Catherine Jeanne Hessing Robertson 1949 - 1990

The Robertson Family Speaks Out

On the night of Nov. 13, 1990, 16-year-old Mark Woodworth took his father’s .22-caliber handgun from his parent’s bedroom, sneaked across the street to our family home and unloaded six bullets into our mother Cathy and our father Lyndel Robertson. Our mother died immediately of her two gunshot wounds. Our father held onto his life by a thread despite the four bullets that struck him.

The state of Missouri sought and achieved justice, twice against Mark Woodworth. And, the juries’ decision has been upheld since 1999. Over the years, there has been some unbelievable media hype, prompted by people who haven’t looked closely at the facts of the case or by those who refuse to believe someone they love, meaning Mark Woodworth, could be capable of murder.

Despite the rhetoric and lies, we have remained silent and have put our faith in God and the criminal justice system.  Our family believes that justice should be sought in the courtroom, not in the media. However, with every biased newspaper article and every baseless claim, we are forced to relive this heinous crime that Mark Woodworth committed, grieve anew for our mother and defend our family name.

This website is designed to set the record straight, about the murder case of Mark Woodworth, share the facts and provide a resource for people who are really interested in truth and justice.

Two Separate Juries Found Mark Woodworth Guilty of Murder

How do we know who squeezed off six shots into our parents as they slept? Two separate juries have found Mark Woodworth guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The first verdict achieved by Mr. Kenny Hulshof was reversed, and a new trial was granted. In 1999 with a new jury, a new special prosecutor, a new defense lawyer and a new judge, a new trial began. The prosecution presented its case, and the defense deployed its strategy. The second jury convicted Mark Woodworth again for murder. A Missouri appellate court upheld the second verdict and has since 1999.

Prosecutors in both trials had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark Woodworth committed those crimes. That’s what burden of proof means. The state has to prove its case — the defense can just poke holes and create reasonable doubt.

Two Juries Found the Evidence Compelling Enough to Render Mark Woodworth Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The fact remains that only three adults had access to the murder weapon — Mark Woodworth and his parents. Mark’s fingerprints were found on a box of .22-caliber bullets. Mark was concerned that a business decision by my parents would prevent him from earning the money he needed to buy the truck he desperately wanted. Mark’s hatred for my parents and his statements about the murder combined with the physical evidence led prosecutors to charge and two juries to convict him of this violent crime. As has been said before, the guilty lie and the innocent don’t have to.  Mark Woodworth lied about many details.

There is No New Evidence Pointing to Another Suspect

Despite Mark Woodworth’s claims, there is no new evidence pointing to another suspect. Mark Woodworth’s defense used that unsuccessful strategy in the second trial, and it failed. There is no new evidence proving Mark Woodworth’s innocence. There is no new evidence that the state’s case was not handled legally or appropriately because it was. The claims Mark Woodworth raises were either already litigated in court or the defense had the opportunity to raise them at trial or during the appeals process and chose not to do so.

Today, the case is in the hands of the Special Master, who will create a report for the Missouri Supreme Court. We pray the Special Master and the Missouri Supreme Court will review the facts, respect the jury’s decision and not be fooled by the media hype.

Burden of Proof

During both trials against Mark Woodworth, the state had the burden of proof. The defense only has to prove reasonable doubt (as illustrated in the Casey Anthony trial). Both juries decided beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark Woodworth was the murderer.

During the Appeals Process, the defendant has the burden of proof.  Mark Woodworth is making the claim that his defense attorneys were incompetent and the information was withheld by the prosecution in the second trial.  He must prove there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the second trial would have been different if either of these accusations is true.  Allegations are not enough.  The defense must supply evidence to the courts that these allegations are indeed facts. To date, no evidence has been presented that Mark Woodworth had inadequate counsel or that the prosecution in the second trial was flawed. 

Website Builder