WERE YOU A JUROR IN THE ALLWINE TRIAL?

If you were a juror in the Allwine trial, would you be willing to provide an affidavit for an upcoming motion being filed?

One of the jurors called a friend of Mr. Allwine's and was discussing the verdict. This juror said that the jury was not sure if Mr. Allwine actually pulled the trigger. They then asked if he had to pull the trigger to be guilty of first-degree murder, but were told he just had to be involved. 

However, that's not first-degree, premeditated murder. Also, Mr. Allwine would like to know who was asked because he and his legal representation were never called back into open court for any jury questions, and that is required by law. 

If you were a juror and know anything more about this, please contact this blog at aninterviewwithsteve@gmail.com

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. 

FOURTH INTERVIEW

Jennifer: You recently submitted a brief to the State on Insufficient Evidence. (see below) Would you like to share why there is a need for you to create a brief like this to submit to the court?

Steve: As you know, it is a complicated case and the State has made a lot of claims in their theory of the case, and they have not been properly addressed. It takes a lot of time and work to unravel them, but I am attempting to do so clearly and concisely using testimony and evidence presented at the trial. 

Jennifer: In your brief, you mention that in the past, the Court has “voiced concern regarding convictions based on circumstantial evidence.” Could you expand on this?

Steve: Yes, as I mentioned in the brief, the danger with a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the jury will fill in the gaps and draw unwarranted conclusions. In this brief, I’m requesting that the Court make an independent evaluation of what was presented in court. 

Jennifer: You boldly say near the beginning of your brief that you’re in prison because the prosecution misled the jury by distorting the evidence through half-truths and false statements, not because the evidence points unerringly to your guilt. So let’s go through the points you discuss in your brief.

Steve: The Prosecution’s case against me is that I drugged my wife with scopolamine and that I killed her between 1:30 PM and 3:30 PM with the handgun. Then I supposedly moved her body into the bedroom and then cleaned up the scene where she had been shot. Previous to that, I had gone to the dark web, contacted Besa Mafia to hire a hitman, as well as to another site to buy scopolamine. Later, I sent anonymous threatening emails to my wife and then ultimately killed her to avoid a divorce.

Jennifer: OK, let’s start by talking about the drug, scopolamine, found in Amy’s system. 

Steve: One of the points I make in the brief is that there was no scopolamine found in the house. If I had purchased it online, it would have had to have been stored and administered somehow. There was no evidence of that presented by the State.

The assumption was made that I gave it to her at lunch at around 12:15 PM. However, the State presented no absorption rates or metabolic rates to support the claim that it took an hour for Amy to absorb the drug. They assumed that Amy didn’t consume anything after lunch, and yet there were partially full beverage containers next to the bed. 

Dr. Mills conceded that, "we don't know how much, how often, or when she took the drug."

Jennifer: With it taking about an hour for the scopolamine to absorb, the State concludes that Amy died sometime after 1:30 PM. Am I understanding that correctly? Which would mean sometime during the afternoon while you were still at home.

Steve: The State narrowed the time of death to between 1:30 PM and 3:30 PM based off of an answer to a hypothetical question. Dr. Mills was asked by defense counsel that if someone testified to a time of death between 3:00 PM and 3:15 PM “could you agree or not agree with it?” She said that because it didn’t conflict with her previous statement  (of after 1:30 PM) she could agree with it. 

That State then turned “could” to “would” and repeated it back to her, changing the meaning of the sentence and she agreed to it. 

And, of course, it was all based on a hypothetical question to begin with. Based on the actual medical examiner’s report from that night, the time of death was later, sometime between 5:31 PM and 7:00 PM.

To arrive at this early time of death the prosecution had to lie about when the investigator for the medical examiner's office arrived. They had their witness testify that he arrived around 7:00 PM and stated she had died 4-6 hours earlier, when the crime scene log shows that he actually didn't arrive until 11:31PM, which would mean that 4-6 hours earlier was sometime between 5:31 PM and 7:00 PM, when I got home and called 911.

Jennifer: Since the time of death is critical to your innocence, you cover this thoroughly in your brief. But the jury, alas, was working with a timeline based on a hypothetical question. 

Steve: One of the State’s witnesses, a neighbor of ours, was outside cleaning his koi pond from about 1:30 PM to 5:30 PM. He said he could hear dogs barking occasionally, but he never heard a gun shot. 

Jennifer: You bring up many things that are significant, such as that another neighbor saw two cars speeding away at around 6:00 PM. You had left the house by then to pick up your son. 

Steve: Yes, the prosecution wanted the jury to believe that I had killed Amy before 3:15 PM, that I cleaned the area where it happened, and then left at 5:30 PM to pick up our son. But another neighbor testified that he saw Amy sometime between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM, alive and in the garage. Our garage door sensors show that the garage was open at around 4:40 PM. So that is not consistent with the State’s timeline.

Jennifer: No, it really destroys their version of events. And you can prove that you left the house at around 5:30 PM?

Steve: Yes, the garage door sensors show the door opening at 5:25 PM. I have a gas station receipt time-stamped 5:42 PM. Later we went to Culver’s and I have a receipt for that, too.

In fact, that's actually never been disputed. Yes, we actually agreed on something. The State acknowledged on the record that departure time and that "his whereabouts are accounted for thereafter.”

Jennifer: One of the things that bothers me is how you follow their instructions, and then are punished for it. I’m talking about how you had a single particle of gunshot residue on you and this is treated as significant. Yet, Amy had significantly more GSR on her. When you called 911, you were told to check her vitals. You did and a single particle likely got transferred to you. 

Steve: Furthermore, the evidence shows that there were 3 contributors of DNA on the handgun used to kill Amy. Our son had never handled the gun, both Amy and I had. The third contributor was never established and yet clearly, someone else had also handled the weapon. 

Jennifer: The fact that there was an outsider in the house, and likely two based on the fact that two vehicles were seen speeding away, is also shown by how Amy’s body was moved afterwards.

Steve: Yes, the State observed a drip pattern of the blood in the master bedroom, suggesting that at one point Amy was lifted above the carpet. There were other indicators, too, that she had been moved. It was presumed I moved her. But Amy weighed more than I did, and it would have taken two people or someone larger than me to move her. 

The police also noted Amy's shirt was pulled up abnormally, but if someone carried her by grabbing her under her shoulder, then this could also account that.

Furthermore, the jury was misled and told there was a washcloth with blood on it found at the crime scene, which creates a mental image of a blood soaked rag. 

Jennifer: I read in the brief that, in fact, this was just a cloth that Amy used to clean cuts and scrapes on the dogs. The blood was so minimal that they couldn’t even check whether it was Amy’s blood or canine blood. And in our first conversation, we discussed the footprints in the hallway that were picked up by the luminol lighting, so I’m glad to see you cover that in your brief.

Steve: Yes, I believe they are my footprints, because they are consistent with everything I did when I got home that evening. And in fact, it would be more incriminating if there were no footprints, because on the call with 911 I claimed to have gone to Amy's body twice. To do that I had to walk through the blood residue, from the cleanup area, in the hallway 4 times in my sock feet (to Amy the first time, returning to Joe, returning to Amy to check vitals, and returning to Joe again). 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." 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.

Jennifer: Yes, you mention in the brief that the physical evidence matches the statement you made to the police. But your case was complicated by the amount of virtual evidence that was presented by the State. Can you tell me more about the bitcoin account that was used to pay for a hitman?

Steve: The State’s expert computer witness lied and told the jury that the address belonged to me. I did have a bitcoin account number, but it wasn’t the one used to pay Besa Mafia. If Mr. Lanterman had taken the time to look at my bitcoin wallet on my Samsung Galaxy phone, he would have seen this. Instead, he stated that he didn’t look at that device because there was nothing of interest on any device other than the MacBook and the iPhone. 

Jennifer: This gets featured in the documentaries, the way dogdaygod sent a message to Besa Mafia saying, “My screen refreshed and gave me the wrong bitcoin address where I sent the other funds…it went to…[bitcoin address]”

Steve: Yes, in the transaction, dogdaygod sent bitcoin to that address. So common sense tells us that the address belongs to Besa Mafia and not dogdaygod, and certainly not to me. 

Jennifer: The documentaries feature your iPhone which was said to have had a deleted file of the Besa Mafia bitcoin address. They say you deleted if from your phone, but that it was backed up in the cloud. You address that in the brief.

Steve: This is another one of the States' half-truths because there was no evidence of the file on my phone at all.

The file in question had a date and time stamp of March 22, 20216, 9:53 AM.  The file appeared in a backup from August 3, 2016, four and a half months later. Since an iPhone backs up when it’s connected to a computer, this would suggest that my iPhone was not plugged into my computer for that length of time! 

Also, the State’s computer expert testified that the backup didn’t have to come from a phone with my serial number, only from a phone with the same name and this name could be created by someone else. He also said that he can retrieve deleted items from phones. But there was no trace of this file found on my phone. 

Jennifer: I also found it interesting that although you were supposed to have been in contact with Besa Mafia since early 2016 and purchasing scopolamine sometime between February and May, that the TOR browser needed to access the dark web wasn’t installed on your computer until November! And Amy died on November 13th. And nothing to connect you to dogdaygod was ever found on any computer. You also cover the lack of evidence to support that you sent those anonymous emails to Amy. 

Steve: Yes, I never denied I had GuerrillaMail. They claimed I used this to send those emails to her. In fact, I was trying to figure out how a scammer had communicated with me.

The State’s computer expert saw click by click and screen by screen documentation of my history there. There was no evidence that I sent anything anonymously to Amy and in the end, even the FBI indicated that these emails came from elsewhere and not GuerrillaMail. 

Jennifer: The State had to come up with a motive for you to murder Amy and they claimed that “the defendant intended to kill Amy Allwine because a divorce would hurt him in the eyes of his church.”

Steve: And yet, all testimony was to the contrary. Family and friends all said we were happily married. We had been married for 20 years. We got together regularly with Amy’s parents, about twice a week. Amy’s parents had keys to our house and were free to come and go. We travelled together and when we did, we would all stay in the same house. No one observed any discord. 

Jennifer: Yes, police interviewed her closest friends, her colleagues, and her family, and no one said that Amy had confided in them that she was unhappy in her marriage. It’s almost impossible for something that significant not to leak out in some way. 

Steve: Amy even had private meetings with an FBI agent assigned to her case. She never confided to him that she was discontent with our relationship or that she suspected me. 

Jennifer: In the next interview, we’ll get into the topic of who it might have been who wanted Amy dead.

THIRD INTERVIEW

 

In November 2021, Stephen talked to Fox News for 90 minutes. Only a small portion of what he shared was aired.

Jennifer: Do you have a job in prison?

Steve: I just recently changed from the kitchen to the transitions clerk. I now help get people ready to be released (get IDs, find housing, find jobs, etc). I get to talk guys, and I enjoy that. It's also a salaried position, so I have more free time for my legal and religious studies.

Jennifer: Where are you now in terms of your legal work?

Steve: I just sent in my first US Supreme Court writ of certiorari. I'm anxious to see what they say, because I showed it to the "legal beagles" here and they said they couldn't do any better, but only about 1 in 2000 are reviewed by US Supreme Court.

Now I'm working on my post-conviction pleading. It's a never ending job until I get out. In my mind, the evidence is in my favor. I just need to get someone to listen, and it will happen eventually. 

Jennifer: A friend who has been following your case has some questions for you that he sent to me. I’ll just put them to you. I'll start with this one. Setting up a TOR browser is a bit unusual. Why did you have it set up and for what reasons did you use it? And first of all, this one is from me, is it difficult to set up?

Steve: It was a single app that was just click and install. Initially Amy did a Google search for "private web browser" because she was upset about all the tracking that Google did. I thought she installed TOR on her computer as part of that experiment, but according to the State's computer forensic report it wasn't installed on her computer so maybe she installed something else. They said TOR wasn't installed until November of 2016, But it was part of trying to find a browser that didn't collect and sell all your information. 

Jennifer: Thanks, Steve. Here’s another one. Can you explain how your iPhone and or MacBook Pro could’ve been hacked? Did you have any security in place in your home office to prevent Internet hacking, such as a firewall?

Steve: I'm not sure our computers were hacked over the Internet, or just accessed over our internal network. 

The lady I believe was dogdaygod had access to Amy's training arena and it was on the same network with the house. There was no firewall between those 2 spots. As far as how they hacked the devices, I have no idea. We've never even had a chance to look at those devices. The prosecution gave our devices to a third party company (Lanterman's) and he "offered" to make us an image of a device for something like $700 each, so times 66 devices equals about $45,000 just to get the images. Does something seem wrong about that?

I know on the Mac and on Amy's laptop we had VNC-type remote apps, and while I don't know how to hack it, I know it is easy to access properly (one password and you're in). The other thing we noticed on Amy's computer was it was running extremely slowly, so much so that she had ordered a new computer a week or so before she was killed. For example I would hardwire my PC laptop to her network connection and go to speed test.net and might get 100mbps download and when I plugged her into the same cable it would be half or worse (50mbps). 

She also had weird things like emails showing read when she didn't read them, or unread when she knew she had read them. Also her business website would crash when she had an event sign up, but it was from a commercial hosting site, so having 100 or so people access the site (even if it was simultaneously) shouldn't crash it, and she had tickets open with her provider and they could never find anything wrong.

Jennifer: Thanks, Steve. None of that information came out in the documentaries I watched. I appreciate it. One more question for you, why didn’t you turn over your MacBook Pro laptop when you turned over whatever other devices you turned over in the initial investigation?

Steve: I don't remember the whole conversation with the FBI initially, and what they said they were looking for, but I know that they knew I had work computers and phones. I gave them what they asked for. One of Amy’s friends noticed some of these issues I told you about, because she was Amy's "Marketing advisor" and helped with the website. I'm not sure if they are just coincidences, but these were really strange, and were never investigated.

Jennifer: Yes, I found in the case of Adam’s story, that the truth was in the details that weren’t shared with the jury, and yet the prosecutor admitted in an interview three years after the trial that she pared it all down, even if that meant leaving unanswered questions. She admitted that she selected the details about the case that would give her the verdict she wanted. 

Let’s switch gears a bit, I get the impression from what I’ve read that you did a lot of traveling, both for work and together with Amy?

Steve: Yes, and I remember you telling me you’re from the Toronto area. I've only been there once and it was for work, but I liked what I saw.

Jennifer: It’s a great city, yes. (Smile)

Steve: Amy and I traveled a lot, but we never made it there for a vacation. We made it to Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, St.John's Newfoundland, and Banff.

She was a great traveling companion and I think we made it to about 25 different countries together in 20 years.

It’s sad, but the photo you see of Amy [sent to Besa Mafia] was one that we took while in Hawaii a year or so previously. This picture was on a backup drive that we had in Amy's arena. (The lady I suspect of contacting Besa Mafia had access to it). The other thing that's interesting about that picture is it was one that Joe put on a blog that he did as a school assignment while we were at the Feast, and the blog link was sent to friends and Amy's dog classes. She might have had it from there too. 

If I was sending a photo I could've grabbed any picture and could've taken a more recent picture. Additionally this was posted to our website. The odd thing here is that if I was posting it then I could've just pushed that one picture up, but for some reason it looks like the whole website was downloaded, the file added, and the whole website was uploaded again. I thought the picture was already there as part of Joe's blog, so I'm not sure why all this happened, but it's strange. All of this activity would have left log files on the computer that did it and there aren't logs on my computer of any of this.

Jennifer: This case is very detailed when it comes to the techie-side of things. I think that’s why people are just willing to accept the authorities at the their word when it’s all explained to them in the documentaries. I look forward to reading the trial transcripts for myself and to see what came out and what didn’t. One question I have for you is, how did the killers know to come in the back way, rather than the front way? 

Steve: I think it's funny, in a sad sort of way, that the media makes such a big deal about the camera in the back and claiming "how did the killer know it didn't record?" I don't think they needed any special knowledge, because it's the only obvious way to enter the house from where they were parked. 

Amy's students noticed the guy's car parked on the north side of her dog arena. The "parking lot" is on the west side, so they noticed a car "out of place" on the north side at 4:45 PM, and it was gone when they left at 6 PM. From there, there's a solid wood panel fence to block the view from the road that goes all the way to the house. Then if you go around to the back of the house, you're not visible from the road. 

The first door is the rear garage door. I don't remember if it was locked or not, but he'd be able to see her through the glass sliding door. So, camera or not, that's the most logical point to try to get in. Our locking mechanism didn't work, but I've talked to guys here that say those are easy to break into.

Jennifer: That makes sense. I read in one of the articles that your last family vacation was in the autumn and that you went to Germany. It was good to read that Amy was able to sleep well and truly relax for the first time in ages, since getting that news from the FBI.

Steve: Yes, the Germany trip was our last Feast together. The whole family stayed together in a big condo. It was a wonderful trip.

SECOND INTERVIEW

1994, juniors, Ambassador College

Jennifer: When you initially learned about the threats to Amy’s life from the FBI, did they examine yours and Amy’s phones and computers?

Steve: The FBI did take both Amy's and my devices. I think they took my phone and my personal computer, but I don't think they took my work computer (the Mac). I wish they did, because I believe it would've cleared it up to that date. 

Jennifer: I also learned that what links you to the dark web is the iPhone labelled S Allwine and a MacBook Pro laptop also labelled S Allwine. I agree with what you said about ineffective counsel. You should have definitely had a computer forensics expert because that was the most damaging part of the prosecution’s case.

Steve:  They make a huge deal about those 60 devices taken from my home to try to make me look like some major hacker, but most of those were flash drives and thumb drives that Amy used to film the dogs that she trained. The state's computer expert said that there was only "interesting" information on 2 devices.

Jennifer: Yes, when they said they seized 60 devices it sounded suspicious. A person would have to listen carefully to note that, like you said, it included thumb drives, hard drives. I personally have about 6 thumb drives just for all my writing. In addition to my Mac, an iPod, two old phones, a new phone, the hard drive from my previous Mac. And that’s just what I can look at right now. There are probably some things I’m missing, and I’m not even a techie!

Steve: The bitcoin address in the deleted note is also interesting. First there's no evidence of it on my iPhone, which is supposed to be where it originated. Next, it was supposed to be created in March, but it didn't show up in the cloud backup until August. Guess when the FBI approached the lady that Amy suspected for an interview ... August. The State's computer expert said that it's possible to pre-date a file, and the backup could be made from a different phone.

Another one of the things that I think is funny (sad) is the police comment that "he thought he was covering his tracks,” yet there is no evidence that I deleted my search history or browser history, so what exactly was I doing to cover my tracks? Like Adam, I had my personal phone, and then a phone for each of the two companies that I worked for and, of course, like Adam, they try to make that look nefarious.

Jennifer: Yes, when you’re under investigation, everything becomes suspicious to the authorities. That scares me because so many of our every day activities could be turned around to make us look guilty of something. For example, I know that you legitimately used bitcoin. In the Probable Cause statement they say there’s a bitcoin app on your Samsung Galaxy phone. And that on March 7, 2016 you reported to Cottage Grove police that you had been defrauded in a bitcoin transaction, for Cisco training and test preparation materials. 

Steve: The money is another interesting thing, because I was scammed out of that first bitcoin transaction, but in the emails between dogdaygod and Besa Mafia, she sent more money to Besa Mafia and there's no money leaving my accounts to match that. 

My theory is that the lady who knew Amy and ordered the hitman was behind the initial scam and she thought that would've been it, but then Besa Mafia kept asking for more and she paid that from her business account. The emails indicate that, and then say that she basically ran out of money to spend. Even that first bitcoin, my bitcoin address, doesn't show up on the bitcoin transaction log for Besa Mafia's bitcoin address, so that shows that I didn't pay them.

Jennifer: I read the email exchange between dogdaygod and Besa Mafia. In the end, it was decided to kill the victim in her home and then burn down the house. This doesn’t seem like something a spouse would agree to, particularly since you work from home. Can you tell me more about why it appears that you didn’t return to work after lunch, which opened you to suspicion that you had spent the afternoon killing your wife, moving her, and cleaning up the blood?

Steven: The Optanix "issue" is another joke. The prosecution allowed a police officer to opine on whether I was working or not when he doesn't know our business, and my lawyer didn't object or cross examine on it. The report from Optanix said that I didn't log back into the phone queue, but that's only for priority 1 calls. If we end up on a P1 call, then we can't get off without handing it off to another engineer, which could take an hour. Since Amy wasn't feeling well I chose not to log into the queue, but we still see all the calls that come in and we're still in a group chat where we can help others. Sundays are slow anyway and there are 4 engineers on shift, so there was no need for me to log in. There are other housekeeping tasks that we can do as well. If I wasn't on the group chat, then I would've been written up by the supervisor. 

Jennifer: What is one of the biggest challenges you face in proving your innocence?

Steve: No one wants to look at the actual evidence when you have someone convicted for it already. The big shock to me was that the prosecution will lie and cheat to get someone convicted because then the burden of proof shifts, and now the inmate must prove he's innocent rather than having the assumption of innocence.

Jennifer: I agree. Without that presumption of innocence, you become the person who has to explain everything to everyone, including things that you had no responsibility for. For example, after the allegation that you hired a hitman, the second most serious allegation is that you purchased scopolamine on the dark web to use on Amy. Can you tell me more about how Amy might have gotten scopolamine in her?

Steve: I never knew anything about scopolamine before this. Amy made lunch that day and Joe was there the whole time, so I couldn’t have slipped anything into it. Also, they don’t know when or how she was drugged. My impression is it’s used for motion sickness and after surgery. 

Jennifer: You’re right, it’s mostly for nausea and used for surgeries. But when it’s used as a street drug it has the reputation for making a person susceptible to suggestion. Some people call it a truth serum or say that it turns people into willing zombies.

If the killer wanted to make Amy suggestible to the idea of committing suicide in order to save her family’s life, that would definitely be the drug to use in terms of the reputation it has for causing people to basically empty out their bank accounts and give away all their jewelry under its influence. 

The difficult part about really studying the effect it has when it’s used on people in a criminal way is that the people suffer memory loss, and by the time they go to the doctor, it’s all exited their system, so they’re just left trying to piece it together based on circumstantial evidence. Since its origins are in Columbia and the people are tourists who have been out eating and drinking in a club, they conclude that it was slipped into their food or drink. 

Steve: I did hear that it wasn't a toxic dose which made me wonder why it was used. Where did you get information about "willing zombies" and "truth serum"?

Jennifer: It was at a medical website that was separating the facts from the myths about scopolamine. As you said, though, despite being a high dose, it wasn’t toxic. Was it possible that when an intruder entered that day, after you left, that Amy immediately went for the gun, but didn’t pull the trigger, and the intruder was able to disarm her?

Steve: We kept the gun right under Amy's side of the bed, so I'm not sure if she grabbed it and didn't get a shot off, or if they incapacitated her and saw it sitting on the floor. Either is possible, but I would think she would grab it and threaten an intruder, but I'm not sure either of us could shoot to kill someone. So they probably could've taken it from her.

Jennifer: Yes, I 100% agree that Amy couldn’t have killed a person, even with her life threatened. She was obviously a person who loved life and it would be unfathomable to take a life when it came down to it. Or at the very least, she hesitated and then was disarmed.

Steve: I miss her so much. She is the "Woman of my dreams" because that's where I get to spend time with her now. We did so much stuff together that I have wonderful vivid dreams about doing all kinds of things with her. So from that standpoint she's never really gone.