New hearing for man convicted in '90 ...

New hearing for man convicted in '90 slaying

There are 427 comments on the KansasCity.com story from Nov 4, 2010, titled New hearing for man convicted in '90 slaying. In it, KansasCity.com reports that:

A Chillicothe man who was convicted twice for the 1990 slaying of a Missouri farm wife will have a new hearing amid continuing questions about the case.Mark Woodworth was 16 when his neighbor, Cathy Robertson, was shot to death while she slept in her northern Missouri home.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KansasCity.com.

First Prev
of 22
Next Last

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1 Nov 4, 2010
This is a very interesting STORY, however, once again though, it is WRONG. There is NO hearing. The only thing that has happened is that the Supreme Court of Missouri has appointed a special master. Which means that this special master (a judge) will look into the claims and motions filed by both parties. He is KIND OF like an investigator of sorts. Not really going to go dig up stuff but will look further into what they are claiming. That is all. Then he will bring the court what he finds (if anything to add to what is already there) and then the court will THEN decide to have a hearing. Isn't that interesting how they get the hearing part wrong, then add in there a tidbit about Kenny Hulshof and don't say ANYTHING about the 2nd prosecutor and then also the have to add that a person's conviction was just overturned a couple of days ago? A case that has NOTHING to do with the Woodworth case! So frustrating how they jade everything.

Its also frustrating how some of you will believe EVERY WORD of this STORY.
Stop the Madness

Leavenworth, KS

#2 Nov 4, 2010
that's the big city media for ya.
Papa

Chillicothe, MO

#3 Nov 4, 2010
Johnn wrote:
This is a very interesting STORY, however, once again though, it is WRONG. There is NO hearing. The only thing that has happened is that the Supreme Court of Missouri has appointed a special master. Which means that this special master (a judge) will look into the claims and motions filed by both parties. He is KIND OF like an investigator of sorts. Not really going to go dig up stuff but will look further into what they are claiming. That is all. Then he will bring the court what he finds (if anything to add to what is already there) and then the court will THEN decide to have a hearing. Isn't that interesting how they get the hearing part wrong, then add in there a tidbit about Kenny Hulshof and don't say ANYTHING about the 2nd prosecutor and then also the have to add that a person's conviction was just overturned a couple of days ago? A case that has NOTHING to do with the Woodworth case! So frustrating how they jade everything.
Its also frustrating how some of you will believe EVERY WORD of this STORY.
YOU are WRONG. There is going to be a hearing, not a trial, but a hearing in which the defense can present and show evidence that was withheld. They will have the power to subponea law enforcement individuals, judges including Judge Lewis, Kenny Hulshof, and defense attorneys. They will finally be able to get the record of the Grand Jury hearing which the prosecution denied existed but when found was sealed so they couldn't get it.

Nearly every case tried and won by Kenny Hulshof has been overturned and the innocent person has been released. Woodworth hopes to show that investigative and prosecutorial misconduct was involved in his conviction.

All seven of the Supreme Court Judges voted to give Woodworth this hearing. Apparently, they were not satisfied with answers the Attorney General's Office gave at a previous hearing when the Supreme Court demanded they appear and explain why Woodworth was in jail. This was about two months ago.

If you will remember, I explained this on another thread at the time.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#4 Nov 5, 2010
Papa wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU are WRONG. There is going to be a hearing, not a trial, but a hearing in which the defense can present and show evidence that was withheld. They will have the power to subponea law enforcement individuals, judges including Judge Lewis, Kenny Hulshof, and defense attorneys. They will finally be able to get the record of the Grand Jury hearing which the prosecution denied existed but when found was sealed so they couldn't get it.
Nearly every case tried and won by Kenny Hulshof has been overturned and the innocent person has been released. Woodworth hopes to show that investigative and prosecutorial misconduct was involved in his conviction.
All seven of the Supreme Court Judges voted to give Woodworth this hearing. Apparently, they were not satisfied with answers the Attorney General's Office gave at a previous hearing when the Supreme Court demanded they appear and explain why Woodworth was in jail. This was about two months ago.
If you will remember, I explained this on another thread at the time.
See what I mean about some idiots believeing every word from the AP? LOL

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#5 Nov 5, 2010
And who else is the first to chime in but the biggest idiot of them all, Papa Pumpkin Patch/Good Times Charlie Himself! Thank GOD my company isn't having our Christmas party out to your strip joint this year, I can actually go this year! Too bad your buddy Mike Lair won his re-election! I can proudly say that I didn't vote for him! I wouldn't vote him in as dog catcher!

VRA

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#8 Nov 5, 2010
For some reason the link doesn't work. It is case # SC01921

VRA

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#9 Nov 5, 2010
Good grief I am having trouble today!!!! Disregard the previous number. It is # SC91021

VRA

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#10 Nov 5, 2010

VRA

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#12 Nov 5, 2010
Papa wrote:
<quoted text>
Nearly every case tried and won by Kenny Hulshof has been overturned and the innocent person has been released. Woodworth hopes to show that investigative and prosecutorial misconduct was involved in his conviction.
I would like to see statistics on this. And just because they were released DOES NOT mean they were INNOCENT. Ever heard of OJ SIMPSON????? As a matter of fact in the article the person mention that was just released MAY very well be prosecuted again. So far most of these releases aren't because of EVIDENCE it is because of trial conduct. So that still doesn't mean that the person isn't guilty. I feel for those poor families that have to deal with this horrible outcome of the person they believe is guilty, going free. Nobody says ONE WORD about them though. The person may have been released from prison (not jail) BUT THEIR FAMILY MEMEBER IS STILL DEAD!
What

United States

#13 Nov 5, 2010
Johnn Since you feel the need to call people names why dont you tell them your real name and where you work. Okay now you can call me a name because i dont agree with you, follow the code of conduct .

Since: May 10

Chillicothe, MO

#14 Nov 5, 2010
Papa wrote:
<quoted text>
Nearly every case tried and won by Kenny Hulshof has been overturned and the innocent person has been released.
So was Hulshof the prosecutor at the second trial?
Shorty

United States

#15 Nov 5, 2010
I understand that this might be very close to home for many people, but I can't believe the accusations going back and forth. How many of the people on here really know ALL the facts. Has anyone had the opportunity to see all the evidence, all the reports, all the interviews, all the leads???? I don't believe anyone has had that opportunity. I believe people are going off a few court documents they have seen and word of mouth. I can understand when you take a stand for something you feel strongly about because of the things you know from first hand knowledge or because of the things that you have heard, but that does not mean you know everything you need to know. It only means you have heard what you want or been told only what someone believes you need to hear. It does not mean it is the truth. I know you don't want to hear this, but many people are convicted time and time again and sent to prison for crimes, when later they were eventually found to be innocent through modern day technology, forensics, DNA, etc. It is sometimes hard to see past what we want to see. I don't believe that either family will get all the answers needed. Usually when one question is answered, it leaves several more left unanswered.
truthful

De Soto, KS

#16 Nov 5, 2010
I sure wish the so called DETECTIVES AND INVESTIGATING TEAM had bothered to do their job, and Mark would not be in prison. Thanks, Shorty, you are right.
Bacon and eggs Bob

Blue Springs, MO

#17 Nov 5, 2010
Papa wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU are WRONG. There is going to be a hearing, not a trial, but a hearing in which the defense can present and show evidence that was withheld. They will have the power to subponea law enforcement individuals, judges including Judge Lewis, Kenny Hulshof, and defense attorneys. They will finally be able to get the record of the Grand Jury hearing which the prosecution denied existed but when found was sealed so they couldn't get it.
Nearly every case tried and won by Kenny Hulshof has been overturned and the innocent person has been released. Woodworth hopes to show that investigative and prosecutorial misconduct was involved in his conviction.
All seven of the Supreme Court Judges voted to give Woodworth this hearing. Apparently, they were not satisfied with answers the Attorney General's Office gave at a previous hearing when the Supreme Court demanded they appear and explain why Woodworth was in jail. This was about two months ago.
If you will remember, I explained this on another thread at the time.
Three cheers for papa!
Papa

Chillicothe, MO

#18 Nov 5, 2010
Johnn wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean about some idiots believeing every word from the AP? LOL
Sorry Johnn, my information did not come from the AP article. I actually posted my rebuttal to you before I even read the paper or the KC Star. Makes you look like an idiot when you don't know what is really going on, yet you shoot your mouth off anyway. Kinda makes you look as stupid as you really are, doesn't it?

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#19 Nov 5, 2010
Papa wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Johnn, my information did not come from the AP article. I actually posted my rebuttal to you before I even read the paper or the KC Star. Makes you look like an idiot when you don't know what is really going on, yet you shoot your mouth off anyway. Kinda makes you look as stupid as you really are, doesn't it?
Really makes you look stupid when you lie lie lie. You going to tell me you posted on here without reading what the topic was about? Did you just guess what the ap story said, and guessed right for that matter? Or do you have a crystal ball? Everything I posted was the truth, everything you posted was more wishful thinking about a twice convicted murderer. Why don't you just stick to the pumpkins and the pot and leave the truth to the courts.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#20 Nov 5, 2010
What wrote:
Johnn Since you feel the need to call people names why dont you tell them your real name and where you work. Okay now you can call me a name because i dont agree with you, follow the code of conduct .
Hey Mary Anderson, you've changed your name! That seems to be going on alot around here. Good to see you around here again. Going to go nuts on us again?
Boss

Chicago, IL

#21 Nov 5, 2010
I think Johnn did it. FREE MARK!
justiveserved

Chillicothe, MO

#22 Nov 5, 2010
Read tonights paper. The paper cannot print "lies", they would get sued. You would like to believe they are "lies". According to tonights front page article, there in fact will be a trial with new evidence submitted...such as the letter Doug Roberts wrote stating that he wanted to drop the case due to lack of evidence. Also the letter from Robertson to Roberts stating that he wanted Brandon Thomure arrested for the murder. HMM. The trial date has not been set yet...but that in no way means that there will not be one.

VRA

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#23 Nov 5, 2010
justiveserved wrote:
Read tonights paper. The paper cannot print "lies", they would get sued. You would like to believe they are "lies". According to tonights front page article, there in fact will be a trial with new evidence submitted...such as the letter Doug Roberts wrote stating that he wanted to drop the case due to lack of evidence. Also the letter from Robertson to Roberts stating that he wanted Brandon Thomure arrested for the murder. HMM. The trial date has not been set yet...but that in no way means that there will not be one.
You have got to be kidding me??? The paper can't print lies? Yes they can. And even if this were true...you have GOT to get a CLUE. It would not be a trial. It would be a hearing. There is a HUGE difference. God people, get educated!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 22
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.

Livingston County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wanted woman arrested, sentenced to prison (Aug '07) May '16 Julie Bridson 18
News Chillicothe police arrest suspected molester (Oct '10) Dec '15 Swampdonkey 23
News Judge tosses evidence in Woodworth murder trial (Apr '13) Jan '15 john 8
News Appeals Court hearing set for Missouri man twic... (Jul '10) Dec '14 Justus 530
Do u know this person (May '14) May '14 Victim 1
News New evidence unfolds in an existing murder case (Jul '10) May '14 dude process 434
News Woodworth indicted as juvenile before adult trial (Feb '11) Dec '13 Former Mayor Jeff... 30
More from around the web