How would you make an argument against Rob Shaver?

[Clockworkhigh]

Just got thinking once I was in the Angela Hammond thread. There was a complaint that the truck Angela was seen abducted in was never seen by the police - anywhere. It leads you to believe it was either shoddy police work, a faulty description or..............

Rob Shaver made the story up.

Bear with me here. I too believe Rob's story. His body language screams a defeated and sad person. He apparently passed a lie detector test and even Angela's family believed him.

But since the case was builty solely on the testimony of Rob is it difficult to make an argument against him? I don't think it is.

Angie calls Rob from the payphone - This could happen even if he was involved. He wants her to call him before she goes home. Good ploy to make it look like SHE called him, which she did.

The "filthy" abductor - Again, this is only based on Rob's testimony. If he's lying then there never was a man with a truck and there are numerous ways he could have gotten rid of Angie. In fact, she trusted him there would be no struggle, no witnesses, no reason for anyone to notice anything strange.

The transmission - I can go out on the road and do this to my car right now and have it stall.

The chase - Maybe it happened. In fact, maybe someone did take her that Rob was in on. He concocts the story that it was a "truck with a decal" and if Angie is stuffed in the trunk of a normal car no one takes notice - ever.

Witnesses - His little brother could confirm him running out of the house. Rob could still be involved if he did this making it look less suspicious for him.

Motive - She's pregnant. He's 20 years old or so. Maybe he doesn't want the responsibility.

Lack of witnesses - No one saw the chase. Even at night in a small town you would assume someone would have heard it let alone see it. It is an incredible coincidence as well that Rob drove right by the truck as well. Very lucky.

Trudy Darby - A similar thing happened to her. She was on the phone with her son. After she got off the phone she was abducted. I am pretty sure this happened before Angela. If that's the case and Rob is in on the whole thing then he could have heard the story through the papers and concocted the whole story of her on the pay phone. All I can say is that the guy was extremely ballsy grabbing Angela while she was on the phone probably not knowing who she was talking to.


So don't get nuts, this is what we do on here, we speculate and I was wondering what people thought of this in case someone was ever wondering aloud how to build a case against Rob. Personally I still think he is telling the truth because.................

- He passed a lie detector test. It isn't 100% because Larry Gibson did too. A sociopath would believe they had nothing to do with it too, but by all accounts Rob didn't exhibit those signs
- The two other women abducted in the area. Trudy Darby was found dead and Cheryl Kenney is still missing to this day I believe.
- He loved Angie and was engaged to her I believe (or gave her a ring)

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

Just got thinking once I was in the Angela Hammond thread. There was a complaint that the truck Angela was seen abducted in was never seen by the police - anywhere. It leads you to believe it was either shoddy police work, a faulty description or..............

Rob Shaver made the story up.

Bear with me here. I too believe Rob's story. His body language screams a defeated and sad person. He apparently passed a lie detector test and even Angela's family believed him.

But since the case was builty solely on the testimony of Rob is it difficult to make an argument against him? I don't think it is.

Angie calls Rob from the payphone - This could happen even if he was involved. He wants her to call him before she goes home. Good ploy to make it look like SHE called him, which she did.

The "filthy" abductor - Again, this is only based on Rob's testimony. If he's lying then there never was a man with a truck and there are numerous ways he could have gotten rid of Angie. In fact, she trusted him there would be no struggle, no witnesses, no reason for anyone to notice anything strange.

The transmission - I can go out on the road and do this to my car right now and have it stall.

The chase - Maybe it happened. In fact, maybe someone did take her that Rob was in on. He concocts the story that it was a "truck with a decal" and if Angie is stuffed in the trunk of a normal car no one takes notice - ever.

Witnesses - His little brother could confirm him running out of the house. Rob could still be involved if he did this making it look less suspicious for him.

Motive - She's pregnant. He's 20 years old or so. Maybe he doesn't want the responsibility.

Lack of witnesses - No one saw the chase. Even at night in a small town you would assume someone would have heard it let alone see it. It is an incredible coincidence as well that Rob drove right by the truck as well. Very lucky.

Trudy Darby - A similar thing happened to her. She was on the phone with her son. After she got off the phone she was abducted. I am pretty sure this happened before Angela. If that's the case and Rob is in on the whole thing then he could have heard the story through the papers and concocted the whole story of her on the pay phone. All I can say is that the guy was extremely ballsy grabbing Angela while she was on the phone probably not knowing who she was talking to.


So don't get nuts, this is what we do on here, we speculate and I was wondering what people thought of this in case someone was ever wondering aloud how to build a case against Rob. Personally I still think he is telling the truth because.................

- He passed a lie detector test. It isn't 100% because Larry Gibson did too. A sociopath would believe they had nothing to do with it too, but by all accounts Rob didn't exhibit those signs
- The two other women abducted in the area. Trudy Darby was found dead and Cheryl Kenney is still missing to this day I believe.
- He loved Angie and was engaged to her I believe (or gave her a ring)

I understand what your doing here. Just exploring other options. It makes sense as we should never put our opinions into concrete and always have open minds. Im also not suprised you haven't got any responses yet. I have asked in the past for the "Rob did it" folks to give a scenrio and they wont.

Anyhow in the theory you posted above Id like to know what you think he could have done with her body?? Rob was driving a pickup truck not a car so he cant hide her in the trunk. There where hundreds of people out searching the wooded areas the next day so he couldnt have left her in a remote area then buried her later. He literally had one hour to take her, kill her, totally dispose of her body, through transmission out of his truck and get to police station.

So again I ask in your scenrio what do you think he would have done the her body?

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by kane7474

I understand what your doing here. Just exploring other options. It makes sense as we should never put our opinions into concrete and always have open minds. Im also not suprised you haven't got any responses yet. I have asked in the past for the "Rob did it" folks to give a scenrio and they wont.

Anyhow in the theory you posted above Id like to know what you think he could have done with her body?? Rob was driving a pickup truck not a car so he cant hide her in the trunk. There where hundreds of people out searching the wooded areas the next day so he couldnt have left her in a remote area then buried her later. He literally had one hour to take her, kill her, totally dispose of her body, through transmission out of his truck and get to police station.

So again I ask in your scenrio what do you think he would have done the her body?

I'm sorry but in the segment I swear he had a stationwagon of some sorts. It looked like it at least.

Okay, my theory is if I were to build a case against him I would say that the whole "truck" thing is made up. After all we go by Rob's word and Rob's word only. This would mean one of two things. He either truly did have someone pick Angie up at the pay phone and was in on it. This would mean he intentionally gave false information on this "truck with a decal". Maybe his accomplice is driving an Oldsmobile and would never get a second look from anyone. This leads to an easy getaway. Rob can easily wreck his own transmission by doing exactly what he claims he did.

Or....................

The filthy guy with the truck never happened. Maybe Angie does phone him but after that he has ample time to get rid of her or have an accomplice get rid of her himself. This would cause little to no attention and no witnesses would take notice. What is his motive? A pregnant girlfriend.

By the way I am playing the devil's advocate here, but I think we should in ALL cases. Rob's story is believable but it is also a rotten combination of dumb luck and convenient circumstances (ie: seeing the getaway car)

[wiseguy182]

Eh. I think we are overanalyzing a case that has already been overanalyzed to death on here. I'm also getting the impression that some people on here are trying to come up with the most creative scenarios as a way to look impressive. See also the Jay Durham "it was just an accident" threads.

1. there is absolutely no physical evidence linking Rob to the crime.
2. there is absolutely no cirumstantial evidence linking Rob to the crime.
3. I have a hard time buying that somebody who has never committed a crime in their life, could get away with a murder, and hide that body in such a way that they have not found the body for approaching 20 years now, and do it in the little amount of time he would have had, and not leave any evidence behind.
4. the police and the family do not believe he had anything to do with this. Additionally, there is nobody out there, witnesses or anyone, that has come forth with eyewitness accounts, etc.

In summary, there is absolutely nothing that links Rob to this crime. Additionally, I do not believe the lack of eyewitnesses to the chase is suspicious. This appeared to be a small, rural town and I'm sure there weren't more than a few businesses open around, as most of the stores and such would have been closed.

Rob Shafer guilty = EPIC FAIL!

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

Eh. I think we are overanalyzing a case that has already been overanalyzed to death on here. I'm also getting the impression that some people on here are trying to come up with the most creative scenarios as a way to look impressive. See also the Jay Durham "it was just an accident" threads.

1. there is absolutely no physical evidence linking Rob to the crime.
2. there is absolutely no cirumstantial evidence linking Rob to the crime.
3. I have a hard time buying that somebody who has never committed a crime in their life, could get away with a murder, and hide that body in such a way that they have not found the body for approaching 20 years now, and do it in the little amount of time he would have had, and not leave any evidence behind.
4. the police and the family do not believe he had anything to do with this. Additionally, there is nobody out there, witnesses or anyone, that has come forth with eyewitness accounts, etc.

In summary, there is absolutely nothing that links Rob to this crime. Additionally, I do not believe the lack of eyewitnesses to the chase is suspicious. This appeared to be a small, rural town and I'm sure there weren't more than a few businesses open around, as most of the stores and such would have been closed.

Rob Shafer guilty = EPIC FAIL!

Let's see:

1 & 2) Rob Shafer's narrative is the only reason that anybody even knows there was a kidnapping, so there being "no physical or circumstantial" evidence as you stated is incorrect, is it not?

3) The fact that you "have a hard time buying" something is simply your opinion and not a fact. The fact that you have a hard time "buying it" may also simply mean that you have a limited imagination or that you need to see the world through your own moral prism rather than how it really is.

4) Her family may not "believe" that he had anything for many reasons other than the fact that he actually didn't "do it." They are obviously in a lower social strata than Rob Shafer and in a small town accusing someone of higher social status of a crime can have more negative effects on the accuser than the accused.

The police have bungled this investigation to the point where, frankly, their opinion has limited value. Given the lack of results that they have produced, this case should have been transferred to either the Missouri state police or the FBI many years ago.

This case needs a rethink and it needs that ASAP. Previously held ideas need to be re-examined and/or disposed of if they don't provide the needed results.

Assuming that the earlier results of this investigation were "effective" = EPIC FAIL

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

I'm sorry but in the segment I swear he had a stationwagon of some sorts. It looked like it at least.

Okay, my theory is if I were to build a case against him I would say that the whole "truck" thing is made up. After all we go by Rob's word and Rob's word only. This would mean one of two things. He either truly did have someone pick Angie up at the pay phone and was in on it. This would mean he intentionally gave false information on this "truck with a decal". Maybe his accomplice is driving an Oldsmobile and would never get a second look from anyone. This leads to an easy getaway. Rob can easily wreck his own transmission by doing exactly what he claims he did.

Or....................

The filthy guy with the truck never happened. Maybe Angie does phone him but after that he has ample time to get rid of her or have an accomplice get rid of her himself. This would cause little to no attention and no witnesses would take notice. What is his motive? A pregnant girlfriend.

By the way I am playing the devil's advocate here, but I think we should in ALL cases. Rob's story is believable but it is also a rotten combination of dumb luck and convenient circumstances (ie: seeing the getaway car)

In the segment he was driving a wagon but Angela's brother stated that was wrong as Rob was driving a truck. I understand what your doing with Devils advocate. I would agree that he would need help to pull this off.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by cocytus

Let's see:

1 & 2) Rob Shafer's narrative is the only reason that anybody even knows there was a kidnapping, so there being "no physical or circumstantial" evidence as you stated is incorrect, is it not?

Not really. There's nothing else, really, to supplement or support the notion Rob "did it". He had a story about his girlfriend being abducted. That's it.

3) The fact that you "have a hard time buying" something is simply your opinion and not a fact. The fact that you have a hard time "buying it" may also simply mean that you have a limited imagination or that you need to see the world through your own moral prism rather than how it really is.

I think that was rather unnecessary and rude.

4) Her family may not "believe" that he had anything for many reasons other than the fact that he actually didn't "do it." They are obviously in a lower social strata than Rob Shafer and in a small town accusing someone of higher social status of a crime can have more negative effects on the accuser than the accused.

I have no idea how you deduce Angela's family is "obviously" of a lower social bracket than Rob's. Frankly, it initially struck me as absolutely nonsensical.

The police have bungled this investigation to the point where, frankly, their opinion has limited value. Given the lack of results that they have produced, this case should have been transferred to either the Missouri state police or the FBI many years ago.

This case needs a rethink and it needs that ASAP. Previously held ideas need to be re-examined and/or disposed of if they don't provide the needed results.

As you were quick to point out to another poster, that the police "bungled" the investigation is your strictly your opinion, I think. I've yet to encounter any testament of poor police work here other than the rather unsupportive fact that the abductor was never caught.

And frankly, I'm in agreement with wiseguy. This is bringing back bad memories of the Jeff MacDonald and Darlie Routier threads. To each his/her own, though. I realize I am not a law enforcement officer, nor a justice professional. As much as I would like to see all UM cases resolved, it is ultimately not my responsibility to come up with a "needed result". Nor is it yours.

[bell83]

Originally Posted by cocytus

The police have bungled this investigation to the point where, frankly, their opinion has limited value. Given the lack of results that they have produced, this case should have been transferred to either the Missouri state police or the FBI many years ago.

*Sigh* I suppose that telling you for the thousandth time the Missouri State Police AND FBI were involved won't sink in, this time, either? The FBI took the lead, since they had jurisdiction (just like they do in every kidnapping or reported kidnapping), not local law enforcement. So if Murderous Rob's puppy dog "I didn't do it" look worked, it worked on the FBI, as well. The FBI has essentially given up on this case because there are no leads worth following.

[bell83]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

As much as I would like to see all UM cases resolved, it is ultimately not my responsibility to come up with a "needed result". Nor is it yours.

*Slow clap* Thank you.

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by bell83

*Sigh* I suppose that telling you for the thousandth time the Missouri State Police AND FBI were involved won't sink in, this time, either? The FBI took the lead, since they had jurisdiction (just like they do in every kidnapping or reported kidnapping), not local law enforcement. So if Murderous Rob's puppy dog "I didn't do it" look worked, it worked on the FBI, as well. The FBI has essentially given up on this case because there are no leads worth following.

Wow..........harsh a bit don't you think with the "Murderous Rob's puppy dog look"? I'm merely playing devil's advocate but I sense you have your mind made up that Rob was in on the whole thing?

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

Not really. There's nothing else, really, to supplement or support the notion Rob "did it". He had a story about his girlfriend being abducted. That's it.

Actually if that was "it" this case wouldn't have taken so long to solve. The only narrative of a disappearance comes from a main suspect. How that can't be seen as, at the very least, "troubling" is beyond me.

I think that was rather unnecessary and rude.

And? When you tell somebody that you don't "buy" something...what does that add to the conversation?

I have no idea how you deduce Angela's family is "obviously" of a lower social bracket than Rob's. Frankly, it initially struck me as absolutely nonsensical.

Really? "Nonsensical?"

Her family had no phone in their home at a time when that was rather uncommon. In fact, it's uncommon now for middle-class people NOT to have a phone in their home or at the very least, several cell phones.

Given that there was at least one working adult in the home, there should have been a telephone and there was not. That's how I got the "idea" that Ms. Hammond's family was from a lower social strata that Mr. Shafer's.

As you were quick to point out to another poster, that the police "bungled" the investigation is your strictly your opinion, I think. I've yet to encounter any testament of poor police work here other than the rather unsupportive fact that the abductor was never caught.

And frankly, I'm in agreement with wiseguy. This is bringing back bad memories of the Jeff MacDonald and Darlie Routier threads. To each his/her own, though. I realize I am not a law enforcement officer, nor a justice professional. As much as I would like to see all UM cases resolved, it is ultimately not my responsibility to come up with a "needed result". Nor is it yours.

Let's see:

1) A 2009 newspaper article that I added a link to here described there being DNA available for testing that hadn't been sooner. In an almost 20 year old murder case.

2) The police apparently didn't issue an APB on a truck involved in a disappearance until well after the chance of catching the truck and it's driver had passed.

3) During the segment, a dive in the case a detective cites a large although not unmanageable number of vehicles similar to the one they were searching for as the reason they had not found the truck. That's loser talk if I've ever heard it.

4) Again, the ONLY narrative for the events that occurred has come from a main suspect. There are almost NO major crimes that have been solved using a single source of details for a crime. In fact, most LE organizations avoid it as it can take in a direction away from the actual perpetrators of the crime.

Those are a few things but there are many more.

And as far as Jeffrey MacDonald and Darlie Router;I fail to see any link to this case. In both of those cases, the perpetrators told ridiculously false stories that failed to overcome the overwhelming physical evidence that indicated their guilt.

[bell83]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

Wow..........harsh a bit don't you think with the "Murderous Rob's puppy dog look"? I'm merely playing devil's advocate but I sense you have your mind made up that Rob was in on the whole thing?

Actually, no, I don't. I'm saying that because Cocytus actually knows that Rob killed Angela, but is certain that Rob got off because the locals bungled the investigation, and because he's apparently a big man in a little town.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by bell83

Actually, no, I don't. I'm saying that because Cocytus actually knows that Rob killed Angela, but is certain that Rob got off because the locals bungled the investigation, and because he's apparently a big man in a little town.

I have no idea what happened to Angela Hammond. The sad part is after almost 20 years, neither do the police.

As I have stated multiple times, the only way to solve this case (other discovering a body or a confession) is to do a serious rethink of the available evidence. Apparently that rather reasonable step is unpopular w/ the Clinton PD, as they haven't seemed to have taken the time to do it.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by bell83

*Sigh* I suppose that telling you for the thousandth time the Missouri State Police AND FBI were involved won't sink in, this time, either? The FBI took the lead, since they had jurisdiction (just like they do in every kidnapping or reported kidnapping), not local law enforcement. So if Murderous Rob's puppy dog "I didn't do it" look worked, it worked on the FBI, as well. The FBI has essentially given up on this case because there are no leads worth following.

Really? So the DNA evidence that has waited almost 20 years to be tested wasn't a "lead?" Or the fact that DMV records are now computerized and the large number of vehicles registered at the time can be tracked more easily isn't another lead?

Or...any number of leads that had to have come from this investigation haven't been enough?

This obviously wasn't the work of a "master criminal." The fact that he attacked her while she was still on the phone indicates that. Unless the criminal is now deceased, he really should have been at least identified as a suspect by now.

[CuriousMind90]

Originally Posted by cocytus

Really? So the DNA evidence that has waited almost 20 years to be tested wasn't a "lead?" Or the fact that DMV records are now computerized and the large number of vehicles registered at the time can be tracked more easily isn't another lead?

Or...any number of leads that had to have come from this investigation haven't been enough?

This obviously wasn't the work of a "master criminal." The fact that he attacked her while she was still on the phone indicates that. Unless the criminal is now deceased, he really should have been at least identified as a suspect by now.

You know, if you're shady enough or if the person you junk it with is lazy, DMV records don't show up. At all.