Another Woodworth in trouble with the...

Another Woodworth in trouble with the law

Posted in the Chillicothe Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Interesting

United States

#1 Feb 24, 2013
Seems to run in the family. One comes out another one goes in. Wonder who they'll say set this one up? Check it out on the sheriff's website.
Dont judge!!

Brighton, MO

#2 Feb 24, 2013
Interesting wrote:
Seems to run in the family. One comes out another one goes in. Wonder who they'll say set this one up? Check it out on the sheriff's website.
Who do you think you are God?? He's the only one that should be judging anyone!! Further more, just becAuse one was falsely accused doesn't mean that they will say this one was!! For all anyone knows he could of been defending his family, against someone who was running their mouth about his family!! NOW WOULDN'T YOU DO THE SAME!!

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#3 Feb 24, 2013
Interesting wrote:
Seems to run in the family. One comes out another one goes in. Wonder who they'll say set this one up? Check it out on the sheriff's website.
What family does perjury and sex with minors run in? You are not the only one that can play the guilt by association game.

Speaking of association, who was the girlfriend of the guy who tested positive for gunshot residue after Cathy Robertson's murder? Ah, that's right. It was the same girl that police had to force entry into her apartment in the morning after the murder. The same girl that failed a polygraph and refused to take another. The same girl with no alibi at the time of the murder, and the same girl who lied under oath to protect the guy found with gunshot residue on his hands.

Of course, all this is irrelevant now that a Woodworth was arrested for a completly separate alledged act 20 years after Cathy's murder, which of course proves Mark's guilt. lol
Pheonix

Chillicothe, MO

#4 Feb 24, 2013
Brent Hartman wrote:
<quoted text>
What family does perjury and sex with minors run in? You are not the only one that can play the guilt by association game.
Speaking of association, who was the girlfriend of the guy who tested positive for gunshot residue after Cathy Robertson's murder? Ah, that's right. It was the same girl that police had to force entry into her apartment in the morning after the murder. The same girl that failed a polygraph and refused to take another. The same girl with no alibi at the time of the murder, and the same girl who lied under oath to protect the guy found with gunshot residue on his hands.
Of course, all this is irrelevant now that a Woodworth was arrested for a completly separate alledged act 20 years after Cathy's murder, which of course proves Mark's guilt. lol
Dude, you are deflecting, which makes you look like you are protecting a guilty person. Get your facts straight. None of what you said is accurate. Read up and then post.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#5 Feb 24, 2013
Pheonix wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, you are deflecting, which makes you look like you are protecting a guilty person. Get your facts straight. None of what you said is accurate. Read up and then post.
What did I say that was inaccurate?
Wow

Chillicothe, MO

#6 Feb 24, 2013
Pheonix wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, you are deflecting, which makes you look like you are protecting a guilty person. Get your facts straight. None of what you said is accurate. Read up and then post.
Protecting a guilty person? He isn't guilty yet. Nor is he innocent yet. And you're the one that needs to read up. Read up and learn about the facts. There's a reason he isn't guilty yet. Because he just might very well be innocent. And judging by everything that's out there in the evidence that is finally made public, he doesn't look too guilty to me.
Adam

Excelsior Springs, MO

#7 Feb 24, 2013
At least the Woodworths already have a lawyer on retainer!
Mr Clean

Saint Louis, MO

#8 Feb 24, 2013
Hey does anyone here know what the tuition at Cornell is?
well said!

Lincoln, NE

#9 Feb 24, 2013
Brent Hartman wrote:
<quoted text>What did I say that was inaccurate?
there wasnt anything you said that was inaccurate!!
Phoenix

Kansas City, MO

#10 Feb 24, 2013
It was all inaccurate and off topic as usual. Go read Marks polygraph and get back to me on the appropriate thread.
blinders

Lenexa, KS

#11 Feb 24, 2013
Phoenix wrote:
It was all inaccurate and off topic as usual. Go read Marks polygraph and get back to me on the appropriate thread.
Everything that was said is all right there in the files. The files no one was allowed to see until now. The files that contain most the info that should have at the least caused some other suspect(s) to be further investigated. This stuff was swept under the rug.
Inaccurate

United States

#12 Feb 24, 2013
Brent Hartman wrote:
<quoted text>
What did I say that was inaccurate?
Plenty but for starters the polygraph of the daughter. Yhe examiner clearly stated indefinite, not failed or passed.
Inaccurate

United States

#13 Feb 24, 2013
So "don't judge" what is the story on this assault? Were you there?
Nope

Chillicothe, MO

#14 Feb 24, 2013
Wow wrote:
<quoted text>
Protecting a guilty person? He isn't guilty yet. Nor is he innocent yet. And you're the one that needs to read up. Read up and learn about the facts. There's a reason he isn't guilty yet. Because he just might very well be innocent. And judging by everything that's out there in the evidence that is finally made public, he doesn't look too guilty to me.
Well since you won't be on the jury your opinion is completely irrelevant. Shout it from the rooftops and it won't have any influence on anyone that matters.
Wow

Chillicothe, MO

#15 Feb 24, 2013
Nope wrote:
<quoted text>Well since you won't be on the jury your opinion is completely irrelevant. Shout it from the rooftops and it won't have any influence on anyone that matters.
Same with your opinion bro

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#16 Feb 24, 2013
Inaccurate wrote:
<quoted text>Plenty but for starters the polygraph of the daughter. Yhe examiner clearly stated indefinite, not failed or passed.
The examiner did not clearly state that the results were indefinite. This is what he said:

"It is the opinion of this polygraph examiner [Trooper Clemonds], based upon the polygraph examination that Robertson purposely controlled her respiration in an effort to distort her chart reading."

That doesn't look like "indefinite" to me. That looks more like he's accusing her of trying to cheat the test. Even Rochelle testifies under oath in her 1998 deposition that she was told that the results indicated she wasn't being forthcoming. Here's her testimony:

Q: Now, do you recall taking a lie detector test back in --

Rochelle: Yes.

Q: Okay, and at that time were you told that the results indicated that you weren't being forthcoming?

Rochelle: Yes.
old crow

Kansas City, KS

#17 Feb 25, 2013
woodworth is guilty!!!

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#18 Feb 25, 2013
old crow wrote:
woodworth is guilty!!!
Woodworth is innocent!!!:)
eddy

United States

#19 Feb 25, 2013
Phoenix wrote:
It was all inaccurate and off topic as usual. Go read Marks polygraph and get back to me on the appropriate thread.
A polygraph is not used in court for what reason??? Oh yeah that's correct they are not 100% accurate...
Poly

United States

#20 Feb 26, 2013
eddy wrote:
<quoted text>
A polygraph is not used in court for what reason??? Oh yeah that's correct they are not 100% accurate...
So if that is the case then why would Brent and the rest of the Woodworth cult try to use a non-failed polygraph against a victim? You can't have it both ways. If they are inaccurate why else would they continue to use them?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Chillicothe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Arabica Bean coffee (Oct '10) Mon Johnn 10
Hospital Bond (Jan '10) May 27 Johnn 11
Sheriff vs pd May 26 Interested party 7
Chillicothe City Council voted 5-0 to Impeach M... (Nov '09) May 25 Unbelievable 17
Taking care of your animals (Dec '13) May 25 too bits 6
News Leave a comment May 24 PreciousHathaway 2
Should The Liv. County Sheriff's Department Hav... May 23 Stop The Radar 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chillicothe Mortgages