Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Calliope68

But there were two witnesses that came forward having seen the suspicious truck and man that night. And I thought I read somewhere there were pep0ole who lived in the houses along the chase route that heard and/or saw the chase. I may be wrong on that one but even the UM site indicates one of the reasons the police did not list Rob as a person on interest is the two witnesses who came forward.
Count me as a "Rob didn't do it " fan club member. I just don't see how he had the time to kill her and dispose of her so well in the what 15 mins he had that there is still no trace all these years later.
And yes Freakbook he probably did know the area very well. Probably even knew good hiding places if needed but the time is what i cannot get past.

Rob had well over 15 minutes. In truth, we don't know long he actually had because we don't know the duration of the phone call. They could've spoken for two minutes for all we know. The distance between Rob's mother house and the phone booth was incredibly short.

Originally Posted by Calliope68

But there were two witnesses that came forward having seen the suspicious truck and man that night. And I thought I read somewhere there were pep0ole who lived in the houses along the chase route that heard and/or saw the chase.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

One would think that if these witnesses that also saw the dirty guy in the green pickup truck were lying in an effort to help Rob that they would have also said that they witnessed the chase through the town. They didn't do that though. And if these witnesses saw the truck there earlier that day, that still doesn't mean this guy didn't return later that night. Because if the mistaken identity theory is correct, he could have been driving around Clinton looking for the other Angela and using the phone booth to communicate to accomplices.

No one had claimed to saw the chase. Just two witnesses who said they saw the truck at different times in the day. The chase took part in the town area near businesses, not houses.

Actually, Cars, it's much more believable to just say you saw the truck instead of the chase, because there's less details for you to corroborate. If you claimed to have saw the chase then you have to provide time, place, location, details, etc that might not match up with Rob's story.

However, just because two other witnesses said they saw a pick-up truck with a fish decal on the back don't absolve Rob of being guilty. What if Rob saw the truck earlier in the day as well when he was out, and just used the trucks detail in his lie to throw off the police?

But I'm weary of these two "witnesses". They came forward and said they saw the truck, but neither of them saw the man driving it. I'll remain skeptical of these "witnesses" until the case is solved properly. There could be a huge lie depending on their relationship with Rob

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

But I'm weary of these two "witnesses". They came forward and said they saw the truck, but neither of them saw the man driving it. I'll remain skeptical of these "witnesses" until the case is solved properly. There could be a huge lie depending on their relationship with Rob

They said he was a dirty white male, with a moustache and dark colored baseball hat. If they were lying to help Rob, all they had to do was say that they witnessed Angie being abducted, hearing a scream, seeing the chase, etc.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

They said he was a dirty white male, with a moustache and dark colored baseball hat. If they were lying to help Rob, all they had to do was say that they witnessed Angie being abducted, hearing a scream, seeing the chase, etc.

Nah, it's easier to just give a description versus sawing you saw the crime happen. Especially if you're not sure what exactly happened.

These two witnesses were probably in cahoots with one another which is why their descriptions are exactly the same. They didn't mention anything different about the guy and his truck, they just gave the exact same description, no other identifiers.

And none of the three people who claimed to have saw the truck mentioned anything about a license plate.

I find it suspicious

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

These two witnesses were probably in cahoots with one another which is why their descriptions are exactly the same. They didn't mention anything different about the guy and his truck, they just gave the exact same description, no other identifiers.

Or maybe they were in the vehicle together when they saw the truck?

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Or maybe they were in the vehicle together when they saw the truck?

According to UM Fandom's website:

"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."

So apparently these two different witnesses saw the truck and man at two different times right before Angie was abducted. So they weren't in the vehicle together.

Color me even more skeptical. How were these two able to tell he was "dirty" at nighttime? And didn't Rob say that Angie told him that he spent alot of time driving around in circles? It didn't sound like he waited by the payphones for 15 minutes. Ha. They obviously were in cahoots to get Rob off the hook.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

According to UM Fandom's website:

"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."

So apparently these two different witnesses saw the truck and man at two different times right before Angie was abducted. So they weren't in the vehicle together.

That just means the timeframe in which they saw the guy happened between 11:30 and 11:45, not that one saw him at 11:30 and the other at 11:45. That podcast I talked about earlier specifically mentions two teenagers who turned into the lot because they were going to say hello to who they thought was their friend, but when they saw Angela, they continued on and back out of the lot. If they were that close to her, they would have been able to make out the guy's features.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

That just means the timeframe in which they saw the guy happened between 11:30 and 11:45, not that one saw him at 11:30 and the other at 11:45. That podcast I talked about earlier specifically mentions two teenagers who turned into the lot because they were going to say hello to who they thought was their friend, but when they saw Angela, they continued on and back out of the lot. If they were that close to her, they would have been able to make out the guy's features.

I see. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that they saw the truck at two different times, not at the same time.

If that is the case, and these two "witnesses" claim to have saw the man at the same time, then that confirms my suspicion that they were in cahoots with one another to get Rob off the hook

I'm curious as to how this podcast knows that? Rob, nor Angie's account according to Rob has mentioned another car turning into the lot

[Montanacool360]

Was looking up the Truck the guy used when he abducted her in the UM Segment Stack says the man was driving a late 1960s to Early 1970s two toned green ford pickup truck. So when looking up this truck everyone says it was an F-150 But according to this the guy clearly Either had one of the following

1. A 1967 to 1972 Ford F-Series (fifth generation) Ford F-100 Two Door Boxwood Green Pickup Truck

2. A 1967 to 1972 Ford F-Series (fifth generation) Ford F-100 Four Door Boxwood Green Pickup Truck

3. A 1970 to 1972 Ford F-Series (fifth generation) Ford F-250 Two Door Boxwood Green Camper Special Pickup Truck

He either had this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford...fth_generation)

Or this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford...xth_generation)

I’m starting to think he may have had the Ford Sixth Generation instead i also wonder if the Missouri State Highway Patrol ever looked into people who had leases on these types of trucks at the time or had recently rented them. I also wonder if they ever reached out to the Kansas, Nebraska or Iowa Highway Patrol to see how many individuals owned or leased that type of truck in March and April of 1991.

[Hambone2421]

Originally Posted by 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

I may be grasping at straws here, but if this theory is indeed legitimate, then I'm certain the police have a suspect or person of interest. I wonder if that person of interest was known to have a truck similar to the one described in the segment?

After 30 years, I'm still shocked not a single person ever came forward saying that their neighbor had a decal exactly like that one. Everyone lives next to someone and that decal was so specific.

[amroy]

This is one of the weirdest cases on Unsolved Mysteries. There are really three logical theories.

1.) Rob did it
2.) She was mistaken for the other Angela
3.) She was taken by a sexual deviant/murder

I personally don't think Rob did it but its possible. He had at most 50 minutes to not only kill her, but also to dispose of the body. If he did it he wouldn't have been able to travel far to dispose of the body and considering she hasn't been found he must have buried her. Have you ever dug a hole big enough to fit a body? Digging a hole is hard work. Where is the shovel that he used? Where did the shovel come from?
I agree that polygraphs aren't that useful when they come back failed or inconclusive. However, he passed it. I'm not saying that it means he didn't do it but its one more thing that leads me to believe he may not be guilty.
Witnesses saw a man and a pickup at the location that Angie was abducted from. Is it possible that they lied to protect Rob? Sure its possible but that seems to be a stretch. Why would they do that? That seems to be leading to some sort of criminal conspiracy.
Did his transmission fail on purpose? If he set it up that way, why the transmission? He could have blown a tire on purpose, he could have crashed the car. Crashing the car wouldn't even have to be a major crash, just drive it up the sidewalk and tap a building or in a ditch or a tree. Say you backed up but couldn't find the truck. Much easier scenarios then setting up a failed transmission. Now maybe the transmission failed on accident but that seems like kind of an odd coincidence.
There aren't any inconsistency with his story. His story lines up with what could have really happened.

Why didn't Angela just go to Robs mothers house and why was she where she was? I don't have a good answer for this. I do find this odd. She supposedly went to a friends house and told Rob she would call him in a few hours. My best guess is the friend doesn't live where she was at. That location looks to be a commercial area. So I'm assuming she drove to that phone which makes me wonder why not just drive the seven blocks to Robs mothers house. However, once that man arrived and she was freaked out I would have stayed on the phone too. I would have told my wife to stay on the phone. In my opinion it was the safest thing to do BUT obviously in this case it didn't work which is why this case is one of the scariest cases I've ever seen.

Where's the pickup? Who knows? Just because it hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The color and decal of the truck could have been different than what Angela described. It should be noted that some people not far from Clinton said they saw a similar looking truck a few days prior to the abduction. It almost leads me to believe that the guy may not have been local maybe from a neighboring community or county.

Did he turn on West Calvrid Drive or East Calvrid Drive? I always though he turned left onto East Calvrid which leads to highway 52 however, what I have read more recently is that he turned onto West Calvrid.

[Hot Jock]

Originally Posted by amroy

Rob did it

Here we go again…

[James T]

Originally Posted by amroy

This is one of the weirdest cases on Unsolved Mysteries. There are really three logical theories.

1.) Rob did it
2.) She was mistaken for the other Angela
3.) She was taken by a sexual deviant/murder

I personally don't think Rob did it but its possible. He had at most 50 minutes to not only kill her, but also to dispose of the body. If he did it he wouldn't have been able to travel far to dispose of the body and considering she hasn't been found he must have buried her. Have you ever dug a hole big enough to fit a body? Digging a hole is hard work. Where is the shovel that he used? Where did the shovel come from?
I agree that polygraphs aren't that useful when they come back failed or inconclusive. However, he passed it. I'm not saying that it means he didn't do it but its one more thing that leads me to believe he may not be guilty.
Witnesses saw a man and a pickup at the location that Angie was abducted from. Is it possible that they lied to protect Rob? Sure its possible but that seems to be a stretch. Why would they do that? That seems to be leading to some sort of criminal conspiracy.
Did his transmission fail on purpose? If he set it up that way, why the transmission? He could have blown a tire on purpose, he could have crashed the car. Crashing the car wouldn't even have to be a major crash, just drive it up the sidewalk and tap a building or in a ditch or a tree. Say you backed up but couldn't find the truck. Much easier scenarios then setting up a failed transmission. Now maybe the transmission failed on accident but that seems like kind of an odd coincidence.
There aren't any inconsistency with his story. His story lines up with what could have really happened.

Why didn't Angela just go to Robs mothers house and why was she where she was? I don't have a good answer for this. I do find this odd. She supposedly went to a friends house and told Rob she would call him in a few hours. My best guess is the friend doesn't live where she was at. That location looks to be a commercial area. So I'm assuming she drove to that phone which makes me wonder why not just drive the seven blocks to Robs mothers house. However, once that man arrived and she was freaked out I would have stayed on the phone too. I would have told my wife to stay on the phone. In my opinion it was the safest thing to do BUT obviously in this case it didn't work which is why this case is one of the scariest cases I've ever seen.

Where's the pickup? Who knows? Just because it hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The color and decal of the truck could have been different than what Angela described. It should be noted that some people not far from Clinton said they saw a similar looking truck a few days prior to the abduction. It almost leads me to believe that the guy may not have been local maybe from a neighboring community or county.

Did he turn on West Calvrid Drive or East Calvrid Drive? I always though he turned left onto East Calvrid which leads to highway 52 however, what I have read more recently is that he turned onto West Calvrid.

1. Unlikely-there is too much evidence to say he didn't. The car breaking down like that would be very hard to fake, as would the phone records to his house. Plus there are the two independent witnesses who reported seeing that vehicle crusing around that area just before she was taken

2. I think this is a ridiculous thing, that has as predicted gone nowhere in the 15 months since it was announced. Sounds more like it was to put the frighteners on somebody over the drugs case-what would the point be of abducting her the same day the letter was posted if that is the case? Also they would send a professional, not an obvious amateur. Why add murder to your list of charges. Plus if you kill the daughter then the person is not going to pull out of the case, it will only make their resolves stronger-as they & their family goes into protective custody & you have no leverage then.

3. It is usually the obvious answer-lone woman, out late at night, at a remote location where there are few people around & a sexual predator out looking for a victim took advantage of her. The only odd thing in the case is him attacking her while she was on the phone-but he likely thought she was talking to somebody who would be a long way away, not a few blocks & probably got impatient waiting for her to get off the phone.

Whether it was one of Rush or Cheney, McDuff or somebody else it was a sexual motive. You would assume any DNA found on the phone or via a dropped cigarette would have been traced by now-which would rule out the above, so probably was just some random who either was arrested before DNA was taken or has never been caught for any crimes he committed.

[amroy]

Originally Posted by James T

1. Unlikely-there is too much evidence to say he didn't. The car breaking down like that would be very hard to fake, as would the phone records to his house. Plus there are the two independent witnesses who reported seeing that vehicle crusing around that area just before she was taken

2. I think this is a ridiculous thing, that has as predicted gone nowhere in the 15 months since it was announced. Sounds more like it was to put the frighteners on somebody over the drugs case-what would the point be of abducting her the same day the letter was posted if that is the case? Also they would send a professional, not an obvious amateur. Why add murder to your list of charges. Plus if you kill the daughter then the person is not going to pull out of the case, it will only make their resolves stronger-as they & their family goes into protective custody & you have no leverage then.

3. It is usually the obvious answer-lone woman, out late at night, at a remote location where there are few people around & a sexual predator out looking for a victim took advantage of her. The only odd thing in the case is him attacking her while she was on the phone-but he likely thought she was talking to somebody who would be a long way away, not a few blocks & probably got impatient waiting for her to get off the phone.

Whether it was one of Rush or Cheney, McDuff or somebody else it was a sexual motive. You would assume any DNA found on the phone or via a dropped cigarette would have been traced by now-which would rule out the above, so probably was just some random who either was arrested before DNA was taken or has never been caught for any crimes he committed.

1. I agree its really unlikely he did it but it is possible. If it was him he is either really lucky or a genius.

2. To be honest I don't know much about the drug connection. I haven't read much about it I only learned about it a few days ago. I think the idea that the person has to be a professional isn't really accurate. In the area I live (Kansas - rural area) its not uncommon for meth heads to kill people or threaten people. They aren't professionals just a bunch of druggies that frankly have little to lose. Otherwise I agree with you. Why send the letter and then immediately kill the daughter? Plus like you said if they killed the daughter they would just go into protective custody and be more likely to testify.

3.) This is personally what I think happened. Lone woman, easy to abduct. I agree that he was waiting for her to get off the phone and then became inpatient. He likely had been driving around looking for a target and then saw her. It explains why he drove in circles around her. Looking to see if anyone else was around and to see what she was doing. My next question would be was he local? It seems like if he had been local he would have been found.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by amroy

If it was him he is either really lucky or a genius.

Not really. He didn't have to be neither. He grew up in an extremely rural area that was surrounded by deep woods and a lake and it was late at night. I'm sure he knew areas where to hide the body, or atleast temporarily hide it until he had to move it again

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by James T

1. Unlikely-there is too much evidence to say he didn't. The car breaking down like that would be very hard to fake, as would the phone records to his house.

The theory that Rob did it does not necessarily assume he faked those things.