Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by CuriousMind90

Ok, then, what's your theory?
How did Rob

1) Destroy his car's transmission
2) Kill Angie
3) Dump her body so it couldn't be found even after 19 years
4) Get to the police station

All between 11 and 12pm? How does he pull this off all in one hour?

Also, they were engaged in January 1991. We don't know how long they were going out before that. She was about four months pregnant. Why would he wait until April to kill her? Let's say we go with the motive that she being pregnant was, to him, an impediment to his perspective military career--Why wouldn't he kill her in February or March? Why wait until April?

Remember, Rob wasn't the last person to see her alive, her best friend was, and they had been driving around until approximately 11pm. Rob claimed they began talking on the phone at 11:15, and that she was abducted at 11:45.

From the end to the beginning:

1) Rob WAS (according to him) the last person to see her alive. He saw her struggling in the truck as he was chasing it.
2) The fact that she was pregnant may have been a determining factor for him. He doesn't mention her pregnancy during the segment.
3) The "timeline" is based on Rob's story. Nothing else corroborates it, at least as it is presented in the segment.
4) Since he was damaged and most small town police stations are in or near the center of town, he probably walked.
Although using a payphone to call them would probably have provided a faster response.
5) It's rural area. There are numerous places to dump a naked body and have it never be found as animals would predate upon it and scatter the bones. Also, no one says anything about a search warrant being obtained to search any properties owned family or friends. A buried body on private property can be hidden for many years.
6) There are many ways to kill someone. Shooting,stabbing bludgeoning and strangulation are the most "popular." A death by strangulation would probably avoid any tell-tale bloodstains.
7) He destroyed his transmission in the manner he described. Or when he was moving the body. Or perhaps the transmission was in poor condition,failed when he was driving and he added that fact into his narrative to explain why he didn't either catch the "perpetrator" or didn't immediately contact the police.

[CuriousMind90]

Originally Posted by cocytus

From the end to the beginning:

1) Rob WAS (according to him) the last person to see her alive. He saw her struggling in the truck as he was chasing it.
2) The fact that she was pregnant may have been a determining factor for him. He doesn't mention her pregnancy during the segment.
3) The "timeline" is based on Rob's story. Nothing else corroborates it, at least as it is presented in the segment.
4) Since he was damaged and most small town police stations are in or near the center of town, he probably walked.
Although using a payphone to call them would probably have provided a faster response.
5) It's rural area. There are numerous places to dump a naked body and have it never be found as animals would predate upon it and scatter the bones. Also, no one says anything about a search warrant being obtained to search any properties owned family or friends. A buried body on private property can be hidden for many years.
6) There are many ways to kill someone. Shooting,stabbing bludgeoning and strangulation are the most "popular." A death by strangulation would probably avoid any tell-tale bloodstains.
7) He destroyed his transmission in the manner he described. Or when he was moving the body. Or perhaps the transmission was in poor condition,failed when he was driving and he added that fact into his narrative to explain why he didn't either catch the "perpetrator" or didn't immediately contact the police.

The timeline is based on the fact she dropped off her best friend at 11pm and Rob was at the police station by 12pm. There are numerous press articles from the time which state this.
Again, that leaves Rob ONE HOUR.

Apparently, a search was undertaken for her body in the surrounding area; It wasn't found. I really doubt an 18 year old kid would have been that savvy to say, chop it up or drag it to the woods and make it back in an hour.

I don't know why you keep harping on Rob. He didn't do it.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by bell83

Once again, it's not simply local law enforcement that handles these crimes. State Police become involved IMMEDIATELY. I know this because I was kidnapped as a child (it was a parental kidnapping). Because my mother, who was the kidnapper, called the State Police within a couple of hours and let me speak with them and explain the situation (custody stuff...I was 13, and it's off topic, and I'd rather not get into it here), things did not progress to any higher echelon of law enforcement, and things were settled rather quickly. If local law enforcement were the only ones that handled kidnappings and murder, do you think that ANY such crimes in rural areas would ever be solved? For kidnappings and murders, local law enforcement assists State Police and Federal investigators (or so I've always seen.) For instance, right here where I live, we had a car bombing (coincidentally, this was featured on UM). Even though this was in Rouses Point, the Rouses Point Police were not lead investigator. The New York State Police, FBI, and other Federal entities investigated it. And since kidnapping is a Federal offense, the FBI would have to be involved in the investigation. Since I don't have access to the files, I am only guessing, but I would have to say that they cleared him, as well. Otherwise, the countless news articles on the subject would've said something about him being considered a suspect.

As for how his story protects him, I fail to see how it does. This is along the lines of Dr. Sam Sheppard's "Bushy haired man." "A mysterious person that no one saw but you is the one who did this crime? Do you have any proof of this? Oh, the only other person who saw this person is missing? Hmm....convenient." I would have to say, if anything, this would put MORE scrutiny on him than just saying "Oh, I have no idea. She said she was coming over, but she never showed up..."

Edit:
Looking into this further, the FBI were involved from pretty much the beginning. They gave Robert several polygraphs, and questioned him and others often. There are actually several articles in the multitude of pages here from the local papers, that document parts of the investigation, including parts where the FBI started to investigate the possibility that the Darby and Kenney cases may have been connected.

Let's see:

1) Are you from Missouri? Are you from Clinton,MO? Assuming that criminal matters are handled similarly (or the same way) in different states may not be a valid assumption. Unless you have exact details of how this crime was handled, then it wouldn't be prudent to assume that this was handle in manner anywhere similar to your own.

2) I do think that most rural police departments solve the majority of the crimes that are reported as their suspect pool in much smaller and they usually know most (if not all) of the area's residents. That's a luxury most city departments don't have.

3) I have found a few links online to this story,but not that many. Most were reprints of other sites and the product of news organization making them,IMHO, suspect:

Here's one from a credible news source:

http://www.kmbc.com/r/19110648/detail.html

It mentions "forgotten evidence" that may yield DNA,which doesn't speak highly of the quality of the investigation.

What's the source of your information about the FBI?

4) Dr. Sam Sheppard was a doctor and his case received national attention. Until the UM segment it's doubtful that this was more a footnote outside of its immediate area. Even after the segment, it was still not as widely known as it could have been.

A missing woman wasn't an "oddity" at the time (except maybe in that particular town) and would usually be chalked up to being an "adult running away." Not knowing how "hard" they questioned Rob,it impossible to say how "detailed" he needed his story to be. They may have even reminded him of elements of his narrative when/if he "forgot" or when they didn't match earlier statements.

Why he would come up w/ the narrative that he did (if it's not factual) is something that only he knows. However,I have to return to the fact that his story makes him a "hero" in the way it was told. My experience has been that when somebody makes themselves look "great" in a story, that's usually a sign of exaggeration or conflation of the tale.

I could be 100% wrong about this case,but it's clear that it was investigated very poorly and there shouldn't have any "clearing" of potential suspects until one was arrested. Or found to be deceased.

[bell83]

My source of information about the FBI is several newspaper articles that are listed earlier in this exact thread, as I said in my post, had you bothered to read it. It does not matter how local police want to handle it, the FBI immediately takes charge because of a pesky little word called JURISDICTION. When a Federal crime takes place, it is the Federal government's jurisdiction. So no matter how much local police cried about it, it's the Fed's show. The articles posted on this thread say that the FBI treated him as a suspect from the beginning. This obviously would mean that they didn't just ask "Hey, so, level with me...did you kill her? No? Ok, it must be some psychopath. You're free to go."

Here's a thought that I suggested to Onlooker, who refused to accept the possibility of Rob's innocence: contact the authorites. Because no one here was directly involved with the case. We all have access to the exact same information you do.

As for his story making him sound great...that's your opinion. I don't think it makes him sound that great, personally. But I fail to see your point about how his story doesn't put more scrutiny on him. You say, right in your post, that it could be chalked up to an adult running away. Then wouldn't it be, as I said, a much safer and better story to simply say "I don't know...she never showed up," rather than invent a story in which you were the last to see her as some guy drives off with her? The only way that story would protect you (if you were the one who committed the crime) is if you didn't know the person, killed her, and had to explain why you had her hair, skin cells, spit, etc. on you or in your vehicle. Being that Rob and Angela were dating, seems like it's pretty damned obvious that all of those things could conceivably be found in those areas, and be completely innocent. I've had women that I dated that I would still find their hairs around my house or whatever for months after we'd broken up.

As I said, contact law enforcement (Local boys, whatever county sheriff's department has jurisdiction, Missouri State Police, and FBI) and get their story on it. And you know what? If I'm wrong about anything I've said, I'll gladly admit it. But as it stands now, based on the evidence we know about, and based on what we have been told, Rob is not the guilty party.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by bell83

My source of information about the FBI is several newspaper articles that are listed earlier in this exact thread, as I said in my post, had you bothered to read it. It does not matter how local police want to handle it, the FBI immediately takes charge because of a pesky little word called JURISDICTION. When a Federal crime takes place, it is the Federal government's jurisdiction. So no matter how much local police cried about it, it's the Fed's show. The articles posted on this thread say that the FBI treated him as a suspect from the beginning. This obviously would mean that they didn't just ask "Hey, so, level with me...did you kill her? No? Ok, it must be some psychopath. You're free to go."

Here's a thought that I suggested to Onlooker, who refused to accept the possibility of Rob's innocence: contact the authorites. Because no one here was directly involved with the case. We all have access to the exact same information you do.

As for his story making him sound great...that's your opinion. I don't think it makes him sound that great, personally. But I fail to see your point about how his story doesn't put more scrutiny on him. You say, right in your post, that it could be chalked up to an adult running away. Then wouldn't it be, as I said, a much safer and better story to simply say "I don't know...she never showed up," rather than invent a story in which you were the last to see her as some guy drives off with her? The only way that story would protect you (if you were the one who committed the crime) is if you didn't know the person, killed her, and had to explain why you had her hair, skin cells, spit, etc. on you or in your vehicle. Being that Rob and Angela were dating, seems like it's pretty damned obvious that all of those things could conceivably be found in those areas, and be completely innocent. I've had women that I dated that I would still find their hairs around my house or whatever for months after we'd broken up.

As I said, contact law enforcement (Local boys, whatever county sheriff's department has jurisdiction, Missouri State Police, and FBI) and get their story on it. And you know what? If I'm wrong about anything I've said, I'll gladly admit it. But as it stands now, based on the evidence we know about, and based on what we have been told, Rob is not the guilty party.

Really? "Had I bothered to read it?"
Look, if somebody asks you politely to verify the BS you write down, then the least you should do is put the links to it in the response you write rather what probably seemed to you to be "witty prose."

I'm well aware of of "jurisdiction" and I'm also aware that the local police would have to bow to the FBI in this matter when it was a kidnapping. But a newspaper account which I provide a link for in my earlier posting, has NOTHING about the FBI on. And in my world, newspaper & television accounts are the only legitimate currency outside of police reports and court documents.

And a quick trip to www.fbi.gov shows that Ms. Hammond's case isn't seen as a priority anymore as she is noticeably absent from their Missing/Kidnap page. Here's the link:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap.

There are also no links to CREDIBLE news sources showing Ms. Hammond's disappearance is being actively investigated by the FBI,who BTW, have access to some of the most sophisticated DNA testing capabilities on the planet. Which should have made last years news story that "forgotten DNA" a perfect excuse for the FBI to step in and show their much vaunted "crimefighting prowess." It appears that they did not.

I don't know how the questioning of Rob went. UM left out a number of details (as usual in hopes that the story would be seen as a "mystery") that could shed more light on the events that occurred. And actually, they did the investigation itself a disservice by showing the portion of the segment where the victim's mother said that she didn't believe that Rob had anything to do w/ it. While information about her daughter would have been appreciated, her thoughts about Rob's guilt or innocence really tells outsiders nothing about the case.

You may ask for a lower standard of evidence (seemingly on par w/ the Clinton,MO PD) but most people trying to figure out a mystery aren't satisfied w/ what makes them "feel good." Most of them try to look at all aspects of something until it reveals itself or they have uncovered the truth.

Having said all of that, did you actually want to put some links w/ your BS...or is just going remain the BS it appears to be?

[alistaircrane]

Rob didn't kidnap and kill Angela---it was some creepy stranger in a truck. Why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around that??

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by alistaircrane

Rob didn't kidnap and kill Angela---it was some creepy stranger in a truck. Why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around that??

Because Rob is the only source of the "creepy guy in a truck" story. And some people require a very high standard of proof.

[alistaircrane]

It wasn't Rob. Get over it.

cocytus, it's obvious that you are a skeptic (I bet you don't believe in ghosts), and I have no tolerance for skeptics so I shall no longer be replying to any of your posts.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by cocytus

Because Rob is the only source of the "creepy guy in a truck" story. And some people require a very high standard of proof.

He is not the only source. How many times do you need to be told this? Check the aritcles in the Kansas city star. There are links in this forum I beileve. Two others saw the truck that night.

You mention that nothing corraberates Rob"s story. Again you refuse to pay attention. Does Kayla's story not back Rob up? Does Rob's mother and brother not back Rob up? How bout the fact that his vehilce was found in the middle of the street downtown with the transmission out? Does that help?

How bout you play lead investigator here. Tell us what proof you would demand? What questions would you ask Rob? Where would you come up with this high standard proof you ask for? How would YOU handle the investigation??

[bell83]

READ THE ******* THREAD. I am done trying to be civil with you. You say "I'm open to the possibility that someone else did it," but in the same breath, you say "this was poorly invesitgated, and had they investigated it correctly, they'd have charged Rob, and we'd all know he was guilty, just the way I KNOW he's guilty." I'm done with you. As I told you, earlier all of the articles I mention are on THIS ******* THREAD! They are from local newspapers. Investigate the ******* THREAD. Or, how about you contact the actual local papers? As I told you, before, you have access to exactly what we do. And if, as you say so smugly, "in my world, newspaper & television accounts are the only legitimate currency outside of police reports and court documents," then your knowledge that Rob did it is nullified by that very claim. You weren't there, you have no police report saying he did, you have no newspaper nor television account saying he did it, and you have no court document. You obviously do not know of the Federal jurisdiction in kidnapping cases, or you wouldn't have asked if they investigated it, as you did in a previous post. So did the FBI do a piss poor job, too? Is that what you're getting at? Maybe the FBI is filled with "Cletus and Enos" type investigators, too? It's quite obvious, if they cleared someone who is as obviously guilty as Rob is.

As for why you can't find articles on the internet? Surprise, surprise. This happened 20 years ago. You do realize that predates the massive civilian usage of the internet, right? And us backwoods country bumpkins can't use computers real good, so most local papers don't have their entire back catalog on the internet. And a lot of those that do require you to PAY to access it. If you want to read the articles, take a trip down there and go to a library. Otherwise, you'll continue not finding anything. Unless you want to pay for it, that is.

[bell83]

Originally Posted by kane7474

He is not the only source. How many times do you need to be told this? Check the aritcles in the Kansas city star. There are links in this forum I beileve. Two others saw the truck that night.

You mention that nothing corraberates Rob"s story. Again you refuse to pay attention. Does Kayla's story not back Rob up? Does Rob's mother and brother not back Rob up? How bout the fact that his vehilce was found in the middle of the street downtown with the transmission out? Does that help?

How bout you play lead investigator here. Tell us what proof you would demand? What questions would you ask Rob? Where would you come up with this high standard proof you ask for? How would YOU handle the investigation??

He's just like Onlooker. Rather than read the thread and see what has already been covered, he'd rather beat a dead horse and be a ***** while doing it. Angela could show up, personally, and say Rob wasn't involved, and he'd tell her she was wrong.

[CuriousMind90]

Originally Posted by bell83

He's just like Onlooker. Rather than read the thread and see what has already been covered, he'd rather beat a dead horse and be a ***** while doing it. Angela could show up, personally, and say Rob wasn't involved, and he'd tell her she was wrong.

Someone here should volunteer and see if the police will give them anything.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by bell83

He's just like Onlooker. Rather than read the thread and see what has already been covered, he'd rather beat a dead horse and be a ***** while doing it. Angela could show up, personally, and say Rob wasn't involved, and he'd tell her she was wrong.

Yes I agree it seems pointless to try and reason with him

[CuriousMind90]

Originally Posted by kane7474

Yes I agree it seems pointless to try and reason with him

"He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and he absolutely WILL NOT STOP, EVER!...Until Rob is charged."

(Paraphrasing Kyle Reese, from the Terminator)

[bell83]

Originally Posted by CuriousMind90

"He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and he absolutely WILL NOT STOP, EVER!...Until Rob is charged."

(Paraphrasing Kyle Reese, from the Terminator)