Has anyone seen this segment? She was found dead on a Virginia road - possibly run over by her truck - and her ex-husband was suspected. According to the episode list this case has been updated. Anyone know what came out of it?

Yes the update says he was convicted of her murder in 1990 but then appealed and was granted a new trial 18 months later. The judge released him with time served in exchange for his guilty plea (I believe to manslaughter). He also received 15 years probation. It was so obvious to me he killed her even though he denied it during the segment. He was a conman out for her money and Kay was killed the day she received a substantial inheritance.

Thanks, CrystalDawn. :) I remember seeing this one way back during the NBC airings - and before I started taping them - but I didn't know that it was solved.

Yeah, CD given the law of averages I would have to agree with you that her husband killed her. Although he didn't come off nearly as swine like as Mark Nichols or Jule Caylor in his segment, he also isn't very convincing although I do believe that there was an issue as to whether the guy would've had enough time to commit his crime.

I would say however that in my mind his guilty plea is not a mitigating factor here. I don't believe he's guilty because he pleaded so because that was done in such circumstances that I think a lot of people would've pleaded guilty in order to obtain a "get out of jail free" card.

Well I think I will go with the majority here and say that I think Bob Hall is guilty. I just don't think it was a coincidence that Kay was murdered the same day she claimed that inheritance. There was a time element, but it stated that Bob had as much as 25 minutes to locate Kay and kill her, and get back to the house. That seems like plenty of time. Plus, he had no alibi for that timeframe.

For me, Bob starts off of the wrong foot as we learned about his previous time spent behind bars. It doesn't get any better. Midway through the segment, he talked about how the police were focusing on him and not exploring any other options. Well, what other options were there? Nobody else would have had a motive as far as I know. The segment mentioned the possibility that Kay didn't waste any time telling him she was going to leave him once she got that inheritance. That's plausible. I think another option was that he might have felt he was going to get the inheritance with her dead, so he could get the $50,000. He was the most likely candidate to get it as he was her husband.

Well I think I will go with the majority here and say that I think Bob Hall is guilty. I just don't think it was a coincidence that Kay was murdered the same day she claimed that inheritance. There was a time element, but it stated that Bob had as much as 25 minutes to locate Kay and kill her, and get back to the house. That seems like plenty of time. Plus, he had no alibi for that timeframe.

For me, Bob starts off of the wrong foot as we learned about his previous time spent behind bars. It doesn't get any better. Midway through the segment, he talked about how the police were focusing on him and not exploring any other options. Well, what other options were there? Nobody else would have had a motive as far as I know. The segment mentioned the possibility that Kay didn't waste any time telling him she was going to leave him once she got that inheritance. That's plausible. I think another option was that he might have felt he was going to get the inheritance with her dead, so he could get the $50,000. He was the most likely candidate to get it as he was her husband.

Having watched the segment this past weekend I have to say that I agree with your post. He had plenty of time to do it and besides who else would have had a motive for killing her?

Open and shut case as far as I see...

Well I am actually sort of the fence on this one. Bob Hall certainly could have done it and had motive to do it. However the time difference does bother me, remember, he was dropped off at home about an hour before Kay was found dead if I remember correctly. That would mean that he would have had to race 15 miles away find his wife in the dark somewhere, kill her and then race back home. He would have had if I remember right at most 25 minutes to commit the murder. It is certainly possible he did it, him and Kay had a strained relationship, it could be that she had told him it was done with or that he figured she was close to ending it so he figured he had to knock her off before he would lose the money.

On the same token, I dont think Bob was a con man that was just out for her money. Kay went to him, sought him out, wrote to him in prison and in fact had known Bob for several years before he even went to jail so it wasnt like they just met and he decided from day one he was going to knock her off for the money. Bob had a felony conviction and had done prison time and I imagine it isnt particularly easy for a felon to get a job particularly when the felony involves drugs.

I do think Bob truly loved Kay. I dont know, I just dont get that guilty feeling from him that I do Mark Nichols, Paul Pollis, Jule Caylor, etc. Bob was convicted of first degree murder in 1990 and was sentenced to life in prison. However as it has been mentioned Bob appealed it and after a year and a half in prison a judge agreed to shorten Bob's sentence to time served in exchange for his guilty plea to 2nd degree manslaughter I believe. Bob was placed on 15 years probation and was released from prison. So that tells me the state's case against him was shaky despite the conviction and Bob I am sure pled guilty because he didnt want to gamble going to trial again for fear of getting convicted again and staying in prison so as DD said he used the get out of jail free card. As a poster said earlier, even if Bob is guilty it wouldnt be because of his guilty plea that would make me think that. A lot of people would take that deal if they had been convicted once and wanted to avoid being convicted again.

Wasn't Bob Hall drunk at the time? I'm wondering if that would have imparied his driving ability, and might have caused him to drive slower. Then we might be talking about a smaller timeframe than the 25 minutes as mentioned above.

You'd have to get pretty lucky to locate a certain person on the road like that, unless Bob was tipped off when Kay was leaving and which direction she was headed.

I still think he's guilty, but I just wanted to throw those 2 things out there.

Another segment that suffers from vagueness.

Here's something that's interesting. Kay left the country club. It appears she was headed in the opposite direction to her house, as her vehicle was found a couple miles in that direction. Now had Bob killed Kay, he would have almost for sure had to have known not only when Kay left the country club, but where she was headed. He may have known this, but the segment really doesn't elaborate.

I'm still leaning in the guilty catergory, but this one's heading towards swing status for me. He does give a pretty genuine interview.

I say he's guilty even though his story seemed to be more 'believable' than most of the others. More believable than Tim McClure (which this case reminds me of) and DEFINITELY more believable than that pathetic Pollis dude. :lol:

we learn that Bob placed a call at his house at 9:47. Yet, Kay was found at 9:55, and the people that happened upon the scene said her body still felt warm, like it had just happened. In order to commit the murder, Bob would have had to have left the scene no later than 9:30, which means that 25 minutes at least would have passed, which doens't tie in with the people finding Kay's body still warm.

Also, I touched upon this briefly in an above post. Bob was dropped off at home by friends, presumuably since he had too much to drink and couldn't drive. But in order to commit the murder, he would have had to drive.

Bob was heavily intoxicated from what the segment said, however the reason Bob was driven home by friends was because him and Kay had came together to the party and she stormed off in a drunken fit in their truck. Since Bob was left without a car and had no way to get home, his friends drove him.

It is certainy possibly, probably even likely in my opinion that Bob Hall killed his wife. However I also believe in my opinion it is very possible that he could be innocent.

It is truly a bizarre case, and I will disagree with Crystaldawn on this one at least partially in terms of her opinion of Bob Hall himself. I dont know that the guy was a "con-man" per say. I mean he certainly wasnt up to Dave Davis level.

I think Crystaldawn's theory that Bob married her for her money is possible, but Kay did take care of him, she did write to him in prison, she sought him out, so it wasnt like he just came out of no where. However at that time Kay was an insurance company executive and doing very well financially.

However remember that at the time of Kay's death, the Hall's were not doing well financially because their oyster farming business had gone belly up. However the biggest thing I think that sunk Bob Hall was the circumstancial evidence that Kay died the same day she got that huge amount of money.

I just think the jury in his trial couldnt get around that. I think without that little tid bit of circumstancial evidence he would have and should have been acquitted because while I think he probably, not for sure, but probably did kill Kay, the evidence simply wasnt strong enough to support a conviction.

The state got lucky the first time and got a conviction but Hall appealed and after a couple years in prison his conviction was reversed and I think the state knew there chances of getting another first degree murder conviction were a long shot so they made a plea b argain with Hall knowing he would take it regardless if he did it or not because he was afraid he might get convicted again and sent back to prison again.

I think Crystaldawn's theory that Bob married her for her money is possible, but Kay did take care of him, she did write to him in prison, she sought him out, so it wasnt like he just came out of no where. However at that time Kay was an insurance company executive and doing very well financially.

Well, it's like what one of Kay's friends/relatives said: She was his meal ticket and she was about to cut him off because of his abuse. He definitely had motive.

Well that is if you believe her friends, who while they may have been telling half-truths, may also have had bias after all their friend died and whether he murdered her or not, Bob Hall is a very convienent person to blame for it. Also Bob wasnt the only one with a drinking problem in that house hold according to the segment and was not the only one with a hot temper when he was under the influence. So you can really look at it both ways. I agree he had motive, but that hardly makes him a for sure murderer. Again, did he do it? Chances are he did, but there are some nagging questions that create enough doubt that I think he should have never been convicted. The plea bargain in this case was appropriate, the state was lucky they got a first degree murder conviction in the first place but it was so full of holes that Hall was easily able to get the conviction over turned on appeal. The state was hardly confident in their case b ecause if they had been they certainly wouldnt have given him such a lucreative plea bargain and they knew Bob Hall would take it because he didnt want to risk another conviction and getting sent back to prison.

I'm throwing this out there, so PLEASE don't throw tomatoes at me, but....

Any chance that this death could have been accidental?

I'm throwing this out there, so PLEASE don't throw tomatoes at me, but....

Any chance that this death could have been accidental?

She fell out of the truck and it backed over her?

...I know that sounds crazy, but, yeah, maybe! Was the vehicle an automatic, or was it a 5 speed that would keep going if you didn't apply the brake correctly? She HAD been drinking... Maybe she stopped for something and the truck backed over her.

Like I said... just a thought. I'm aware that it's out there. :)

It's not a crazy idea. I had always wondered why she was ran over, that would be such a bizarre method of killing someone. But since she was in a vehicle and had the opportunity to flee, that would suggest that if she was killed that it would have been by someone she knew, which throws more suspicion Bob Hall's way.

But then again if Bob Hall did it, why would he do it in the middle of an interesection and risk being caught? Oddly enough, it appears that people stubmled onto the scene mere seconds after it happened.

I'm so completely torn on this one.

Don't throw tomotoes at me either but what if Kay was having an affair and her lover killed her? Maybe this mystery guy was at the party that night and left around the time Kay left or sooner, especially if they were going to meet up b/f she went home. Maybe they got into an argument and Kay decided to hell with mystery man and Bob and maybe that guy(not Bob) killed her.

Don't throw tomotoes at me either but what if Kay was having an affair and her lover killed her? Maybe this mystery guy was at the party that night and left around the time Kay left or sooner, especially if they were going to meet up b/f she went home. Maybe they got into an argument and Kay decided to hell with mystery man and Bob and maybe that guy(not Bob) killed her.

I won't throw anything but I think the husband had a lot of motives to kill her. She appeared to be his meal ticket and she had just received a substantial inheritance. They seemed to have a tumultuous relationship and Bob probably feared Kay would kick him out. Of course if she died while they were still married he would receive the inheritance. Not to mention he did eventually plead guilty to I think manslaughter so I'm assuming in the end he did confess to the crime.

Hmm, well that is an interesting theory Forever Pluto and is very possible, I had actually never really considered that angle before. I am certainly not saying it isnt possible Bob Hall killed his wife as many here seem to think he did do it. However there are a couple of big problems I have with this. First off, I feel the inheritance thing is way over blown, yes Kay did inherit 50 grand, however if Bob even knew she had inherited this kind of money, why in the world would he kill her the same day she inherited it? I have a hard time believing anyone would do this because of the fact they would look like a suspect, Bob Hall was probably already a suspect before the cops found out about the 50 grand.

Also, those were Kay's friends that were saying all this stuff, I mean they were ticked about their friends death and understandably so, but at the same time, they were looking for someone to b lame for it, and Bob Hall was a very convienent person for them to blame. I mean was KAy his meal ticket? I am sure, I am sure it wasnt easy for a convicted felon to get a job, so she did support Bob, however would she have done this for him if she didnt truly love him? I am thinking she wouldnt.

Finally, yes, Bob did plead guilty to 2nd degree murder, although I think Stack meant manslaughter, because I dont think they would let someone out after doing just a year of a 2nd degree murder conviction, but I am not sure. But yes, Bob did take responsibility for Kay's death, however he did this more so to get out of prison than anything else, his first trial, he should have never been convicted, the evidence wasnt there, he got convicted somehow, he did about two years in prison before the conviction was reversed, the state offered him a pretty good plea bargain, for someone they originally got a life sentence for, so that tells me they werent confident that they would get another first degree murder conviction so they offered him an easy plea bargain that is typically offered in cases like this, where they are afraid of not getting another conviction, but know the person will take the plea because they are just as afraid of getting convicted and sent back to prison again, so they are typically offered 2nd degree/time served. I mean, that isnt that surprising, that whether he did it or not, Bob would take the plea because most people would do the same if they were looking at another life sentence if they were convicted at trial again, it really isnt that unusual, just because someone pleads guilty doesnt necessarily mean they did the crime, especially in a case like this. The state must not be entirely convinced either, because if they were, do you really think they would offer a man they for sure thought murdered his wife, time served and 15 years probation?

I'm suprised there is nothing on the internet about this case. Usually there's a newspaper article or something posted. Bob Hall protested his innocence on the show, but then pleads guilty. I always wondered what the whole story really was.

If he did it, he's a really good liar on camera.

FREED HUSBAND MAINTAINS INNOCENCE
Richmond Times-Dispatch - Sunday, April 12, 1992

Robert J. Hall Jr. won his freedom the same way he lost it -- he maintained his innocence to the very end.

When a Northumberland County jury found him guilty nearly two years ago of crushing his wife beneath his pickup truck, Hall calmly told the judge he had nothing to do with Kay Hall 's death.

Five days of testimony, once interrupted by a rumbling thunderstorm that eerily forced proceedings to come to a halt in the old courthouse, focused over and over on the circumstances surrounding the death.

"I'm kind of taken aback right now, your honor," he told Circuit Judge Joseph C. Spruill Jr. in the hushed courtroom July 17. ' ' Over the past five days, I learned a lot of respect (for the court), and I appreciate your fairness, but I'm not guilty."

Hall, 51 at the time of the trial, was sentenced by jurors to the maximum penalty for second-degree murder -- 20 years in prison for the death of his wife, 45.

But nine days ago Hall left the Northumberland County courthouse a free man, having first won an appeal from the Virginia Court of Appeals on March 10 that overturned the verdict and sent his case back for possible retrial.

Hall earned his freedom on the basis of a plea agreement that ruled out the need for a second trial. In the agreement, he said he was willing to plead guilty to the second-degree murder charge while maintaining his innocence. Hall entered what is known as an Alford plea.

"He did not admit his guilt but accepted his plea because he believed the commonwealth's evidence could convict him beyond a shadow of a doubt," said M.M. Shelton, the lawyer who handled the appeal.

Under the plea agreement's terms, Hall was released on probation without having to serve any more jail time.

The agreement also specified a new sentence of 10 years in prison with all of the time suspended except for the 20 months already served. Hall will remain on probation for the length of his suspended sentence and is prevented from inheriting any of his wife's estate, valued at between $30,000 and $100,000.

Hall has since moved to Maryland, where Shelton said his client was living with one of his daughters. He could not be reached for comment and did not return a reporter's phone call.

Long before the trial, the story of Kay Hall 's death was presented on NBC's "Unsolved Mysteries." The program re-enacted the cocktail party the couple attended on the night of her death, using residents of the rural county -- including a man who later was appointed to the jury that heard Hall's case and declared him guilty.

The Halls lived in Lancaster County, but Mrs. Hall died in Northumberland. Mrs. Hall was crushed beneath the left front wheel of her pickup truck after leaving the country club party where she had been drinking. She was last seen driving over boxwoods in a lawn and narrowly missing a swimming pool, before backing up, getting her bearings and going on.

Hall's lawyers maintained during the trial that Mrs. Hall may have gotten out of her truck without placing the transmission fully into park and the vehicle lurched over her.

But Commonwealth's Attorney William J. LoPorto argued that Hall, who had been left stranded at the party and forced to ask a couple he'd met at the party for a ride home, found his wife at the dead end, pulled her from the cab and drove the truck over her body.

In light of the ambiguous plea, which can be taken two ways, is the mystery of Kay Hall 's death still unsolved?

"If you believe Bob Hall , yes," said Shelton. ' ' He maintained his innocence up until the end."

But LoPorto holds the other view of Hall's plea.

As prosecutor, he maintained throughout the trial that the Halls' marriage, strained by his financial failures in the oyster packing business that drained $70,000 of Mrs. Hall's savings, was also troubled by drink and discord.

"The plea speaks for itself," said LoPorto, who accepted the agreement on the pragmatic basis that it would yield a conviction without risking the case before another jury.

"He pleaded guilty on the basis of an Alford plea, the court entered a conviction of guilt. I'm interested in bottom lines, I'm not particularly interested in how you get there as long as it's fair."

No evidence was found linking Hall to the scene of Mrs. Hall's death.

LoPorto introduced witnesses who said the Hall's marriage was on the rocks and that they had seen Mrs. Hall covered with bruises. They recalled her saying she had been beaten by her husband.

Witnesses for the prosecution said they found broken false fingernails and fingerprint smears on the truck's windshield trim -- suggestions that Mrs. Hall had been yanked from the cab.

Hall testified that he and his wife were under financial strain and both were heavy drinkers, but that things had begun to turn around before Mrs. Hall's death. Both of them, he said, while musing over a photograph of his wife that he held in his hands, had taken new jobs that were beginning to pay well.

The appeals court overturned Hall's conviction based on the startling testimony of Carole D. Vandergrift, wife of a wealthy Loudoun County businessman. Ms. Vandergrift said she got to know the Halls when she and Mrs. Hall worked in Washington.

On the witness stand, Ms. Vandergrift said her former husband, William D. Carter, shot her in the head at their Middleburg area estate. After the attack, she said he drove in a race against time to his New York horse farm where he made several long-distance telephone calls upon his arrival to establish a record that distanced himself from the crime.

Witnesses testified that the Halls knew about the shooting and how Carter used the phone records as his defense. Mrs. Hall died two months after the murder attempt on Ms. Vandergrift.

At the Hall trial, LoPorto called attention to how Ms. Vandergrift's account matched circumstances at the Hall household on the night of Mrs. Hall's death.

LoPorto noted that telephone company records showed a 9:47 p.m. call from Hall's phone on the night Mrs. Hall was found dead at about 10 p.m.

The call still gave Hall just enough time, he argued, to make what he said was a 42-minute drive to the lonely backroad where Mrs. Hall was found and back again after being dropped off at his front door between 9:03 and 9:05 p.m. by a couple he met at the party.

Hall's lawyers argued that the drive could not be made that quickly in Hall's Jeep, which had been tested and found to do the narrow, crooked route in no less than 47 minutes.

Ms. Vandergrift stunned the courtroom, but the appeals court agreed with Hall's contention that the testimony should not have been permitted. The court said it had no relevance other than to prejudice the jury.

LoPorto said last week that he is satisfied with the plea agreement and doesn't regret having introduced Ms. Vandergrift as a witness despite Hall's lawyers' objections.

Since the Hall trial, Ms. Vandergrift's case against her husband has unraveled.

Carter was sentenced to 14 years in prison in March 1988. But he was freed in February when the judge set aside the verdict after hearing allegations by a county deputy that the commonwealth's attorney withheld evidence in the trial.

Court records show that Doug Poppa testified that Ms. Vandergrift told him shortly before she was wounded that she was so bitter toward her ex- husband that she would shoot herself, "if I could make it look like he did it."

The records show that Poppa said he relayed this information to the prosecutor before the trial but that it was never disclosed to defense lawyers. The Sheriff's Department said that Poppa has since been fired, but declined to elaborate.

Carter's case is now being handled by a special prosecutor. A date to retry him is expected to be scheduled during a hearing tomorrow.

Shelton, Hall's lawyer, he was prepared to ask for a new trial based on Poppa's testimony if the appeal had been denied. But the appeals court reversed the conviction and sent the case back to LoPorto, setting the stage for Hall's plea agreement.

This is one of the 'witnesses' they used in court.

WITNESS CAUSES SENSATION
Richmond Times-Dispatch - Thursday, July 19, 1990


The woman who sat at the witness stand with her pale hair carefully pulled back from her porcelain-colored face was a model of propriety.

But what Carole D. Vandergrift said shattered the decorum of the Northumberland County courtroom.

Her testimony turned out to be a key weapon in the prosecution's case against Lancaster County resident Robert James Hall Jr.

Hall, 50, is accused of murdering his wife, Kay E. Hall, on a lonely dead-end road almost three years ago. Mrs. Hall, 45, was found crushed beneath the wheels of the family's pickup truck.

"Did you know Kay Hall very well?" Commonwealth's Attorney William J. LoPorto asked as he led his witness through her testimony.

The two women held executive positions in Washington and that's where they met. ' ' She was one of my dearest friends, if not my dearest friend," Mrs. Vandergrift replied.

In fact, her former husband and Mr. Hall hit it off well, too, she said. Each found in the other instant rapport.

"Well, where is your husband now?" LoPorto continued.

"He's in prison," she said as she turned loose the prosecution's carefully planted bomb.

"On July 31, 1987, my husband broke into my home and shot me in the head."

The comment elicited an instant objection from Hall's lawyer, John Martin. He jumped to his feet and turned angrily to LoPorto. ' ' You're trying to show that Bob Hall would do the same thing just because he had a beer with your husband?" he asked incredulously. ' ' It's prejudicial."

Circuit Judge Joseph E. Spruill wasn't sympathetic. He allowed LoPorto to continue the questioning.

What followed was Mrs. Vandergrift's description of how her husband shot her in the middle of the night and then sped away to his home in Saratoga, N.Y.

"As soon as he got home he made several phone calls in a row. He tried to use these phone calls as an alibi." It was an attempt, the woman said, to establish that he couldn't have been at her Northern Virginia home at the time she was shot.


The case was likened to what LoPorto contends Hall did on the night ofSept. 30, 1987, when his wife was found lying dead beneath her truck at about 10 p.m.

Telephone records show that Hall used his home phone at 9:47 p.m. to dial his daughter in Maryland and talk for five minutes.

Martin and LoPorto launched into an argument over the relevance of Mrs. Vandergrift's testimony before the judge calmed them down.

LoPorto said that the Vandergrift case "shows a common scheme. There are the same parallel facts. I think it's very significant."

Other witnesses LoPorto called to the stand testified they had been told by Mrs. Hall that she was being beaten by her husband.

Susan S. Taylor of the Virgin Islands, who once lived across the street from the Halls at their home on Merry Point, gave this description of Mrs. Hall from the summer of 1986:

"She'd been severely beaten up," she testified. ' ' This particular beating was more severe than any other." She had bruises on her face that "no amount of makeup and sunglasses would hide."

Ms. Taylor said she advised Mrs. Hall to read the book, "The Woman Hater," which told how some men who abuse their wives grow more aggressive.

Martin could take no more. He got Spruill to halt the testimony. The judge asked the jury to step out.

"We've gone as far afield as I've ever seen," Martin told the judge as he criticized LoPorto's tactics. ' ' He's brought in a woman whose husband shot her and a book called "The Woman Hater. It is clear this was brought in to inflame the jury.

"We would move at this time for a mistrial," Martin added.

Spruill paused for a minute and announced a recess. ' ' I've got to think about this," he said.

When he returned, he asked LoPorto to continue questioning Ms. Taylor without the jury present.

She said she remembered her last meeting with Mrs. Hall before she died.It was sometime after Labor Day, she recalled. ' ' Kay was very upset, she stated that Bob had been reading a mystery book and she was scared for her life. She said he told her he would create the perfect murder."

Spruill ruled that he would allow Ms. Taylor to make the same testimony with the jury present and would not declare a mistrial.

"It seems to me," he said, "that this may have some significance. It seems to me its up to the jury to determine its significance."

Another prosecution witness, state police special investigator David M. Riley, read the transcript of a Dec. 21, 1988, conversation he'd had with Hall at state police headquarters in Richmond which he secretly recorded.

In it, Hall said he was eager for Riley to settle the investigation and entered into a rambling "hypothetical" discussion with the investigator. In it, the conditions under which he would sign a statement saying he was
responsible for the accidental killing of Mrs. Hall were discussed.

Riley said he was convinced that Hall was all but admitting his own guilt. But Martin argued that his client "was looking at this conversation from a different reference point."

One of the stipulations was that the agreement make no mention of Robert Hall of Merry Point. Hall suggested using former addresses in Trappe or Silver Spring, Md., or Chevy Chase.

Another clause insisted that the cause of death on Mrs. Hall's death certificate be changed to accidential.

Hall wanted to add a rather bizarre request, Riley added. "He whispered in my ear, I want to burn my house down and let the insurance company pay for it.

"I can do it," he said after Riley asked for an explanation, "in such a way as to make it look like an accident, just like we're doing here."

Yesterday wound up LoPorto's three-day prosecution of Hall.

Martin begins Hall's defense today. He appeared confident as he left the courtroom that the tone of the case would change once he brought out hiswitnesses to present his case.

"Now, it's our turn," he said. ' ' So far all we've been able to do is swim upstream."

Thank you for these very interesting articles. If he had enough time to kill her and make the phone call was always what I wondered.

I just watched this case again, and I had a few ideas to throw out there. First off, thanks for those great articles; they really gave an insight into how he might have been convicted of murder on such shaky evidence.

The articles indicate that Kay was quite drunk, as she almost ran over items in someone's yard, so I feel that it is possible that this was a tragic accident. What I wonder is, how did Mr. Hall know that Kay was heading in the opposite direction from the house, and how did he find her in a random location at night? Also, did Mr. Hall actually even know about the inheritance? Considering she supposedly was leaving him, and she had just gotten it that day, I wonder if she had any reason to tell him about the money.

This case was vague, and I wonder if there were more details; it doesn't appear there were much more, as the articles seem to indicate the testimony was primarily about former abuse and a rocky marriage.

Although it is certainly possible that the husband murdered her, I don't think it is an open and shut case at all. I'm on the fence.

Gosh I know I'm really tardy to the party here but do you guys think it's possible that in her wildly drunken stupor something less malevolent might have occured? Perhaps she thought she saw a deer or something crossing, got out, and drunkenly forgot to set the park / brakes? Perhaps she was milling about, the car rolled forward slightly due to being on a decline, ran over her, stopping only due to the weight of her body as sort of a human car block. Perhaps their really isn't any guilty party at all except perhaps Kay?

And I agree with the above posters, anyone who is to face a retrial is going to accept that sweetheart of a deal regardless of true 'guilt'. The guy only served a year and a half altogether.

Edit: Just read the posts before me. I guess we're on the same fence.

I'm not so much on the fence on this one.

I think the whole thing smacked of tragic accident.

The only other odd point was that (I think) it mentioned that the cab of the truck showed "signs of a struggle" - so who was Kay struggling with?

On the same token, I dont think Bob was a con man that was just out for her money. Kay went to him, sought him out, wrote to him in prison and in fact had known Bob for several years before he even went to jail so it wasnt like they just met and he decided from day one he was going to knock her off for the money.

I do think Bob truly loved Kay.

You are correct - she sought him out. And when she did seek him out so desperately, he probably licked his chops and said "hot dang, here's someone I can take advantage of and control!" And he was right. If she was truly threatening to leave him, however, she obviously had a bit of a lower threshold of b.s. than he thought (some women will take it until the day they die - or are murdered), and that may have been enough to make him snap.

Bob didn't "love" Kay. It's like they say in domestic violence counseling, "if he abuses you, he doesn't love you". My definition of "love" is not "a good feeling", but rather a "choice" to do what is good for the other, in which feelings sometimes play a part.

Also, I touched upon this briefly in an above post. Bob was dropped off at home by friends, presumuably since he had too much to drink and couldn't drive. But in order to commit the murder, he would have had to drive.

Okay, this is why I am not hung up as much on the whole "not enough time" thing: because his "friends" dropped him off at 8:45pm only according to them.

Shady people usually hang with other shady people. If Mr. Ex-Con Bob Hall's "friends" were fellow ex-cons, is it a stretch to think they would lie to cover his keester? Especially if Bob said, "Hey, I just cashed in on a $50,000 inheritance - can I give you guys each $2,500 to say such-and-such?" Considering it takes a lot less to get an ex-con to lie (because lying is usually a way of life and a well-ingrained habit for an ex-con), I would think that the testimony of these friends is a load. Which is probably why the courts convicted him of murder despite the alleged "narrow time frame".

He does give a pretty genuine interview.

I would say "genuine" insofar as it was "convincing".

I have always said that chronic liars can tell lies more convincingly than honest people can tell the truth. However, the chronic liar still has a certain 'vibe' that some can detect - and I detected it here.

Well that is if you believe her friends, who while they may have been telling half-truths, may also have had bias after all their friend died and whether he murdered her or not, Bob Hall is a very convienent person to blame for it.

Well, I don't think we should believe his friends either - the ones who "drove him home at 8:45pm".

Also Bob wasnt the only one with a drinking problem in that house hold according to the segment and was not the only one with a hot temper when he was under the influence. So you can really look at it both ways.

Yes, but she was the only one that ended up brutally murdered. The ending up dead in a vicious run-over didn't go both ways.

First off, I feel the inheritance thing is way over blown, yes Kay did inherit 50 grand, however if Bob even knew she had inherited this kind of money, why in the world would he kill her the same day she inherited it? I have a hard time believing anyone would do this because of the fact they would look like a suspect

Also, those were Kay's friends that were saying all this stuff, I mean they were ticked about their friends death and understandably so, but at the same time, they were looking for someone to blame for it, and Bob Hall was a very convienent person for them to blame.


1. Why would he kill her the same day? Makes sense to me. She rakes in a huge inheritance, starts thinking about having a fresh start, is financially secure enough now that she doesn't need to hang onto this no-good wife-beater due to the stress and uncertainty of financial insecurity, and tells him she's splitsville. He flies off the handle and murders her. A good number of spousal homicides are provoked by the wife announcing a definitive divorce. "She can't do that to me! I must be in control of her!" or "If I can't have her, no one can!"

2. I am sure when he was three sheets to the wind and flew into a rage that he was not thinking, "hold on a minute here - I'd better not kill her. They're going to suspect me, because she just got this inheritance. No, the motive will seem too clear. So in that case, I'd better finish delivering this fourth blow and then leave". A "crime of passion", by definition, means one loses his good sense and ability to reason.

3. As for Kay's friends "saying stuff", yes that is possible. However, I find it unlikely that in order to "frame" Bob, Kay's friends afterwards are going to make up things like Kay told them she was abused, when in fact Kay never said anything of the sort. This is a stretch because it is such a bold-faced lie. If Bob's friends told a lie, there was at least some truth to it (such as the fact they did drive home together at some point, and that Bob was probably in the vehicle with them, etc.) We have to ask the question, "Why did Kay's friends dislike Bob to begin with and think he murdered her?" The answer is: because he was a shady ex-con who abused her and used her for her money (long before the inheritance). And that is a good suspect for murder, by the way.

I'm not so much on the fence on this one.

I think the whole thing smacked of tragic accident.

I don't think it could have been an accident because the truck was in park when it was discovered. You can't put a vehicle in park and then get crushed by it after you get out.

Also, the police said that the evidence shows the back tire crushed the woman, and after the back tire crushed her, the brakes were slammed on, causing the front tire to twist into her torso. Once again, it is impossible for that to happen accidentally. Remember, "Maximum Overdrive" was just fiction :lol:

This segment frustrated me for two reasons.

1. Out of all the cases UM could have profiled, why choose this one? An ex-con who beats his wife and drains her bank account is charged with her murder after she is killed the same day she receives a big inheritance and threatens to divorce him. This is a mystery? The only reason it is a mystery is because UM portrayed it in true UM style - to leave a number of viable possibilities and reasonable doubts in the minds of the viewer. If we had all the facts, I would guess that we would not be so on the fence about it.

2. I'd bet $1,000 that Bob has found another woman (at least one more) who was foolish enough to marry him. Stupid, stupid, STUPID!!

This segment frustrated me for two reasons.

1. Out of all the cases UM could have profiled, why choose this one? An ex-con who beats his wife and drains her bank account is charged with her murder after she is killed the same day she receives a big inheritance and threatens to divorce him. This is a mystery? The only reason it is a mystery is because UM portrayed it in true UM style - to leave a number of viable possibilities and reasonable doubts in the minds of the viewer. If we had all the facts, I would guess that we would not be so on the fence about it.

2. I'd bet $1,000 that Bob has found another woman (at least one more) who was foolish enough to marry him. Stupid, stupid, STUPID!!

I agree with you to some extent. It doesn't appear to be much of a mystery; however, what keeps me from conclusively saying that it was murder is the fact that Kay was, by everyone's account, totally sh*t faced that night; she almost ran over stuff in somebody's yard.

The stuff you wrote about how the police found the car, in terms of it being in park, as well the back tire evidence... that's pretty damning.

I don't know, to me this is def. not clear cut though, and is a mystery.

Wow Wamisto, being pro prosecution as usual what a shock. I love it so it is not only Bob that is lying but all his friends were lying too in this grand conspiracy to protect him? Come on. Actually his friends account was verified. They were at the country club, Kay got mad at Bob and left in their truck in a huff, alone. Several people including non friends of Bob's saw this and saw that Bob was left at the club without a car. So his friends did drive him home. He has no alibi for the period of time after he was dropped off at home until the phone call he made at 8:47.

Okay, so during that period of time he does not have an alibi. I am sure Bob's argument was/is he was at home alone during that time. Have you ever been home alone Wamisto where no one could verify your whereabouts? It does not seem like nearly the blockbuster you make it out to be. I mean he might have done it, but the evidence is hardly ironclad. You act like it is open and shut when in fact, it is not.

Okay, these were the days before cell phones, before GPS. You would have to believe that after Bob got home, for reasons unknown he got into one of his other vehicles and went looking for Kay. He was driving around in the dark, then evidently found her according to prosecution theory, killed her and then staged it to look like an accident and then drove back home and made a phone call. Not impossible but how do you prove this happened? You can't!

Also, I knew someone would bring this up. Yes Bob was an ex-con and allegedly beat his wife (these allegations were never proven) so therefore he must be guilty. If he had never been in prison but had been accused of beating his wife would he be more believable? I mean Bob was in prison for a non violent drug crime, it was not like he was a habitual violent offender.

So yeah in some ways I can see why he was convicted despite no real evidence, of first degree murder. It was not really because of the evidence proving he did it because there was not any. Rather the jury probably just did not like Bob and convicted him for that reason. My guess is he got a new trial for several legal reasons. I would love to find the opinion on that case. However since he was pled out to 2nd degree murder clearly the case against him was not nearly as strong as what was portrayed. Otherwise why plead him out?

Wow Wamisto, being pro prosecution as usual what a shock.

A nice balance and complementarity to your pro defense bias ;)

It doesn't appear to be much of a mystery; however, what keeps me from conclusively saying that it was murder is the fact that Kay was, by everyone's account, totally sh*t faced that night; she almost ran over stuff in somebody's yard.

matt, I agree - that's the one thing holding me back from saying for 99 percent certainty that she was murdered. Considering how intoxicated she was that night an accidental death was quite possible, which includes her running herself over. However, I just can't get past the fact that the truck was in park.

matt, I agree - that's the one thing holding me back from saying for 99 percent certainty that she was murdered. Considering how intoxicated she was that night an accidental death was quite possible, which includes her running herself over. However, I just can't get past the fact that the truck was in park.

Absolutely. The car being in park is very very odd. I'm just trying to picture any scenario in which that could happen: Maybe she's half way in and half way out of the car, and as the car start to roll over her legs she pushes the shift into park and then her upper body falls to the pavement. Do you see what I'm trying to picture? It's hard to describe. Like she drunkenly gets out of the car and is half way out when the tire catches her leg and starts pulling her down and she pushes the gear shift before being pulled under the tire altogether.

Crazy? Yes, but still plausible.

The only thing is that the vehicle was a truck, if I remember correctly. And if the back wheels rolled over her first, as the police say, that would be almost impossible. Unless, of course, the police were wrong and it was the front wheels only that rolled over her. In that case, if she did begin to get crushed by the truck, I can see her yanking on the gear shift on her way down, but since one has to pull gear shifts up to put vehicles into park, the gear shift would have ended up on one of the driving gears, and not in park.

Still plausible, but a much less likely scenario than murder.

To me, the biggest problem with this case is simple. Placing Bob Hall at the scene of the crime when the crime was occurring. While Bob had no alibi for this time he also was not put at the scene during this time either. The problem is, if Bob Hall did this, he was covered pretty well. No eyewitnesses, no conclusive physical evidence.

I mean he and Kay I am assuming had both driven that truck in recent times so his fingerprints or anything being in or on the truck would not be unusual and would not prove anything. I mean truth be told, to me, the whole thing is just bizarre.

The problem is, the truck was in park. From what I understand she was a little over double the legal limit for driving at the time of death. At that time in Virginia the legal limit was .10 so she was like a .21, .22 somewhere in that neighborhood so she was heavily intoxicated. I could potentially believe she accidently ran over herself if the truck was not in park. The people that found her, they said the truck was in park, and the engine was still running.

There were a lot of problems in this case. I am not saying Bob Hall did not do this, only he knows for sure whether he did or not. However the evidence in the case was/is pretty shaky. I mean yes you can label him as a bad guy, a wife beater, an ex-con and basically fling crap up against the wall hoping some of it will stick. However in terms of physical evidence, there just isn't any to tie him to this.

That and Kay left the country club in the truck alone, while Bob was still there and many people friends and non friends of his both saw this. Bob did not leave the club until 15 minutes or so after Kay had left. So I am assuming that Bob and his friends that drove him home assumed Kay had just went home. The problem is, Kay drove off in the direction opposite of her house. How would Bob know she was there? This was the days before cell phones and he left 15 minutes after her and I would think would have assumed she drove home. It is just a very strange case.

Certainly the evidence in this case in terms of circumstantial is enough to generate suspicion towards Bob Hall. The key word there is suspicion. In my opinion the evidence was legally insufficient for conviction. But since Bob Hall ended up pleading out to 2nd degree murder it is kind of a moot point. But him pleading out is not all that unusual. He got a new trial, he was afraid the new trial would end up the same as the first with him being convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

I still want to see the court opinion on this case as to why it was reversed. But online in the Virginia Courts, they only have opinions posted going back to 1995. Looking at this case though, there was just not really any real evidence there to tie Bob to this in terms of putting him at the scene. That is a problem. My guess is the prosecutors brought up his past about being an ex-con and the hearsay allegations about him being a wife beater and things like that. In fact, that was probably the most plausible explanation for this being overturned was if that hearsay evidence was admitted. The reason is, all those witnesses they never saw him actually beat her. They only heard this through Kay. The problem was, Kay was dead and thus could not be cross-examined by Bob's lawyer.

If any statements from her were admitted regarding the alleged beating that would violate Bob's Confrontation Clause rights. A constitutional rights violation and thus that will for sure get you a new trial every time. These witnesses could testify to things they saw or heard Bob say as they could be cross examined about that. But anything that Bob allegedly did that only Kay saw or heard or experienced that she told to other people but that these people themselves personally never saw or heard should have been ruled inadmissible.

I believe Bob Hall to be innocent.


I just can't get around the fact that if he was guilty the following must be true:

He somehow knew his wife drove in a totally different direction even though he didn't see her leave in her car. Then after arriving back at their house, he got in his jeep, drove like a madman (since apparently it took 47 minutes normally), got in the general area, found her, killed her, got back in his jeep, and repeated the manic drive back home. All this in record time, while totally drunk.

My biggest problem is him knowing where his wife was. As stated, this was before cell phones and GPS, so she would've had to use a payphone, or gone to a home in the area. Were there any payphones around? Did anyone report her wanting to use a phone? To me, it's completely impossible that he could have found her without her help.

The only two things that keep me from being convinced it was a total accident is the struggle in the cab, as well as the car being in park. As intoxicated as she was, it's possible someone offered to drive her home, perhaps someone cornered her in the parking lot? Did anyone see what happened before she got in her car? Perhaps she was out of the car being sick from intoxication and the killer happened by?

The whole case is just way too sketchy. There are too many unanswered questions.

Simply put, It would've been next to impossible for Bob to kill Kay in the allotted time.

Is Bob Hall still alive?

Bob Hall had a friend who attempted to do the exact same thing to his wife. Hall's friend tried to murder his wife, and then made a long distance phone call shortly after to establish some sort of an alibi...but the friend's wife actually survived and it was she who testified against Hall at the trial. She was the one who verified that Hall got his idea to make a phone call (shortly after Kay was murdered, as a way to throw suspicion away from him) from her ex-husband who tried to kill her and did the exact same thing. I was on the fence until I saw the update on the case. That's just too much of a coincidence if you ask me.

Bob Hall had a friend who attempted to do the exact same thing to his wife. Hall's friend tried to murder his wife, and then made a long distance phone call shortly after to establish some sort of an alibi...but the friend's wife actually survived and it was she who testified against Hall at the trial. She was the one who verified that Hall got his idea to make a phone call (shortly after Kay was murdered, as a way to throw suspicion away from him) from her ex-husband who tried to kill her and did the exact same thing. I was on the fence until I saw the update on the case. That's just too much of a coincidence if you ask me.

Very interesting. I've always sided with Hall on his innocence but I think you may have just titled the tide in the other direction. If this is true, Hall is an idiot for basically following a blueprint for murder and is lucky as hell that he found a judge who let him off with a sweetheart deal.

Okay, this is why I am not hung up as much on the whole "not enough time" thing: because his "friends" dropped him off at 8:45pm only according to them.

Shady people usually hang with other shady people. If Mr. Ex-Con Bob Hall's "friends" were fellow ex-cons, is it a stretch to think they would lie to cover his keester? Especially if Bob said, "Hey, I just cashed in on a $50,000 inheritance - can I give you guys each $2,500 to say such-and-such?" Considering it takes a lot less to get an ex-con to lie (because lying is usually a way of life and a well-ingrained habit for an ex-con), I would think that the testimony of these friends is a load. Which is probably why the courts convicted him of murder despite the alleged "narrow time frame".

Except here's the thing. If you are going to lie, make sure it's a good lie! If Bob was lying, he certainly didn't do a very good job of it. Being dropped off at 8:45 will only implicate you even more. If you were to lie, why not say 9:15?

Also, I would like to know who that phone call was to. Because if it was done to an unknown person then it sort of screams like the Mike Morris case who probably called the hired killer right after his wife was whacked. But if this was a friend, or a family member and it was just a normal call then it is irrelevant. I assume the police explored that possibility.

You know, I am more inclined to say this was an accident. Kay was drunk. For some reason - one that we may never know - she was going the wrong way towards her house. How in the world could Bob have known that? It is just such a narrow time frame for him to commit this crime and to do it when he's drunk on top of it.

Also, was there fingerprints on her steering wheel? Maybe they dusted for them and found Bob's, I don't know. But would that really be unusual for a husband to have his fingerprints on his wife's steering wheel? And the whole $50,000. I don't know, even in 1987 that isn't enough to murder. Yes people have been killed for less, but even if she were to divorce him I assume he gets half of it anyway so would all of this be for $50,000?

I just lean on the accident theory. Don't drink and drive.

A noobie here, with a couple of questions/things that struck me.

If they (police) suspected Bob pretty much straight away, did they check the Jeep to see if the engine was still warm...? I don't know much about cars but I do know that they stay warm for a fairly long time after being driven.

What was the driver's seat position in the truck when the by-passers found Kay? As in, was it set for her height? Bob was a fair bit taller than her, yes?

Also the "how-did-he-know-where-she-was?" bit bothers me too. Was he having her followed? Did someone tell him "oh by the way, I saw Kay go in that direction, what's up with that?"

I'm not outright suggesting that he's innocent or guilty; these are just odd little snippets which bugged me. :)

Also the "how-did-he-know-where-she-was?" bit bothers me too. Was he having her followed? Did someone tell him "oh by the way, I saw Kay go in that direction, what's up with that?"

Honestly, this has always bothered me even more than the limited timeframe Bob had to commit the crime. The problem is that we don't know if there's any significance to the exact spot Kay was found. What was Kay doing between the time she left the party and when she was killed? I mean, did she drive away from the party in the opposite direction and park at some random location by the side of the road for an hour until Bob just happened to come by, spot her, and run her over?

If there's a reason for Bob to have believed that Kay would be at that specific location, then it points more to pre-meditated murder. However, the randomness of the location makes me wonder if it was accidental hit-and-run by some passer-by.

Honestly, this has always bothered me even more than the limited timeframe Bob had to commit the crime. The problem is that we don't know if there's any significance to the exact spot Kay was found. What was Kay doing between the time she left the party and when she was killed? I mean, did she drive away from the party in the opposite direction and park at some random location by the side of the road for an hour until Bob just happened to come by, spot her, and run her over?

If there's a reason for Bob to have believed that Kay would be at that specific location, then it points more to pre-meditated murder. However, the randomness of the location makes me wonder if it was accidental hit-and-run by some passer-by.

The only way Bob could have known where she was other than sheer "hit by lightning" odds would be if someone was tracking her. This means there is an accomplice and much more to the story. I don't think there is though. What in the world was she doing there? Not to mention OUT of her car? Even if Bob does get a hunch and sees her car how in the world does he lure her out, run her over and then drive home.........all the while being drunk? I'll stick with accidental death, either by Kay or a passerby

A noobie here, with a couple of questions/things that struck me.

If they (police) suspected Bob pretty much straight away, did they check the Jeep to see if the engine was still warm...? I don't know much about cars but I do know that they stay warm for a fairly long time after being driven.

What was the driver's seat position in the truck when the by-passers found Kay? As in, was it set for her height? Bob was a fair bit taller than her, yes?

Also the "how-did-he-know-where-she-was?" bit bothers me too. Was he having her followed? Did someone tell him "oh by the way, I saw Kay go in that direction, what's up with that?"

I'm not outright suggesting that he's innocent or guilty; these are just odd little snippets which bugged me. :)

My thoughts exactly.

Just was watching this case in full for the first time in years.

It still is completely mind blowing he got 15 years probation for SECOND DEGREE MURDER.

I think it's completely mind-blowing he was ever found guilty of murder in the first place. Dude simply did not have time to commit the crime nor the ability to have plucked her out of the dark over many miles. He may have messed up before, but it'll take a lot to convince me Bob killed Kay just the way the prosecution said it happened.

Yeah. I think I touched upon this before, but you also have to throw in the fact that Bob Hall was drunk. Of course, when the investigators timed it to see how long it would have taken Bob to get there and back, they didn't take this into account. It would have been highly improbable for Bob to drive that fast, given his state, and not get into an accident. Plus you have to throw in the time it would have taken to struggle with Kay, kill her, and then clean-up/stage/do whatever to the crime scene.

Yeah. I think I touched upon this before, but you also have to throw in the fact that Bob Hall was drunk. Of course, when the investigators timed it to see how long it would have taken Bob to get there and back, they didn't take this into account. It would have been highly improbable for Bob to drive that fast, given his state, and not get into an accident. Plus you have to throw in the time it would have taken to struggle with Kay, kill her, and then clean-up/stage/do whatever to the crime scene.

Not to mention that in the re-enactment, the investigators made the drive in broad daylight while sober as opposed to driving drunk in the darkness, which are drastically different circumstances. While they proved that it was possible to drive that route during the limited time frame, the key difference is that the investigators KNEW exactly where they were going! As far as we know, Bob did not.

It seems the key piece of evidence against Bob was the testimony of that woman whose husband tried to murder her and instantly rushed home to make a phone call in order to establish an alibi. I do acknowledge that it is a pretty suspicious coincidence and that it could have given Bob an idea about how to murder Kay, but for his plan to work, he would have to know Kay's EXACT location! If Bob spent a few hours aimlessly driving around trying to find her, his attempt at an alibi would fall apart. This was the pre-cell phone era and since they obviously checked Bob's phone records, it doesn't look like Kay called him at home. I just don't see how they could conclusively establish that Bob knew where Kay was unless she said something to him before she left the party.

Yeah. I think I touched upon this before, but you also have to throw in the fact that Bob Hall was drunk. Of course, when the investigators timed it to see how long it would have taken Bob to get there and back, they didn't take this into account. It would have been highly improbable for Bob to drive that fast, given his state, and not get into an accident.

Yeah! I had forgotten he'd been drinking quite a bit. This reinforces even further how improbable the whole thing could have been.

Not to mention that in the re-enactment, the investigators made the drive in broad daylight while sober as opposed to driving drunk in the darkness, which are drastically different circumstances. While they proved that it was possible to drive that route during the limited time frame, the key difference is that the investigators KNEW exactly where they were going! As far as we know, Bob did not.

It seems the key piece of evidence against Bob was the testimony of that woman whose husband tried to murder her and instantly rushed home to make a phone call in order to establish an alibi. I do acknowledge that it is a pretty suspicious coincidence and that it could have given Bob an idea about how to murder Kay, but for his plan to work, he would have to know Kay's EXACT location! If Bob spent a few hours aimlessly driving around trying to find her, his attempt at an alibi would fall apart.

Exactly.

Regardless of the admittedly suspect coincidence that homeboy had a buddy that attempted to murder his wife in a similar way (not incredibly unusual, as the man himself was a former criminal who probably had friends with criminal leanings), the circumstances as they stand would not at all have allowed him to successfully pull off the crime. He was drunk, had no way of knowing exactly where she was, and couldn't have had a guaranteed alibi if he had to go hunting for her in the dark. There is also zero evidence of anyone acting as an accomplice. I don't see how he could have done it.

Also, I would like to know who that phone call was to. Because if it was done to an unknown person then it sort of screams like the Mike Morris case who probably called the hired killer right after his wife was whacked. But if this was a friend, or a family member and it was just a normal call then it is irrelevant. I assume the police explored that possibility.

Im pretty sure i read in one of the articles the phone call was to his daughter

Always felt he was guilty, but I haven't seen the segment in such a long time I can't remember why.

Always felt he was guilty, but I haven't seen the segment in such a long time I can't remember why.

Bob was an ex-con. I'm pretty sure he spent something like twelve years in prison for trafficking in drugs.

He and Kay were also suffering financially at the time of Kay's death. Their oyster business was performing very poorly. There were also allegations of physical abuse on Bob's part, and both of them were reportedly heavy drinkers.

Finally, Bob entered into an Alford plea when he eventually went to trial for Kay's murder.

Ok here's an excerpt from one of Hall's appeals:

"When Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert came on the scene, the left front wheel of the truck was partially on Mrs. Hall's chest, and the gear shift was in the "park" position. Mr. Tolbert pulled the gear shift into the "neutral" position, and the truck rolled forward a few inches off of Mrs. Hall's chest. Extending forward from the front wheels of the truck were skidmarks which were determined to have resulted from the application of the brakes while the truck was moving backward at a moderate speed. This evidence supported the finding that some other person applied the brakes and put the vehicle in "park" after it had run over Mrs. Hall. The evidence described the performance of experiments which negated the possibility that Mrs. Hall could have suffered her injuries because of the truck's slipping from "park" into "reverse." These experiments determined that her body would not have stopped the truck under those circumstances. She, in her injured condition, could not have returned the gear shift lever to "park" and then placed herself under the left front wheel."

This pretty much diminishes the possibility that this was somehow an accident. I think this proves that Kay was murdered. But for those that think Bob is innocent, who murdered Kay?

And then there's this:

"The evidence disclosed that the driving time from the Hall home to the end of Bluff Point Road, where Mrs. Hall was found, was twenty-one to twenty-two minutes. Hall arrived home from the Indian Creek Country Club as early as 8:45 p.m. He telephoned his daughter at 9:47 p.m. Calculations conceded by Hall to be correct demonstrate that within that time frame is a period of twenty-one minutes during which he could have located his wife and killed her. He argues, however, that it is not reasonable to conclude that he could have accomplished this.

Hall questions in argument how he could have known where to find his wife. This is a question which is neither asked nor answered in the evidence. He had lived earlier in the Bluff Point area, and perhaps he had taken Mrs. Hall there. A right turn rather than a left at the Club entrance would have taken Mrs. Hall to Bluff Point. He may have arranged to meet her there, or he may have supposed that since it was close to the Club, it would be a good place to begin looking for her. The fact remains that, whatever circumstances may have contributed to the effort, he had time to find her."

Kay was found dead at "around 10:00 p.m." that night. He had approximately 21 "extra" minutes from the time he arrived home to the time he made the phone call to kill Kay. This is not unreasonable.

When Hall was questioned as to why his vehicle engine was warm that night:

"When confronted with the fact that the engine of his jeep was warm, he said that he had driven to the end of his lane and back. He then acknowledged driving as far as Route 3 and back. Later, confronted with the suggestion that someone had seen him in Kilmarnock, he stated that he had driven to Lancaster Courthouse out of concern that his wife might have been arrested for driving while intoxicated, but not seeing her truck in the courthouse parking lot, had returned home."

After Kay's death, Hall had a strange conversation with the investigator on the case:

"On December 13, 1988, Hall called Riley, stating that he "wanted a Christmas present from [Riley]." He said that "he wanted this case solved by Christmas because he was in love with someone else and needed to have some things resolved before he could go forward in this relationship." He met with Riley on December 21. He first attempted to persuade Riley that John Tolbert had accidentally run over Mrs. Hall, but when Riley rejected this suggestion, Hall admitted that it was unlikely.

Riley then told Hall that he was the only logical suspect. He reiterated that he thought that it was probably an accident. He suggested that the person driving the truck had applied the brakes when he felt the rear wheel bump over Mrs. Hall's body. Hall interjected, "Or she screamed.

Hall suggested that the killer might come forward if he were at no risk, if the newspaper reported that the death had been accidental, and the killer were immunized from any civil or criminal risk. Hall and Riley discussed changing the death certificate to indicate accidental death. The discussion then went forward as to what Hall would insist upon to come forward, if he were the killer. Hall suggested *444 a legal document from the Commonwealth's Attorney declaring Mrs. Hall's death an accident and that there would be no adverse consequences to the killer's assets, home or insurance, that there would be no publicity, and that no charges would be placed. Riley asked, "[I]f I went out and got such a document, put Bob Hall's name on it, then would you like to see it?" Hall responded, "[B]efore Christmas." Hall then remarked, "The only problem I perceive is that you've got the wrong person. But maybe you don't, David. The only key to it is nobody saw.... But there is only one problem. One problem. The person that did that would have gotten away with it. And you know something, Dave? ... They'll do it again." Later in the conversation, Hall told Riley that if Riley "really wanted to make it tempting as hell to me," he should call Hall's attorney to inquire if Hall could still collect under the uninsured motorist provisions of his automobile insurance if he had accidentally killed his wife.

Riley then began to write out the conditions that he and Hall had agreed upon. These included: no criminal action against Hall; no jeopardy to his driver's license; forgiveness of some fines; he would not be identified as living in Merry Point, Virginia; his social security number would not be mentioned; and he would not lose any property rights, claims to Mrs. Hall's estate, or insurance settlements as a result of the agreement. Hall then suggested to Riley an additional provision. He proposed to burn his house down and to use the insurance to build a new one on the site for his new lady friend. Riley said that he could not put that into the document because it was a crime, and he was taking the document seriously. Hall responded that he was "taking it damn dead seriously." Hall stated, "I bet I could do it in such a way they'll say it was an accident, just like we're doing in this. No difference."

This doesn't look good for Bob Hall.

I don't know if Bob Hall had any intention of murdering Kay that night. By all accounts they were both drunk. I do think it's possible that Hall had found Kay on the dead end road, got into an argument with her, struck her and she fell to the ground. Hall then angrily got in the truck and either (because he was drunk) put the car in reverse and accidentally hit her or put the car in reverse to scare her but accidentally ran her over. He then used his friend's "alibi method" of making a phone call to establish his alibi.

Ok here's an excerpt from one of Hall's appeals:

"When Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert came on the scene, the left front wheel of the truck was partially on Mrs. Hall's chest, and the gear shift was in the "park" position. Mr. Tolbert pulled the gear shift into the "neutral" position, and the truck rolled forward a few inches off of Mrs. Hall's chest. Extending forward from the front wheels of the truck were skidmarks which were determined to have resulted from the application of the brakes while the truck was moving backward at a moderate speed. This evidence supported the finding that some other person applied the brakes and put the vehicle in "park" after it had run over Mrs. Hall. The evidence described the performance of experiments which negated the possibility that Mrs. Hall could have suffered her injuries because of the truck's slipping from "park" into "reverse." These experiments determined that her body would not have stopped the truck under those circumstances. She, in her injured condition, could not have returned the gear shift lever to "park" and then placed herself under the left front wheel."

This pretty much diminishes the possibility that this was somehow an accident. I think this proves that Kay was murdered. But for those that think Bob is innocent, who murdered Kay?

And then there's this:

"The evidence disclosed that the driving time from the Hall home to the end of Bluff Point Road, where Mrs. Hall was found, was twenty-one to twenty-two minutes. Hall arrived home from the Indian Creek Country Club as early as 8:45 p.m. He telephoned his daughter at 9:47 p.m. Calculations conceded by Hall to be correct demonstrate that within that time frame is a period of twenty-one minutes during which he could have located his wife and killed her. He argues, however, that it is not reasonable to conclude that he could have accomplished this.

Hall questions in argument how he could have known where to find his wife. This is a question which is neither asked nor answered in the evidence. He had lived earlier in the Bluff Point area, and perhaps he had taken Mrs. Hall there. A right turn rather than a left at the Club entrance would have taken Mrs. Hall to Bluff Point. He may have arranged to meet her there, or he may have supposed that since it was close to the Club, it would be a good place to begin looking for her. The fact remains that, whatever circumstances may have contributed to the effort, he had time to find her."

Kay was found dead at "around 10:00 p.m." that night. He had approximately 21 "extra" minutes from the time he arrived home to the time he made the phone call to kill Kay. This is not unreasonable.

When Hall was questioned as to why his vehicle engine was warm that night:

"When confronted with the fact that the engine of his jeep was warm, he said that he had driven to the end of his lane and back. He then acknowledged driving as far as Route 3 and back. Later, confronted with the suggestion that someone had seen him in Kilmarnock, he stated that he had driven to Lancaster Courthouse out of concern that his wife might have been arrested for driving while intoxicated, but not seeing her truck in the courthouse parking lot, had returned home."

After Kay's death, Hall had a strange conversation with the investigator on the case:

"On December 13, 1988, Hall called Riley, stating that he "wanted a Christmas present from [Riley]." He said that "he wanted this case solved by Christmas because he was in love with someone else and needed to have some things resolved before he could go forward in this relationship." He met with Riley on December 21. He first attempted to persuade Riley that John Tolbert had accidentally run over Mrs. Hall, but when Riley rejected this suggestion, Hall admitted that it was unlikely.

Riley then told Hall that he was the only logical suspect. He reiterated that he thought that it was probably an accident. He suggested that the person driving the truck had applied the brakes when he felt the rear wheel bump over Mrs. Hall's body. Hall interjected, "Or she screamed.

Hall suggested that the killer might come forward if he were at no risk, if the newspaper reported that the death had been accidental, and the killer were immunized from any civil or criminal risk. Hall and Riley discussed changing the death certificate to indicate accidental death. The discussion then went forward as to what Hall would insist upon to come forward, if he were the killer. Hall suggested *444 a legal document from the Commonwealth's Attorney declaring Mrs. Hall's death an accident and that there would be no adverse consequences to the killer's assets, home or insurance, that there would be no publicity, and that no charges would be placed. Riley asked, "[I]f I went out and got such a document, put Bob Hall's name on it, then would you like to see it?" Hall responded, "[B]efore Christmas." Hall then remarked, "The only problem I perceive is that you've got the wrong person. But maybe you don't, David. The only key to it is nobody saw.... But there is only one problem. One problem. The person that did that would have gotten away with it. And you know something, Dave? ... They'll do it again." Later in the conversation, Hall told Riley that if Riley "really wanted to make it tempting as hell to me," he should call Hall's attorney to inquire if Hall could still collect under the uninsured motorist provisions of his automobile insurance if he had accidentally killed his wife.

Riley then began to write out the conditions that he and Hall had agreed upon. These included: no criminal action against Hall; no jeopardy to his driver's license; forgiveness of some fines; he would not be identified as living in Merry Point, Virginia; his social security number would not be mentioned; and he would not lose any property rights, claims to Mrs. Hall's estate, or insurance settlements as a result of the agreement. Hall then suggested to Riley an additional provision. He proposed to burn his house down and to use the insurance to build a new one on the site for his new lady friend. Riley said that he could not put that into the document because it was a crime, and he was taking the document seriously. Hall responded that he was "taking it damn dead seriously." Hall stated, "I bet I could do it in such a way they'll say it was an accident, just like we're doing in this. No difference."

This doesn't look good for Bob Hall.

I don't know if Bob Hall had any intention of murdering Kay that night. By all accounts they were both drunk. I do think it's possible that Hall had found Kay on the dead end road, got into an argument with her, struck her and she fell to the ground. Hall then angrily got in the truck and either (because he was drunk) put the car in reverse and accidentally hit her or put the car in reverse to scare her but accidentally ran her over. He then used his friend's "alibi method" of making a phone call to establish his alibi.

Some of that actually gave me shivers as I was reading. Pretty sure I've changed my mind on this one now.

Ok here's an excerpt from one of Hall's appeals:

Riley then began to write out the conditions that he and Hall had agreed upon. These included: no criminal action against Hall; no jeopardy to his driver's license; forgiveness of some fines; he would not be identified as living in Merry Point, Virginia; his social security number would not be mentioned; and he would not lose any property rights, claims to Mrs. Hall's estate, or insurance settlements as a result of the agreement. Hall then suggested to Riley an additional provision. He proposed to burn his house down and to use the insurance to build a new one on the site for his new lady friend. Riley said that he could not put that into the document because it was a crime, and he was taking the document seriously. Hall responded that he was "taking it damn dead seriously." Hall stated, "I bet I could do it in such a way they'll say it was an accident, just like we're doing in this. No difference."


I never really paid much attention to this case, but :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

On top of everything going on here, this guy is talking to the investigator, writing out all these "conditions" so he'll have no repercussions for his involvement, and he tells him to include a provision for committing an insurance arson on his house so he can burn it down and use the proceeds to build a new house for his girlfriend.

When he's told that arson is a crime, he casually responds that he can make the arson look like an accident, just like the car accident that killed his wife. Wow!

Yes, I kind of figured UM had to be vague about certain details with this case because they had to play up the "mystique" to this case. Didn't know it would be that much information left out though. Seems as though this is always the case with the "Final Appeal" or "are they guilty or not" type segments.

Yes, I kind of figured UM had to be vague about certain details with this case because they had to play up the "mystique" to this case. Didn't know it would be that much information left out though. Seems as though this is always the case with the "Final Appeal" or "are they guilty or not" type segments.

Yeah, that legit kind of makes me mad! All this time I was sure Bob Hall couldn't have done this, and now it's quite clear he certainly could have.

A CONSIDERABLE amount of information was left out of this one for sure.

Can't remember if this case was similar to Tim McClure's situation where Bob Hall had specifically requested to go on the show to make an attempt to clear his name. Maybe leaving out certain information was one of the conditions of him agreeing to appear. After all, in many other segments involving suspicious spouses, UM did not hesitate to present damning evidence that made the spouse look guilty.

One of the reasons I initially believed in Bob's innocence was because if he went out searching for his wife and couldn't find her for a long period of time, his whole "make a phone call from home to establish an alibi" plan would fall apart. However, if the whole thing wasn't premeditated murder and he suddenly dreamed up the idea to rush home and make a call AFTER killing Kay, then the scenario makes more sense.

This revelation reminds of the Larry Race "Final Appeal" segment, which I was totally on the fence on until I found out UM deliberately left out Race's dubious story that he had passed out on his boat for five hours that night.

Can't remember if this case was similar to Tim McClure's situation where Bob Hall had specifically requested to go on the show to make an attempt to clear his name.

No, that was unique to Ole' Timmy Boy.


This revelation reminds of the Larry Race "Final Appeal" segment, which I was totally on the fence on until I found out UM deliberately left out Race's dubious story that he had passed out on his boat for five hours that night.

I've mentioned this before, but I don't find it suspicious that he passed out for five hours. This happened either early in the morning, or very late at night, at a time when he would otherwise presumably be sleeping. Plus, you have to throw in the fact that he was doing a lot of physical activity at the time (all of the swimming, trying to drag Debbie to shore). IMO, he undoubtedly passed out due to exhaustion, with perhaps a touch of hypothermia thrown in. Not suspicious at all.

I've mentioned this before, but I don't find it suspicious that he passed out for five hours. This happened either early in the morning, or very late at night, at a time when he would otherwise presumably be sleeping. Plus, you have to throw in the fact that he was doing a lot of physical activity at the time (all of the swimming, trying to drag Debbie to shore). IMO, he undoubtedly passed out due to exhaustion, with perhaps a touch of hypothermia thrown in. Not suspicious at all.

+1.

Bob Hall came off as extremely smug and arrogant in his interview. Larry Race came off as sincere and honest in his interview. Plus Debbie's parents backed Race on the show. I think that's why a lot of people have a hard time believing Race killed his wife. And in the case of Race, his wife's death could have been an accident. There is no "alternate" murder suspect like there would be in the case of Bob Hall. I think Race was much more cunning than Hall, since he almost had the perfect cover story.

"For example, no evidence at trial with any specificity indicated clearly the point on the lake and the time Deborah entered the life raft, nor was there any specificity with respect to the time and place she was left alone in the raft."

Keep in mind (RE: Race) that the time frame given on everything is coming from the prime suspect in his wife's murder. And there's no other witnesses who claim to have seen him and his wife before entering the lake, riding on the lake, etc.

I re-watched this segment recently and just uncovered this amusing anecdote: one of the actors from the UM re-enactment served as a juror at Bob Hall's trial!
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19900717&id=jvxNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6491,3405062&hl=en

Amazingly, the defense did not strike him as a potential juror because he convinced them he'd remain impartial even though he played one of the people who found Kay Hall's body!

I re-watched this segment recently and just uncovered this amusing anecdote: one of the actors from the UM re-enactment served as a juror at Bob Hall's trial!
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19900717&id=jvxNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6491,3405062&hl=en

Amazingly, the defense did not strike him as a potential juror because he convinced them he'd remain impartial even though he played one of the people who found Kay Hall's body!

That's a great find!

I re-watched this segment recently and just uncovered this amusing anecdote: one of the actors from the UM re-enactment served as a juror at Bob Hall's trial!
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19900717&id=jvxNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6491,3405062&hl=en

Amazingly, the defense did not strike him as a potential juror because he convinced them he'd remain impartial even though he played one of the people who found Kay Hall's body!

Reading that was very peculiar for me:

The defense attorney in me fainted. The prosecutor in me laughed hysterically. #cognitivedissonance

Reading that was very peculiar for me:

The defense attorney in me fainted. The prosecutor in me laughed hysterically. #cognitivedissonance

:lol: Yes, I was anxiously awaiting to hear what your reaction to this would be. I have no idea how a defense attorney could be comfortable with a juror having participated in a staged re-recreation of the murder scene!

:lol: Yes, I was anxiously awaiting to hear what your reaction to this would be. I have no idea how a defense attorney could be comfortable with a juror having participated in a staged re-recreation of the murder scene!

Well, you've got a juror who also participated in TV show segment that was designed to make the case that Bob was innocent.

I just saw this segment for the first time in a while, and I knew Bob Hall was guilty just by the look of him. I remember thinking that he looks like a cross between Ted Bundy and Norman Bates.

Plus, for what it's worth, the way he said "I love Kay" at the end just didn't seem sincere at all.

How did I miss this little detail from his appeal (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1369378/hall-v-com/)?

Between 1:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. on October 1, Trooper Davis went to Hall's home. Davis told Hall that his wife had been killed in an accident, but did not tell him how she had died. At 2:08 a.m. on October 1, Investigator David Riley went to the Hall home. Hall told Riley that a truck had rolled over his wife, a detail that Davis had not told Hall.

Seems like the appeal worked because Hall got a retrial based off of the speculative nature of his friend attempting to kill his wife and then speed home to telephone someone as a weird setup to get an alibi.

I still don't understand how someone can get 15 years' PROBATION for a PLANNED murder! I don't care how good the alibi was or what he did or didn't do afterwards, SOMEONE WAS KILLED! Who on earth was the judge in this case?

I still don't understand how someone can get 15 years' PROBATION for a PLANNED murder! I don't care how good the alibi was or what he did or didn't do afterwards, SOMEONE WAS KILLED! Who on earth was the judge in this case?

My best guess is that the prosecution struck some sort of deal with Hall to get him to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder, to avoid having to go through another trial and have the possibility of him getting off Scot-free. Because at the 2nd trial they wouldn't have been able to have his friend's ex-wife (the one who Hall modeled his crime after) testify as to what happened to her, since her testimony is what got Hall a new trial in the first place.

Didn't she meet him when he was doing time for dealing drugs?

Bob seemed like such a likable guy!

Didn't she meet him when he was doing time for dealing drugs?

They knew each other prior to that but didn't start dating until after he was released from prison.

Can't remember if this case was similar to Tim McClure's situation where Bob Hall had specifically requested to go on the show to make an attempt to clear his name.

I hate to bump this old thread, but I recently saw this case (as well as the McClure case) and was kind of amazed at how differently these stories were presented. At the beginning of the segment, Stack says, verbatim:

The death of Kay Hall is surrounded by events that seem to simultaneously indict and exonerate the prime suspect. For this reason, Bob Hall remains a free man. The case against him rests on time. An approximate 20 minute window of opportunity when Bob Hall could have stalked and ran down his wife. Bob Hall freely consented to appear in this story hoping that through it's telling his innocence will finally be established.

Compare that with the intro to the McClure segment:

This is the Unsolved Mysteries telephone center where our viewers call with information. They also call with suggestions for stories. 6 months ago we received a highly unusual call. It came from a man who was the leading suspect in the murder of his own mother.

It's not quite an apples to apples comparison in terms of the circumstances of each case, but for whatever reason, incriminating evidence against Bob Hall was not included in the segment, and nothing exculpatory was featured in the McClure segment. Just a random observation I had when seeing these two back to back recently.

I watched this one last night with my wife and she had never seen the segment. She felt Bob Hall was innocent and this was an accidental death. But that's because, as indicated in the pages prior in this thread, UM left out a ton of information that painted Bob Hall guilty. In addition to the info on pages 4 and 5 in this thread, I came across a local article which was written after Hall was found guilty, and the following evidence was presented at trial:

* There were skid marks found at the scene, indicating that when Hall drove the truck over Kay, he sped up before applying the brakes as soon as they ran over Kay so he could stop the truck while it was on top of her.

* Three fingerprint smears were found on the windshield, three fake fingernails were found on the floor board under the steering wheel, a twisted necklace, and a broken necklace were all found in the truck. The implication of course was there was a struggle inside the truck.

* Kay had bruises around her ankles which were consistent with ones that would have been made by fingers, meaning someone dragged her by her ankles at sometime that night.

* When Hall took the stand in his defense, he said that he had given his psuedo-confession to the police because he wanted them to run a story in the newspaper indicating that Kay's death was an accident because then the actual killer would come forward and admit to accidentally running her over.

What I always thought took at least some luck was that Bob just happened to find Kay out in that rural area. The way the segment was presented, I have a hard time believing he knew exactly where she'd be at that moment considering they left the party at different times.

What I always thought took at least some luck was that Bob just happened to find Kay out in that rural area. The way the segment was presented, I have a hard time believing he knew exactly where she'd be at that moment considering they left the party at different times.

There was a neighbor who placed Kay at the country club at 8:50 p.m. who saw her run over a mailbox and almost drive into a pool before driving away in the opposite direction of her home. Bob Hall had gotten a ride from friends of his and got home between 8:45 p.m. and 9:05 p.m. I think she left him earlier but was coming back at 8:50 to pick him up but he had already gotten home and was probably headed back out to find her. He also had lived in that area previously.

I've always been on the fence with this one, but after rereading all the details he looks 99% guilty. The only thing keeping me totally from saying he did it was how could he have found her in the dark in that area?

Bob is one of those husbands who does come across genuine in the segment. He tells a nice story about Kay and at least on the surface it looks like he misses her a lot.

I know $50,000 in 1987 went further than it does today. Granted, people would be killed for that amount today still, but when you look at a case like Mike Morris in 2000 collecting $700,000 in life insurance for Mary's death, I think that gives you a lot more motive than $50,000 in 1987.

Not just that, but I just can't get past the idea that Bob simply did not have enough time to do this. Even if you want to pin the murder on the guy I think it just comes down to time and the condition he was in. I don't think either of them were on his side. He is dropped off at home and I see no reason to not believe it was the correct time. I think people at the party would be able to corroborate that he left the party prior to that time as well.

But once they drop him off he jets off in his car and by sheer luck finds Kay despite the fact he was probably intoxicated. Somehow he manages to stop her truck and get her out of the truck and stage a murder and then race back home without a trace of being there. Hmmm. I just can't see it. We are talking about the perfect crime happening when you are drunk. How can you pull that off? I just don't think he had the time to do it.