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.

Well, Angela said they were ''circling.'' I do not think that that night was their first time in that area or county. And remember, Angie's attention wasn't totally focused on them--she was on the phone with Rob first and foremost. We don't know how long she and Rob were on the phone for before she noticed the truck. They were probably circling and getting a feel for the immediate area. They were probably circling the block to notice a few things:

1) Is there anybody around who will see me/us
2) What route will be the quickest to get back wherever we're intending to take this girl
3) What route is nearest to dump the body.

You have to try and think like a killer if you want to catch them. You know, the perp could have been in or around that parking lot LONG before Angie arrived. He could've been trucking around, looking for ''prey'' if you will and noticed her on the phone.

You know, they could've been following Angela that night before she got to the payphone. I read she was ''cruising around'' with a friend, and she dropped the friend off and then used the payphone. Who is to say they weren't following her, at a distance even, from the time she dropped the friend off? She wouldn't have noticed if they were tailing her well--She doesn't seem to have been the overly paranoid type.

After noticing her drop off her friend, he tails at a distance. He watches her stop and sees she's alone--Bingo. To ensure he's going to be successful, he circles the block to make sure she's totally alone--that there is no one out or around who will witness what he's about to do. I'm not sure on this point, since he didn't wait till she was off the phone to abduct her, which says to me he didn't care if anyone noticed.

The fact that he abducted her while she was on the phone is the strangest aspect of this to me. Had he waited till she was off the phone, he could've taken her and no one would ever have had a clue what happened to her, there also would be no description of him out there, or of his truck. That was a risky and bold move on his part--Makes me wonder if he ''knew'' the right people which would ensure he wouldn't be caught, if you get my drift.

I think it's significant that he passed by woodland and bodies of water because of the fish decal. If the fish decal wasn't a ''red herring'' to distract people from his identity, then that says to me the guy was a fisherman or a woodsy type--you know, someone who is around those woody and watery areas, accustomed to that kind of environment. I do think knowing they had been spotted they would have killed her faster than they might have otherwise. If you know heat is on your tail, the longer you keep an abductee with you, the riskier it is. For all her abductors might have known, the police might have been not far from them on their tail.

If you have abducted a girl, and you know she's alerted some guy's attention to you already, and you don't know if the cops are not far behind, are you going to want to keep her alive longer? That will just amount to her maybe trying to escape, or if you're found with her or her body with you, you being caught. I think she was brought somewhere, and the abductor did what he intended to her, and then killed her very quickly after. She was probably deceased within 4 hours after Rob lost them.

Her body, if there's anything left of it, or if wasn't burned that night (Rush & Chaney's MO), is to me somewhere in the Ozarks (which are huge and full of woods, mountains and water), or in a park or somewhere. I would bet green money it's in the state. The killer/abductor was someone accustomed with the woods, with the lakes and rivers of the area.

I have a feeling she might have been knocked out or perhaps even killed right after she screamed for Rob. The perp wouldn't have liked her drawing attention to them that way. I can imagine her screaming for Rob was responded to with either a punch (to the head or face) or her mouth being covered in some way. Notice she didn't scream after that--At least, Rob didn't report hearing her scream again.

I need to get acquainted with the area to fully figure this out. I'd love if someone could post pictures of the payphone booth and the parking lot from that time--before it turned into the car dealer and the payphone boothes were removed. I want to see what the area looked like--I'd like to try and reconstruct the crime mentally and see if I can glean anything from that. I kind of feel, to be honest, a little dedicated toward seeing this one solved. I'd also like to see how active the area is at night on average. It'd help me a lot in getting a feel for this case.

What I want to know is

1) Which direction Angie saw him/them coming from when she first noticed them--Where they are coming from might help indicate where they were going to take her.
2) Her exact description of the man
3) The supposed witnesses who also saw the man and truck Angie described--Who were these witnesses, and when did they see the man? Was it prior to his abduction of Angie; if so, how long before? It would help to know if this guy was prowling the parking lot even before Angie showed up.

I also want to see a 1991 era picture of Chaney (to see if he had a beard even then), and I want to see what the payphone boothes and parking lot looked like at the time of her abduction. It's changed too much now to really recreate the scene. This is a puzzle, and I want to see those pieces.

Also, the description of the abductor seems unclear. In one source, I've heard him described as having a beard. In another source, he had a mustache. In one source, he had glasses--But it's not specified if they meant eyeglasses or sunglasses. In other source, the witnesses saw him wearing a ball cap. That indicates either inefficiency on the part of the police and/or witnesses, or that there was more than one guy--One with a beard, the other with a mustache and glasses.

The person I trust most in this case in terms of the description of the perp is Angela. We need to know the EXACT description she gave. There is no reason for her to have lied or been misled about what the man looked like, she was the closest person to him in terms of distance. Her description of the man and his vehicle needs to be made public in exact detail, as does the length of her phone call with Rob, and how long she had noticed the truck circling for. All of these would help.

And actually, it is reasonable that he could have been a local. It doesn't seem that the local PD was that efficient back then. Also, it seems a lot of guys at that time had similar trucks--Apparently, Rob's own truck was very similar to the perp's truck, for example.

Also, Rush and Chaney said they used to take their victims to a barn to rape them, and possibly kill them there--Rush in his letters said the barn had a lot of evidence that would have put him on death row before it was burnt down. I'd love if I could know where that barn was--How far it was from where Angie was abducted, and what routes from where she was abducted would have led to it quickest. However, I am still not convinced that they were the perpetrators.

But let's say Rush and Chaney did it--If you look at their MO, it seems they were getting a bit bolder from the Darby murder. With the Darby murder, they waited until she was OFF the phone to get her--The safest option. If they got Angela, in this case they didn't even wait till she was off the phone, and one of them made the snide "I didn't need to use the phone, anyway." comment.

Something I've read about thrill, lust and power oriented serial killers is that as they kill more, their fantasies (which is what drives them to murder) become more intense and it becomes like an addiction--they need to kill more often, and more brutally each time. A thrill or lust motivated serial killer needs to up the ante with each kill. Look at Jack the Ripper--with the canonical five, the murders became more and more gruesome.

Maybe Chaney was the guy who abducted her (his mugshot as you said does fit the ''bearded, filthy guy'' description, but we don't know if he had a beard in 1991), but he might have been working on this particular victim with one of the associates Rush mentioned--Parel, Cheevers, or Marshall. Like I said in an earlier post, the truck could have belonged to any of those three. I don't think Rush went along for this one.

But again, that's IF Chaney and/or were her abductors. We don't know that for certain yet

Also, when Angela's brother came here, he said he thought the killers weren't Chaney and Rush, but might have been a group of people from a county or so over who had been involved with drugs. Rush, Chaney, Marshall, Cheevers and Parel do fit that profile--They lived a few counties over and did drugs (according to Rush, the only reason why Darby was disposed of in a river and not burned was because he was "too f*cked up" to argue with his brother about it). Angie's brother be close to the truth and not even know it, and have separate people conflated with each other.

Well, Angela said they were ''circling.'' I do not think that that night was their first time in that area or county. And remember, Angie's attention wasn't totally focused on them--she was on the phone with Rob first and foremost. We don't know how long she and Rob were on the phone for before she noticed the truck. They were probably circling and getting a feel for the immediate area. They were probably circling the block to notice a few things:

1) Is there anybody around who will see me/us
2) What route will be the quickest to get back wherever we're intending to take this girl
3) What route is nearest to dump the body.

You have to try and think like a killer if you want to catch them. You know, the perp could have been in or around that parking lot LONG before Angie arrived. He could've been trucking around, looking for ''prey'' if you will and noticed her on the phone.

You know, they could've been following Angela that night before she got to the payphone. I read she was ''cruising around'' with a friend, and she dropped the friend off and then used the payphone. Who is to say they weren't following her, at a distance even, from the time she dropped the friend off? She wouldn't have noticed if they were tailing her well--She doesn't seem to have been the overly paranoid type.

After noticing her drop off her friend, he tails at a distance. He watches her stop and sees she's alone--Bingo. To ensure he's going to be successful, he circles the block to make sure she's totally alone--that there is no one out or around who will witness what he's about to do. I'm not sure on this point, since he didn't wait till she was off the phone to abduct her, which says to me he didn't care if anyone noticed.

The fact that he abducted her while she was on the phone is the strangest aspect of this to me. Had he waited till she was off the phone, he could've taken her and no one would ever have had a clue what happened to her, there also would be no description of him out there, or of his truck. That was a risky and bold move on his part--Makes me wonder if he ''knew'' the right people which would ensure he wouldn't be caught, if you get my drift.

I think it's significant that he passed by woodland and bodies of water because of the fish decal. If the fish decal wasn't a ''red herring'' to distract people from his identity, then that says to me the guy was a fisherman or a woodsy type--you know, someone who is around those woody and watery areas, accustomed to that kind of environment. I do think knowing they had been spotted they would have killed her faster than they might have otherwise. If you know heat is on your tail, the longer you keep an abductee with you, the riskier it is. For all her abductors might have known, the police might have been not far from them on their tail.

If you have abducted a girl, and you know she's alerted some guy's attention to you already, and you don't know if the cops are not far behind, are you going to want to keep her alive longer? That will just amount to her maybe trying to escape, or if you're found with her or her body with you, you being caught. I think she was brought somewhere, and the abductor did what he intended to her, and then killed her very quickly after. She was probably deceased within 4 hours after Rob lost them.

Her body, if there's anything left of it, or if wasn't burned that night (Rush & Chaney's MO), is to me somewhere in the Ozarks (which are huge and full of woods, mountains and water), or in a park or somewhere. I would bet green money it's in the state. The killer/abductor was someone accustomed with the woods, with the lakes and rivers of the area.

I have a feeling she might have been knocked out or perhaps even killed right after she screamed for Rob. The perp wouldn't have liked her drawing attention to them that way. I can imagine her screaming for Rob was responded to with either a punch (to the head or face) or her mouth being covered in some way. Notice she didn't scream after that--At least, Rob didn't report hearing her scream again.

I need to get acquainted with the area to fully figure this out. I'd love if someone could post pictures of the payphone booth and the parking lot from that time--before it turned into the car dealer and the payphone boothes were removed. I want to see what the area looked like--I'd like to try and reconstruct the crime mentally and see if I can glean anything from that. I kind of feel, to be honest, a little dedicated toward seeing this one solved. I'd also like to see how active the area is at night on average. It'd help me a lot in getting a feel for this case.

What I want to know is

1) Which direction Angie saw him/them coming from when she first noticed them--Where they are coming from might help indicate where they were going to take her.
2) Her exact description of the man
3) The supposed witnesses who also saw the man and truck Angie described--Who were these witnesses, and when did they see the man? Was it prior to his abduction of Angie; if so, how long before? It would help to know if this guy was prowling the parking lot even before Angie showed up.

I also want to see a 1991 era picture of Chaney (to see if he had a beard even then), and I want to see what the payphone boothes and parking lot looked like at the time of her abduction. It's changed too much now to really recreate the scene. This is a puzzle, and I want to see those pieces.

Also, the description of the abductor seems unclear. In one source, I've heard him described as having a beard. In another source, he had a mustache. In one source, he had glasses--But it's not specified if they meant eyeglasses or sunglasses. In other source, the witnesses saw him wearing a ball cap. That indicates either inefficiency on the part of the police and/or witnesses, or that there was more than one guy--One with a beard, the other with a mustache and glasses.

The person I trust most in this case in terms of the description of the perp is Angela. We need to know the EXACT description she gave. There is no reason for her to have lied or been misled about what the man looked like, she was the closest person to him in terms of distance. Her description of the man and his vehicle needs to be made public in exact detail, as does the length of her phone call with Rob, and how long she had noticed the truck circling for. All of these would help.

And actually, it is reasonable that he could have been a local. It doesn't seem that the local PD was that efficient back then. Also, it seems a lot of guys at that time had similar trucks--Apparently, Rob's own truck was very similar to the perp's truck, for example.

Also, Rush and Chaney said they used to take their victims to a barn to rape them, and possibly kill them there--Rush in his letters said the barn had a lot of evidence that would have put him on death row before it was burnt down. I'd love if I could know where that barn was--How far it was from where Angie was abducted, and what routes from where she was abducted would have led to it quickest. However, I am still not convinced that they were the perpetrators.

But let's say Rush and Chaney did it--If you look at their MO, it seems they were getting a bit bolder from the Darby murder. With the Darby murder, they waited until she was OFF the phone to get her--The safest option. If they got Angela, in this case they didn't even wait till she was off the phone, and one of them made the snide "I didn't need to use the phone, anyway." comment.

Something I've read about thrill, lust and power oriented serial killers is that as they kill more, their fantasies (which is what drives them to murder) become more intense and it becomes like an addiction--they need to kill more often, and more brutally each time. A thrill or lust motivated serial killer needs to up the ante with each kill. Look at Jack the Ripper--with the canonical five, the murders became more and more gruesome.

Maybe Chaney was the guy who abducted her (his mugshot as you said does fit the ''bearded, filthy guy'' description, but we don't know if he had a beard in 1991), but he might have been working on this particular victim with one of the associates Rush mentioned--Parel, Cheevers, or Marshall. Like I said in an earlier post, the truck could have belonged to any of those three. I don't think Rush went along for this one.

But again, that's IF Chaney and/or were her abductors. We don't know that for certain yet

Also, when Angela's brother came here, he said he thought the killers weren't Chaney and Rush, but might have been a group of people from a county or so over who had been involved with drugs. Rush, Chaney, Marshall, Cheevers and Parel do fit that profile--They lived a few counties over and did drugs (according to Rush, the only reason why Darby was disposed of in a river and not burned was because he was "too f*cked up" to argue with his brother about it). Angie's brother be close to the truth and not even know it, and have separate people conflated with each other.

While it could be possible the abducter was tailing her Im gonna doubt that. Remember its a small town and its late with not many people out. It would be kinda hard for this 70s model truck to be following you (even at a distance) and you not be aware.
Remember, Rob stated he was on the phone with Angie for 30 minutes so the killer had time to see her and then drive around making sure no one was around. I read one account that stated the man in the truck pulled in talked on the payphone, then left and came back. Not sure which version is accurate.

It was a local Kansas City star article where I had read about atleast two other people seeing both the man and the truck. Im sure you can find those articles with some searching. If your wanting more specific info on this case then you should contact the clinton PD and ask for copies of police reports. I doubt they have them online yet but might be worth looking into. Also with the info you are seeking on Rush and Chaney you may want to contact the Camden county courthouse as that is where the men where tried. You should be able to get entire transcripts of the trials. I would love to read all thriteen pages of writing by Jess Rush. Trooper Tommy Mays of the Missouri Highway Patrol was the investigator that made the case against Rush. So if he's still around you might want to start with him.

I also think that Kenneth McDuff should be on the suspect list. He kidnapped and killed Colleen Reed in the exact same fashion that Angela was taken. He was known to be in Missouri around this time. He has been executed so he wont be talking but he did have an accomplice that I beileve is still around.

People find it so odd this case has not been solved but consider this. Trudy Darby was on the phone with her son and spoke of a suspicous man outside her store. The son headed up there within minutes but she was gone. The police where notified immediatley but the killers where not brought to justice for three years afterwards and only because one of them bragged about it to several people. This is what will have to happen for this case to be solved. Someone in the know must talk.

Again on the subject of the killer possibly being a local. This is a small town as we all know. The people here from small towns know that everyone knows everyone or at the very least knows who everyone is. Angela did not recognize this man or his truck. Rob did not recognize the truck as belonging to anyone he knew and the two other witnesses who saw the truck did not recognize it. Thats four people in all so I serioulsy doubt that this is some good ole boy that lived in Clinton and was never noticed. I understand there was more then a few 70s model trucks on the rd in 1991 but with Fish murals in the back window?? Also it had been mentioned that the DMV and ran checks for everyone owning this style of truck and came up with about 1200 statewide. So they where looking for the truck and Im sure any local with that type of truck had been talked to.

This case sounds like one where a LOT of mistakes were made.

1) The boyfriend should have been the primary suspect in this case. Nobody witnessed her abduction.Nobody saw the car chase between him and the pickup truck. And apparently no one saw the pickup truck in question anywhere else in town.

If this had happened in a larger city w/ a more skeptical police force, he probably would have been extensively questioned after this incident and would have had to provide a more solid alibi than he did in this case.

2) The police claim that 1600 pickups matched this description. Did all 1600 have the same tire prints left when the driver stopped at the phone booth? How about the decal in the rear window? There aren't many places that do that. If it looked to a professional job, how many places in that part of the state did that kind of work?

3) Given the fact that the killer felt comfortable enough to drive around the downtown of a small town at night ( usually a location where at least one officer intermittently patrols) and was knowledgeable enough to know which streets would lead him quickly, and relatively quietly, from the area, wouldn't it be natural to assume that somebody in the town would have seen this truck at least once before?

4) Apparently there were no fingerprints on or around either phone booth. Was no DNA left on or around the scene? How about items that may have fallen out of the vehicle?

5) Why wouldn't the boyfriend either have driven down to the phone booth BEFORE the abduction or told his girlfriend to return to his house immediately?

IMHO, unless they find a body or there's a confession, this case will remained unsolved.
Why?
Because too many procedural errors have been made and too much time has passed since the disappearance.

This case sounds like one where a LOT of mistakes were made.

1) The boyfriend should have been the primary suspect in this case. Nobody witnessed her abduction.Nobody saw the car chase between him and the pickup truck. And apparently no one saw the pickup truck in question anywhere else in town.

If this had happened in a larger city w/ a more skeptical police force, he probably would have been extensively questioned after this incident and would have had to provide a more solid alibi than he did in this case.

2) The police claim that 1600 pickups matched this description. Did all 1600 have the same tire prints left when the driver stopped at the phone booth? How about the decal in the rear window? There aren't many places that do that. If it looked to a professional job, how many places in that part of the state did that kind of work?

3) Given the fact that the killer felt comfortable enough to drive around the downtown of a small town at night ( usually a location where at least one officer intermittently patrols) and was knowledgeable enough to know which streets would lead him quickly, and relatively quietly, from the area, wouldn't it be natural to assume that somebody in the town would have seen this truck at least once before?

4) Apparently there were no fingerprints on or around either phone booth. Was no DNA left on or around the scene? How about items that may have fallen out of the vehicle?

5) Why wouldn't the boyfriend either have driven down to the phone booth BEFORE the abduction or told his girlfriend to return to his house immediately?

IMHO, unless they find a body or there's a confession, this case will remained unsolved.
Why?
Because too many procedural errors have been made and too much time has passed since the disappearance.

Point 4 is the biggest one to me.
According to Angela, the guy used the phone next to her before returning to his truck. There HAD to have been prints on that goddamn phone. He picked it up, he used it, and Angela didn't say he was wearing gloves or anything--although, that is possible. You don't need even DNA evidence like blood or whatever--so long as you have prints.

And as far as a confession, I have an idea about that. These guys--at least Rush--seem to like to talk. Someone should go have a chat with them ;) or their free associates.

I want this one to be solved.

Point 4 is the biggest one to me.
According to Angela, the guy used the phone next to her before returning to his truck. There HAD to have been prints on that goddamn phone. He picked it up, he used it, and Angela didn't say he was wearing gloves or anything--although, that is possible. You don't need even DNA evidence like blood or whatever--so long as you have prints.

And as far as a confession, I have an idea about that. These guys--at least Rush--seem to like to talk. Someone should go have a chat with them ;) or their free associates.

I want this one to be solved.

Just watched the segment again.
If he DID use the phone, who did he call?
Wouldn't that have lead investigators somewhere?
And there would also be prints on the CHANGE he used?
Or DNA?

Just watched the segment again.
If he DID use the phone, who did he call?
Wouldn't that have lead investigators somewhere?
And there would also be prints on the CHANGE he used?
Or DNA?

I think he claimed the phone was broken, and when asked by Angie if he wanted to use the phone, he said he'd ''try back later.''

I don't think he actually made a call, but he did touch the phone.

I'd love to see what the booths looked like and the parking lot looked like. It's changed too much now to mentally piece it together.

And your questions about the change and DNA are good ones.
I think if you and I had been working the case in '91 we could've had it solved. Unfortunately I was still in diapers in 1991.

Also...If it's true that Angie and Rob spoke on the phone for 30 minutes, that means their conversation started at around 11:15.

I wonder at what time she first noticed the truck--even approximately. How long was it circling for before it stopped? Was it circling around the entire block or simply the parking lot.

I don't think the killer was McDuff. McDuff wasn't in MO until 1992; All of his killings were in Texas. He also didn't fit the profile (cleanshaven, not ''country'' looking) in terms of appearance.

I did read that around 127 convicted murderers were released from the Texas Prison System at the same time as McDuff, though, due to prison overcrowding.

Just watched the segment again.
If he DID use the phone, who did he call?
Wouldn't that have lead investigators somewhere?
And there would also be prints on the CHANGE he used?
Or DNA?
You cannot always lift a good finger print for starters and secondly he very well could have been wearing gloves. Also how many other fingerprints and dna do you think would have been on that phone? Alot to say the least. You have to also consider that if this was a random abduction by someone without a criminal record then what are you gonna do with fingerprints if you get them? I doubt he called anyone, Im sure its obvious that using the phone was nothing but a ploy while he planned how he was gonna get her.

This case sounds like one where a LOT of mistakes were made.

1) The boyfriend should have been the primary suspect in this case. Nobody witnessed her abduction.Nobody saw the car chase between him and the pickup truck. And apparently no one saw the pickup truck in question anywhere else in town.

If this had happened in a larger city w/ a more skeptical police force, he probably would have been extensively questioned after this incident and would have had to provide a more solid alibi than he did in this case.

2) The police claim that 1600 pickups matched this description. Did all 1600 have the same tire prints left when the driver stopped at the phone booth? How about the decal in the rear window? There aren't many places that do that. If it looked to a professional job, how many places in that part of the state did that kind of work?

3) Given the fact that the killer felt comfortable enough to drive around the downtown of a small town at night ( usually a location where at least one officer intermittently patrols) and was knowledgeable enough to know which streets would lead him quickly, and relatively quietly, from the area, wouldn't it be natural to assume that somebody in the town would have seen this truck at least once before?

4) Apparently there were no fingerprints on or around either phone booth. Was no DNA left on or around the scene? How about items that may have fallen out of the vehicle?

5) Why wouldn't the boyfriend either have driven down to the phone booth BEFORE the abduction or told his girlfriend to return to his house immediately?

IMHO, unless they find a body or there's a confession, this case will remained unsolved.
Why?
Because too many procedural errors have been made and too much time has passed since the disappearance.

1.The boyfriend was the primary suspect from the start. He was thouroghly investigated and cleared. He even passed a polygraph. There is a timeline of events and witness statements that proves he didnt have the means to pull this off. Angela Hammond's brother whom posted in this forum cited this timeline as to why his family never suspected Rob. He provided a solid alibi. Have you been following the case?

2. When they ran the check for trucks matching the description they don't get info on who has decals in the back window. There was actually alot of people doing that back then and you also have to figure the driver could have done it himself. It could have just been a large sticker. If it was an out of state truck then you can forget ever tracking it down by trying to find what shop put the decal on.

3. There was alteast two other witnesses mentioned in the Kansas city star article that had seen the truck cruising around that night.

4. There may have been fingerprints but how do you decipher them from other prints. There would be hundreds of prints on the phone. If something did fall out of the abductors vehicle then how do you know where it came from. How do you exclude it from falling from another vehicle?

5. The boyfriend was at home babysitting his younger brother. Angela did not have a phone in her house and was just calling to talk before going home and going to bed. This is why he didnt tell her to come to his house and why he didnt immediatley go down there when getting her call.

I think he claimed the phone was broken, and when asked by Angie if he wanted to use the phone, he said he'd ''try back later.''

I don't think he actually made a call, but he did touch the phone.

I'd love to see what the booths looked like and the parking lot looked like. It's changed too much now to mentally piece it together.

And your questions about the change and DNA are good ones.
I think if you and I had been working the case in '91 we could've had it solved. Unfortunately I was still in diapers in 1991.

Also...If it's true that Angie and Rob spoke on the phone for 30 minutes, that means their conversation started at around 11:15.

I wonder at what time she first noticed the truck--even approximately. How long was it circling for before it stopped? Was it circling around the entire block or simply the parking lot.

I don't think the killer was McDuff. McDuff wasn't in MO until 1992; All of his killings were in Texas. He also didn't fit the profile (cleanshaven, not ''country'' looking) in terms of appearance.

I did read that around 127 convicted murderers were released from the Texas Prison System at the same time as McDuff, though, due to prison overcrowding.

Again my advice to you would be to contact the Clinton PD and request all the police reports they have on the case. Im sure there are pictures in there of the layout right after it happened.
After watching this segment again Im leaning a little more towards there being more then one abductor. Here's why, Rob states that Angie screamed into the phone and then he hears someone calmly state " I didnt need to use the phone anyway". Now if he is trying to get a screaming, struggling grown woman into his truck how is he gonna take the time to calmly say that and hang the phone up? Sounds to me like she had her eyes on him and was suprised by someone else and as she was being drug to the truck by the accomplice then the filthy man walks over, makes that comment and hangs the phone up. Then he gets in the truck and drives while the other person keeps her subdued.

Again my advice to you would be to contact the Clinton PD and request all the police reports they have on the case. Im sure there are pictures in there of the layout right after it happened.
After watching this segment again Im leaning a little more towards there being more then one abductor. Here's why, Rob states that Angie screamed into the phone and then he hears someone calmly state " I didnt need to use the phone anyway". Now if he is trying to get a screaming, struggling grown woman into his truck how is he gonna take the time to calmly say that and hang the phone up? Sounds to me like she had her eyes on him and was suprised by someone else and as she was being drug to the truck by the accomplice then the filthy man walks over, makes that comment and hangs the phone up. Then he gets in the truck and drives while the other person keeps her subdued.

Man I wish someone had been there that night who had a gun.
Could've ended her abductors that very night and saved her life all in one shot.
This case angers me more than it upsets me, to be honest. This should not have happened. She should be alive now.

I don't think the PD would give me any information. I'm not a cop and I'm not a relative. It also might seem strange to them that someone would be requesting info after all this time.

And you're right on that, BUT
If the guy was very strong he could've grabbed her with one arm and used the phone with the other.

Also, her screaming doesn't necessarily mean he grabbed her. He could've hit her or stabbed her, and made that comment. We don't know if she wasn't physically attacked in some manner. But the two guy theory is possible, it's just:

Which direction would they have been coming from? The booths (in the UM segment) seemed to be partly see through. Let's say her back was turned to the Bearded Guy, she'd be facing the booth. The other guy couldn't come through the phone booth. You know what I'm saying? Layout wise I don't see how a second guy could've been there and not been noticed.

1.The boyfriend was the primary suspect from the start. He was thouroghly investigated and cleared. He even passed a polygraph. There is a timeline of events and witness statements that proves he didnt have the means to pull this off. Angela Hammond's brother whom posted in this forum cited this timeline as to why his family never suspected Rob. He provided a solid alibi. Have you been following the case?

2. When they ran the check for trucks matching the description they don't get info on who has decals in the back window. There was actually alot of people doing that back then and you also have to figure the driver could have done it himself. It could have just been a large sticker. If it was an out of state truck then you can forget ever tracking it down by trying to find what shop put the decal on.

3. There was alteast two other witnesses mentioned in the Kansas city star article that had seen the truck cruising around that night.

4. There may have been fingerprints but how do you decipher them from other prints. There would be hundreds of prints on the phone. If something did fall out of the abductors vehicle then how do you know where it came from. How do you exclude it from falling from another vehicle?

5. The boyfriend was at home babysitting his younger brother. Angela did not have a phone in her house and was just calling to talk before going home and going to bed. This is why he didnt tell her to come to his house and why he didnt immediatley go down there when getting her call.

1) He apparently wasn't "thoroughly investigated" as his is the only account used to detail what happened that evening. A polygraph test is worthless.Do you know where I can find this "timeline of events" and if so, who created the timeline?

And how is his alibi "solid?" His account of the story is the only one shown and it makes him look like a "hero." If other witnesses had seen the abduction, the car chase and the truck stalking the victim, then his account would be more credible.

2) I'm aware that decals aren't included w/ the vehicle information. Never said that. What I did say was the decal as described was very distinctive. The number of trucks having it would be very limited. As would the number of trucks w/ tread patterns of the tires on the truck that parked next to the phone booth.

3) Were these two witnesses unavailable to for the UM segment? Do you have a link for their accounts?

4) This is a small town. While there may be HUNDREDS of prints, most are probably not adult males that drive green late model Ford pick up trucks. And even if the prints weren't in the system (which would be unlikely given the nature of the crime) wouldn't having them on file for possible use comparison by the FBI or w/ a later suspect be advisable?

And anything on the ground at/around the crime scene is potential evidence. Anything in the immediate area of the abduction can be considered a clue. That's Crime Scene Investigation 101. You pick it up, bag it and hold it until you can exclude it.

5) The boyfriend was home babysitting his brother according to him. The brother wasn't show during the segment so it can't be determined that the brother wasn't asleep the entire time. Nor was it determined that he woke during or just after the time the "car chase" took place.

And a 1/2 hour call on a payphone to a person she just left?
Really?
And that person didn't tell her to leave the area when she grew uneasy about the strange vehicle? Or drive down to the area to check on her as it was only seven blocks away?

Had this case happened in a town or city w/ a competent police force, this case probably would have been solved many years ago.

1) He apparently wasn't "thoroughly investigated" as his is the only account used to detail what happened that evening. A polygraph test is worthless.Do you know where I can find this "timeline of events" and if so, who created the timeline?

And how is his alibi "solid?" His account of the story is the only one shown and it makes him look like a "hero." If other witnesses had seen the abduction, the car chase and the truck stalking the victim, then his account would be more credible.

2) I'm aware that decals aren't included w/ the vehicle information. Never said that. What I did say was the decal as described was very distinctive. The number of trucks having it would be very limited. As would the number of trucks w/ tread patterns of the tires on the truck that parked next to the phone booth.

3) Were these two witnesses unavailable to for the UM segment? Do you have a link for their accounts?

4) This is a small town. While there may be HUNDREDS of prints, most are probably not adult males that drive green late model Ford pick up trucks. And even if the prints weren't in the system (which would be unlikely given the nature of the crime) wouldn't having them on file for possible use comparison by the FBI or w/ a later suspect be advisable?

And anything on the ground at/around the crime scene is potential evidence. Anything in the immediate area of the abduction can be considered a clue. That's Crime Scene Investigation 101. You pick it up, bag it and hold it until you can exclude it.

5) The boyfriend was home babysitting his brother according to him. The brother wasn't show during the segment so it can't be determined that the brother wasn't asleep the entire time. Nor was it determined that he woke during or just after the time the "car chase" took place.

And a 1/2 hour call on a payphone to a person she just left?
Really?
And that person didn't tell her to leave the area when she grew uneasy about the strange vehicle? Or drive down to the area to check on her as it was only seven blocks away?

Had this case happened in a town or city w/ a competent police force, this case probably would have been solved many years ago.

I think the general consensus among not only this board, but the entire town (including law enforcement) where Angela was abducted all agree that Rob was completely innocent. Look at his reaction when he says he could have saved her. I believe I've read on this board from someone who claims to have lived in the area that it was common for the teenagers to use payphones in the area to talk to their friends. Obviously this was before cell phones, and I think the reason Rob didn't encourage her to leave was because he honestly thought the last thing this guy was going to do was abduct her. I don't see how passing a polygraph is "worthless" or else police wouldn't use them anymore. If Rob was involved somehow, how do we explain the transmission in his car faltering? That's alone is enough to convince me he was telling the truth.

Here here on your last point cocytus.
In any case, if I had a girlfriend, I'd want her to have mace or something similar, especially if she's going out at night. Of course, that's me and this isn't 1991, but still...

I don't see though what's so weird about them having a half hour phone call...Youngbirds in love.

Although, wouldn't that require a large amount of coins to have to be kept pumping in to keep the call going?

I'll put it this way:

The abductor used the payphone next to her, as well as her payphone (to make that comment about not needing to use the phone). There should have been a set of prints on least one of the two phones, unless of course the guy was wearing gloves. And if he wasn't wearing gloves, then it's likely there was two sets of identical prints on each phone, since he used both.

Even if he wasn't wearing gloves, I'm sure Angela put up a struggle--There would have been the guy's hairs (and let's say there's two of them--that doubles the chance of there being ANY sort of physical evidence) on the ground or maybe some tissue evidence if she was able to cut him and draw blood in her struggle. Not only that, but even just from him walking back and forth, from his truck to the phone repeatedly--Surely a hair or something would drop on the ground

There has to have been some sort of physical evidence. Even if the guy wasn't in the criminal system in 1991, there had to be some even minor physical evidence left at the scene.

Plus, the tire marks that you mentioned. Rob indicates this was a high speed chance, and surely when the abductor sped out of the parking lot there had to be some sort of tire marks left.

5) The boyfriend was home babysitting his brother according to him. The brother wasn't show during the segment so it can't be determined that the brother wasn't asleep the entire time. Nor was it determined that he woke during or just after the time the "car chase" took place.

I'm not sure how old Rob's brother was when this all took place. Rob was still a very young guy (19 or 20 years old, I think) when he was interviewed for UM. It could possibly be that the brother was thoroughly questioned by police, but due to his young age, his parents didn't want him to endure the stress of appearing on TV.

If the brother was asleep during the phone call and car chase (or even if he was awake for all or part of the time), he may have had no important information to give UM, so he wasn't interviewed. Maybe they wanted to use their air time getting information from the guy who was actually talking to Angela and chasing the truck. Interviewing a little brother who may have been left home or sleeping during all this will not make for good tv.

And a 1/2 hour call on a payphone to a person she just left?
Really?

Given their situation, I don't think this is odd. When I was in high school, my boyfriend had to go home from our date to babysit his little brothers while their parents went out for the night. The rule in their house was that no visitors were allowed while he was babysitting, but he could talk on the phone, which we did. I can see Rob's family having a similar rule. It can be distracting for a teenage boy to have his girlfriend over late at night while he's supposed to be focused on taking care of his little brother.

And that person didn't tell her to leave the area when she grew uneasy about the strange vehicle? Or drive down to the area to check on her as it was only seven blocks away?

Best I can recall, Rob asked Angela if he should come down there or if the stranger posed a threat, but she said that it would be alright and not to come down to the phones. It appears that they discussed the situation but underestimated how much danger Angela was actually in. They lived in a small town, so it's possible that they felt very safe and didn't expect a crazy kidnapper to be roaming their streets.

Plus, you have to remember, Angela was an adult. Rob wasn't even married to her. She was her own woman. Rob couldn't order her to go somewhere or tell her to do something she didn't want to do. Obviously, it was a terrible mistake for her not to leave, but Angela felt safe enough to stay where she was.

I was thinking more about this, and wanted to add a couple things.

In any other circumstance, I would think that the boyfriend was most likely responsible. I think there are studies showing the number one killer of pregnant women is the child's father. Back when this happened, I'm not sure if the public knew the statistics, but the cops probably did. (And that's probably one reason UM didn't reveal the pregnancy during their segment.)

Rob (Angela's boyfriend and father of the baby) was considered the top suspect. The police eventually cleared him and don't think he's involved. Nearly 2 decades later, Angela's family still believe in Rob's innocence, as they've stated here. They've had many years to think about the specifics of this case and they know more about the details than we'll ever know. They feel confident that Rob's not involved.

So, after years of careful condsideration, neither the police nor Angela's family consider him a suspect. That's definitely enough for me to be certain of it, too, and to move on to discuss other possibilities.

I think the general consensus among not only this board, but the entire town (including law enforcement) where Angela was abducted all agree that Rob was completely innocent. Look at his reaction when he says he could have saved her. I believe I've read on this board from someone who claims to have lived in the area that it was common for the teenagers to use payphones in the area to talk to their friends. Obviously this was before cell phones, and I think the reason Rob didn't encourage her to leave was because he honestly thought the last thing this guy was going to do was abduct her. I don't see how passing a polygraph is "worthless" or else police wouldn't use them anymore. If Rob was involved somehow, how do we explain the transmission in his car faltering? That's alone is enough to convince me he was telling the truth.

1) The payphone isn't the issue. The length of the call is. Unless she had done this before, I'd have to say that this was very unusual. Especially since she had JUST seen him an hour or so earlier. If she wasn't in the habit of making long late night phone calls why did she pick this ight to do it?

2) Polygraphs are worthless. They can't be used as evidence in court and they a notoriously unreliable when used to question suspects. Do you know why the police use a polygraph? When they confront a suspect w/ the fact that they "failed" the test, the suspect usually confesses. If the suspect doesn't confess and the test shows "no deceit" then the polygraph (if it worked) should exonerate them, shouldn't it? It doesn't....so polygraph tests are worthless.

3) Was the transmission failing BEFORE the "car chase" occurred? That was never mentioned in the segment. Also, even if it did fail,what does that mean? That the chase that nobody heard nor saw took place?

Again, in a larger city w/ a more competent police force, it's likely that the boyfriend's story would be questioned in greater detail and that this case would have been solved before now.

1) The payphone isn't the issue. The length of the call is. Unless she had done this before, I'd have to say that this was very unusual. Especially since she had JUST seen him an hour or so earlier. If she wasn't in the habit of making long late night phone calls why did she pick this ight to do it?

2) Polygraphs are worthless. They can't be used as evidence in court and they a notoriously unreliable when used to question suspects. Do you know why the police use a polygraph? When they confront a suspect w/ the fact that they "failed" the test, the suspect usually confesses. If the suspect doesn't confess and the test shows "no deceit" then the polygraph (if it worked) should exonerate them, shouldn't it? It doesn't....so polygraph tests are worthless.

3) Was the transmission failing BEFORE the "car chase" occurred? That was never mentioned in the segment. Also, even if it did fail,what does that mean? That the chase that nobody heard nor saw took place?

Again, in a larger city w/ a more competent police force, it's likely that the boyfriend's story would be questioned in greater detail and that this case would have been solved before now.

Focusing on Rob and arguing over him distracts away from attention which could be focused on the real abductors/killers.

It's pretty obvious he didn't do it, at least to me. There was a whole network of serial killers operating just in Missouri at the time. There were probably a dozen or more serial killers in that corridor of the country (Kansa, Missouri, etc) at that particular period.

I'd say the odds, sadly, favor Angela being in the wrong place at the wrong time and falling victim to one of these sickos. And that's what we should be focusing on if we ever want to see her get justice, or at least her remains be recovered and given a proper burial.

If someone passes a polygraph it tends to take the focus away from them in an investigation. That coupled with the account Rob gave (pretty detailed account if he were making it all up) is what cleared him as a suspect, IMO.

1) The payphone isn't the issue. The length of the call is. Unless she had done this before, I'd have to say that this was very unusual. Especially since she had JUST seen him an hour or so earlier. If she wasn't in the habit of making long late night phone calls why did she pick this ight to do it?

2) Polygraphs are worthless. They can't be used as evidence in court and they a notoriously unreliable when used to question suspects. Do you know why the police use a polygraph? When they confront a suspect w/ the fact that they "failed" the test, the suspect usually confesses. If the suspect doesn't confess and the test shows "no deceit" then the polygraph (if it worked) should exonerate them, shouldn't it? It doesn't....so polygraph tests are worthless.

3) Was the transmission failing BEFORE the "car chase" occurred? That was never mentioned in the segment. Also, even if it did fail,what does that mean? That the chase that nobody heard nor saw took place?

Again, in a larger city w/ a more competent police force, it's likely that the boyfriend's story would be questioned in greater detail and that this case would have been solved before now.

First off this thread goes back nearly 6 years. There is a wealth of information in it if you go back and do some reading. Lets recap why Rob is innocent and get you up to speed here.

Angela and Rob where at a bbq together. Sometime before 10pm Angela dropped Rob off at his house because he had agreed to babysit his younger brother while his mom was out.

Angela left Rob to go visit a friend named Kayla. Kayla's last name escapes me but it is mentioned in this forum. The plan was that when Rob's mother returned home he was going to meet up with Angela uptown. So, around 11pm Angela drops Kayla off at her home and goes to the payphone to call Rob and see if his mother has retured and if he's coming to meet her.

Rob informs her his mother has not returned and he cannot leave yet so she continues talking to him on the phone. Obviously you know what happens next. Angela mentions that the green truck has circled the block and his now pulling up near the phones and gives Rob the description of the man.

This was not odd as it was late at night and it was someone in a small town that she did not recognize. Rob hears her scream and heads down to the phone booth. He passes the truck and turns around and chases it for a few blocks but transmission gives out.

Now you have mentioned about a chase no one heard. Lets look at why that is. If you re watch this segment you will see that the chase took place right in the main part of town. There are no homes in this area, only businesses which by the way where all closed at that time of night. So there was no one there to witness the chase and Im sure you can imagine that this late at night on a weekday most people are in bed.

You also ask about when his transmission was damaged. Well the segment clearly states that he damaged his transmission when throwing his vehicle into reverse when he was trying to get turned around to chase the truck.

Angela's friend Kayla was talked to by police and her's and Rob's stories fit together perfectly. This is why Rob simply didnt have the time or means to have done this and gotten away with it. I dont understand why you keep saying his story should have been questioned alot more. Have you seen the police reports? Do you actually know to what extent he was questioned? I can gaurantee you that before he was hooked up to the polygraph machine he was extensively questioned. He was treated as a suspect in the beginning and was cleared.

Man I wish someone had been there that night who had a gun.
Could've ended her abductors that very night and saved her life all in one shot.
This case angers me more than it upsets me, to be honest. This should not have happened. She should be alive now.

I don't think the PD would give me any information. I'm not a cop and I'm not a relative. It also might seem strange to them that someone would be requesting info after all this time.

And you're right on that, BUT
If the guy was very strong he could've grabbed her with one arm and used the phone with the other.

Also, her screaming doesn't necessarily mean he grabbed her. He could've hit her or stabbed her, and made that comment. We don't know if she wasn't physically attacked in some manner. But the two guy theory is possible, it's just:

Which direction would they have been coming from? The booths (in the UM segment) seemed to be partly see through. Let's say her back was turned to the Bearded Guy, she'd be facing the booth. The other guy couldn't come through the phone booth. You know what I'm saying? Layout wise I don't see how a second guy could've been there and not been noticed.

The police reports or generally public information and you have the right to request them. Private investigators do it all the time. Unless there was a minor involed you can request the info. You can always say you are an amaturer investigator and looking to claim the reward money.

About the layout.... If you type Angela Hammond into youtube you will see a story from our local news where you will see some brief shots of what the area looked like in 91.

On the two guy theory, I suggest you watch the segment again. Angela was in the booth and appears to be looking to her right side at the man who is looking around in the truck. The other attacker could have been dropped off when he was circling and walked up on her other side. The man could have been fumbling around in the truck while the other one made his approach. Think about this, Angela had last stated the man was in the truck looking for something, then she screams. She never said "hes coming back over here" or here he comes again".

I also dont think this guy put alot of thought into what he was doing or planned this out to a tee. If he was smart he would not have grabbed a girl who was on the phone nor woud he be kidnapping anyone in a vehilce with this distinctive mural in the back window. He just got very lucky. My guess is he was out looking for a woman working alone in a convienance store much like Darby and Kenny. When he found no situations like that, he then came upon Angela and decided to grab her.

The police reports or generally public information and you have the right to request them. Private investigators do it all the time. Unless there was a minor involed you can request the info. You can always say you are an amaturer investigator and looking to claim the reward money.

About the layout.... If you type Angela Hammond into youtube you will see a story from our local news where you will see some brief shots of what the area looked like in 91.

On the two guy theory, I suggest you watch the segment again. Angela was in the booth and appears to be looking to her right side at the man who is looking around in the truck. The other attacker could have been dropped off when he was circling and walked up on her other side. The man could have been fumbling around in the truck while the other one made his approach. Think about this, Angela had last stated the man was in the truck looking for something, then she screams. She never said "hes coming back over here" or here he comes again".

I also dont think this guy put alot of thought into what he was doing or planned this out to a tee. If he was smart he would not have grabbed a girl who was on the phone nor woud he be kidnapping anyone in a vehilce with this distinctive mural in the back window. He just got very lucky. My guess is he was out looking for a woman working alone in a convienance store much like Darby and Kenny. When he found no situations like that, he then came upon Angela and decided to grab her.

I suppose.
I hope he's found someday.

First off this thread goes back nearly 6 years. There is a wealth of information in it if you go back and do some reading. Lets recap why Rob is innocent and get you up to speed here.

Angela and Rob where at a bbq together. Sometime before 10pm Angela dropped Rob off at his house because he had agreed to babysit his younger brother while his mom was out.

Angela left Rob to go visit a friend named Kayla. Kayla's last name escapes me but it is mentioned in this forum. The plan was that when Rob's mother returned home he was going to meet up with Angela uptown. So, around 11pm Angela drops Kayla off at her home and goes to the payphone to call Rob and see if his mother has retured and if he's coming to meet her.

Rob informs her his mother has not returned and he cannot leave yet so she continues talking to him on the phone. Obviously you know what happens next. Angela mentions that the green truck has circled the block and his now pulling up near the phones and gives Rob the description of the man.

This was not odd as it was late at night and it was someone in a small town that she did not recognize. Rob hears her scream and heads down to the phone booth. He passes the truck and turns around and chases it for a few blocks but transmission gives out.

Now you have mentioned about a chase no one heard. Lets look at why that is. If you re watch this segment you will see that the chase took place right in the main part of town. There are no homes in this area, only businesses which by the way where all closed at that time of night. So there was no one there to witness the chase and Im sure you can imagine that this late at night on a weekday most people are in bed.

You also ask about when his transmission was damaged. Well the segment clearly states that he damaged his transmission when throwing his vehicle into reverse when he was trying to get turned around to chase the truck.

Angela's friend Kayla was talked to by police and her's and Rob's stories fit together perfectly. This is why Rob simply didnt have the time or means to have done this and gotten away with it. I dont understand why you keep saying his story should have been questioned alot more. Have you seen the police reports? Do you actually know to what extent he was questioned? I can gaurantee you that before he was hooked up to the polygraph machine he was extensively questioned. He was treated as a suspect in the beginning and was cleared.

it makes no sense to clear any one of a crime, until you have found the actual perpetrators. how many times in the past has a person been cleared by the authorities and then later was found to have committed the crime?

The reason that I have issues with the boyfriend story is because as it's presented it doesn't make that much sense. How was the driver of the truck able to restrain the girl drive the truck and avoid me a car that was chasing him? How was it that the boyfriend was able to locate the exact truck going in the exact direction necessary for him to intercepted it?

You did state correctly that this all took place in the downtown area. However I have never been to a downtown of any size that didn't have homes very near the center of town. No one in those homes heard a high-speed car chase down the streets at 11 to 12 o'clock at night?

And the transmission could have been damaged in advance. Or when the boyfriend was disposing of the body and then it just failed at the location that it did.

The boyfriend was very popular athlete locally and he was also a popular kid in school. The police would've been very hard pressed at that time to keep him as a suspect for those facts alone. Given that it was a small town, it's also likely that social pressures prevented this from being seen as something someone local could do.

it makes no sense to clear any one of a crime, until you have found the actual perpetrators. how many times in the past has a person been cleared by the authorities and then later was found to have committed the crime?

The reason that I have issues with the boyfriend story is because as it's presented it doesn't make that much sense. How was the driver of the truck able to restrain the girl drive the truck and avoid me a car that was chasing him? How was it that the boyfriend was able to locate the exact truck going in the exact direction necessary for him to intercepted it?

You did state correctly that this all took place in the downtown area. However I have never been to a downtown of any size that didn't have homes very near the center of town. No one in those homes heard a high-speed car chase down the streets at 11 to 12 o'clock at night?

And the transmission could have been damaged in advance. Or when the boyfriend was disposing of the body and then it just failed at the location that it did.

The boyfriend was very popular athlete locally and he was also a popular kid in school. The police would've been very hard pressed at that time to keep him as a suspect for those facts alone. Given that it was a small town, it's also likely that social pressures prevented this from being seen as something someone local could do.

What does clear him really mean? Its not like if evidence he was involved surfaced that they wouldnt still charge him. It just means they arent focusing on him because his story checks out and there is no evidence linking him to it.

How was the driver able to restrain the girl? Well my thoughts are there was more then one abductor. However she did state he was a large man and Angela was barely 5ft tall and probably weighed less then 130lbs so it is possible he could have muscled her into the truck. We just dont have that information unless the killer is found.

How was it Rob was able to intercept the truck? Well Rob knew exactly where Angela was. He lived 7 blocks from the payphones. He drove down when he heard her scream and the truck drove past him. I dont see that as some miracle coincidence.

No one in the homes heard the chase? How do we know that? It wasnt mentioned in the segment but that doesnt mean its not in the police reports somewhere. And when you look at the area there where no homes around where she was taken or where Rob turned around. This is where the sounds of screeching tires would have been heard and there are no homes around there.

I guess Robs transmission could have been damaged earlier but that would be pure speculation. If he did damage it somewhere else how in the world did he get it back to being in the middle of the street in the downtown area??

Here's what we know.......

Kayla told police she was with Angela up until 11pm. The next thing we know for sure is that Rob was contacting Police around midnight with the story of her being abducted. This means that if he indeed killed her that he had one hour to get it done AND conceal her body where it would never be found AND clean up all blood or any type of evidence of a struggle then park his car with damaged transmission in the middle of downtown and then go alert police with this story he just fabricated. All this had to be done in less then an hour and his brother would have to lie for him. Keep in mind that the police did state to a reporter that atleast two other witnesses claimed to have seen the truck in the area that night. Now do you see why he was cleared?

I've always thought her abducter was armed with at least a knife. That and the fact that Angela wasn't very big physically is the reason why she was so easily subdued. I'm sure Rob's car was found broke down in the town, a pretty elaborate plot to pull off if he were being deceitful.

I think there are many different possible reasons why Angela couldn't get out of the truck while she was being abducted.

She was a small woman. The guy could have just overpowered her and restrained her. I'm quite a big larger than Angela. I'm 5'6 and my husband is 5' 10" (not a really big guy at all). We've just been horsing around wrasslin and stuff (lol) and my husband can actually grab both my wrists in just one of his hands and hold them securely. I can't get free, although we're not really fighting, so I don't try to hurt him to force him to release my wrists. It was really shocking for me to realize how much more strength men can have.

I remember reading about at least one case where a guy already had handcuffs hooked up on the passenger side of the car so that when he abducted his victim, he only had to get the cuffs on her and she would be trapped, tied to the vehicle.

Others have removed the door handle from the passenger door in preparation for a kidnapping. (I think maybe Ted Bundy was one who did this.) That makes it just about impossible for a panicking victim to get out of the vehicle.

The victim wouldn't be familiar with the interior of the car and in Angela's case, it was late at night. (Think of the times you've been in a friend's car or borrowed or rented a car that you're not familiar with, and then you try to find the handle or window buttons in the dark. Sometimes it takes a bit of searching.) I think it would be hard for her to find the handle in the dark, and just about impossible to escape if the handle was removed.

He also could have been holding a weapon on her. Many people cooperate or are immobilized with fear when someone is pointing a gun at them.

I think there are many different possible reasons why Angela couldn't get out of the truck while she was being abducted.

She was a small woman. The guy could have just overpowered her and restrained her. I'm quite a big larger than Angela. I'm 5'6 and my husband is 5' 10" (not a really big guy at all). We've just been horsing around wrasslin and stuff (lol) and my husband can actually grab both my wrists in just one of his hands and hold them securely. I can't get free, although we're not really fighting, so I don't try to hurt him to force him to release my wrists. It was really shocking for me to realize how much more strength men can have.

I remember reading about at least one case where a guy already had handcuffs hooked up on the passenger side of the car so that when he abducted his victim, he only had to get the cuffs on her and she would be trapped, tied to the vehicle.

Others have removed the door handle from the passenger door in preparation for a kidnapping. (I think maybe Ted Bundy was one who did this.) That makes it just about impossible for a panicking victim to get out of the vehicle.

The victim wouldn't be familiar with the interior of the car and in Angela's case, it was late at night. (Think of the times you've been in a friend's car or borrowed or rented a car that you're not familiar with, and then you try to find the handle or window buttons in the dark. Sometimes it takes a bit of searching.) I think it would be hard for her to find the handle in the dark, and just about impossible to escape if the handle was removed.

He also could have been holding a weapon on her. Many people cooperate or are immobilized with fear when someone is pointing a gun at them.

You have to take into account that this man was able to get her into the truck really fast. This is one of the main reasons I think there was two abductors. By the time Rob got in his car and drove 7 blocks the abductor already had her in the car and had driven down the street. Now I know that if Im in a big hurry like Rob was I can drive 7 blocks in about a minute or less. Im sure Rob was traveling at a high rate of speed so you can imagine just how fast this man would have been able to get this screaming, struggling woman into the truck and drive away.

If he had a gun on her and had her immobilized like you say then you have to wonder how she screamed for Rob when he drove by. Obviously she wasnt too subdued at that point.

I'm starting to agree with the two man theory.
We need to somehow figure out who they were.

I'm starting to agree with the two man theory.
We need to somehow figure out who they were.
Well yes that would be nice but really not possible. There really is no clues that are out there at the moment that are going to lead us to the identity of the person that did this. I think Jess and Marvin are strong suspects but for some reason it seems the police dont.

I did find one promising tid bit that I had overlooked before. During the broadcast on our local news station about this case which aired over a year ago the reporter stated that police where able to rule out the three cases as being related. Now maybe this means they throughougly checked out Chaney and Rush etc and no for sure it was not them. But with no suspect in the kidnapping of Cheryl Kenny how can they rule out that it is not related??

The only way they could is if they know exactly who took Angela but don't quite have enough evidence to file charges. This may be where the dna evidence is coming in and will be used. Only time will tell and all we can do is hope.

I saw a thing about the VT/NH serial murders of the 70s through late 80s...I was wondering if any of you guys think could his psychological profile be the same as Angela's abductor?

I saw a thing about the VT/NH serial murders of the 70s through late 80s...I was wondering if any of you guys think could his psychological profile be the same as Angela's abductor?

Anything is possible but with a known serial killer its easier to build a profile because you can see his habits in multiple killings. With Angela's case we have one abduction we know of for sure. Its impossible to build much of a profile based on the glimpse of this guy that we have.

We obviously know that he was not an intelligent calculating type killer like say Ted Bundy. If he was the type that planned things out to a tee to reduce his chances of being caught then obviously he wouldnt abduct someone on the phone nor would he be using a vehilce with a mural in the back window which makes him much more obvious. This seems to be a guy who has the uncontrolable urge to rape and murder women. With his habits I would bet he's been picked up for a similar crime somewhere else and is either locked up or dead.

Anything is possible but with a known serial killer its easier to build a profile because you can see his habits in multiple killings. With Angela's case we have one abduction we know of for sure. Its impossible to build much of a profile based on the glimpse of this guy that we have.

We obviously know that he was not an intelligent calculating type killer like say Ted Bundy. If he was the type that planned things out to a tee to reduce his chances of being caught then obviously he wouldnt abduct someone on the phone nor would he be using a vehilce with a mural in the back window which makes him much more obvious. This seems to be a guy who has the uncontrolable urge to rape and murder women. With his habits I would bet he's been picked up for a similar crime somewhere else and is either locked up or dead.

I don't know about a similar crime, but he could have been picked up on something petty since 1991--A robbery of some sort, I would imagine. But that doesn't mean he's still in the can, which is what's important.

As for being dead, I don't know--These killers seem to get way too lucky for that.

In either case, it'd be nice to know his identity either way.

Focusing on Rob and arguing over him distracts away from attention which could be focused on the real abductors/killers.

It's pretty obvious he didn't do it, at least to me. There was a whole network of serial killers operating just in Missouri at the time. There were probably a dozen or more serial killers in that corridor of the country (Kansa, Missouri, etc) at that particular period.

I'd say the odds, sadly, favor Angela being in the wrong place at the wrong time and falling victim to one of these sickos. And that's what we should be focusing on if we ever want to see her get justice, or at least her remains be recovered and given a proper burial.

Rob is the focus of the case,if for no other reason than his account of what happened is the only reason that this considered to be an abduction and not a simple adult disappearance (e.g. she was unhappy and left the area)

Are you following me on this: Unless Rob hadn't given the only account of what happened (a narrative,by the way, in which he is the "hero") no one would have even suspected that this was even a "kidnapping." His account has shaped this entire investigation and that's Bad Police Work 101.


The truck search produced zero leads. Any physical evidence found at the scene hasn't produced any solid leads. No one has admitted to committing this crime and apparently no one has been told a story about it and reported that story to authorities.

No eyewitnesses (except Rob). Not much, if any, physical evidence.No vehicle. No body. No one confessing to a crime. No apparently telling tales of this crime.

Concentrating on imaginary "serial killers" is a greater waste of time as that has produced nothing in the way of useful information or leads. Nothing.


This case needs an immediate rethink. All of the available evidence,including anything related to her boyfriend should be assembled and gone over by new eyes. That's the ONLY way (unless there's a confession) that this case will be solved.

Rob is the focus of the case,if for no other reason than his account of what happened is the only reason that this considered to be an abduction and not a simple adult disappearance (e.g. she was unhappy and left the area)

Are you following me on this: Unless Rob hadn't given the only account of what happened (a narrative,by the way, in which he is the "hero") no one would have even suspected that this was even a "kidnapping." His account has shaped this entire investigation and that's Bad Police Work 101.


The truck search produced zero leads. Any physical evidence found at the scene hasn't produced any solid leads. No one has admitted to committing this crime and apparently no one has been told a story about it and reported that story to authorities.

No eyewitnesses (except Rob). Not much, if any, physical evidence.No vehicle. No body. No one confessing to a crime. No apparently telling tales of this crime.

Concentrating on imaginary "serial killers" is a greater waste of time as that has produced nothing in the way of useful information or leads. Nothing.


This case needs an immediate rethink. All of the available evidence,including anything related to her boyfriend should be assembled and gone over by new eyes. That's the ONLY way (unless there's a confession) that this case will be solved.

While I agree with you on the fact that Rob is the only source for her being abducted, I think we should stop focusing on Rob. He's been cleared. Even her family believes him to be innocent. I don't see any reason for her family to feel he was innocent unless they just KNOW it.

Remember, her family knew Angie, and Rob. We don't. We don't know what Rob is like, or even what Angie was like. We don't know what Angie's homelife was like, or Rob's. We don't know how they met, how long they were together until she got pregnant, or anything. We don't know what her dreams were, or what her personality was like. But her brother seems to be very loving and still hasn't given up on his sister to this day, and that says to me that he at the very least is a good person. IMO, Rob and Angie probably were a happy couple in love. Sure, there's a possibility that they weren't truly happy--Maybe Rob saw his imminent fatherhood as being a threat to his dreams of a military career, or maybe Angie hated her homelife or the fact that she was 20 and pregnant which might've dashed whatever her dreams were, but I don't think so. I think they were a happy couple in love and that Rob's story is true. And I think it's hurtful after all this time to still point fingers at Rob.

I'm sure he felt very guilty and blamed himself for it anyway, and I'm sure in their small town, the finger of blame was pointed at him for years--Let's give the guy a break. He lost his girlfriend and his child all in one sudden, fell swoop. I guarantee you he probably hasn't gotten fully over it even now.

Yes, there is motive for Angie to want to disappear, or Rob to want to kill her, and I bet you green money that those avenues were looked into in 1991 and probably still go through the family's minds when they think of her. The fact is: If Angie ran away, SOMEONE would have seen or heard from her by now.

As to what you mention about the truck and evidence...

1) They only focused on the trucks in the state not in any other state. The abductor could have come from another state; thus his truck wouldn't have been found. For all we know, her abductor came from Kansas or Indiana or someplace like that and was passing through. Thus, his truck would have evaded detection in their small scope search for the truck. Also, for all we know they might have only focused on Ford Pickups. What if Rob and/or Angie got it wrong and his truck was a 1970 Chevy Pick up? Then he evaded being found by that way. We don't know how wide their investigation into the pick up was--What makes of Pick ups and what model years did they investigate?

Plus you have to figure that the guy might have successfully lived "off the grid." In 1991 and even today if you're savvy enough, living off the grid is very possible. Living off the record.

2) The guy driving the truck who abducted her doesn't necessarily have to have owned the truck, and maybe those truck owners who were investigated either didn't have police records or didn't fit the appearance mentioned by Angie/Rob. The guy could have been borrowing the truck from a friend who had no record.

Let's say he did own the truck. Knowing he might have just narrowly avoided capture that night would have led to him cleaning out the truck and getting it painted a different color and removing the decal. There are shady people who would do all of this ''off the record'' and someone like her abductor would probably know shady people. The truck would then look totally different from what Rob described.

Also, I would bet you that she wasn't killed in the truck, which would remove further physical evidence of her in the truck.

3) There wouldn't be THAT much physical evidence. The guy grabbed her and pulled her into a truck which was only a few feet at most away from the phone boothe. There might be some minor evidence like fingerprints, hair, and MAYBE blood, but there's also the possibility that her abductor isn't in the police system and thus his fingerprints and DNA wouldn't match anyone that the cops know of.

4) If you were a serial killer and have evaded justice since 1991, what would make you confess now in 2010? If he's out there he's laughing his ass off that he still hasn't be caught. No criminal is going to confess to something as big as an abduction and probable murder unless they have been caught with something bigger. If the guy is in jail now, I would guarantee you it's for something less than murder, and he isn't going to cop to murdering someone--Why would he? That would be just more time in jail.

Look at Oba Chandler. It's clear as a summer day that he murdered the Rogers women; He was convicted and is on death row and yet STILL denies doing it.

These guys don't admit to what they do. You have to remember serial abductors/rapists aren't on the same plane as you and I are. They don't have a conscience. To them, a woman like Angela was just an object--a good grab. They don't have empathy or view their victims as being human beings with loved ones, hopes, fears and feelings, only as useful objects to fulfill their desires or fantasies.

3) The reason there's no body is 1) The abductor/murderer could have disposed of it very, very well--Burned it, buried it, dumped it in a river, did a variation of the "Gemini Method" (look that one up if you have a strong stomach), or any number of ways which would ensure that the body wouldn't be found. Look at all the Mafia hits. Some of those go back to the '60s and '70s and their bodies STILL haven't been found. Also, as another person said, by now the bones if any would've been scattered.

There is the very small possibility that she isn't in fact dead, but being held in some form of slavery. But that is VERY doubtful since it's been 19 years. A grown woman would've tried to escape by now. Maybe she did survive past that night and was held in slavery and tried to escape and was killed then, but given the profile of her disappearance, it's doubtful.

So, yes, we only have Rob's story to go on. But I'm inclined to believe his story. There is NO WAY Rob, at 18, could have killed her, intentionally destroyed his car's transmission, dumped her body in such a way that it hasn't been found in nearly 20 years, and gotten to the police station all in just around an hour. She was confirmed alive as of 11:00pm or so because she was out driving with her friend and dropped her off. Rob arrived at the police station at 12pm. That gives Rob only an hour to do all of that by himself.

The only way that works is if Rob HIRED someone to do it for him, or had a friend help him, and I doubt that very, very much.

Rob's story is true.

Now, can we do Angie a service and get back to trying to figure out who abducted and probably murdered her and her baby? That's what's really important here. Discussing Rob over and over just takes away time and energy which could and should be devoted toward finding out who the bearded creep in the pick up was.

Beating a dead horse, CuriousMind. Cocytus is certain Rob's the killer, and no amount of talk will change that belief. It's just like Onlooker and the other one (name escapes me, right now. I could look back, but who cares?) who were certain of Rob's guilt. The last sentence of Cocytus's last post confirms this. It basically says "Rob is guilty, and the only way we'll ever see this solved is is someone finally stops looking elsewhere and charges Rob." Not a lot of grey area or room for persuasion, there.

Beating a dead horse, CuriousMind. Cocytus is certain Rob's the killer, and no amount of talk will change that belief. It's just like Onlooker and the other one (name escapes me, right now. I could look back, but who cares?) who were certain of Rob's guilt. The last sentence of Cocytus's last post confirms this. It basically says "Rob is guilty, and the only way we'll ever see this solved is is someone finally stops looking elsewhere and charges Rob." Not a lot of grey area or room for persuasion, there.

I'm not "certain" that Rob is the killer. I do think that his story has a number of inconsistencies and should be examined more closely,perhaps by an unbiased outside agency. There was no need to "clear" him until they were able to develop an alternate theory of the crime or evidence that pointed the investigation in another direction.

After this length of time,SOMETHING else should have come out on this case. If there was another person involved, something else should have pointed in that direction. Besides Rob's narrative. Anything....

For those that state that "even her family thinks he didn't do it" I have two words: Stephen Marfeo. His wife Doreen Marfeo went missing and even HER family didn't think that he "did it."

Nine years after she went missing and six years after the segment aired on UM, Stephen Marfeo shot and killed his ex-girlfriend and wounded her then boyfriend. He then killed himself after writing a note stating that while he didn't kill his wife, her disappearance left him a "shell of a man."

My point is....anything is possible.

By this point, something should have come out? If you have the time, I could give you an endless string of cases in which something should've come out, by now, but hasn't. And, by that same logic, if Rob was involved, there should've been proof that has come out. But nothing has, aside from his being the last person to see her alive. If that were enough to charge someone, then prisons would be full of innocent people. Being that this was an apparent kidnapping, FBI would've been involved. Is that not an unbiased, outside agency?

As for Marfeo, just because Marfeo was guilty of it, does not mean that every person who is thought of as someone who "could never harm her/him/them" is a potential murderer/murderess.

By this point, something should have come out? If you have the time, I could give you an endless string of cases in which something should've come out, by now, but hasn't. And, by that same logic, if Rob was involved, there should've been proof that has come out. But nothing has, aside from his being the last person to see her alive. If that were enough to charge someone, then prisons would be full of innocent people. Being that this was an apparent kidnapping, FBI would've been involved. Is that not an unbiased, outside agency?

As for Marfeo, just because Marfeo was guilty of it, does not mean that every person who is thought of as someone who "could never harm her/him/them" is a potential murderer/murderess.

1) Rob's narrative actually works to protect him. It focuses all of the attention away from him and on an unknown "green pickup truck driver." The police (especially in a small town) have limited resources, as well as a limited talent pool. If Rob's story varied little each time he told it, they'd have little choice but to look in other areas.

If they have "cleared" him, if he was involved (again IF) then he's had a number of years to get rid of evidence and perfect his "story." At this point, there's no benefit for him to "come clean" as he has been cleared by the authorities and they have shown a distinct inability to connect him to this crime.

Did the FBI get involved here? If they did, what were their findings? That information is noticeably absent from the segment. Did the FBI clear anybody involved in this case?

I mentioned Marfeo because someone had brought up Rob's support from the victim's family. The family is often confused and griefstricken when something like this happens and that can cloud their decision-making processes. And frankly, the victim's family aren't in the socioeconomic strata as Rob's (one hint: They had no phone in their home) and in a small town there's little "benefit" to be derived from starting a potential feud w/ groups in social levels above your own.

That means that they may accept Rob's story on a "social level" but may not do the same on a personal one.

1) Rob's narrative actually works to protect him. It focuses all of the attention away from him and on an unknown "green pickup truck driver." The police (especially in a small town) have limited resources, as well as a limited talent pool. If Rob's story varied little each time he told it, they'd have little choice but to look in other areas.

If they have "cleared" him, if he was involved (again IF) then he's had a number of years to get rid of evidence and perfect his "story." At this point, there's no benefit for him to "come clean" as he has been cleared by the authorities and they have shown a distinct inability to connect him to this crime.

Did the FBI get involved here? If they did, what were their findings? That information is noticeably absent from the segment. Did the FBI clear anybody involved in this case?

I mentioned Marfeo because someone had brought up Rob's support from the victim's family. The family is often confused and griefstricken when something like this happens and that can cloud their decision-making processes. And frankly, the victim's family aren't in the socioeconomic strata as Rob's (one hint: They had no phone in their home) and in a small town there's little "benefit" to be derived from starting a potential feud w/ groups in social levels above your own.

That means that they may accept Rob's story on a "social level" but may not do the same on a personal one.

Ok, then, what's your theory?
How did Rob

1) Destroy his car's transmission
2) Kill Angie
3) Dump her body so it couldn't be found even after 19 years
4) Get to the police station

All between 11 and 12pm? How does he pull this off all in one hour?

Also, they were engaged in January 1991. We don't know how long they were going out before that. She was about four months pregnant. Why would he wait until April to kill her? Let's say we go with the motive that she being pregnant was, to him, an impediment to his perspective military career--Why wouldn't he kill her in February or March? Why wait until April?

Remember, Rob wasn't the last person to see her alive, her best friend was, and they had been driving around until approximately 11pm. Rob claimed they began talking on the phone at 11:15, and that she was abducted at 11:45.

Once again, it's not simply local law enforcement that handles these crimes. State Police become involved IMMEDIATELY. I know this because I was kidnapped as a child (it was a parental kidnapping). Because my mother, who was the kidnapper, called the State Police within a couple of hours and let me speak with them and explain the situation (custody stuff...I was 13, and it's off topic, and I'd rather not get into it here), things did not progress to any higher echelon of law enforcement, and things were settled rather quickly. If local law enforcement were the only ones that handled kidnappings and murder, do you think that ANY such crimes in rural areas would ever be solved? For kidnappings and murders, local law enforcement assists State Police and Federal investigators (or so I've always seen.) For instance, right here where I live, we had a car bombing (coincidentally, this was featured on UM). Even though this was in Rouses Point, the Rouses Point Police were not lead investigator. The New York State Police, FBI, and other Federal entities investigated it. And since kidnapping is a Federal offense, the FBI would have to be involved in the investigation. Since I don't have access to the files, I am only guessing, but I would have to say that they cleared him, as well. Otherwise, the countless news articles on the subject would've said something about him being considered a suspect.

As for how his story protects him, I fail to see how it does. This is along the lines of Dr. Sam Sheppard's "Bushy haired man." "A mysterious person that no one saw but you is the one who did this crime? Do you have any proof of this? Oh, the only other person who saw this person is missing? Hmm....convenient." I would have to say, if anything, this would put MORE scrutiny on him than just saying "Oh, I have no idea. She said she was coming over, but she never showed up..."

Edit:
Looking into this further, the FBI were involved from pretty much the beginning. They gave Robert several polygraphs, and questioned him and others often. There are actually several articles in the multitude of pages here from the local papers, that document parts of the investigation, including parts where the FBI started to investigate the possibility that the Darby and Kenney cases may have been connected.

Once again, it's not simply local law enforcement that handles these crimes. State Police become involved IMMEDIATELY. I know this because I was kidnapped as a child (it was a parental kidnapping). Because my mother, who was the kidnapper, called the State Police within a couple of hours and let me speak with them and explain the situation (custody stuff...I was 13, and it's off topic, and I'd rather not get into it here), things did not progress to any higher echelon of law enforcement, and things were settled rather quickly. If local law enforcement were the only ones that handled kidnappings and murder, do you think that ANY such crimes in rural areas would ever be solved? For kidnappings and murders, local law enforcement assists State Police and Federal investigators (or so I've always seen.) For instance, right here where I live, we had a car bombing (coincidentally, this was featured on UM). Even though this was in Rouses Point, the Rouses Point Police were not lead investigator. The New York State Police, FBI, and other Federal entities investigated it. And since kidnapping is a Federal offense, the FBI would have to be involved in the investigation. Since I don't have access to the files, I am only guessing, but I would have to say that they cleared him, as well. Otherwise, the countless news articles on the subject would've said something about him being considered a suspect.

As for how his story protects him, I fail to see how it does. This is along the lines of Dr. Sam Sheppard's "Bushy haired man." "A mysterious person that no one saw but you is the one who did this crime? Do you have any proof of this? Oh, the only other person who saw this person is missing? Hmm....convenient." I would have to say, if anything, this would put MORE scrutiny on him than just saying "Oh, I have no idea. She said she was coming over, but she never showed up..."

Exactly.
My fear is that this guy is still out there. Maybe not working in MO, but in another state.
People still go missing daily, after all.

Ok, then, what's your theory?
How did Rob

1) Destroy his car's transmission
2) Kill Angie
3) Dump her body so it couldn't be found even after 19 years
4) Get to the police station

All between 11 and 12pm? How does he pull this off all in one hour?

Also, they were engaged in January 1991. We don't know how long they were going out before that. She was about four months pregnant. Why would he wait until April to kill her? Let's say we go with the motive that she being pregnant was, to him, an impediment to his perspective military career--Why wouldn't he kill her in February or March? Why wait until April?

Remember, Rob wasn't the last person to see her alive, her best friend was, and they had been driving around until approximately 11pm. Rob claimed they began talking on the phone at 11:15, and that she was abducted at 11:45.

From the end to the beginning:

1) Rob WAS (according to him) the last person to see her alive. He saw her struggling in the truck as he was chasing it.
2) The fact that she was pregnant may have been a determining factor for him. He doesn't mention her pregnancy during the segment.
3) The "timeline" is based on Rob's story. Nothing else corroborates it, at least as it is presented in the segment.
4) Since he was damaged and most small town police stations are in or near the center of town, he probably walked.
Although using a payphone to call them would probably have provided a faster response.
5) It's rural area. There are numerous places to dump a naked body and have it never be found as animals would predate upon it and scatter the bones. Also, no one says anything about a search warrant being obtained to search any properties owned family or friends. A buried body on private property can be hidden for many years.
6) There are many ways to kill someone. Shooting,stabbing bludgeoning and strangulation are the most "popular." A death by strangulation would probably avoid any tell-tale bloodstains.
7) He destroyed his transmission in the manner he described. Or when he was moving the body. Or perhaps the transmission was in poor condition,failed when he was driving and he added that fact into his narrative to explain why he didn't either catch the "perpetrator" or didn't immediately contact the police.

From the end to the beginning:

1) Rob WAS (according to him) the last person to see her alive. He saw her struggling in the truck as he was chasing it.
2) The fact that she was pregnant may have been a determining factor for him. He doesn't mention her pregnancy during the segment.
3) The "timeline" is based on Rob's story. Nothing else corroborates it, at least as it is presented in the segment.
4) Since he was damaged and most small town police stations are in or near the center of town, he probably walked.
Although using a payphone to call them would probably have provided a faster response.
5) It's rural area. There are numerous places to dump a naked body and have it never be found as animals would predate upon it and scatter the bones. Also, no one says anything about a search warrant being obtained to search any properties owned family or friends. A buried body on private property can be hidden for many years.
6) There are many ways to kill someone. Shooting,stabbing bludgeoning and strangulation are the most "popular." A death by strangulation would probably avoid any tell-tale bloodstains.
7) He destroyed his transmission in the manner he described. Or when he was moving the body. Or perhaps the transmission was in poor condition,failed when he was driving and he added that fact into his narrative to explain why he didn't either catch the "perpetrator" or didn't immediately contact the police.

The timeline is based on the fact she dropped off her best friend at 11pm and Rob was at the police station by 12pm. There are numerous press articles from the time which state this.
Again, that leaves Rob ONE HOUR.

Apparently, a search was undertaken for her body in the surrounding area; It wasn't found. I really doubt an 18 year old kid would have been that savvy to say, chop it up or drag it to the woods and make it back in an hour.

I don't know why you keep harping on Rob. He didn't do it.

Once again, it's not simply local law enforcement that handles these crimes. State Police become involved IMMEDIATELY. I know this because I was kidnapped as a child (it was a parental kidnapping). Because my mother, who was the kidnapper, called the State Police within a couple of hours and let me speak with them and explain the situation (custody stuff...I was 13, and it's off topic, and I'd rather not get into it here), things did not progress to any higher echelon of law enforcement, and things were settled rather quickly. If local law enforcement were the only ones that handled kidnappings and murder, do you think that ANY such crimes in rural areas would ever be solved? For kidnappings and murders, local law enforcement assists State Police and Federal investigators (or so I've always seen.) For instance, right here where I live, we had a car bombing (coincidentally, this was featured on UM). Even though this was in Rouses Point, the Rouses Point Police were not lead investigator. The New York State Police, FBI, and other Federal entities investigated it. And since kidnapping is a Federal offense, the FBI would have to be involved in the investigation. Since I don't have access to the files, I am only guessing, but I would have to say that they cleared him, as well. Otherwise, the countless news articles on the subject would've said something about him being considered a suspect.

As for how his story protects him, I fail to see how it does. This is along the lines of Dr. Sam Sheppard's "Bushy haired man." "A mysterious person that no one saw but you is the one who did this crime? Do you have any proof of this? Oh, the only other person who saw this person is missing? Hmm....convenient." I would have to say, if anything, this would put MORE scrutiny on him than just saying "Oh, I have no idea. She said she was coming over, but she never showed up..."

Edit:
Looking into this further, the FBI were involved from pretty much the beginning. They gave Robert several polygraphs, and questioned him and others often. There are actually several articles in the multitude of pages here from the local papers, that document parts of the investigation, including parts where the FBI started to investigate the possibility that the Darby and Kenney cases may have been connected.


Let's see:

1) Are you from Missouri? Are you from Clinton,MO? Assuming that criminal matters are handled similarly (or the same way) in different states may not be a valid assumption. Unless you have exact details of how this crime was handled, then it wouldn't be prudent to assume that this was handle in manner anywhere similar to your own.

2) I do think that most rural police departments solve the majority of the crimes that are reported as their suspect pool in much smaller and they usually know most (if not all) of the area's residents. That's a luxury most city departments don't have.

3) I have found a few links online to this story,but not that many. Most were reprints of other sites and the product of news organization making them,IMHO, suspect:

Here's one from a credible news source:

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

It mentions "forgotten evidence" that may yield DNA,which doesn't speak highly of the quality of the investigation.

What's the source of your information about the FBI?

4) Dr. Sam Sheppard was a doctor and his case received national attention. Until the UM segment it's doubtful that this was more a footnote outside of its immediate area. Even after the segment, it was still not as widely known as it could have been.

A missing woman wasn't an "oddity" at the time (except maybe in that particular town) and would usually be chalked up to being an "adult running away." Not knowing how "hard" they questioned Rob,it impossible to say how "detailed" he needed his story to be. They may have even reminded him of elements of his narrative when/if he "forgot" or when they didn't match earlier statements.

Why he would come up w/ the narrative that he did (if it's not factual) is something that only he knows. However,I have to return to the fact that his story makes him a "hero" in the way it was told. My experience has been that when somebody makes themselves look "great" in a story, that's usually a sign of exaggeration or conflation of the tale.

I could be 100% wrong about this case,but it's clear that it was investigated very poorly and there shouldn't have any "clearing" of potential suspects until one was arrested. Or found to be deceased.

My source of information about the FBI is several newspaper articles that are listed earlier in this exact thread, as I said in my post, had you bothered to read it. It does not matter how local police want to handle it, the FBI immediately takes charge because of a pesky little word called JURISDICTION. When a Federal crime takes place, it is the Federal government's jurisdiction. So no matter how much local police cried about it, it's the Fed's show. The articles posted on this thread say that the FBI treated him as a suspect from the beginning. This obviously would mean that they didn't just ask "Hey, so, level with me...did you kill her? No? Ok, it must be some psychopath. You're free to go."

Here's a thought that I suggested to Onlooker, who refused to accept the possibility of Rob's innocence: contact the authorites. Because no one here was directly involved with the case. We all have access to the exact same information you do.

As for his story making him sound great...that's your opinion. I don't think it makes him sound that great, personally. But I fail to see your point about how his story doesn't put more scrutiny on him. You say, right in your post, that it could be chalked up to an adult running away. Then wouldn't it be, as I said, a much safer and better story to simply say "I don't know...she never showed up," rather than invent a story in which you were the last to see her as some guy drives off with her? The only way that story would protect you (if you were the one who committed the crime) is if you didn't know the person, killed her, and had to explain why you had her hair, skin cells, spit, etc. on you or in your vehicle. Being that Rob and Angela were dating, seems like it's pretty damned obvious that all of those things could conceivably be found in those areas, and be completely innocent. I've had women that I dated that I would still find their hairs around my house or whatever for months after we'd broken up.

As I said, contact law enforcement (Local boys, whatever county sheriff's department has jurisdiction, Missouri State Police, and FBI) and get their story on it. And you know what? If I'm wrong about anything I've said, I'll gladly admit it. But as it stands now, based on the evidence we know about, and based on what we have been told, Rob is not the guilty party.

My source of information about the FBI is several newspaper articles that are listed earlier in this exact thread, as I said in my post, had you bothered to read it. It does not matter how local police want to handle it, the FBI immediately takes charge because of a pesky little word called JURISDICTION. When a Federal crime takes place, it is the Federal government's jurisdiction. So no matter how much local police cried about it, it's the Fed's show. The articles posted on this thread say that the FBI treated him as a suspect from the beginning. This obviously would mean that they didn't just ask "Hey, so, level with me...did you kill her? No? Ok, it must be some psychopath. You're free to go."

Here's a thought that I suggested to Onlooker, who refused to accept the possibility of Rob's innocence: contact the authorites. Because no one here was directly involved with the case. We all have access to the exact same information you do.

As for his story making him sound great...that's your opinion. I don't think it makes him sound that great, personally. But I fail to see your point about how his story doesn't put more scrutiny on him. You say, right in your post, that it could be chalked up to an adult running away. Then wouldn't it be, as I said, a much safer and better story to simply say "I don't know...she never showed up," rather than invent a story in which you were the last to see her as some guy drives off with her? The only way that story would protect you (if you were the one who committed the crime) is if you didn't know the person, killed her, and had to explain why you had her hair, skin cells, spit, etc. on you or in your vehicle. Being that Rob and Angela were dating, seems like it's pretty damned obvious that all of those things could conceivably be found in those areas, and be completely innocent. I've had women that I dated that I would still find their hairs around my house or whatever for months after we'd broken up.

As I said, contact law enforcement (Local boys, whatever county sheriff's department has jurisdiction, Missouri State Police, and FBI) and get their story on it. And you know what? If I'm wrong about anything I've said, I'll gladly admit it. But as it stands now, based on the evidence we know about, and based on what we have been told, Rob is not the guilty party.

Really? "Had I bothered to read it?"
Look, if somebody asks you politely to verify the BS you write down, then the least you should do is put the links to it in the response you write rather what probably seemed to you to be "witty prose."

I'm well aware of of "jurisdiction" and I'm also aware that the local police would have to bow to the FBI in this matter when it was a kidnapping. But a newspaper account which I provide a link for in my earlier posting, has NOTHING about the FBI on. And in my world, newspaper & television accounts are the only legitimate currency outside of police reports and court documents.

And a quick trip to www.fbi.gov shows that Ms. Hammond's case isn't seen as a priority anymore as she is noticeably absent from their Missing/Kidnap page. Here's the link:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap.

There are also no links to CREDIBLE news sources showing Ms. Hammond's disappearance is being actively investigated by the FBI,who BTW, have access to some of the most sophisticated DNA testing capabilities on the planet. Which should have made last years news story that "forgotten DNA" a perfect excuse for the FBI to step in and show their much vaunted "crimefighting prowess." It appears that they did not.

I don't know how the questioning of Rob went. UM left out a number of details (as usual in hopes that the story would be seen as a "mystery") that could shed more light on the events that occurred. And actually, they did the investigation itself a disservice by showing the portion of the segment where the victim's mother said that she didn't believe that Rob had anything to do w/ it. While information about her daughter would have been appreciated, her thoughts about Rob's guilt or innocence really tells outsiders nothing about the case.

You may ask for a lower standard of evidence (seemingly on par w/ the Clinton,MO PD) but most people trying to figure out a mystery aren't satisfied w/ what makes them "feel good." Most of them try to look at all aspects of something until it reveals itself or they have uncovered the truth.

Having said all of that, did you actually want to put some links w/ your BS...or is just going remain the BS it appears to be?

Rob didn't kidnap and kill Angela---it was some creepy stranger in a truck. Why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around that??

Rob didn't kidnap and kill Angela---it was some creepy stranger in a truck. Why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around that??

Because Rob is the only source of the "creepy guy in a truck" story. And some people require a very high standard of proof.

It wasn't Rob. :rolleyes: Get over it.

cocytus, it's obvious that you are a skeptic (I bet you don't believe in ghosts), and I have no tolerance for skeptics so I shall no longer be replying to any of your posts.

Because Rob is the only source of the "creepy guy in a truck" story. And some people require a very high standard of proof.

He is not the only source. How many times do you need to be told this? Check the aritcles in the Kansas city star. There are links in this forum I beileve. Two others saw the truck that night.

You mention that nothing corraberates Rob"s story. Again you refuse to pay attention. Does Kayla's story not back Rob up? Does Rob's mother and brother not back Rob up? How bout the fact that his vehilce was found in the middle of the street downtown with the transmission out? Does that help?

How bout you play lead investigator here. Tell us what proof you would demand? What questions would you ask Rob? Where would you come up with this high standard proof you ask for? How would YOU handle the investigation??

READ THE ******* THREAD. I am done trying to be civil with you. You say "I'm open to the possibility that someone else did it," but in the same breath, you say "this was poorly invesitgated, and had they investigated it correctly, they'd have charged Rob, and we'd all know he was guilty, just the way I KNOW he's guilty." I'm done with you. As I told you, earlier all of the articles I mention are on THIS ******* THREAD! They are from local newspapers. Investigate the ******* THREAD. Or, how about you contact the actual local papers? As I told you, before, you have access to exactly what we do. And if, as you say so smugly, "in my world, newspaper & television accounts are the only legitimate currency outside of police reports and court documents," then your knowledge that Rob did it is nullified by that very claim. You weren't there, you have no police report saying he did, you have no newspaper nor television account saying he did it, and you have no court document. You obviously do not know of the Federal jurisdiction in kidnapping cases, or you wouldn't have asked if they investigated it, as you did in a previous post. So did the FBI do a piss poor job, too? Is that what you're getting at? Maybe the FBI is filled with "Cletus and Enos" type investigators, too? It's quite obvious, if they cleared someone who is as obviously guilty as Rob is.

As for why you can't find articles on the internet? Surprise, surprise. This happened 20 years ago. You do realize that predates the massive civilian usage of the internet, right? And us backwoods country bumpkins can't use computers real good, so most local papers don't have their entire back catalog on the internet. And a lot of those that do require you to PAY to access it. If you want to read the articles, take a trip down there and go to a library. Otherwise, you'll continue not finding anything. Unless you want to pay for it, that is.

He is not the only source. How many times do you need to be told this? Check the aritcles in the Kansas city star. There are links in this forum I beileve. Two others saw the truck that night.

You mention that nothing corraberates Rob"s story. Again you refuse to pay attention. Does Kayla's story not back Rob up? Does Rob's mother and brother not back Rob up? How bout the fact that his vehilce was found in the middle of the street downtown with the transmission out? Does that help?

How bout you play lead investigator here. Tell us what proof you would demand? What questions would you ask Rob? Where would you come up with this high standard proof you ask for? How would YOU handle the investigation??

He's just like Onlooker. Rather than read the thread and see what has already been covered, he'd rather beat a dead horse and be a ***** while doing it. Angela could show up, personally, and say Rob wasn't involved, and he'd tell her she was wrong.

He's just like Onlooker. Rather than read the thread and see what has already been covered, he'd rather beat a dead horse and be a ***** while doing it. Angela could show up, personally, and say Rob wasn't involved, and he'd tell her she was wrong.

Someone here should volunteer and see if the police will give them anything.

He's just like Onlooker. Rather than read the thread and see what has already been covered, he'd rather beat a dead horse and be a ***** while doing it. Angela could show up, personally, and say Rob wasn't involved, and he'd tell her she was wrong.
Yes I agree it seems pointless to try and reason with him

Yes I agree it seems pointless to try and reason with him

"He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and he absolutely WILL NOT STOP, EVER!...Until Rob is charged."

(Paraphrasing Kyle Reese, from the Terminator)

"He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and he absolutely WILL NOT STOP, EVER!...Until Rob is charged."

(Paraphrasing Kyle Reese, from the Terminator)

:rotflmao:

"He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and he absolutely WILL NOT STOP, EVER!...Until Rob is charged."

(Paraphrasing Kyle Reese, from the Terminator)

:lol:

He did the same thing on the Pamela June Ray & Frederick Young threads.

The single fact that Rob's car was found broke down in the middle of town is enough evidence to clear him, IMO. That would have been very elaborate for an eighteen year old kid to stage all by himself within the time frame he had (about 45 minutes to an hour).

:lol:

He did the same thing on the Pamela June Ray & Frederick Young threads.

The single fact that Rob's car was found broke down in the middle of town is enough evidence to clear him, IMO. That would have been very elaborate for an eighteen year old kid to stage all by himself within the time frame he had (about 45 minutes to an hour).

Ya its not like we are tying to prove the existence of bigfoot or uncover the identity of the shooter in the grassy knoll here. Its more the obvious to anyone who has paid attention to this case that Rob could not of been involved.

OK, I went back and read the article and it quoted Rob as saying he and Angela were talking around 11:00 pm. and that is when he jumped in his car to go down there. I've got more articles to go back and read but have to do that later when I have more time.


Then see..There would'nt be enough time for Rob to have taken Angela and killed her and ditched her somewhere. But there is one thing missing to this story. How do we know Angela phoned rob at all at 11:00 pm? This is his account correct? What witnesses if any seen her on the pay phone at this time? No one. Did the police ever check to see if Rob's car was really malfunctioning? Although Rob loved her and seemed honest on UM, many people seem honest and hold straight faces they didn't kill anyone. This case was hard for me to believe that in a rural area no-one ever saw the truck with the strange decal again!? odd..very odd..I believe they would have. I have a hard time believing a killer would be driving through the area, see angela and abduct her and simply drive off out of state where he may have come from? Your car starts malfunctioning, you would try to get a detailed description of the truck and license plate. And angela not going to her car right away, but yet she noticed a truck circling around..The only possible way i can think of this abduction is if he parked right next to her vehicle and she had to walk by the guy to go into her car. I'm just not sure about this case. Let's think...If she was on the phone talking to rob, how long did he have to get there? within a few minutes and he saw them when he arrived on the road. But why not try to ram into the guy with your car instead of following him? why not get a license plate if you know your car hasnt been acting well lately and are unsure if it's going to die out on you? The car died out! So thus you know more likely then not your having car troubles for awhile as now your car just goes out! I think knowing this would make you think of getting those plate numbers as the first task at hand and or asking to borrow a neiboors car or have a neiboor follow you?! hmm..dunno..

:lol:

He did the same thing on the Pamela June Ray & Frederick Young threads.

The single fact that Rob's car was found broke down in the middle of town is enough evidence to clear him, IMO. That would have been very elaborate for an eighteen year old kid to stage all by himself within the time frame he had (about 45 minutes to an hour).

ok. so its proven his car was broken down in the middle of the road! As for the 18yr old to stage this, we will never know? Many kids younger then him have concealed killings for years and years so yes its possible he staged this but i wouldnt be certain on the motif for such a thing. only two scenerios come to play.

1. rob did this and he knew his car was malfunctiong and would break down on him, that would make it so easy for the police to see he wasnt a part of it, maybe?

2. someone that was watching her for awhile did this crime. I find it hard to believe the guy came through town and drove right out of town with her.

The main thing is we cant believe she is dead until proven so. Angela is missing still and deserves the attention of a missing person! What have the police done to look up trucks of green color? How many could there be in that small town?

What witnesses if any seen her on the pay phone at this time?
According to the Charley Project page, there were witnesses that saw a man and truck matching the description around that pay phone near the time Hammond was abducted. The Doe page confirms this.

And angela not going to her car right away, but yet she noticed a truck circling around
So every time something remotely suspicious happens around you you get the hell out of Dodge? Someone walks up to you at night, asks you the time, you run away? Or do you just answer? It's human nature to assume that person walking near you isn't about to abduct and murder you. Hammond said he got out of the car with a flashlight and started looking around like he'd dropped something. She probably figured that he was looking for an object on the ground. It's perfectly normal to respond that way.

This case was hard for me to believe that in a rural area no-one ever saw the truck with the strange decal again!?
It's almost like the truck was from out of town, or the decal was removable.

But why not try to ram into the guy with your car instead of following him?
Because it's not a movie. Even cops don't normally try that. Two cars ramming into each other at high speed is exactly what makes car accidents. Following the car made far more sense than trying to ninja-flip it off the road, probably killing everyone involved.

asking to borrow a neiboors car or have a neiboor follow you?!
What neighbors with cars he could borrow were home at the time? Did he believe he had time to borrow a car when his car was sitting in the driveway, waiting to be used?

1. rob did this and he knew his car was malfunctiong and would break down on him, that would make it so easy for the police to see he wasnt a part of it, maybe?

VERY unlikely. If he knew his car was malfunctioning and would break down on him so he decided to use it to abduct and murder his girlfriend, then he would know that it could easily malfunction while he was abducting and murdering her. You're claiming that he was so certain his car would break that he should've borrowed a neighbor's car to follow the truck, but you think someone that certain of breaking down would use that car to abduct an able-bodied adult woman?

2. someone that was watching her for awhile did this crime. I find it hard to believe the guy came through town and drove right out of town with her.
Why do you find that hard to believe? It happens. And why would he have to be watching her for a while? Couldn't he have spotted her at the phone booth?

What have the police done to look up trucks of green color? How many could there be in that small town?
Is there some reason you believe they didn't think of that?

Something actually just occured to me.
Now some people have posted and said they find it hard to believe that someone would abduct a woman while she was on the phone and would instead just wait for her to finish her conversation.
Now maybe the killer was trying to do that, but became impatient.
I remember reading that Angela was on the phone for 30 minutes before her conversation was interupted by her abduction. I believe I also read that the man in the truck showed up 15-20 minutes before he kidnapped her.
It seems to me that when most people use a payphone at night it's to make a quick call to a friend or loved one. The killer probably thought she would be off the phone any minute when he parked by the phone booth and was planning to abduct her, but instead Angela just stayed on the phone talking with her boyfriend.
Angela notices this suspicious man and asks if he needs to use the phone and he says No.
Now the man realizes Angela is very much aware of his presence and if she stays on the phone a long time and he is still there rummaging through his truck he is going to draw suspicion on himself even more.
He then waits a few more minutes and then decides he can wait no longer and decides that if he's going to abduct her he's going to have to do it while she's on the phone since it appeared to him that her conversation with Rob was not ending. This would also explain the killer's angry reply into the phone "I didn't need to use the phone anyway"
I have a feeling this is most likely what happened.
With this scenario it makes perfect sense to me why the killer would abduct her while she was on the phone and IMO further proves Rob's innocence.

Something actually just occured to me.
Now some people have posted and said they find it hard to believe that someone would abduct a woman while she was on the phone and would instead just wait for her to finish her conversation.
Now maybe the killer was trying to do that, but became impatient.
I remember reading that Angela was on the phone for 30 minutes before her conversation was interupted by her abduction. I believe I also read that the man in the truck showed up 15-20 minutes before he kidnapped her.
It seems to me that when most people use a payphone at night it's to make a quick call to a friend or loved one. The killer probably thought she would be off the phone any minute when he parked by the phone booth and was planning to abduct her, but instead Angela just stayed on the phone talking with her boyfriend.
Angela notices this suspicious man and asks if he needs to use the phone and he says No.
Now the man realizes Angela is very much aware of his presence and if she stays on the phone a long time and he is still there rummaging through his truck he is going to draw suspicion on himself even more.
He then waits a few more minutes and then decides he can wait no longer and decides that if he's going to abduct her he's going to have to do it while she's on the phone since it appeared to him that her conversation with Rob was not ending. This would also explain the killer's angry reply into the phone "I didn't need to use the phone anyway"
I have a feeling this is most likely what happened.
With this scenario it makes perfect sense to me why the killer would abduct her while she was on the phone and IMO further proves Rob's innocence.

Bingo. I think that's exactly what happened as well. I always thought the line, "Didn't need to use the phone anyway" was kind of odd...why would the guy say this if he was in the middle of struggling with Angela? Wouldn't she be kicking and screaming and flailing around trying to break free? Seems like an unlikely time to make a smarmy remark, IMO. And if the guy in the truck was there for 15-20 minutes that kind of destroys the two person theory.

What witnesses if any seen her on the pay phone at this time?
According to the Charley Project page, there were witnesses that saw a man and truck matching the description around that pay phone near the time Hammond was abducted. The Doe page confirms this.

And angela not going to her car right away, but yet she noticed a truck circling around
So every time something remotely suspicious happens around you you get the hell out of Dodge? Someone walks up to you at night, asks you the time, you run away? Or do you just answer? It's human nature to assume that person walking near you isn't about to abduct and murder you. Hammond said he got out of the car with a flashlight and started looking around like he'd dropped something. She probably figured that he was looking for an object on the ground. It's perfectly normal to respond that way.

This case was hard for me to believe that in a rural area no-one ever saw the truck with the strange decal again!?
It's almost like the truck was from out of town, or the decal was removable.

But why not try to ram into the guy with your car instead of following him?
Because it's not a movie. Even cops don't normally try that. Two cars ramming into each other at high speed is exactly what makes car accidents. Following the car made far more sense than trying to ninja-flip it off the road, probably killing everyone involved.

asking to borrow a neiboors car or have a neiboor follow you?!
What neighbors with cars he could borrow were home at the time? Did he believe he had time to borrow a car when his car was sitting in the driveway, waiting to be used?

1. rob did this and he knew his car was malfunctiong and would break down on him, that would make it so easy for the police to see he wasnt a part of it, maybe?

VERY unlikely. If he knew his car was malfunctioning and would break down on him so he decided to use it to abduct and murder his girlfriend, then he would know that it could easily malfunction while he was abducting and murdering her. You're claiming that he was so certain his car would break that he should've borrowed a neighbor's car to follow the truck, but you think someone that certain of breaking down would use that car to abduct an able-bodied adult woman?

2. someone that was watching her for awhile did this crime. I find it hard to believe the guy came through town and drove right out of town with her.
Why do you find that hard to believe? It happens. And why would he have to be watching her for a while? Couldn't he have spotted her at the phone booth?

What have the police done to look up trucks of green color? How many could there be in that small town?
Is there some reason you believe they didn't think of that?

yes if i notice a truck circling and its dark out im leaving! and you didnt answer my question if in fact the cops checked into the truck and if so how many did they find if any? I doubt the truck was from out of town and he removed the decal right away..Her boyfriend supposedly saw her screaming and kicking so perhaps other witnesses driving by would have saw the same thing..Let me know about evidence of this if you have some..

yes if i notice a truck circling and its dark out im leaving!
If a man parks near you and starts looking around on the ground with a flashlight you're leaving? I can't prove that you won't, but I will say that's an unusual reaction.

you didnt answer my question if in fact the cops checked into the truck and if so how many did they find if any?
They followed the lead of the green truck, but I don't know how many green trucks there were in that county 30 years ago so I can't tell you how many they found. If there were green trucks does that somehow prove anything? Why do you doubt the truck was from out of town? Do you have some information that makes it likely the truck was local?

What witnesses if any seen her on the pay phone at this time?
According to the Charley Project page, there were witnesses that saw a man and truck matching the description around that pay phone near the time Hammond was abducted. The Doe page confirms this.

And angela not going to her car right away, but yet she noticed a truck circling around
So every time something remotely suspicious happens around you you get the hell out of Dodge? Someone walks up to you at night, asks you the time, you run away? Or do you just answer? It's human nature to assume that person walking near you isn't about to abduct and murder you. Hammond said he got out of the car with a flashlight and started looking around like he'd dropped something. She probably figured that he was looking for an object on the ground. It's perfectly normal to respond that way.

This case was hard for me to believe that in a rural area no-one ever saw the truck with the strange decal again!?
It's almost like the truck was from out of town, or the decal was removable.

But why not try to ram into the guy with your car instead of following him?
Because it's not a movie. Even cops don't normally try that. Two cars ramming into each other at high speed is exactly what makes car accidents. Following the car made far more sense than trying to ninja-flip it off the road, probably killing everyone involved.

asking to borrow a neiboors car or have a neiboor follow you?!
What neighbors with cars he could borrow were home at the time? Did he believe he had time to borrow a car when his car was sitting in the driveway, waiting to be used?

1. rob did this and he knew his car was malfunctiong and would break down on him, that would make it so easy for the police to see he wasnt a part of it, maybe?

VERY unlikely. If he knew his car was malfunctioning and would break down on him so he decided to use it to abduct and murder his girlfriend, then he would know that it could easily malfunction while he was abducting and murdering her. You're claiming that he was so certain his car would break that he should've borrowed a neighbor's car to follow the truck, but you think someone that certain of breaking down would use that car to abduct an able-bodied adult woman?

2. someone that was watching her for awhile did this crime. I find it hard to believe the guy came through town and drove right out of town with her.
Why do you find that hard to believe? It happens. And why would he have to be watching her for a while? Couldn't he have spotted her at the phone booth?

What have the police done to look up trucks of green color? How many could there be in that small town?
Is there some reason you believe they didn't think of that?

FANTASTIC explaining. Some people will never understand that Rob is clearly innocent.

I am almost 100% convinced that the guy who abducted Angela is also responsible for the disappearance of Cheryl Ann Kenney. Both were abducted from a convenience store after hours, and both were in the same state. Seems to me like there is a serial killer that was preying on young women who were working (or within the vicinity) of a closed convenience store. I too think the guy was "looking" for something in his truck because he didn't want to alert whoever Angela was talking to on the phone, and then became frustrated after she was still on the phone for several minutes and then snatched her. I still want to know how Rob was able to hear "didn't need to use the phone anyway" in the midst of the screams from Angela.

I am almost 100% convinced that the guy who abducted Angela is also responsible for the disappearance of Cheryl Ann Kenney. Both were abducted from a convenience store after hours, and both were in the same state. Seems to me like there is a serial killer that was preying on young women who were working (or within the vicinity) of a closed convenience store. I too think the guy was "looking" for something in his truck because he didn't want to alert whoever Angela was talking to on the phone, and then became frustrated after she was still on the phone for several minutes and then snatched her. I still want to know how Rob was able to hear "didn't need to use the phone anyway" in the midst of the screams from Angela.

Angela probably was pleading with him or something and in some sick sense, he blurted that out.

READ THE ******* THREAD. I am done trying to be civil with you. You say "I'm open to the possibility that someone else did it," but in the same breath, you say "this was poorly invesitgated, and had they investigated it correctly, they'd have charged Rob, and we'd all know he was guilty, just the way I KNOW he's guilty." I'm done with you. As I told you, earlier all of the articles I mention are on THIS ******* THREAD! They are from local newspapers. Investigate the ******* THREAD. Or, how about you contact the actual local papers? As I told you, before, you have access to exactly what we do. And if, as you say so smugly, "in my world, newspaper & television accounts are the only legitimate currency outside of police reports and court documents," then your knowledge that Rob did it is nullified by that very claim. You weren't there, you have no police report saying he did, you have no newspaper nor television account saying he did it, and you have no court document. You obviously do not know of the Federal jurisdiction in kidnapping cases, or you wouldn't have asked if they investigated it, as you did in a previous post. So did the FBI do a piss poor job, too? Is that what you're getting at? Maybe the FBI is filled with "Cletus and Enos" type investigators, too? It's quite obvious, if they cleared someone who is as obviously guilty as Rob is.

As for why you can't find articles on the internet? Surprise, surprise. This happened 20 years ago. You do realize that predates the massive civilian usage of the internet, right? And us backwoods country bumpkins can't use computers real good, so most local papers don't have their entire back catalog on the internet. And a lot of those that do require you to PAY to access it. If you want to read the articles, take a trip down there and go to a library. Otherwise, you'll continue not finding anything. Unless you want to pay for it, that is.

Really? Is that the best you came up with is this?
I'd stayed out of this thread for a few days to give people who disagree w/ me a chance to rearm and reload...and this is all they come back w/...?

This case has been bungled from GO:

1) The main suspect has been "cleared."
2) 20 years passed before "lost DNA" evidence was "found" as possibly sent for testing. Add I added a link for that.
3) The only narrative of the events of the night come from the...main suspect.
4) Nobody else that "saw" the "suspect" managed to get a detailed description of his vehicle nor of him.
5) A car chase took place in a quiet small town's downtown area (the location of the police department) and yet no one heard this happen...but the person providing the narrative of the story.

There are many, many other things, but I believe I have made my "point." Which is: this case needs a serious rethink and all available evidence needs to be re-examined.
If that cause previously "cleared" people to experience some..."discomfort"... I submit that it would far less discomfort than Ms. Hammond experienced on what may have been the last night of her life.

READ THE ******* THREAD. I am done trying to be civil with you. You say "I'm open to the possibility that someone else did it," but in the same breath, you say "this was poorly invesitgated, and had they investigated it correctly, they'd have charged Rob, and we'd all know he was guilty, just the way I KNOW he's guilty." I'm done with you. As I told you, earlier all of the articles I mention are on THIS ******* THREAD! They are from local newspapers. Investigate the ******* THREAD. Or, how about you contact the actual local papers? As I told you, before, you have access to exactly what we do. And if, as you say so smugly, "in my world, newspaper & television accounts are the only legitimate currency outside of police reports and court documents," then your knowledge that Rob did it is nullified by that very claim. You weren't there, you have no police report saying he did, you have no newspaper nor television account saying he did it, and you have no court document. You obviously do not know of the Federal jurisdiction in kidnapping cases, or you wouldn't have asked if they investigated it, as you did in a previous post. So did the FBI do a piss poor job, too? Is that what you're getting at? Maybe the FBI is filled with "Cletus and Enos" type investigators, too? It's quite obvious, if they cleared someone who is as obviously guilty as Rob is.

As for why you can't find articles on the internet? Surprise, surprise. This happened 20 years ago. You do realize that predates the massive civilian usage of the internet, right? And us backwoods country bumpkins can't use computers real good, so most local papers don't have their entire back catalog on the internet. And a lot of those that do require you to PAY to access it. If you want to read the articles, take a trip down there and go to a library. Otherwise, you'll continue not finding anything. Unless you want to pay for it, that is.

Really? Is that the best you came up with is this?
I'd stayed out of this thread for a few days to give people who disagree w/ me a chance to rearm and reload...and this is all they come back w/...?

This case has been bungled from GO:

1) The main suspect has been "cleared."
2) 20 years passed before "lost DNA" evidence was "found" as possibly sent for testing. Add I added a link for that.
3) The only narrative of the events of the night come from the...main suspect.
4) Nobody else that "saw" the "suspect" managed to get a detailed description of his vehicle nor of him.
5) A car chase took place in a quiet small town's downtown area (the location of the police department) and yet no one heard this happen...but the person providing the narrative of the story.

There are many, many other things, but I believe I have made my "point." Which is: this case needs a serious rethink and all available evidence needs to be re-examined.
If that cause previously "cleared" people to experience some..."discomfort"... I submit that it would far less discomforting than what Ms. Hammond experienced on what may have been the last night of her life.

READ THE ******* THREAD. I am done trying to be civil with you. You say "I'm open to the possibility that someone else did it," but in the same breath, you say "this was poorly invesitgated, and had they investigated it correctly, they'd have charged Rob, and we'd all know he was guilty, just the way I KNOW he's guilty." I'm done with you. As I told you, earlier all of the articles I mention are on THIS ******* THREAD! They are from local newspapers. Investigate the ******* THREAD. Or, how about you contact the actual local papers? As I told you, before, you have access to exactly what we do. And if, as you say so smugly, "in my world, newspaper & television accounts are the only legitimate currency outside of police reports and court documents," then your knowledge that Rob did it is nullified by that very claim. You weren't there, you have no police report saying he did, you have no newspaper nor television account saying he did it, and you have no court document. You obviously do not know of the Federal jurisdiction in kidnapping cases, or you wouldn't have asked if they investigated it, as you did in a previous post. So did the FBI do a piss poor job, too? Is that what you're getting at? Maybe the FBI is filled with "Cletus and Enos" type investigators, too? It's quite obvious, if they cleared someone who is as obviously guilty as Rob is.

As for why you can't find articles on the internet? Surprise, surprise. This happened 20 years ago. You do realize that predates the massive civilian usage of the internet, right? And us backwoods country bumpkins can't use computers real good, so most local papers don't have their entire back catalog on the internet. And a lot of those that do require you to PAY to access it. If you want to read the articles, take a trip down there and go to a library. Otherwise, you'll continue not finding anything. Unless you want to pay for it, that is.

Really? Is that the best you came up with is this?
I'd stayed out of this thread for a few days to give people who disagree w/ me a chance to rearm and reload...and this is all they come back w/...?

This case has been bungled from GO:

1) The main suspect has been "cleared."
2) 20 years passed before "lost DNA" evidence was "found" as possibly sent for testing. Add I added a link for that.
3) The only narrative of the events of the night come from the...main suspect.
4) Nobody else that "saw" the "suspect" managed to get a detailed description of his vehicle nor of him.
5) A car chase took place in a quiet small town's downtown area (the location of the police department) and yet no one heard this happen...but the person providing the narrative of the story.

There are many, many other things, but I believe I have made my "point." Which is: this case needs a serious rethink and all available evidence needs to be re-examined.
If that cause previously "cleared" people to experience some..."discomfort"... I submit that it would far less discomforting than what Ms. Hammond experienced on what may have been the last night of her life.

READ THE ******* THREAD. I am done trying to be civil with you. You say "I'm open to the possibility that someone else did it," but in the same breath, you say "this was poorly invesitgated, and had they investigated it correctly, they'd have charged Rob, and we'd all know he was guilty, just the way I KNOW he's guilty." I'm done with you. As I told you, earlier all of the articles I mention are on THIS ******* THREAD! They are from local newspapers. Investigate the ******* THREAD. Or, how about you contact the actual local papers? As I told you, before, you have access to exactly what we do. And if, as you say so smugly, "in my world, newspaper & television accounts are the only legitimate currency outside of police reports and court documents," then your knowledge that Rob did it is nullified by that very claim. You weren't there, you have no police report saying he did, you have no newspaper nor television account saying he did it, and you have no court document. You obviously do not know of the Federal jurisdiction in kidnapping cases, or you wouldn't have asked if they investigated it, as you did in a previous post. So did the FBI do a piss poor job, too? Is that what you're getting at? Maybe the FBI is filled with "Cletus and Enos" type investigators, too? It's quite obvious, if they cleared someone who is as obviously guilty as Rob is.

As for why you can't find articles on the internet? Surprise, surprise. This happened 20 years ago. You do realize that predates the massive civilian usage of the internet, right? And us backwoods country bumpkins can't use computers real good, so most local papers don't have their entire back catalog on the internet. And a lot of those that do require you to PAY to access it. If you want to read the articles, take a trip down there and go to a library. Otherwise, you'll continue not finding anything. Unless you want to pay for it, that is.

Really? Is that the best you came up with is this?
I'd stayed out of this thread for a few days to give people who disagree w/ me a chance to rearm and reload...and this is all they come back w/...?

This case has been bungled from GO:

1) The main suspect has been "cleared."
2) 20 years passed before "lost DNA" evidence was "found" as possibly sent for testing. Add I added a link for that.
3) The only narrative of the events of the night come from the...main suspect.
4) Nobody else that "saw" the "suspect" managed to get a detailed description of his vehicle nor of him.
5) A car chase took place in a quiet small town's downtown area (the location of the police department) and yet no one heard this happen...but the person providing the narrative of the story.

There are many, many other things, but I believe I have made my "point." Which is: this case needs a serious rethink and all available evidence needs to be re-examined.
If that cause previously "cleared" people to experience some..."discomfort"... I submit that it would far less discomforting than what Ms. Hammond experienced on what may have been the last night of her life.

:lol:

He did the same thing on the Pamela June Ray & Frederick Young threads.

The single fact that Rob's car was found broke down in the middle of town is enough evidence to clear him, IMO. That would have been very elaborate for an eighteen year old kid to stage all by himself within the time frame he had (about 45 minutes to an hour).

Well...I suppose that's why you aren't a detective,right? You believe what's put in front of you rather than investigating on your own.

It wasn't Rob. :rolleyes: Get over it.

cocytus, it's obvious that you are a skeptic (I bet you don't believe in ghosts), and I have no tolerance for skeptics so I shall no longer be replying to any of your posts.

"You have no tolerance for skeptics?"
Do you realize how foolish that reads? Or sounds?
Tell you what....tell that exact statement to a detective and memorize the look that he/she gives you when you do.

yes if i notice a truck circling and its dark out im leaving!
If a man parks near you and starts looking around on the ground with a flashlight you're leaving? I can't prove that you won't, but I will say that's an unusual reaction.

you didnt answer my question if in fact the cops checked into the truck and if so how many did they find if any?
They followed the lead of the green truck, but I don't know how many green trucks there were in that county 30 years ago so I can't tell you how many they found. If there were green trucks does that somehow prove anything? Why do you doubt the truck was from out of town? Do you have some information that makes it likely the truck was local?

The first step is to investigate the truck within town borders and then venture outwards. Thats the logical approach to this so yes indeed I would want to find out this info before going into another state. They never start off a investigation in another state. They start off with where it took place and around the radius of where it happend. Lets say, there are 30 trucks in town, then investigators would go and check these out and see if there is any reminense of a decal, correct? And to the other point mentioned: It's dark 11pm at night, a man pulls up in a truck and starts looking at stuff with a flashlight, yes, i am running! She stayed on the phone. Reason enough to believe she was scared as she spoke with her bf for so long. So she didnt have enough time to run. I believe she was waiting for the man to leave and then would have preceeded to her car but he just walked up to the phone. It's obvious and cant be so more obvious then this.

The first step is to investigate the truck within town borders and then venture outwards. Thats the logical approach to this so yes indeed I would want to find out this info before going into another state.
Well, yes. Why do you think the cops didn't do that? And why, if they didn't find the truck locally, do you believe it was a local truck?

I believe she was waiting for the man to leave and then would have preceeded to her car but he just walked up to the phone. It's obvious and cant be so more obvious then this.

Yes, that's probably what happened. That was presented in the UM segment itself. But that requires the murderer to be someone other than Rob. Haven't you been arguing that Rob was the murderer?

Quotes from you:
- Although Rob loved her and seemed honest on UM, many people seem honest and hold straight faces they didn't kill anyone.
- Many kids younger then him have concealed killings for years and years so yes its possible he staged this
- 2. rob did this and he knew his car was malfunctiong and would break down on him, that would make it so easy for the police to see he wasnt a part of it, maybe?
- I find it hard to believe the (strange) guy came through town and drove right out of town with her.

So I'm confused. Are you saying Rob did it, which is what you seem to have been arguing for a while now, or are you saying that a stranger abducted her and got physically close to her before doing so? Because if it's the latter yes, I agree. An abductor did have to be near her before taking her.

Well...I suppose that's why you aren't a detective,right? You believe what's put in front of you rather than investigating on your own.

And I'm assuming you've investigated the Hammond disappearance on your own, correct? You've driven out to the site of the abduction, contacted the producers of UM, contaced the Clinton, MO Police Department, interviewed locals in Clinton, and interviewed Rob Shafer as well? No you haven't. You are a UM fan just like the rest of us, no more than an "armchair detective". Your pretentious attitude towards others on this board is not only annoying, but stupid as well. You think you alone are smarter and more deduceful than LE in just about every case you discuss (Pamela June Ray, Angela Hammond, etc.) when in reality you're nothing more than some person typing on a message board about UM.

As others have stated, and since you've obviously ignored everything everyone on here seems to post about the Hammond case, let's refresh.

This case has been bungled from GO:

1) The main suspect has been "cleared."
2) 20 years passed before "lost DNA" evidence was "found" as possibly sent for testing. Add I added a link for that.
3) The only narrative of the events of the night come from the...main suspect.
4) Nobody else that "saw" the "suspect" managed to get a detailed description of his vehicle nor of him.
5) A car chase took place in a quiet small town's downtown area (the location of the police department) and yet no one heard this happen...but the person providing the narrative of the story.

1) :lol: Shafer was never the main suspect, police initially investigated him before two witnesses came forward and corraborated his story.

2) It's taken other cases longer to solve off of newly discovered DNA evidence...not necessarily the work of a bungled investigation but rather advances in the technology LE is using these days.

3 & 4) No one else saw this suspect? Well since you've claimed in other posts that newspapers are vital beacons of facts, here are some quotes from some:

From the Kansas City Star April 7, 1991: "As she spoke, the 20-year-old woman noticed an old green pickup circling the lot. Suspicious, she described the truck over the phone. The truck stopped, and she told her boyfriend of the man who got out - a white man with glasses, a mustache and a beard."

And from the same paper on October 4, 1991: "Two witnesses told police they saw a white man with a mustache wearing a dark-colored baseball-style cap sitting in the truck near the telephone booth Hammond was using. The witnesses' description is similar to one Hammond gave her fiance moments before the line went dead."

In response to the alleged "bungled" investigation, here's another quote from the same article from April 7th, "The FBI and Henry County Sheriff also are investigating." You honestly think that 3 law enforcement agencies including the FBI are going to be blasse enough to let Shafer go through the cracks because of his puppy dog eyes? WRONG. They investigated him as a suspect, and cleared him. Please stop implicating Rob, unless you decide to actually offer PROOF in your posts.

Has there ever been a book written about Angela's case?

Has there ever been a book written about Angela's case?

I wish...

And I'm assuming you've investigated the Hammond disappearance on your own, correct? You've driven out to the site of the abduction, contacted the producers of UM, contaced the Clinton, MO Police Department, interviewed locals in Clinton, and interviewed Rob Shafer as well? No you haven't. You are a UM fan just like the rest of us, no more than an "armchair detective". Your pretentious attitude towards others on this board is not only annoying, but stupid as well. You think you alone are smarter and more deduceful than LE in just about every case you discuss (Pamela June Ray, Angela Hammond, etc.) when in reality you're nothing more than some person typing on a message board about UM.

As others have stated, and since you've obviously ignored everything everyone on here seems to post about the Hammond case, let's refresh.



1) :lol: Shafer was never the main suspect, police initially investigated him before two witnesses came forward and corraborated his story.

2) It's taken other cases longer to solve off of newly discovered DNA evidence...not necessarily the work of a bungled investigation but rather advances in the technology LE is using these days.

3 & 4) No one else saw this suspect? Well since you've claimed in other posts that newspapers are vital beacons of facts, here are some quotes from some:

From the Kansas City Star April 7, 1991: "As she spoke, the 20-year-old woman noticed an old green pickup circling the lot. Suspicious, she described the truck over the phone. The truck stopped, and she told her boyfriend of the man who got out - a white man with glasses, a mustache and a beard."

And from the same paper on October 4, 1991: "Two witnesses told police they saw a white man with a mustache wearing a dark-colored baseball-style cap sitting in the truck near the telephone booth Hammond was using. The witnesses' description is similar to one Hammond gave her fiance moments before the line went dead."

In response to the alleged "bungled" investigation, here's another quote from the same article from April 7th, "The FBI and Henry County Sheriff also are investigating." You honestly think that 3 law enforcement agencies including the FBI are going to be blasse enough to let Shafer go through the cracks because of his puppy dog eyes? WRONG. They investigated him as a suspect, and cleared him. Please stop implicating Rob, unless you decide to actually offer PROOF in your posts.

You're wasting your time. Besides...he's convinced me. I have seen the light. Rob murdered Angela with the help of the local law enforcement.

Here are several other crimes and mysteries Rob is the mastermind of:
September 11th.
The moon landing hoax.
Jack the Ripper.
Agatha Christie's missing eleven days.
Franklin Delano Floyd's abducting his "son."
The murders of Judge Joseph Crater and Sally Lou Ritz.
The murder of Jimmy Hoffa.
The Great Train Robbery.
Roswell.
And perhaps most importantly, global climate change.

Rob has really gotten around. I'm glad my eyes have been opened to the fact that I'm apparently a complete ******* moron, with no intelligence level whatsoever. I'm so glad that cocytus has shown me this.

And I'm assuming you've investigated the Hammond disappearance on your own, correct? You've driven out to the site of the abduction, contacted the producers of UM, contaced the Clinton, MO Police Department, interviewed locals in Clinton, and interviewed Rob Shafer as well? No you haven't. You are a UM fan just like the rest of us, no more than an "armchair detective". Your pretentious attitude towards others on this board is not only annoying, but stupid as well. You think you alone are smarter and more deduceful than LE in just about every case you discuss (Pamela June Ray, Angela Hammond, etc.) when in reality you're nothing more than some person typing on a message board about UM.

As others have stated, and since you've obviously ignored everything everyone on here seems to post about the Hammond case, let's refresh.



1) :lol: Shafer was never the main suspect, police initially investigated him before two witnesses came forward and corraborated his story.

2) It's taken other cases longer to solve off of newly discovered DNA evidence...not necessarily the work of a bungled investigation but rather advances in the technology LE is using these days.

3 & 4) No one else saw this suspect? Well since you've claimed in other posts that newspapers are vital beacons of facts, here are some quotes from some:

From the Kansas City Star April 7, 1991: "As she spoke, the 20-year-old woman noticed an old green pickup circling the lot. Suspicious, she described the truck over the phone. The truck stopped, and she told her boyfriend of the man who got out - a white man with glasses, a mustache and a beard."

And from the same paper on October 4, 1991: "Two witnesses told police they saw a white man with a mustache wearing a dark-colored baseball-style cap sitting in the truck near the telephone booth Hammond was using. The witnesses' description is similar to one Hammond gave her fiance moments before the line went dead."

In response to the alleged "bungled" investigation, here's another quote from the same article from April 7th, "The FBI and Henry County Sheriff also are investigating." You honestly think that 3 law enforcement agencies including the FBI are going to be blasse enough to let Shafer go through the cracks because of his puppy dog eyes? WRONG. They investigated him as a suspect, and cleared him. Please stop implicating Rob, unless you decide to actually offer PROOF in your posts.

You make perfect sense to anyone who has been following this case and understands the evidence that we have. You are wasting your time trying to convince this idiot of anything though. He tends to ignore anything people say that doesn't jive with what's in his head. He just continues to re post the same crap about Rob being the main suspect and there being no other witnesses. He really looks silly posting this crap after being proven wrong. I think he likes the attention though so maybe everyone could just disregard him and continue trying to move forward.

You're wasting your time. Besides...he's convinced me. I have seen the light. Rob murdered Angela with the help of the local law enforcement.

Here are several other crimes and mysteries Rob is the mastermind of:
September 11th.
The moon landing hoax.
Jack the Ripper.
Agatha Christie's missing eleven days.
Franklin Delano Floyd's abducting his "son."
The murders of Judge Joseph Crater and Sally Lou Ritz.
The murder of Jimmy Hoffa.
The Great Train Robbery.
Roswell.
And perhaps most importantly, global climate change.

Rob has really gotten around. I'm glad my eyes have been opened to the fact that I'm apparently a complete ******* moron, with no intelligence level whatsoever. I'm so glad that cocytus has shown me this.

Not to mention Shafer had a hand in forging Obama's birth certificate as well.

Has there ever been a book written about Angela's case?

her family should write a book on her case...

Bump. Keep her in your prayers this Christmas.

her family should write a book on her case...
Yes I would love to see the family do this and give us all the details we dont get from um or the internet.
Alot of people are talking about police bungeling the investigation and to some degree I share that opinion. However where I think the police dropped the ball was directly after she was taken. The minute Rob got to the station every police dept in a 100 mile radius should have been notified and been out looking. Like I said before, Imagine if this had been the govenors daughter. Just think what the reaction would have been in that case.

Yes I would love to see the family do this and give us all the details we dont get from um or the internet.
Alot of people are talking about police bungeling the investigation and to some degree I share that opinion. However where I think the police dropped the ball was directly after she was taken. The minute Rob got to the station every police dept in a 100 mile radius should have been notified and been out looking. Like I said before, Imagine if this had been the govenors daughter. Just think what the reaction would have been in that case.

With the book alone my thought process is it would open up the case again and perhaps they would get new leads..who knows? The truck should have been looked for most deffinately. And the way the man seemed to me, hmm..He tinkered around in his truck with a flash light, he was wearing raggety looking clothing with overalls and not shaved? does this not seem like someone local to you, rather then a killer out on the loose? I would bet maybe just by her description to look in the real rural parts, maybe run down type of homes and such. I feel just by the profile angela gave he seems local to me. Not someone just driving through. Who knows, maybe he was cleaning up space in his truck to fit her in when he abducted her shortly after? I think we are looking for a resident of the town who doesnt socialize with people and probably only goes into town to get essential things he needs. If you think about any serial killer profile, they still care about appearance and descise. This man is driving a old truck, he has a flashlight, he has crap in his truck, he looks old and has beard and dirty clothes like he's a worker of some sort? hmm...They should re-look at the area now. They may find someone who knows someone who fits the profile of a loner and works on cars or works on machinery. This is where i'd start this case.

With the book alone my thought process is it would open up the case again and perhaps they would get new leads..who knows? The truck should have been looked for most deffinately. And the way the man seemed to me, hmm..He tinkered around in his truck with a flash light, he was wearing raggety looking clothing with overalls and not shaved? does this not seem like someone local to you, rather then a killer out on the loose? I would bet maybe just by her description to look in the real rural parts, maybe run down type of homes and such. I feel just by the profile angela gave he seems local to me. Not someone just driving through. Who knows, maybe he was cleaning up space in his truck to fit her in when he abducted her shortly after? I think we are looking for a resident of the town who doesnt socialize with people and probably only goes into town to get essential things he needs. If you think about any serial killer profile, they still care about appearance and descise. This man is driving a old truck, he has a flashlight, he has crap in his truck, he looks old and has beard and dirty clothes like he's a worker of some sort? hmm...They should re-look at the area now. They may find someone who knows someone who fits the profile of a loner and works on cars or works on machinery. This is where i'd start this case.

Well there's a few problems...
One, I don't think we have an approximate age of this guy. Was he a young guy (20s-30s) or older at the time--That would help.

We know he wore a beard or mustache, and seemed dirty looking, he wore overalls, drove an old truck with a fish decal. We know he wore eyeglasses and a ball cap. The fact that she gave a pretty specific description of his appearance (all things considered) it's odd that NO ONE came forward, especially back then, or even especially when the UM segment came out. He may well very be a loner type, as you speculated. If not, I would bet there are quite a few people who know him who know that he did it that have known it for a long time yet have sheltered him from justice.

I do agree the guy's clothes and the truck plus the decal make him sound rural. This man was not a city dweller or even suburban by any chance--His appearance would have stuck out in such a setting. And I do think he was a local, or at the very least, knew the area. There is, in the Southern part of MO, the Ozark Mountains, full of a lot of forested areas, lakes and I'd imagine some out of the way, creepy places. Maybe this guy lives in some shack somewhere in the woods, or did at the time.

If he is still alive, this guy is somewhere. From Angie's description, I wouldn't bet on him being overly intelligent or sophisticated--Not the type to flee to Europe or even very far from a rural sort of area, I would venture to guess. We are missing this man, her body, and that truck. One of those three HAS to turn up somewhere.

The local fishing areas and fisherman's communities in the immediate and surrounding area should have been checked out in great detail.

With the book alone my thought process is it would open up the case again and perhaps they would get new leads..who knows? The truck should have been looked for most deffinately. And the way the man seemed to me, hmm..He tinkered around in his truck with a flash light, he was wearing raggety looking clothing with overalls and not shaved? does this not seem like someone local to you, rather then a killer out on the loose? I would bet maybe just by her description to look in the real rural parts, maybe run down type of homes and such. I feel just by the profile angela gave he seems local to me. Not someone just driving through. Who knows, maybe he was cleaning up space in his truck to fit her in when he abducted her shortly after? I think we are looking for a resident of the town who doesnt socialize with people and probably only goes into town to get essential things he needs. If you think about any serial killer profile, they still care about appearance and descise. This man is driving a old truck, he has a flashlight, he has crap in his truck, he looks old and has beard and dirty clothes like he's a worker of some sort? hmm...They should re-look at the area now. They may find someone who knows someone who fits the profile of a loner and works on cars or works on machinery. This is where i'd start this case.

I can promise you he is not a local. I live 50 miles from Clinton and I know plenty of people there as well as in other small towns around here and there is no way that both Angela and Rob would not have recognized this guy or the truck if he had been local. Angie and Rob both lived in Clinton their entire lives, everyone in small towns knows everyone, there is just no way they wouldnt have seen that truck before. Also keep in mind that two other witnesses saw the truck and had no clue who it was. So thats now four people in a small town that never saw this truck before.

I assure you the police did go after and question anyone anywhere near Clinton with a truck like this and nothing turned up. There was also a sizable reward out for info, I beileve like over 20 grand. You don't think that if this guy was from Clinton his neighboors wouldnt have turned him in for that kind of money?? Hell when the UM episode aired they recieved something like 700 tips from people in the area falling over one another to turn people in they thought might match that description and still nothing turned up.
They guy is not from around there. Believe me Clinton MO is not the only place that has filty bearded men with flashlights, overalls and older pickups. Also all serial killers are not the clean cut Ted Bundy/ Jeffery Dahmer types. They come in all shapes sizes and types.

Well there's a few problems...
One, I don't think we have an approximate age of this guy. Was he a young guy (20s-30s) or older at the time--That would help.

We know he wore a beard or mustache, and seemed dirty looking, he wore overalls, drove an old truck with a fish decal. We know he wore eyeglasses and a ball cap. The fact that she gave a pretty specific description of his appearance (all things considered) it's odd that NO ONE came forward, especially back then, or even especially when the UM segment came out. He may well very be a loner type, as you speculated. If not, I would bet there are quite a few people who know him who know that he did it that have known it for a long time yet have sheltered him from justice.

I do agree the guy's clothes and the truck plus the decal make him sound rural. This man was not a city dweller or even suburban by any chance--His appearance would have stuck out in such a setting. And I do think he was a local, or at the very least, knew the area. There is, in the Southern part of MO, the Ozark Mountains, full of a lot of forested areas, lakes and I'd imagine some out of the way, creepy places. Maybe this guy lives in some shack somewhere in the woods, or did at the time.

If he is still alive, this guy is somewhere. From Angie's description, I wouldn't bet on him being overly intelligent or sophisticated--Not the type to flee to Europe or even very far from a rural sort of area, I would venture to guess. We are missing this man, her body, and that truck. One of those three HAS to turn up somewhere.

The local fishing areas and fisherman's communities in the immediate and surrounding area should have been checked out in great detail.

I do think the man is from a rural area, no doubt about it. But Clinton is not in the Ozark Mountains and Clinton is alot less forested then you might think. I do think this guy may have been from the ozark mountain area or southern MO. That is totally possible. I aslo highly doubt Angela was his only victim. Anyone with this kinda balls has done this more then once. I still say that its very plausible that Marvin Chaney was the man driving the truck.

Looking through an old family photo album of mine, I came across this photo. This photo was taken in May 1993 from the front window of my parents' car on the way to Disneyworld.

Note the pick up on the righthand side of the photograph. Maybe just a coincidence, but Rob did report the truck as being a Yellow, Two Tone pick up truck, whereas Angie reported it as Green.

Note the Fish Jumping out of Water decal on the rear window. And the plates don't seem to be Florida plates from my research, but are possibly Oklahoma plates. I googled images of Florida license plates and this pickup's plates don't match FLA license plates from what I've seen.

I'm not sure of the model year of this truck. I know it was reported as being a Ford pick up, but looking at older model Ford trucks, you can't really see the Ford logo well, especially in the dark. I mean if Rob was unable to get the license plate number, or even notice the license plate well enough that he could tell what state it was from, how would he be able to tell if it was a Ford truck or not?
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9273/may199318.jpg
Full sized version at the link:
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/9273/may199318.jpg

I do think the man is from a rural area, no doubt about it. But Clinton is not in the Ozark Mountains and Clinton is alot less forested then you might think. I do think this guy may have been from the ozark mountain area or southern MO. That is totally possible. I aslo highly doubt Angela was his only victim. Anyone with this kinda balls has done this more then once. I still say that its very plausible that Marvin Chaney was the man driving the truck.

I really think the guy is:

1) A fisherman; rural. Definitely a fisherman, either by hobby or profession.
2) Not particularly intelligent. Might have worked on a farm.
3) Possibly a drinker; bar fighter type maybe. Maybe involved in drugs.
4) Probably living in the more forested region of MO or Southern MO. If not MO, he would live in one of the border states (Arkansas, Kansas, Tennesse, Oklahoma, Nebraska). He could live in a Southern state--possibly Texas or Florida. I would not say that he lived in any state along the East or West Coasts.
5) If it was Chaney, whose truck was it? Where did the truck go? He and his brother were captured in 1994 if I remember correctly, only 3 years later. Sure, it's possible it had been junked or ditched by then. But if not--Where was it when he was arrested?

Surely investigators would have looked into the Parel, Cheevers, and Marshal which Rush mentioned in his letters. If so, if any of them had owned a Pickup truck, that should've come up.

Chaney does fit the profile very closely. His appearance does match Angie's description, he and his brother were operating in Southern Missouri in 1991, and their MO with the Darby murder is similar to Angie's case. However, somehow they were ruled out, both by investigators, and seemingly by Angie's brother (he came here stating he thought her abductor/murderer was one of a crew of people involved in drugs in a county or so over).

I wish her brother would come back on here someday soon and shed any new light.

I really think the guy is:

1) A fisherman; rural. Definitely a fisherman, either by hobby or profession.
2) Not particularly intelligent. Might have worked on a farm.
3) Possibly a drinker; bar fighter type maybe. Maybe involved in drugs.
4) Probably living in the more forested region of MO or Southern MO. If not MO, he would live in one of the border states (Arkansas, Kansas, Tennesse, Oklahoma, Nebraska). He could live in a Southern state--possibly Texas or Florida. I would not say that he lived in any state along the East or West Coasts.
5) If it was Chaney, whose truck was it? Where did the truck go? He and his brother were captured in 1994 if I remember correctly, only 3 years later. Sure, it's possible it had been junked or ditched by then. But if not--Where was it when he was arrested?

Surely investigators would have looked into the Parel, Cheevers, and Marshal which Rush mentioned in his letters. If so, if any of them had owned a Pickup truck, that should've come up.

Chaney does fit the profile very closely. His appearance does match Angie's description, he and his brother were operating in Southern Missouri in 1991, and their MO with the Darby murder is similar to Angie's case. However, somehow they were ruled out, both by investigators, and seemingly by Angie's brother (he came here stating he thought her abductor/murderer was one of a crew of people involved in drugs in a county or so over).

I wish her brother would come back on here someday soon and shed any new light.

I agree with your theory...he could be the type to come into town when he needs things as i mentioned before. And Kane, I have read several books on serial killers, im familiar with ted bundy and many many more, i know they come in all types but i do feel given the description and how he approached her, it seems like a local..maybe he lives in heavily wooded area and people dont make contact with him since he's a loner type, maybe he's a biker, it's hard to say...? I feel he perhaps got smart about ditching the truck or painting it...Does anyone have a image of the location where she was abducted? it would help to see the angle of the road.

Looking through an old family photo album of mine, I came across this photo. This photo was taken in May 1993 from the front window of my parents' car on the way to Disneyworld.

Note the pick up on the righthand side of the photograph. Maybe just a coincidence, but Rob did report the truck as being a Yellow, Two Tone pick up truck, whereas Angie reported it as Green.

Note the Fish Jumping out of Water decal on the rear window. And the plates don't seem to be Florida plates from my research, but are possibly Oklahoma plates. I googled images of Florida license plates and this pickup's plates don't match FLA license plates from what I've seen.

I'm not sure of the model year of this truck. I know it was reported as being a Ford pick up, but looking at older model Ford trucks, you can't really see the Ford logo well, especially in the dark. I mean if Rob was unable to get the license plate number, or even notice the license plate well enough that he could tell what state it was from, how would he be able to tell if it was a Ford truck or not?
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9273/may199318.jpg
Full sized version at the link:
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/9273/may199318.jpg

Very interesting indeed but the truck that Rob described was early 70s model and the one in your pic is a late 80s.

I agree with your theory...he could be the type to come into town when he needs things as i mentioned before. And Kane, I have read several books on serial killers, im familiar with ted bundy and many many more, i know they come in all types but i do feel given the description and how he approached her, it seems like a local..maybe he lives in heavily wooded area and people dont make contact with him since he's a loner type, maybe he's a biker, it's hard to say...? I feel he perhaps got smart about ditching the truck or painting it...Does anyone have a image of the location where she was abducted? it would help to see the angle of the road.

Possibly. I still wonder what he was searching through the car with a flashlight for. It could be one of several things:

1) He could've been searching for a weapon; either a 'real' weapon (gun, knife, garrote)
2) Possibly clearing off space to put Angie in, as someone else suggested
3) Or, he might've simply pretended to look in his car as a distraction.

If it's the first, that says he was kind of unorganized--If he had to actually search through the car for a weapon. If he was actually looking for a weapon or clearing off space and not just trying to distract Angie, than it sounds to me like the actual abduction part of the abduction wasn't planned out. He had his escape route planned, it seems, and had a definite destination, but perhaps not a "game plan" for the abduction.

I wonder what kind of tools or potential weapons a fisherman would have.

As for the area she was kidnapped:
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=CLINTON+MISSOURI+JIM+CAR+DEALER&fb=1&gl=us&hq=JIM+CAR+DEALER&hnear=Clinton,+MO&cid=13540728510433837713

You either click on the map, for a map lay out, or you can click on the photo which leads you to google earth, where you can see the very street where she was kidnapped in real time as if you were standing there. She was kidnapped at 210 South Second Street.

Where she was kidnapped was a supermarket I believe in 1991. Now it's a car dealership. She was kidnapped on the corner across the street from the place marked off as "First Baptist Church." The phoneboothes were a few feet off the corner--On the same side as that electrical post.

Now, if you follow the actual map map down along 2nd Avenue, you'll see where Rob lost the abductor--About two miles downward from the site of the abduction at Charles. E Culvird Drive. If you look down the map, you'll see it turns off there in two directions: West or East. West leads you to a big area of woodland (marked in green) eventually if you follow the turn offs from there, where there is a pretty big lake. East Calvird leads you to several small wooded areas (marked in green) as well as numerous bodies of water.

Note also when you look at the map that there were plenty of other turn off points from 210 South Second Street to Culvird Drive, but her abductor chose to turn at that particular intersection. He could've turned, for example, on Remington Circle. Had he not known the area well, he wouldn't have known that Remingtonled to a dead end.

Very interesting indeed but the truck that Rob described was early 70s model and the one in your pic is a late 80s.

Not to mention it's a Chevy...but interesting, nonetheless.

Not to mention it's a Chevy...but interesting, nonetheless.

One thing that's always bothered me with Rob chasing the truck:
He was maybe chasing the truck for 5, 10, maybe 15 minutes at most; He was able to recognize such a minute item as the make of the truck (which would require him noticing the Ford logo on the front or back), but he couldn't even get a look at WHAT STATE the license plates of the truck were from? I could understand not remembering or noticing the whole license plate number, but not to notice what color the plate was, or anything like that? Nothing that could've identified where it was coming from/going to as far as the plates?

That's why I still put the pic up, despite it being a Chevy--Just in case Rob was mistaken in calling it a Ford. I wasn't sure if the one I posted fit the era but apparently it's "newer" than the one he tailed.

One thing that's always bothered me with Rob chasing the truck:
He was maybe chasing the truck for 5, 10, maybe 15 minutes at most; He was able to recognize such a minute item as the make of the truck (which would require him noticing the Ford logo on the front or back), but he couldn't even get a look at WHAT STATE the license plates of the truck were from? I could understand not remembering or noticing the whole license plate number, but not to notice what color the plate was, or anything like that? Nothing that could've identified where it was coming from/going to as far as the plates?

That's why I still put the pic up, despite it being a Chevy--Just in case Rob was mistaken in calling it a Ford. I wasn't sure if the one I posted fit the era but apparently it's "newer" than the one he tailed.

My understanding is that he only chased it for a few minutes at best. He damaged the transmission when he threw it into reverse and only made it another block or two. I dont think he was close enough to see a plate. On the older trucks they said Ford or Chevrolet in big letters on the tailgate. Look at the truck in your pic, I can see its a chevy but have no clue what state that tag is from. We also have no clue has to how close he got. Remember the driver of the truck was going full speed and Rob had to turn around and give chase from a dead stop. So he may have never been closer then 100 ft while behind the truck.

With the book alone my thought process is it would open up the case again and perhaps they would get new leads..who knows? The truck should have been looked for most deffinately. And the way the man seemed to me, hmm..He tinkered around in his truck with a flash light, he was wearing raggety looking clothing with overalls and not shaved? does this not seem like someone local to you, rather then a killer out on the loose? I would bet maybe just by her description to look in the real rural parts, maybe run down type of homes and such. I feel just by the profile angela gave he seems local to me. Not someone just driving through. Who knows, maybe he was cleaning up space in his truck to fit her in when he abducted her shortly after? I think we are looking for a resident of the town who doesnt socialize with people and probably only goes into town to get essential things he needs. If you think about any serial killer profile, they still care about appearance and descise. This man is driving a old truck, he has a flashlight, he has crap in his truck, he looks old and has beard and dirty clothes like he's a worker of some sort? hmm...They should re-look at the area now. They may find someone who knows someone who fits the profile of a loner and works on cars or works on machinery. This is where i'd start this case.

Ummm...I work on both cars and machinery and I'm neither "raggedy" nor unshaven. You seem to have set ideas on a person's profession based on the personal appearance. That's just not a practical mindset, is it?

If the primary narrative of this is to believed, you can safely assume that:

1) This guy was very familiar w/ the area that this took place. His rapid exit and his relative ease w/ driving around comfortably in it state that fact.

2) The police in Clinton didn't immediately put out an APB based on the description given to them the primary "witness" to the crime.

3) The killer had to have subdued the woman pretty quickly as she simply could jumped from the vehicle as soon as he slowed or stopped.

4) The description of the truck wasn't broadcast in the surrounding using the media in a reasonable amount of time. How do I know this? Paying at the pump was relatively rare in rural areas at that time, so the driver of the truck would have had to get out of his truck and walk in to pay for his gas somewhere in the area or relatively nearby.

Also, while there may have been a number of trucks in Missouri similar to the one reported to be involved, there weren't that many in the area. Had the description been broadcast shortly after the disappearance, it's likely that it could have been identified in a short order.

5) While this killer may be very familiar w/ the area, it's doubtful that he was a local. Why? The town of Clinton had a population of around 9,000. While everybody may not know everyone in the town, there are only so many weirdos and this guy would have stood out almost immediately.

As I have stated (multiple times) this case requires a serious rethink. Another narrative concerning the disappearance needs to be created as the one that has been used for the last 20 years has provided little in the way of useful clues.

All of the available evidence needs to re-examined and all leads (no matter where they go) need to looked at again.

Ummm...I work on both cars and machinery and I'm neither "raggedy" nor unshaven. You seem to have set ideas on a person's profession based on the personal appearance. That's just not a practical mindset, is it?

If the primary narrative of this is to believed, you can safely assume that:

1) This guy was very familiar w/ the area that this took place. His rapid exit and his relative ease w/ driving around comfortably in it state that fact.

2) The police in Clinton didn't immediately put out an APB based on the description given to them the primary "witness" to the crime.

3) The killer had to have subdued the woman pretty quickly as she simply could jumped from the vehicle as soon as he slowed or stopped.

4) The description of the truck wasn't broadcast in the surrounding using the media in a reasonable amount of time. How do I know this? Paying at the pump was relatively rare in rural areas at that time, so the driver of the truck would have had to get out of his truck and walk in to pay for his gas somewhere in the area or relatively nearby.

Also, while there may have been a number of trucks in Missouri similar to the one reported to be involved, there weren't that many in the area. Had the description been broadcast shortly after the disappearance, it's likely that it could have been identified in a short order.

5) While this killer may be very familiar w/ the area, it's doubtful that he was a local. Why? The town of Clinton had a population of around 9,000. While everybody may not know everyone in the town, there are only so many weirdos and this guy would have stood out almost immediately.

As I have stated (multiple times) this case requires a serious rethink. Another narrative concerning the disappearance needs to be created as the one that has been used for the last 20 years has provided little in the way of useful clues.

All of the available evidence needs to re-examined and all leads (no matter where they go) need to looked at again.

Well I completley agree with you in the idea that the Police botched this by not getting an apb out the minute Rob showed up at the station. There is no doubt this truck could have been tracked down had every law enforcement agency in a hundred mile radius been notified directly after the abduction.

I also agree he was not local but familar with the area. On that point I also dont beileve that he needed to be around Clinton much to become familar with the main roads going in and out. Think about this, if you have ever been on vacation in an area your not familar with, how long does it take for you to know your way around atleast the general area your in? Not long at all actually. I think the man (or men) where driving around looking for lone women possibly working in a gas station or convienance store. He didnt find what he was after but just happened to see Angela alone at the phone. Circled around a few times while mauling it over and then decided to go after her. She was on the phone for a half an hour giving him plenty of time to think about his escape route after grabbing her.

Also from what we have been told by Angela's brother as well as the local media it seems the case is getting another look. There are three times as many investigators on this now as there was when it happned. So lets hope they are covering all the bases.

Ummm...I work on both cars and machinery and I'm neither "raggedy" nor unshaven. You seem to have set ideas on a person's profession based on the personal appearance. That's just not a practical mindset, is it?

If the primary narrative of this is to believed, you can safely assume that:

1) This guy was very familiar w/ the area that this took place. His rapid exit and his relative ease w/ driving around comfortably in it state that fact.

2) The police in Clinton didn't immediately put out an APB based on the description given to them the primary "witness" to the crime.

3) The killer had to have subdued the woman pretty quickly as she simply could jumped from the vehicle as soon as he slowed or stopped.

4) The description of the truck wasn't broadcast in the surrounding using the media in a reasonable amount of time. How do I know this? Paying at the pump was relatively rare in rural areas at that time, so the driver of the truck would have had to get out of his truck and walk in to pay for his gas somewhere in the area or relatively nearby.

Also, while there may have been a number of trucks in Missouri similar to the one reported to be involved, there weren't that many in the area. Had the description been broadcast shortly after the disappearance, it's likely that it could have been identified in a short order.

5) While this killer may be very familiar w/ the area, it's doubtful that he was a local. Why? The town of Clinton had a population of around 9,000. While everybody may not know everyone in the town, there are only so many weirdos and this guy would have stood out almost immediately.

As I have stated (multiple times) this case requires a serious rethink. Another narrative concerning the disappearance needs to be created as the one that has been used for the last 20 years has provided little in the way of useful clues.

All of the available evidence needs to re-examined and all leads (no matter where they go) need to looked at again.

3) she yelled for robs name and was struggling with the trucker so she was not subdued quickly as you referenced here.

5) as you mentioned. the guy maybe weird? but why are you being hypocritical with the original conclusion i came up with? You mention in your first paragraph me coming to the conclusion based on a stereo typical but later you come to the same conclusion pretty much in so many words? calling him a weirdo and perhaps standing out? well, if he had in fact stood out i believe there would have been more witnesses to him driving off with her, wouldnt you say? and we all know he was rugged as she described so the question now is the scenerio in which she was in? Where in fact the kidnapping took place? what was around the area? I see info here so I do want to check this out on the map. This is key to investigating this as well as what type of profile he was of a person. Many here speculate him being a fisher, truck driver, living in wooded parts perhaps? He had to have come into town for a reason, huh? it wasnt originally to pick her up, she was at the phone booth and he saw her as he drove by..so why did he come to town? who knows? this is what we must figure out? You are correct about looking at this further and i have presented many interesting points as some others have as well..so lets see about working as an effort to see what our minds come up with.

I wish her brother would come back on here someday soon and shed any new light.

He runs her myspace memorial page. If I can remember when I am on a computer that can access Myspace I will send him a message.

3) she yelled for robs name and was struggling with the trucker so she was not subdued quickly as you referenced here.

5) as you mentioned. the guy maybe weird? but why are you being hypocritical with the original conclusion i came up with? You mention in your first paragraph me coming to the conclusion based on a stereo typical but later you come to the same conclusion pretty much in so many words? calling him a weirdo and perhaps standing out? well, if he had in fact stood out i believe there would have been more witnesses to him driving off with her, wouldnt you say? and we all know he was rugged as she described so the question now is the scenerio in which she was in? Where in fact the kidnapping took place? what was around the area? I see info here so I do want to check this out on the map. This is key to investigating this as well as what type of profile he was of a person. Many here speculate him being a fisher, truck driver, living in wooded parts perhaps? He had to have come into town for a reason, huh? it wasnt originally to pick her up, she was at the phone booth and he saw her as he drove by..so why did he come to town? who knows? this is what we must figure out? You are correct about looking at this further and i have presented many interesting points as some others have as well..so lets see about working as an effort to see what our minds come up with.

Why did he come to town you ask?

Well as I have stated many times I beileve he came to town to abduct someone. Obviously he didnt set out to abduct Angela because he had no idea she'd be there. Serial killers do this as a means to find victims. They will drive around and look for an opportunity and when it arrises they take it. That is what happened here. Back in 1991 very few people had cell phones so the idea of a killer lurking around payphones waiting for a victim isnt that far fetched. How else do these random type killers get their victims?? They have to simply find a situation that looks right and act on it.

Why did he come to town you ask?

Well as I have stated many times I beileve he came to town to abduct someone. Obviously he didnt set out to abduct Angela because he had no idea she'd be there. Serial killers do this as a means to find victims. They will drive around and look for an opportunity and when it arrises they take it. That is what happened here. Back in 1991 very few people had cell phones so the idea of a killer lurking around payphones waiting for a victim isnt that far fetched. How else do these random type killers get their victims?? They have to simply find a situation that looks right and act on it.

Exactly.

To this day, I don't think any segment haunts me as much. Rob is innocent in my eyes, or he deserves an Oscar for making sure everything from the transmission breaking on his car to the calculated phone call from Angela.

It would bother me to not know what happened to my future wife to this day even if I carried on with my life. I don't think a day would go by without thinking about it.

3) she yelled for robs name and was struggling with the trucker so she was not subdued quickly as you referenced here.

5) as you mentioned. the guy maybe weird? but why are you being hypocritical with the original conclusion i came up with? You mention in your first paragraph me coming to the conclusion based on a stereo typical but later you come to the same conclusion pretty much in so many words? calling him a weirdo and perhaps standing out? well, if he had in fact stood out i believe there would have been more witnesses to him driving off with her, wouldnt you say? and we all know he was rugged as she described so the question now is the scenerio in which she was in? Where in fact the kidnapping took place? what was around the area? I see info here so I do want to check this out on the map. This is key to investigating this as well as what type of profile he was of a person. Many here speculate him being a fisher, truck driver, living in wooded parts perhaps? He had to have come into town for a reason, huh? it wasnt originally to pick her up, she was at the phone booth and he saw her as he drove by..so why did he come to town? who knows? this is what we must figure out? You are correct about looking at this further and i have presented many interesting points as some others have as well..so lets see about working as an effort to see what our minds come up with.

1) The narrative where she yells loud enough to be heard in another vehicle was created by a single person. That's part of the reason that another narrative needs to be created.

2) How am I being "hypocritical?" Are you aware of the correct definition of the word? I really can't be "hypocritical" w/ YOUR definition of anything.

You stated that the man's "raggedy" appearance makes it likely that he worked on machinery and that's where people should look for the killer. A person who dresses in a "raggedy" fashion could also be:

1) A farmer/farm hand
2) A logger
3) A janitor
4) A shop teacher
5) A Wall Street investor

There are many more professions, but I think that I made my point. There's no way from a person's appearance that you judge what they do for a living.

1) The narrative where she yells loud enough to be heard in another vehicle was created by a single person. That's part of the reason that another narrative needs to be created.

2) How am I being "hypocritical?" Are you aware of the correct definition of the word? I really can't be "hypocritical" w/ YOUR definition of anything.

You stated that the man's "raggedy" appearance makes it likely that he worked on machinery and that's where people should look for the killer. A person who dresses in a "raggedy" fashion could also be:

1) A farmer/farm hand
2) A logger
3) A janitor
4) A shop teacher
5) A Wall Street investor

There are many more professions, but I think that I made my point. There's no way from a person's appearance that you judge what they do for a living.

I'd say the last 2 are not really probable. The first three maybe.
The guy doesn't seem particularly that intelligent...Not a Wall Street guy. Just lucky.
But a bearded, long haired janitor? That's likely. I still think he might be the type of person to live in a fishing community or near one. A rural guy or suburbanite. Not urban.

I sent Loren Hammond a message this morning. Hopefully he will stop by sometime soon.

This thread should be renamed "Rob Schafer fan thread".

There are many more professions, but I think that I made my point. There's no way from a person's appearance that you judge what they do for a living.

I agree completely. I also feel those kind of assumptions about appearances are exactly what's bungled many investigations in the past.

I recall in the "Debbie" case--the one where the North Carolina woman was assaulted and shot in the face by a still-unidentified man--the suspect left a wool pea coat in the woods with "Debbie". Using a common stereotype, I could come to the conclusion that the suspect must be some sort of professional, as wool pea coats are often worn with business dress (I would've said he was probably a sailor, but the coat wasn't Navy issue, IIRC). So I have my mind set on a "white collar" of some sort committing the crime.

Of course, you may not feel that way. Maybe you live in a large metro area and see homeless people wearing throw-away, secondhand pea coats all the time. So maybe you have your mind made up that it's a homeless person.

And then there's the added element of the coat reeking of a petroleum-like odor, suggesting that the individual may have worked in some industry that utilizes those materials. Maybe a third person had an Uncle Billy Joe who used to work on an oil rig AND wear a pea coat. Maybe that third person concludes the suspect is thus an oil worker.



As you see, it's all relative. Appearances and our impressions of them ultimately reveal quite little factually when you get right down to it--except maybe our own stereotypes and limited/limiting ideas.

Does anyone else agree that whoever abducted Angela also abducted (and probably killed) Cheryl Kenney? Both were abducted in Missouri at a late night convenience store after the store was closed and robbery was obviously not the motive. So it seems to me that we have a serial killer on the loose picking off women in convenience store parking lots. As for why the guy was searching his truck, I honestly think he was just trying to kill time to wait for Angela to get off of the phone. After a few minutes he became hesitant and then abducted her while she was still on the phone out of fear of his plan not coming to fruition. I don't necessarily think the guy has to be a local townsperson, but I do think he's from or used to live in Missouri.

Does anyone else agree that whoever abducted Angela also abducted (and probably killed) Cheryl Kenney? Both were abducted in Missouri at a late night convenience store after the store was closed and robbery was obviously not the motive. So it seems to me that we have a serial killer on the loose picking off women in convenience store parking lots. As for why the guy was searching his truck, I honestly think he was just trying to kill time to wait for Angela to get off of the phone. After a few minutes he became hesitant and then abducted her while she was still on the phone out of fear of his plan not coming to fruition. I don't necessarily think the guy has to be a local townsperson, but I do think he's from or used to live in Missouri.

It is possible no doubt though Kenny's son who posts on this forum seems to think someone who knew his mother killed her. Trudy Darby was taken in the same way and in the same general area. Her killers where caught and Id like to know why police rule them out in both other cases.

It is possible no doubt though Kenny's son who posts on this forum seems to think someone who knew his mother killed her. Trudy Darby was taken in the same way and in the same general area. Her killers where caught and Id like to know why police rule them out in both other cases.

Can a connection be made between the vehicle described by Shaffer to the one used by the perps in the Darby murder?

This thread should be renamed "Rob Schafer fan thread".

It's not so much 'fans' as that I (think) many of us feel it's pretty clear he was innocent. If you believe he was guilty, what kind of scenario do you see him killing Angela and getting away with it? Bear in mind Angela dropped off her friend Kyla at 11:00pm. That seems to be pretty much confirmed. Rob arrived at the police station at 12am. So that gives Rob one hour to meet up with her, kill her, stash her body in such a way that it hasn't been found 19 years later, screw up his car transmission and get to the police station.

This thread should be renamed "Rob Schafer fan thread".

No kidding.
I fully expect to see a posting on here suggesting that he be elevated for canonization.

Just a shot in the dark here, but what do you guys think about the possibility of this guy being the same person profile in the new Hampshire serial killer segment? The MO is pretty close. Obviously the descriptions differ, but there were a few years in between. Even the two different vehicles aren't all that different. Also, the authorities felt that the new Hampshire killer had indeed traveled out of the state. Just a thought. Not sure if this has been brought up before or not.

Just a shot in the dark here, but what do you guys think about the possibility of this guy being the same person profile in the new Hampshire serial killer segment? The MO is pretty close. Obviously the descriptions differ, but there were a few years in between. Even the two different vehicles aren't all that different. Also, the authorities felt that the new Hampshire killer had indeed traveled out of the state. Just a thought. Not sure if this has been brought up before or not.

Michael Nicholau, I mean, the New Hampshire Serial Killer is not that likely.

My thoughts are someone was driving around, saw Angela, and took the opportunity to abduct her. It probably wasn't his first time, or his last time. The cops are just as much to blame. How many people you know got a puke green colored truck with an artistic picture on the back window?

You have to wonder if he's still around (as in not dead, nor in prison) today....

Michael Nicholau, I mean, the New Hampshire Serial Killer is not that likely.

My thoughts are someone was driving around, saw Angela, and took the opportunity to abduct her. It probably wasn't his first time, or his last time. The cops are just as much to blame. How many people you know got a puke green colored truck with an artistic picture on the back window?

I'm not sure I'd blame the cops on this one. That description is from second hand information from Angela to Rob. Rob might have had a glimpse of the truck but he was in such a hurry at the time it would be hard to get a description. Besides that decal on the back of the window could have been tossed 5 minutes after Rob lost him. The colour of the car could have been wrong. The car could have been dumped right away and a new car was waiting for him. Who knows. Whatever it is the cops didn't get him in time and this is 1991, it's pre-9/11, its pre cell phones. Information didn't change hands as fast at the time

I'm not sure I'd blame the cops on this one. That description is from second hand information from Angela to Rob. Rob might have had a glimpse of the truck but he was in such a hurry at the time it would be hard to get a description. Besides that decal on the back of the window could have been tossed 5 minutes after Rob lost him. The colour of the car could have been wrong. The car could have been dumped right away and a new car was waiting for him. Who knows. Whatever it is the cops didn't get him in time and this is 1991, it's pre-9/11, its pre cell phones. Information didn't change hands as fast at the time

Ummm...why can't they "blame the cops" for this one? Even if the police in that town didn't have databases or advanced forensic equipment, they did have access to many tried and true crime detection techniques that, when effectively used, have caught and lead to the conviction of hundreds of thousands of criminals over the years.

If the police had quickly put out an APB and checked the gas stations in a 25-mile radius shortly after the crime, they probably would have been able to locate the truck. They could have also quickly radioed in to other local departments and had them looking for Ms. Hammond.

In fact, from watching the segment and reading the article that I posted a link to, the police in Clinton seemed to have basically spun their wheels for a few days after the disappearance and still seem to have little clue on how to proceed. As this was probably the biggest case that their department had ever faced, this was a pretty poor showing.

Ummm...why can't they "blame the cops" for this one? Even if the police in that town didn't have databases or advanced forensic equipment, they did have access to many tried and true crime detection techniques that, when effectively used, have caught and lead to the conviction of hundreds of thousands of criminals over the years.

If the police had quickly put out an APB and checked the gas stations in a 25-mile radius shortly after the crime, they probably would have been able to locate the truck. They could have also quickly radioed in to other local departments and had them looking for Ms. Hammond.

In fact, from watching the segment and reading the article that I posted a link to, the police in Clinton seemed to have basically spun their wheels for a few days after the disappearance and still seem to have little clue on how to proceed. As this was probably the biggest case that their department had ever faced, this was a pretty poor showing.

Unless the kidnapper had this plan calculated. For all we know he dumped the truck into a swamp (ala Norman Bates from Psycho). For all we know he got into another car with an accomplice and threw Angela in the trunk (alive) and drove off. Would the cops have stopped an Oldsmobile? Doubt it.

I think you are forgetting the possibility of an incorrect description. In Canada when Kristen French was abducted in 1992 (huge story) the police clung to the theory that it was a white Camaro that picked her up. They were dead wrong despite eyewitness accounts.

Angela Hammond may have described a hillbilly to Rob, but the guy wasn't dumb but just dressed sloppy. He has eluded the police for 20 years. In my opinion he had to do something right and smart.

I'm not sure I'd blame the cops on this one. That description is from second hand information from Angela to Rob. Rob might have had a glimpse of the truck but he was in such a hurry at the time it would be hard to get a description. Besides that decal on the back of the window could have been tossed 5 minutes after Rob lost him. The colour of the car could have been wrong. The car could have been dumped right away and a new car was waiting for him. Who knows. Whatever it is the cops didn't get him in time and this is 1991, it's pre-9/11, its pre cell phones. Information didn't change hands as fast at the time

Ya well Im sure you can blame the cops on this one. Angela gave a detailed description of the truck to Rob on the phone. The reason she did this is because it was odd to see someone she didnt know hanging around like that. Rob then saw the same truck she described when it drove past her. Two other witnesses claim to have seen the truck driving around that night so ya you can blame the cops.

As for the car being dumped and the abductor switching cars at some pre determined location well LMAO at that. This is some low life serial killer not a CIA assassain.

And as for what you said about it being pre 911 and info not changing hands as fast, let me tell you about a case I watched tonight. This took place in 1964 by the way. A sherrif was gunned down in his patrol car and a witness saw a black truck speeding away. The witness got to his house and called the police. They put out an APB on the truck and it was found in less then one hour. This was 64 my friend. Radios have been in police cars for many years and it doesnt take cell phones to alert all law enforcement in a 100 mile radius. The police dropped the ball by not going all out directly after the abduction. End of story.

Can a connection be made between the vehicle described by Shaffer to the one used by the perps in the Darby murder?
I have no idea on this one. I have searched for info on these guys and have come up with very little.

I'm not sure I'd blame the cops on this one. That description is from second hand information from Angela to Rob. Rob might have had a glimpse of the truck but he was in such a hurry at the time it would be hard to get a description. Besides that decal on the back of the window could have been tossed 5 minutes after Rob lost him. The colour of the car could have been wrong. The car could have been dumped right away and a new car was waiting for him. Who knows. Whatever it is the cops didn't get him in time and this is 1991, it's pre-9/11, its pre cell phones. Information didn't change hands as fast at the time

Exactly. Police departments are not composed of superhumans, and they don't (didn't) always have the manpower or technology to facilitate their efforts--nor always the absolute correct information to work with. The notions that Rob or Angela could have made a mistake, or the suspect altered his vehicle are not inconceivable ones. In fact, they'd be more likely than Angela providing an absolutely perfect description of the vehicle via telephone to Rob, who then provides an absolutely perfect description of the vehicle to police under extreme duress--or the suspect letting his vehicle be seen in the exact condition it was the night of the abduction. Mistakes happen. It's just as likely any of those things happened as it is that the police made a mistake, and in all actuality it's probably a little of both. No one's fully to blame here, IMO. That's rarely ever the case with most things in life.

Unless the kidnapper had this plan calculated. For all we know he dumped the truck into a swamp (ala Norman Bates from Psycho). For all we know he got into another car with an accomplice and threw Angela in the trunk (alive) and drove off. Would the cops have stopped an Oldsmobile? Doubt it.

I think you are forgetting the possibility of an incorrect description. In Canada when Kristen French was abducted in 1992 (huge story) the police clung to the theory that it was a white Camaro that picked her up. They were dead wrong despite eyewitness accounts.

Angela Hammond may have described a hillbilly to Rob, but the guy wasn't dumb but just dressed sloppy. He has eluded the police for 20 years. In my opinion he had to do something right and smart.

I'm not "forgetting" anything. I have always had a problem w/ the narrative presented and I have no issues w/ believing that there may have been a different vehicle than the one described or even no truck at all. This is why the cops needed to bring their A-game on this as it was obvious from the beginning (or rather should have been obvious) that this wasn't going to be an ordinary case.

I have never based my opinions of person's intellect on their personal appearance. That's not wise decision and when you are dealing w/ criminals, it could be a very shortsighted and dangerous position to put yourself in. Having said that, I don't think the abductor (if it's not the obvious suspect) was that intelligent;I think that he benefited from an inept police force and the lack of serious effort put into this case from the start.

Here's why I don't think that the killer was that smart:

1) He wandered around in a small town at night, risking being seen by numerous people.
2) He kidnapped a woman that was ON the phone rather than waiting for her to finish her call.
3) He didn't try some type of ruse to lure her into the car and then (according to the main narrative) did nothing to immediately subdue her making it possible for her to potentially injure him.
4) He drove a distinctive vehicle rather than something less likely to attract attention.
5) He kidnapped a woman that he hadn't stalked beforehand meaning that he acted very rashly and w/o thought for the consequences. He couldn't known whether she was armed or whether she was related to people that would take a dim view (and possibly seek non-judicial revenge) of their loved one being taken.

There are several more reasons but basically this guy was an average to below average psycho who managed to grab a woman, not get seriously injured in the process and benefited from the very slow response to his crime that Clinton police provided.

Here's why I don't think that the killer was that smart:

1) He wandered around in a small town at night, risking being seen by numerous people.
2) He kidnapped a woman that was ON the phone rather than waiting for her to finish her call.
3) He didn't try some type of ruse to lure her into the car and then (according to the main narrative) did nothing to immediately subdue her making it possible for her to potentially injure him.
4) He drove a distinctive vehicle rather than something less likely to attract attention.
5) He kidnapped a woman that he hadn't stalked beforehand meaning that he acted very rashly and w/o thought for the consequences. He couldn't known whether she was armed or whether she was related to people that would take a dim view (and possibly seek non-judicial revenge) of their loved one being taken.

All of those things do indicate that he was probably a disorganized criminal, which tends to be an individual of below-average intelligence. I think you're correct, and I agree with you.

All of those things do indicate that he was probably a disorganized criminal, which tends to be an individual of below-average intelligence. I think you're correct, and I agree with you.

I'd also speculate that besides being a sociopath, the guy might've had some other mental disorder, like schizophrenia.

I'd also speculate that besides being a sociopath, the guy might've had some other mental disorder, like schizophrenia.

I'd agree. Very likely.

I'd agree. Very likely.

Yeah. I mean no serial killer or abductor is "normal" but look at someone like Ted Bundy--He would play on his victims' sympathy, lure them to their death in essence and was VERY discreet about how he went about his "business."

Or Jack the Ripper--Brutal killer but managed to somehow blend in with society and was probably interviewed by the police without them ever knowing it, and in many of the murders he was there just minutes before the body was discovered and in one of them was even in the court yard when the body was discovered but in every case slipped away just in time.

I mean if you're a criminal, besides doing your thing, one of your other "objectives" is also not to get caught. A smart criminal isn't going to take those sorts of chances. He could've EASILY waited another five minutes or whatever until Angela got off the phone and no one would have any clue whatever became of her. In fact, if he is ever found it will be because of Angie, in an ironic twist of fate.

If not for waiting around, he could've just grabbed her as soon as he got out of his truck. Instead he waited for around maybe 15 minutes to a half hour. If he just grabbed her as soon as he pulled up next to her, no description of him to whoever she was on the phone with (from his POV). Also, he used the phone next to her. Now we don't know if he was wearing gloves, but if he wasn't, then for a criminal, that was an utterly stupid move. Then to even talk on the phone? That shows cajones. This guy seemed to KNOW he wouldn't be caught...Makes you wonder what made him so confidant--Because he was either very confidant or very foolish.

I do wonder if he did follow her for a little while. She and her friend had been ''trucking around'' for the past hour or so until Angie went to the phone booth after dropping the friend off. This guy could've been tailing them from a distance for a while and they wouldn't have noticed it. It's not likely, but possible.

Also, the circling. I wonder if he circled because he wasn't sure if he was going to do it, or if he was circling to do a thorough check of the area to ensure that she was truly utterly alone. I wonder this because the former or latter would both say something about his level of intelligence and perhaps even his experience.

Also, I wonder if this guy continued after Angela, and if so, who were the other women?

You know there is a possibility that he was a first timer. Someone who just went nuts. Angie never indicated if he was a younger guy or older. Maybe he was a Vet. Maybe he was on drugs or alcohol. I've seen people who were incredibly nice while sober literally have hallucinations and become incredibly violent and aggressive while simply drunk on alcohol.

Exactly. Police departments are not composed of superhumans, and they don't (didn't) always have the manpower or technology to facilitate their efforts--nor always the absolute correct information to work with. The notions that Rob or Angela could have made a mistake, or the suspect altered his vehicle are not inconceivable ones. In fact, they'd be more likely than Angela providing an absolutely perfect description of the vehicle via telephone to Rob, who then provides an absolutely perfect description of the vehicle to police under extreme duress--or the suspect letting his vehicle be seen in the exact condition it was the night of the abduction. Mistakes happen. It's just as likely any of those things happened as it is that the police made a mistake, and in all actuality it's probably a little of both. No one's fully to blame here, IMO. That's rarely ever the case with most things in life.
Once again, Angela stood there on the phone and gave Rob a description of the truck. Rob saw the same truck pass and and turned around to follow it. Two other witnesses report seeing the same truck Rob described. So I guess they could all have it wrong and the vehilcle was really a blue ford pinto?

Cops dont have to be superhuman to get on a radio and start alerting every available officer in a hundred mile radius. All they needed was a very basic description of the truck which is driving at a high rate of speed at midnight on a weekday. Not exactly a neddle in a hay stack.

If not for waiting around, he could've just grabbed her as soon as he got out of his truck. Instead he waited for around maybe 15 minutes to a half hour. If he just grabbed her as soon as he pulled up next to her, no description of him to whoever she was on the phone with (from his POV). Also, he used the phone next to her. Now we don't know if he was wearing gloves, but if he wasn't, then for a criminal, that was an utterly stupid move. Then to even talk on the phone? That shows cajones. This guy seemed to KNOW he wouldn't be caught...Makes you wonder what made him so confidant--Because he was either very confidant or very foolish.

I do wonder if he did follow her for a little while. She and her friend had been ''trucking around'' for the past hour or so until Angie went to the phone booth after dropping the friend off. This guy could've been tailing them from a distance for a while and they wouldn't have noticed it. It's not likely, but possible.

Also, the circling. I wonder if he circled because he wasn't sure if he was going to do it, or if he was circling to do a thorough check of the area to ensure that she was truly utterly alone. I wonder this because the former or latter would both say something about his level of intelligence and perhaps even his experience.

I agree with this guy possibly following her to the phone booth. And the circling was in all likelihood his attempt to see if there were any witnesses or to check his surroundings. In that case that would make this guy a crafty killer, not some below-average intelligent carpenter. And I think this guy had a hand in Cheryl Kenney's disappearance as well, and if he isn't dead or incarcerated he's probably continued abducting and killing women.

Once again, Angela stood there on the phone and gave Rob a description of the truck. Rob saw the same truck pass and and turned around to follow it. Two other witnesses report seeing the same truck Rob described. So I guess they could all have it wrong and the vehilcle was really a blue ford pinto?

Cops dont have to be superhuman to get on a radio and start alerting every available officer in a hundred mile radius. All they needed was a very basic description of the truck which is driving at a high rate of speed at midnight on a weekday. Not exactly a neddle in a hay stack.

If the suspect altered his vehicle, yes. Every one of them could "have it wrong." It is also, by no means, a stretch to assume that four people could recall multiple elements of the truck incorrectly, leading to the police having incorrect or incomplete information. Remember that child's game Telephone? Similar ordeal.

I wasn't there that night, nor have I ever lived in or near Clinton, MO. There is absolutely no telling where that man and Angela went after leaving downtown Clinton. Perhaps there are backroads. Perhaps there are access trails. Perhaps there are very secluded areas. It's dark. There are many complicating factors.

It's very easy and compelling to want to find a party "worthy" of absolute blame, but simply put, the world just isn't black and white.

(Additionally, I highly doubt that the Clinton Police Department had the capacity to "get on a radio and start alerting every available officer in a hundred mile radius", as police departments don't communicate with other agencies that way! They have internal systems, and they're based on geographic/jurisdiction area. (Most of the time. Many states now have statewide networks now, but I highly doubt city/county patrols are regularly equipped with acess.) If CPD wanted to contact another agency in 1990, they'd send a computer message, fax, or maybe even a Teletype. Dispatch would then relay that information via an alert or APB to its own members through its own channel(s).)

If the suspect altered his vehicle, yes. Every one of them could "have it wrong." It is also, by no means, a stretch to assume that four people could recall multiple elements of the truck incorrectly, leading to the police having incorrect or incomplete information. Remember that child's game Telephone? Similar ordeal.

I wasn't there that night, nor have I ever lived in or near Clinton, MO. There is absolutely no telling where that man and Angela went after leaving downtown Clinton. Perhaps there are backroads. Perhaps there are access trails. Perhaps there are very secluded areas. It's dark. There are many complicating factors.

It's very easy and compelling to want to find a party "worthy" of absolute blame, but simply put, the world just isn't black and white.

(Additionally, I highly doubt that the Clinton Police Department had the capacity to "get on a radio and start alerting every available officer in a hundred mile radius", as police departments don't communicate with other agencies that way! They have internal systems, and they're based on geographic/jurisdiction area. (Most of the time. Many states now have statewide networks now, but I highly doubt city/county patrols are regularly equipped with acess.) If CPD wanted to contact another agency in 1990, they'd send a computer message, fax, or maybe even a Teletype. Dispatch would then relay that information via an alert or APB to its own members through its own channel(s).)
Ok the last part of your statement is wrong and I know that for a fact. They have had what is known as "mutual aid" in our state long before 1991. The Clinton police absolutley had the abilty to contact other jurdisdictions both via radio and by phone. I live 40 miles from Clinton and have been there many times. I got this information from a Henry County Sherrifs deputy who was involved with the search for Angela.

Ok the last part of your statement is wrong and I know that for a fact. They have had what is known as "mutual aid" in our state long before 1991. The Clinton police absolutley had the abilty to contact other jurdisdictions both via radio and by phone. I live 40 miles from Clinton and have been there many times. I got this information from a Henry County Sherrifs deputy who was involved with the search for Angela.

I'm not so certain.

Perhaps you should have expressed your assessment of his/her agency's police work to this individual.

I'm not so certain.

Perhaps you should have expressed your assessment of his/her agency's police work to this individual.
Actually this individual beileves the Clinton police are negligent. But hey maybe you know more then he would

Actually this individual beileves the Clinton police are negligent. But hey maybe you know more then he would

Perhaps. Who knows.

As for the car being dumped and the abductor switching cars at some pre determined location well LMAO at that. This is some low life serial killer not a CIA assassain.



We know this abductor from a conversation Rob had with Angela. Is it possible that in a rush Rob didn't accurately remember the truck's description and given to him and that he may not have been focusing entirely on the description of the car but rather the fact that is fiance was abducted right before his eyes?

Personally I think it's wrong that you laugh at the idea that he changed cars somewhere along the way. We know very little about this guy and I'm certainly not in the position to assume he wasn't smart enough to NOT switch cars from a vehicle that would stick out like a sore thumb even in a parking lot.

Ok the last part of your statement is wrong and I know that for a fact. They have had what is known as "mutual aid" in our state long before 1991. The Clinton police absolutley had the abilty to contact other jurdisdictions both via radio and by phone. I live 40 miles from Clinton and have been there many times. I got this information from a Henry County Sherrifs deputy who was involved with the search for Angela.

But you're still ignoring the fact that the car could have been an incorrect description and that the abductor could have dumped the car right away. We don't know that he had an accomplice waiting for him, that's the thing, we don't. I think a moron is going to try to come up with a plan two seconds after an eyewitness is left in his dust. He probably thought his licence plate was written down (do we blame Rob for that? No.) and for all we know it was a phony plate to start with.

Blaming the police solely for that is incorrect in my opinion. The cops seem to have dropped the ball on the Wendy Camp case and maybe even Paul Pollis but this case never gave me the impression that the cops deserve the finger

I've been trying to recreate all possible scenarios as they might have played out in my mind.
Maybe there was an accomplice. For example, the one guy circles around; his partner maybe waits somewhere at the end of the block--somewhere within viewing range. He says the guy grab Angie, and pulls up. Maybe the accomplice has Angie and they head in separate directions (the abductor and the accomplice, who has Angie). Unlikely but I guess possible.

This case really depresses me, for many reasons. She didn't deserve to be taken away so young. She was a pretty girl with a whole life ahead of her. Also, her abductor/murderer deserves to be found and brought to justice. I hope he's still alive just for the fact that he can be caught and given a good lethal injection.

The problem w/ an accomplice is that it makes it more likely that you'll get caught. Unless the accomplice was someone that had familial ties or was "intimate" it's not likely that the "partnership" would be stable for an extended period and probably wouldn't survive a "betrayal" or an extended incarceration.

Could there have been an accomplice? Sure. But it would also have increased the likelihood that the perpetrators would be caught.

But you're still ignoring the fact that the car could have been an incorrect description and that the abductor could have dumped the car right away. We don't know that he had an accomplice waiting for him, that's the thing, we don't. I think a moron is going to try to come up with a plan two seconds after an eyewitness is left in his dust. He probably thought his licence plate was written down (do we blame Rob for that? No.) and for all we know it was a phony plate to start with.

Blaming the police solely for that is incorrect in my opinion. The cops seem to have dropped the ball on the Wendy Camp case and maybe even Paul Pollis but this case never gave me the impression that the cops deserve the finger

Im not ignoring anything. There was four people who saw that truck. Now maybe they got some details mixed up but its still a light colored older model truck driving around country roads at midnight right?
You cannot make any comparisson to the Wendy Camp case as the police knew full well who she was with before she went missing. No one knows who Angela was with.
I don't think they dropped the ball in the insuing investigation but in the crucial time directly after the abduction. Generally the rule is you have 48 hours to solve the crime or leeds go cold and suspects vanish. That is what happened here.

The problem w/ an accomplice is that it makes it more likely that you'll get caught. Unless the accomplice was someone that had familial ties or was "intimate" it's not likely that the "partnership" would be stable for an extended period and probably wouldn't survive a "betrayal" or an extended incarceration.

Could there have been an accomplice? Sure. But it would also have increased the likelihood that the perpetrators would be caught.
Ya just ask Marvin Chaney what happens when you have a big mouth accomplice with ya.

Ya just ask Marvin Chaney what happens when you have a big mouth accomplice with ya.

Off topic but I wonder how they BOTH fell into being serial killers. I mean one killer is common but a pair of brothers--two in the same family? And remember at the time of the killings, Rush was only 15! A 15 year old serial killer, even if he is working with his older brother, would be kind of rare I'd think. And he seemed to be singularly vicious. I mean Bundy was a vicious killer but the guy had a bit of intelligence, even the Judge in his trial recognized that. Rush, from the letters, just comes off like a psychopath, a demented, sadistic creep with no remorse, nothing regret, no empathy. And from his writings, he fits the profile I was talking about, a serial killer with average or below average intelligence who acts rashly on emotion, because like I said, Angela's abductor was either very confidant or very foolish.

You know, let's say Chaney was the one who abducted Angela, Rush wouldn't have even had to be there--He could've been waiting back at the barn where they took the women to wait for his brother to get back with a woman. Just a theory, which would explain why no one was noticed but the bearded man.

I wonder if the other three guys Rush mentioned were ever investigated and if they are still alive or free, because Rush's letters imply that these other three men had helped them out and worked with them in abducting and/or killing other women. One of them is the very least guilty of obstructing justice as he burned down the brothers' barn which had other bodies and evidence (enough evidence, Rush claimed, that could put him on death row), and one of them was present for the Darby murder.

Rush in his letters also mentions "three b***ches". Funny that in the period of 1991 in Missouri there was three abductions of women which all fit a similar MO--Angela, Trudy Darby, and the Cheryl Kenny. I, like you, don't know how the cops ruled them out. There's quite a few similarities:

1) Angela's abductor, and Rush and Chaney seemed to be "site based" serial killers--They just picked out a location where a vulnerable woman was.

2) He/They seemed to not really worry about being caught, and would hang around the location before abducting their prey. Note that in the Darby case, Trudy became nervous because she saw a creepy man hanging outside her store for over a few minutes. In Angie's case, her abductor waited and actually briefly spoke with her before finally deciding to abduct her.

3) All 3 murders happened in Southern Missouri less than six months apart. Darby's murder (January 19th 1991), Cheryl Kenny (February 27th 1991), and Angela's abduction (April 4th, 1991). The towns in which they happened (Mack's Creek, Clinton, and Nevada) are also not very far apart.

4) Angela's description of her abductor matches Chaney's appearance. Also, Chaney doesn't look creepy, which I believe kind of "disarmed" Angela if you will. She seemed to not be overly afraid of the man, and while Rush looks like a scary kind of guy-Has that wild animal look in his eyes--Chaney doesn't.

5) The fact that no body has been found for either Kenny or Angie. This would fit in with Rush claiming that with the exception of Darby, they burned all their victims' bodies, and in fact it was this slight change of MO which got them caught.

Now, as I said before when we've talked about this theory: The truck didn't necessarily have to belong to the brothers', but could have belonged to anyone of those three associates Rush mentioned.

Off topic but I wonder how they BOTH fell into being serial killers. I mean one killer is common but a pair of brothers--two in the same family? And remember at the time of the killings, Rush was only 15! A 15 year old serial killer, even if he is working with his older brother, would be kind of rare I'd think. And he seemed to be singularly vicious. I mean Bundy was a vicious killer but the guy had a bit of intelligence, even the Judge in his trial recognized that. Rush, from the letters, just comes off like a psychopath, a demented, sadistic creep with no remorse, nothing regret, no empathy. And from his writings, he fits the profile I was talking about, a serial killer with average or below average intelligence who acts rashly on emotion, because like I said, Angela's abductor was either very confidant or very foolish.

You know, let's say Chaney was the one who abducted Angela, Rush wouldn't have even had to be there--He could've been waiting back at the barn where they took the women to wait for his brother to get back with a woman. Just a theory, which would explain why no one was noticed but the bearded man.

I wonder if the other three guys Rush mentioned were ever investigated and if they are still alive or free, because Rush's letters imply that these other three men had helped them out and worked with them in abducting and/or killing other women. One of them is the very least guilty of obstructing justice as he burned down the brothers' barn which had other bodies and evidence (enough evidence, Rush claimed, that could put him on death row), and one of them was present for the Darby murder.

Rush in his letters also mentions "three b***ches". Funny that in the period of 1991 in Missouri there was three abductions of women which all fit a similar MO--Angela, Trudy Darby, and the Cheryl Kenny. I, like you, don't know how the cops ruled them out. There's quite a few similarities:

1) Angela's abductor, and Rush and Chaney seemed to be "site based" serial killers--They just picked out a location where a vulnerable woman was.

2) He/They seemed to not really worry about being caught, and would hang around the location before abducting their prey. Note that in the Darby case, Trudy became nervous because she saw a creepy man hanging outside her store for over a few minutes. In Angie's case, her abductor waited and actually briefly spoke with her before finally deciding to abduct her.

3) All 3 murders happened in Southern Missouri less than six months apart. Darby's murder (January 19th 1991), Cheryl Kenny (February 27th 1991), and Angela's abduction (April 4th, 1991). The towns in which they happened (Mack's Creek, Clinton, and Nevada) are also not very far apart.

4) Angela's description of her abductor matches Chaney's appearance. Also, Chaney doesn't look creepy, which I believe kind of "disarmed" Angela if you will. She seemed to not be overly afraid of the man, and while Rush looks like a scary kind of guy-Has that wild animal look in his eyes--Chaney doesn't.

5) The fact that no body has been found for either Kenny or Angie. This would fit in with Rush claiming that with the exception of Darby, they burned all their victims' bodies, and in fact it was this slight change of MO which got them caught.

Now, as I said before when we've talked about this theory: The truck didn't necessarily have to belong to the brothers', but could have belonged to anyone of those three associates Rush mentioned.

This is very interesting...is there a website with info about Rush and Chaney, or their possible connections to Angela's disappearance?

This is very interesting...is there a website with info about Rush and Chaney, or their possible connections to Angela's disappearance?
I have been saying this since we first found out about Rush and Chaney. I really wish someone in law enforcement or anyone close to the case would tell us just why the police think they can rule them out. I dont get what the big secret is here.

You guys should look at the Lisa Kimmel case if you havent allready. The man who was convicted of her abduction and murder"s name is David Eaton. In my opinion this is an exact profile of the man that took Angela. This guy also got away with many of these type of abductions before he was caught.

You guys should lool at the Lisa Kimmel case if you havent allready. The man who was convicted of her abduction and murder"s name is David Eaton. In my opinion this is an exact profile of the man that took Angela. This guy also got away with many of these type of abductions before he was caught.

How so?

How so?
Well just read about how this guy would operate and you will see what Im saying. He lived in a secluded area on acerage, didnt have many friends or people that knew him and he would drive around stalking people to abduct and murder.

Off topic but I wonder how they BOTH fell into being serial killers. I mean one killer is common but a pair of brothers--two in the same family? And remember at the time of the killings, Rush was only 15! A 15 year old serial killer, even if he is working with his older brother, would be kind of rare I'd think. And he seemed to be singularly vicious. I mean Bundy was a vicious killer but the guy had a bit of intelligence, even the Judge in his trial recognized that. Rush, from the letters, just comes off like a psychopath, a demented, sadistic creep with no remorse, nothing regret, no empathy. And from his writings, he fits the profile I was talking about, a serial killer with average or below average intelligence who acts rashly on emotion, because like I said, Angela's abductor was either very confidant or very foolish.

You know, let's say Chaney was the one who abducted Angela, Rush wouldn't have even had to be there--He could've been waiting back at the barn where they took the women to wait for his brother to get back with a woman. Just a theory, which would explain why no one was noticed but the bearded man.

I wonder if the other three guys Rush mentioned were ever investigated and if they are still alive or free, because Rush's letters imply that these other three men had helped them out and worked with them in abducting and/or killing other women. One of them is the very least guilty of obstructing justice as he burned down the brothers' barn which had other bodies and evidence (enough evidence, Rush claimed, that could put him on death row), and one of them was present for the Darby murder.

Rush in his letters also mentions "three b***ches". Funny that in the period of 1991 in Missouri there was three abductions of women which all fit a similar MO--Angela, Trudy Darby, and the Cheryl Kenny. I, like you, don't know how the cops ruled them out. There's quite a few similarities:

1) Angela's abductor, and Rush and Chaney seemed to be "site based" serial killers--They just picked out a location where a vulnerable woman was.

2) He/They seemed to not really worry about being caught, and would hang around the location before abducting their prey. Note that in the Darby case, Trudy became nervous because she saw a creepy man hanging outside her store for over a few minutes. In Angie's case, her abductor waited and actually briefly spoke with her before finally deciding to abduct her.

3) All 3 murders happened in Southern Missouri less than six months apart. Darby's murder (January 19th 1991), Cheryl Kenny (February 27th 1991), and Angela's abduction (April 4th, 1991). The towns in which they happened (Mack's Creek, Clinton, and Nevada) are also not very far apart.

4) Angela's description of her abductor matches Chaney's appearance. Also, Chaney doesn't look creepy, which I believe kind of "disarmed" Angela if you will. She seemed to not be overly afraid of the man, and while Rush looks like a scary kind of guy-Has that wild animal look in his eyes--Chaney doesn't.

5) The fact that no body has been found for either Kenny or Angie. This would fit in with Rush claiming that with the exception of Darby, they burned all their victims' bodies, and in fact it was this slight change of MO which got them caught.

Now, as I said before when we've talked about this theory: The truck didn't necessarily have to belong to the brothers', but could have belonged to anyone of those three associates Rush mentioned.

This seems to be the most logical explanation, that one of the brothers took Angela back to the barn. If they did, they might as well confess of it, so this case can finally be solved.

This seems to be the most logical explanation, that one of the brothers took Angela back to the barn. If they did, they might as well confess of it, so this case can finally be solved.

Do you think if someone were to ask either one of them questions, they'd answer?

Do you think if someone were to ask either one of them questions, they'd answer?

I'm reminded of Warden Norton's line from Shawshank Redemption.

"Let's say for the moment this Blatch does exist. You think he'd just fall to his knees and cry: 'Yes, I did it, I confess! Oh, and by the way, add a life term to my sentence.' "

I'm reminded of Warden Norton's line from Shawshank Redemption.

"Let's say for the moment this Blatch does exist. You think he'd just fall to his knees and cry: 'Yes, I did it, I confess! Oh, and by the way, add a life term to my sentence.' "

They're already serving life, though.
Nothing really to lose or gain for them either way.

Since there's no evidence (an important thing, that) linking Rush and Chaney to this crime, then wouldn't everybody simply be jumping the gun by blaming them?

They're already serving life, though.
Nothing really to lose or gain for them either way.
Or worse, risk the death penalty

Or worse, risk the death penalty

That's basically what I was getting at.

Anyone think Angela might've been a victim of the I-70 killer?

This case stands out so vividly to me. It has since first saw it air in the 90's. This will no doubt be one of the first cases/segments discussed on the Unsolved Mysteries podcast I am currently working on.

What was the most recent "official" word on this case regarding possible suspects or theories?

This case stands out so vividly to me. It has since first saw it air in the 90's. This will no doubt be one of the first cases/segments discussed on the Unsolved Mysteries podcast I am currently working on.

What was the most recent "official" word on this case regarding possible suspects or theories?

Last April the police had said they had "DNA evidence" but didn't elaborate on whom it pointed toward or of what nature the evidence was. However, apparently Chaney and Rush (who killed Trudy Darby in a town near Angela's just a month prior and had an MO similar to Angela's abductor) were ruled out as suspects, but again, the police didn't elaborate how Chaney and Rush were ruled out and didn't say if they were looking at any potential suspects.

Anyone think Angela might've been a victim of the I-70 killer?

:rolleyes:

Anyone think Angela might've been a victim of the I-70 killer?

Nah, different MO. She was at a payphone, he always shot women working in stores. Not to mention, she kidnapped when he seemed to just kill rather than abduct anyone.

Anyone think Angela might've been a victim of the I-70 killer?
NO, if it was the I-70 Killer (the same one i think you are talking about), he wouldnt' have kidnapped her and had her in his truck, he would've walked right up to her and shot her and Rob would be driving and likely picking up her dead body.

Kind of weird to think that there were at least four, if not more, serial killers or serial abductors working in Missouri in roughly the same time period.

I'm referring to
Marvin Chaney
Jesse Rush (and their associates Cheevers, Marshall and Parell)--Killed Trudy Darby (Mack's Creek, MO, January 1991) plus AT LEAST three other unnamed women.
I70 Killer (killed Nancy Kitzmiller in St. Charles, MO, May 1992)
Kenneth McDuff
Whoever abducted the Three Missouri Women (Abducted from Springfield MO, June 1992)
Angela's Abductor (April 1991)

I agree with this guy possibly following her to the phone booth. And the circling was in all likelihood his attempt to see if there were any witnesses or to check his surroundings.
yeah very true, i think this was one of those crimes of opportunity, the killer saw a young woman in a phone booth, alone at night, little to no witnesses (except the boyfriend on the phone) and made his move.

I do NOT think he had a friend helping him with kidnapping her, i STILL think this guy is an out of town man, possibly even out of state, was driving through the town and just seen her and then kidnapped her. he likely hid her body in another state or town, my guess is state and buried it and IF the body has been found it's likely known as Jane Doe, hopefully they get answers in this case ASAP

yeah very true, i think this was one of those crimes of opportunity, the killer saw a young woman in a phone booth, alone at night, little to no witnesses (except the boyfriend on the phone) and made his move.

I do NOT think he had a friend helping him with kidnapping her, i STILL think this guy is an out of town man, possibly even out of state, was driving through the town and just seen her and then kidnapped her. he likely hid her body in another state or town, my guess is state and buried it and IF the body has been found it's likely known as Jane Doe, hopefully they get answers in this case ASAP

Extremely likely - who knows, Angela could have been held captive for some time.

Extremely likely - who knows, Angela could have been held captive for some time.
yep, very true, she could've been kept alive for days while he raped her and then eventually killed her and hid the body either in his yard or somewhere in the woods out of town, ADD to it, i also think this guy is a loner and likely doesnt have much friends/family which is also a possible reason why he's not been found.

yep, very true, she could've been kept alive for days while he raped her and then eventually killed her and hid the body either in his yard or somewhere in the woods out of town, ADD to it, i also think this guy is a loner and likely doesnt have much friends/family which is also a possible reason why he's not been found.

I think the man, if he's ever to be found, will be found living near a river. Or a lake. The man is a fisherman. I know very few people, demented or not, who would put one of those fisherman things on their car unless they fished often. I used to live in a very small North Eastern town, about as small or smaller than Clinton. Nearby was a man made lake, and men used to fish there, and there you'd always see their trucks adorned with fish stickers. These men were fishermen--Not to live, just as a hobby.

I'd investigate those sorts from that area. I kind of wish Angela had given a more in depth description of him. It's not her fault, but...I wish she had said if he was young looking or older looking, for example. We're dealing with a twenty year old event--If he was some old guy in his 50s then, he might be dead now. If he was younger, there's a great chance he's still alive, maybe even still active.

Also, knowing what his voice sounded like when he said, "I didn't need to use the phone anyway" would help greatly--His accent. His accent, if Rob was able to remember how he sounded, would be a great lead on at the very least where he came from, if not where he is.

I'd also think, to search for him, since he probably was a rapist as well as a killer, they should check hospital records in surrounding states for those treated for HIV, Syphillis, and any other major STD in the period 1990-2000.
It could help. A guy who is going around raping women whom he doesn't know could've picked up something, especially since he was working in the early 1990s and possibly earlier.

Also, I'd check police records for the same period--Not simply limit to violent crimes. Check mugshots. Check backgrounds.

I think the man, if he's ever to be found, will be found living near a river. Or a lake. The man is a fisherman. I know very few people, demented or not, who would put one of those fisherman things on their car unless they fished often. I used to live in a very small North Eastern town, about as small or smaller than Clinton. Nearby was a man made lake, and men used to fish there, and there you'd always see their trucks adorned with fish stickers. These men were fishermen--Not to live, just as a hobby.

Also, I'd check police records for the same period--Not simply limit to violent crimes. Check mugshots. Check backgrounds.
wow, you wrote alot and i didnt want to quote all of this, BUT i agree. From the sounds of the man, he very well could be a fisherman (from out of town or state). He is also (likely) a loner and if he's been arrested hopefully they check police records, mugshots, backgrounds, stuff like that.

wow, you wrote alot and i didnt want to quote all of this, BUT i agree. From the sounds of the man, he very well could be a fisherman (from out of town or state). He is also (likely) a loner and if he's been arrested hopefully they check police records, mugshots, backgrounds, stuff like that.

I also think he was a bit older than Angela (she was 20).
I'd say this guy was probably between the ages of 29 and 39 at the time, though if I had to guess I'd lean more to mid-late 30s, thus making the man somewhere in his '50s today.

Just a guess.

I also think he was a bit older than Angela (she was 20).
I'd say this guy was probably between the ages of 29 and 39 at the time, though if I had to guess I'd lean more to mid-late 30s, thus making the man somewhere in his '50s today.

Just a guess.
yeah, i could agree there, we dont really have the info to say what his age was, this is all guesswork and hopefully this case is solved so we can get answers.

yeah, i could agree there, we dont really have the info to say what his age was, this is all guesswork and hopefully this case is solved so we can get answers.

Unlikely as this is, it'd be nice if it were solved by the 20th anniversary (4/4/2011) of her abduction. Her family deserves closure, she deserves justice, and society deserves to be free of whoever took her from us, long before her time.

Had I the resources and people willing to help, I would ask for whatever the police know and start my own investigation.

Well, it looks like there's a few other people with a similar opinion to mine here. I raised a lot of the same questions as you in post 511 and was harassed to the point I stopped posting here and reading here for a long time. I agree with you in a lot of ways.
Adding to your question, I believe the pay phone Angela was reported to be calling from was a block or 2 away from Rob's house. Why call when you're so close? After all, she was pregnant with his kid..
To thecars 1986.. I'd blow a tranny if it helped me get away with murder, wouldn't you? It's not that hard to do... a few neutral drops and it's done.. get the rpms up high enough.. maybe it takes one or two. Post 516! yikes... people are gonna think we're the same guy...
See post 319 in this thread and some of mine before and after.. we need to compare theories.

Well, it looks like there's a few other people with a similar opinion to mine here. I raised a lot of the same questions as you in post 511 and was harassed to the point I stopped posting here and reading here for a long time. I agree with you in a lot of ways.
Adding to your question, I believe the pay phone Angela was reported to be calling from was a block or 2 away from Rob's house. Why call when you're so close? After all, she was pregnant with his kid..
To thecars 1986.. I'd blow a tranny if it helped me get away with murder, wouldn't you? It's not that hard to do... a few neutral drops and it's done.. get the rpms up high enough.. maybe it takes one or two. Post 516! yikes... people are gonna think we're the same guy...
See post 319 in this thread and some of mine before and after.. we need to compare theories.

She didn't have a home telephone and was calling to let him know she wasn't going to hang out as they planned that evening but had instead decided to go home, take a bath and then go to sleep.

Since Rob and the Rob couldn't have done it crowd hate those that refuse to agree with them, let's retry things.

Do you know how easy it is to ruin a transmission on a car? If you, like I, was ever a 16 year old boy, you'll probably know it could be done with a neutral drop. See the sources below to give my statement credibility.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060901195248AAFw4tD

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/forums/general-automotive-discussion/22577-neutral-drop-tranny-problem.html

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-203462.html


Now, I know no one here probably knows this, but did anyone know the transmission was starting to go bad? Was it slipping? Did they look at the transmission and determine if it died in the fashion Rob claimed it did?

Here's why this is important to me. Hate me for having an opionion is bull. This place should be about an open discussion on the case. If it could be shown that the tranny failed because of a neutral drop, vs going from reverse into drive too quickly, a hole could be shot into rob's story. The moment a hole has been shot into the story, a suspect becomes worth looking at more intensively. This is something, while maybe not in the past, could probably be determined today.

Let's just say he personally sabotaged the tranny himself. If that could be proven, would the people that declare him 100% innocent still feel the same way?

Like Cocytus, I worry about nearly all of the story coming from Rob. In fact so many things can't be corroborated by any one except him. This is very troubling and unlike any other cases that come to mind.

I remember someone saying he went into the military.. anyone know what he's up to now?

Disagreeing over who did this is no different than disagreeing over politics. It can be done in a civil manner by adults, or some people can chose to be childish. Can we all keep it civil and share some info and sources? I'd really like to see evidence anyone has available or good links they could share. I'll do the same should I find anything good.

Quoting Rob:
"When she screamed at me out the window," he said, "I put it in reverse and started chasing him. "

So, the friend Kyla dropped Angela off. Was she ever considered a person of interest?

"It started dying as I was making my right turn. This guy turned off to the right. All I saw was his brake lights and dust."

So, Rob drove past this alleged perp, turned around, accellerated, and then the car would later die while making a turn. If chasing someone whom you thought posed tremendous harm to a loved one, you'd be hauling butt down the straightaways, and then braking very hard into and through the turn and then accelerating hard after completing the turn.. right? That's how I'd picture myself doing it. When a young, crazy teenage drive, I was chased and I chased people. That's the best way to drive when under duress. That being said, I wonder how the tranny failed while he was making the turn. By the time he turned around, surely the "perp" would've opened up a large lead on Rob.

Brake lights, and DUST? On a paved road? Try and spot dust tonight as you drive on paved roads. I don't expect you to be able to do it.

Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, the same detective has had this case for a long time. If that's the case, it's an indication that efforts could be better. Why not put a new, un(or less) biased set of eyes on the case and try something new. Perhaps this investigator wants so badly to stand on his conclusion that Rob in no way did it? Maybe he's an old buddy? Maybe there's a tie in there that we'll never know.

Disagreeing over who did this is no different than disagreeing over politics. It can be done in a civil manner by adults, or some people can chose to be childish. Can we all keep it civil and share some info and sources?

The comments you made off and on throughout your entire post were pretty childish. So this plea you are making with the folks here to act in a civil manner sounds rather hypocritical on your part.

The very first sentence of your post was an insult to many posters here where you stated, "Since Rob and the Rob couldn't have done it crowd hate those that refuse to agree with them..."

Apparently you believe Rob was responsible. I don't believe he was. So according to you, I hate you. Why would I hate you? I don't even know you. Please don't presume to speak for me, for others here or for what we think and feel.

I have posted on this board for 11 years. And one of the reasons I've done it for so long is because of the many great discussions that have gone on here. If people were constantly attacking each other and making this place uncomfortable, I wouldn't be here. And Crystaldawn would not allow it to happen.

Discussing cases with respect for each other is fine. That's what we all want. But you insulting people and then stating that you want this board to be civil seems rather pointless.

The comments you made off and on throughout your entire post were pretty childish. So this plea you are making with the folks here to act in a civil manner sounds rather hypocritical on your part.

The very first sentence of your post was an insult to many posters here where you stated, "Since Rob and the Rob couldn't have done it crowd hate those that refuse to agree with them..."

Apparently you believe Rob was responsible. I don't believe he was. So according to you, I hate you. Why would I hate you? I don't even know you. Please don't presume to speak for me, for others here or for what we think and feel.

I have posted on this board for 11 years. And one of the reasons I've done it for so long is because of the many great discussions that have gone on here. If people were constantly attacking each other and making this place uncomfortable, I wouldn't be here. And Crystaldawn would not allow it to happen.

Discussing cases with respect for each other is fine. That's what we all want. But you insulting people and then stating that you want this board to be civil seems rather pointless.

Not to mention the simple fact that anytime anyone refutes what Onlooker says, he ignores it or rewords his questions, all the while insulting those people who "hate him." Any sort of rational, civil discussion with him is impossible.

Brake lights, and DUST? On a paved road? Try and spot dust tonight as you drive on paved roads. I don't expect you to be able to do it.

"Brake lights and dust" is a common colloquial expression. As such, it isn't meant to be taken literally.

Onlooker its great that you have your opinion on the Angela Hammond case but it almost seems like you're trying to convert everyone else to your way of thinking. Don't take it personally. All of us have our own opinions about this case and have had for years so stating your opinion is fine as long as its not in an argumentative way or trying to criticizing other posters for not believing as you do. Chances are you're not going to change anyone's mind who has been watching and thinking about this case for years.

I'm from Clinton, MO. Robbie & I graduated together. We had been buddies since the 4th grade. I started working with Angela when I was in high school. My then boyfriend & I used to hang out with them. They were both excited about the baby & were totally in love with each other. I know it's been a long time, but I pray for closure for her family.

I'm from Clinton, MO. Robbie & I graduated together. We had been buddies since the 4th grade. I started working with Angela when I was in high school. My then boyfriend & I used to hang out with them. They were both excited about the baby & were totally in love with each other. I know it's been a long time, but I pray for closure for her family.

Can you tell us a bit about what Angie was like in life?

I'm from Clinton, MO. Robbie & I graduated together. We had been buddies since the 4th grade. I started working with Angela when I was in high school. My then boyfriend & I used to hang out with them. They were both excited about the baby & were totally in love with each other. I know it's been a long time, but I pray for closure for her family.
Also, do you still keep in contact with Rob or Angela's families? Did the people from your town support Rob and believe him? I feel really bad for everyone involved, it is so sad.

So, Rob drove past this alleged perp, turned around, accellerated, and then the car would later die while making a turn. If chasing someone whom you thought posed tremendous harm to a loved one, you'd be hauling butt down the straightaways, and then braking very hard into and through the turn and then accelerating hard after completing the turn.. right? That's how I'd picture myself doing it. When a young, crazy teenage drive, I was chased and I chased people. That's the best way to drive when under duress. That being said, I wonder how the tranny failed while he was making the turn. By the time he turned around, surely the "perp" would've opened up a large lead on Rob.

I'm assuming you've had experience in chasing someone who's kidnapped a loved one of yours, since you know how you would drive in such a situation?

I'm assuming you've had experience in chasing someone who's kidnapped a loved one of yours, since you know how you would drive in such a situation?
And circle gets the square.

So, the friend Kyla dropped Angela off. Was she ever considered a person of interest?[/QUOTE]
maybe or maybe they interviewed her and didnt think she did it.
Since Rob and the Rob couldn't have done it crowd hate those that refuse to agree with them, let's retry things.
i dont hate it, it's that you make no sense with your theories.
Do you know how easy it is to ruin a transmission on a car?
agree here, no argument, yet.
Let's just say he personally sabotaged the tranny himself. If that could be proven, would the people that declare him 100% innocent still feel the same way?
BUT this is where you lose me!!!! you do NOT damage a transmission as an "alibi" or a way to look innocent. that's an expensive fix, you do NOT damage it on purpose, it's flat out STUPID. that is why i disagree with you.

Apparently you believe Rob was responsible. I don't believe he was. So according to you, I hate you. Why would I hate you? I don't even know you. Please don't presume to speak for me, for others here or for what we think and feel.
very true, for me, i do NOT hate anyone. i do question people when i think they are off base, but that's what most people will do. i question people who think this person in football will be a star too soon and i question theories that honestly confuse me or make little sense.

very true, and you are a good poster too.
[QUOTE=bell83]Not to mention the simple fact that anytime anyone refutes what Onlooker says, he ignores it or rewords his questions, all the while insulting those people who "hate him." Any sort of rational, civil discussion with him is impossible.
yeah, for me, the only thing that bothers me is i cant agree with a theory of messing up your car on purpose as an alibi or to help with your story.

No witnesses at all, the story we have is from one person (very Hollywood bad-movie story), a guy who after his car died didn't look for another car or anybody to give chase, nobody heard any of this downtown, etc...I think the easiest explanation to all of this, is the boyfriend had something to do with it (everything to do with it)...

No witnesses at all, the story we have is from one person (very Hollywood bad-movie story), a guy who after his car died didn't look for another car or anybody to give chase, nobody heard any of this downtown, etc...I think the easiest explanation to all of this, is the boyfriend had something to do with it (everything to do with it)...

No way! Remember this was before cell phones and before Amber alerts and missing person alerts.... Plus UM gives them 15 minutes tops to explain a story that Im sure all the details could fill a novel. You don't think that her abduction is linked to the others that were so similar?

I don't see anything all that similar in the other cases besides the proximity (and 100 miles isn't all that close) and at least one of those cases was solved...Why would a girl give so much detail about a guy standing next to her? If I was that age, and somebody said anything more than "there's some gross guy looking around the phone booth" I would be surprised...I still don't understand why she wouldn't just go see him, 7 blocks away, stop and call? It sounds like a script written for a Lifetime movie of the week, or a bad book, a novel perhaps? ;)

I don't see anything all that similar in the other cases besides the proximity (and 100 miles isn't all that close) and at least one of those cases was solved...Why would a girl give so much detail about a guy standing next to her? If I was that age, and somebody said anything more than "there's some gross guy looking around the phone booth" I would be surprised...I still don't understand why she wouldn't just go see him, 7 blocks away, stop and call? It sounds like a script written for a Lifetime movie of the week, or a bad book, a novel perhaps? ;)
I give a lot of detail when I describe people, especially if it is a creeper. She was pregnant at the time, so maybe she was doing a quick check in. I mean, honestly, how many times on your home or cell phone have you called someone 7 blocks or less away? My grandmother lived 2 blocks away from me and I would call her several times daily. I also wonder if her relationship with her bf's family could have been strained because of her pregnancy, or maybe her personality clashed with his parents, who knows?

It's easier to call now-a-days...It seems like it would be easier to stop by, than to stop at a creepy payphone nearby and pay for a call...This one bothers me...I wish we knew! It seems like this guy making up this story, is an easier explanation than this really happening, to me at least...Strange thing DO happen, but USUALLY the simplest explanation is correct...It said in the Kansas City newspaper last year that they had some new evidence, but that is the last I heard...Did anything ever come about?

It's easier to call now-a-days...It seems like it would be easier to stop by, than to stop at a creepy payphone nearby and pay for a call...This one bothers me...I wish we knew! It seems like this guy making up this story, is an easier explanation than this really happening, to me at least...Strange thing DO happen, but USUALLY the simplest explanation is correct...It said in the Kansas City newspaper last year that they had some new evidence, but that is the last I heard...Did anything ever come about?
Was it this? : CLINTON, Mo. -- Eighteen years after a 20-year-old pregnant woman went missing from this west-central Missouri town, DNA testing and other forensics technology has helped turn up new leads, investigators said.
Police and family members say they are more hopeful than ever in the continued investigation of the 1991 disappearance of Angela Hammond in Clinton.
he case has been featured on "Unsolved Mysteries," prompted concerns about a serial killer and resulted in advice from psychics.
Police Detective Shane Lawson said he can't share details about leads that surfaced after police reprocessed evidence.
"We've discovered that there is a possibility that we may have some physical evidence from the original crime scene that's still preserved and may lead us to a suspect in this case," Detective Paul Abbott said.
"In the 18 years of this investigation we've never considered it a cold case," Lawson said. "We consider it ... as if it happened a week ago."Hammond was four months pregnant and taking classes at Central Missouri State University, now the University of Central Missouri, in 1991 when she was taken while talking to her fiancé, Rob Schafer, on a pay phone.
Hammond was visiting near her mother's farm, about 20 miles outside Clinton, on April 4, 1991. After leaving, she dropped off a friend and stopped to use a pay phone outside a grocery a block from Clinton's town square. She had planned to then go home to take a bath.
When talking, Hammond noticed a green Ford truck circling and told her fiance the driver was a man wearing overalls and glasses who looked "scruffy." Screaming was then heard.
Friends, relatives and concerned neighbors later worked phones, put up posters and searched the area.
Her father, Chris Hammond, said the desire to find his daughter and learn what happened to her remains as strong as ever.
"The hardest part is the not knowing," Hammond told KMBC's Marcus Moore. "It's just a case where we want to get something resolved so that we can get some peace. And get past it."
Police also had concerns because Angela Hammond wasn't the only woman to disappear around that time from that section of Missouri. It caused speculation of a serial killer.
Authorities considered two suspects who had been convicted in the death of another mid-Missouri woman, but now detectives say they are almost certain those men had nothing to do with Hammond's disappearance.
Meanwhile, Hammond still misses his daughter.
"She was just a fun-loving girl that loved to be around people," Hammond said.
Anyone with information in the case can call the Clinton Police Department at 660-885-2679.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html#ixzz1LtOAQVnU

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html#ixzz1LtO2NRkN


Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html#ixzz1LtNuXSyB
Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html#ixzz1LtNpP1qj

Was it this? : CLINTON, Mo. -- Eighteen years after a 20-year-old pregnant woman went missing from this west-central Missouri town, DNA testing and other forensics technology has helped turn up new leads, investigators said.
Police and family members say they are more hopeful than ever in the continued investigation of the 1991 disappearance of Angela Hammond in Clinton.
he case has been featured on "Unsolved Mysteries," prompted concerns about a serial killer and resulted in advice from psychics.
Police Detective Shane Lawson said he can't share details about leads that surfaced after police reprocessed evidence.
"We've discovered that there is a possibility that we may have some physical evidence from the original crime scene that's still preserved and may lead us to a suspect in this case," Detective Paul Abbott said.
"In the 18 years of this investigation we've never considered it a cold case," Lawson said. "We consider it ... as if it happened a week ago."Hammond was four months pregnant and taking classes at Central Missouri State University, now the University of Central Missouri, in 1991 when she was taken while talking to her fiancé, Rob Schafer, on a pay phone.
Hammond was visiting near her mother's farm, about 20 miles outside Clinton, on April 4, 1991. After leaving, she dropped off a friend and stopped to use a pay phone outside a grocery a block from Clinton's town square. She had planned to then go home to take a bath.
When talking, Hammond noticed a green Ford truck circling and told her fiance the driver was a man wearing overalls and glasses who looked "scruffy." Screaming was then heard.
Friends, relatives and concerned neighbors later worked phones, put up posters and searched the area.
Her father, Chris Hammond, said the desire to find his daughter and learn what happened to her remains as strong as ever.
"The hardest part is the not knowing," Hammond told KMBC's Marcus Moore. "It's just a case where we want to get something resolved so that we can get some peace. And get past it."
Police also had concerns because Angela Hammond wasn't the only woman to disappear around that time from that section of Missouri. It caused speculation of a serial killer.
Authorities considered two suspects who had been convicted in the death of another mid-Missouri woman, but now detectives say they are almost certain those men had nothing to do with Hammond's disappearance.
Meanwhile, Hammond still misses his daughter.
"She was just a fun-loving girl that loved to be around people," Hammond said.
Anyone with information in the case can call the Clinton Police Department at 660-885-2679.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html#ixzz1LtOAQVnU

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html#ixzz1LtO2NRkN


Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html#ixzz1LtNuXSyB
Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/19110648/detail.html#ixzz1LtNpP1qj

Yeah, that looks like it...This was at least a couple of years ago, and no news? I wonder what they were looking at...

I wonder what physical evidence from the crime scene he is talking about that is good enough to test for DNA. Even if it provided some answers, couldn't it just as easily point to other people who used the phone booth that day?

I wonder what physical evidence from the crime scene he is talking about that is good enough to test for DNA. Even if it provided some answers, couldn't it just as easily point to other people who used the phone booth that day?

Unless they had evidence from the boyfriend's car still available (or the car itself) I can't imagine what they could possibly test...

I wonder what physical evidence from the crime scene he is talking about that is good enough to test for DNA. Even if it provided some answers, couldn't it just as easily point to other people who used the phone booth that day?
I know!
I know the abductor went into the other phone booth and grabbed the phone right? Maybe the abductor dropped something in the struggle and they never released that info?

I know!
I know the abductor went into the other phone booth and grabbed the phone right? Maybe the abductor dropped something in the struggle and they never released that info?

Somebody call/email down there for some info!

Somebody call/email down there for some info!

You just volunteered yourself.

Wouldn't some person calling in to the Clinton, MO police department out of the blue saying, "Hey, do you guys have any updates on the Angela Hammond case. What? No, no, I'm not family. No, I didn't know her in life either. I'm just...um...curious?" seem pretty suspicious to the police, regardless if you had the best intentions and really just wanted to know. Would they even release any info to someone who called them anyway?

Wouldn't some person calling in to the Clinton, MO police department out of the blue saying, "Hey, do you guys have any updates on the Angela Hammond case. What? No, no, I'm not family. No, I didn't know her in life either. I'm just...um...curious?" seem pretty suspicious to the police, regardless if you had the best intentions and really just wanted to know. Would they even release any info to someone who called them anyway?

I emailed the local media in the area, I asked about their 2009 article about the new evidence, they gave me their phone number and said:
-Nothing new to report.
Micah Bray
KCTV5/My KSMO

Wouldn't some person calling in to the Clinton, MO police department out of the blue saying, "Hey, do you guys have any updates on the Angela Hammond case. What? No, no, I'm not family. No, I didn't know her in life either. I'm just...um...curious?" seem pretty suspicious to the police, regardless if you had the best intentions and really just wanted to know. Would they even release any info to someone who called them anyway?
Actually, people do it everyday. Lots of concerned citizens :wave:

No witnesses at all, the story we have is from one person (very Hollywood bad-movie story), a guy who after his car died didn't look for another car or anybody to give chase, nobody heard any of this downtown, etc...I think the easiest explanation to all of this, is the boyfriend had something to do with it (everything to do with it)...
Well, the no witnesses part is simple, it's late at night. the looking for another car part is explained with, what are you going to do???? and i think you mention her calling from a pay phone, people need to remember that this is a small town in like the late 80s early 90s. i think it's VERY possible of a crime like this happening. the guy is likely a loner who saw an opportunity and took it and if she's dead, he killed her and hid the body in another town or state. i cant see it being the boyfriend because the timeline doesnt fit and he's young which means he would've made ALOT of mistakes and i think if he did it, she would've been found.
I know!
I know the abductor went into the other phone booth and grabbed the phone right? Maybe the abductor dropped something in the struggle and they never released that info?
you know what, i could agree with this. maybe he left something behind in the booth next to Angela's.

What are you going to do? Yell, scream, run to every car and house you can find nearby, that's what you're going to do...People mention this timeline a lot, I might be missing something but what timeline? The only timeline I see is once again, his story...

What are you going to do? Yell, scream, run to every car and house you can find nearby, that's what you're going to do...People mention this timeline a lot, I might be missing something but what timeline? The only timeline I see is once again, his story...
She had just left her mother's home which was about 20 miles away. I believe that her mother confirmed the time that she left.
One question. Did Angela have a working home phone? Maybe that's why she stopped at a payphone. Or maybe she lived with a phone hog like my brother used to be.
No matter the reason for her stopping to use the phone she is still a victim. I wish more of the focus could be on the creep who snatched her. Too bad a lot is not known. I have always wondered if the creeper may be younger than thought. By that I mean, when I was 18, people over 26 were old. Ha! Views change as you get older, have children, etc...

She had just left her mother's home which was about 20 miles away. I believe that her mother confirmed the time that she left.
One question. Did Angela have a working home phone? Maybe that's why she stopped at a payphone. Or maybe she lived with a phone hog like my brother used to be.
No matter the reason for her stopping to use the phone she is still a victim. I wish more of the focus could be on the creep who snatched her. Too bad a lot is not known. I have always wondered if the creeper may be younger than thought. By that I mean, when I was 18, people over 26 were old. Ha! Views change as you get older, have children, etc...

According to her brother when he posted here a while back, Angela didn't have a home phone.

I've considered the guy's age...If he was a young guy he may still be alive, well and free. I put his age somewhere between 18 and 37 at the time (1991), which would make him somewhere between his 30s and 50s now...Either way, young enough to still be alive if he was never put away for something else.

Thank you for posting that!! I think that the guy is out there somewhere and do not think that was his first time at the rodeo if you know what I mean. Seems like a random town to abduct her huh? Or maybe not so random at all. Maybe he worked there before or had a relative living there, or even grew up there.....

Thank you for posting that!! I think that the guy is out there somewhere and do not think that was his first time at the rodeo if you know what I mean. Seems like a random town to abduct her huh? Or maybe not so random at all. Maybe he worked there before or had a relative living there, or even grew up there.....

He at the very least knew the backroads.
Do a google maps search on the area where the perp turned off...Total backroads. Desolate looking. It continues off to an area abounded with parks and lakes, or leads to a highway leading to the next county. It's a very specific pathway and he seems he knew his way around, given the path he took.

Angela was abducted at the corner of 210 South 2nd Street, Clinton Missouri. If you look at the ground image, she was abducted from the corner, just across the street from the Church, where the light pole is. That's where the phone booth was in 1991. A picture I saw of the phone booth from the inside showed that you could see the Church from the view of the phone booth.

According to an article I read, Rob lost the perp when he made a turn on Calvird road...But I'm not sure if it's East or West Calvird (if you look at google maps, you'll see you can either go left or right).

Even if he wasn't a native, I'd say he knew the area at least slightly well. The relative or employment hypothesis is a good one.

He at the very least knew the backroads.
Do a google maps search on the area where the perp turned off...Total backroads. Desolate looking. It continues off to an area abounded with parks and lakes, or leads to a highway leading to the next county. It's a very specific pathway and he seems he knew his way around, given the path he took.

Angela was abducted at the corner of 210 South 2nd Street, Clinton Missouri. If you look at the ground image, she was abducted from the corner, just across the street from the Church, where the light pole is. That's where the phone booth was in 1991. A picture I saw of the phone booth from the inside showed that you could see the Church from the view of the phone booth.

According to an article I read, Rob lost the perp when he made a turn on Calvird road...But I'm not sure if it's East or West Calvird (if you look at google maps, you'll see you can either go left or right).

Even if he wasn't a native, I'd say he knew the area at least slightly well. The relative or employment hypothesis is a good one.
Awesome job!!
They didn't say if the abductor had a weapon right? Because the way that Angela was hollering in the car, if he had a gun or a knife lunging at her, she would be more likely to be silent, agree? My point is, how far do you think that the creep could drive and keep Angela from getting out of the truck?

All of that screaming and struggling in the car, and she was still able to spot the boyfriend by just bright headlights and yell his name to him...Not one bit of this story sounds real...

All of that screaming and struggling in the car, and she was still able to spot the boyfriend by just bright headlights and yell his name to him...Not one bit of this story sounds real...
He passed the lie detector test. He was very genuine. People saw the man and the truck around the phone booth before she was abducted.

Awesome job!!
They didn't say if the abductor had a weapon right? Because the way that Angela was hollering in the car, if he had a gun or a knife lunging at her, she would be more likely to be silent, agree? My point is, how far do you think that the creep could drive and keep Angela from getting out of the truck?

The actual circumstances of the abduction himself--How he got her, if he had a weapon--are unknown as far as I can tell. He could've had a knife, maybe he stabbed her--That might account for the supposed DNA evidence that the police department over there said they found back in 2009...Or he could've dropped something in the struggle, or something of his could've fallen out of his pocket. Or in the struggle, she could've scratched or bit him heavily, perhaps drawing enough blood to collect DNA from.

Or, perhaps there were hair follicles on the ground--his during the struggle. I mean I read they took the phone book itself physically as evidence. Remember, he picked up the phone next to hers. If he wasn't wearing gloves, there's a good chance he left a set of prints on that phone, or a hair follicle fell on to it while trying to use it.

Also, he hung up her phone (Remember he creepily said into the phone, "I didn't need to use the phone anyway"), which again, raises the possibility of there being even more prints if he didn't wear gloves. So there's potential for there to be prints on both telephones.

Also--he could've flicked a cigarette out of his truck or spit it out or something after he stopped his truck. That could account for the alleged DNA evidence they said they had

Angela said she saw him with a flashlight, looking in the cabin of his pickup for something in the minutes before the adbctuion. Perhaps he used the flashlight as a blunt weapon and hit her with it to subdue her while her back was turned (talking to Rob), and that's how he was able to get hold of her, or perhaps he was using the flashlight to find his weapon. We don't know how big this guy was; we do know that Angie was a small woman, like 5 feet tall of slim to average build. For all we know, this guy could've been 6 feet tall and a hundred pounds heavier; he'd have easily subdued her.

As to your last comment, not necessarily...In a life or death, like hers was, situation, if you see someone who can possibly save your life, and is probably the only person who can do so, a gut reaction will be to yell for that person, regardless of the more immediate danger. Rob was her only hope, I'm sure she knew that, so no matter what might've been pointed at her, as soon as she saw his car approaching, she screamed. It was a move of utter desperation.

This is the view from inside the phone booth as it was in 1991:
http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Hammond2.jpg

The area now:
http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Hammond3.jpg
http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Hammond.jpg

The phone booth was right on the corner--not part of the parking lot, which did exist in 1991. It was right by where the light pole is now.

To know it was the boyfriend driving up seems almost impossible to me...I'm getting conflicting information on whether there were witnesses or not. Unsolved.com says "The police had based their investigation on Rob Shafer's testimony. And when no witnesses could back up his story, Rob himself became a suspect", but I have read on this page that there might have been a witness, or maybe that's an aspect that is unknown to the public but has evolved over the years...I'm very interested to know what this DNA evidence is. You would think after 2 years the police would have said something...There are just to many "if's" and "maybe this" and "maybe that" for me in this story. We have zero eveidence except for a story from a guy who could have a good motive...

To know it was the boyfriend driving up seems almost impossible to me...I'm getting conflicting information on whether there were witnesses or not. Unsolved.com says "The police had based their investigation on Rob Shafer's testimony. And when no witnesses could back up his story, Rob himself became a suspect", but I have read on this page that there might have been a witness, or maybe that's an aspect that is unknown to the public but has evolved over the years...I'm very interested to know what this DNA evidence is. You would think after 2 years the police would have said something...There are just to many "if's" and "maybe this" and "maybe that" for me in this story. We have zero eveidence except for a story from a guy who could have a good motive...
Sundance, may I politely remind you of the Jaycee Duggard kidnapping? Remember how her stepfather witnessed her getting snatched and he biked after the car to try to save her? He was considered a suspect,his story called unbelievable, and his marriage ended. Remember his story was confirmed, when they found Jaycee with that psycho?

Curious, you are right, I forgot about the flashlight. You made great points and I applaud your research. You are amazing!

Yep, random and terrifying, however, that happening compared to most cases of murder happening by someone who knows the victim (spouse possibly here) and that percentage going up even higher when that spouse is pregnant, I will take those numbers any day over some one in a million situation with a one-sided Hollywood story...When killings or abductions happen, it is very rarely people who don't know each other...It happens, yes, but not often.

What are you going to do? Yell, scream, run to every car and house you can find nearby, that's what you're going to do...People mention this timeline a lot, I might be missing something but what timeline? The only timeline I see is once again, his story...
the timeline doesnt fit, i dont know how many times people have to say this, but he had to report this to the police all the while before the police reporting, he had to kill his girlfriend AFTER they left the party and i am sure the police checked the phone records (bet even then they could do that) and saw the call, but anyways, this is a young guy and the body has NOT been found. So Rob (a guy who never killed) has killed his girlfriend, hid the body so it wont be found for 20 years and pass a lie detector test AND also keep a good face on while telling the story and of course there's his car and do NOT tell me that he damaged his transmission on purpose because as i said, that makes NO sense. Rob's story may not sound possible, but neither does the fact that a young man can kill his girlfriend and not be caught for years, if Rob did this there would be more clues to be found and the body would be found.

I have a theory....

What if it wasn't Rob himself, but someone who knew Rob? Not hired by Rob, but there are several possible motives....

We must bear in mind a few key facts:
-Angela and Rob were an unmarried, teenage couple
-Angela was about 3 months pregnant at the time of her abduction. She lived in a very small town in the early 1990s; Word of her being pregnant would travel fast through gossip and hearsay, and in such areas, an unwed teenage mother is seen as a grave embarrassment to a family--A sin. Rumors about her would unfairly spread as so often happens in the case of in the event of unwed, teenage motherhood.

While Angela may have been a great person, one can only imagine what her pregnancy probably did to her reputation. I know someone who is the same age, unmarried and pregnant living in a small town and even in 2011 she has basically become ostracized.

-Rob had a seeming promising military career ahead of him and a (presumably) impressive athletic record. All hopes for his future could easily be dashed by this (likely unplanned) pregnancy. He'd have to give up his education to raise this child and be a family man, or, if not give it up, his prospects could be severely compromised. Most attractive young men don't want to settle down and be family men at 19 or 20 years old. Most parents and families of such young men wouldn't want a promising future for their son to be destroyed by an accidental pregnancy, to put it bluntly as some might.

A few other things:
-We don't know what Rob or Angie were like as people, or what their family dynamics were like. Were they in with a bad crowd? I doubt it, but it's possible. We're only given tidbits and UM tends to focus on the positive attributes of a victim and tends not to mention negative but perhaps important details about the person.
-In my experience, a girl who gets pregnant in her teenage years while unwed usually comes from a trouble background, or a dysfunctional family. Perhaps Rob's family was the opposite--and she might've been seen as dragging Rob down.

There are people other than Rob, but connected to him or connected to Angela (jealous ex-boyfriend? a former stalker maybe?) who would've had a motive to want Angela gone. Rob himself may not have known ANYTHING about it, and the events may have played out exactly as he said they did.

But somethings to be looked at are:

1) How was Rob and Angela's relationship going as of March/April 1991? Were they fighting, or on good terms? How did the news of her pregnancy affect their relationship? How did their parents react to her being pregnant?

2) What was Angela like as a person? What kind of crowd did she associate with? Her personal characteristics--personality, etc?

3) Was there anyone who knew of Angela's plans for the evening after she and Rob left the BBQ that afternoon? Perhaps someone--the abductor--was following her without her even knowing it. Perhaps she had been stalked for quite some time by this person.

4) The abductor seems to have hesitated--Perhaps he was unsure of whether he wanted to do it or not? That doesn't seem to be very characteristic of a serial killer. He waited sometime, waiting for as she talked on the phone and even spoke to her, only to suddenly attack. I'm sure she wasn't facing him the entire duration of the phone call--He could've waited till she got off the phone, but chose not to, yet he waited.

5) How long after Angie got on the phone did she notice the truck? If it was almost immediately--within say 5 minutes--that would, to me, point to her being followed by the abductor prior to stopping at the parking lot. Perhaps he followed her for quite some time, circled the parking lot to ensure he was in the clear--like a hawk who has now got it's prey in a vulnerable spot--and then parked.

But maybe he had second thoughts about it, either for moral reasons, or for fear of being caught, or because she wasn't exactly his "type", which explains his hesitation--Why not just grab her as soon as he pulled up and got out of the truck? Fast, unexpected, without any chance to have her describe him to whoever she was on the phone with. Instead he waited and lingered long enough to both creep Angela out and long enough for her to give a description to the person on the other end of the phone.

Why did he attempt to use the other phone? Was it an attempt to distract her? Was it simply a demented, unfocused mind just working?

He didn't seem to be stoned, drunk or high, according to what Angela said. In a good enough state of mind to plan out the abduction. Rob said the truck's front bumper may have had a dent--perhaps the result of a drunken accident?

6) Why did Angela feel the need to describe the man and his truck in detail? That's one piece of this puzzle which has always left me wondering. Wasn't the guy standing right next to her, or not far from her? Was she whispering into the phone? Wouldn't it seem kind of rude to be describing a guy to the person you're on the phone with as they stood next to you?

Why didn't the abductor strike as soon as he realized his description and vehicle were being given over a phone line.


I say we have several possibilities:

1) The abductor was what most suspect--an unknown serial killer who simply picked Angela randomly and it was a truly a nightmarish and tragic 'wrong place, wrong time' scenario as is very common in cases like this. But that possibility opens up many questions in and of itself.

2) The abductor was someone perhaps hired by people who knew Angela and had a motive to want her dead, Hired would be the right word here because it'd remove any formal--well known--affiliation with the person who hired him, and would explain his hesitation. Someone without any known ties to the people who hired him.

Or perhaps, the abductor was a stalker--someone who had seen Angela somewhere once (at her job at the Bank, maybe, who knows), and began to follow her, wanting her, and decided to make his move that night--the opportunity presented itself perfectly. Perhaps Angela had been followed for days or weeks even without noticing--if you're an unsuspecting, happy teenage person in a small town, you wouldn't expect to be followed and wouldn't be looking over your shoulder.

3) This is unlikely, but perhaps the abductor is younger than we think and was part of a gang, or cult. There are many youth gangs whose initiation rite requires harming or murdering a random person; Usually women are the victims of such attacks. Again unlikely, but possible.

4) Perhaps Angela was unhappy with her life--she was a teenage pregnant girl with separate parents. Maybe this guy was someone she hooked up with whom she thought was a good guy, and she decided to make a clean break with everyone--family, friends, etc--and begin a new life. There were sightings of her in other states and even in Canada into early 1992--nearly a year later. Maybe she staged her abduction, and moved somewhere far away. Perhaps the guy she hooked up with turned out to be bad, or she split from him. Highly unlikely in my opinion, but we don't know what Angie was like thus it can't be ruled out as an impossibility.

If this scenario is true, why hasn't she contacted her family you might ask? There are many reasons for this--Guilt for leaving, regret for it, wanting a clean break, shame, etc, being happy in their new life--A whole variety of reasons why someone who staged such a thing would never even consider revisiting their old life. This is the most positive theory because it'd mean she and her baby are still alive.

5) Of course, the Rob did it theory. He doesn't have to have done the deed himself--He could've had someone do most of the dirty work for him, while he concocted the story. The "bearded, filthy man" who drove a truck that just happened to be just like Rob's own truck may never have existed, and is a great red herring. Perhaps he hired someone to do it, who knows. Motives? Plenty. An attractive man with lots of options in life not wanting to be tied down with a baby and wife at 19 years old; Tensions in the relationship; A desire to please his family (his family may not have liked, accepted or appreciated Angela or their relationship or the pregnancy).


All of these theories have greater or lesser merit. I personally choose theory number 1--the most popular theory--the unknown creepy serial killer theory. The Rob did it angle, which is the second most popular theory, gets too convoluted for it to be fact in my opinion.

The "Angie ran away, started a new life" theory is just a theory thrown in the air as a potential possibility; Without any knowledge of WHO Angela was as a person (her character, sense of morals, etc) or what her home life or background was like, or how she felt about her pregnancy, we have no way to prove or disprove it. The fact that she hasn't been heard from by those who knew her in 20 years is neutral--the clean break element. But it does make this theory seem unlikely compared to the more popular theories.

Things that would really help this case are:
-Knowing what Angela was like as a person. Her personality, the type of people she hung out with, whether she partied or engage in drugs or drinking. Her background--was she a generally happy person? Her family?

-What was/is Rob like as a person? No offense to jocks here, but Rob seemed to be a jock (and this is purely bias) but I've noted jocks to be possessive boyfriends, bad boy types, etc. What was his family like? Their circle? Did he run with a bad crowd or engage in any drugs/alcohol, etc?

-Was Rob and Angie's relationship good? Did the pregnancy affect their relationship for the negative? Did they only get engaged because of the pregnancy; Perhaps their relationship wasn't very committed, but had to become a committed relationship for the sake of the child. How long were they together before she got pregnant?

-How did Angie, Rob, and their respective families feel about the pregnancy?

-Some good info about what the Clinton, MO of 1991 was like--who lived there, etc--would be helpful. Stuff about the rural areas. Any local creeps--every small town has it's share of the local creeps and weirdos. The rural areas--were there any weird, strange mountain type men reported or spoken of in the area in 1991?

-Were there any similar murders or abductions in a 100 mile radius in the period 1990 to 1993? Within say the bordering states? Or in Canada?

-All men arrested for rapes and/or stalking in the several years prior to and after the abduction. Limit it to the surrounding states.

-A comprehensive list of everyone who bought or owned a truck similar to the one described, with a 7 year production range (let's say 1966 to 1973 Model Ford 150) in the 5 years prior to and after the abduction. A simple list of owners of such trucks in 1991 would be helpful by itself.

A lot of this stuff would have to touch on what would be very sensitive ground--the character, nature, and morals of the victim. Some would take investigating into who the victim was as an attack on the victim and say, "Oh, you're blaming the victim, or saying she was a bad person." Victims after being murdered tend to become sacred in a sense; their negative traits or associations glossed over because they are a victim, and this can harm an investigation. It's not an attack on the victim or their character, simply an examination of the case from every possible angle. Such information, about who she was, her bad habits if she had any, any nefarious associations, etc may be helpful.

Curious, you wrote alot of ideas and theories and i tend to agree with what you wrote and still do, i agree with theory number one, BUT you raised a good point on the stalker issue and i could see this guy being a guy who seen her one day and thought that he wanted her and planned it, BUT as of now i still think that this guy was an out of town loner who saw an opportunity and took it, i cant agree with the Rob did it theory because all he has is motive. there's alot that doesnt make sense though if Rob did it like his damaged car, how a young man committing his first murder can be so perfect at it and how he did this unnoticed.

I think that he was spending so long looking around his truck and walking by the phone, because he was waiting for Angela to hang up with Rob.... When he saw she was not going to hang up soon, he pounced.

I think that he was spending so long looking around his truck and walking by the phone, because he was waiting for Angela to hang up with Rob.... When he saw she was not going to hang up soon, he pounced.


http://images.wikia.com/archer/images/f/f3/Lana.png

YUUUUPP!!!

I think that he was spending so long looking around his truck and walking by the phone, because he was waiting for Angela to hang up with Rob.... When he saw she was not going to hang up soon, he pounced.
i agree, he was likely waiting for her to hang up and she wouldnt so he just said, oh well, let's get her.

Look, another creeper in an old truck with a fish decal in the back window:
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110111/ARTICLES/110119907

Also, does anyone have any pictures of the half brothers and possible suspects jesse rush & marvin chaney ?

Also, does anyone have any pictures of the half brothers and possible suspects jesse rush & marvin chaney ?

I saw pictures of the brothers somewhere, give me a bit and I'll find them.
Their associates are still at large for some reason.

Thanks! I was looking and could not find anything!

Copied from another member's post:

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

07/25/1991

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

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

"I just wish my brother would have done like I said at the barn and burnt the bitch up but that ***** ass cheevers and parel desided to take the bitch to a ****in river instead. I was to ****ed up to argue with em all I wanted to do was **** the bitch then shoot her in the head to watch her brains come out. Sounds cool huh? . . . if the bitch would have not moved in the trunk at the river my brother wouldn't of had to shoot her in the head again just the have the cops find a shell the stupid mother ****er the only smart thing we did was have marshels brother greg burn the barn other wise the mother ****ers would have a lot more on us. im glad they don't know every thing else we did or i'd be on death row...

Another of his letters:
FN1. All statutory references are to RSMo 1994, unless otherwise indicated.
FN2. For example, Defendant (Jesse Rush) wrote to Edward Thomas that "[I]I never told you about them other bitchs . . . ." With regard to some evidence, he wrote "because if it gets found by accident it can get us involved in killing them other ****ing bitchs. . . ." Furthermore, Rush wrote "hey dog I tried to explain a little about them other bitchs I hope your not mad at me. . . ." Rush also explained to Edward Thomas in a letter that "the cops don't even know about my brother and me killing any other bitchs except Macks Creek." Finally, Rush wrote that "them other bitchs in my last letter to you were both like that bitch in Macks Creek we all tortured the bitchs then ****ed the dog **** out of em...."

Rush in his letters also mentioned that he and is brother had killed two other (unnamed) women either before or after murdering Trudy Darby.

These are them:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/attachment.php?attachmentid=124473&stc=1&d=1176931039
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/attachment.php?attachmentid=124474&stc=1&d=1176931039

Jesse Rush is on top, Marvin Chaney on bottom. Rush was 15 years old in 1991; Chaney was 29. They were convicted for the January 1991 murder of Trudy Darby in Mack's Creek, Missouri.

And the following is straight from Court Records on Marvin Chaney (who pled guilty) showing that prosecutors had physical evidence linking him to three other murders

Due to the nature of Movant's claims, there is no need to recite the facts relating to his underlying conviction.

FN3. Mr. Berrigan testified the State had previously approached him with physical evidence that Movant had been involved in the murders of several other women. Mr. Berrigan further testified the State's previous plea offers required Movant "to confess to the murders of these [three] other women . . ." in order to avoid the death penalty. The plea offer made the evening prior to trial was the first plea offer that did not reference these other possible crimes.

Copied from another member's post:

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

07/25/1991

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

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

"I just wish my brother would have done like I said at the barn and burnt the bitch up but that ***** ass cheevers and parel desided to take the bitch to a ****in river instead. I was to ****ed up to argue with em all I wanted to do was **** the bitch then shoot her in the head to watch her brains come out. Sounds cool huh? . . . if the bitch would have not moved in the trunk at the river my brother wouldn't of had to shoot her in the head again just the have the cops find a shell the stupid mother ****er the only smart thing we did was have marshels brother greg burn the barn other wise the mother ****ers would have a lot more on us. im glad they don't know every thing else we did or i'd be on death row...

Another of his letters:
FN1. All statutory references are to RSMo 1994, unless otherwise indicated.
FN2. For example, Defendant (Jesse Rush) wrote to Edward Thomas that "[I]I never told you about them other bitchs . . . ." With regard to some evidence, he wrote "because if it gets found by accident it can get us involved in killing them other ****ing bitchs. . . ." Furthermore, Rush wrote "hey dog I tried to explain a little about them other bitchs I hope your not mad at me. . . ." Rush also explained to Edward Thomas in a letter that "the cops don't even know about my brother and me killing any other bitchs except Macks Creek." Finally, Rush wrote that "them other bitchs in my last letter to you were both like that bitch in Macks Creek we all tortured the bitchs then ****ed the dog **** out of em...."

Rush in his letters also mentioned that he and is brother had killed two other (unnamed) women either before or after murdering Trudy Darby.

These are them:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/attachment.php?attachmentid=124473&stc=1&d=1176931039
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/attachment.php?attachmentid=124474&stc=1&d=1176931039

Jesse Rush is on top, Marvin Chaney on bottom. Rush was 15 years old in 1991; Chaney was 29. They were convicted for the January 1991 murder of Trudy Darby in Mack's Creek, Missouri.

And the following is straight from Court Records on Marvin Chaney (who pled guilty) showing that prosecutors had physical evidence linking him to three other murders

Due to the nature of Movant's claims, there is no need to recite the facts relating to his underlying conviction.

FN3. Mr. Berrigan testified the State had previously approached him with physical evidence that Movant had been involved in the murders of several other women. Mr. Berrigan further testified the State's previous plea offers required Movant "to confess to the murders of these [three] other women . . ." in order to avoid the death penalty. The plea offer made the evening prior to trial was the first plea offer that did not reference these other possible crimes.

Ya its all been posted and talked about before.
Clinton police claim they are nearly certain that Chaney and Rush were not involved with Hammond. They also claimed two years ago to have dna evidence in the case. I think they where wrong on both accounts. If they ruled out Jess and Marvin then what the hell is the big secret? Let us know how they where ruled out.
Read the last paragraph in your post and I think you will see why they claim that Chaney was ruled out. They dont want the public knowing that Chaney wasnt charged with three murders because he plead guilty to one.

Ya its all been posted and talked about before.
Clinton police claim they are nearly certain that Chaney and Rush were not involved with Hammond. They also claimed two years ago to have dna evidence in the case. I think they where wrong on both accounts. If they ruled out Jess and Marvin then what the hell is the big secret? Let us know how they where ruled out.
Read the last paragraph in your post and I think you will see why they claim that Chaney was ruled out. They dont want the public knowing that Chaney wasnt charged with three murders because he plead guilty to one.

Yeah I know, I was just giving as much info as possible to the person who asked about them.

I agree with you...I also would like to know what the hell the DNA evidence is anyway, regardless of who it rules out...What could they have gotten? And if they had the DNA evidence 2 years ago, why haven't they spoken more on it since? Very strange....

Regardless of what the police say, I hold the two brothers in my list of prime (known) suspects, along with Larry Hall.

The only evidence to suggest any of these people as suspects, is their proximity to the crime (being they committed crimes in the same state)...We have a guy with motive and a crazy story, aside from that we have nothing (that we know of)...He's at the top of my list...

We have a guy with motive and a crazy story...

You refer to the story as "crazy" and "Hollywood"? How so?

What's the motive? Pregnancy? Is there any corroboration that her boyfriend was upset she was pregnant?

You refer to the story as "crazy" and "Hollywood"? How so?

What's the motive? Pregnancy? Is there any corroboration that her boyfriend was upset she was pregnant?
I know, I can not see his view either.
Hollywood seems to be inspired by these abductions/murders, Hollywood is the fake one.
I really do not think Rob had anything to do with it. This was the time before cell phones and geez did that small town even have 911? He was so close to the phone both, I believe his adrenaline and protective instinct took over and he wanted to save his girlfriend and unborn child.

By "Hollywood" I mean a bad 'movie of the week'...In most sudden events, we rarely recall many details; however in this case we have many details, as if somebody has been thinking about this story for a while...We have a girl who stops just a few blocks from her bf to call him to meet up (instead of just going there) then a very detailed account of a man and a truck, then the hero going to save his girl (who somehow knows he's coming and yells his name) and coming up just short, thus making him the victim also...It's a perfect story to make up...And at the end saying "all I could see was dust and tail lights".....It would be more believable if it were more vague.....I'm not sure what happened that night, she may very well have been abducted...There is just no evidence to support that, none at all...We are taking his story at face value for some reason...Most murders are caused by people who know each other, and by most I mean almost all...

The only evidence to suggest any of these people as suspects, is their proximity to the crime (being they committed crimes in the same state)...We have a guy with motive and a crazy story, aside from that we have nothing (that we know of)...He's at the top of my list...
Why do people think this story is impossible to believe????? i do think this story is possible, the guy could be an out of towner who saw and opportunity. i just dont see Rob doing this. If he did this he would've made mistakes and would've been caught. a young man committing his first murder, he would leave evidence and i think the body would be found.

By "Hollywood" I mean a bad 'movie of the week'...In most sudden events, we rarely recall many details; however in this case we have many details, as if somebody has been thinking about this story for a while...We have a girl who stops just a few blocks from her bf to call him to meet up (instead of just going there) then a very detailed account of a man and a truck, then the hero going to save his girl (who somehow knows he's coming and yells his name) and coming up just short, thus making him the victim also...It's a perfect story to make up...And at the end saying "all I could see was dust and tail lights".....It would be more believable if it were more vague.....I'm not sure what happened that night, she may very well have been abducted...There is just no evidence to support that, none at all...We are taking his story at face value for some reason...Most murders are caused by people who know each other, and by most I mean almost all...
This really gets on my nerves. "No evidence she was abducted" Is that right? How bout the fact she has never been seen again? Would that be evidence? What do you want? A video tape?? Anyone who accuses Rob simply has not looked into the case enough or is just plain stupid. You say nearly all people murdered are killed by someone they know so does that mean there is no such thing as random abduction or murder? Does that mean anytime someone is killed they're closest friends should be charged with murder? Do you know of any random abductions or murders by strangers?? I sure as hell do. It happens quite often and if you bothered to watch UM you might understand that.

Angela was grabbed at a phone booth, dragged into a vehicle by a man three times her size. Why is that so hard to beileve? The man was not from this area and no one recognized his vehicle. So what evidence do you feel should have been left? What evidence do you ever have in a random abduction??

Was Trudy Darby a random abduction and murder?? Yes. We know that because two men admitted to taking part in the crime. Had one of them not bragged about it and been charged with murder Im sure you would be blaming her son or another close relative because there was no "evidence" that a random stranger was involved.

This thread is starting to take an ugly turn. I know that opinions are strong on this one and chances are no one is going to sway anyone's thoughts by arguing back and forth so lets just agree to disagree and move on.

I have never believed that Rob did it. Aside from his genuine sincerity in the interview, I just cannot believe that he (at his age, with so little time, so little evidence left behind) could have committed murder and then placed the body into a position where it has not been found after 20 years- and to top it all off, then race back to town and deliberately damage his transmission. That seems too incredible and far-fetched to me. I don't believe the segment covers it, but I'm sure the police went through phone records, verified the accounts of the friend who dropped her off at the phone booth, etc. And wasn't Rob baby-sitting at the time, if I recall correctly? I believe it is far more likely that his story is true, a man did kidnap Angela and drove her away (perhaps even out of state). And that is why we still have no idea as to what happened to her.

It seems like there is a growing faction of people who no matter what the evidence says always want to blame the victims. Just like Cocytus used to do.

I think more and more its to merely get on people's nerves because in the high profile UM cases like this one they feel a lot of sympathy for Rob and Angela.

Now, I am far from being a person who trusts law enforcement, and no one is more of a believer than me in the corrupt ways of many police departments in this country.

But in this instance, Rob was exonerated pretty quickly. There were other witnesses who saw the green truck before the kidnapping, and I'm sure the police have other evidence we don't know about. Like for instance I'm certain they investigated Rob's car to see if it was torn up consistently with what he did.

In cases like this, if the police had any evidence at all which would have allowed them to put this off on Rob, believe me they would have done so. They are undoubtedly under a lot of pressure to get results and if they could pin it on the boyfriend they would, but the evidence just about has to say definitively otherwise if they don't.

I am not totally ruling out the possibility Rob didn't have something to do with Angie's dissapearance, but I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that points to that.

Sometime ago I provided information about a possible suspect to the officer in charge of this investigation. Interested parties might wish to inquire. I've never heard anything further.

Sometime ago I provided information about a possible suspect to the officer in charge of this investigation. Interested parties might wish to inquire. I've never heard anything further.

Care to elaborate as to who this person is?

Care to elaborate as to who this person is?


Yes, do tell.

It seems like there is a growing faction of people who no matter what the evidence says always want to blame the victims. Just like Cocytus used to do.

I think more and more its to merely get on people's nerves because in the high profile UM cases like this one they feel a lot of sympathy for Rob and Angela.

Now, I am far from being a person who trusts law enforcement, and no one is more of a believer than me in the corrupt ways of many police departments in this country.

But in this instance, Rob was exonerated pretty quickly. There were other witnesses who saw the green truck before the kidnapping, and I'm sure the police have other evidence we don't know about. Like for instance I'm certain they investigated Rob's car to see if it was torn up consistently with what he did.

In cases like this, if the police had any evidence at all which would have allowed them to put this off on Rob, believe me they would have done so. They are undoubtedly under a lot of pressure to get results and if they could pin it on the boyfriend they would, but the evidence just about has to say definitively otherwise if they don't.

I am not totally ruling out the possibility Rob didn't have something to do with Angie's dissapearance, but I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that points to that.

What make it obvious that Rob is telling the truth is the timeline. For him to have done this he would have had less then an hour to kill Angie, hide her body where it would never be found, damage his vehicle, have his brother lie for him and get to the police station to make up the story. That sounds a little more unbeilevable then a random abduction to me

Sometime ago I provided information about a possible suspect to the officer in charge of this investigation. Interested parties might wish to inquire. I've never heard anything further.
Uhhhhhh Inquire with who??

This really gets on my nerves. "No evidence she was abducted" Is that right? How bout the fact she has never been seen again? Would that be evidence? What do you want? A video tape?? Anyone who accuses Rob simply has not looked into the case enough or is just plain stupid. You say nearly all people murdered are killed by someone they know so does that mean there is no such thing as random abduction or murder? Does that mean anytime someone is killed they're closest friends should be charged with murder? Do you know of any random abductions or murders by strangers?? I sure as hell do. It happens quite often and if you bothered to watch UM you might understand that.

Angela was grabbed at a phone booth, dragged into a vehicle by a man three times her size. Why is that so hard to beileve? The man was not from this area and no one recognized his vehicle. So what evidence do you feel should have been left? What evidence do you ever have in a random abduction??

Was Trudy Darby a random abduction and murder?? Yes. We know that because two men admitted to taking part in the crime. Had one of them not bragged about it and been charged with murder Im sure you would be blaming her son or another close relative because there was no "evidence" that a random stranger was involved.
Instead of swearing and name-calling, maybe you should let the adults talk? Nobody is accusing anybody, we are just talking about the event, about the case...Of course there are such things as random murders, however it's not that common, and if you think it is, then it seems you get all of your news from Unsolved Mysteries, which is not a good thing...You mention one random murder; there is always an exception we can mention; for every one random murder, I could mention thousands of the alternative...My biggest problem either way is all of the 'evidence' we have (if you can call it evidence) is from one person's mouth; with no corroboration that I know of...Do the police have more information than we know of? I hope so, but I'm not sure I'd count on it...

Care to elaborate as to who this person is?

I don't know his name. However, I provided to the detective information, which I had checked out to be current, that would have led him to his employer who could have revealed who he was. I made no attempt to actually uncover his name.

His truck was described as "yellowish-green" in color and had the decal in the rear window.

If anyone is in the area of Clinton I would simply talk to that detective and ask him if he followed up on the tip I provided him. It wouldn't have taken very long for him to locate this person. It was not my place to get involved in this case and my primary interest was in the 3MW of Springfield. However, I have been in Clinton many, many times on my way to Kansas City when I was based in Springfield. So I know the area well.

I regard my source as reliable.

Instead of swearing and name-calling, maybe you should let the adults talk? Nobody is accusing anybody, we are just talking about the event, about the case...Of course there are such things as random murders, however it's not that common, and if you think it is, then it seems you get all of your news from Unsolved Mysteries, which is not a good thing...You mention one random murder; there is always an exception we can mention; for every one random murder, I could mention thousands of the alternative...My biggest problem either way is all of the 'evidence' we have (if you can call it evidence) is from one person's mouth; with no corroboration that I know of...Do the police have more information than we know of? I hope so, but I'm not sure I'd count on it...
Sundance, look at you getting people all riled up!! :crazy:

Instead of swearing and name-calling, maybe you should let the adults talk? Nobody is accusing anybody, we are just talking about the event, about the case...Of course there are such things as random murders, however it's not that common, and if you think it is, then it seems you get all of your news from Unsolved Mysteries, which is not a good thing...You mention one random murder; there is always an exception we can mention; for every one random murder, I could mention thousands of the alternative...My biggest problem either way is all of the 'evidence' we have (if you can call it evidence) is from one person's mouth; with no corroboration that I know of...Do the police have more information than we know of? I hope so, but I'm not sure I'd count on it...

Ive been posting on this topic for years now. I will swear whenever I want to. You sir, are ignoring evidence that is right in front of your face if you bothered to read through the forum to any extent. Your flat wrong when you say all of the evidence came from one person. First off Angela's friend backed up Rob's story about what time she was last seen. Not only that but two other witnesses reported seeing the green truck driving around. No one including Angela's family members ever said there was any history of violence between Angela and Rob. In fact Angela's brother posted on this forum that in no way does anyone in Angela's family suspect Rob.

You want to make these little ignorant posts where you point the finger at him then go ahead and tell us how you think he could have pulled this off?? Ive never seen anyone from the "Rob did it crowd" do this but lets see if you will.

Ive been posting on this topic for years now. I will swear whenever I want to. You sir, are ignoring evidence that is right in front of your face if you bothered to read through the forum to any extent. Your flat wrong when you say all of the evidence came from one person. First off Angela's friend backed up Rob's story about what time she was last seen. Not only that but two other witnesses reported seeing the green truck driving around. No one including Angela's family members ever said there was any history of violence between Angela and Rob. In fact Angela's brother posted on this forum that in no way does anyone in Angela's family suspect Rob.

You want to make these little ignorant posts where you point the finger at him then go ahead and tell us how you think he could have pulled this off?? Ive never seen anyone from the "Rob did it crowd" do this but lets see if you will.
The only time I've seen anything about the 'two witnesses seeing the green truck' is from a passing post telling the story. I've never seen a police report or even a media story regarding witnesses. It almost seems to be a later addition to the story...Why does there have to be a history of violence? If there were a history of violence would you be less likely to believe his story? If that's the case, then we are just believing stories without evidence...I'm neither in the "Rob did it" crowd, nor am I pointing the finger at anyone, I am simply trying to be objective. You can come to all of the conclusions you want, you have all the answers. How do I think he would have pulled it off? I wouldn't know, I'm not a murderer, how does anybody get away with murder? A little luck? A small town police department? Many factors I'm sure, but all of them have similar things in common, a crime committed, a made-up story, and little evidence...Maybe that's how they get away with it...

Sundance, look at you getting people all riled up!! :crazy:
haha not my intent! Some people just can't handle their liquor ;)

The only time I've seen anything about the 'two witnesses seeing the green truck' is from a passing post telling the story. I've never seen a police report or even a media story regarding witnesses. It almost seems to be a later addition to the story...Why does there have to be a history of violence? If there were a history of violence would you be less likely to believe his story? If that's the case, then we are just believing stories without evidence...I'm neither in the "Rob did it" crowd, nor am I pointing the finger at anyone, I am simply trying to be objective. You can come to all of the conclusions you want, you have all the answers. How do I think he would have pulled it off? I wouldn't know, I'm not a murderer, how does anybody get away with murder? A little luck? A small town police department? Many factors I'm sure, but all of them have similar things in common, a crime committed, a made-up story, and little evidence...Maybe that's how they get away with it...

There have been news reports from 1991 posted here which mention there being witnesses, if I'm not mistaken.

The only time I've seen anything about the 'two witnesses seeing the green truck' is from a passing post telling the story. I've never seen a police report or even a media story regarding witnesses.

That's not true. In earlier posts (on this thread) people have posted news articles related to her abduction in which they state witnesses remembered seeing a suspicious green pickup truck circling the area shortly before she was abducted. This is straight from the Charley Project (a media outlet) website: "Witnesses reported seeing a Caucasian male driving a similar truck near the telephone booth at time Hammond disappeared. The man, who has never been identified, was wearing coveralls and a dark-colored baseball cap. He had eyeglasses, a beard and a moustache."

It almost seems to be a later addition to the story...Why does there have to be a history of violence? If there were a history of violence would you be less likely to believe his story? If that's the case, then we are just believing stories without evidence...I'm neither in the "Rob did it" crowd, nor am I pointing the finger at anyone, I am simply trying to be objective. You can come to all of the conclusions you want, you have all the answers. How do I think he would have pulled it off? I wouldn't know, I'm not a murderer, how does anybody get away with murder? A little luck? A small town police department? Many factors I'm sure, but all of them have similar things in common, a crime committed, a made-up story, and little evidence...Maybe that's how they get away with it...

You do realize the amount of time Rob had to get away with the perfect crime? He had no longer than an hour and a half, and that's being very liberal. Angela was last seen at 11:45 p.m. when she was talking on the phone with Rob. Rob reported this incident to the police shortly after, so I don't really see where there's any room for doubt. Let alone the fact that his car was found in the middle of town (remember the transmission on his car failed). If he in fact was the culprit and he did murder Angela and hide her body (in a miraculous amount of time), why did he feel the need to drive back close to where she was last seen by witnesses? Why not just go the safer route, go to his home and say he talked to her, and she said she was just going to go home for the evening and that was the last time he talked to her. Why the elaborate "chase" story? We have witnesses that place the old green truck in the area before Angela was abducted, but we have none that place Rob at the scene. Not to mention the fact that the police ruled him out after an investigation into him as a potential suspect. Police just don't rule someone out because they're feeling generous, there is usually a good reason why. And even if Rob's story sounded convincing to the investigators if there was even the slightest hint that he was lying about anything, you can guarantee that he would at least still be a person of interest in the case. But on UM, they made it clear that he was cleared as a suspect by law enforcement. Or in other words, he didn't do it.

The only time I've seen anything about the 'two witnesses seeing the green truck' is from a passing post telling the story. I've never seen a police report or even a media story regarding witnesses. It almost seems to be a later addition to the story...Why does there have to be a history of violence? If there were a history of violence would you be less likely to believe his story? If that's the case, then we are just believing stories without evidence...I'm neither in the "Rob did it" crowd, nor am I pointing the finger at anyone, I am simply trying to be objective. You can come to all of the conclusions you want, you have all the answers. How do I think he would have pulled it off? I wouldn't know, I'm not a murderer, how does anybody get away with murder? A little luck? A small town police department? Many factors I'm sure, but all of them have similar things in common, a crime committed, a made-up story, and little evidence...Maybe that's how they get away with it...
Witnesses found here: http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/hammond_angela.html

haha not my intent! Some people just can't handle their liquor ;)
Oh, I thought they were all jacked up on Mt. Dew!! :lol:

Witnesses found here: http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/hammond_angela.html
Yeah, I've read the Charley Project post along with a lot of others there...They are just a rundown of some information and a quick telling of the stories...There have been many errors as to specifics on that site...Their main focus is getting word out, and not so much on being completely accurate...I stopped going there for my information some time back...Does anybody know of any sites some of us might be missing? Besides the above mentioned and unsolved and the such?