FIRST INTERVIEW

1992, freshmen, Ambassador College

Jennifer: What are some of the key exonerating points in your case?

Steve: I have about a 30-page doc on the details, but I can summarize them for you. They claimed that the time of death was 3:15 PM or earlier, because the medical examiner showed up at 7:00 PM, and time of death was determined to be 4-6 hours prior to his investigation. What I found out later is they had a document that showed the medical examiner didn’t show up until 11:31 PM, which changes the time of death to 5:31pm to 7:00 PM. No one argues that I left prior to that and came home and found her at 7:00 PM.

Three different people checked rigor mortis status at three different times and each came back to a time of death of roughly 5:30 as well.

Amy had 50+ gunshot residue (GSR) particles on her hands, showing that GSR was pervasive, and yet I had no GSR on my clothes and only a single particle on my right hand. That's the hand I used to check her vitals, because the 911 operator told me to.

They claim there was a large section of blood that was cleaned up with a light blue rag, and yet the rag has no visible blood stains and Amy's DNA isn't even a major contributor on the rag. Additionally there was no blood on any other clothes or towels, and no blood spatter on my clothes.

They claimed that I killed her to avoid a divorce, yet there was no evidence of a divorce and everyone interviewed (including Amy prior to her death) said we had a great marriage.

They claim no one else would have wanted her dead, and yet Amy suggested a lady as a suspect before she died, and there's email evidence pointing to this lady, and a lot of other strange "coincidences"

I've got quite a bit more, but those are the key bits.

Jennifer: Can you cite some examples of Brady violations where the prosecutor withheld exonerating evidence?

Steve: In my case, they withheld the medical examiner investigator's notes, my bitcoin account number, and some photos taken at the crime scene. Those are the ones I know about and can prove, There are probably others. 

Bagley is an expansion of Brady which removes the materiality standard and says all favorable evidence needs to be turned over.

Napue v. Illinois is Ffalse testimony. They aren't allowed to solicit false testimony and they're required to correct it if they know about it. So in my case this would be the medical examiner saying that her investigator arrived at 7:00 PM when he actually arrived at 11:31 PM. (According to the crime scene log that the prosecution had.)

Jennifer: Were there other examples of misconduct?

Steve: Yes, for example, prior bad acts - we call it Spreigl evidence here. They can't bring it in unless it's directly connected to the crime being prosecuted, but they usually do. Michelson v United States and Old Chief v. United States speak to that.

"Colorful" arguments in opening and closing - Taylor v. Kentucky - they aren't supposed to bring up anything that wasn't proven by the evidence. Like they repeatedly said that I killed Amy to avoid a divorce, yet there was no evidence of it, and everyone on the stand and in police reports said we had a great relationship. In fact, I stayed with my in-laws for 2.5 months after her death. Additionally they said many times that I drugged her and yet the medical examiner said we don't know when or how often she ingested the drug, and none of it was found in our house.

Violations in chain of custody - California v. Trombetta - Evidence is supposed to stay in the custody of the police or officers of the court, except for samples that may be sent for testing. The originals of all my electronic devices were given to a 3rd party. Then he wanted to charge us $45,000 to get images of them to review. 

Vouching for a witness or improperly impeaching a witness - I don't have the case handy, but similar to your friend Adam’s case. My neighbor saw Amy out in the garage over an hour after the State's time of death, and they basically said he didn't know what day it was because he is a shift worker. They made a similar claim about a recorded statement of a neighbor that we stipulated to, because he saw two cars speeding out of the neighborhood during our time of death window, and the state claimed they were confused about the day as well. The interview was taped less than 24-hours after her death.

They didn't do it in my case, but they do it a lot here where they violate the portion of the double jeopardy clause that says you can't be convicted of legally inconsistent verdicts. Here they often charge someone with 1st degree murder and aiding and abetting 1st degree murder, but if someone was the killer then who did they aid?

All summarized in Berger v. United States, a prosecutor may not use "improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction" ... Oh really? That's news to me (he says with a cynical smile).

The one that makes me laugh (have to laugh or I'll cry) is the ABA standard 3.1.1 "A prosecutor is a minister of justice whose obligation it is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public."

When we mentioned in our MN Supreme Court argument that the prosecution violated the ABA stardards their answer was "The ABA standards are guidelines, and are not codified in MN law." WHAT?? 

I'm sure you would be shocked by that statement if you were not already numb to their callous disregard of the law when you looked into Adam’s case. :-)

Jennifer: I’ve said to friends that it might be hard to prove that you’re innocent, but it’s relatively easy to prove prosecutor misconduct.

Steve: You're right, prosecutor misconduct and other procedural issues are easier to prove, but in Minnesota they like to claim that any of that stuff is "harmless error" ... "Appellant would've been found guilty any way, so it does matter."

Jennifer: In another documentary, “Click for a Killer,” we’re introduced to the dark web and to “Yura”, who has a network of assassins and who dogdaygod hired to kill Amy. I was shocked when Yura outright claimed responsibility for Amy’s death, saying that one of his men did it.

Steve: I was at Oak Park when it aired. Oak Park is Max security, so we don't have bars, but solid doors. My neighbor happened to see I was on there, so he bangs on the wall and yells that I'm on TV. I dismissed it, I've seen it all :-)  About 5 minutes later he banged again, so I turned it on, but it was a commercial and I thought about turning it off, but I left it on. Immediately after the commercial was Besa Mafia admitting to killing Amy, and speeding out of the neighborhood, just like the neighbor saw. It was so short that no one else saw that bit until I drew their attention to it. What are the chances that all that would happen without a little urging from God? There are other things regarding people I've come in contact with at just the right time, or cases that I just stumble upon. Pretty amazing.

Jennifer: I agree. I experienced that sort of thing all the time when I was looking into Adam’s case and writing a book about it. At the Besa Mafia website, I noticed that a person can “hire a killer or a hacker.” What was there to rule out that whoever wanted Amy dead, didn’t hire both a killer and a hacker who then left a trail leading back to you? 

I know that in one documentary they said the website turned out to be a fraud, just taking people’s money and then not doing the hit, but I have my doubts because clearly this guy is a hacker and could definitely fulfill that for someone. I base that on how he actually sets up the guy who is tracking him online and trying to bring him down. The Besa guy is so successful that he had authorities thinking that the guy who was trying to bring him down was actually the Besa guy! 

But I do recognize that the weakness in this is that if Besa really does just take people’s money and doesn’t actually deliver with a hit, taking credit for the Amy Allwine death would be a good strategic move to make it seem as if they do deliver. 

Steve: Yes, there's no evidence that the person didn't hire a hacker as well, but the lady was an IT person prior to working with dogs, so I'm not sure what her skill set is. Saying I'm in IT, so I could be a major hacker, is like saying Adam's a Dr, so he can do open heart surgery. The knowledge area is way too broad. I worked on phone systems. If you want calls to go to customer service instead of sales, then I can help you out :-)

I agree that Besa could be claiming that they killed Amy to bolster credibility, but what bothers me or makes think it could be real is: 1) why her specifically? They could claim responsibility for any murder and many unsolved murders, why just her? 2) They included details that were in the media, but also one detail that I never heard in the media "... they sped away.” While it seems like a small thing, that was a detail noted by the neighbor, but never publicized.

Also, I just received an email from a group in London and they have a first and last name for Yura. That could make things interesting if they know that for sure, and how they found it. 

Jennifer: The media has certainly made it seem like an airtight case against you. 

Steve: Yes, the media makes it look bad, and it may seem insurmountable; however, I've showed my evidence to a couple guys here and they can't believe I was convicted, so to them it seems overwhelmingly in my favor. That's why I'm curious to get your impression.

Jennifer: I noticed in your appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court that you mentioned the failure of the State to disclose the Yura/Besa confession. They say it wasn’t misconduct because they obtained it after the trial. That seems weak to me. Adam had something similar. The victim impact statement was read out after the jury found him guilty. In it, his wife’s family said that she had told them about a prowler in the house a few nights before. The family just presumed it was Adam, but Adam knew he wasn’t so his appeal (which failed) was to have an evidentiary hearing and to try to find out who this prowler was. The State said they didn’t have the letter translated in time (Samira’s family was in France & Madagascar) to share it with the defense until that day it was read in court. So that’s another similarity between your cases.

Steve: Yes, clearly his defense and my defense failed “to use an expert to develop alternative perpetrator theory and to present alternative perpetrator evidence…” 

Jennifer: Yes! The evidence pointed to the handyman, who even testified for the prosecution, and the defense demonstrated that he lied under oath. But nothing came of  it. No accusation of the murder. Not even a charge of perjury. Also, an expert was present in the courthouse to discuss phone records that were important, such as that Samira had called Adam after he left the house that day, but the defense just left the expert sitting out there and only used 3 witnesses — Adam’s personal assistant, the neighbour who saw the wife alive after he left, and a medical examiner who said that Samira appeared to have been in the water for minutes, not hours. It wasn’t a bad case, but it was the difference between a Bud Lite and a Guinness! Not exactly a robust, potent presentation for the jury!

Steve:  At least Adam's defense brought in a medical examiner. My attorney didn't even bother to hire an ME. How to do not hire medical examiner when Time of Death is the crux of the issue?

How is that not clearly Ineffective Assistance of Counsel? The court says, "That's a strategic decision." Really? What was the strategy, see how many holes you can drill in your boat before it sinks? :-) ... yes I can sort of smile at the stupidity of it.

Jennifer: One of the issues that seems critical in your case is the blood that had been cleaned up in the hallway. Yura said one of his men killed Amy Allwine, so why would they take the time to clean up a mess afterwards? I understand that I can’t exactly ask YOU why the blood was cleaned up because if you’re not the killer, you didn’t do it, so how would you know why the killer cleaned the hallway? But do you have any thoughts on the topic?

Steve: The clean up has bothered me too, because I can't explain it either. It seems to have been quick, because nothing in the house was used to clean it up. That's good because it would've been more damning for me. The prosecution claims that a light blue rag was used to clean it up, because it tested "presumptively positive for blood,” however, Amy used this rag to clean cuts and scrapes on the dogs. I asked my lawyer to have it tested for canine DNA to prove my story and he never did it. 

Additionally, the clean up spot was large, there's no visible blood on the rag, and Amy's DNA is not even a primary source on the rag (her DNA couldn't be excluded, but neither could 40% of the population. A very low number for DNA). Her DNA should be all over that rag if it cleaned up her blood, so it seems clear that it wasn't used. The only thought in my mind was that there was a pool of blood there and something identifiable was dropped in it or marked it (maybe a handprint or footprint when they moved her?). If my timing is right they only had about 30 minutes to get in, kill her, move her, clean that spot, and get out.

The other odd thing to me was moving her. It seems like she was killed in the hallway based on the clean up there. If I was the shooter then why try to move her, and if I did move her, why not drag her? She was 239lbs, and I was 166. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to lift and carry her to the bedroom, but yet the evidence shows she was carried and not dragged. My opinion is that if that lady ordered her killed, then the killers would've needed a picture to prove she was dead. If she crumpled in the hallway, the bedroom would've been the closest place to lay her flat to get a picture. Unless you have a better theory.

The State claimed that I moved her because my story was that I last saw her in the bedroom, but that's dumb because if I was making up a story I could make up anything (I last saw her in the kitchen...). I could've just matched the story to where she ended up instead of trying to move her.

Jennifer: I agree. But, of course, in the court of public opinion, they can make the blood and the clean up look as if it all points to you. 

Steve: Yes, they made such a big deal out of these and it's ridiculous. We take our shoes off at the door, so we have sock feet in the house. That big blood cleanup spot that they mention is in a small hallway right in front of the bedroom. So I walked through that with sock feet and therefore spread it where I walked after we found Amy. I would've walked through it at least 4 times (to Amy the first time, back to Joe, back to Amy as requested by 911, back to Joe). The number of footprints pretty well match those trips, though they're kind of hard to see at times. The bathroom, was Joe's bathroom where he was. The only footprints that are by the sink have the toes facing away from the sink because Joe and I were leaning against the sink and looking at the back wall. Then the footprints go to Joe's bedroom which is where we went to sit down. The 911 operator told us to go outside, so we passed through the laundry room to go outside. There is one set of prints, heading out the garage door and not near the sink. 

Here are the oddities that they don't bring up. The 2 closest sinks are the kitchen sink and the master bathroom, and both of which have towels or rags. If I was cleaning up, then wouldn't I use a close sink instead of walking all the way across the house? Amy was moved to the bedroom, so why are there no footprints around her body? The one set of footprints in the laundry room don't go near the sink or washer/dryer. 

Additionally if those were made during clean up, but also match my path after we found her, then there should've been footprints coming into the house when we returned as well, but there aren’t.

The investigators didn't think she was killed in the bedroom, so no blood stains on the comforter means nothing; however there are no blood stains on my clothes and I would think that is more important :-) 

Jennifer: One documentary mentioned that you had a wood stove going and that it was an unseasonably warm day, therefore you used the wood stove to get rid of the bloody cloths and your bloody clothes. I have a wood stove and I know how hard it would be to get rid of all the evidence that way. Especially in that short time frame. There would be fragments remaining, not to mention things like buttons and zippers and residue from synthetic fabrics. 

Steve: The outside wood boiler that we had heated Amy's dog training building as well as the house. On warmer days, we would turn off the pump to the house, but we had to keep heating Amy's business. It was a 4,000 sq ft. building with 12 foot high ceilings, so even on cool days (40-50°F) we still have to heat it. And you're right there's no way everything would've been burned and several investigators looked in there and only saw wood ash.