Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[Blackout]

Originally Posted by Oldschooler81

Yeah, the segment also mentioned the police cleared Rob within a week. I do wonder though, if maybe they initially focused on him and as a result, the abductor was allowed to get away. I've heard the first 1-2 days are the most critical time in a kidnapping as far as them living or not, and that the victims are usually killed very close to home or taken way out of the area (both of these things were true in the Adam Walsh case, and according to John Walsh's book, some of the local police were really incompetent and just unequepped to know how to handle a situation like that as late as 1981).

Even though it wasn't mentioned, I'm sure they got fingerprints from the payphone as well as interviewed Angie's friend, as well as Rob's younger brother to back up the story.

That's a good point actually. For argument's sake if Rob was guilty, he definitely would've needed accomplices and they all must've been criminal masterminds or something. Plus, what motive could he have possibly had? The segment doesn't mention her being pregnant (but this thread does) but I could see him being the kind of guy who was thrilled to become a father, even if he was really young (18 in '91). You can clearly tell how upset he was about being so close but not quite being able to save her too.

finger prints off a payphone?

do u realize how many people have fingerprints on that phone? lol

[slasherman]

Was Angela Hammond seen after the party by anyone else than Rob?

[Cursiorandcursior]

Originally Posted by mwcarolina

However, I'm not clear how a polygraph clears anyone of a crime.

yeah, i don't really think a polygraph determines guilt or innocence. to me it's motive and opportunity and the time line doesn't fit. For Rob to have done this he would've needed hours. When i say he needs hours, it's not to do the crime, it's to clean up the scene, hide/bury the body, and other things. Plus like this guy said, i think the motive isn't that great anyway.

Let me say this upfront. I don't claim to be an expert on this case as I really even didn't look at it until the past week although I had known about it for two decades. (I lived in Springfield) Let me pose a few questions and some comments.

1) Do we have a provable time line? When was Angela actually seen by another human being? What time was it? Ditto for her boyfriend. If it can be established he didn't have the opportunity he could be ruled out unless a contractor was called in which would provide an alibi. Judging from the description of the abductor I find that unlikely.

2) Do we have motive? Paying child support or not wanting to pay it might be a motive. A jealous girlfriend might push someone to put the "problem" behind them. As Joseph Stalin would say "no body; no problem." Her body has never been found.

3) I'm reasonably certain that the Hammond, Kenney and Darby cases were all sorta combined to form the idea of a mad serial murderer roaming the countryside. There is one significant difference, however. Hammond disappeared AFTER Kenney and Darby. If someone wanted to create a scenario where people would want to blame this on some mysterious mad man roaming the countryside this would be a plausible scenario. Concoct such a person and vehicle which somehow could never be identified. It's very easy to ramp up enthusiasm for that as people are always caught up in serial murderers and their crimes. One would think that they are everywhere but the reality is that it has been estimated that only about 50 of them are on the street at the same time in the entire nation.

4) At the very end of the TV segment discussing this case a categorical statement is made that the Hammond case was NOT connected to two other murders in the area. The only way I know that could be done is if the perps were known and/or DNA established this fact. We know who did the Darby case. That's one. I'm guessing the second would be Kenney. I wouldn't doubt that the murderers of Darby also abducted Kenney. I do not believe they are likely to have abducted Angela Hammond.

5) Roughly 85% of all murders are committed by relatives and friends and the rest are mostly committed by someone who was with them last. There are of course exceptions but before I would look far afield I would want to totally eliminate the most likely perpetrators. And lastly, I do not believe that polygraphs are reliable; nor for that matter eyewitness testimony. Polygraphs are not admissible in court and if it were up to me eyewitness testimony would not be either. It is simply too unreliable.

Finally, if a plan was hatched to eliminate her for whatever reason, the time necessary to carry out the crime was more than adequate even if it was only 45 minutes. Her body could have been secreted away and later buried. And if her body had been found, I believe this crime would have been solved many years ago. Many successful murders are carried out for this one factor alone. Without a body it is both hard to solve and also hard to convict someone on purely circumstantial evidence.

[Drakken]

There is a problem with this theory, however:

A) There are witnesses to Angela's presence to the party, to Rob being at home, to the truck, and to the pursuit itself.

B) By now, Rob's little brother would have talked to someone if Rob had ever left anywhere before he did to attempt to rescue Angela. He was the main reason why Rob was cleared in the first place. He was old enough to remember, and the police certainly questioned him in front of his parents to know what he had seen. Now he is certainly old enough now not to fear Rob if he had threatened him to remain silent. Yet, as of now he never contradicted Rob's story, and I am sure the police has visited him when growing up to see if he could bring in something new in the case.

C) It's not because 85% of murders are committed by a relative that this murder is necessarily committed by a relative. Correlation isn't causation. So we cannot infer his innocence or guilt on a statistical trend, it has no impact on Rob's decisions.

[Cursiorandcursior]

Originally Posted by Drakken

There is a problem with this theory, however:

A) There are witnesses to Angela's presence to the party, to Rob being at home, to the truck, and to the pursuit itself.

B) By now, Rob's little brother would have talked to someone if Rob had ever left anywhere before he did to attempt to rescue Angela. He was the main reason why Rob was cleared in the first place. He was old enough to remember, and the police certainly questioned him in front of his parents to know what he had seen. Now he is certainly old enough now not to fear Rob if he had threatened him to remain silent. Yet, as of now he never contradicted Rob's story, and I am sure the police has visited him when growing up to see if he could bring in something new in the case.

C) It's not because 85% of murders are committed by a relative that this murder is necessarily committed by a relative. Correlation isn't causation. So we cannot infer his innocence or guilt on a statistical trend, it has no impact on Rob's decisions.

Well certainly I would never want to convict someone on the basis of statistical probability. I would, however, add that there are always three components to every crime. They are means, the motive and opportunity. Who best fits this criteria?

You say there are witnesses who actually saw Rob in hot pursuit of the alleged pick-up truck? I was unaware of that. What I had thought I read was that two people claimed to have seen such a pick-up truck in the area.

I would just go back to the time line and work from there.

But the fairly recent TV update on this crime clearly stated that "two murders" in the area were NOT linked to the Hammond case. In my mind that considerably cuts the playing field down in suspects. How could the police make this categorical statement using DNA? It must point to someone who was also eliminated as a suspect in the other two abductions committed prior to the Hammond abduction. It couldn't have been the Darby killers and it couldn't have been McDuff as all three would have had their DNA on file. But it must point to someone if the police state these other two cases are unrelated. So far as I know there is little to no forensic evidence in the Kenney abduction. If these other two abductions are ruled out, what murders are they talking about? If the DNA in this case rules someone in, the police must believe the killer didn't have the opportunity to have been involved in the Darby murder and Kenney abduction.

[Drakken]

Originally Posted by Cursiorandcursior

Well certainly I would never want to convict someone on the basis of statistical probability. I would, however, add that there are always three components to every crime. They are means, the motive and opportunity. Who best fits this criteria?

To quote Cicero, cui bono?

Who benefits from Angela's disappearance? Certainly not Rob Schafer, from everything we know he still has trouble coping with with.

Yeah, in front of a jury and told by a prosecutor hell-bent to have Rob sent to death row at any cost, it can be construed Rob would have the means, the motive, and opportunity. But not really: Rob didn't have the motive (no known history of marital issues known at all; on the contrary he was engaged to her and she was pregnant of his child, which if caught would have sent him to death row), nor the opportunity (he was with home, with his brother, and Angela was at her BBQ).

Plenty of people have motives, means, and opportunities to get rid of people or commit crime, yet remain innocent. Larry Race is a good example, he had cheated on his wife several times and the prosecutor did use the same language of "motive, means and opportunity" to have him thrown in jail, accusing him of wanting to get rid of his wife, even if he was in fact innocent.

It's all circumstancial rhetoric without evidence, and there is none, zero, nada evidence linking Rob to Angela's disappearance. No blood, no fiber, no witness, no discrepancy. Not even a iota of evidence.

[Cursiorandcursior]

Originally Posted by Drakken

To quote Cicero, cui bono?

Who benefits from Angela's disappearance? Certainly not Rob Schafer, from everything we know he still has trouble coping with with.

Yeah, in front of a jury and told by a prosecutor hell-bent to have Rob sent to death row at any cost, it can be construed Rob would have the means, the motive, and opportunity. But not really: Rob didn't have the motive (no known history of marital issues known at all; on the contrary he was engaged to her and she was pregnant of his child, which if caught would have sent him to death row), nor the opportunity (he was with home, with his brother, and Angela was at her BBQ).

Plenty of people have motives, means, and opportunities to get rid of people or commit crime, yet remain innocent. Larry Race is a good example, he had cheated on his wife several times and the prosecutor did use the same language of "motive, means and opportunity" to have him thrown in jail, accusing him of wanting to get rid of his wife, even if he was in fact innocent.

It's all circumstantial rhetoric without evidence, and there is none, zero, nada evidence linking Rob to Angela's disappearance. No blood, no fiber, no witness, no discrepancy. Not even a iota of evidence.

Last thing first. What blood, fiber or witness would there be to find? His vehicle obviously would have her hair fibers and other evidence of her being in the vehicle as they went together. She could have cut a finger and dropped blood onto the upholstery. And if she was murdered it didn't necessarily have to be done inside the vehicle. Both of their residences would show traces of the other.

I'm not familiar with the other case and in general; in fact virtually all the time, I am opposed to circumstantial evidence although in some instances that is the only case to be made. As for example the woman in Reno who had gambling habit and left the premises (all caught on camera) walking out to the parking lot near but not locked together by her killer. His car was seen leaving without her just three minutes and 45 seconds later. He was a wealthy person with an established reputation but a secret past. He denies being her killer but he was sent away for life based solely on circumstantial evidence. Was he guilty? You betha!

We cannot know his frame of mind not having access to it. A person can look the picture of innocence and yet be guilty as sin.

I AM NOT saying he did it. What I am saying is that we have the report that virtually eliminates everyone else and implies some unnamed person otherwise they could not say the DNA evidence ruled out the other two murders. If they have DNA evidence on an unnamed suspect they should be hauling him in and getting to the bottom of why this DNA evidence has now come to light and why it is not being acted on. Or were they just blowing smoke when they said these other murders unrelated. We don't know.

People kill for all kinds of reasons. I'm looking at a case of an 84 year old woman who was murdered and thrown into a nearby river weighted down by concrete cinder blocks after being beaten nearly to death with a baseball bat. Her body was actually paraded around by the perpetrators as though she was some kind of trophy to show off.

http://palestineherald.com/breakingn...mpson-executed

Child support is not something to sneeze at. We cannot know how solid their relationship was. One hears different versions. Even today, we hear of the on again and off again relationship of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston. If they don't get married he will have to cough up several hundred dollars a month until the child reaches age 21 and will have to pay for the maternal costs up to the point the child support kicks in.

As I said, there is a possible motive, the means and the opportunity. Eliminate the other suspects and it dwindles down to the precious few.

Personally, I hope he is not the perpetrator. Don't know anything about him; never met him. He might be, for all we know, the salt of the earth. But for certain, this crime needs to be solved.

[SageSlowdive]

I understand what you're saying about a criminal proven innocent (I always refer to the Eileen Mangold case, where her murderer was caught, proven guilty by DNA and still the morons in Florida decided he was innocent.)

BUT, like it has been stated above, Rob still has problems coping with the grief over Angela, but then again, who wouldn't.

I'm not sure how the police are so quick to thinking the Hammond case has nothing to do with the Kenny case. We all know Trudy Darby was murdered by two people, but still, how are they so quick to say the other two aren't connected?

My suspicion is she was abducted by a serial killer and/or kidnapper, not anyone local or anyone related or close to her (i.e. Rob)

[XCalibur]

I mentioned earlier about a serial killer imprisoned in North Carolina who I hadn't seen mentioned here, Larry Hall. I think he is an intriguing possibility of someone who may have killed Angela. He definitely was active at the time of her dissapearance, I found a better article.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10181856/

What do you all think about this guy? He may be a stronger possibility than Kenneth McDuff.

[mwcarolina]

Was Angela Hammond seen after the party by anyone else than Rob?
people, re-watch the segment. IF you listen, closely, she said she was going to her friend's house (hard to hear the name) and she would call him later. I am sure the police questioned the friend and found out the timeline. I think the motive and the timeline pretty much rules him out, not to mention, the lack of evidence also makes the killer either experienced or a guy who knows other towns and wooded areas. That's why i agree that the killer isn't a local.

[Cursiorandcursior]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

I mentioned earlier about a serial killer imprisoned in North Carolina who I hadn't seen mentioned here, Larry Hall. I think he is an intriguing possibility of someone who may have killed Angela. He definitely was active at the time of her dissapearance, I found a better article.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10181856/

What do you all think about this guy? He may be a stronger possibility than Kenneth McDuff.

Was he in the area at the time? He has to have the opportunity to have committed the crime. Some have ruled out McDuff solely because he was allegedly in Waco, Texas at the time of the abduction. If that is true, it rules him out. If a serial killer did this crime; no matter how similar, he can't be seriously considered unless he can be placed in the vicinity which would fit a known time line. That is why the time line is so essential to a good investigation. Without that we are just throwing darts at a dartboard.

I will, however, look at him tomorrow.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Cursiorandcursior

Was he in the area at the time? He has to have the opportunity to have committed the crime. Some have ruled out McDuff solely because he was allegedly in Waco, Texas at the time of the abduction. If that is true, it rules him out. If a serial killer did this crime; no matter how similar, he can't be seriously considered unless he can be placed in the vicinity which would fit a known time line. That is why the time line is so essential to a good investigation. Without that we are just throwing darts at a dartboard.

I will, however, look at him tomorrow.

There may not be anyway to know for sure if he was in the area at the time. Bear in mind this was nineteen years ago.

Hall was a guy who traveled across country and visited Civil War reinactments, as far as I know he had no close family or friends, he was something of a drifter and didn't come into contact with a lot of people. So the only person who may be able to place him in the area in 1991 is he himself.

But Hall definitely killed in Missouri, and he was definitely active at the time Angela Hammond dissapeared as he wasn't arrested until 1994. The victims he targeted were similar to Angela Hammond.

I believe I read somewhere he is supposed to have murdered someone in Indiana in June 1991, two months after the Hammond abduction if I'm not mistaken. Thats the closest time frame to Angela's abduction I could find.

The fact is based on who was where at what time, with drifters and people who have no families such as Hall and McDuff it will be difficult to rule out whether or not they were in the area at the time, or not in the area at the time. Because there is no one close enough to them to be aware of their movements, especially when you are talking about remembering 19 years ago.

I would be interested to know if there was a civil war reinactment in the vicinity of Clinton, Missouri at the time of the Hammond abduction, because Hall attended them.

However, I've not been able to find anything that indicates he ever owned a truck like the one seen. But I'll keep looking when I have time.

[slasherman]

Originally Posted by mwcarolina

Was Angela Hammond seen after the party by anyone else than Rob?
people, re-watch the segment. IF you listen, closely, she said she was going to her friend's house (hard to hear the name) and she would call him later. I am sure the police questioned the friend and found out the timeline. I think the motive and the timeline pretty much rules him out, not to mention, the lack of evidence also makes the killer either experienced or a guy who knows other towns and wooded areas. That's why i agree that the killer isn't a local.

"Angela said she was going to her friend." To who? Rob! Everybody in Rob's family is not credible witnesses. If Angela was observed after the party I want to know who the witnesses are. Angela's friend could have been Rob's secret lover for all I know. Just speculation, but what I want is believable witnesses not connected to Rob or Angela. She was alive 2 hours after she allegedly drove Rob home.

I think Rob fitted his story after what had happened. His car probably broke down so he fitted that into a fictive story. That's why the story seems believable.
I'm 80% that Rob did it, but it still 20% possibility that she was taken by a unknown abductor. So I think police should investigate both possibilities.

[Cursiorandcursior]

Let me pose a question which I don't believe has ever been addressed. Tell me what you think.

The story goes that Rob passed the pick-up truck bearing Angela and she screamed for him and he turned the car he was driving around and the transmission tore up. Or did it tear up as he was giving chase and the turning of the vehicle around is what tore up the transmission? If the transmission was already torn up how far did he drive with a broken transmission? Did it stop immediately or did he strip some gears out while giving chase?

Having worked on a few vehicles in my lifetime I'm a little dubious about the sequence of the transmission quitting when it did. Did he have an automatic or a stick shift?

One more question. Did the police actually disassemble the transmission to determine what was wrong with it? Was it actually damaged or did the linkage get bent and wouldn't engage properly? Did it lock up suddenly? Was it locked up when the police checked it out? Did they even try to drive it to see if it was in fact stripped or whatever was supposed to be wrong with it? If he stripped the reverse gear out of it or the parking pall that shouldn't have stopped the forward progress of the vehicle should it? If the transmission was really messed up, I should think that any transmission, manual or automatic would show on the gears what exactly took place. I'm surprised that the police didn't have that transmission taken completely apart by a transmission specialist to find out precisely what was wrong with it. If the parking pall was simply broken, would it have stopped the forward progress of the vehicle? If the reverse gear was stripped out, how did he manage to get it moving in a forward motion and why would it then stop abruptly? Has anyone connected to this case who has talked to the police ever inquired and received an answer to these questions?

My point is that I would nail this story down tight to further rule out Rob as a suspect. My view is that if this wasn't done, then the investigation is incomplete. But that's my view based on my knowledge of the case. Am I off base here? (I've wondered about the transmission story for a long time and thought I would simply throw it out for further discussion.)

[mwcarolina]

"Angela said she was going to her friend." To who? Rob! Everybody in Rob's family is not credible witnesses. If Angela was observed after the party I want to know who the witnesses are. Angela's friend could have been Rob's secret lover for all I know. Just speculation, but what I want is believable witnesses not connected to Rob or Angela. She was alive 2 hours after she allegedly drove Rob home.
jeez, Slasherman, why dont you join up in the investigation and put Rob to death and then when you find out he didnt do it, feel guilty the rest of your life and be sued by Rob's family!!!! Give me a break!!!!! i am SURE the police investigated and talked with the FRIEND!!!!! Just because the segment did NOT show it does NOT mean it's false!!!!!
I think Rob fitted his story after what had happened. His car probably broke down so he fitted that into a fictive story.
Ok, smart guy, so how was the blood cleaned up?? how has the body NOT been found? how is it that Rob made up a GREAT story like he did??? These dont fit, what's the motive???
I'm 80% that Rob did it, but it still 20% possibility that she was taken by a unknown abductor. So I think police should investigate both possibilities.
the police DID investigate Rob and CLEARED him!!!!! i am sure they spoke with witnesses, just because you and others havent heard this does NOT mean they didnt speak with them.
The story goes that Rob passed the pick-up truck bearing Angela and she screamed for him and he turned the car he was driving around and the transmission tore up.
it tore up when he turned his car around. An example is when you have the gearshift in drive, then when you driving, you do a sudden move to reverse. It could happen, i have been told, not to switch my gearshift when my car's in reverse to drive so fast.
Did he have an automatic or a stick shift?
that i cant answer, but i would guess a automatic
One more question. Did the police actually disassemble the transmission to determine what was wrong with it?
i am sure the police checked it, that's why it's angering me, this isnt like Paul Pollis where Rob's story has hole after hole and witnesses who say he wasnt in another place.
My point is that I would nail this story down tight to further rule out Rob as a suspect. My view is that if this wasn't done, then the investigation is incomplete.
I am sure the police investigated Rob as well as they could've done. The boyfriend is ALWAYS first in these cases.
Am I off base here? (I've wondered about the transmission story for a long time and thought I would simply throw it out for further discussion.)
you are not off base, BUT it's hard to answer. We dont know what the police did, we are guessing, but with my knowledge of crimes, i am guessing that the police looked at Rob and investigated him, but found out he didnt do it by witnesses (not just Rob's family) and i am sure they also looked at the car.