She had to help a wounded woman while worrying that the alleged attacker could appear at her own home.
She had to think about Kimberly.
And at the same time, she had to think about protecting her own child.
The emergency calls capture that sense of confusion better than any later summary can.
Nobody on those calls had the full story.
The neighbor knew Kimberly had been attacked.
Kimberly’s mother knew Steven had called her saying he had done something terrible.
Police knew there was an injured woman and a missing child.
Steven apparently knew enough to understand that he had crossed a line he could never simply take back.
But none of them yet had the complete picture.
That is often how major crimes unfold in real time.
The final narrative looks clear only afterward.
At the moment it is happening, people experience fragments.
One person sees blood.
Another gets a disturbing phone call.
An officer sees a possible suspect.
A dispatcher hears a frightened voice.
A detective later sees the video.
Only after those pieces are connected does the full timeline emerge.
And in this case, every new piece raised the stakes.
First came the bleeding woman.
Then the missing baby.
Then the missing suspect.
Then the machete.
Then Steven’s confession that he thought he had done something bad.
And finally, the footage.
The footage removed much of the uncertainty.
It showed that whatever Steven could or could not remember, a violent attack had occurred.
The physical evidence supported that conclusion.
The weapon was found.
Kimberly’s injuries were documented.
Steven had injuries of his own.
The Ring camera preserved the confrontation.
The 911 calls established what happened immediately afterward.
And Steven voluntarily came to police.
In the end, there was no single piece of evidence standing alone.
There was a chain.
Kimberly escaping.
The neighbor calling 911.
Police responding.
Officers searching the home.
The child being located.
Steven calling Kimberly’s mother.
Steven calling police.
The machete being recovered.
Kimberly receiving medical care.
Steven being interviewed.
And the Ring camera showing detectives what happened during the moments Steven said he could not remember.
That chain turned a chaotic domestic emergency into a prosecutable criminal case.
The child’s role in the story is also impossible to ignore.
She was only one year old.
She was too young to understand the legal charges that would follow.
Too young to understand why her parents would suddenly no longer be together.
Too young to understand why police were searching for her father.
But she was at the center of the argument that preceded the violence.
Steven told investigators he was trying to put her to bed.
Kimberly wanted to keep her with her.
The child was reportedly crying.
Within minutes, that ordinary parenting disagreement was followed by an attack serious enough to send Kimberly to the hospital and Steven to jail.
Fortunately, the girl was later found physically unharmed.
Steven had dropped her off with someone before surrendering.
That decision prevented an already dangerous search from becoming even more complicated.
If police had believed Steven was driving around armed with the child in the vehicle, officers would have had to approach every contact with even greater caution.
Instead, once the child was located safely, investigators could focus on finding Steven and protecting Kimberly.
Steven ultimately made that search easier by turning himself in.
But surrendering did not erase what had already happened.
Nor did his apparent confusion during the interview eliminate responsibility.
Detectives repeatedly brought him back to the evidence.
His memory was one version of the night.
The video was another.
And when the two did not match, investigators trusted what they could see.
There is a moment in many criminal investigations when uncertainty begins to collapse.
In this case, that moment came when detectives watched the Ring footage.
Before that, Steven could say that he blacked out.
He could say he did not remember.
He could describe the argument as something that spiraled beyond his control.
After the footage, detectives had a visual record.
They could identify the weapon.
They could see Kimberly attempting to get away.
They could see Steven pursuing her.
They could connect that imagery to the wounds doctors treated at the hospital.
That is what made the Ring camera so central.
It did not tell investigators everything.
It could not explain years of relationship dynamics.
It could not tell them what Steven was thinking.
It could not determine his legal state of mind.
But it captured the physical event.
And sometimes that is enough to transform a case.
Kimberly survived an attack that could easily have ended differently.
A machete strike to the head is the kind of wound that can kill instantly or leave permanent neurological damage.
A strike to the arm can sever arteries, tendons, and nerves.
The fact that she remained conscious enough to escape, find a neighbor, communicate with police, and eventually recover is remarkable.
But survival should not soften what occurred.
She was chased.
She was struck.
She was bleeding.
She had to flee her own home.
And she had to do it while the father of her child was the person she believed was trying to hurt her.
Steven’s behavior after the attack adds another unsettling dimension.
He reportedly dropped the baby somewhere safe.
He called Kimberly’s mother.
Then he called police.
Those actions suggest that at some point after the violence, he understood enough about what he had done to start making decisions.
He knew something was wrong.
He knew Kimberly had been badly hurt.
And he knew police needed to be involved.
That sequence is one reason investigators focused closely on his claim that he could not remember the attack itself.
Selective memory loss is difficult to evaluate from a police interview alone.
Steven might genuinely have experienced gaps in memory.
He might have been affected by substances.
He might have been overwhelmed.
Or he might simply have been unable to confront what he had done.
The source material does not establish which explanation is correct.
What it does establish is that Steven repeatedly claimed memory problems while investigators possessed video evidence showing the attack.
That contrast became one of the defining features of the case.
Then came the legal process.
The charges reflected not only what happened to Kimberly, but the broader circumstances surrounding the crime.
Attempted murder was the most serious accusation.
Felonious assault addressed the violent physical attack.
Domestic violence reflected the intimate relationship between the suspect and the victim.
Tampering with evidence addressed conduct involving evidence from the scene.
Endangering children recognized the fact that a one-year-old child was entangled in the incident.
Steven initially contested the case through an insanity plea.
Eventually, however, he pleaded guilty.
In August 2025, he received a sentence of eight to twelve years in prison.
That is where the legal record reaches its conclusion.
But true crime stories rarely end cleanly at sentencing.
A courtroom can determine guilt.
A judge can impose years in prison.
But there is no legal mechanism that can restore the family to what it was before the attack.
Kimberly and Steven had a child together.
They were engaged.
They had apparently discussed marriage.
Their daughter would grow up with the consequences of what happened that night, even if she was too young to remember it directly.