Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[Montanacool360]

I’ve always thought she might have been taken across the state line to Kansas or even Nebraska or Iowa but that’s a much further drive. Also from websleuths on Angie’s thread there was a user that posted in 2010 that Angela Hammond was not the intended target and that the guy was after her cousin Aka the other Angie who was at the time working the night shift at a gas station in or near Clinton but thinks he made a mistake and thought that the other Angie had the night off and was on the pay phone not realizing it was the wrong Angela.

I’m not sure on the mistaken identity theory but i do wonder if Clinton police actually did look up every owner in Missouri of a late 1960s to early 1970s Ford truck back then and i wonder if they also looked at any Chevy truck owners in Missouri just in case Rob got it wrong.

I’ve always thought two theories on this

1. Guy abducts Angela and takes her to rural area either near lake of the ozarks or Warsaw he forces her out of the car rapes her and then either shoot her or stabs her to death and buried her on private farmland somewhere and then he dismantled the truck or ripped the decal off then painted the truck.

2. He abducts Angie takes her to a rural area either in Missouri or Kansas near private farmland kills her by strangulation or stabbing her while she is in the truck then buried the truck with her inside it on farmland somewhere and that is why no one saw the truck again.

The guy could’ve been wearing a disguise but since what he was wearing and driving adds to the fact that he could’ve been a farmer or rancher who owned land somewhere in Missouri or Kansas

That’s just my theory though. I have my doubts about it being due to a drug bust but it also wouldn’t surprise me at this point either.

[James T]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

The letter specifically said they were going after the daughter. "We know where your foxy daughter is at she will see us soon." The informant's daughter lived in Clinton at the time.



If they have a generic description of the daughter, then I don't think it's quite farfetched. Even if they had a picture of the daughter, her and Angela could have looked very similar. It's what the police allude to in their interviews.



They release her, she goes to the cops, they get busted...which is what they were seemingly trying to avoid by threatening the informant. Maybe the plan had nothing to do with killing the daughter but only to scare off the informant. When they realized it was the wrong woman, they had to kill her.



If the informant went ahead and helped dismantle a large drug ring it would be because the perpetrators were jailed.



I don't disagree that, IMO, the desperate sex predator theory sounds more likely on the surface. I'd love to know what this recent information is about. Apparently whoever this person of interest was investigated early on but ruled out because they couldn't be connected to a green pickup. I find that interesting.

People who want to do that stuff will just do it-they don't send warning letters, that is the preserve of those who want to instill fear to stop somebody from doing something-such as talking to the cops or testifying. Also the person who abducted AH clearly had no idea where this other Angela was-as stated in the letter.

But is that reality? I have lost count of the number of times on crime shows there is some supposed startling resemblance between victims or a suspect/photo-fit & the actual perpetrator & they look nothing alike when they do a screen comparison. Not sure what the issue is 30 years later that we have no details on this person, she clearly is not in danger.

So you have basically abducted somebody for nothing & decide to kill them instead of just releasing them somewhere-pretty far fetched, but even if so that still leaves the problem of the target being out there-yet having already killed one person you then don't at any point kill the original target? Not buying it.

Of course the most realistic thing this person or persons would do would be to kill the dobber themselves, to stop them talking-but again if they had already testified then that would really be a waste of time at that point-it would just mean they would get even longer sentences if they ordered a hit from the inside.

[James T]

Originally Posted by bell83

Just look at the Jesse James Hollywood case. They decided they needed to murder the kid, rather than release him, because he got told anyone involved with the kidnapping would get a life sentence. It's really not much of a stretch to understand why they killed her (if this scenario is correct), because you KNOW that she's going to the police after you release her. In addition, if they brought her across state lines (which weren't far away) to hold her, those are federal kidnapping charges with a mandatory life sentence if convicted. So a potential scenario is the guy grabs her, drives into Kansas to the place they're going to hold her. When the guy gets there, they realize they have the wrong girl. So they face life in prison, or they kill her and dispose of the body in such a way that three decades later, we still have no idea what happened.

I'm hoping that whatever apparent DNA evidence they said they had actually pans out, though I'm not sure how they'd have gotten DNA evidence that they are certain is attached to this case. The only crime scene they have is the phone booth, and I don't see how they can guarantee anything there. Like, cigarette butts, for example. It's a bank of phone booths, in a small town, in the early 90s. There's going to be dozens of cigarette butts there. I guess maybe it's possible she fought back enough to maybe make the guy bleed, and there was fresh blood at the scene, so they were able to collect that? I hope so. And I hope the ***hole isn't already dead. I wonder if they've put it into Parabon or whoever.

JJH was a drugged up punk idiot street thug who didn't plan anything-he acted on knee jerk emotion/stupidity. Clearly whoever wrote that letter had either blagged their way into a job, or had somebody in that role where they had access to classified information & then carefully crafted a letter to scare the daylights out of the recipient.

I have no idea if that was the case back in 1991, or is a more recent law-we have nothing like that in the UK. Even if it was it appears the vehicle had false/covered plates & that they never found a vehicle with the distinctive decal on indicates that was something designed to throw the cops off of witness sightings. Again I point out that despite being fine with killing a pregnant woman who was nothing to do with the guy they sent the letter to, these cold blooded killers desperate to get revenge or stop him blabbing/testifying then never bothered with the guy or his daughter-doesn't make any sense.

Sounds more like the Tara Calico cops bs/desperate ploy from a decade or so back to trigger a response-like digging up a body for a cold case that has nothing going for it by saying they were closing in on the killers. If they had DNA evidence in this case since 2009 & they still suspect Rush & Chaney as being the prime suspects claimed online then why haven't they got a match or eliminated them? As you say where did this DNA come from? They don't have her body to extract DNA from. The payphones would have had thousands of people's mixed DNA all over them. I don't remember AH talking about this person smoking so there would be a butt for evidence & even if there were-how many butts would there likely be in an area like that anyway? Probably hundreds-would they have collected every one of them in 1991 when DNA was still quite early? Unlikely.

If they do have DNA then clearly the person has never committed another crime, or never had their DNA taken for crimes & has either been released & kept their nose clean since then, or passed away. Their only shot really then would be if a relative of this person has sent their DNA off to a Genealogy database, which with all the solved homicides/sex assaults that have been solved in that manner in the last several years seems strange if they haven't gone down that route yet.

[bell83]

Originally Posted by James T

JJH was a drugged up punk idiot street thug who didn't plan anything-he acted on knee jerk emotion/stupidity.

While I don't disagree with your assessment of him, he got told by his lawyer that anyone involved with the kidnapping was looking at a potential life sentence, because they were holding him for ransom (that isn't from JJH, either, his lawyer testified to that in his own trial in 2009). That's why they killed Markowitz. It wasn't just him flying off the handle and deciding to kill him.

And as I said, if someone kidnaps someone in one state and takes them to another (the state line was about a 20 minute drive from the site), that becomes a federal case with a mandatory life sentence. Not saying that's definitely what happened, just that it's a possibility.

[James T]

Originally Posted by bell83

While I don't disagree with your assessment of him, he got told by his lawyer that anyone involved with the kidnapping was looking at a potential life sentence, because they were holding him for ransom (that isn't from JJH, either, his lawyer testified to that in his own trial in 2009). That's why they killed Markowitz. It wasn't just him flying off the handle and deciding to kill him.

And as I said, if someone kidnaps someone in one state and takes them to another (the state line was about a 20 minute drive from the site), that becomes a federal case with a mandatory life sentence. Not saying that's definitely what happened, just that it's a possibility.

What happened to his lawyer? Strong ethics that he didn't call the cops/do anything for the kid. I meant more as in taking him in the first place-it was a totally irrational move & ended up costing him everything, whoever sent this note took the time to cut letters out of magazines & paste it together-presumably without leaving any DNA on it as well. Just pointing out the two different personalities/approaches involved. Though honestly I think JJH really intended to kill that kid from day one.

[bell83]

Originally Posted by James T

What happened to his lawyer? Strong ethics that he didn't call the cops/do anything for the kid. I meant more as in taking him in the first place-it was a totally irrational move & ended up costing him everything, whoever sent this note took the time to cut letters out of magazines & paste it together-presumably without leaving any DNA on it as well. Just pointing out the two different personalities/approaches involved. Though honestly I think JJH really intended to kill that kid from day one.

For some reason, my response isn't showing up, so I'll try again.

I didn't see a lot on his trial, beyond one archived article from a local newspaper from like 2008 or something. That article had the prosecution claiming the lawyer had actually told JJH to kill the kid, where his testimony was that he had told him they were looking at life and that he advised him to release the kid and turn himself in. I couldn't find anything on what the charges were or what the verdict was, but there was a website that said his status on the California bar has been inactive for like ten or twelve years, so...

I think the cut and paste letter not having DNA is just luck, honestly. Realistically, short of having hair or spit on the letter, the only other form of DNA you're likely to get would be touch DNA, and even that's pretty inconsistent, from what I understand. The more likely thing to find (imo) would be fingerprints, and just taking two seconds to put on a pair of rubber gloves solves that. In addition (regarding DNA), look at the timeframe. The first conviction using DNA in the US was only two and a half years prior. DNA science wasn't exactly something that the average American (criminal or otherwise) knew much about. I'd be very surprised if anyone had the foresight to actively attempt to keep from leaving DNA on evidence in early 1990.

[dynoguy88]

Originally Posted by James T

What happened to his lawyer? Strong ethics that he didn't call the cops/do anything for the kid. I meant more as in taking him in the first place-it was a totally irrational move & ended up costing him everything, whoever sent this note took the time to cut letters out of magazines & paste it together-presumably without leaving any DNA on it as well. Just pointing out the two different personalities/approaches involved. Though honestly I think JJH really intended to kill that kid from day one.

If JJH intended to kill Markowitz from day one, he wouldn't have let him roam free around his property for multiple days. Remember, Markowitz had several opportunities to leave and chose not to. JJH was really more of a thug wannabe who clearly didn't think through what he did.

I'm pretty sure he got his lawyer through his father who was also shady and rich. the kidnapping of Nick Markowitz was only one of many things he hid for that family. It wouldn't surprise me.

[bell83]

Originally Posted by dynoguy88

If JJH intended to kill Markowitz from day one, he wouldn't have let him roam free around his property for multiple days. Remember, Markowitz had several opportunities to leave and chose not to. JJH was really more of a thug wannabe who clearly didn't think through what he did.

I'm pretty sure he got his lawyer through his father who was also shady and rich. the kidnapping of Nick Markowitz was only one of many things he hid for that family. It wouldn't surprise me.

Correct on both counts. And not just letting him roam free, but having parties and letting all kinds of people who weren't involved in the kidnapping see him there.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by James T

People who want to do that stuff will just do it-they don't send warning letters, that is the preserve of those who want to instill fear to stop somebody from doing something-such as talking to the cops or testifying. Also the person who abducted AH clearly had no idea where this other Angela was-as stated in the letter.

The letter said they knew where the "foxy daughter" was and then named the informants ex-wife in the letter and wanted to send sympathies for her "further loss", implying that the informant was also going to be a target.

Originally Posted by James T

But is that reality? I have lost count of the number of times on crime shows there is some supposed startling resemblance between victims or a suspect/photo-fit & the actual perpetrator & they look nothing alike when they do a screen comparison. Not sure what the issue is 30 years later that we have no details on this person, she clearly is not in danger.

Despite law enforcement's repeated attempts to downplay the angle, I 1000% believe that the Mary Morris murders were a case of mistaken identity. So yes, it can and has happened before.

Originally Posted by James T

So you have basically abducted somebody for nothing & decide to kill them instead of just releasing them somewhere-pretty far fetched, but even if so that still leaves the problem of the target being out there-yet having already killed one person you then don't at any point kill the original target? Not buying it.

Releasing them leads the cops back to their operation...which is what they were trying to protect in clearly threatening the informant.

Originally Posted by James T

Of course the most realistic thing this person or persons would do would be to kill the dobber themselves, to stop them talking-but again if they had already testified then that would really be a waste of time at that point-it would just mean they would get even longer sentences if they ordered a hit from the inside.

Maybe the motive was simply retaliation for testifying against them?

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by jOHnNyD

2) Rob would have had to also succeed in destroying the transmission in his car at the right time and in the right location when the abductors truck drove by.

Absolutely not interested in once again discussing the theory that Rob did it, but why do people always assume he destroyed it on purpose? I think it was theorized years ago in this thread that it could've happened by accident after having dumped her body, after which Rob was forced to make up the story of him following the abductor. I don't think this is a reason to dismiss the Rob did it theory.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Stratego

Absolutely not interested in once again discussing the theory that Rob did it, but why do people always assume he destroyed it on purpose? I think it was theorized years ago in this thread that it could've happened by accident after having dumped her body, after which Rob was forced to make up the story of him following the abductor. I don't think this is a reason to dismiss the Rob did it theory.

Rob was babysitting his brother at the time, which is an undisputed fact. Angela placed a phone call to Rob's residence at 11:15 p.m. on the night of her abduction. This too, is an undisputed fact. Rob arrived at the police station "just shy over midnight" to report what had happened. That gives him 45-50 minutes to murder her, dump her body, and invent the story. And luckily for Rob, his transmission just so happened to have failed driving away from town. Had his truck been found returning into town, you would have a point.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

OMG, y'all.

I love the lively banter, but Rob didn't do it.

[bell83]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

OMG, y'all.

I love the lively banter, but Rob didn't do it.

Ok, but have you considered for a moment...that Rob did it?

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Originally Posted by bell83

Ok, but have you considered for a moment...that Rob did it?

Yes, I have.

He didn't do it.

[Stratego]

And the Rob fangirl club is at it again!

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

And luckily for Rob, his transmission just so happened to have failed driving away from town. Had his truck been found returning into town, you would have a point.

Why only then? Because you assume it must've broken down on his way home? I don't know what this town looks like or where everything is situated, so it's difficult to speculate what he could or could not have been doing. But perhaps his car did break down as the result of a sudden reverse he made because he wanted to go back to the burial site or something. So I stand by my point that it's not a reason to dismiss the Rob did it theory.