Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[mozartpc27]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Hold up, young man. Let's talk about the bolded. The phone record show that a call was recorded for 30 minutes. They could've talked for 10 minutes, when Rob "ran out the door, and left the phone off the hook". If the phone in Rob's parents house was left off the hook, then that's time that could've been recorded while he was gone. Remember it just shows that there was a connection between the phones for 30 minutes, not anyone talking. They could've talked for 5 minutes before he stormed out, and his brother put the phone back on the hook 25 minutes later.

I don't really have a dog in this race, in that it doesn't matter to me if Rob did it or someone else did. I understand why this case draws so much attention; Rob's is an unusual story, and if he - or the ex-boyfriend - did it, it's a much more interesting case than if some random dude did it.

That said, I think the evidence is pretty clearly in Rob's favor, and this here is a case in point: either Rob was on the phone with Angela for a full thirty minutes, as he testified and phone records corroborated, leaving him only 15 minutes to actually commit the crime, or, as freakbook suggests, the connection merely lasted a half hour, but the phone conversation was considerably shorter, because Rob did not hang up the phone when running out of the house.

Ah... but it takes two to tango. Freakbook's suggestion here, meant to create enough time in the timeframe to permit Rob to have really done it, actually works to strengthen, rather than weaken, Rob's story. Because IF the phone connection continued even after the conversation ended, then BOTH ends of the phone line must have remained open: if EITHER side hangs up, the call is completed. So Rob's end stays open because he runs from the house without hanging up: even freakbook's own theory says this. But why would Angela sit around talking to the other end of a dead line? The natural thing to do would be to hang up once it was clear the other party has left the conversation - and if Rob did it, this "conversation" pretty much HAS to have been a fight, making the hang up even more likely.

One might suggest that Angela hung on pretending to talk on the phone even after Rob had dropped it and left his parents' house as a way of trying to ward off the stranger who was sitting there watching her - but of course, if Rob is indeed the guilty party, then the story of the loitering stranger is entirely his fabrication, and so there would be no one for her to try to fool!

One could try to argue that Rob told her to stay on the line until he got there, as a way of establishing a longer phone call than really took place (for alibi purposes), and for some reason she complied. But this strains credulity: now Rob is not an impetuous, star crossed teen who flies into a rage and kills his girlfriend, but instead a ruthlessly methodical criminal mastermind who has worked out every detail well ahead of time down to the use of a phone call to establish a false timeline. And even if this scenario were true, our "mastermind" would be relying heavily on luck, or at least something not entirely under his own control: that Angela would be willing to sit on the phone, not hanging up, after he has gone away from it long enough to get into his car and drive to her location.

Or, and I am going to apply Occam's razor here, perhaps, if the phone call only APPEARS to last half an hour, but the conversation was shorter than that really, because BOTH parties left the phones off the hook, this happened because Rob's story went exactly as he said it did: Angela got grabbed from the booth mid-sentence, and her phone was not hung up, and he raced from the house, neglecting to hang up his phone.

So it seems to me, Rob wins no matter which way you slice this: either the call really was a half hour long, leaving him too little time to commit the murder and dispose of the body, or it was as freakbook suggested a shorter conversation but longer call because both ends of the line were left open with no one talking - only the most logical explanation for this is that what Rob said is exactly true: the killer grabbed Angela and didn't bother to hang up the phone, and Rob ran out of the house to try to save her, also failing to hang up the phone.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by mozartpc27

Because IF the phone connection continued even after the conversation ended, then BOTH ends of the phone line must have remained open: if EITHER side hangs up, the call is completed. So Rob's end stays open because he runs from the house without hanging up: even freakbook's own theory says this. But why would Angela sit around talking to the other end of a dead line? The natural thing to do would be to hang up once it was clear the other party has left the conversation - and if Rob did it, this "conversation" pretty much HAS to have been a fight, making the hang up even more likely.

Excellent point. I didn't consider the fact that both lines would've had to been off the hook. And it wouldn't make sense for Angela to stay on the phone when Rob hung up.

Unless she dropped the phone instead of hanging it up. If there was a fight then it's possible that she threw the phone down instead of hanging it up. If they fought then perhaps she didn't want Rob calling back so she left it off the hook on purpose.

If there was a fight like I had suggested then it's possible that she threw the phone down in anger, instead of hanging it up. Hell, she could've smacked it against the phone booth and let it drop.

Now let's talk about the 30 minutes. That's a long time, and alot of money for a pay phone. So perhaps they did talk for the full 30 minutes, or perhaps she fed the phone a bunch of additional change for the get go for more time and never hung up.

Originally Posted by mozartpc27

I don't really have a dog in this race, in that it doesn't matter to me if Rob did it or someone else did. I understand why this case draws so much attention; Rob's is an unusual story, and if he - or the ex-boyfriend - did it, it's a much more interesting case than if some random dude did it.

I want to make this clear. I know I said he's guilty, and I shouldn't have, but I'm not super hungry for his guilt. I don't personally have anything against Rob, but his story seems to perfect, or "videogameish" to me. That said, and has been pointed out, that this could be a Charles Holdeneqsue story. I'm open to the fact that he's innocent, but his story bugs me.

[Hot Jock]

Originally Posted by freakbook

I could care less...

*couldn't care less...

[Far Off Promise]

Rob reminds a lot of Anton from the Crystal Spencer case. He goes down as the boyfriend since the girl is gone, but I really question the strength of their relationship.

I think Rob is innocent. I think he made an attempt to save Angela that night. I think he gave it 200%.

What I really question, though, is did he really love Angela? He seems upset in the segment that he failed to save her from the kidnapping. He doesn't seem destroyed that his planned life with her now won't be happening. That could be from UM editing. It could also be because this is an awkward situation for Rob. If Angela really was pregnant with someone else's baby, what was he supposed to say? It would seem incredibly insensitive to say he tried to save her, but he doesn't really care because of that circumstance.

I don't understand why she stopped at a payphone to talk to Rob when she could have just driven to his house and talked to him in person.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Nor, do I think of you as a poster with logic. I've disagreed just about everything that you've had to say. Since we're both being honest.

Again, everyone can call me a troll, but this is UNSOLVED MYSTERIES. These are mostly COLD CASES. People are going to have multiple theories. Not everyone is going to agree. Just because I think Kurt Mcfall was met with foul play doesn't make me "fake", it means I look at the case and decide for myself.

And let me set something straight, my theories are not mean't to cause a debate, they are my theories. I'm not a sheep. I'm not blindly siding with everyone so the moderators can pat me on the head. I've backed up my theories, and have provided sound logic. Just because you can't refute them doesn't make me a troll, or a "fake poster", it just means that you can't debunk them.

And like I say, it takes two to tango. People here have gotten blantly upset with me, and have been very aggressive, but it's not called out because they're in the majority. I've seen earlier posters in this very thread get the same treatment.

People here LOOOVE to call others "aggressive", or a "troll" when they're not sucking up, and rehashing weak theories. I'm not into trying to "fit in" to this sheep-minded, high school clique. I'm here to discuss cold cases on Unsolved Mysteries.

Again, don't call me "fake" because you can't argue with me. That's a cop out. You've refrained from replying to me, because you know you can't.

As it stands I've broke no rules. I've stated theories and people have argued with me, and I've argued with people. I can admit to being condescending, and getting "aggressive" when discussing cases, sure. I've seen multiple people flip out. Just stop trying to single me out, because I don't go with the crowd.

This isn't an "JUST AGREE WITH EVERYTHING WE SAY" forum. It's Unsolved Mysteries. You'd have to be insane to think I just agree with everything that's said without questioning it.

I will admit I simply am not capable of understanding some of your theories and your defenses thereof. And I'm ok with that. In those instances I will just stay with what I know.

as far as your name calling and personal attacks those speak for themselves. We are not sheep. We are people discussing cases. your personal jabs and poor choice of words used when addressing someone are probably why people get upset with you. Apologies are nice when you mean it. But when you do this over and over again we know you are not being genuine about things.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by DALLASTEXAN!!

I will admit I simply am not capable of understanding some of your theories and your defenses thereof. And I'm ok with that. In those instances I will just stay with what I know.

as far as your name calling and personal attacks those speak for themselves. We are not sheep. We are people discussing cases. your personal jabs and poor choice of words used when addressing someone are probably why people get upset with you. Apologies are nice when you mean it. But when you do this over and over again we know you are not being genuine about things.

Let's cut this short. We'll just ignore each other. I am NOT sorry for everything. Name calling, sure. Being blunt with some people, no. I am definitely not sorry what I said about you. To be honest, I had no beef with you. But of course you have to come here and air out your dirty laundry as opposed to PMing me, so you can get a pat on the back. "Hay guyz, I hurt him too, am I part of the club now?" We're you even discussing this case? Or are you like TakeAWildGuess, and HotJock and part of the "gang up on a poster, despite not having any part of the conversation, because we're sheep" gang?

Fact is, people who are suspicious of Rob are already antagonized. "OH GEEZE HERE GOES ANOTHER ANTI-ROB" "IT'S ABOUT TIME FOR ANOTHER ROB DID IT" Flip back through the thread pages and see it said about other posters. Then it doesn't help that half of the forum gangs up on people, then they're curious when they're smacked back.

Like I said before, you have dirty laundry PM me. Don't be a coward and try to do it in the safety of numbers. Don't try to take cheap jabs when it has nothing to do with the case.

Originally Posted by Hot Jock

*couldn't care less...

Thanks for that my man. I appreciate your deep, and rational thoughts about the Angela Hammond case.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Let's cut this short. We'll just ignore each other. I am NOT sorry for everything. Name calling, sure. Being blunt with some people, no. I am definitely not sorry what I said about you. To be honest, I had no beef with you. But of course you have to come here and air out your dirty laundry as opposed to PMing me, so you can get a pat on the back. "Hay guyz, I hurt him too, am I part of the club now?" We're you even discussing this case? Or are you like TakeAWildGuess, and HotJock and part of the "gang up on a poster, despite not having any part of the conversation, because we're sheep" gang?

Fact is, people who are suspicious of Rob are already antagonized. "OH GEEZE HERE GOES ANOTHER ANTI-ROB" "IT'S ABOUT TIME FOR ANOTHER ROB DID IT" Flip back through the thread pages and see it said about other posters. Then it doesn't help that half of the forum gangs up on people, then they're curious when they're smacked back.

Like I said before, you have dirty laundry PM me. Don't be a coward and try to do it in the safety of numbers. Don't try to take cheap jabs when it has nothing to do with the case.



Thanks for that my man. I appreciate your deep, and rational thoughts about the Angela Hammond case.

See what I mean? Just more name calling and personal attacks. If you chilled out we could focus on the topic and have a clean debate. But no one can focus on the topic when you lash out like this, throw tantrums, threaten to leave, etc.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by DALLASTEXAN!!

See what I mean? Just more name calling and personal attacks. If you chilled out we could focus on the topic and have a clean debate. But no one can focus on the topic when you lash out like this, throw tantrums, threaten to leave, etc.

We could've chilled out, and focused on the topic a while ago. But apparently we both keep replying to these. Stop replying to me in a personal manner if you don't want me to lash out, especially when I said take it to PM's. You're doing the exact same thing I'm doing. Just talk about the case and keep it moving.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by freakbook

We could've chilled out, and focused on the topic a while ago. But apparently we both keep replying to these. Stop replying to me in a personal manner if you don't want me to lash out, especially when I said take it to PM's. You're doing the exact same thing I'm doing. Just talk about the case and keep it moving.

The one thing I agree with you....The ignore option is a good idea.

I apologize to everyone for straying this thread off topic and overstepping my boundaries. I do think rob is innocent. It is most unfortunate that he was the only witness to this crime. In some ways it's good that he was there because it gives the case hope of being solved. it is bad for rob personally for more than one reason. Instead of simply grieving he had to deal with being a suspect. Many crimes like this one have no eye witnesses.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Far Off Promise

If Angela really was pregnant with someone else's baby, what was he supposed to say?

This keeps getting repeated. Not to sound naive, but why do people think this? Did they just start dating when she was kidnapped? They lived together apparently, but I don't know for how long

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Originally Posted by Jon

This keeps getting repeated. Not to sound naive, but why do people think this? Did they just start dating when she was kidnapped? They lived together apparently, but I don't know for how long

I would also like to know why it's just assumed the child wasn't Rob's.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

I would also like to know why it's just assumed the child wasn't Rob's.

I'll 3rd this. I read it multiple times that it was a possibility, but I'm not too positive who's baby it really was.

[Hot Jock]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Thanks for that my man. I appreciate your deep, and rational thoughts about the Angela Hammond case.

[Far Off Promise]

Originally Posted by Jon

This keeps getting repeated. Not to sound naive, but why do people think this? Did they just start dating when she was kidnapped? They lived together apparently, but I don't know for how long

I just went with what was being mentioned in this thread. I don't have any inside information. It's just speculation, I think.

We only know what was said on the phone call between Rob and Angela because Rob told us what was said. For all we know, she could have broken up with him over the phone, and he went running down there to confront her about it. He sees her getting into a truck with someone so he follows her, his car dies, and she turns up missing. Now the story gets sensationalized.

Any number of things could have happened. At this point, unless more information surfaces, I think we have to assume that Rob's version of events are what happened.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by Far Off Promise

Any number of things could have happened. At this point, unless more information surfaces, I think we have to assume that Rob's version of events are what happened.

I agree with this. There is literally no evidence to which we're privy to suggest he isn't telling the truth.

And that's all I have to say about that.