Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Haha it's not your fault. I was already yelling at my computer screen before you came along. It is nice to have someone to discuss if he did do it with though.

Phew, that's good to know!

That's why I responded to you, I'd like to hear all the different takes on this case. Some theories I hadn't even considered yet.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Stratego

Phew, that's good to know!

That's why I responded to you, I'd like to hear all the different takes on this case. Some theories I hadn't even considered yet.

I don't mind talking about it if you want to know my perspective, but i'm not arguing about whether Rob did it or not.

[cordwainer1453]

I don't know if you can definitively say he DID do it just because we don't know who did. Once there is some evidence for some suspect, then I will make a determination.

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by freakbook

I don't mind talking about it if you want to know my perspective, but i'm not arguing about whether Rob did it or not.

Yeah, I'm not sure I want to do that either. I was more curious seeing the possible "What if Rob did do it" scenarios. I really appreciate you offering your perspective.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by freakbook

According to Rob (which is very important to distinct) she told him about the truck circling around the block multiple times. I'm sure she could've viewed the license plate at some time before he parked. Isn't it also bizarre that a pregnant woman on the payphone at night is so alerted about this vehicle that she never made an attempt to go inside her own vehicle at any point before or after he parked?




According to Rob (which is very important to distinct) he was close enough to look in the kidnappers window and have Angie reach out to him while climbing all over the driver, so I'm sure he was close enough to view the license plate



Maybe he threw it in reverse when he hit Angie with his vehicle earlier before discarding her body. According to Freakbook (which is very important to distinct).

Again it seems like you have a hard time with the concept of lines of sight and the speed vehicles are likely to be traveling. When he was close enough to see Angie he was actually passing parallel to the truck. He could not have seen the license plate at that point because he would have been viewing the side of the truck. Not to mention he was traveling very fast and likely did not have time to read a license number before he passed the truck.

Then once he past the truck is when he had to stop and turn the car around. By the time he did, the truck was likely to far away to see it. The only time he possibly could have seen the license plate or read the number is if he got close enough while chasing the truck. And as I said, at that point he was focusing solely on chasing the truck down and getting Angie out, not getting the license number even if he did get close enough. He didn't know his car was going to give out. And by the time he realized his car was giving out the truck was to far ahead, even if he did get close enough at any point to read the plate number easily. Which I honestly doubt.

As for Angie getting it before it parked beside her, The Cars and I both addressed this, its highly likely she simply was not concerned enough at that point about a truck that was doing nothing illegal up till then to get the license number.

And now your theory is Rob may have hit her with his car? When exactly would this have happened? We know Angie's car was still in the parking lot, so it would have to have been there, cause like I said if Rob did it he must have abducted her from the parking lot because her car never left and its unlikely she went anywhere on foot at 10 o clock at night, especially four months pregnant. If he hit her with his car, you'd think there would have been some blood in the parking lot. So this is yet another thing he would have had to cover up in a short amount of time, possible blood on the front of his car and possibly damage as well. And again it would be damage to the car inconsistent with what he said happened.

And finally, to address your next comment about no one else in the country seeing the truck except a couple people, it was a small town in Missouri after 10 o clock at night. How many people do you think should have seen it?

Seriously dude, you are trying to hard here to the point where it almost seems like you got a personal vendetta against the guy. You are going through mental gymnastics to try and prove something and your arguments are just getting silly and easily refutable.

As I said, I'm not 100% sure beyond a shadow of a doubt Rob was not involved, but I've simply seen no evidence to suggest that, and none of these so called holes you try to bring up in his story are strong arguments and are simply to easily explainable to say they mean Rob did it without a doubt, which you are basically saying.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

Seriously dude, you are trying to hard here to the point where it almost seems like you got a personal vendetta against the guy. You are going through mental gymnastics to try and prove something and your arguments are just getting silly and easily refutable.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on. You're not convincing me, and I'm not convincing you.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Stratego

Because anytime anyone tries to discuss it, someone comes along to disrupt the discussion stating Rob is innocent and the idea that he's guilty is just nonsense?

It's not disrupting a discussion when you are actively participating in it.

Originally Posted by Stratego

There are actually cases that are closed which get discussed over and over again on here. I really mean no offense, but I'm not sure why you're so bothered by it. All kinds of theories get discussed here. I mean, if you don't like discussion about this particular theory, you don't HAVE to join in.

It seems like you are bothered by the fact that people disagree with your theory.

Originally Posted by Stratego

If they thought he just wanted to use the phone, why be so concerned you describe the man and his truck in great detail?

Because maybe after describing the guy or his vehicle, Rob would recognize him and say, "oh that's Jim from the hardware store, see if he needs to use the phone". Or maybe they were just bored teenagers living in a rural town talking about this truck with a fish decal that they had never seen before.

Originally Posted by Stratego

Family members aren't the best alibi witnesses, to be honest.

No. But there were two impartial witnesses as well as physical evidence which supported Rob's story.

Originally Posted by Stratego

45 minutes is not really such a small window of opportunity. I think Dr. John Hamilton had even less time to go home to kill his wife.

It absolutely is when you factor in that Rob had to stage the scene and damage his transmission.

Originally Posted by Stratego

I'm not sure why you think he had to stage so much? He could've gone to the public phone booth in his own car, she entered it, he killed her, hid her body and then unintentionally blew his transmission on the way, after which he was forced to make up a story about frantically chasing the abductor.

Why did he kill her? Where is her body? Why did he go to the phone booth?

Originally Posted by Stratego

Maybe there was a real truck with a fish decal in town. The thing is, such witness accounts can help identify a suspect, they don't clear another.

You're right. An investigation, however, does clear suspects. Of which Rob has been ruled out.

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

It seems like you are bothered by the fact that people disagree with your theory.

I have no idea where you get that idea, you might be projecting here. I didn't even propose a theory, I asked freakbook for THEIR theory. What I'm bothered by is people complaining about others discussing a theory they don't agree with.

O.J. Simpson was found not guilty, that doesn't mean one can't believe he is in fact guilty and discuss that opinion.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Stratego

What I'm bothered by is people complaining about others discussing a theory they don't agree with.

I have no issues if people want to believe that Rob did it. I find it much more plausible that one of the people responsible for Trudy Darby's murder were also responsible for Angela Hammond's abduction as well as Cheryl Kenney's. Especially when you look at a map of all three abduction sites. All three abductions happened within 4 months of each other.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

It seems like you are bothered by the fact that people disagree with your theory.

No. That's more true about the "Rob didn't do it" club. Anytime a poster says they think Rob is guilty, or even questions him, the little Rob fanclub runs in here and starts popping a blood vessel.

The way ya'll argue for Rob is like creepy fanboys. I have no problems if someone thinks Rob is innocent. But let one person come in here and be suspicious of Rob and watch 10 of his fanboys come in here and surround the poster and start going crazy

[James T]

I personally don't rule Rob out totally, but just find it unlikely he was involved-if he was he went to incredible lengths & he has a lot of verifiable evidence in his favour like the car problems & the phone calls & don't really buy this latest wrong woman kidnapped theory.

With the majority of cases & we know from history this is usually the case with missing women with non partner involvement, I subscribe to Occam's razor of the most likely theory probably being what happened-sexual predator out looking for a victim late at night, or just happens to be passing at that time spots a lone woman in a remote area & sees an easy target-the only thing that remarkable here is that he abducted her while she was on the phone, but chances are he figured she was talking to somebody a long way away & that person likely didn't know where she was calling from.

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of candidates put forward-Rush & Chaney, McDuff, some handyman who apparently drove around a similar vehicle with a similar decal etc. However we remember all the exotic names being put forward for Michaela Garecht like the Speed Freak & Bindner, yet 30 plus years later the DNA links a guy we had never heard of & a string of offences. Most likely it is like that case just some random loser with a sting of sex offences to his name.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

No. That's more true about the "Rob didn't do it" club. Anytime a poster says they think Rob is guilty, or even questions him, the little Rob fanclub runs in here and starts popping a blood vessel.

The way ya'll argue for Rob is like creepy fanboys. I have no problems if someone thinks Rob is innocent. But let one person come in here and be suspicious of Rob and watch 10 of his fanboys come in here and surround the poster and start going crazy

Not really. Most people have been here for years and have seen posters come and go who cannot even consider the fact that Rob didn't do it. You would think that since more information had come out (that wasn't mentioned on UM) that helps his credibility (brother verifying he was home babysitting, phone records verifying that a call was placed from Rob's mom's house to the payphone for roughly 30 minutes, the car being found undriveable in the middle of the road, the motorist giving him a ride to the police station at midnight, etc.) that some people would have changed their mind maybe even a little. But you have continued to double down, sometimes rudely, when challenged.

Originally Posted by freakbook

because they're looking for a phantom kidnapper instead of the real perp

Originally Posted by freakbook

Rob was lying about the suspect, so you're probably chasing a dead-end. Sorry.

Originally Posted by freakbook

Hehe. I've grown to love the knuckleheads on this board since posting that, but I do still enjoy antagonizing them about it though.

These were all in response to very innocuous posts about the case. Now, if someone thinks Rob's story is implausible or even made up, okay. CuriousMind90 noticed this over 9 years ago.

Originally Posted by CuriousMind90

Call it paranoia, but I tend to find people who always make sure the topic gets bogged down on the "Rob did it!" cry suspicious.

I've noticed a pattern with this thread:

Someone will bring back the thread
people will get to the discussion of suspects
and then usually one or more of the same people (they know who they are) will jump in and say "ROB DID IT THERE'S NO PROOF HE DIDN'T"
then an argument will ensue over Rob not doing it,
and finally, the conversation will die down again due to frustration over having to explain why Rob didn't do it for the 100th time.

Rinse, repeat. It's suspicious to me why certain people--of which there is a VERY small number--have an obsessive need to shout "ROB DID IT", knowing they're derailing the topic and causing people to get frustrated and lose interest. Someone who had a vested interest in people being distracted from the bigger picture and going around in circles, never coming closer to the truth, or someone who had a vested interest in getting people to believe ROB DID IT, would do such.

Every time this thread gets bumped, it's usually from a new poster (since there have been so few new developments over the years), and then it eventually evolves into a Rob did it v. Rob didn't do it. A lot of the newer posters aren't familiar with the various items of the case as some others, so information gets rehashed in an attempt to help pass along information that wasn't privy to people who only watched the UM segment.

ETA: I found an older reddit thread which talks about an article (but I cannot find it anywhere) which says that Angela had used a phone card and that the call placed to Rob's mother's house was logged at 11:23 p.m. and ended at 11:37 p.m. If true, this narrows down the window of opportunity considerably for Rob.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

that some people would have changed their mind maybe even a little. But you have continued to double down, sometimes rudely, when challenged.

because i'm allowed to have my own opinion. why should I change my opinion because you think I should? That's why I get rude. That's why I call ya'll a creepy fanclub. The problem with your thinking is entitlement. The points you prove for Rob's innocence someone can prove against it.

People are going to be rude if you have 5 people running in here throwing stones and getting upset because they have a different opinion. Now go back and copy and paste all of the rude comments that were said to me and other posters over the years who questioned Rob.


You say I'm rude but conveniently gloss over your rude fanclub. Let's just call a spade a spade, and agree to disagree

Originally Posted by XCalibur

Seriously dude, you are trying to hard here to the point where it almost seems like you got a personal vendetta against the guy. You are going through mental gymnastics to try and prove something and your arguments are just getting silly and easily refutable.

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

ETA: I found an older reddit thread which talks about an article (but I cannot find it anywhere) which says that Angela had used a phone card and that the call placed to Rob's mother's house was logged at 11:23 p.m. and ended at 11:37 p.m. If true, this narrows down the window of opportunity considerably for Rob.

Just something I'm wondering as a total non-expert on phones. How do they actually know when the call ended? Apparently Rob said he just dropped the phone and didn't even hang it up because he was in such a hurry. So did Angela or the abductor hang up the phone on the other end? Or was the call ended because the card ran out of money? Where was her phone/credit card found?

[jOHnNyD]

Interesting point. He did say he dropped the phone and obviously Angela wasn’t in a position to hang it up. At the very least though they know when the call started.

I will say this, if Rob is not being forthcoming, he is a genius. That’s one heck of a coverup story that was executed flawlessly with the right pieces falling into place at the right time.

His demeanor during the interview is not consistent with some of the major tells of liar. Some proven, or strongly suspected, murders who do TV interviews will break a smile in the middle of a story, almost in delight, representing the brain’s contentment with getting away with the lie. Don’t see that once in Rob’s interview. He looks genuinely upset. You would think that would happen at least once while telling a coverup story like that. Not a body language expert, but just one observation I think is relevant.