THE RAG THAT SUPPOSEDLY CLEANED THE BLOOD

 

Jennifer: One of the documentaries suggested that you might have burned whatever you used to clean up the hallway with, along with the clothes you were wearing at the time.

Steve: Several of the Police and BCA investigators checked the wood burner, and they all acknowledged that there was no evidence of any foreign matter in the wood burner. It was just wood ash. That’s why they had to come up with the blue wash cloth as the explanation.

Jennifer: In the crime scene photo, it looks pretty clean. 

Steve: Yes, it has no visible blood stains, yet the State claimed I used it to clean the blood in the hallway. Additionally there was no blood on any other clothes or towels, and no blood spatter on my clothes.

In the grand jury testimony, they went through all the testing they did on the blood on the floor outside of the master bedroom. First, they tested with phenolphthalein to prove it was blood, then they did a hematrace to prove it was human blood, "because with the dogs around we can't assume it's human." ... Fast-forward to the washcloth and they didn't bother to hematrace that, or if they did, they didn't report it. The washcloth that's right next to the dog kennels with the dog first aid kit within arm's reach they assume it must be Amy's blood and used for clean up. UGH!

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. 

Jennifer: It looks like a small cloth for what would have been a big job.

Steve: Yes, the clean up spot was large, Amy's DNA is not even a primary source on the rag. Her DNA should be all over that rag if it cleaned up her blood, so it seems clear that it wasn't used. 

The clean up seems to have been quick and nothing in the house was used to do it. That's good because it would've been more damning for me if something in the house was 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 would I try to move her, and if I did move her, why not drag her? She was 239 lbs, and I was 166 lbs. 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.

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.

LUMINOL FOOTPRINTS

When investigators applied luminol to the crime scene, they found a set of footprints. Steve discusses the path he took that night when he got home:

Yes, those are my footprints, because they are consistent with everything I did when I got home that evening. 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 to check her vitals, back to Joe. The number of footprints match those trips. 

Each time my socks would pick up some more of that blood residue, even though I couldn't see it. If there were no footprints, it would be incriminating because either I didn't check on Amy or I did a cleanup job prior to calling the police.

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.

When I gave my first interview to the police, the night she died, I gave details about where I walked in the house when we found Amy. This was before any luminol, and before any pictures. Then the evidence came back and matched my description ... isn't that how it's supposed to work? But rather than that being a good thing the police turn it into a negative.

Here are the oddities that they don't bring up. The 2 closest sinks are the kitchen sink and the master bathroom, 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 weren’t.