New hearing for Woodworth!

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#63 Nov 6, 2010
Well of course anything that PROVES Mark is guilty doesn't count, it was just part of the big conspiracy!!

Since: Jul 10

San Diego, CA

#64 Nov 6, 2010
truthful wrote:
At the second trial, he was so stoned, his eyes were glazed, and all he could say was, "I don't remember". Real intelligent testimony. Ha.
Really? Is this all you could come up with? You sure are full of it!

Since: Jul 10

San Diego, CA

#65 Nov 6, 2010
Bacon and eggs Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't allow my woman to drink.
And your woman/man shouldn't allow you to speak!
Axiom

United States

#66 Nov 6, 2010
Bacon and eggs Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't allow my woman to drink.
Just because a female donkey is called a Jenny. Does NOT make her a woman. Get back in the barn you silly Jack Ass
justmy2cents

Pilot Grove, MO

#67 Nov 6, 2010
No one answered my question. Has extensive psychological testing been done on all involved?
Papa

Chillicothe, MO

#68 Nov 7, 2010
VRA wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would it matter? You only want what looks good for your case I guess but Mark Woodworth took two and failed both. His father even took one and failed also. Oh but let me guess...those don't count do they?
Mark only took one lie detector test.

Claude passed his lie detector test. Don't you know that if he had failed, they would have zeroed in on him instead of Mark?

Lie detector tests are not reliable in determining guilt or innocence of a suspect, thus they are not admissible in court. They are not objective tests, but are subject to the bias of the examiner(s).

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#69 Nov 7, 2010
Papa wrote:
<Lie detector tests are not reliable in determining guilt or innocence of a suspect, thus they are not admissible in court. They are not objective tests, but are subject to the bias of the examiner(s).
Then why did YOU bring up lie detector tests when we were talking about Brandon? You can't have it both ways Papa Charlie. I think you've been out there sniffing your pumpkins too long.

Since: Jul 10

San Diego, CA

#70 Nov 7, 2010
Papa wrote:
<quoted text>
Mark only took one lie detector test.
Claude passed his lie detector test. Don't you know that if he had failed, they would have zeroed in on him instead of Mark?
Lie detector tests are not reliable in determining guilt or innocence of a suspect, thus they are not admissible in court. They are not objective tests, but are subject to the bias of the examiner(s).
You're a liar, poopa! Sorry, but I don't believe you b/c I KNOW the truth! You just think you can come on here and post anything thinking everyone will believe your lies. Also, we know the lie detector tests aren't allowed in court. DUH! Too bad they aren't though and woodworth and his father would of fried already!

Go on and try and make me look ignorant now, like you usually do to everyone you disagree with.
Bacon and eggs Bob

Blue Springs, MO

#71 Nov 7, 2010
VRA wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would it matter? You only want what looks good for your case I guess but Mark Woodworth took two and failed both. His father even took one and failed also. Oh but let me guess...those don't count do they?
Lies.
Bacon and eggs Bob

Blue Springs, MO

#72 Nov 7, 2010
Eye_for_an_eye wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar, poopa! Sorry, but I don't believe you b/c I KNOW the truth! You just think you can come on here and post anything thinking everyone will believe your lies. Also, we know the lie detector tests aren't allowed in court. DUH! Too bad they aren't though and woodworth and his father would of fried already!
Go on and try and make me look ignorant now, like you usually do to everyone you disagree with.
Nobody has to try and make you look ignorant, you do a great job of that all by yourself.

Since: Jul 10

San Diego, CA

#73 Nov 7, 2010
Bacon and eggs Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has to try and make you look ignorant, you do a great job of that all by yourself.
Nice to hear from you FMW! Speak for yourself! Pot calling the kettle BLACK!

Since: Jul 10

San Diego, CA

#74 Nov 7, 2010
Bacon and eggs Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies.
You have no idea b/c you know nothing of this case. That's why all you can say is, "lies." Like a little weenie you are.
Bacon and eggs Bob

Blue Springs, MO

#75 Nov 7, 2010
Eye_for_an_eye wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea b/c you know nothing of this case. That's why all you can say is, "lies." Like a little weenie you are.
LOL, Woody is comin home!
Papa

Chillicothe, MO

#76 Nov 7, 2010
Johnn wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did YOU bring up lie detector tests when we were talking about Brandon?
I didn't bring it up. YOU DID:

JOHNN WROTE:
You also forgot to mention that this boyfriend testified at BOTH trials and co-operated with the police in every way, answering all their questions and lie detector tests.

PAPA WROTE:
WRONG AGAIN. Brandon did not testify at the first trial. I am not sure, but I don't think he ever took a lie detector test.

I was just correcting the information which you posted.

I don't believe that you can trust any lie detector test as being reliable. It doesn't matter which individual took it (Claude, Mark, or Brandon). You might just as well flip a coin. There are too many factors that are involved that make this an unreliable test of the guilt or innocence of the person taking the test. And that is why they are not allowed as evidence in a court of law.

Since: Jul 10

San Diego, CA

#77 Nov 7, 2010
Bacon and eggs Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, Woody is comin home!
Whatever, Woody.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#78 Nov 7, 2010
Eye_for_an_eye wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice to hear from you FMW! Speak for yourself! Pot calling the kettle BLACK!
"Pot" is right! Bob is the biggest gay pothead around!

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#79 Nov 7, 2010
Papa wrote:
<WRONG AGAIN. Brandon did not testify at the first trial. I am not sure, but I don't think he ever took a lie detector test.
I was just correcting the information which you posted.
I don't believe that you can trust any lie detector test as being reliable. It doesn't matter which individual took it (Claude, Mark, or Brandon). You might just as well flip a coin. There are too many factors that are involved that make this an unreliable test of the guilt or innocence of the person taking the test. And that is why they are not allowed as evidence in a court of law.
You didn't correct shit. If you really feel that way about lie detector tests, they why do you always bring it up EVERYTIME this case is brought up? Oh thats rights, because if lie detector tests were allowed in court, Mark and your butt buddy Claude would have already fried by now, and probably you too. Just what is your involvment in this murder?
Bacon and eggs Bob

Blue Springs, MO

#80 Nov 7, 2010
Johnn wrote:
<quoted text>
"Pot" is right! Bob is the biggest gay pothead around!
Johnn is the most ignorant homosexual! Hey Johnn, did you ever pick up enough aluminum cans to buy your own pc, or do you still just use the one at the public library? LOL. You really are pitiful.
The whole truth

Chillicothe, MO

#81 Nov 7, 2010
You guys have it all wrong. I know what happened. Brandon sneaked out of his parents house, and drove at warp speed to Chillicothe.

Then he sneaked into Mark's house, stole Woodworth's gun, shot the couple, then sneaked back into Mark's house, and returned the gun. Then while Mark was sleeping he took his thumb and pressed it against the bullet box, and returned it to Robertson's shed.

This was carefully orchestrated only after he had manipulated everyone into arguing about some farm money, thus creating a motive for Mark.

Then he drove at warp speed back to St. Joe in order to avoid detection.

And if you believe that I've got a bridge for sale on 190.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#82 Nov 7, 2010
The whole truth wrote:
You guys have it all wrong. I know what happened. Brandon sneaked out of his parents house, and drove at warp speed to Chillicothe.
Then he sneaked into Mark's house, stole Woodworth's gun, shot the couple, then sneaked back into Mark's house, and returned the gun. Then while Mark was sleeping he took his thumb and pressed it against the bullet box, and returned it to Robertson's shed.
This was carefully orchestrated only after he had manipulated everyone into arguing about some farm money, thus creating a motive for Mark.
Then he drove at warp speed back to St. Joe in order to avoid detection.
And if you believe that I've got a bridge for sale on 190.
You are 100 percent right! I believe every word! How much do you want for that bridge? LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Chillicothe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Walmart AP (loss prevention) employee 6 hr Please Stop The Hate 3
Dr. Smith--getting her revenge? (Apr '10) Fri Fed up 364
Letter to City Manager Ike Holland (Feb '14) Fri Johnn 68
Hamrick.... Wow (Aug '15) Thu anon 17
yes im dumb Jul 21 johnn 1
chillicothe sonic (Sep '11) Jul 21 johnn 17
The 2nd graders motorcycle club (Feb '12) Jul 17 juscuz 274

Chillicothe Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chillicothe Mortgages