Just got thinking once I was in the Angela Hammond thread. There was a complaint that the truck Angela was seen abducted in was never seen by the police - anywhere. It leads you to believe it was either shoddy police work, a faulty description or..............

Rob Shaver made the story up.

Bear with me here. I too believe Rob's story. His body language screams a defeated and sad person. He apparently passed a lie detector test and even Angela's family believed him.

But since the case was builty solely on the testimony of Rob is it difficult to make an argument against him? I don't think it is.

Angie calls Rob from the payphone - This could happen even if he was involved. He wants her to call him before she goes home. Good ploy to make it look like SHE called him, which she did.

The "filthy" abductor - Again, this is only based on Rob's testimony. If he's lying then there never was a man with a truck and there are numerous ways he could have gotten rid of Angie. In fact, she trusted him there would be no struggle, no witnesses, no reason for anyone to notice anything strange.

The transmission - I can go out on the road and do this to my car right now and have it stall.

The chase - Maybe it happened. In fact, maybe someone did take her that Rob was in on. He concocts the story that it was a "truck with a decal" and if Angie is stuffed in the trunk of a normal car no one takes notice - ever.

Witnesses - His little brother could confirm him running out of the house. Rob could still be involved if he did this making it look less suspicious for him.

Motive - She's pregnant. He's 20 years old or so. Maybe he doesn't want the responsibility.

Lack of witnesses - No one saw the chase. Even at night in a small town you would assume someone would have heard it let alone see it. It is an incredible coincidence as well that Rob drove right by the truck as well. Very lucky.

Trudy Darby - A similar thing happened to her. She was on the phone with her son. After she got off the phone she was abducted. I am pretty sure this happened before Angela. If that's the case and Rob is in on the whole thing then he could have heard the story through the papers and concocted the whole story of her on the pay phone. All I can say is that the guy was extremely ballsy grabbing Angela while she was on the phone probably not knowing who she was talking to.


So don't get nuts, this is what we do on here, we speculate and I was wondering what people thought of this in case someone was ever wondering aloud how to build a case against Rob. Personally I still think he is telling the truth because.................

- He passed a lie detector test. It isn't 100% because Larry Gibson did too. A sociopath would believe they had nothing to do with it too, but by all accounts Rob didn't exhibit those signs
- The two other women abducted in the area. Trudy Darby was found dead and Cheryl Kenney is still missing to this day I believe.
- He loved Angie and was engaged to her I believe (or gave her a ring)

Just got thinking once I was in the Angela Hammond thread. There was a complaint that the truck Angela was seen abducted in was never seen by the police - anywhere. It leads you to believe it was either shoddy police work, a faulty description or..............

Rob Shaver made the story up.

Bear with me here. I too believe Rob's story. His body language screams a defeated and sad person. He apparently passed a lie detector test and even Angela's family believed him.

But since the case was builty solely on the testimony of Rob is it difficult to make an argument against him? I don't think it is.

Angie calls Rob from the payphone - This could happen even if he was involved. He wants her to call him before she goes home. Good ploy to make it look like SHE called him, which she did.

The "filthy" abductor - Again, this is only based on Rob's testimony. If he's lying then there never was a man with a truck and there are numerous ways he could have gotten rid of Angie. In fact, she trusted him there would be no struggle, no witnesses, no reason for anyone to notice anything strange.

The transmission - I can go out on the road and do this to my car right now and have it stall.

The chase - Maybe it happened. In fact, maybe someone did take her that Rob was in on. He concocts the story that it was a "truck with a decal" and if Angie is stuffed in the trunk of a normal car no one takes notice - ever.

Witnesses - His little brother could confirm him running out of the house. Rob could still be involved if he did this making it look less suspicious for him.

Motive - She's pregnant. He's 20 years old or so. Maybe he doesn't want the responsibility.

Lack of witnesses - No one saw the chase. Even at night in a small town you would assume someone would have heard it let alone see it. It is an incredible coincidence as well that Rob drove right by the truck as well. Very lucky.

Trudy Darby - A similar thing happened to her. She was on the phone with her son. After she got off the phone she was abducted. I am pretty sure this happened before Angela. If that's the case and Rob is in on the whole thing then he could have heard the story through the papers and concocted the whole story of her on the pay phone. All I can say is that the guy was extremely ballsy grabbing Angela while she was on the phone probably not knowing who she was talking to.


So don't get nuts, this is what we do on here, we speculate and I was wondering what people thought of this in case someone was ever wondering aloud how to build a case against Rob. Personally I still think he is telling the truth because.................

- He passed a lie detector test. It isn't 100% because Larry Gibson did too. A sociopath would believe they had nothing to do with it too, but by all accounts Rob didn't exhibit those signs
- The two other women abducted in the area. Trudy Darby was found dead and Cheryl Kenney is still missing to this day I believe.
- He loved Angie and was engaged to her I believe (or gave her a ring)
I understand what your doing here. Just exploring other options. It makes sense as we should never put our opinions into concrete and always have open minds. Im also not suprised you haven't got any responses yet. I have asked in the past for the "Rob did it" folks to give a scenrio and they wont.

Anyhow in the theory you posted above Id like to know what you think he could have done with her body?? Rob was driving a pickup truck not a car so he cant hide her in the trunk. There where hundreds of people out searching the wooded areas the next day so he couldnt have left her in a remote area then buried her later. He literally had one hour to take her, kill her, totally dispose of her body, through transmission out of his truck and get to police station.

So again I ask in your scenrio what do you think he would have done the her body?

I understand what your doing here. Just exploring other options. It makes sense as we should never put our opinions into concrete and always have open minds. Im also not suprised you haven't got any responses yet. I have asked in the past for the "Rob did it" folks to give a scenrio and they wont.

Anyhow in the theory you posted above Id like to know what you think he could have done with her body?? Rob was driving a pickup truck not a car so he cant hide her in the trunk. There where hundreds of people out searching the wooded areas the next day so he couldnt have left her in a remote area then buried her later. He literally had one hour to take her, kill her, totally dispose of her body, through transmission out of his truck and get to police station.

So again I ask in your scenrio what do you think he would have done the her body?

I'm sorry but in the segment I swear he had a stationwagon of some sorts. It looked like it at least.

Okay, my theory is if I were to build a case against him I would say that the whole "truck" thing is made up. After all we go by Rob's word and Rob's word only. This would mean one of two things. He either truly did have someone pick Angie up at the pay phone and was in on it. This would mean he intentionally gave false information on this "truck with a decal". Maybe his accomplice is driving an Oldsmobile and would never get a second look from anyone. This leads to an easy getaway. Rob can easily wreck his own transmission by doing exactly what he claims he did.

Or....................

The filthy guy with the truck never happened. Maybe Angie does phone him but after that he has ample time to get rid of her or have an accomplice get rid of her himself. This would cause little to no attention and no witnesses would take notice. What is his motive? A pregnant girlfriend.

By the way I am playing the devil's advocate here, but I think we should in ALL cases. Rob's story is believable but it is also a rotten combination of dumb luck and convenient circumstances (ie: seeing the getaway car)

Eh. I think we are overanalyzing a case that has already been overanalyzed to death on here. I'm also getting the impression that some people on here are trying to come up with the most creative scenarios as a way to look impressive. See also the Jay Durham "it was just an accident" threads.

1. there is absolutely no physical evidence linking Rob to the crime.
2. there is absolutely no cirumstantial evidence linking Rob to the crime.
3. I have a hard time buying that somebody who has never committed a crime in their life, could get away with a murder, and hide that body in such a way that they have not found the body for approaching 20 years now, and do it in the little amount of time he would have had, and not leave any evidence behind.
4. the police and the family do not believe he had anything to do with this. Additionally, there is nobody out there, witnesses or anyone, that has come forth with eyewitness accounts, etc.

In summary, there is absolutely nothing that links Rob to this crime. Additionally, I do not believe the lack of eyewitnesses to the chase is suspicious. This appeared to be a small, rural town and I'm sure there weren't more than a few businesses open around, as most of the stores and such would have been closed.

Rob Shafer guilty = EPIC FAIL!

Eh. I think we are overanalyzing a case that has already been overanalyzed to death on here. I'm also getting the impression that some people on here are trying to come up with the most creative scenarios as a way to look impressive. See also the Jay Durham "it was just an accident" threads.

1. there is absolutely no physical evidence linking Rob to the crime.
2. there is absolutely no cirumstantial evidence linking Rob to the crime.
3. I have a hard time buying that somebody who has never committed a crime in their life, could get away with a murder, and hide that body in such a way that they have not found the body for approaching 20 years now, and do it in the little amount of time he would have had, and not leave any evidence behind.
4. the police and the family do not believe he had anything to do with this. Additionally, there is nobody out there, witnesses or anyone, that has come forth with eyewitness accounts, etc.

In summary, there is absolutely nothing that links Rob to this crime. Additionally, I do not believe the lack of eyewitnesses to the chase is suspicious. This appeared to be a small, rural town and I'm sure there weren't more than a few businesses open around, as most of the stores and such would have been closed.

Rob Shafer guilty = EPIC FAIL!

Let's see:

1 & 2) Rob Shafer's narrative is the only reason that anybody even knows there was a kidnapping, so there being "no physical or circumstantial" evidence as you stated is incorrect, is it not?

3) The fact that you "have a hard time buying" something is simply your opinion and not a fact. The fact that you have a hard time "buying it" may also simply mean that you have a limited imagination or that you need to see the world through your own moral prism rather than how it really is.

4) Her family may not "believe" that he had anything for many reasons other than the fact that he actually didn't "do it." They are obviously in a lower social strata than Rob Shafer and in a small town accusing someone of higher social status of a crime can have more negative effects on the accuser than the accused.

The police have bungled this investigation to the point where, frankly, their opinion has limited value. Given the lack of results that they have produced, this case should have been transferred to either the Missouri state police or the FBI many years ago.

This case needs a rethink and it needs that ASAP. Previously held ideas need to be re-examined and/or disposed of if they don't provide the needed results.

Assuming that the earlier results of this investigation were "effective" = EPIC FAIL

I'm sorry but in the segment I swear he had a stationwagon of some sorts. It looked like it at least.

Okay, my theory is if I were to build a case against him I would say that the whole "truck" thing is made up. After all we go by Rob's word and Rob's word only. This would mean one of two things. He either truly did have someone pick Angie up at the pay phone and was in on it. This would mean he intentionally gave false information on this "truck with a decal". Maybe his accomplice is driving an Oldsmobile and would never get a second look from anyone. This leads to an easy getaway. Rob can easily wreck his own transmission by doing exactly what he claims he did.

Or....................

The filthy guy with the truck never happened. Maybe Angie does phone him but after that he has ample time to get rid of her or have an accomplice get rid of her himself. This would cause little to no attention and no witnesses would take notice. What is his motive? A pregnant girlfriend.

By the way I am playing the devil's advocate here, but I think we should in ALL cases. Rob's story is believable but it is also a rotten combination of dumb luck and convenient circumstances (ie: seeing the getaway car)
In the segment he was driving a wagon but Angela's brother stated that was wrong as Rob was driving a truck. I understand what your doing with Devils advocate. I would agree that he would need help to pull this off.

Let's see:

1 & 2) Rob Shafer's narrative is the only reason that anybody even knows there was a kidnapping, so there being "no physical or circumstantial" evidence as you stated is incorrect, is it not?

Not really. There's nothing else, really, to supplement or support the notion Rob "did it". He had a story about his girlfriend being abducted. That's it.

3) The fact that you "have a hard time buying" something is simply your opinion and not a fact. The fact that you have a hard time "buying it" may also simply mean that you have a limited imagination or that you need to see the world through your own moral prism rather than how it really is.

I think that was rather unnecessary and rude.

4) Her family may not "believe" that he had anything for many reasons other than the fact that he actually didn't "do it." They are obviously in a lower social strata than Rob Shafer and in a small town accusing someone of higher social status of a crime can have more negative effects on the accuser than the accused.

I have no idea how you deduce Angela's family is "obviously" of a lower social bracket than Rob's. Frankly, it initially struck me as absolutely nonsensical.

The police have bungled this investigation to the point where, frankly, their opinion has limited value. Given the lack of results that they have produced, this case should have been transferred to either the Missouri state police or the FBI many years ago.

This case needs a rethink and it needs that ASAP. Previously held ideas need to be re-examined and/or disposed of if they don't provide the needed results.

As you were quick to point out to another poster, that the police "bungled" the investigation is your strictly your opinion, I think. I've yet to encounter any testament of poor police work here other than the rather unsupportive fact that the abductor was never caught.

And frankly, I'm in agreement with wiseguy. This is bringing back bad memories of the Jeff MacDonald and Darlie Routier threads. To each his/her own, though. I realize I am not a law enforcement officer, nor a justice professional. As much as I would like to see all UM cases resolved, it is ultimately not my responsibility to come up with a "needed result". Nor is it yours.

The police have bungled this investigation to the point where, frankly, their opinion has limited value. Given the lack of results that they have produced, this case should have been transferred to either the Missouri state police or the FBI many years ago.

*Sigh* I suppose that telling you for the thousandth time the Missouri State Police AND FBI were involved won't sink in, this time, either? The FBI took the lead, since they had jurisdiction (just like they do in every kidnapping or reported kidnapping), not local law enforcement. So if Murderous Rob's puppy dog "I didn't do it" look worked, it worked on the FBI, as well. The FBI has essentially given up on this case because there are no leads worth following.

As much as I would like to see all UM cases resolved, it is ultimately not my responsibility to come up with a "needed result". Nor is it yours.

*Slow clap* Thank you.

*Sigh* I suppose that telling you for the thousandth time the Missouri State Police AND FBI were involved won't sink in, this time, either? The FBI took the lead, since they had jurisdiction (just like they do in every kidnapping or reported kidnapping), not local law enforcement. So if Murderous Rob's puppy dog "I didn't do it" look worked, it worked on the FBI, as well. The FBI has essentially given up on this case because there are no leads worth following.

Wow..........harsh a bit don't you think with the "Murderous Rob's puppy dog look"? I'm merely playing devil's advocate but I sense you have your mind made up that Rob was in on the whole thing?

Not really. There's nothing else, really, to supplement or support the notion Rob "did it". He had a story about his girlfriend being abducted. That's it.

Actually if that was "it" this case wouldn't have taken so long to solve. The only narrative of a disappearance comes from a main suspect. How that can't be seen as, at the very least, "troubling" is beyond me.



I think that was rather unnecessary and rude.

And? When you tell somebody that you don't "buy" something...what does that add to the conversation?




I have no idea how you deduce Angela's family is "obviously" of a lower social bracket than Rob's. Frankly, it initially struck me as absolutely nonsensical.

Really? "Nonsensical?"

Her family had no phone in their home at a time when that was rather uncommon. In fact, it's uncommon now for middle-class people NOT to have a phone in their home or at the very least, several cell phones.

Given that there was at least one working adult in the home, there should have been a telephone and there was not. That's how I got the "idea" that Ms. Hammond's family was from a lower social strata that Mr. Shafer's.

As you were quick to point out to another poster, that the police "bungled" the investigation is your strictly your opinion, I think. I've yet to encounter any testament of poor police work here other than the rather unsupportive fact that the abductor was never caught.

And frankly, I'm in agreement with wiseguy. This is bringing back bad memories of the Jeff MacDonald and Darlie Routier threads. To each his/her own, though. I realize I am not a law enforcement officer, nor a justice professional. As much as I would like to see all UM cases resolved, it is ultimately not my responsibility to come up with a "needed result". Nor is it yours.

Let's see:

1) A 2009 newspaper article that I added a link to here described there being DNA available for testing that hadn't been sooner. In an almost 20 year old murder case.

2) The police apparently didn't issue an APB on a truck involved in a disappearance until well after the chance of catching the truck and it's driver had passed.

3) During the segment, a dive in the case a detective cites a large although not unmanageable number of vehicles similar to the one they were searching for as the reason they had not found the truck. That's loser talk if I've ever heard it.

4) Again, the ONLY narrative for the events that occurred has come from a main suspect. There are almost NO major crimes that have been solved using a single source of details for a crime. In fact, most LE organizations avoid it as it can take in a direction away from the actual perpetrators of the crime.

Those are a few things but there are many more.

And as far as Jeffrey MacDonald and Darlie Router;I fail to see any link to this case. In both of those cases, the perpetrators told ridiculously false stories that failed to overcome the overwhelming physical evidence that indicated their guilt.

Wow..........harsh a bit don't you think with the "Murderous Rob's puppy dog look"? I'm merely playing devil's advocate but I sense you have your mind made up that Rob was in on the whole thing?
Actually, no, I don't. I'm saying that because Cocytus actually knows that Rob killed Angela, but is certain that Rob got off because the locals bungled the investigation, and because he's apparently a big man in a little town.

Actually, no, I don't. I'm saying that because Cocytus actually knows that Rob killed Angela, but is certain that Rob got off because the locals bungled the investigation, and because he's apparently a big man in a little town.

I have no idea what happened to Angela Hammond. The sad part is after almost 20 years, neither do the police.

As I have stated multiple times, the only way to solve this case (other discovering a body or a confession) is to do a serious rethink of the available evidence. Apparently that rather reasonable step is unpopular w/ the Clinton PD, as they haven't seemed to have taken the time to do it.

*Sigh* I suppose that telling you for the thousandth time the Missouri State Police AND FBI were involved won't sink in, this time, either? The FBI took the lead, since they had jurisdiction (just like they do in every kidnapping or reported kidnapping), not local law enforcement. So if Murderous Rob's puppy dog "I didn't do it" look worked, it worked on the FBI, as well. The FBI has essentially given up on this case because there are no leads worth following.

Really? So the DNA evidence that has waited almost 20 years to be tested wasn't a "lead?" Or the fact that DMV records are now computerized and the large number of vehicles registered at the time can be tracked more easily isn't another lead?

Or...any number of leads that had to have come from this investigation haven't been enough?

This obviously wasn't the work of a "master criminal." The fact that he attacked her while she was still on the phone indicates that. Unless the criminal is now deceased, he really should have been at least identified as a suspect by now.

Really? So the DNA evidence that has waited almost 20 years to be tested wasn't a "lead?" Or the fact that DMV records are now computerized and the large number of vehicles registered at the time can be tracked more easily isn't another lead?

Or...any number of leads that had to have come from this investigation haven't been enough?

This obviously wasn't the work of a "master criminal." The fact that he attacked her while she was still on the phone indicates that. Unless the criminal is now deceased, he really should have been at least identified as a suspect by now.

You know, if you're shady enough or if the person you junk it with is lazy, DMV records don't show up. At all.

Really? So the DNA evidence that has waited almost 20 years to be tested wasn't a "lead?" Or the fact that DMV records are now computerized and the large number of vehicles registered at the time can be tracked more easily isn't another lead?

Or...any number of leads that had to have come from this investigation haven't been enough?

This obviously wasn't the work of a "master criminal." The fact that he attacked her while she was still on the phone indicates that. Unless the criminal is now deceased, he really should have been at least identified as a suspect by now.

So the DMV is spending their time categorizing ALL of the vehicles that were ever on the road? Even if they're no longer on the road? So, I can go and get the records on the cars my grandfather drove? Wow. And here I thought there was no reason for the uncomfortably long lines at the DMV.

As I have stated before, and had you brush off, there are hundreds of other cases that "should have" been solved, by now, and weren't the work of a "master criminal." Some of these cases are much older and actually have real evidence to follow. What was the DNA evidence they had? Do you know? Did it pan out? Apparently not. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I forgot Rob pays off the local smokies with those 1,000 dollar bills he lights his cigars with.

I am genuinely sorry for the snarkiness of my comments, but you irritate me with your absolute flat out refusal (despite your arguments otherwise) to even think of the possibility that 1) someone other than Rob did it and 2) anyone other than local law enforcement was involved, and that said local law enforcement was not only inept, but in bed with Rob.

So the DMV is spending their time categorizing ALL of the vehicles that were ever on the road? Even if they're no longer on the road? So, I can go and get the records on the cars my grandfather drove? Wow. And here I thought there was no reason for the uncomfortably long lines at the DMV.

As I have stated before, and had you brush off, there are hundreds of other cases that "should have" been solved, by now, and weren't the work of a "master criminal." Some of these cases are much older and actually have real evidence to follow. What was the DNA evidence they had? Do you know? Did it pan out? Apparently not. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I forgot Rob pays off the local smokies with those 1,000 dollar bills he lights his cigars with.

I am genuinely sorry for the snarkiness of my comments, but you irritate me with your absolute flat out refusal (despite your arguments otherwise) to even think of the possibility that 1) someone other than Rob did it and 2) anyone other than local law enforcement was involved, and that said local law enforcement was not only inept, but in bed with Rob.


1) The obvious reason for the DMV to computerize their records is to prevent salvage vehicles from being sold as new and to prevent old VIN's from being attached to stolen vehicles. A side benefit would be for the police to track vehicles potentially involved in criminal activities.

2) Most cases that aren't solved aren't solved because an obvious clue was overlooked or an obvious suspect was (or wasn't) questioned by the police and allowed to leave the area. How do I know this? Looking back at most serial killer investigations, the offender that was finally charged/prosecuted had usually been questioned by the police and was released or dismissed as a suspect. At least at first.

I don't expect miracles from the police. I DO expect (as should everybody else) that given the powers that they have and the training that they are supposed to possess, that when a case requiring their A-game comes up that they bring their A-game. If they don't, then they shouldn't have a problem being called on that.

And? When you tell somebody that you don't "buy" something...what does that add to the conversation?

I am failing to see why this is invoking such emotionally charged and sarcastic responses. It is merely a discussion and exchange of ideas.





Really? "Nonsensical?"

Really. I think it's a very ill-founded conclusion. They lack a phone in the house (this, bear in mind, was never explained--that the family couldn't afford it is an assumption based on very limited information), but Angela has access to a car? That seems like such wide speculation to me. A stretch, if you will.


What I am referencing in the other two aforementioned threads is the emotionalism, grossly speculatory arguments, tired theories, blatant nastiness, and overall "drama" that impermeates them. It seems this case discussion is going that way, unfortunately.

I am failing to see why this is invoking such emotionally charged and sarcastic responses. It is merely a discussion and exchange of ideas.







Really. I think it's a very ill-founded conclusion. They lack a phone in the house (this, bear in mind, was never explained--that the family couldn't afford it is an assumption based on very limited information), but Angela has access to a car? That seems like such wide speculation to me. A stretch, if you will.


What I am referencing in the other two aforementioned threads is the emotionalism, grossly speculatory arguments, tired theories, blatant nastiness, and overall "drama" that impermeates them. It seems this case discussion is going that way, unfortunately.

Ok...why do you think that they have a car...and yet no phone? Not even a local-only line. That speaks to financial mismanagement or skewed priorities. A sure sign of financial issues is the lack of a means to be contacted,especially in a rural area.

I'm not emotional about this. I don't know Mr. Shafer and it's likely I'll never know Ms. Hammond. Frankly, whether or not this case is ever solved would have little, if any, impact on the rest of my life, making my speculation about this case an intellectual exercise and nothing more.

However, if I were Ms. Hammond's family, I would have expected for the police to have provided me w/ more answers than they have in the past 20 years. Investigating something and having NO answers is almost as bad as not investigating it at all, IMHO.

Let's see:

1 & 2) Rob Shafer's narrative is the only reason that anybody even knows there was a kidnapping, so there being "no physical or circumstantial" evidence as you stated is incorrect, is it not?

3) The fact that you "have a hard time buying" something is simply your opinion and not a fact. The fact that you have a hard time "buying it" may also simply mean that you have a limited imagination or that you need to see the world through your own moral prism rather than how it really is.

4) Her family may not "believe" that he had anything for many reasons other than the fact that he actually didn't "do it." They are obviously in a lower social strata than Rob Shafer and in a small town accusing someone of higher social status of a crime can have more negative effects on the accuser than the accused.

The police have bungled this investigation to the point where, frankly, their opinion has limited value. Given the lack of results that they have produced, this case should have been transferred to either the Missouri state police or the FBI many years ago.

This case needs a rethink and it needs that ASAP. Previously held ideas need to be re-examined and/or disposed of if they don't provide the needed results.

Assuming that the earlier results of this investigation were "effective" = EPIC FAIL

I don't respond to your posts. You are too confrontational, arrogant and combative for my liking. You accused Rae Ann Mossor's brother of slander, and referred to another poster as an "effing genius" in a sarcastic tone, not to mention your frequent "where's your source, poster" statements..

I don't put anybody on ignore, but I won't discuss cases with you.

Frankly, whether or not this case is ever solved would have little, if any, impact on the rest of my life, making my speculation about this case an intellectual exercise and nothing more.

Which is why, in my opinion, it isn't worth your delivering hostile and rude responses to those whom you disagree with.

It is an unsolicited observation, but perhaps if we were all having this discussion in reality instead of on an internet forum, your style of interaction would be very different. I do not understand why you are often so sarcastic and combative. It isn't like you need these things to "compensate" for some perceived incapability. You seem to be an intelligent individual.

In any event, I have said more than I have needed to. I don't believe I will be responding again either.

Which is why, in my opinion, it isn't worth your delivering hostile and rude responses to those whom you disagree with.

It is an unsolicited observation, but perhaps if we were all having this discussion in reality instead of on an internet forum, your style of interaction would be very different. I do not understand why you are often so sarcastic and combative. It isn't like you need these things to "compensate" for some perceived incapability. You seem to be an intelligent individual.

In any event, I have said more than I have needed to. I don't believe I will be responding again either.

No, I'm pretty much like this in real life. My arguments are more persuasive and I usually don't have to repeat points that have already been made. But what you read is what you get.

As far as "compensating" I don't think that I need to compensate for anything. I raised the point (more than once) that this case needs a rethink. That may include "unclearing" previously cleared people, considering that this may be a disappearance rather than a kidnap/murder and potentially a host of other less pleasant and more uncomfortable options.

It seems to me that a number of people on this forum would rather argue tired suppositions that make them "feel good: than take an unvarnished look at cases that have grown cold for reasons mostly related to how they were initially handled by LE. If that's what they choose to do, then it's certainly a free country and a free Internet.

However, I don't appreciate my intelligence being questioned because someone else has a cherished worldview and my statements may "upset" that. To me, needing things "your way" is a sign that somebody here is certainly "compensating" for some inadequacy, real or perceived.

If you choose not to respond, then that's certainly your right.
Hope that you enjoy your holiday.

Random acts of violence do happen. I believe there are some people out there that get tunnel vision and always like to think a family member or friend is responsible, but that isn't always the case. this was one of those occasions were it was a random act of violence by a stranger.

Since when was it ever implied that the Hammond's had no phone in their home? Isn't it just more likely that she, being a teenage girl, liked to talk on the phone a lot, and it was just easier, more convenient (being that she was already out on the road), and cheaper to use the phone booth? We're basing their financial well-being off of one phone call made from a phone booth? Are you kidding me? Who knows why she called from the phone booth? Isn't it possible that it was something the local teenagers did as a way to avoid being chastised by their parents?

Just to throw this in there. Angela's brother stated that they did not have a phone at the time of Angela's dissapearance. So there is no mystery there. Angela did not have a home phone.
I have always said that where the cops dropped the ball was directly after the abduction. They weren't able to catch him then and following that they had very little to go on. There are a slew of unvolved homicides and dissapearances just around this area. There is going to be a 48 hours mystery program about a girl named Kara Kopetsky that vanished about 20 miles from Clinton and was never seen again. There are many more also so I dont see why its so crazy that this case was never solved or why people have this mistaken beilef that "someone would have come forward by now".

The only odd tid bit in this case, that makes it differ from others is that we have Rob getting a description of the abductor and his vehilce. Which unfortunately for him has cast him as a suspect in many people's minds. If she had been grabbed before making the call then what would we have?? Her car would have been found and she would have simply vanised like most other missing persons.

Just to throw this in there. Angela's brother stated that they did not have a phone at the time of Angela's dissapearance. So there is no mystery there. Angela did not have a home phone.
I have always said that where the cops dropped the ball was directly after the abduction. They weren't able to catch him then and following that they had very little to go on. There are a slew of unvolved homicides and dissapearances just around this area. There is going to be a 48 hours mystery program about a girl named Kara Kopetsky that vanished about 20 miles from Clinton and was never seen again. There are many more also so I dont see why its so crazy that this case was never solved or why people have this mistaken beilef that "someone would have come forward by now".

The only odd tid bit in this case, that makes it differ from others is that we have Rob getting a description of the abductor and his vehilce. Which unfortunately for him has cast him as a suspect in many people's minds. If she had been grabbed before making the call then what would we have?? Her car would have been found and she would have simply vanised like most other missing persons.

Has anyone thought of the possibility that "didn't have a phone at the time" means "didn't have a working phone," or something had happened and their phone had been recently disconnected, as opposed to "we're poor and can't afford it?" Also, the possibility exists that they had moved into a new place and the phone company was going to charge them a stupid amount of money to put in a line (this happened to a friend of mine, recently, and she still doesn't have a phone at home, one year later. She is not one of the dregs of society, she just doesn't feel like paying the phone company a few hundred dollars to dig a trench and put in a line.)

Has anyone thought of the possibility that "didn't have a phone at the time" means "didn't have a working phone," or something had happened and their phone had been recently disconnected, as opposed to "we're poor and can't afford it?" Also, the possibility exists that they had moved into a new place and the phone company was going to charge them a stupid amount of money to put in a line (this happened to a friend of mine, recently, and she still doesn't have a phone at home, one year later. She is not one of the dregs of society, she just doesn't feel like paying the phone company a few hundred dollars to dig a trench and put in a line.)

Absolutely. This is precisely what I attempted to express here:

They lack a phone in the house (this, bear in mind, was never explained--that the family couldn't afford it is an assumption based on very limited information)

Just got thinking once I was in the Angela Hammond thread. There was a complaint that the truck Angela was seen abducted in was never seen by the police - anywhere. It leads you to believe it was either shoddy police work, a faulty description or..............

Rob Shaver made the story up.

Bear with me here. I too believe Rob's story. His body language screams a defeated and sad person. He apparently passed a lie detector test and even Angela's family believed him.

But since the case was builty solely on the testimony of Rob is it difficult to make an argument against him? I don't think it is.

Angie calls Rob from the payphone - This could happen even if he was involved. He wants her to call him before she goes home. Good ploy to make it look like SHE called him, which she did.

The "filthy" abductor - Again, this is only based on Rob's testimony. If he's lying then there never was a man with a truck and there are numerous ways he could have gotten rid of Angie. In fact, she trusted him there would be no struggle, no witnesses, no reason for anyone to notice anything strange.

The transmission - I can go out on the road and do this to my car right now and have it stall.

The chase - Maybe it happened. In fact, maybe someone did take her that Rob was in on. He concocts the story that it was a "truck with a decal" and if Angie is stuffed in the trunk of a normal car no one takes notice - ever.

Witnesses - His little brother could confirm him running out of the house. Rob could still be involved if he did this making it look less suspicious for him.

Motive - She's pregnant. He's 20 years old or so. Maybe he doesn't want the responsibility.

Lack of witnesses - No one saw the chase. Even at night in a small town you would assume someone would have heard it let alone see it. It is an incredible coincidence as well that Rob drove right by the truck as well. Very lucky.

Trudy Darby - A similar thing happened to her. She was on the phone with her son. After she got off the phone she was abducted. I am pretty sure this happened before Angela. If that's the case and Rob is in on the whole thing then he could have heard the story through the papers and concocted the whole story of her on the pay phone. All I can say is that the guy was extremely ballsy grabbing Angela while she was on the phone probably not knowing who she was talking to.


So don't get nuts, this is what we do on here, we speculate and I was wondering what people thought of this in case someone was ever wondering aloud how to build a case against Rob. Personally I still think he is telling the truth because.................

- He passed a lie detector test. It isn't 100% because Larry Gibson did too. A sociopath would believe they had nothing to do with it too, but by all accounts Rob didn't exhibit those signs
- The two other women abducted in the area. Trudy Darby was found dead and Cheryl Kenney is still missing to this day I believe.
- He loved Angie and was engaged to her I believe (or gave her a ring)

I appreciate the thought process here, Meg.

I have steadfastly avoided much commentary on this case, particularly on the "Rob did it" angle, because I've just never found that idea particularly compelling, and beyond that this case boils down to LE lucking into her body, a confession, or now apparently a DNA match. I must admit that the DNA match angle does throw a monkey wrench into what I thought I knew about this case - if they have enough to make a DNA match a possibility, than there must be significantly more physical evidence available than the segment lets on.

And frankly, that alone is enough to exonerate Rob in my mind - if they have usable DNA evidence, they would have used it by now against Rob, if he had anything to do with it in the first place.

Beyond that, however, I'd like to address some of the points you make in your "making a case against Rob" post, because I think even the attempt points up some of the flaws in the whole theory (one that I know you don't actually subscribe to, Meg). In particular:

The transmission - I can go out on the road and do this to my car right now and have it stall.

Trudy Darby - A similar thing happened to her. She was on the phone with her son. After she got off the phone she was abducted. I am pretty sure this happened before Angela. If that's the case and Rob is in on the whole thing then he could have heard the story through the papers and concocted the whole story of her on the pay phone. All I can say is that the guy was extremely ballsy grabbing Angela while she was on the phone probably not knowing who she was talking to.


The first of these two is a matter of fact: Rob's station wagon/pickup truck had its transmission blown out. Those accusing Rob most often suggest this was part of a clever ploy to make the chase appear to have actually happened. But really, what 17 year old thinks of such a clever and convincing detail, and then knows how to make it happen? Perhaps more to the point, if Rob did do it, his plan was to murder his girlfriend - presumably no wreck his car. It's not terribly often that a person - particularly a young person, presumably without a whole lot of extra money for things like transmission repairs or new automobiles - elects wreck his own car as part of a plot to shift blame away from himself for murder. If Rob did dream this up, he is one bright, devious kid.

The second point is more speculative on your part, but again I think it indicates the absurd level of calculated deviousness on the part of Rob that those who endorse the "Rob did it" theory are presupposing. Can I imagine a 20 year old kid with no past criminial history having the brains and far-sightedness to plan his girlfriend's murder to the point of casing other apparently random homicides, finding a pattern that will work for his purposes, then pulling it off to perfection?

Here's the thing: if Rob wanted to kill his girlfriend, wouldn't it have been infinitely easier for him to go to pick her up from whatever location, take her somewhere, kill her, and tell no one nothing? Then, later, when someone asked when last he saw her, he could have said anything at all. Instead, he invents a story that makes him the star witness; if it is a story, that makes Rob both the cleverest and the stupidest murderer of all time, all at once.

I am not sure why some people on here have such difficulty accepting the LE's clearance of Rob, but it makes perfect sense to me that he should not be a suspect.

If you ask me, as likely a conspiracy theory as the "Rob Did It" theory is that Angela did it - that is, she orchestrated her own disappearance. Suppose she met some fella and wanted to run off with him, and have Rob and her parents out of her hair all at once. What better way than to call Rob, stage a "kidnapping" on the telephone, and then take off. It does seem strange that this dude who took her couldn't wait until she was off the phone - perhaps the very point was to have her scream into the phone, to make it seem legit.

There is at least one fundamentla flaw with that scenario which I'll let others point out, but it seems to me to be every bit as likely as the "Rob made the whole thing up and killed Angela himself" scenario - which is to say, it's not at all likely.

Random acts of violence do happen. I believe there are some people out there that get tunnel vision and always like to think a family member or friend is responsible, but that isn't always the case. this was one of those occasions were it was a random act of violence by a stranger.

This.

I think people get tunnel vision with this and with cases in UM and try to get the weird unlikely angles. Their is a big world out there and lots of cases and people. Maybe in the UM cases they weren't that much random acts but that doesn't mean they aren't in life.

Random acts of violence do happen. I believe there are some people out there that get tunnel vision and always like to think a family member or friend is responsible, but that isn't always the case. this was one of those occasions were it was a random act of violence by a stranger.To add to what you've said, it occurs much more often than people think.

My aunt was nearly abducted by a weirdo at a popular trail during the day. Strangely enough, my father's cousin had a girlfriend who was murdered by some guy. (His name escapes me but I know he killed a few other women.)

Sadly, I think Angela was at the wrong place at the wrong time. She lived in a small town. It's not unusual for such places to be empty at night. A predator probably saw her all alone with no witnesses and decided to strike.

Here's the thing: if Rob wanted to kill his girlfriend, wouldn't it have been infinitely easier for him to go to pick her up from whatever location, take her somewhere, kill her, and tell no one nothing? Then, later, when someone asked when last he saw her, he could have said anything at all. Instead, he invents a story that makes him the star witness; if it is a story, that makes Rob both the cleverest and the stupidest murderer of all time, all at once.

And there in lies the case against him. There can be an argument that he DID do that which I am trying to open up. You're right it does make him the most clever and stupidest criminal of all time had he pulled that off. I just can't figure out which one it is if it's any at all. The only conclusion I could come up with is that Rob would have wanted some pity or some compassion for "almost" catching her.


If you ask me, as likely a conspiracy theory as the "Rob Did It" theory is that Angela did it - that is, she orchestrated her own disappearance. Suppose she met some fella and wanted to run off with him, and have Rob and her parents out of her hair all at once. What better way than to call Rob, stage a "kidnapping" on the telephone, and then take off. It does seem strange that this dude who took her couldn't wait until she was off the phone - perhaps the very point was to have her scream into the phone, to make it seem legit.

It is a thought that wasn't brought up in the segment and I wish it was. I know UM believed Rob and rolled with the story the whole time. But another angle wouldn't have hurt either. Surely there has to have been some witness who had heard her talking (maybe not "wanting" the baby, maybe wanting to split with Rob) and in a small town she just said the hell with it and left for good. It's farfetched and if I am a betting man I go with Rob's story still. But it's open for discussion

It is a thought that wasn't brought up in the segment and I wish it was. I know UM believed Rob and rolled with the story the whole time. But another angle wouldn't have hurt either.

Actually I think it does hurt. If the police think Rob was telling the truth speculating on his involvement just because the case hasn't been solved would really hurt his reputation in many people's eyes. Also following the case that she dissapeared by herself would also lead to probable false hope and to follow an invesigation to something that probably didn't happen. Sometimes it wouldn't be prudent.

I don't know why it's so tough a thing to believe that she got abducted and the guy ended up getting away with it. It happens a lot unfortunately. I normally read about how UM spruce up cases to make it seem more interesting and how that is criticized but it looks like that is what is happening right here.

Actually I think it does hurt. If the police think Rob was telling the truth speculating on his involvement just because the case hasn't been solved would really hurt his reputation in many people's eyes. Also following the case that she dissapeared by herself would also lead to probable false hope and to follow an invesigation to something that probably didn't happen. Sometimes it wouldn't be prudent.

I don't know why it's so tough a thing to believe that she got abducted and the guy ended up getting away with it. It happens a lot unfortunately. I normally read about how UM spruce up cases to make it seem more interesting and how that is criticized but it looks like that is what is happening right here.

It might explain the unconfirmed sightings of her in Canada and another place I can't remember. Unfortunately I don't agree with a person's reputation being the reason that the police shouldn't explore everything. They don't even have to tell Rob that they are investigating him again. I understand he probably has moved on with his life and all but it is important to remember that one singular person is what the case is built upon. Rob had the police at their beckon call. Their case was built around his word. There were no witnesses and it is almost as if Angela vanished off the face of the earth.

If Rob is telling the truth, he is the most unlucky person to ever be born because he has no one else to coroborate his story.

Meh.

I have always viewed the "Rob did it" theories as grasping at straws. I get the impression that those view him as guilty by sole virtue of the fact that he was her boyfriend. Because, as I said, there is not one single solitary thing that ties him to this. I have heard alot of what he might have done if he was guilty and what might have happened, but no facts, evidence, or anything else that would lead me to believe he is not innocent. He doesn't come across any more guilty than, say, Lisa Ziegart's mother for example. I also read somewhere else that the police investigated Rob "extensively" and it can be concluded that they found absolutely nothing because he was cleared relatively quickly. The case against Rob is incredibly weak and I would need to hear something more than "he was her boyfriend and wanted to get rid of her because she was pregnant" angle.

Actually I think it does hurt. If the police think Rob was telling the truth speculating on his involvement just because the case hasn't been solved would really hurt his reputation in many people's eyes. Also following the case that she dissapeared by herself would also lead to probable false hope and to follow an invesigation to something that probably didn't happen. Sometimes it wouldn't be prudent.

I don't know why it's so tough a thing to believe that she got abducted and the guy ended up getting away with it. It happens a lot unfortunately. I normally read about how UM spruce up cases to make it seem more interesting and how that is criticized but it looks like that is what is happening right here.
If cops thought like that all the time, even more cases would remain unsolved. Also, im all the way in the rob did NOT do it camp. If the cops cleared him that quickly, and the family clearly still maintains a good relationship with him, c'mon, sometimes you just have to take peoples word. Plus, like its been said before on here, he would have to be a damn mastermind to pull off a crime like that in that little time. I think everythings already been said on this case as far as Rob goes

It might explain the unconfirmed sightings of her in Canada and another place I can't remember. Unfortunately I don't agree with a person's reputation being the reason that the police shouldn't explore everything. They don't even have to tell Rob that they are investigating him again. I understand he probably has moved on with his life and all but it is important to remember that one singular person is what the case is built upon. Rob had the police at their beckon call. Their case was built around his word. There were no witnesses and it is almost as if Angela vanished off the face of the earth.

If Rob is telling the truth, he is the most unlucky person to ever be born because he has no one else to coroborate his story.

The police did clear him which means that it would be a total waste for UM to look for that as a posibility just because the case hasn't been solved. And you talk about the rest as if it's a really weird and totally unaceptable that she vanished. If anything Rob and the case was lucky that he saw them after that and it wasn't a total dissapearing act like all those ladies that were abducted out of convenience stores. I agree with wiseguy and think you're grasping at straws.

In the "main" thread on this case (44 pages and counting), located here on page 5, post number 71, a long-since vanished poster named longliveum posted an article from The Kansas City Star of October 4, 1991. The article reads, in part:

Two witnesses told police they saw a white man with a mustache wearing a dark-colored baseball-style cap sitting in the truck near the telephone booth Hammond was using.

The witnesses' description is similar to one Hammond gave her fiance moments before the line went dead.

That just about closes the case against Rob, right?

What's interesting to me is that this idea got posted in the article, was mentioned by old friend Awsi Dooger in a couple of different posts showing why Rob was telling the truth, and then was basically forgotten - so much so that not all that much afterward, old friend Thiussat asked if there were any other witnesses at all to substantiate Rob's claims - and he went unanswered. Thiussat's question comes in post 109? It seems, after that, the entire board simply forgot about the information from that newspaper article.

In the "main" thread on this case (44 pages and counting), located here on page 5, post number 71, a long-since vanished poster named longliveum posted an article from The Kansas City Star of October 4, 1991. The article reads, in part:



That just about closes the case against Rob, right?

I was actually going to post the same thing. We do not have Rob's account alone to go on, he actually has at least 2-3 witnesses to back up his story. This is taken from the DOE Network website: "Within a week, Rob had been cleared of having anything to do with Angie's disappearance." They also have the same exact quote from the article about the witnesses corraborating Rob's story.

Isn't this enough to stop the whole "Rob is guilty" nonsense?

I was actually going to post the same thing. We do not have Rob's account alone to go on, he actually has at least 2-3 witnesses to back up his story. This is taken from the DOE Network website: "Within a week, Rob had been cleared of having anything to do with Angie's disappearance." They also have the same exact quote from the article about the witnesses corraborating Rob's story.

Isn't this enough to stop the whole "Rob is guilty" nonsense?

No, because these quotes were brought up, earlier. The posters who insist that Rob is guilty continuously ignore these, because they want links to the actual article which, as I've said numerous times on the other thread devoted to this, often are not online, because some newspapers haven't put their back catalog on the internet or it's in an archive that one has to pay to actually look through. Our local paper's archives were like that until very recently. If one wanted to look at anything that may have been archived that was more than a year old, he had to pay for it, and then potentially not find it.

No, because these quotes were brought up, earlier. The posters who insist that Rob is guilty continuously ignore these, because they want links to the actual article which, as I've said numerous times on the other thread devoted to this, often are not online, because some newspapers haven't put their back catalog on the internet or it's in an archive that one has to pay to actually look through. Our local paper's archives were like that until very recently. If one wanted to look at anything that may have been archived that was more than a year old, he had to pay for it, and then potentially not find it.

Oh come on... the article is posted in its entirety in the post I describe above, and, because of my University affiliation, I can access it anytime I want. You can take my word for it - the article exists.

(I realize, bell83, that you are the messenger here, not the one contesting the authenticity of the article).

Rob proposed to Angela and gave her a diamond ring in January of 1991. She was abducted only 3 months later. I'm having a hard time thinking that her being pregnant would force him to suddenly go from proposing to thinking up a master plan of having her killed and disposing of her body that is yet to be found after 19 years.

If a 17 year old from small town Missouri can hide a body never to be found, than Rob is right up there with the mafia guys who killed Jimmy Hoffa.

If a 17 year old from small town Missouri can hide a body never to be found...

In 45 minutes or less to boot.

In the "main" thread on this case (44 pages and counting), located here on page 5, post number 71, a long-since vanished poster named longliveum posted an article from The Kansas City Star of October 4, 1991. The article reads, in part:



That just about closes the case against Rob, right?

What's interesting to me is that this idea got posted in the article, was mentioned by old friend Awsi Dooger in a couple of different posts showing why Rob was telling the truth, and then was basically forgotten - so much so that not all that much afterward, old friend Thiussat asked if there were any other witnesses at all to substantiate Rob's claims - and he went unanswered. Thiussat's question comes in post 109? It seems, after that, the entire board simply forgot about the information from that newspaper article.
I have been posting this everytime someone calls Rob into question in the other thread. Two other witnesses saw the man and the truck. People do tend to skip over that and ignore it

I have been posting this everytime someone calls Rob into question in the other thread. Two other witnesses saw the man and the truck. People do tend to skip over that and ignore it

Because it doesn't fit in with Rob committing the perfect crime.