What does the AG's office believe? Innocence or a wild conspiracy?

The State of Missouri's case against David Robinson is in shambles.

The prosecution's star witness has recanted his testimony.

A second witness, who was never credible in the first place, has recanted his testimony.

And, before killing himself, another man confessed on audio tape that he killed Sheila Box. That confession was recorded more than a decade ago, yet David Robinson is set to turn another calendar year inside the Jefferson City Correctional Center, 16 years after the murder.

The state never presented any physical evidence that Robinson shot Box, despite seizing Robinson's clothing and both cars Robinson was driving that night. A jury convicted Robinson on two people's testimony. The state has no evidence, and no one left to tell the story that Robinson shot Box. Robinson is in prison for only one reason: The State of Missouri says so.

You want to know why the State of Missouri believes David Robinson is guilty?

Let's start with the word "gal."

The topic was Romanze Mosby. Mosby had confessed to public defender investigator Butch Johnson that he killed Sheila Box on Ruth Street, a completely different version of events than what the state's star witness had told the jury in 2001. Several other people Mosby had talked to about the shooting, including Mosby's stepfather and fellow inmate Kelvin Howard, corroborated the recorded confession after Mosby took his own life.

During the hearing, Elizabeth Bock, former prosecutor with the attorney general's office, tried her best to defend the conviction. Bock, now a judge, was asked by one of Robinson's attorneys, Charles Weiss, about her thoughts on the Mosby confession. Here is the exchange (it has been edited for space, but you can find the entire exchange at semissourian.com):

CW: Can you think of any reason Romanze would confess to a crime that he didn't commit, since someone else has already been convicted?

EB: Yes I can.

CW: Okay. What is your ...

EB: When I looked back in 2004, when I looked at the statement that Romanze had given, there were several red flags raised to me. ... No. 1, there was significant time of meeting with Mr. Mosby before anything went on tape. And he was never Mirandized. Â… Deputy Bobby Sullivan was supposed to be there, but according to Mr. Johnson, Sullivan (could) not go because he was sick. The statement itself contained words that only I had heard Mr. Johnson use. That is the word "gal," g-a-l. That was also the word he used and put in Mr. Baker's mouth during his statement in 2004.

And it was also curious to me that Mr. Mosby came up with this story but it was self-defense. He had no details ... It didn't make any sense to me. He couldn't even describe the victim. So I felt that his statement was suspect. I believe based on the tactics used by Mr. Johnson that he's apparently still proud of today and feels that are proper, I feel that he sat down with Mr. Mosby and said, here I'm going to tell you what happened and then he pressured that man into making a statement.

CW: That's pure speculation, isn't it?

EB: Well, I can only base -- based on what the tactics I've seen Mr. Johnson use.

CW: You have no evidence of that do you?

EB: No, I don't, except the word 'gal.'

It would be funny, except it's not. Sixteen years, David Robinson has toiled in prison, and the State of Missouri, unable to provide evidence, is splitting hairs over the word 'gal.'

Bock went on to say she "never had a chance" to talk to the stepfather, insinuating a conspiracy is at work to free Robinson.

"I don't know what his relationship to the Robinson family is," Bock said. "My experience in this case, we had people come out of the woodwork at the last minute and most of them have either been David Robinson's cellies, had a connection with him or angry at Albert Baker about something else."

That "cellie" comment sounds a little bit like Jason Richison. Richison was the state's second witness who claimed on the stand he was a cellmate with Robinson, which was later refuted by officers. Richison never shared a cell with Robinson. The State of Missouri thinks little lies in court are OK, but when the word "gal" is invoked in a statement, guilt is proven. By the way, Mosby never used the word "gal" in his recorded interview. Only in the statement, which Johnson helped him with. There may have been valid reasons Johnson helped him with his statement.

In another exchange, Bock explained Robinson is guilty because of his lousy alibi defense. When Robinson entered that court, he entered an innocent man. It was up to the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

"One thing that was important to us and the jury at the time was that Mr. Robinson gave an extensive alibi. And it changed, and it changed, and they heard that alibi. That was his defense. And it changed, and the jury heard it changed. I mean, he went forward with an alibi defense at trial, which was something he chose to do, and we popped his alibi."

Robinson had seven people testify that they saw him at about the time of the murder. The problem for Robinson is that their times and locations didn't match up. (See our previous coverage for more information.) Bock knows that unclear alibis do not prove guilt. What made Robinson guilty of murder was the jury's belief in the testimony of two men, one of whom said he saw Robinson shoot Box, the other who said he overheard him confessing. A lack of defense proves nothing.

If the trial were to happen today, the prosecution would have no evidence to offer.

In Bock's statements, she hinted at the rumors I've heard from people who know people in Sikeston law enforcement.

The theory is that Robinson has conspired to convince people to recant and confess for him.

This theory seems to be the only way the attorney general's office and police can convince themselves that Robinson is guilty. The word "gal" is an absurd example of the lengths the state will go to retain this conviction.

n

To believe that Robinson is guilty, you must believe:

• That at least 19 people, who testified at trial or in different depositions since then, have lied or are grossly mistaken. (It took only two state witnesses to convict). Those 19 people include three witnesses, with varying degrees of familiarity with Robinson, who confirmed Mosby's story, because they saw Box driving erratically on Branum Street, not the area that Baker referenced during trial.
• That Robinson is a Kingpin capable of organizing pressure across state lines, in different prisons and out on the street. This is a different portrayal than the prosecution gave of Robinson during trial, when the state believed Richison's testimony that Robinson blurted out a confession in jail, over a random game of dominoes. Thus, to believe in Robinson's guilt, you believe that Robinson is both dense enough to confess loudly to a crime in a room full of potential jailhouse snitches and yet also intelligent enough to convince people to confess to crimes on audio, confessions that also confirm testimony from other witnesses, confessions and recantations that will put other people at risk for more prison time, all while knowing his mail was being watched and phone calls recorded. Law enforcement described Robinson as an enforcer in later interviews.
• That Baker, who was a drug addict at the time, had no incentive to lie when he was being paid roughly $1,500 for "witness protection" in 2000. And that Baker, years later did have an incentive to "lie" when he recanted. The assistant attorney general warned Baker he could spend the rest of his life in jail for perjury. If you believe Robinson is guilty you must also believe that Robinson was able to apply pressure on Baker that exceeds the threat of life in prison. If that's the case, if the state believes that, shouldn't Baker be in witness protection right now? The Southeast Missourian interviewed Baker, who stands behind his recantation. He said he is afraid of police.
• That Robinson, who had no drugs in his system, issued a "warning shot" before shooting Box with his off hand (according to Baker's original testimony). You must think it's reasonable for a right-handed person who is about to rob someone to draw attention to himself by issuing a warning shot before taking a person's money, and then, when arriving at the car, shooting the woman with his left hand.

Bock is quick to point out questionable tactics by Johnson and somewhat pridefully pokes at the credibility of alibi witnesses. But the prosecution and investigation are hardly perfect.

n

Here are some examples of sketchy processes or oversights by the investigation and prosecution:

• Sikeston police officers did not investigate Romanze Mosby, even though a confidential informant told county deputies he committed the murder. County investigators, based on the tip, searched a lake and nearby ditches for the murder weapon, but after the search failed, no one bothered to look into Mosby. Here's an excerpt from assistant Attorney General Katharine Dolin and Detective John Blakely during a post-conviction hearing:

CD: Did the name Romanze Mosby ever come up during your investigation of this murder back in 2000, 2001?

JB: After the -- I believe after the actual conviction, yes ma'am.

CD: So ... you don't remember investigating Romanze Mosby during the initial investigation of the murder?

JB: No. That would have been followed up on if we would have received that information.

Blakely contends that an underwater search for a murder weapon based on a tip tied to Mosby occurred without his knowing. Either the sheriff's department neglected/refused to tell Sikeston PD that their officers were notified of a different suspect, or the sheriff's department did notify Blakely and he perjured himself. Either scenario is a miscarriage of justice for Robinson. It should be pointed out that the jury was not allowed to hear evidence that Mosby was identified as a suspect by a confidential informant. The judge ruled it hearsay. But the sheriff investigator's testimony was included in court transcripts.

• No police interviews were recorded. Bock chastised Johnson for only recording a portion of Mosby's confession, but Sikeston PD recorded none of the interviews or statements that ultimately led to Robinson's conviction. Richison claims police threatened him with more drug charges, among other allegations, and said he obtained information about the case directly from police, and that's how he provided details. With no recordings, we don't know if his assertions are true, but Richison continues to stand by his recantation. Baker, meanwhile, said he put together his story on his own, and "told one lie, then another lie" and the police kept going with it. How many times did Baker's story change? How about Richison's? We don't know, but if the stories changed, maybe Robinson's defense attorney could have "popped that" testimony. No recordings exist.
• Baker was paid for his testimony. The "witness protection" method was the first and only time it was used in the 24-year career of Detective Blakely. Imagine how badly a detective must want a conviction that he is willing to pay a drug addict and a thief hundreds of dollars to secure testimony. It reeks of desperation. Baker said later that despite police's assertion that Robinson's family sought to take him out as a witness during trial, Baker had served time with several of Robinson's relatives over the years, and none of them did anything to him.

So it's time to cut to the heart of the matter. The State of Missouri has to own up to one of two scenarios. The state either believes that Robinson concocted the exoneration blueprints fit for a scandalous Mafia movie script; or it is intentionally holding an innocent man behind bars because it refuses to bear witness to its shortcomings.

The state's witnesses are liars, either now or back then. No one can deny that. They've both lied under oath. No. Evidence. Exists. Only excuses and arguments.

Robinson's presumption of innocence, and a jury's reasonable doubt, were defiled by a couple of liars, a tunnel-vision and extremely flawed police investigation and a prosecution team all too willing to take a flimsy case to a jury. The only reasonable doubt that remains is whether the state can retain its credibility as it tries to defend its conviction again, this time before the highest court in Missouri.

Bob Miller is the editor of the Southeast Missourian.