FIFTH INTERVIEW

 

Jennifer: I’ve heard law enforcement officials say that nine times out of ten, it’s the spouse who did it. But I suspect that it’s a statistic that might be self-fulfilling, and that maybe it’s more accurate to say that nine times out of ten, the spouse will be the one doing the time for the murder or suspicious death. In your case, the prosecution wanted the jury to think that there was no other suspect in this case except for you. 

Steve: There are many issues with the State’s case, some they can’t explain and some they don’t want to explain because it isn’t consistent with their story that I did it. One of the big issues is around motive and who would have wanted to harm Amy.

Jennifer: The State claimed that “Amy could offer no leads” when asked who would want to harm her. 

Steve: That was only half-true. It’s true that initially when the FBI confronted her with the  threats, she said she didn’t know who would want her dead.  But over a period of time, she was able to give them a list that had four names on it. And of those four, she had one that was the primary person of interest. I’ll call her K. 

Jennifer: And you think Amy was right?

Steve: Yes, I do. We were both suspicious of her. 

Jennifer: What do you base your suspicion of K on?

Steve: There were six topics discussed between dogdaygod and Besa Mafia that point to K. I’ll start with the alibi. Besa Mafia recommended that dogdaygod be out of town on the day of the murder, in a public place, in a city that is outside of driving range. Dogdaygod replied that, “I will make sure I have a good alibi.” And on another occasion, “Give me heads up when they are planning to do it, so I can have a good alibi.” K was verifiably out of town, in Oklahoma, in a public place, a dog show. Of all the people interviewed, she was only one out of town and in a public place, as recommended by Besa Mafia. 

Jennifer: So K was in Amy’s life through their shared interest in dog training?

Steve: Yes, and that’s another topic I bring out in my brief. Dogdaygod had detailed knowledge of Amy’s out of town trips that K was involved with, but only vague information about the trips she wasn’t involved with. I cite examples in the brief. 

Jennifer: I did some reading about the case in one of Eileen Ormsby’s book about the dark web. Another thing that dogdaygod told Besa Mafia was that her child played with Amy’s son. 

Steve: Yes, and K was the only one with a child, related to Amy’s dog business, who played with our son. 

Jennifer: Surely, though, the FBI would have found damaging information on K’s computer if she had been dogdaygod?

Steve: K didn’t let the FBI image her computer. Of all the people interviewed, she was the only one who appeared concerned about the FBI analyzing her computer. She was the only one to schedule a meeting with the FBI at her lawyer’s office. And in that meeting, she only allowed them to take a cursory look at her computer. 

Jennifer: That definitely seems like it should have raised suspicion, especially since her name had been at the top of Amy’s list of who might be threatening her. 

Steve: Another link between K and dogdaygod is that dogdaygod told Besa Mafia that her family was being torn apart. A year after Amy’s death, K got a divorce from her husband. It was the week after my conviction. Had it been before my conviction, then we may have had more to prove that she was alternative perpetrator. 

She did the same thing with opening a business, doing it after my conviction. If she was innocent, why wait until after I was convicted to move forward on these things?

Jennifer: I recall reading that dogdaygod also accused Amy of stealing her business.

Steve: Yes, K and Amy had competing businesses. They occasionally collaborated on large projects, but overall, Amy was doing well on her own. Amy’s business was very successful and was growing. She worked in the same area as K, so this would have taken clients away from her, which is exactly what dogdaygod accused Amy of doing to her. 

Dogdaygod told Besa Mafia, “When it is done, then I will either get her business or her customers.” Before that she said, “If this person dies, I am pretty sure that her husband will give or sell her business.”  Following Amy’s death, K opened a branch of her business near where Amy’s business was located. And she purchased her equipment, hired her trainers, and serviced her clients. But as I said, why wait until I was convicted?

Since the Besa Mafia emails were not public, how would she know to hold off on those things, to avoid looking guilty, unless she was the author?  

Jennifer: One thing seems strange to me, though. Initially, dogdaygod is saying not to harm you because she doesn’t want your child to be an orphan. Later, she’s setting you up to look like you’re dogdaygod!

Steve: Yes. Initially, in the Besa Mafia correspondence, dogdaygod is trying to make sure that our son doesn’t end up as an orphan. Later, when she knew the police were looking into it, I think that’s when she had to set me up to deflect attention away from how the Besa Mafia correspondence pointed to her. She asked Amy to have me help her with her Ring wireless camera setup. 

We were told to act "normal", so when K asked for help with the setup, Amy offered my assistance. But Amy told me to bring the gun, because she didn't trust K. All I ended up doing was moving the wireless router to the next room (by a window) so the signal reached the camera. Interestingly this was in August, around the time that the backup file was uploaded to the cloud. My laptop was on her kitchen counter while I was outside. Coincidence?

Jennifer: It’s circumstantial evidence, but it’s pretty powerful. Instead, the jury was given a different case based on an assemblage of different circumstantial evidence. 

Steve: I wrote in my brief that the State distracted the jury by the use of provocative but unrelated events and argumentative assertions to throw a cloud over what happened that day. Now the burden has shifted to me to show what really happened that day.

Jennifer: You also wrote in your brief that in a circumstantial evidence case, such as this, “the evidence must form a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.” I know you’re hoping that the court will look at your case impartially and reconsider the jury’s verdict based on the evidence you’ve shared in your brief.