The
Evidence Presented to the Jury that Convicted Mark Woodworth
.22-caliber bullets
After the
murder, a box of .22-caliber shell casings was open and shells were lying out
on the workbench in a shed behind the Robertson home that was primarily used for Lyndel Robertson's personal equipment and was not the main shop/work area of the joint farming operation. When Lyndel Robertson closed the shed the
evening before the shootings, everything was put away and the shell casings
were hidden in their usual location behind cigar boxes on the workbench.
The open shell
boxes were dusted for fingerprints and two partial prints and one nearly
complete print were revealed. Those prints were compared to two potential suspects
and there was not a match. They were
eventually matched to Mark Woodworth.
Ballistics
experts identified that the box of bullets on the workbench had a mark
consistent with a manufacturing defect that matched a similar manufacturing
mark on the bullet recovered from Lyndel Robertson.
Conflicting Stories by Mark Woodworth
Mark Woodworth’s Access to the Shed - During interviews by investigators,
Mark Woodworth gave multiple and conflicting answers about his access to the
shed. He initially stated he had never
been inside the shed. Then said he may have been in the shed a time or two. Then
he said he was in the shed prior to the murder. Then he claimed he could not
have been in the shed because he was in school.
Mark Woodworth also denied he had ever seen any .22-caliber shells in the shed,
and said he never touched any of the shells. Mark’s fingerprint was found on
the shell box inside the shed right after the murder.
Mark Woodworth’s Feelings about Lyndel Robertson - Mark Woodworth stated to investigators
that he thought Lyndel Roberson was an asshole. Yet, later in the interview, he
said he didn’t have anything against Mr. Robertson and stated that the
shootings might have happened because someone was mad at Lyndel or did it for
fun.
Mark Woodworth’s Knowledge of the Business Partnership
Difficulties - When Mark
was asked by investigators about the difficulties in the business partnership
between Lyndel Robertson and Mark Woodworth’s father Claude, he first stated he knew nothing of
problems in the partnership and then stated he knew his father wanted to terminate
the partnership. Then he stated he learned of the partnership problems only
after the shootings.
Mark Woodworth’s Acknowledgement that he Shot the
Robertsons - When a
member of the Missouri State Highway Patrol questioned Mark in 1994, he stated
to Mark that they both knew that Mark had shot the Robertsons. Mark Woodworth responded by nodding his head in an affirmative
motion. Later Mark maintained he did not
shoot the Robertsons. Then the
investigator told Mark Woodworth that if he was the cold-blooded murder and found guilty
of capital murder, he could be executed.
But if Cathy Robertson’s death was an accident, it was an entirely different
matter. Mark Woodworth replied “we all have to die
someday.”
Mark Woodworth’s Conflicting Stories about the
Murder Weapon - Mark
gave conflicting stories about using his father’s pistol (the murder weapon) during
target practice and when and where he was shooting the weapon.
During the 1992 interview with investigators
and at trial in 1993, Mark Woodworth changed his story about where the murder weapon was
kept in his parents’ bedroom. And, there were conflicting stories by his
parents about where the weapon was kept in the bedroom.
Motive
The Woodworth’s
had an insurance policy on Lyndel Robertson for over $100,000. Mark Woodworth had hoped
to earn $6,000 for working the fields, and a dispute between Mark and Lyndel
resulted in Mark not receiving the money.
Mark Woodworth wanted to buy a truck with the money. People have been shot for less than $6,000 or
a truck.
Murder Weapon
Claude Woodworth
and Lyndel Robertson both had Ruger revolvers.
A firearms
expert deployed by the Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab examined the
Robertson’s .22-caliber Ruger revolver and compared test firings from that gun
to the bullet fragments recovered from the Robertson’s bodies. Mr. Robertson’s gun was eliminated as the
murder weapon.
Two weapons experts
matched bullets from the Robertson’s bodies to the Woodworth’s revolver and
identified the Woodworth’s gun as the murder weapon. During the second trial, a
videotape of the interior of the barrel of the Woodworth’s revolver was shown
to the jury that linked the Woodworth’s gun to the bullets from the
bodies. Three of the bullets recovered
from the Robertsons had individual characteristics that matched individual
characteristics of bullets test fired from the Woodworth’s revolver.
Claims that the
murder weapon did not have Mark Woodworth’s fingerprints on it were irrelevant. It is rare for guns to have fingerprints
because of the type of material used.
The fact remains
that only three adults had access to the murder weapon — Mark Woodworth and his parents.
Lyndel Robertson’s Statements about a
Potential Suspect
Despite claims that Lyndel changed his story about who shot him, law enforcement officers and a member of the Woodworth family testified that Lyndel never indicated that he saw who shot him, expressing instead, who he thought might want to shoot him. It is very common for victims to provide information to investigators about potential suspects.
All Leads Were Investigated
Despite
allegations, all leads were investigated at the time of the murder. When the second special prosecutor took over
the case, an entirely new investigation was conducted and all leads were
re-investigated. A friend of Mark Woodworth’s family, Sherriff Cox has also stated that he has been investigating
the murder since 1990, and he too has been unable to produce evidence that
contradicts the jury’s decision.
Despite
emotional allegations, Brandon’s alibi for the night of the murder was verified
by his mother, sister, his wrestling coach and kids at school. He lived 90 minutes away from the Robertson’s
and did not have access to a car. The
night of the murder, he received a phone call at his home from one of the
Robertson daughters. The next morning, he got a ride to Chillicothe. He was
investigated for years for his possible involvement in the crime.
Other Allegations
Any references to Grand Jury are irrelevant. It is the 1999 sentence and judgment after the
second trial, not the indictment, or the first trial judgment that is the cause
of Mark Woodworth’s current incarceration.
Steve Cox is not an unbiased party. His campaign for Sheriff was largely funded by the Woodworths.
Mark’s claims that police failed to
investigate certain leads or certain witnesses is really a claim attacking the
quality of his trial attorneys. If Mark Woodworth’s attorneys really believed the police
investigation was faulty, it was the responsibility of his trial counsel to
investigate those leads, and note the shortcomings to the jury. But, that
responsibility exists only if the trial attorneys believe it is strategically
appropriate to do so. The attorneys who represented Mark Woodworth during both trials are
all well respected and experienced. The law presumes there were reasons why
Mark Woodworth’s lawyers did not call certain witnesses at trial.
Conclusion
While Mark Woodworth claims he is actually innocent and that the State has been “withholding the truth” for many years, the evidence he has presented to date fails to substantiate either claim. Unlike cases where relief has been granted based on the discovery that the State withheld evidence or presented false evidence, in this case Mark Woodworth presented no evidence that the State’s case proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was suspect or in doubt. Instead, almost the entirety of Mark Woodworth’s claims focused on his desire to strengthen his allegation that Brandon Hagan was the true shooter. Yet Mark Woodworth made no significant attack on the evidence presented by the State proving his guilt.
Attacking the shortcoming in his defense’s latest attempt to implicate Brandon Hagan in the Murder, remains the same – the evidence that the gun used to shoot the Robertsons belonged to Claude Woodworth. It is that conclusion by the jury, rather than Brandon Hagan’s checkered past, which clearly resulted in Mark Woodworth’s conviction. Mark Woodworth presented no evidence to erode the quality of that proof by the State. Coupled with
Mark Woodworth’s
inconsistent explanations and his derogatory attitude towards the victims the
State persuaded the jury that it was he, and not Brandon Hagan, who committed
the shootings.
The defense has
presented no new evidence in this trial. There is no evidence to prove that the
prosecution in either trial withheld evidence.
The defense has presented conflicting testimony of witnesses after more
than 20 years. That is very common, and
the reason why testimony at the time of trial trumps a recollection 20 years
later. Memories fade, people can be
persuaded.