Angela Hammond: The Payphone Accounts and the Family Search
Official time labels, family recollections and questions about the Clinton call.
Abstract
NamUs MP1635 lists April 4, 1991, as Angela Marie Hammond’s Date of Last Contact in Clinton, Missouri. Its narrative describes a late-night call from a downtown payphone.1
A Phone Call in the Record
The registry identifies Clinton Police Department reference 91-0488 and gives April 4 as the report-date field. Its narrative places the last-heard account at approximately 11:45 p.m. near Second and Jefferson streets. A date and a reported contact are useful anchors, but the underlying call record and witness statement are not reproduced.1
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children identifies Angela as Angie and associates the case with NCIC M974927436 and NCMEC 1116976. Its account also uses approximately 11:45 p.m. for the last-heard description. Those identifiers help you keep material attached to the same person rather than rely on a shortened name alone.2
Missouri’s original clearinghouse flyer instead places the payphone call at 11:15 p.m. It describes an earlier in-person contact, around ten, when Angela dropped her boyfriend at home. Call-start wording and last-heard wording do not necessarily describe the same instant. The flyer does not supply a recording that settles their relationship.3
Recollections of That Evening
The Unsolved Mysteries producer’s written case account quotes Rob Shafer recalling that he was watching his younger brother before Angela called. It describes his hearing a scream, leaving home and attempting to follow a passing vehicle. These are attributed recollections in a retrospective presentation, not a contemporaneous recording or a route independently reconstructed here.6
The same account includes Angela’s mother, Marsha Cook, discussing Rob’s efforts to reach her daughter and the distress that followed. The family’s response matters alongside the reported movements. It cannot establish the identity of a vehicle or the person inside it.6
KCTV’s April 2021 report, syndicated by KEYT, describes a twenty-year-old Angela engaged to be married and expecting a child. Cook recalled her shock that such a disappearance could happen in Clinton. The interview preserves a mother’s experience of uncertainty and the future her daughter had been anticipating.5 The report also describes police recreating the scene and accepting assistance from neighboring counties, placing the family’s appeal alongside investigative work that extended beyond Clinton’s own officers.5
Frances Watson’s April 2021 KY3 interview with Captain Paul Abbott describes him working on the case since 2006 and returning to material in the original file. A later review is part of the investigation’s history; it should not be mistaken for a new observation of Angela in 1991.4
Sourced Accounts and Questions
Here’s where you come in. Can you determine whether 11:15 and 11:45 refer to a call beginning, its ending, or different summaries of the same contact?2,3
Can you trace the vehicle description back to what was reportedly said during the call, rather than treat the flyer as an independently inspected observation?3
Can you distinguish a detective revisiting an older lead from evidence independently confirming that lead?4
Keep dated sources and your questions in a Research File in Almost Solved. Record the event each time label describes, who supplied an account and what original documentation could clarify it. Differences between summaries are reasons to check the record, not grounds to accuse a witness or family member.
Show later developments and reported outcomes
Later Leads and Presentation Limits
Watson’s 2021 report describes Abbott exploring a mistaken-identity theory involving a threatening letter and seeking further contact with an anonymous caller. He described that inquiry as one investigative avenue. It is not a confirmed explanation of Angela’s disappearance, and the other family’s identity need not be exposed to discuss the evidentiary limit.4
The KCTV report also describes that theory and Cook’s continuing appeal for information. Repetition across reporting does not independently prove the proposed motive.5
NCMEC labels its displayed age progression as showing Angela at forty-three. That is the rendering’s intended age, not her current age or a later photograph documenting contact with her.2
Scope and Method
Original call records, witness statements, vehicle evidence and investigative files were not inspected.
Prepared with AI assistance. Sources and references checked against the cited public materials. This paper is an original synthesis of the identified public sources; it does not reproduce article bodies, transcripts, or an investigative file.
Footnote References
- NamUs, MP1635; reviewed November 2, 2026.
- NCMEC, Hammond, case 1116976; reviewed November 2, 2026.
- Missouri State Highway Patrol, Hammond clearinghouse flyer; reviewed November 2, 2026.
- Frances Watson, KY3, Hammond investigation report, April 2021.
- KCTV via CNN Newsource/KEYT, Hammond family report, April 30, 2021.
- Unsolved Mysteries, Hammond written case account; reviewed November 2, 2026.