largely thanks to him that started changing later in the 80s). And they were from the Miami metro area, which is a big city! Even though most of the cops were well meaning, they just didn't sadly have the technology or the resources to do nearly as much as they should have.

Angela's case could be sorta like that too. In 1991 Clinton might've still been stuck in 1975 technologywise! I sometimes forget the 911 system wasn't even in place everywhere until probably around that same time. That's also one of many reason I never for a second doubted Rob's story about chasing the pickup truck through town. At that time in a little town, it's not unfathomable to think it would've been basically dead with very few if any witnesses.

Figured I'd bump this to keep interest around
Also:

http://www.newsroom-sheriff.us/2009/08/does-serial-killer-hold-key-to-23-year-old-murder-mystery-in-summerfield.html

I read about this guy and figured I'd mention him. His appearance from the mugshot (beard + mustache, hulky looking) seems to match the description Angie and Rob gave, also his victims all seem to be of a similar appearance to Angie (it mentions in the article that his victims were slender and dark haired), and the fact that this man was targeting and killing women in the Midwest in the late '80s to early 90s.

I mean I'm sure plenty of midwestern men in the early '90s wore a beard and were scruffy looking, BUT this guy's profile thus far (Midwest, bearded, killing '80s and 90s, dark haired, slender women) seems very similar to what a potential suspect might be like. Even if it's NOT him, use this guy as a template for what her abductor may have looked/been like.

This excerpt from the article is especially interesting:


"(Larry Hall) wandered all over the Midwest, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio. There were many times when he took off and we had no idea where he was," Gary Hall said.

Given a description of Chavez, who was about 5 feet, 4 inches, 100-110 pounds with black hair, Gary Hall said, "I'll just say it fits the profile of a lot of his victims. ... He preferred darker hair with a small, athletic build. That's what I've been told since clear back when he first got arrested."

"He would go to these Civil War re-enactments and women around there started popping up dead," said former U.S. attorney Lawrence Beaumont, who prosecuted Larry Hall in U.S. District Court in Urbana for the kidnapping of Roach in Georgetown, a day after a Revolutionary War re-enactment in a nearby state park.

"He could be connected to a number of cases in the Midwest," Beaumont said.


Now, one thing which should be investigated is whether there were any War reenactments in the days/weeks before or after Angela's abduction.

I mean this guy might have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the her disappearance, but he also might be worth looking into given his appearance and the general profile.

The fact that a Green Pickup was used is kind of neither here nor there, at this point--After nearly 20 years, the perp if alive is probably not using the same car. It's a good item for helping narrow down the guy, BUT the perp could have been using a pick up that night which belonged to a friend, or even stolen it.

If I were investigating the case, I would look into the purchase and/or sale of any Chevy or Ford pick up trucks manufactured between say 1966 and 1975. I would also investigate the owners of such cars, and look into whether there were any thefts of a truck matching the perp's truck's description. Keep the area of focus when investigating these sales in the Mid and South West. The owner of the car again doesn't have to be the perpetrator himself--It could have been a friend or family member who was loaning it to him who had or has NO idea what the guy was using the car for. But if it was indeed the perp's car, it makes it a lot easier to narrow down with investigation into the car itself.

The problem is, we the public don't really have all the facts. We have a very vague description of the perp and the car. Was he tall, big built? Or average in height? Short? Long hair, or short hair? Bald? Remember, since 1991 he could've very much changed his appearance--Shaved the beard and cut his hair if it was long, or grew it if it was short. He could've been balding and gone bald, and shaved his beard which would radically change his appearance from how he looked in 1991.

We also should try to build up a psychological profile of the perp. It's unusual that a perpetrator would target someone who was on a phone--For him there's a risk of the person on the other line describing him or hearing him, as did happen. Also, a good question to ask is: Why didn't he wait? He could've easily waited until Angela was off the phone, then abducted her and no one would have had any idea what happened. The fact that he was so bold in this way can mean several things. Either he had done this before and was used to it and confidant he could pull it off; He could simply have been deranged and being in such an insane mental state not simply realized he was putting himself at risk; He could have WANTED to be caught; Or, he could've been assured in some way that he wouldn't be caught.

Also, we should ask ourselves: Was he of average or above average intelligence? A feeling I have--given the UM show, which who knows if it's EXACTLY accurate--is that a guy like the one described would have had a record of some kind prior to Angela's abduction, even if that record was only for petty offenses prior to that--Drunkenness, Robberies, thefts, arson, maybe minor violent crimes (domestic violence, etc). He might have been involved in a rape, perhaps, and his intention was similar to abscond with Angela and rape her--and it went wrong.

There is a chance, however slim, that she might be alive, or at the very least might have lived past that night. If she's alive, he might have taken her very far away, and likely if she's alive, she wouldn't be allowed out much--A virtual prisoner. Personally, I HOPE she's alive. Even if she's spent the last 19 years suffering or living in a situation like the Duggard's, it's better than her being deceased. I hope and pray she's alive.

We should also ask ourselves: Was it his first time doing something like this, or is it more likely he had done this before? If it's the latter, perhaps he had done something like this before but not in Missouri--Perhaps a crime with a similar MO was done in some other nearby state.

Also, factors that should be looked into are: Was he a local? I don't know Missouri at all, or that area, but if they had a local fishing community or something along those lines, one could investigate that. The decal could've been a decoy--to throw suspicion away from him and towards a fishermen type of person, but he may well have really been a fishermen; It should be looked into either way. If he wasn't a local, he probably didn't live TOO far away. He might have lived in Kansas or some other nearby state.

What year approximately was the pick up from--We need a more specific date range than "60s or 70s".

Also, we should try to ascertain if he had followed Angela in the hours, days or weeks prior to the abduction. I've read prior to going to the payphone, Angela was driving with a friend. Would be helpful to note if she or the friend had been followed, even at a distance.

It's important to know if he had selected her prior to that night, or he only got her because of her location (Him circling the parking lot says it's the latter, that he spotted her and decided to go for it. But it would seem he might have been familiar with the area and parking lot). Had he visited the parking lot before that night and waited for the right to opportunity--As in, the "perfect" girl and "perfect" setting to capture a girl? Angela would probably have fit this guy's type in terms of appearance--He might not have taken her simply because she was a woman and it was late.

Sorry for the long post, but I just discovered this case a few days ago and it's really shaken me deeply. I've read about missing person's cases before but this particular story has shaken me much more than any other. I'm near the age now that Angie was when this happened, so it kind of hits home--She was a young girl, and I know girls who are her age, and it scares me for them. I'd like to see this solved, and I'd love to see this evil man meet justice. Even if it's a sad ending, and Angie turns out to be deceased, it's still an ENDING--closure. And her family deserves that at the very least, and society in general deserves to be rid of this guy and men like him.

Wasn't there something posted on here a while back about a suspect in the other two murders being possibly linked to this case? Maybe I remember wrong, but it seems that was brought up as more than just a theory. Either way, if the police are telling the truth, maybe that person has already been ruled out.
Yes there is alot on this subject in this forum. Simply go back and read it. To sum it up one of the men convicted in Trudy Darbys murder wrote letters to another prisoner ( which where entered into evidence) that talked about killing other women and how if they had disposed of Darby in the same way they never would have been caught. Again there is alot of info if you go back and read. It seems the people posting now are mostly two years behind.

Yes there is alot on this subject in this forum. Simply go back and read it. To sum it up one of the men convicted in Trudy Darbys murder wrote letters to another prisoner ( which where entered into evidence) that talked about killing other women and how if they had disposed of Darby in the same way they never would have been caught. Again there is alot of info if you go back and read. It seems the people posting now are mostly two years behind.

Didn't the article from April '09 (which mentioned new, possible DNA evidence) say that it was pretty certain to the police that the 2 other similar cases in Missouri in 1991 weren't connected to Angela's--That those guys likely weren't responsible?
I seem to recall her brother saying as much--that to him they weren't the perpetrators.

I really hope something comes of the (relatively) new leads. Actually I mildly disagree with some posts concerning DNA and forensics. Even though it was probably SORTA around at the time, I'm pretty sure it wasn't commonplace until the mid 90s. And even that would probably be more in big city police departments.

The police clearly didn't do as much as they should have (and it is possible they don't want to be embarrased by being so close and so far on a suspect this whole time), but I wonder if they simply didn't have the resources to do so.

It kinda reminds me of the Adam Walsh case. I've read John Walsh's book from the late 90s called Tears of Rage (part autobiography, part development of America's Most Wanted, and mostly in depth about Adam's kidnapping and murder). It's really heartbreaking and can be hard to read in places, but basically John was saying about how archaic and unequipped their local police department was in 1981 in dealing with missing children (largely thanks to him that started changing later in the 80s). And they were from the Miami metro area, which is a big city! Even though most of the cops were well meaning, they just didn't sadly have the technology or the resources to do nearly as much as they should have.

Angela's case could be sorta like that too. In 1991 Clinton might've still been stuck in 1975 technologywise! I sometimes forget the 911 system wasn't even in place everywhere until probably around that same time. That's also one of many reason I never for a second doubted Rob's story about chasing the pickup truck through town. At that time in a little town, it's not unfathomable to think it would've been basically dead with very few if any witnesses.
Again there are no new leads. Two years ago police claimed to have "something" in the way of dna evidence but obviously it didnt pan out. This case is not like the Adam walsh case because Adam was taken some time before his mother even knew he was gone. Where as with this case we have an eye witness who gets a good description of the kidnappers vehicle to police within minutes of the crime. It doesn't take high tech equipment or special csi science to alert every law enforcement agency in a 100 mile radius and have every available officer out searching for the vehilce.

Didn't the article from April '09 (which mentioned new, possible DNA evidence) say that it was pretty certain to the police that the 2 other similar cases in Missouri in 1991 weren't connected to Angela's--That those guys likely weren't responsible?
I seem to recall her brother saying as much--that to him they weren't the perpetrators.
Ya thats what they say, but no one ever gives any reasons as to how they can be ruled out. Therefore in my mind they are not ruled out.

Ya thats what they say, but no one ever gives any reasons as to how they can be ruled out. Therefore in my mind they are not ruled out.

Is there any mugshots of Charney & Rush out there?
Would be interesting to see if they fit the appearance that Angela described.
Also--
If there were two of them, why did only one of them come out to take Angela? Why would the other one have waited in the car? And wouldn't Angela have seen the other man when her kidnapper flashed the flashlight inside the car--she said he was looking for something. Surely she would've at least seen the outline of another man with the light on the interior of the car. Unless there was another man, not in the car but taking her from another angle, and she didn't see him.

There is one reason however, why it makes sense that there might have been another man:

Let's say the guy gets her in the pick up cab, she could've tried opening the passenger side door to jump out. However, if there was two men in the car and she was sandwiched between them, that would've made that pretty much impossible.

Does anyone think there's any possibility that maybe she's alive?

Does anyone think there's any possibility that maybe she's alive?

No way she's still alive. She was abducted in her teens and there's no doubt in my mind if she had a way to escape/get help she would have done so a long time ago. I could see if she were abducted as an infant or toddler, but I think she was too old to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Does anyone know what became of her boyfriend Rob?

Is there any mugshots of Charney & Rush out there?
Would be interesting to see if they fit the appearance that Angela described.
Also--
If there were two of them, why did only one of them come out to take Angela? Why would the other one have waited in the car? And wouldn't Angela have seen the other man when her kidnapper flashed the flashlight inside the car--she said he was looking for something. Surely she would've at least seen the outline of another man with the light on the interior of the car. Unless there was another man, not in the car but taking her from another angle, and she didn't see him.

There is one reason however, why it makes sense that there might have been another man:

Let's say the guy gets her in the pick up cab, she could've tried opening the passenger side door to jump out. However, if there was two men in the car and she was sandwiched between them, that would've made that pretty much impossible.

Again, yes the mugshots are in this forum or maybe one of the other Hammond forums and Chaney looks like a creepy bearded filthy man.
If you remember the Trudy Darby case she also described on strange man hanging around outside when she was on the phone with her son. However we now know for certain there was more then one abductor in that case. Angela at first had her back to the truck and was talking on the phone.

Its very likely she didnt see the other person if there was one. You have to wonder how one man, by himself could have gotten her in the truck and somehow managed to keep her in there while he has to get to the drivers seat and operate the vehilcle. You may say " well he knocked her out". Not true because Rob heard her scream. Now keep in mind he has very little time to get her in the truck, keep her from getting out and take off as Rob was at the scene in a matter of minutes. This is why I think there had to be another person involved

Again, yes the mugshots are in this forum or maybe one of the other Hammond forums and Chaney looks like a creepy bearded filthy man.
If you remember the Trudy Darby case she also described on strange man hanging around outside when she was on the phone with her son. However we now know for certain there was more then one abductor in that case. Angela at first had her back to the truck and was talking on the phone.

Its very likely she didnt see the other person if there was one. You have to wonder how one man, by himself could have gotten her in the truck and somehow managed to keep her in there while he has to get to the drivers seat and operate the vehilcle. You may say " well he knocked her out". Not true because Rob heard her scream. Now keep in mind he has very little time to get her in the truck, keep her from getting out and take off as Rob was at the scene in a matter of minutes. This is why I think there had to be another person involved

Went back and saw the photos...they're very creepy looking men, and reading Rush's letter...he deserves to fry. Disturbing.

The only thing we need is to find this Cheevers, Parel and Marshel. Also, getting some 1991 era photos of Rush would be great.

It almost sounds like there was a whole group of serial killers, like working together in MO in the early '90s..which is so creepy and tragic.

And I'm thinking the Pick up might have belonged to Cheevers, Parel or Marshel. It might not necessarily have belonged to the brothers.

I hope that Rush & Chaney were the perps, because at least then I'd know her murderers are behind bars and not out loose. Her case still breaks my heart because they robbed two innocent lives that night and shattered a family, and she looks like she was such a sweet person. She deserved to live a long life and have a beautiful baby.

I want to keep this case active around here until we get a resolution. Sure, maybe Rush & Charney did it, but we don't know for sure. And when Angela's brother posted here, he seemed pretty certain that they didn't do it, and I'd think he'd probably privy to more information than we are unless one of us is a member of the Clinton PD.

I want some resolution in this case, whether it's her remains being found so she can be given a proper burial, or whether it's a conviction. The poor girl and her family deserve closure and justice.

Went back and saw the photos...they're very creepy looking men, and reading Rush's letter...he deserves to fry. Disturbing.

The only thing we need is to find this Cheevers, Parel and Marshel. Also, getting some 1991 era photos of Rush would be great.

It almost sounds like there was a whole group of serial killers, like working together in MO in the early '90s..which is so creepy and tragic.

And I'm thinking the Pick up might have belonged to Cheevers, Parel or Marshel. It might not necessarily have belonged to the brothers.

I hope that Rush & Chaney were the perps, because at least then I'd know her murderers are behind bars and not out loose. Her case still breaks my heart because they robbed two innocent lives that night and shattered a family, and she looks like she was such a sweet person. She deserved to live a long life and have a beautiful baby.

I have been saying this since I read the letters from him. Why where these other people never brought up on charges?? Why was Rush not offered any kind of deal by prosecution to go into details about the other women he spoke of or to finger the other people involved? Lots of unanswered questions here.

I want to keep this case active around here until we get a resolution. Sure, maybe Rush & Charney did it, but we don't know for sure. And when Angela's brother posted here, he seemed pretty certain that they didn't do it, and I'd think he'd probably privy to more information than we are unless one of us is a member of the Clinton PD.

I want some resolution in this case, whether it's her remains being found so she can be given a proper burial, or whether it's a conviction. The poor girl and her family deserve closure and justice.

This case is very much active around here. Notice this thread goes back to 2005. It has been discussed and debated every which way you could imagine and the bottom line is that I don't beileve we will ever know what actually happened unless someone who knows the killer comes forward ( kinda of like the unabomber case) and spills the beans.

I realize Angela's brother doesnt seem to see Rush and Chaney as suspects but again he gives no reasons as to why. I wouldnt trust anything from the Clinton pd as they are notoriously inept. I have a good friend that was a Henry county sherrifs deputy and was involved in the search for Angela the next morning. He basically blames the Clinton pd for bothching this case and beleive me he has insider knowledge.

It seemed that when the police did speak about the case two years ago they eluded the killer might be a local and they may have dna to link him. I dont beileve this at all. Clinton was small town then. Everyone knows everyone but oddly No one recognized this truck. I have no doubts the killer or killers where not local to that area.

No way she's still alive. She was abducted in her teens and there's no doubt in my mind if she had a way to escape/get help she would have done so a long time ago. I could see if she were abducted as an infant or toddler, but I think she was too old to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Does anyone know what became of her boyfriend Rob?

I think Rob joined the army and got married. He probably still suffers from grief to this day...

Does anyone think there's any possibility that maybe she's alive?

The way she was abducted, I suspect Angela probably died that night.

I have been saying this since I read the letters from him. Why where these other people never brought up on charges?? Why was Rush not offered any kind of deal by prosecution to go into details about the other women he spoke of or to finger the other people involved? Lots of unanswered questions here.

Maybe someone should pay him at a visit in jail, ask him a few questions. Don't know how risky that might be though.

Charney seems to be (even though they are both psychos) the less sociopathic of the brothers. Rush on the other hand was a pure thrill killer--He seemed to enjoy inflicting suffering on women from what his letters said.

I wonder if there's some way they could be made to talk.

Also, one argument for the perp being a local or at least knowledgable about the area:

I looked up the site of her abduction on google maps, and one of the posts here said Rob lost the chase at Culvert Drive and 2nd Ave. I wasn't able to see any "Culvert Drive" but I was able to see along 2nd Avenue, about 2 miles down from the scene is a "Charles Culvird Drive". Now, the road they were going down (the abductor and rob) has THIRTEEN different streets to turn off onto from 2nd Avenue. I'm not sure on what street Rob caught up with them on, and I'm not sure if the perp turned onto the East or Westbound side of the road--both sides have the same name "Calvird Drive."

The perp, for whatever reason, chose Culvird Drive, to turn off on. He could've picked any of the others but according to Google Maps, Calvird Drive passes by several small bodies of water, for one. It also (if you later make turns on that Drive) leads to a huge park, which has several bodies of water, and what looks like woodland.

Was it random, or perhaps did the Perp have a pre-arranged escape route....Hmm.

The way she was abducted, I suspect Angela probably died that night.
That would be my first thought also but lets keep in mind that the abductor knew he had been seen. Did this change his plans? He had been chased by Rob, he knew that someone had a description of his vehicle and the police would be notified soon. So did that change things? Maybe he is a total nut and it didnt bother him, we must consider he did abduct a girl who was talking on the phone. Obviously the person on the other end will immediatley know that she has been abducted.

Maybe someone should pay him at a visit in jail, ask him a few questions. Don't know how risky that might be though.

Charney seems to be (even though they are both psychos) the less sociopathic of the brothers. Rush on the other hand was a pure thrill killer--He seemed to enjoy inflicting suffering on women from what his letters said.

I wonder if there's some way they could be made to talk.

Also, one argument for the perp being a local or at least knowledgable about the area:

I looked up the site of her abduction on google maps, and one of the posts here said Rob lost the chase at Culvert Drive and 2nd Ave. I wasn't able to see any "Culvert Drive" but I was able to see along 2nd Avenue, about 2 miles down from the scene is a "Charles Culvird Drive". Now, the road they were going down (the abductor and rob) has THIRTEEN different streets to turn off onto from 2nd Avenue. I'm not sure on what street Rob caught up with them on, and I'm not sure if the perp turned onto the East or Westbound side of the road--both sides have the same name "Calvird Drive."

The perp, for whatever reason, chose Culvird Drive, to turn off on. He could've picked any of the others but according to Google Maps, Calvird Drive passes by several small bodies of water, for one. It also (if you later make turns on that Drive) leads to a huge park, which has several bodies of water, and what looks like woodland.

Was it random, or perhaps did the Perp have a pre-arranged escape route....Hmm.
I see what you mean about the escape route but if he indeed had a planned route how in the world could he have known that someone would be at the payphone for him to abduct? How can you have a planned escape route when you cant possibly know ahead of time where you are going to need to escape from? Several witnesses did state they had seen the truck driving around so it is possible he was getting familiar with the layout. I cannot beileve he was a local though. there is just no way that no one would have known that truck. You mention there being wooded areas and bodies of water. Are you thinking the abductor just drove a short distance and then killed her and dumped her body? I doubt that because he knew hed been seen and knew the police would be out looking for him. I think he high tailed it outta town and killed her far away from Clinton.

As for Chaney and Rush being questioned, that is up to the police or the district attorneys. To my knowledge this hasnt happened yet but I could be wrong.