Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Stratego

@TheCars1986

Your tactic to challenge the 'Rob did it' theory is to propose preposterous alternative theories instead of refuting the actual points? Are you trying to prove freakbook's allegation that the pro-Rob crow is antagonistic?

How am I supposed to refute someone who says "I don't believe Rob's story"? Because that is literally all there is, until you delve into rank speculation. I thought that's what we were doing?

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Rob is the only witness to his girlfiend's supposed abduction. Him being responsible is far more likely than any of the possibilities you just bought up.

How is that "far more likely" exactly?

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

There are no "points against Rob". You either believe his story, which is backed up by physical evidence and witnesses, or you don't. It's pretty simple.



Witnesses, too. Rob sure was lucky that two other people saw this same truck circling the parking lot where Angela's car was found abandoned (who then went on to tell the police the same thing...which is odd, since he would have still been at home and would have had no knowledge of the truck circling the lot if he was the one responsible for Angela's disappearance).



I'm happy for you.



Because, unlike many of the other murdered or missing spouses cases, there is nothing that has come out before, during, or since the UM broadcast that has implicated Rob other than that people think his story is too implausible to be real.

You're starting to bore me. You're only replying back at this point to get the last word in, but you're not saying anything.

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

How am I supposed to refute someone who says "I don't believe Rob's story"? Because that is literally all there is, until you delve into rank speculation. I thought that's what we were doing?

I don't think I actually said that. But even if I had said that, why would making up silly theories lend more credence to your theory that Rob is innocent?

Choosing to believe Rob's story is also speculation as the proof that exists does not prove his claim that there was a stranger bothering Angela when she was talking to him or that he chased a truck with the abductor and Angela in it.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

How is that "far more likely" exactly?

I'm sorry, are you really trying to argue the possibility that Angela had Stockholm Syndrome? Or plastic surgery after running off? Or that she pretended to talk to somebody who wasn't there on the phone? Or that Rob went for a midnight snack after killing Angela?

[freakbook]

delete

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

Why would Angela have to use a phone or a credit card to use the phone? This was the 1980's... change was how most pay phones operated at that time.

....and are we completely dismissing the new information released a month ago about Angela possibly being killed by mistake in a drug retaliation hit?

There were reports that she used a phone card. It's not a credit card, but like a pre-paid card for the payphone.

And i'm going to dismiss it until more concrete proof comes out. Rob said she was on the payphone at night talking to him on the phone. So was this drug dealer circling around at night and got lucky seeing her at the payphone?

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Stratego

I don't think I actually said that. But even if I had said that, why would making up silly theories lend more credence to your theory that Rob is innocent?

Rob's involvement and the mechanics of the crime is a silly theory at this point. That was the point.

Originally Posted by Stratego

Choosing to believe Rob's story is also speculation as the proof that exists does not prove his claim that there was a stranger bothering Angela when she was talking to him or that he chased a truck with the abductor and Angela in it.

Are you really arguing that because no one actually witnessed her being abducted or saw her talking to this stranger that that is somehow a knock against Rob's story?

He told the police that Angela described the man who kept circling around the booth and the vehicle he drove. One week after her disappearance, two different witnesses described the same looking man and the same truck circling the booth at the same time that Angela was there. Think about this logically for a second, how would Rob have known what truck to describe and what the guy looked like, if he was at home? And, assuming that he saw the truck and the guy while arguing with Angela, how would he have known that there were other witnesses to back the existence of this guy up?

Originally Posted by Stratego

I'm sorry, are you really trying to argue the possibility that Angela had Stockholm Syndrome? Or plastic surgery after running off? Or that she pretended to talk to somebody who wasn't there on the phone? Or that Rob went for a midnight snack after killing Angela?

No, I am saying that you can literally throw out anything as "possible", regardless of how ridiculous it might sound.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

You're starting to bore me. You're only replying back at this point to get the last word in, but you're not saying anything.

I'm replying back because that's usually what you do on a discussion board.

And I am not trying to change your mind. But would you at least concede that the only evidence/point/whatever against Rob is the fact that his story sounds unbelievable? Will you at least concede that point?

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I'm replying back because that's usually what you do on a discussion board.

Haha fair enough. I'm being hypocritical here.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

And I am not trying to change your mind. But would you at least concede that the only evidence/point/whatever against Rob is the fact that his story sounds unbelievable? Will you at least concede that point?

Well yes and no. I'll concede that's my main reasoning, but I also wonder about a possible motive.

I do think that they got into an argument that night on the phone, and I'm not sure what it was about, but I do wonder if there was building tension and they had been arguing previously. Another reason why I suspect Rob is because I think he possibly had a motive. I've read that it was a possibility that the child belonged to Angela's ex. I do wonder if he was jealous of the fact, or he thought the child was his and wasn't ready to be a father at such a young age.

I've wondered if Angela's ex/possible child was a point of argument between the two.

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Are you really arguing that because no one actually witnessed her being abducted or saw her talking to this stranger that that is somehow a knock against Rob's story?

No, like I said, I'm arguing that everything except what can be confirmed is speculation, including Rob's account of a stranger abducting Angela.

I have no idea how those witnesses came forward. If police stated they were looking for a truck like that in the area around that time, I do not find those accounts exactly definitive proof. Also interesting they didn't notice Angela or the kidnapping.

You also mentioned the witness who saw a woman fitting Angela's description getting into a similar truck in Manitoba. You really find that witness account credible? Didn't you just suggest the Stockholm Syndrome theory is ridiculous?

That said, maybe this truck truly exists and Rob thought he was being smart by describing a real vehicle he hadn't seen before. But as I said earlier, witness accounts help to identify a suspect, they don't clear another.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

No, I am saying that you can literally throw out anything as "possible", regardless of how ridiculous it might sound.

And some "possible" theories are more likely than others. Rob being the killer is the most likely of all alternative theories. I would say just as likely as the main theory, since there is no concrete evidence of Rob's account that a stranger was bothering Angela when she was talking to him or that he chased a truck with the abductor and Angela in it. With all the wild speculation that goes on around here, I 'm astonished that Rob being the killer isn't seriously discussed here.

[bell83]

[jOHnNyD]

Anyone near Clinton, Missouri who could get the police reports? I would chip in to get copies. The witness interviews would be revealing and maybe Rob gave a written statement.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Stratego

I have no idea how those witnesses came forward. If police stated they were looking for a truck like that in the area around that time, I do not find those accounts exactly definitive proof. Also interesting they didn't notice Angela or the kidnapping.

I definitely think those witness descriptions were phony. Probably two people who knew Rob who didn't want him found guilty. Taken from Unsolved Fandom

"Two witnesses later came forward, seeing a truck and suspicious person around the pay phones between 11:30 and 11:45pm, shortly before Angela's disappearance."

She called Rob at 11:15. Those times that they saw the truck are suspicious to me

Originally Posted by bell83

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by freakbook

"Two witnesses later came forward, seeing a truck and suspicious person around the pay phones between 11:30 and 11:45pm, shortly before Angela's disappearance."

She called Rob at 11:15. Those times that they saw the truck are suspicious to me

Yeah, according to Rob the circling on the parking lot happened earlier in the conversation and some time passed while the guy parked, got out to use the phone, went back to fidget with his flashlight and then went up to Angela. They saw all that, minus the abduction, between 11.30 and 11:45? This seems especially weird if she was abducted at 11:37.

Another thing is that at first glance, the witnesses seem to give the exact same descriptions as Rob and Angela gave, without any additional details. I find it strange that 4 separate witnesses would notice the exact same things about this suspect and his truck. I'd really love to read the witness statements.

[Montanacool360]

Id gladly chip in but I’m not near Clinton

[lashlarue]

A ransom letter written on the day of Angela Hammond's abduction may point to a case of mistaken identity. It suggests the abductor may have thought he was abducting the daughter of a police informant, also named Angela, who was living in the same community at the time.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-identity.html