Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[CuriousMind90]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

I think the truck with the decal is the only hope that the abductor will ever be identified. I bet he changed it/got a new car soon after the crime. But if someone, anyone can remember this decal as belonging to an individual they know or were neighbors with, coworkers, etc. it could be the big break.

Yes. Someone had to know this guy. As you said--could've been family, co-workers, neighbors, etc. But I'm sure someone remembers a bearded or mustachioed fellow with a 60s/70s era green pick up with a decal.

My guess is after that close call (Rob following him) not only did he ditch the car or had it repainted and the decal removed at the very least, but he also probably changed his appearance. For example, if he was a smart criminal, he might've shaved his beard, changed his pair of glasses, and if he had long hair, gotten a short short hair cut and voila--He looked like a totally different person, someone who didn't fit the description by the time the investigation was underway.

It really all depends on what manner of man we're dealing with here: A man of some intelligence, or of simply average or underaverage intelligence as is the case with many serial killers? A sociopath, or a schizoid personality? An organized serial killer, or a disorganized one?

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by CuriousMind90

Yes. Someone had to know this guy. As you said--could've been family, co-workers, neighbors, etc. But I'm sure someone remembers a bearded or mustachioed fellow with a 60s/70s era green pick up with a decal.

My guess is after that close call (Rob following him) not only did he ditch the car or had it repainted and the decal removed at the very least, but he also probably changed his appearance. For example, if he was a smart criminal, he might've shaved his beard, changed his pair of glasses, and if he had long hair, gotten a short short hair cut and voila--He looked like a totally different person, someone who didn't fit the description by the time the investigation was underway.

It really all depends on what manner of man we're dealing with here: A man of some intelligence, or of simply average or underaverage intelligence as is the case with many serial killers? A sociopath, or a schizoid personality? An organized serial killer, or a disorganized one?

If they where going to catch this guy based on the description of the truck and the man then it would have happened back then. Anyone who lives in the area knows that there was no shortage of media coverage on this case. The description of that truck was all over the news both on television and the print media, posters where up everywhere. The killer was either picked up for another crime or died. Anyone wonder what happened to the new evidence the Clinton police found over two years ago?

[Sundance]

Originally Posted by kane7474

If they where going to catch this guy based on the description of the truck and the man then it would have happened back then. Anyone who lives in the area knows that there was no shortage of media coverage on this case. The description of that truck was all over the news both on television and the print media, posters where up everywhere. The killer was either picked up for another crime or died. Anyone wonder what happened to the new evidence the Clinton police found over two years ago?

I emailed the station that ran the piece on the new evidence from 2009 and they said they had no further information...It would be nice to know SOMETHING about it...

[CuriousMind90]

Reports from the time say the cops did a search on approximately 1600 registered vehicles which were the same make and model as the truck in this case...It's possible that they found their man among these 1600 owners but overlooked him accidentally for one or more reasons:
1) Could've changed his appearance by the time investigators looked into him
2) The pick up could've been owned by a FAMILY MEMBER or FRIEND of the abductor, not necessarily owned by him himself.
3) He could've sold it very shortly after the abduction and it was in new hands by the time the investigators checked.

Either way, that list of 1600 vehicles from 1991 should be revisited. I am almost positive something could be gleaned from it with a comprehensive follow up of the owners of those trucks back in 1991.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by CuriousMind90

Either way, that list of 1600 vehicles from 1991 should be revisited. I am almost positive something could be gleaned from it with a comprehensive follow up of the owners of those trucks back in 1991.

Sadly, I think investigating the vehicle nowadays will lead to nothing but dead ends. I don't think this case will be solved unless there is DNA evidence found, or a confession.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Sadly, I think investigating the vehicle nowadays will lead to nothing but dead ends. I don't think this case will be solved unless there is DNA evidence found, or a confession.

I agree. There have been many cases solved years later by DNA or simply by chance someone comes forward and remembers something that leads to the killer. In this case the Clinton police simply dropped the ball.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by CuriousMind90

Reports from the time say the cops did a search on approximately 1600 registered vehicles which were the same make and model as the truck in this case...It's possible that they found their man among these 1600 owners but overlooked him accidentally for one or more reasons:
1) Could've changed his appearance by the time investigators looked into him
2) The pick up could've been owned by a FAMILY MEMBER or FRIEND of the abductor, not necessarily owned by him himself.
3) He could've sold it very shortly after the abduction and it was in new hands by the time the investigators checked.

Either way, that list of 1600 vehicles from 1991 should be revisited. I am almost positive something could be gleaned from it with a comprehensive follow up of the owners of those trucks back in 1991.

How much could they possibly investigated each person with a truck like this? They very well could have talked to the killer and if he denies being in the area that night then what else do they have? Are they gonna go and interview friends, family, coworkers and neighboors of all 1600 and see if anyone noticed them being gone that night? I highly doubt it. The guy also could have been from out of state which would explain why no one could identify

[CuriousMind90]

Originally Posted by kane7474

How much could they possibly investigated each person with a truck like this? They very well could have talked to the killer and if he denies being in the area that night then what else do they have? Are they gonna go and interview friends, family, coworkers and neighboors of all 1600 and see if anyone noticed them being gone that night? I highly doubt it. The guy also could have been from out of state which would explain why no one could identify

Process of elimination. Slow. Just dig into each person, wait a bit, go on to the next. Hell, ask them (or a family member without them knowing) if they have any old photographs of the suspected person from around 1991. Interview each one, one by one. Get a psychological profile of all of them. Find out about them, their interests, etc. Perhaps see if any of them has any charges now on their record (since 1991). It'd be a hard but not impossible process. Not necessarily if they remember him being gone that night...But could check to see if there's anything off about the guy, or talk to friends, family, etc, ask if they remember any odd comments or behavior around that time.

Could even do what they did to Larry Hall. Once they bring in a likely suspect, confront them with a photograph of Angela. If their psychological profile is anything like Hall's (and I have a feeling this guy's is), their reaction will be quite telling.

Like I said, it'd be a very long process...But worth it in the end.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by CuriousMind90

Process of elimination. Slow. Just dig into each person, wait a bit, go on to the next. Hell, ask them (or a family member without them knowing) if they have any old photographs of the suspected person from around 1991. Interview each one, one by one. Get a psychological profile of all of them. Find out about them, their interests, etc. Perhaps see if any of them has any charges now on their record (since 1991). It'd be a hard but not impossible process. Not necessarily if they remember him being gone that night...But could check to see if there's anything off about the guy, or talk to friends, family, etc, ask if they remember any odd comments or behavior around that time.

Could even do what they did to Larry Hall. Once they bring in a likely suspect, confront them with a photograph of Angela. If their psychological profile is anything like Hall's (and I have a feeling this guy's is), their reaction will be quite telling.

Like I said, it'd be a very long process...But worth it in the end.

Unfortunately I think doing this could be a waste of time. Why? Angela and/or Rob may have got the make, model, and description of the truck wrong. It may be an entirely different truck, and a different color, which is probably why those initial leads panned out to nothing. And to look into the possibility that anyone remembers someone driving a truck with a fish mural in that area back in 1991 is impossible due to the passage of time. We can only hope this new "DNA evidence" will bring forth a suspect.

[benoitbabe]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

I'm positive that Angela Hammond wasn't Laci Peterson pregnant at the time she disappeared. Given that it wasn't even mentioned in the UM segment or on her Doe Network page, I would be willing to bet that she was in the early stages of pregnancy; no more than 12 weeks. While I understand why her activities of that night may be of interest, I don't really think they are significant unless she was later abducted by someone who had spotted her earlier that night. Quite a few people have mentioned that they feel the abductor staked out a location and this is the most plausible theory to me, in the sense that the abductor picked a remote location and just waited for someone to stumble into the trap.

Angela Hammond was 4'11," and 120 pounds. I know that petite women can be fiesty (I'm a petite woman) but I find it hard to believe that a girl Angela's size could fend off an attacker, especially if he had done something to the passenger side door which made it unable for her to open it. This is pure speculation, but who's to say that the abductor didn't disable the passenger door? At 4'11," and 120 pounds, it's pretty easy for someone to grab you and toss you into a pickup before you know what's happening. I've got a few inches on Angela and more self-defense training, yet when I place myself in the same situation, I realistically view my chances of escape as slim.

To me, this case is one filled with "if only's." If only Angela hadn't stopped to call Rob from the pay phone... if only Rob had come by a few minutes earlier... if only someone happened by the area at the time of the abduction... if only someone had seen the high speed chase... if only it hadn't been past 11pm on a Thursday night... In my opinion, there were just too many variables that even the most skilled of predators could not account for. Therefore, I still feel that the abductor was not skilled, but simply very lucky.

It dose say in her Doe Network profile that she was 4 months pregnant which show on someone my and her height.

[JSoltNYC]

I must've been around 11 or 12 when I watched the case on UM, and at the risk of repeating others, this disapperance has haunted me too ever since. For me, it was the close-call; inches away, and he still couldn't save his girlfriend. That filled me both with fear that something like this could happen, and sympathy for those to whom it did happen.

Even at 11, I never believed that Rob did it. If you observe his eyes in the UM segment, he's not looking at the interviewer when narrating the story; he's looking right into the indelible memory of that dreadful experience - something which the UM segment (perhaps unknowingly) highlights by intercutting his interview with the re-enactment. He is traumatized; he can't narrate the course of events without reliving them.

I know you can't base innocence on someone's actions or show of emotion, but as the police have cleared him of any involvement, Rob's actions and display of emotion are to me more a supplement to his innocence rather than the foundation of it.

I've read these posts for the past four days, and I just have two points to make:

1) The UM segment is probably better taken as the "spirit" of what happened and not the literal truth. For example, in the re-enactment, "Rob" slowly makes his way back to his broken-down car after watching the truck holding Angela drive into the distance. The real Rob was surely more panicked than that. But the scene may have been directed like this in order to capture the sense of loneliness and agony of defeat that I'm sure the real Rob still feels to this day.

I think about this whenever I see posts from people who are surprised that there weren't more witnesses at 11PM on this main street in the center of town. They are probably thinking of the well-lit street in the UM segment, with a whole block of shops (some with lights still on) right up to the edge of the street itself. The reality is far different, as Google Maps and other posts on here can show. I'm sure UM did this for practical purposes; the audience has to be able to actually see what's going on.

2) Much has been made about the fish decal on the guy's truck, and most people here have rightly said that the guy probably took it off afterwards - but has anyone here ever entertained the idea that the decal may have been a ruse all along? A decal is just as easily put on as it is taken off. Criminals, of course, don't want to have anything on them that stands out and may identify them later on. While this decal does stand out, notice how it guides your eye away from other things that could better identify the criminal like, for example, the color, make, and license plate number of the truck, etc.

I lean towards the opinion that, while this guy may not have been as organized as most serial killers, he did do some planning, probably staking out the area and waiting to see who would fall into his trap. To me it's not too much of a leap to suggest that he may have put up a temporary decal simply to throw off his trail any witnesses that may be in this slow, yet still very public, spot.

[lowell3]

I've just read the entire thread.

It's not surprising, I suppose, that this case is so heavily discussed and argued-over around here (and elsewhere). It's extremely tragic and unusual among these sorts of abductions in that someone close to the victim (in this case, the fiancee) got close enough to the crime as it was in progress that they nearly prevented it, yet didn't prevail. Just the idea of being so close yet seeing this truck speed away, is so haunting and terrible. I imagine Rob still runs it through his mind quite often. I know I would.

Anyway, I emphatically don't think Rob is guilty in the least, and it's simply preposterous IMO to imply otherwise. Because if we assume that his "chase" story is a lie and he actually killed Angela, we have to assume he was at 18 years old an absolute professional at disposing of a body and making sure it's never found. etc. This has been discussed to death in this thread already.

One point of puzzlement.
Supposedly, the abductor said, "I didn't need to use the phone anyway" just after Angela screamed and before Rob fled to the scene. From what I've read, it's thought he didn't actually pick up the phone to say this, but was simply heard by Rob after Angela dropped the phone in fright. This is very odd. How did the man subdue Angela sufficiently so that he could say this (presumably, it's said, rather calmly), and she would have no chance of escape? It's not as if he drugged her with chloroform or something, since she was still conscious to scream Rob's name a few minutes later. Basically, I'm just confused as to how exactly the abductor subdued Angela. I would think there would be more of a struggle. I know we'll probably never know, but still.

[TracyLynnS]

Originally Posted by lowell3

How did the man subdue Angela sufficiently so that he could say this (presumably, it's said, rather calmly), and she would have no chance of escape? It's not as if he drugged her with chloroform or something, since she was still conscious to scream Rob's name a few minutes later. Basically, I'm just confused as to how exactly the abductor subdued Angela. I would think there would be more of a struggle.

For what it's worth, Angela was only 4' 11" or 5' tall. That's the average height of an 11 to 12 year old girl. She didn't weigh very much and was so tiny, I think it would be easy for one man to overpower her without much of a struggle.

[lowell3]

You're right, it's not much of a mystery how he subdued her. I suppose I just find the timing of everything odd - the whole "I didn't need to use the phone" line doesn't seem like something this guy would say in the midst of abducting a girl. It's rather surreal, like out of a film or something.

I suspect, though, that the picture we're given from the UM segment is naturally only an approximation of the truth, and so the order and timing of events may well be quite different in reality.

[TracyLynnS]

Originally Posted by lowell3

You're right, it's not much of a mystery how he subdued her. I suppose I just find the timing of everything odd - the whole "I didn't need to use the phone" line doesn't seem like something this guy would say in the midst of abducting a girl. It's rather surreal, like out of a film or something.

I suspect, though, that the picture we're given from the UM segment is naturally only an approximation of the truth, and so the order and timing of events may well be quite different in reality.

Yep, that line the guy says about not even needing to use the phone seems so melodramatic considering the situation. I think if I were a criminal in the process of abducting someone, making cryptic comments would be the furthest thing from my mind.