Appeals Court hearing set for Missour...

Appeals Court hearing set for Missouri man twice convicted of 1990 Chillicothe slaying

There are 530 comments on the MyFox St. Louis story from Jul 15, 2010, titled Appeals Court hearing set for Missouri man twice convicted of 1990 Chillicothe slaying. In it, MyFox St. Louis reports that:

A northwest Missouri man sentenced to life in prison for the 1990 killing of his Chillicothe-area neighbor is getting another day in court.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at MyFox St. Louis.

First Prev
of 27
Next Last
das

De Soto, KS

#1 Jul 15, 2010
okay, understand, but GET OVER IT!!!!!!! Who in the world doesn't know that there are much worse cases??????

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#2 Jul 15, 2010
Justice was served here, twice. You are right, people should get over it, and there are alot of worse cases, but they just gotta keep beating this dead horse.
FREE MARK WOODWORTH

Olathe, KS

#3 Jul 15, 2010
das wrote:
okay, understand, but GET OVER IT!!!!!!! Who in the world doesn't know that there are much worse cases??????
ANY INNOCENT PERSON LOCKED IS THE WORSE CASE!
papa

Chillicothe, MO

#4 Jul 15, 2010
Johnn, I tried to tell you he was going to have another hearing, but you wouldn't believe me. I also tried to tell you that the prosecution withheld important evidence, but you wouldn't believe me. I tried to tell you that Mr Robertson had pushed Doug Roberts to prosecute Brandon Thomure because he thought he was the killer, but you wouldn't believe me. I told you that Mr Robertson lied on the witness stand when he said he never thought that Brandon Thomure was the killer, but you wouldn't believe me.

Now all of this is coming up and could possibly end up with Woodworth getting a new trial. If so, the other two trials won't count anymore.

I am telling you that Mark Woodworth is innocent, but you probably won't believe me.

These things I tried to tell you were not lies or conspiracies, but facts that hopefully will free Mark Woodworth. I think there will be even bigger truths revealed before this is over. Then real justice will have been done.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#5 Jul 16, 2010
papa wrote:
JohI also tried to tell you that the prosecution withheld important evidence, but you wouldn't believe me. I tried to tell you that Mr Robertson had pushed Doug Roberts to prosecute Brandon Thomure because he thought he was the killer, but you wouldn't believe me. I told you that Mr Robertson lied on the witness stand when he said he never thought that Brandon Thomure was the killer, but you wouldn't believe me.
.
All of this was admitted in the second trial, and none of it is evidence tha Mark is innocent. How does anything that Mr Robertson said to Doug Roberts proof that Mark wasn't the murderer? Please explain that.

I know you won't because you can't. Its just classic tricks by the defence team to distract from the FACTS of the case. Hopefully this judge will be smart enough to see through this.

If not, you can always hold another fund raiser in your bar/strip joint. Or maybe durning your pumpkin patch this October.
Don Simkins

Laredo, TX

#6 Jul 16, 2010
Innoscent til proven guilty AND all appeals exhausted. That is the law of the land.

And Johnn, just one more minor detail you are flat wrong on: I happen to know who PAPA the poster is and it ain't Charlie Penniston that I went to school with.

Actually Johnn, you sound more like a jail house lawyer.
truthful

De Soto, KS

#7 Jul 16, 2010
Well, Johnn, you sure didn't stay off of here long enough, and when this post gets too close to home, you can remove it again.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#8 Jul 16, 2010
Don Simkins wrote:
Innoscent til proven guilty AND all appeals exhausted. That is the law of the land.
And Johnn, just one more minor detail you are flat wrong on: I happen to know who PAPA the poster is and it ain't Charlie Penniston that I went to school with.
Actually Johnn, you sound more like a jail house lawyer.
Yea I know this will never be over until Mark is dead or freed.

You can keep trying to deflect who papa charlie is, but I know.

And Id rather be a jail house lawyer then spend my life working to get murderers out of prison.

Who cares about the victums of this case right? As long as the defense lawyer wins one more case.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#9 Jul 16, 2010
Of course, this was in our local rag of a newspaper.

I love how the defense lawyer is still bringing up the same old tired arguments that didn't work the first two times this was tried.

I wonder how the guy sleeps at night.
Smokin Joe

Laredo, TX

#10 Jul 16, 2010
I think you've heard it one too many times: I didn't do it!

And maybe you've watched some get religion!

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#11 Jul 16, 2010
Oh yea! That prison where Mark lives now is FULL of inmates that are innocent, and so many of them find god after their conviction!
not always obvious

United States

#12 Jul 16, 2010
Sometimes things are different than what they appear for face value. The evidence is weak at best. Jurors tend to experience a sense of obligation and when the crime is of such magnitude, you do not know how you would act and cast judgment unless you are in that same situation. All while knowing that YOU must make a decision that could be letting a killer go free or using the only opportunity he faces to put him away.

Prosecutor discretion. That's why Doug Roberts would not file at that time, he was always wanting better evidence.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#13 Jul 16, 2010
not always obvious wrote:
The evidence is weak at best..
Weak?

The bullets matched up to the Woodworths gun.

Mark knew where his dad kept the gun.

Marks fingerprints were on the box of bullets.

Mark knew his way around the shed and the Robertson house.

Mark had motive to kill the Robertsons.

How is all that "weak at best"? What more do you want?

A confession? I doubt thats going to happen.
papa

Chillicothe, MO

#14 Jul 16, 2010
Johnn wrote:
<quoted text>
Weak?
Mark had motive to kill the Robertsons.
I am curious what you think the motive was.
llw

Trenton, MO

#15 Jul 16, 2010
papa wrote:
Johnn, I tried to tell you he was going to have another hearing, but you wouldn't believe me. I also tried to tell you that the prosecution withheld important evidence, but you wouldn't believe me. I tried to tell you that Mr Robertson had pushed Doug Roberts to prosecute Brandon Thomure because he thought he was the killer, but you wouldn't believe me. I told you that Mr Robertson lied on the witness stand when he said he never thought that Brandon Thomure was the killer, but you wouldn't believe me.
Now all of this is coming up and could possibly end up with Woodworth getting a new trial. If so, the other two trials won't count anymore.
I am telling you that Mark Woodworth is innocent, but you probably won't believe me.
These things I tried to tell you were not lies or conspiracies, but facts that hopefully will free Mark Woodworth. I think there will be even bigger truths revealed before this is over. Then real justice will have been done.
You are a liar and don't know what you are talking about.
papa

Chillicothe, MO

#16 Jul 16, 2010
llw wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar and don't know what you are talking about.
What part are you disputing? Basically, all of this was reported in the newspaper except my opinion.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#17 Jul 17, 2010
papa wrote:
<quoted text>
I am curious what you think the motive was.
It was the life insurance money that Claude and Robertson had on each other. You know this. Claude put Mark up to this so that he could get the money. Mark would do anything his dad wanted him to do. Do we REALLY have to go through ALL of this again and again and again?

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#18 Jul 17, 2010
papa wrote:
< Basically, all of this was reported in the newspaper .
Well THAT makes it all true then doesn't it? Because the paper NEVER lies!

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#19 Jul 17, 2010
Papa, can we just agree to disagree on this?

You are for the Woodworths and I am for the Robertsons. Id say they both have alot of good friends around them.

Do we really need to go over and over and over and over this again.
Don Simkins

Laredo, TX

#20 Jul 17, 2010
Johnn wrote:
Oh yea! That prison where Mark lives now is FULL of inmates that are innocent, and so many of them find god after their conviction!
And just how do you know that to be a fact?
You always say it has to be the fact!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 27
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Breckenridge Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Steve Cox is in no condition to serve as Sheriff Sun Wondering 31
Fights at Jerseys bar and Grill Sat Santana 3
Philp Free/ Krissy Woodgeard Dec 3 wondering 1
WOW so Sandy rd is nothing but addicts anymore? Dec 2 Mark 2
Jim Lambert (Mar '11) Dec 2 Johnn 21
Dirty Donald Nov 30 BigB 8
Meadville woman arrested for prostitution in Ch... (Mar '11) Nov 25 Johnn 27

Breckenridge Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Breckenridge Mortgages