Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

20 Years In Prison - Is Mark Woodworth Innocent? --More on Replies 15 & 16. ***HUGE UPDATE - Nov 12***

Posted by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 12:30 AM
  • 21 Replies

Court denies Missouri appeal in Woodworth murder case 11/12/2013 10:17 AM

The state’s appeal of a judge’s order excluding key evidence in the long-standing murder case against a northern Missouri man was dismissed Tuesday by a Missouri Court of Appeals panel.

“The state’s disagreement with the trial court’s order does not make the order appealable,” the court wrote in Tuesday’s decision in the case of Mark Woodworth.

As the case now stands, the state’s effort to try Woodworth for the third time in the 1990 killing of a woman outside Chillicothe, Mo., will not include bullet and gun evidence that was presented in his two previous trials. Woodworth’s convictions in those cases have both been overturned on appeal.

But the state has a number of legal options still available, including seeking a hearing from the Missouri Supreme Court, and a spokeswoman for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said they are now reviewing Tuesday’s ruling.

Tony Rizzo,


DH and I have been following this case. DH went to school with the boyfriend of the girl who's mother was murdered. His friend was a witness in the trial. We've read A LOT of information on this. There is the Master's Report ( which makes us believe that much more that Mark is innocent.


Ten years ago, Mark Woodworth was a 16-year-old high school student working on his father's farm in western Missouri, a few miles north of the town of Chillicothe. By all accounts, Mark was a mild-mannered and hard-working boy, doing poorly in school but committed to a career in farming.

Mark's plans for his future began to unravel just before midnight on November 13, 1990, when an assailant entered the house of the Woodworths' neighbors, Lyndel and Catherine Robertson, and shot them six times with a .22 caliber weapon as they lay in bed. Catherine Robertson was struck in the head and chest and died instantly, while her husband survived four bullet wounds to his face and shoulder.

In October 1993, almost three years after the attack, Mark Woodworth was indicted on five counts of murder, assault, armed criminal action and burglary. A jury convicted him on all five counts in March 1995.

His convictions were set aside on appeal in February 1997 by an appeals court, which ordered a new trial and commented that "certainly the State's case was thin, and had we been on the jury we might well have voted to acquit." But in a decision that stunned and outraged many members of the community, Mark was convicted again at his second trial in November 1999.

Why are so many people in Chillicothe convinced that Mark Woodworth is innocent? Take a look at the evidence:

Shortly after the attack, Lyndel Robertson told at least eight people, including his private physician and police officers who questioned him in the hospital, that he had been shot by his teenaged daughter's boyfriend, Brandon Thomure. The police were unable to build an airtight case against Thomure, despite other evidence pointing to him as a suspect -- and by the time Mark Woodworth came to trial, Lyndel Robertson had changed his story and claimed on the witness stand that he had not seen the assailant.

The jury in Mark's first trial was allowed to hear testimony from only one of the people who had heard Lyndel accuse Brandon Thomure of shooting him -- the other witnesses were excluded because Lyndel had told them only that he "thought" Brandon was the gunman.

The prosecution failed to show any convincing reason why Mark Woodworth would have tried to kill the Robertsons. The only motive introduced at his trial was an alleged business dispute between the Robertsons and the Woodworth family, who were partners in a farming operation at the time of the shooting. Lyndel Robertson's uncorroborated testimony was the only evidence that such a dispute existed in 1990, and he first made the allegations only after Mark's father, Claude Woodworth, terminated the partnership in March 1991 and sued Lyndel for embezzlement.

Chris Ruoff, a witness who testified at both trials, contacted the police after the attack and told them he had seen a dark-colored Bronco or Blazer parked in the driveway of the Robertsons' residence at around the time of the shooting. Neither the Robertsons nor the Woodworths owned a vehicle of this description, and since the two families' houses were located only a few hundred feet apart, it is highly unlikely that Mark would have driven to the Robertsons' home if he had committed the crime.

The prosecution tried repeatedly to discredit Ruoff's statement, and produced contradicting testimony from Gary Calvert, the sheriff's deputy who headed the original investigation of the case. This was in spite of corroborating testimony from the Robertsons' son Scott, who told police at one point that he had heard a car start up and drive away from the house shortly after he was awakened that night.

The only physical evidence linking Mark to the crime was his father's ownership of a .22 caliber Ruger pistol -- identical to one Lyndel Robertson kept in his pickup truck -- as well as a single thumbprint on a box of .22 shells found in a shed on the Robertsons' property.

Mark Woodworth had routine access to the shed, which also contained farm machinery used by the two families in their partnership, and both Mark and other witnesses testified that he had handled the box of shells while target shooting with Lyndel. Ballistic tests by three separate laboratories were unable to state with certainty that the bullets found in the Robertsons' bodies had come from the Woodworths' gun.

All in all, the case against Mark Woodworth was incredibly weak -- which probably explains why he was never taken seriously as a suspect for nearly two years. The initial investigation into the crime focused almost exclusively on Brandon Thomure as a suspect, and uncovered strong evidence pointing to him as the assailant. On the day after the shooting, police took a statement from Brandon and swabbed his hands for gunpowder. Brandon denied any involvement and claimed he had been at his home in Independence, Missouri, about 100 miles from the Robertsons' home, on the night of the attack.

However, the swab tests revealed powder residue on Brandon's hands, indicating he had recently fired a gun. The police also found evidence that Brandon had behaved violently in the past towards his girlfriend, the Robertsons' daughter Rochelle. When interviewed, several witnesses said they had either seen Brandon hit Rochelle or had been told of the abuse by Rochelle herself.

Rochelle's own behavior also suggested that she believed her boyfriend was involved in the attack on her parents. On November 20, 1990, seven days after the shooting, she filed a petition with the Circuit Court of Livingston County, Missouri -- for an order of protection against Brandon Thomure. In the petition, she made the following statements about Brandon: "He has struck me in the past, and has made frequent harassing telephone calls to me since November 1. He may have murdered my mother and attempted to kill my father on November 13." Investigators also found that Rochelle had undergone an abortion shortly after her mother's death.

Mark Woodworth and his family were questioned by the local coroner and prosecuting attorney on November 14, 1990, the day after the shooting. At that time, Mark's father, Claude Woodworth, produced his .22 Ruger and stated that he had found it undisturbed on top of the dresser where it was usually kept.

Two days later, two officers from the Livingston County Major Case Squad returned to the Woodworths' house and asked to take the gun away for ballistic tests. (The Ruger from Lyndel Robertson's pickup truck had also been handed over for testing at this point.) Claude Woodworth produced the weapon and pointed out that there was dust on both the gun and its holster -- a comment later corroborated by a defense witness at Mark's trial, who had been present when the gun was handed over. The gun was eventually returned to Claude Woodworth on March 25, 1991. In the same month, Mark dropped out of high school and began working full-time on his father's farm.

Despite Lyndel Robertson's direct accusations against Brandon Thomure and other evidence creating a strong potential case, the police were never able to overcome Brandon's alibi and bring charges against him. Mark Woodworth, on the other hand, was never even identified as a prime suspect during the initial investigation.

Things began to change in early spring 1991, when Lyndel Robertson hired a private investigator named Terry Deister to reexamine the case. By this time, his partnership with Mark's father, Claude Woodworth, had come to an end, and Claude had filed suit against Lyndel for allegedly diverting funds from their joint farming business.

Deister accepted the contract from Lyndel only on condition that he get full cooperation from the Livingston County Sheriff's Office -- which had failed to make any progress on the case in the months after Catherine Robertson's murder. Sheriff Leland O'Dell and his chief deputy, Gary Calvert, who had supervised the Major Case Squad in its earlier investigation, agreed to assist Deister with his research.

Even so, it was not until more than a year later -- nearly two years after the shooting -- that the local police, with Deister's encouragement, began to focus on Mark Woodworth as a possible suspect.

On the morning of July 4, 1992, while Mark's parents were away visiting relatives in Illinois, Deister and Calvert called the Woodworth family home and made sure that Mark was home alone. They then asked Mark to accompany them to the Livingston County Sheriff's Department, where he was advised of his rights, fingerprinted and questioned for just over four hours. The questioning took place with no juvenile officer present, even though Mark was a minor at the time. (Significantly, Deister was allowed to sit in on the interrogation, even though he had never been officially deputized and had no law enforcement authority in Livingston County.) Mark consistently maintained his innocence throughout the interview.

On Easter Sunday, April 11, 1993, again when Mark's parents were away visiting relatives in Illinois, Deister and Calvert again called him at home and asked him to come in for questioning, where he was grilled for another four hours and continued to deny any involvement with the shootings.

In October 1993, a grand jury in Livingston County indicted Mark Woodworth on five counts of murder, attempted murder, burglary, and armed criminal action. Mark was arrested and taken to Livingston County Jail, where he remained for more than a year, until his trial in March 1995.

Shortly after his arrest on October 20, 1993, Mark's original attorney, Gene McFaden, advised him to go voluntarily with two sheriff's deputies to St. Joseph, Missouri, around 70 miles from Chillicothe, to take a polygraph test. During the trip, the deputies continually harassed and badgered him.

After reviewing the results of the test, the polygraph examiner concluded that Mark had "showed deception" in his responses under questioning. He then began interrogating Mark again while trying to convince him that he had failed the test -- a common strategy.

At one point, the examiner urged him to confess to shooting the Robertsons, telling him that this would probably keep him from getting the death penalty. Mark replied that "everybody has to die sometime" and that he wouldn't confess to a crime he hadn't committed just to avoid a death sentence. Taken out of context, this single statement -- "everybody has to die sometime" -- was introduced by the prosecution in both of Mark's trials, without giving the jury any background on the circumstances in which it was made.

Mark Woodworth came to trial in March 1995, more than four years after the murder of Catherine Robertson. When Lyndel Robertson took the stand, he testified that a few days before the shooting, he and his wife had a dispute with Mark and Claude Woodworth over the profits from a soybean crop that Mark had planted on land held jointly by the two families. Lyndel claimed that Mark had used seed, fertilizer, and other inputs belonging to the joint operation and had refused to reimburse the Robertsons after selling the bean crop and collecting his profits. He also testified that he had complained about this to Mark and his father, and that his wife, Catherine, had also been upset about the arrangement.

This was the first time that Mark Woodworth or his attorney had heard any reason given why he might have held a grudge against the Robertsons. In fact, Lyndel Robertson and Claude Woodworth had originally agreed that the profits from the sale of Mark's soybean crop would be treated as his compensation for labor he contributed to other areas of the partnership. Shortly after Lyndel got out of the hospital, Mark had even offered to donate the proceeds from the crop to the Robertson family out of sympathy for their situation. This was the same sum of money that the prosecution later portrayed as the motive for the attack.

The most crucial defense witness in Mark's initial trial was Chris Ruoff, who testified to having seen a car parked in front of the Robertsons' house around the time of the murder. Both Terry Deister, the private investigator hired by Lyndel Robertson, and Gary Calvert, the sheriff's deputy in charge of the case, were determined to eliminate the "problem" caused by Ruoff's eyewitness evidence -- and it seems possible that both men committed perjury to try to discredit Ruoff.

In a sworn deposition taken by Mark's attorneys before his first trial, Deister said he had suggested to Calvert in 1991 that either Mark or his father might have been responsible for the attack on the Robertsons, pointing out that the two families were involved in litigation over their business partnership. His statement ignored the fact that the conflict arose months after the shooting.

Since Claude Woodworth had already passed a polygraph test regarding the shooting, Deister suggested to Calvert that Mark might have been the assailant. At this point, according to Deister's deposition, Calvert pointed out that Ruoff had seen a car in front of the Robertsons' house and had been able to identify it specifically as a dark-colored Bronco or Blazer. To test Ruoff's statement, the two men claimed they drove past the Robertsons' house on a moonless night and were unable to see anything more than the faint outline of a vehicle.

The claims in Deister's deposition are almost certainly untrue. On the day after Catherine Robertson's murder, friends and neighbors of the Robertson family installed a high-powered security lamp at the house, which comes on automatically after dark -- leaving the area well-lit at night. For this reason, it would have been impossible for Deister and Calvert to drive past the house in complete darkness.

Calvert himself made similarly unconvincing claims at Mark's first trial.

He testified that he questioned Chris Ruoff again after driving past the Robertsons' house, and that Ruoff admitted to being uncertain about having seen a car in front of the residence. Ruoff himself also testified at the trial, however, and firmly denied having changed his story.

Ballistic evidence was also critical to Mark's first trial. Bullets and bullet fragments removed from Lyndel Robertson and from the body of Catherine Robertson were compared with bullets test-fired from Claude Woodworth's Ruger pistol by three independent agencies -- the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Kansas City (Missouri) Police Department, and Huntington Laboratories, a private facility in the United Kingdom. Expert witnesses from all three labs testified for the prosecution, but while they agreed that there were certain "individualizing characteristics" linking the bullet fragments to Claude Woodworth's pistol, none of them provided positive identification. A ballistics expert testifying for the defense concluded that "hundreds of thousands" of weapons with the same lands and grooves as the Woodworth Ruger could have produced bullet fragments with the same characteristics.

Despite this unbelievably shaky case, Mark Woodworth was convicted in May 1995 and sentenced to 31 years in prison. It took nearly two years for his appeals to reach the Missouri Court of Appeals (Western District), which granted him a second trial based largely on the trial court's exclusion of nearly all the witnesses who had heard Lyndel Robertson accuse Brandon Thomure of shooting him. The court's ruling stated, in part:

"We remand for a new trial … because of error by the trial court in excluding evidence that another person had motive and opportunity to commit the crime. This evidence was admissible as substantive evidence because there was direct evidence linking that individual to the crime in that Mr. Robertson stated prior to trial that this was the one who had shot him … There is evidence that while in the hospital Mr. Robertson told a number of people, including his friends John Quinn, Tom Woodworth, Claude Woodworth, Marvin Meusick, Joe Neal Williams and John Williams, as well as his physician Dr. Fraser, police officer Jim Lightner and others, that a former boyfriend of his daughter named Brandon Thomure was his assailant or that he had seen Brandon assault him. It is alleged that Mr. Thomure had physically abused the Robertsons' daughter Rochelle, that Rochelle had been impregnated by Mr. Thomure, that Rochelle had terminated that pregnancy, and that not long before the shooting Mr. and Mrs. Robertson had offered to buy Rochelle a new car if she would break up with Mr. Thomure … We agree that the State failed to offer credible evidence of motive. While Mr. Robertson testified that he and the Woodworths had a dispute about reimbursing Mark for some expenses, there is no indication that he or his wife ever expressed or otherwise communicated their displeasure to any of the Woodworths prior to the shooting."

Mark Woodworth's new trial, on the same five counts as his original trial, took place in November 1999, more than nine years after the shooting. The second trial lasted just five days and was conducted before Stephen K. Griffin, the same judge who heard the original trial. Jurors were selected from the same pool of registered voters in Clinton County, Missouri, which has a total population of less than 18,000.

At the second trial, Chris Ruoff continued to maintain that he had seen a car parked in front of the Robertson house on the night of the murder, and that he had never changed his statement under questioning by then-Deputy Gary Calvert. Mark Woodworth's new defense attorney also demonstrated to the jury that it would have been impossible to open the box of .22-caliber shells in the Robertsons' shed without leaving more than one fingerprint. Only a single thumbprint of Mark's was found, suggesting that he might simply have touched the box while handling other equipment in the shed.

Even more significantly, Brandon Thomure's mother, who had originally provided him with an alibi for the shooting, changed her story on the witness stand. While she had earlier told police that she looked in on a sleeping Brandon in their Independence home around 10:40 p.m., just over an hour before the shooting in Chillicothe, she testified in court that it was in fact Brandon's 11-year-old sister who had seen him that night. Brandon's sister took the stand and backed up her mother's story. However, another witness, a high-school student in Chillicothe, testified that she had seen Brandon at a gas station in town on the same evening, and produced a canceled check showing that she had been at the station that night.

Despite the time lapsed since the shooting and the volume of crucial new evidence produced by Mark's defense, the new jury returned an identical guilty verdict on all five counts, but imposed an even heavier sentence of four life terms -- one for each count of murder, attempted murder, and armed criminal action, plus 15 years for burglary.
by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 12:30 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 1:24 AM

The Kansas City Star

A 37-year-old rural Missouri man imprisoned much of his life for killing a neighbor was the victim of “manifest injustice” and his conviction should be thrown out, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Two juries have convicted Mark Woodworth in the November 1990 shooting death of Cathy Robertson near Chillicothe, in northern Missouri.

But in late 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court appointed Boone County Circuit Judge Gary Oxenhandler as a special master to hear evidence on Woodworth’s appeal of his conviction and life sentence.

On Tuesday, Oxenhandler filed his report, in which he found that there was “nothing fundamentally fair” about the investigation and prosecutions of Woodworth, whose case The Star featured last year.

The evidence against Woodworth was at best “thin … very thin,” Oxenhandler said.

He cited numerous problems, including the conduct of the county presiding judge at the time, the role of a private investigator hired by the victim’s husband, and the failure of prosecutors to provide key information to the defense before each trial. Investigators also ignored evidence that suggested a different suspect, whose alibi was “shaky, at best,” Oxenhandler wrote.

“This court is skeptical that a jury of reasonable men and women, with a fair look, would find Woodworth guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” he wrote.

The state has 30 days to file exceptions to the report. The Supreme Court will then schedule a hearing to allow arguments. The court will determine if the conviction should be vacated and the case sent back to Livingston County to determine if Woodworth should be retried.

In August, The Star featured Woodworth’s case in stories about former state prosecutor and U.S. Rep. Kenny Hulshof, who handled Woodworth’s first trial. Two other murder defendants prosecuted by Hulshof have been freed in recent years after their convictions were thrown out.

Hulshof was traveling Tuesday and not available for comment. A spokeswoman for his law firm said he had not read the report.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office said Tuesday, “We are reviewing the ruling,” and had no additional comment.

Woodworth, who is incarcerated at the Crossroads Correctional Center in Cameron, Mo., called his parents with the news.

“We’re thrilled to death,” said his mother, Jackie Woodworth. “It’s the one we’ve been praying for a very long time.”

Bob Ramsey, the attorney who has represented Woodworth for about a decade, said he was grateful for the ruling and is looking forward to getting Woodworth freed.

“I have never, ever doubted that Mark is innocent,” Ramsey said.

Though Oxenhandler said in his ruling that he could not make the jump to finding Woodworth actually innocent, he said he was “clearly convinced” that if the case been handled fairly, no jury would have convicted him.

“It is convincingly clear that our judicial process wronged Woodworth and that he deserves the relief that our judicial process affords,” Oxenhandler wrote.

The case has created a rift in the northern Missouri farming community for more than two decades. Many have rallied around the Woodworth family, believing that Mark Woodworth was innocent. Current Livingston County Sheriff Steve Cox reopened the investigation, saying in a court hearing last year that “I’ve always had concern about the outcome of the case.”

But friends and supporters of the Robertsons have been just as convinced of Woodworth’s guilt.

“The family is outraged by this opinion,” said Susan Ryan, a Robertson family spokeswoman. “We trusted the process to be fair and impartial and it failed us.”

She said that the judge ignored the “facts and the truth,” and said the family called on the Missouri Supreme Court to “review the overwhelming evidence against Mark Woodworth” and uphold the decisions of two juries.

“This appears to be judicial activism at its worst,” Ryan said.

Woodworth was 16 when the shooting happened in 1990. His family lived across the road from the Robertsons. His father and Lyndel Robertson were business partners, though it was a deteriorating relationship at the time of the shootings, according to court records.

Cathy and Lyndel Robertson were asleep in their bedroom when a gunman fired six .22-caliber bullets into them. Cathy Robertson died. Lyndel Robertson survived critical injuries. Although he later said he never saw the shooter, he told many people, including police investigators, that he believed the killer was the boyfriend of their eldest daughter.

The case went uncharged for months, but after Lyndel Robertson hired the private investigator, the focus shifted to Woodworth.

After a British ballistics expert solicited by the private investigator linked a gun owned by Woodworth’s father to the crime and Woodworth’s fingerprint was found on a box of .22-caliber bullets in a shed on the Robertson property, a grand jury indicted Woodworth.

In 1995, a jury found him guilty. The Missouri Court of Appeals later ordered a new trial, saying that Woodworth’s attorneys should have been allowed to present evidence about the boyfriend. The court called the case against Woodworth weak, noted the lack of a motive and added: “Had we been on the jury, we might well have voted to acquit.”

With new prosecutors and defense attorneys, a second trial took place in 1999. That jury also found Woodworth guilty.

But in Woodworth’s latest appeal, Ramsey said new evidence gathered in recent years builds a stronger case against the young man first mentioned by Lyndel Robertson.

He also argued that investigators tried to discredit witnesses whose testimony helped Woodworth, and that documents that could have helped Woodworth’s defense never were given to his attorneys.

Those documents include a series of pre-grand-jury letters written by Lyndel Robertson, the county prosecutor and the judge handling the case. The judge’s letter was written to Hulshof. They show, Ramsey contends, that the judge “acted as the de facto prosecutor/law enforcement officer” when the county prosecutor refused to charge Woodworth.

A letter written by the private investigator and signed by Lyndel Robertson to the presiding judge asked the judge to remove Livingston County Prosecutor Doug Roberts from the case for a “lack of enthusiasm.” That prompted Roberts to withdraw, but he reminded the judge of Robertson’s initial “adamant” insistence that his daughter’s boyfriend had been the killer.

That’s when the judge contacted the Missouri attorney general’s office and asked Hulshof to take the case.

In Tuesday’s ruling, Oxenhandler found that the non-disclosure of those letters alone warranted Woodworth’s conviction being thrown out. There was no evidence, he said, that prosecutors intentionally withheld the letters, but that didn’t matter. The defense should have had them.

Beyond that, he found that there was a web of conflicts of interest among some of those involved in the investigation and prosecution, including the private investigator who also was working for Lyndel Robertson in a civil suit against Woodworth’s father, Claude. Oxenhandler also criticized the role played by then-Judge Kenneth Lewis, who presided over the grand jury that indicted Woodworth, appointed a friend as the grand jury foreman and recruited Hulshof.

“This court is hard-pressed to come up with a word or phrase in the English language that fairly describes the conflicts that existed with regard to Woodworth’s judicial process: They could be lyrics to a country and western song,” Oxenhandler wrote.

He found that the judge, now retired, “lost sight of his judicial sense of fairness” and “in effect, he became a prosecutor.”

If the Missouri Supreme Court agrees with Oxenhandler that Woodworth’s conviction should be set aside, it could fall on current Livingston County Prosecutor Adam Warren to decide if Woodworth is retried.

“If I’m ordered to look at it I will,” Warren said Tuesday.

Read more here:
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by Ruby Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 8:16 AM

I would have to see more than this to form an opinion.

by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Mobile Photo

The high-profile case accusing a Chillicothe, Mo., man of murdering a neighbor in 1990 was placed in doubt Monday when a judge threw out critical handgun and bullet evidence.

Platte County Circuit Judge Owens Lee Hull Jr. found “egregious, flagrant, cavalier disregard for evidentiary procedures and processes” in the case against Mark Woodworth.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by Platinum Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 3:51 PM

 Is he out?

This is reminiscent of the West Memphis Three case where the misconduct of pretty much everyone on the public's payroll failed miserably.

by Gina on Apr. 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

 With the information provided, I would say that they did not have enough evidence to convict him, but I'm basing this soley on the information provided. It is a shame that in this day and age, where there are cases that we can prove without a shadow of a doubt, that someone could be convicted on so little.

by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 4:01 PM
He is out and waiting to see if he will go through a third trial.

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

 Is he out?

This is reminiscent of the West Memphis Three case where the misconduct of pretty much everyone on the public's payroll failed miserably.

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by Gina on Apr. 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM
Hopefully, if they decide to retry him for a third time, they will find more compelling evidence or else they will be better served trying look at other possibilities.
Quoting kcangel63:

He is out and waiting to see if he will go through a third trial.

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

 Is he out?

This is reminiscent of the West Memphis Three case where the misconduct of pretty much everyone on the public's payroll failed miserably.

by Platinum Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM

 I find it kind of odd that Woodworth's father filed  lawsuit against his neighbor and business partner within months after the guy's wife is murdered.

That seems like a real asshole move.

by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I added links to the Master's Report and interrogations of Brandon and Rochelle.  IMO (and that is all it is), they look like they were involved.  Especially Rochelle.  Again.  That is just my opinion.  I'm not saying I know either one did it.  I'm not saying I know Mark is innocent.  I do however, feel like (after reading all of this plus more) Rochelle and Brandon were involved, and Mark was not.

Quoting Carpy:

I would have to see more than this to form an opinion.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)