Woodworth Documentary
First Prev
of 152
Next Last
Interesting

Chillicothe, MO

#3 Jun 5, 2012
Interesting website.
wishful thinking

Chillicothe, MO

#4 Jun 5, 2012
It could only be classified as a documentary if it were 100% based on fact, and not just from the picture painted for you by the defense attorney, as you clearly indicated was done "on the road to Chillicothe"

I read your facebook page and you referred to the victim's daughter as "promiscuous". Being pregnant does not make a person promiscuous. Let me elaborate.

(pro·mis·cu·ous/prə ˈmiskyo͞o əs/
Adjective: Having "many" sexual relationships.

It has never even been implied that the daughter had any other partners, yet you fabricate details in order to promote your production and further the defense's agenda.

In addition you wrote that Deputy Culvert was an over-sexed investigator. Unless he was pursuing you personally how would you have the ability to accurately describe his sex drive?

Try editing your facebook page to accurately reflect this story without all of the unnecessary adjectives and perhaps it will at least give the illusion that this is a "documentary"
89 grad

Chillicothe, MO

#5 Jun 5, 2012
"promiscuous" fits the bill, just ask the football team.

Since: Jun 11

Overland Park, KS

#6 Jun 5, 2012
[QUOTE who=In addition you wrote that Deputy Culvert was an over-sexed investigator. Unless he was pursuing you personally how would you have the ability to accurately describe his sex drive?
[/QUOTE]

Maybe he was referring to that incident where Calvert was caught in bed with the wife of a Sheriff in a neighboring county. I heard this Sheriff came home & caught Calvert with his wife.
wishful thinking

Chillicothe, MO

#7 Jun 5, 2012
Chilli 58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe he was referring to that incident where Calvert was caught in bed with the wife of a Sheriff in a neighboring county. I heard this Sheriff came home & caught Calvert with his wife.
Hmmm. So you "heard" about it, huh? Is that documentary worthy factual information? Or is it just something you "heard"? See what I mean? Speculation and conjecture are not the factual info you need to produce a documentary. It is more like the thing you would need to write a soap opera.
Christian

Chillicothe, MO

#8 Jun 5, 2012
89 grad wrote:
"promiscuous" fits the bill, just ask the football team.
I'm so disgusted. To what avail are you spouting such filth? How will comments like this get Woodworth out of jail? Or does it even matter to you wether or not he gets out, as long as you punish Kathy's children? The supporters of this young man have been viscous to these poor kids through the years. It doesn't make others want to follow in their footsteps and support him. Everyone should stop being so hateful and just put in the judges hands. Enough is enough.
The Cause

Saint Paul, MN

#9 Jun 5, 2012
Christian wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm so disgusted. To what avail are you spouting such filth? How will comments like this get Woodworth out of jail? Or does it even matter to you wether or not he gets out, as long as you punish Kathy's children? The supporters of this young man have been viscous to these poor kids through the years. It doesn't make others want to follow in their footsteps and support him. Everyone should stop being so hateful and just put in the judges hands. Enough is enough.
Give it up. This is how the Woodworth supporters have been acting all along. Filthy, sleazy, dirty lying and outlandish tactics. Attack the victim's family. I've went back and read a lot of the old comments on here on old threads. Unbelievable. It is obvious to me they have a lot of excons, family of excons, or just plain stupid people flocking to join "the cause". What does that make you at risk? From reading your FB page it sounds like you've only got one side of the case. How about you contact the victim's family for the truth.
glass house

Chillicothe, MO

#10 Jun 5, 2012
89 grad wrote:
"promiscuous" fits the bill, just ask the football team.
And your perfect?
glass house

Chillicothe, MO

#11 Jun 5, 2012
And, Oh...... This has been documented???
Advocate

Chillicothe, MO

#14 Jun 6, 2012
http://www.peaceforcathy.org/
Feel free to post this to your Facebook page along with everything else.

"The story of a cult of greed and corruption in western Missouri. A clandestine mob who's actions ran wild in the 1990's leaving in a wake of ambition and retribution a patsy farm boy Mark Woodworth to serve for their sins. A true life modern day Lord of the Flies where the innocent become the hunted."

Are you kidding me? The only Mob/cult I see are the Woodworth supporters,with their bake sales and hog roasts trying to free the guilty and people like yourself adding insult to injury. Only greed there ever was, was the reason for Killing Cathy and shooting her husband and people like you looking to make a dime off others pain and suffering. The only innocent being hunted I see are the victims, by being made out to be the guilty. You may be on to something about Mark being a Patsy to the crime look no farther than the Woodworth name. "Don't forget me dad"
I am sure you thoroughly read trial transcripts correct? If not you can find them on the website above.
You would know in the 2nd trial by a different prosecutor, different judge, different jury. The defense entered their new evidence and Mark was still found guilty.
Another bit from your FB-"The letter states that all the “evidence”(evidence he and culvert had created) had been presented to Roberts in July of 93"
Created, interesting word. Are you stating as fact they invented and created evidence?
How about you stick to facts and leave out Libelous claims. Allege is a word you should add to your repertoire.
Documentary doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Start posting factual matter and leave the fictional to the defense attorneys tale you heard. Allegations soon need proof to back them. You are yet to see any proof of the tale. Don't make the innocent guilty because you think the guilty is innocent. How's that for objective?
Dale

Chillicothe, MO

#15 Jun 6, 2012
What happened to Lets let the Master Judge do his job? Now, you don't like his perspective on what he saw. You all just want to argue.
Player

Chillicothe, MO

#16 Jun 6, 2012
89 grad wrote:
"promiscuous" fits the bill, just ask the football team.
Dude don't go dragging the football team from '89 into your crap. Sounds to me like she shut you down and you are just trying to even the score. Get a life man.
seriously

Chillicothe, MO

#17 Jun 6, 2012
Dale wrote:
What happened to Lets let the Master Judge do his job? Now, you don't like his perspective on what he saw. You all just want to argue.
Well gosh, Ugly Betty! Practice what you preach. If everyone had that "let the judge decide and live with it" attitude then there would not have been multiple appeals filed by Woodworth when he disagreed with the rulings. He also could have just let the jurors decide.(all 24 of them) But he exercised his rights and filed those appeals. Why shouldn't the victims family have the same rights? or do rights only apply to your side?:)
shrimpeater

Chillicothe, MO

#18 Jun 6, 2012
Dale wrote:
What happened to Lets let the Master Judge do his job? Now, you don't like his perspective on what he saw. You all just want to argue.
Dale I agree with you,I read this but hardly ever comment,guessing theres 8 or 10 topixs on this,and who knows how many posts, like I said once everybodys mind is made up,if he gets out of prison some people will still say a killer just walk.
shrimpeater

Chillicothe, MO

#19 Jun 6, 2012
seriously wrote:
<quoted text>
Well gosh, Ugly Betty! Practice what you preach. If everyone had that "let the judge decide and live with it" attitude then there would not have been multiple appeals filed by Woodworth when he disagreed with the rulings. He also could have just let the jurors decide.(all 24 of them) But he exercised his rights and filed those appeals. Why shouldn't the victims family have the same rights? or do rights only apply to your side?:)
Each side has the right to fight this,it wont get done on topix,with all the name calling and fighting,everybodys mind is made up know matter what happens.
marktwain

United States

#20 Jun 6, 2012
seriously wrote:
<quoted text>
Well gosh, Ugly Betty! Practice what you preach. If everyone had that "let the judge decide and live with it" attitude then there would not have been multiple appeals filed by Woodworth when he disagreed with the rulings. He also could have just let the jurors decide.(all 24 of them) But he exercised his rights and filed those appeals. Why shouldn't the victims family have the same rights? or do rights only apply to your side?:)
What the Special Master identified, among other things, is all the crucial evidence showing that someone else committed this crime, among other things, that the 24 jurors were not allowed to hear because it was concealed by the prosecution. He found "clear and convincing evidence" that a 'manifest injustice" occurred throughout the proceedings and that, had all Mark's rights been honored, no jury would have convicted him. How would you like it if you found out after you were convicted that you had been represented by the same lawyer who was, at the same, representing the person who was "snitching" against you? Doesn't seem fair, does it, especially when the state and the judges knew all about it but never thought to bring it up?
Correction

Chillicothe, MO

#23 Jun 6, 2012
marktwain wrote:
<quoted text> What the Special Master identified, among other things, is all the crucial evidence showing that someone else committed this crime, among other things, that the 24 jurors were not allowed to hear because it was concealed by the prosecution. He found "clear and convincing evidence" that a 'manifest injustice" occurred throughout the proceedings and that, had all Mark's rights been honored, no jury would have convicted him. How would you like it if you found out after you were convicted that you had been represented by the same lawyer who was, at the same, representing the person who was "snitching" against you? Doesn't seem fair, does it, especially when the state and the judges knew all about it but never thought to bring it up?
The situation in which you are referring to occurred in only the first trial. I believe that is why the court of appeals overturned that conviction and started fresh with a new prosecutor, and Woodworth retained a new attorney.

In the second trial Judge Cook represented Woodworth, and did not Johnson, therefore a moot point. Also, in the second trial Brandon testified, so the jury had every opportunity to take that into consideration. The second trial was fair and just.

Oxenhandler erred in considering the first trial at all since the second trial superseded the first. I believe the State brought that up in their exceptions filed on May 31st. The Supreme Court will most likely make this correction to the Oxenhandler opinion if they review the case at all.
marktwain

United States

#24 Jun 6, 2012
Correction wrote:
<quoted text>
The situation in which you are referring to occurred in only the first trial. I believe that is why the court of appeals overturned that conviction and started fresh with a new prosecutor, and Woodworth retained a new attorney.
In the second trial Judge Cook represented Woodworth, and did not Johnson, therefore a moot point. Also, in the second trial Brandon testified, so the jury had every opportunity to take that into consideration. The second trial was fair and just.
Oxenhandler erred in considering the first trial at all since the second trial superseded the first. I believe the State brought that up in their exceptions filed on May 31st. The Supreme Court will most likely make this correction to the Oxenhandler opinion if they review the case at all.
You obviously miss the point. There would have been no second trial, because Mark would never have been convicted by the first jury had all the evidence been provided to the defense. Even if that were not true,ALL the Brady material was discovered only in 2009 and afterward, so he did not receive a fair trial in the second trial. Try again, Ms. Ryan.
Fingers Crossed for MW

Pittsfield, IL

#25 Jun 6, 2012
I heard someone is talking? Please tell me this is true. Eventually the truth comes out. If he did it then fine prove beyond a reasonable doubt, if you cant then set him free and get the real killer. No one can sleep peacefully at night knowing the real killer might not be behind bars. Anyone know if any of the assualt victims of BTH know anything?
Speculation

United States

#26 Jun 6, 2012
At RIsk Productions wrote:
<quoted text>
Advocate - would you care to expand on this? Thanks.
They could be speculating that some people believed that the boy was put up to committing this crime by his father. Again, this is just unproven speculation. However, it is something that has gone around town for years, especially at the coffee shops.

Some old timers believed that since the partnership had suffered some struggles and that a split was about to occur the father had come up with a plan to eliminate the possibility of losing half of the operation in a split, gain $100,000 in a life insurance payout, and cash in the grain commodities that had just been harvested by the partnership and put into storage, totally somewhere around a million dollars. Some say the life insurance was chump change compared to the grain at his disposal if Robertson had perished. But again, coffee shop talk.

This theory was also fueled by the fact that people were being told that both the father and the son had failed their polygraph tests concerning this shooting. If you are doing a documentary those results may be of interest since they fueled the speculation. It would be nice to know if people were being mislead about the polygraph results one way or another.

I'm interested to see how this all turns out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 152
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
Steve Cox is in no condition to serve as Sheriff 2 hr Wondering 31
Fights at Jerseys bar and Grill 19 hr Santana 3
Philp Free/ Krissy Woodgeard 23 hr wondering 1
WOW so Sandy rd is nothing but addicts anymore? Fri Mark 2
Jim Lambert (Mar '11) Fri Johnn 21
Dirty Donald Nov 30 BigB 8
Meadville woman arrested for prostitution in Ch... (Mar '11) Nov 25 Johnn 27

Chillicothe Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chillicothe Mortgages