Mark Dorsett has spent 25 years of his life in a Virginia Prison after being found guilty of the murder of an elderly woman.

There is absolutely no evidence that he committed this crime and his conviction was based on a false confession and ineffective counsel.

During his interrogation he asked for a lawyer but was not given one. Once he did get a lawyer, the lawyer asked for the form that Mark would have had to sign in order to waive his rights. The officer's who interrogated him said that they rarely use that form and will choose not to use it if they believe it will stop the person getting interrogated from talking. They also said he waived his rights orally. He was 22 and was interrogated for over 9 hours and after taking a polygraph test (which are inadmissible in court due to the fact that they are not reliable) he confessed under duress. 

There was absolutely no DNA evidence to connect him to the crime. The DNA found at the scene that was tested, belonged to 2 men. One of these men was not charged at all because he told police to look into Mark and his roommate.

His roommate's DNA was found mixed with victims DNA, his DNA was also found on her cane, and his pubic hairs were also found on the victim. Again no DNA from Mark. His roommate's story continued to change during his interrogation, first saying he didn't commit the crime, then saying Mark did the crime, then saying that Mark made him participate in the crime.

His roommate was executed, but even with absolutely no evidence, Mark was sentenced to 135 years.

His counsel either did not request a change of venue for the trial or it was not granted, even though the courthouse was minutes away from where the murder was committed. There is no doubt that the jury members knew most of the details of this case before being selected as jury members because the case was highly publicized in Newport News. This brings in the issue of bias.

Extremely graphic photos of the crime were displayed by the prosecutors, which by law is admissible IF "their probative value substantially outweighs their prejudicial impact." It is also "presumptively admissible if it is relevant, meaning it has ‘any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action." I am not a lawyer, but showing these graphic photos would definitely have a prejudicial impact. Showing those photos would most likely make any jury want someone, anyone, to pay for the crime.

During Mark's trial he was the only person to testify in his defense, although his defense team knew there were person's who would testify in his defense and they also had videos from a team that went to Arkansas to get statements from family members. For no explainable reason, they did not use any of this during his trial.

Mark has 4 children, his mother, 1 niece, 1 nephew, and 2 brothers who have not been able to see him outside of prison for 24 years. He's missed birthdays, Thanksgivings, Christmas's and the birth of grandchildren.

No one should be in prison for a crime they did not commit. If nothing is done, this innocent man will spend the rest of life behind bars.

We need to take action. We need to get Virginia lawmakers to relook at his case. This will not happen unless we apply pressure and make some noise.

We beg you to please sign this petition to start getting eyes on this case and to get an innocent man out of prison and back to his family.