Missouri criticizes Mark Woodwortha s claims of tainted evidence

Mar 29, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Kansas City Star

A crowd of well wishers and members of the media surrounded Mark Woodworth last month after he walked out of the Livingston County Jail in Chillicothe, Mo.

Comments
1 - 20 of 21 Comments Last updated May 8, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
OTS

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Why didn't Jackie check on her children the night of the murders when she had left them alone and a killer was on the loose? I'm just having a hard time with that.
Dale

Chillicothe, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Because she knew they were in bed, like they were every other night.
Don't lose any sleep over it.

Level 1

Since: Jun 11

Overland Park, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

OTS wrote:
Why didn't Jackie check on her children the night of the murders when she had left them alone and a killer was on the loose? I'm just having a hard time with that.
If the police thought there was a killer on the loose, don't you think they would have been going door to door? They didn't do that. Maybe because a neighbor and the Robertson son both told law enforcement they heard a car speed off out of the driveway right after the shooting.
OTS

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

No-I don't agree. She wouldn't have had any information about the killer yet. It doesn't make sense. Parental instinct is to protect your own and make sure they're safe, which I believe she probably did. She just can't say she did. One thing is sure-Kathy never got to check on her children and tuck them in bed after that night.
Blaming Others So Sad

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

It is very disturbing to me that a mother or father did not once check on their children after they found out their neighbors had been murdered. She testified to that.
What also is disturbing is that she never once checked to ensure her home was safe and locked, after she found out a murder just occured next door.
The other disturbing item in this is that she testified that she came back home and was screaming at her husband to go back with her. People came in and out of her house that night from the sheriff dept.
Now, it is illogical to think that in a house of seven children (and this all testified to by her:
The phone rings in the middle of the night, she talks on the phone, she leaves the house in a vehicle, comes back in the vehicle, screams hysterically at Claude, leaves again in a vehicle, they come back, the sheriff dept and coroner come to the house via vehicle, they walk around and to the bedroom down the hall and such, conversing between each other, they leave in a vehicle, and they stay up all night. And with that they NEVER once, did they check on the safety of their own children! and NEVER once did a child wake up that night!
None of that is speculation. It is all court recorded testimony from Jackie. She never once stated that she heard a vehicle drive away in her testimony.
I also find it difficult to believe that the weapon used was other then Woodworths. Read the documents. Do the research. The weapon, by more then one tesimony was identifed as Woodworths, the state examinations and investigators. Not just identified as Woodworths by the so called "corrupt".
The last item to mention was if Mark Woodworth was so innocent maybe he should focus his attention on just that, showing that it was not Woodworth who committed this horrendous crime. In fact it would appear much more logical and justified if he could prove his innocence instead of try to divert the attention and blame elsewhere.
When one tries to inflict blame on others it is often times a cover up for bad behaviors. Unfortunately, blame is like anger in that it dulls one sense of empathy. Blame develops a thought pattern that allows the person's emotions to override his/her self-control in order to achieve an often selfish end -- including sustaining dysfunctional patterns, which is the case with the Woodworths.
This is where the blame process kicks in, instead of taking responsibility for his/her action that had unintended or intended consequences, the blamer begins to find reasons why he/she should be excused from the repercussions. Repercussions that the blamer doesn't believe he/she 'deserved.'
Blaming others for an action is merely a scapgoat and shows no innocence in a crime.
Dale

Chillicothe, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No, Mark was the scapegoat for all the ones who made up stories, lied, and covered up the evidence that made the case crooked from the start. And that is of record, in the deposition of Calvert, and the testimony of Deister and Hulsolf.
So, dream on, things are happening.
RTC

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chilli 58 wrote:
<quoted text>
If the police thought there was a killer on the loose, don't you think they would have been going door to door? They didn't do that. Maybe because a neighbor and the Robertson son both told law enforcement they heard a car speed off out of the driveway right after the shooting.
So the killer was long gone by then you say. Makes sense.
Correction

Olathe, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Chilli 58 wrote:
<quoted text>
If the police thought there was a killer on the loose, don't you think they would have been going door to door? They didn't do that. Maybe because a neighbor and the Robertson son both told law enforcement they heard a car speed off out of the driveway right after the shooting.
You are distorting the facts. it isn't uncommon for vehicles to race down 190 at all hours of the night. In fact a few months ago two young men lost their lives in an accident which was caused by speeding down 190. Just because there may or may not have been a vehicle racing down the highway does not mean that the killer was driving it or that it came from the Robertson driveway. Furthermore, Mr. Wolf testified that he heard a car race by his house, but could NOT definitively testify that it was even the same evening as the shooting occurred. He made no mention of it coming from the Robertson's driveway.

I've also read in transcripts that the second oldest daughter had just gotten home from a date, and her boyfriend dropped her off. I assume he dropped her off "in the driveway", so perhaps the vehicle seen by Mr. Ruoff was actually the 2nd daughter coming home, and not a murderer.

The bottom line is you weren't there, and you don't know any more than I do what exactly happened. What I do know is that Mark failed a polygraph test and that speaks volumes to me.

I'm more inclined to believe that the correct person was arrested, and twice convicted, and is duping an entire community out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Jack

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

First statement in this thread says it all! Why we are having a 3rd trial is beyond me. Stop wasting taxpayers money on the press propaganda poop!
Blame

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Blaming Others So Sad wrote:
It is very disturbing to me that a mother or father did not once check on their children after they found out their neighbors had been murdered. She testified to that.
What also is disturbing is that she never once checked to ensure her home was safe and locked, after she found out a murder just occured next door.
The other disturbing item in this is that she testified that she came back home and was screaming at her husband to go back with her. People came in and out of her house that night from the sheriff dept.
Now, it is illogical to think that in a house of seven children (and this all testified to by her:
The phone rings in the middle of the night, she talks on the phone, she leaves the house in a vehicle, comes back in the vehicle, screams hysterically at Claude, leaves again in a vehicle, they come back, the sheriff dept and coroner come to the house via vehicle, they walk around and to the bedroom down the hall and such, conversing between each other, they leave in a vehicle, and they stay up all night. And with that they NEVER once, did they check on the safety of their own children! and NEVER once did a child wake up that night!
None of that is speculation. It is all court recorded testimony from Jackie. She never once stated that she heard a vehicle drive away in her testimony.
I also find it difficult to believe that the weapon used was other then Woodworths. Read the documents. Do the research. The weapon, by more then one tesimony was identifed as Woodworths, the state examinations and investigators. Not just identified as Woodworths by the so called "corrupt".
The last item to mention was if Mark Woodworth was so innocent maybe he should focus his attention on just that, showing that it was not Woodworth who committed this horrendous crime. In fact it would appear much more logical and justified if he could prove his innocence instead of try to divert the attention and blame elsewhere.
When one tries to inflict blame on others it is often times a cover up for bad behaviors. Unfortunately, blame is like anger in that it dulls one sense of empathy. Blame develops a thought pattern that allows the person's emotions to override his/her self-control in order to achieve an often selfish end -- including sustaining dysfunctional patterns, which is the case with the Woodworths.
This is where the blame process kicks in, instead of taking responsibility for his/her action that had unintended or intended consequences, the blamer begins to find reasons why he/she should be excused from the repercussions. Repercussions that the blamer doesn't believe he/she 'deserved.'
Blaming others for an action is merely a scapgoat and shows no innocence in a crime.
Exactly and the blamer in this has always been Lyndel Robertson. He blamed Brandon and then he blamed Claude, And when he couldn't pin it on Claude he blamed Mark so he could get even with Claude.

Lyndel hired Deister to blame Mark and put a case on him. He put up a website of blame called peace and justice which has nothing to do with peace or justice - just blame. He turned his children into full time blamers.

This was not enough however so they hired another professional blamer - Susan Ryan. And that's what she does. Blame.

There have been Letters of blame from Lyndel to the court. Letters of to England blaming Mark. Nothing but blame has come from that side of the street. There is no sincerity of wanting to find a killer. Just wanting to blame

Your point is very well taken and I agree with your psychological analysis - these BLAMERS and their blaming process has been an unending flight from reality from the beginning and is merely a coverup of guilt. And who is to blame for this?
just saying

Brookfield, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Blame, you have "hit the nail on the head" That sums it up in a nutshell. I totally believe that the family (Lyndal)knows who it was, but hate has become the driving force of pending the real murder.
Blaming Others So Sad

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

I agree with "Correction" in the facts that if you read the transcripts there were vehicles that night in the drive, points well noted. Which leaves no evidence for innocence on Woodworths part.

I find it hard to believe that 24 jurors and 2 judges were impaired in their decision by some driven "hate" or otherwise plot against the Woodworths. I think that many people need an eye opening, especially those who refuse to read the transcripts and continue to pose opinions, which in turn create ignorance on their part.

"Blame" you are suggesting that one person was able to manipulate an entire governmental procedure to support his blaming??? Please note that your statements are ill supported and lack evidence and credibility- which unfortunately is a reflection on your knowledge base and level.

No matter what has happened in regards to logistical proceedings with bylaws, this does not change facts of the case showing evidence and guilt nor the original questions that I posed that were avoided and are still unanswered.

I stress that Woodworth cannot provide innocence, nor evidence supporting he in fact did not commit this murder. He can only create diversions which create havoc and chaos (obviously his best chance at becoming free from murder convictions)

I think if Woodworths (single or plural) were innocent it would be in their best interest to provide the evidence exonerating them from this crime, otherwise they are just as guilty in this "blaming" as anyone else.

The one thing that Robertsons have is in their blaming they have evidence, facts, statements, and a murder weapon providing their support for 'blame'. Woodworths have nothing providing support for innocence nor evidence against the facts. They can only resolve to opinion, which is weak.

Again- anyone want to try to answer the original questions posed?? Woodworths were not able to, so I suppose there is an 'opinion' that lacks evidence in the answer.
Dale

Chillicothe, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

The murder weapon was not the Woodworth's. How many times have you been told that? Deister wanted the guy in England to make it match, to the tune of 20,000. But he couldn't say that, and no one has ever said that the results of the tests showed it was Woodworths. Did they test Lyndel's gun or was it sold?
Level 5

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Missouri is LAME
Pass

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Blaming Others So Sad wrote:
I agree with "Correction" in the facts that if you read the transcripts there were vehicles that night in the drive, points well noted. Which leaves no evidence for innocence on Woodworths part.
I find it hard to believe that 24 jurors and 2 judges were impaired in their decision by some driven "hate" or otherwise plot against the Woodworths. I think that many people need an eye opening, especially those who refuse to read the transcripts and continue to pose opinions, which in turn create ignorance on their part.
"Blame" you are suggesting that one person was able to manipulate an entire governmental procedure to support his blaming??? Please note that your statements are ill supported and lack evidence and credibility- which unfortunately is a reflection on your knowledge base and level.
No matter what has happened in regards to logistical proceedings with bylaws, this does not change facts of the case showing evidence and guilt nor the original questions that I posed that were avoided and are still unanswered.
I stress that Woodworth cannot provide innocence, nor evidence supporting he in fact did not commit this murder. He can only create diversions which create havoc and chaos (obviously his best chance at becoming free from murder convictions)
I think if Woodworths (single or plural) were innocent it would be in their best interest to provide the evidence exonerating them from this crime, otherwise they are just as guilty in this "blaming" as anyone else.
The one thing that Robertsons have is in their blaming they have evidence, facts, statements, and a murder weapon providing their support for 'blame'. Woodworths have nothing providing support for innocence nor evidence against the facts. They can only resolve to opinion, which is weak.
Again- anyone want to try to answer the original questions posed?? Woodworths were not able to, so I suppose there is an 'opinion' that lacks evidence in the answer.
Your answer is simple, which is good news!

If the jury had not been lied to by law enforcement and the prosecution of course the Jury would have acquitted Woodworth.

Does your vast knowledge of the transcripts include the fact that the prosecution drew their so called evidence on a photo with a crayon because the "Major case Squad" seemed to lack a camera? It is you who could do some reading of the transcripts because if you did you would see that. You would also read that despite the fact that both Bodenhammer of the State Patrol and Rohrbach were tight next to David Miller neither would testify to seeing this "Box of bullets".
Pass Gas

Chillicothe, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Pass wrote:
<
Does your vast knowledge of the transcripts include the fact that the prosecution drew their so called evidence on a photo with a crayon because the "Major case Squad" seemed to lack a camera? It is you who could do some reading of the transcripts because if you did you would see that. You would also read that despite the fact that both Bodenhammer of the State Patrol and Rohrbach were tight next to David Miller neither would testify to seeing this "Box of bullets".
Does your vast knowledge of the transcripts include the fact that Claude Woodworth testified that he saw a box of bullets in the shed?
Johnn

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Refresher for his sadness.

The duly elected prosecutor would not prosecute Mark Woodworth for the very sound reason that he knew the participants and knew what they were up to. The State didn't care so they came in an bullied the Grand Jury into an indictment and then a conviction. Why? Politics. The same reason William Webster flew to Chillicothe to demand the death penalty for the Copelands; votes!
Webster was thrown in jail. We can hope for the same justice here.
I luv this site

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

As far as I see it no matter what claude testified about the box of bullets is if they can't produce a picture of them on the bench then they didn't exist. Explain why there is no picture.
Also there is this

Switzerland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

..."it would appear much more logical and justified if he could prove his innocence instead of try to divert the attention and blame elsewhere...."
The burden of proof [of guilt] is on the prosecution. It is not the accused burden to prove his innocence.
freedom

Jamesport, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I agree. The evidence was tainted. The bullets didn't match any of woodworths guns. That family never liked mark and never will. So its ovious they tainted evidence to get rid of him. I think he's innocent and I can't wait until its proven.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••