Proof: A True Crime Podcast

Season 3, Episode 4 – "Bondo Beast"

Release Date: February 9, 2026
Hosts: Susan Simpson & Jacinda Davis
Main Subjects: The aftermath of Earl O'Byrne’s murder, witness recollections, and the tangled web of evidence, memory, and law in the case of Scott Baldwin—and a parallel wrongful conviction case in Kalamazoo’s cold case files.

Episode Overview

In "Bondo Beast," Susan Simpson and Jacinda Davis dive deeper into the case of Scott Baldwin, convicted in the 1988 murder of Earl O’Byrne at a Kalamazoo bike shop. The episode explores Scott’s life, the cold case detectives’ methods, the credibility of critical evidence, and the wider context of cold case prosecutions in Kalamazoo. Through firsthand accounts and legal analysis, the episode unpacks the system’s reliance on unreliable confessions, dubious witness testimony, and potentially undisclosed exculpatory evidence. A parallel story echoes these themes in the conviction of Roberto Davanzo, shedding light on systemic issues in local cold case prosecutions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Scott Baldwin’s Life Trajectory—From Youth to Arrest

[01:04–04:29]

• Scott Baldwin, at 19, was troubled: dropped out, minor crimes, tumultuous relationships.
• His recollections (from prison letters and interviews) indicate regret about his behavior:

  "I was kind of a dick back then and I played around and I was a good looking fellow and I’d go meet a couple girls here or there.” – Scott Baldwin [02:12]

• Scott’s relationship with Stacy ended when he was jailed for check fraud, which she helped orchestrate. She later testified against him in the murder case.
• After release, Scott married, started a family, and became a system admin; he distanced himself from past behaviors.

2. The Cold Case Interrogation and Tactics

[05:44–09:32]

• In 2001, police lured Scott to the station under false pretenses (Stacy was supposedly missing or dying).
• After hours, police revealed their true intent:

  “The real reason you’re here is that [Stacy] told us you admitted that you killed Earl O’Byrne in 1988.” – Det. Workemine to Scott [06:18]

• Scott was shocked, insisting he knew nothing about the murder:

  “I didn’t do this. I know nothing about it. I have no idea why Stacy would say I did.” – Scott Baldwin [08:56]

• Despite being allowed to leave, Scott was arrested a few weeks later.

3. Family Fallout and Relationships Post-Conviction

[10:02–15:56]

• Scott details the strain on his children—especially with his autistic son and his eldest, Cody, who felt abandoned.
• Cody describes the shame and confusion:

  “I did resent a lot of his life choices... I felt like he abandoned me as much as that he was taken away. He was taken away.” – Cody [13:44]

• As Cody got older, learned about Scott's troubled youth, and heard Stacy's accusations, doubts crept in.

4. Dissection of Evidence and Witness Stories

[16:33–31:41]

• Scott and his legal team felt confident prior to trial: witness descriptions and vehicle sighting reports didn’t match Scott or his Jeep.

  “The light-colored vehicle with rectangle headlights—found a 1977 Jeep CJ7 jeeps. 1977 had round headlights.” – Scott Baldwin [17:08]

• Stacy’s account of events (e.g., Scott bouncing a check to buy auto parts) was unsupported—no such account or check existed.
• The so-called murder weapon: Stacy claimed Scott returned with a bloody stick; Missy Jarsma, another witness, corroborated seeing a red-stained stick.
• Scott says the item was not a murder weapon, but a paint stick covered in red Bondo, not blood:

  “It was a stick I was using to stir the Bondo.” – Scott Baldwin [26:50]
  “That red cream filler... is a shiny bright red. Especially from a distance, I think it could be mistaken for blood.” – Susan Simpson [28:15]

• Scott says he tossed it away angrily after ruining the filler job, not to hide evidence.

5. Systemic Issues: Evidence Disclosure and Prosecution Practices

[31:41–36:33]

• Shortly before trial, a Silent Observer tip surfaced: a landlord found a bloody wrench in the home of a disgruntled former bike shop employee (not Scott).
• Prosecution failed to disclose this and other potentially exculpatory evidence, but Scott’s original defense did not formally request pre-trial discovery.

  “Why would you not ask for discovery in a case like this?... Put it in writing.” – Olivia Vigiletti (Scott’s post-conviction attorney) [34:37–34:56]

• Chief Judge Gary Dogger reflects on his time as a defense attorney, acknowledging that sometimes police failed to provide all information even to the prosecutor—casting doubt on full transparency in these cases.

  “Whether Scott Brower always got all of the information that the police had, that’s where the questions remain in my mind and in other people’s minds and other cases.” – Judge Dogger [36:18]

6. A Pattern of Questionable Cold Case Convictions: The Davanzo Case

[36:33–48:19]

• The podcast parallels Scott’s case with that of Roberto Davanzo, convicted of hiring a hitman to kill his girlfriend, Patty Lang, despite being in prison at the time of the murder.
• All physical evidence for a hired killer was missing; case relied on a confession (later recanted and ruled inadmissible) and testimony from jailhouse informants who contradicted each other.

  “Who is the hitman?” – Susan Simpson [39:37]
  “Nobody ever looks into that.” – Judge Dogger [39:41] “I made a terrible story up that afternoon... I didn’t kill Patty Lang.” – Roberto Davanzo [41:32–41:48]

• Police, having ruled out other suspects, structured the case to fit their theory, and cold case convictions in Kalamazoo frequently depended on shaky witness or informant evidence.

7. Silent Observer Tip Controversy and Withheld Leads

[52:37–55:59]

• Defense sought all “Silent Observer” tips in Scott’s case. The court allowed less than a third to be turned over.

  “Prosecutor Stuart Fenton argued that he had no obligation to inform defendants of any tips called into Silent observer about their case. The court largely agreed with him.” – Jacinda Davis [54:59]

• Many tips potentially implicating others were never revealed to the defense, a decision justified in the name of tipster anonymity.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the burden of wrongful conviction:

  “It’s always embarrassing when people ask, ‘What do your parents do?’... I have this curse of, I’m kind of like my father. I’m a bit of an open book, and so it’s like, ‘He’s in prison,’ and the next thing you know, I’m that guy.” – Cody [14:34]

• On the power of accusation vs. evidence:

  “A confession is not an answer... You should not believe them unless you find evidence that what they are saying is true. Because false confessions happen all too often.” – Susan Simpson [43:55]

• On the role of jailhouse informants:

  “I personally don’t think any jailhouse informant should be a witness necessarily, but, yeah, that’s all they've got.” – Susan Simpson [52:07]

• On the dangers of prosecutorial assumptions:

  “If you trust the prosecutor and good. If you do, put it in writing.” – Olivia Vigiletti [34:56]

• When a case becomes personal for a judge:

  “I’ve never really forgotten about the case and it’s always been just there in the background as one of the things that made me the lawyer that I am and the judge that I am now...” – Judge Dogger [36:47]

Important Segment Timestamps

• Scott Baldwin’s Early Life & Relationships: [01:04–04:29]
• 2001 Police Interrogation: [05:44–09:32]
• Father-Son Reflections on Prison & Shame: [10:02–15:56]
• Disputing Key Physical Evidence (the 'bloody stick'): [22:36–28:40]
• Legal Discovery and Withheld Evidence: [31:41–36:33]
• Parallel Case: Roberto Davanzo’s Wrongful Conviction: [36:33–48:19]
• Silent Observer Tips and their Relevance: [52:37–55:59]

Episode Tone & Style

The hosts maintain a probing, analytical, and empathetic tone throughout—balancing legal technicalities with the emotional toll on families and defendants. They emphasize the fallibility of memory, the danger of narrative-driven investigations, and the stakes of hidden or misunderstood evidence.

Takeaway

"Bondo Beast" exposes a web of shaky eyewitness testimony, unreliable confessions, and systemic opacity in cold case prosecutions. The episode urges listeners to consider how easy it is for the justice system to go awry when unchecked assumptions, flawed investigative practices, and limited access to evidence converge—often with irrevocable consequences for the accused and their families.