Proof: A True Crime Podcast
Episode 5: SAFARI SAFARI
Season 3: Murder at the Bike Shop
Release Date: February 16, 2026
Hosts: Susan Simpson, Jacinda Davis
Podcast by Red Marble Media, in association with Glassbox Media
Episode Overview
In "Safari Safari," Susan and Jacinda continue their meticulous reinvestigation into the murder of Earl O’Byrne, for which Scott Baldwin is serving a life sentence. This episode focuses on the foundational flaws in the prosecution's case, particularly the supposed evidence tying Baldwin to the crime, and unpacks how misinterpretations, witness contradictions, questionable police work, and failures in effective defense deeply impacted this conviction. The episode also examines another cold case (the Hyland Sterling case) to illustrate a broader pattern of mishandled evidence and issues with witness testimony by the same group of local prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
1. The Prosecution's Key Arguments and Their Collapse
[01:25-05:07]
- Prosecutor Stuart Fenton anchored Scott Baldwin's conviction on witness Stacy’s knowledge of specific stolen items: a green bank bag labeled "Safari Safari" and a box of coins from the bike shop.
- Fenton confidently declared that Stacy "had no motive to lie" and that her knowledge could only have come from Scott if he was guilty.
- Fenton used "corroboration" from Stacy's account of a confession—including a detail about Scott placing flowers on the victim's grave.
- The episode reveals all these points were false: most notably, the “stolen” bank bag and coins were never stolen and were seen at the crime scene long after the murder, directly contradicting the prosecution's timeline and suggesting Stacy’s story couldn't have come from authentic knowledge.
"There's simply no way Stacey could have known that. Unless Scott Baldwin was the killer." — Kevin Fitzpatrick as Stuart Fenton, [01:25]
2. The Flower on the Grave: Impossible Timelines
[05:07-08:17]
- Prosecutors argued Scott's alleged guilt was proven by Stacy recounting his act of putting flowers on O’Byrne’s grave, supposedly driven by remorse.
- Through interviews, Susan and Jacinda establish an alibi: Scott was in jail at the time when, according to Stacy’s timeline, the flowers appeared.
- The story’s timeline is irreconcilable with physical possibility, demonstrating foundational flaws in the case.
"Whichever version of Stacy's story you go with, it's still impossible for Scott to have placed those flowers." — Kevin Fitzpatrick, [08:23]
3. The “Blond Man” and the Habit of Night Wanderings
[08:17-11:48]
- Officer Harold West had seen a blond man with Earl O’Byrne shortly before the killing; Scott has black hair and the defense was discouraged from focusing on the alternative suspect.
- Testimony claimed O’Byrne frequently stepped outside at night. Karen Raymond (shop manager) and other employees categorically denied this, undermining the prosecution's scenario for how Scott gained access.
“I don't believe it. No, he would never go outside.” — Karen Raymond, [10:45]
4. Corroborating Witnesses: Contradictions and False Memories
[11:48-18:32]
- The prosecution's “icing on the cake” were testimonies by Scott’s acquaintances: Amy Kennedy claims hearing a confession and seeing threats to Stacy.
- Susan and Jacinda interview Hollis Van Der Lune (Amy’s boyfriend and present during alleged incidents)—he recalls none of this and is visibly surprised by Amy’s claims.
- Defense failed to call key witnesses like Hollis or to investigate contradictions, further weakening Scott's defense.
"I would have remembered that." — Hollis Van Der Lune, on alleged threats [18:24]
5. Laura Walkley: The Elusive Confession
[18:32-22:39]
- Laura, a casual acquaintance, testified Scott confessed to her, and she allegedly reported it to police the next day. No police record exists.
- This scenario (someone makes a report, but no police file can be found) has repeated in other local cold cases; the hosts flag it as a pattern of dubious or unverified witness testimony.
"If I had a nickel for every time a witness told the Kalamazoo cold case team that a defendant had confessed...but then no report...I'd have 20 cents, which isn't a lot, but it's weird." — Kevin Fitzpatrick, [22:28]
6. The Butterfly Song: Song Lyrics as Confession
[26:33-32:15]
- Waitress Virginia Bice testified Scott had given her a homemade CD of the song "Butterfly," telling her he wrote or played on the song (he did not).
- Prosecutor Fenton read the song's lyrics in full to the jury as "proof" of guilt, suggesting Scott's affinity for the song was a "circumstantial confession."
- Scott says it was all harmless flirting and bravado, with zero connection to the crime.
“I just really like the song.” — Scott Baldwin, [32:15]
7. Defense Failures: Opening Statements and Missed Evidence
[32:40-35:34]
- Defense attorneys James and Michael Hills gave almost no opening statement, forgoing an opportunity to challenge the prosecution and highlight weaknesses.
- The episode characterizes this as "the attorney equivalent of writing a book report about a book you didn't actually read."
- Critical exculpatory evidence about the bank bags and coins—known but not processed into police reports—was never leveraged by the defense.
"It's not a strategy. It's just a failure to perform the basic duties of trial counsel." — Kevin Fitzpatrick, [35:03]
8. The Hyland Sterling Case: Repeating Patterns of Injustice
[35:34-58:48]
- The hosts pivot to another local cold case, prosecuted by the same group and defended by the same law firm: the murder of Rob O’Keefe, for which Hyland Sterling was convicted.
- Pattern repeats: mishandled evidence, witnesses changing crucial testimony (e.g., the neighbor’s shifting description of the suspect), the prosecution leveraging ambiguous or inaccurate identifications, and defense failing to capitalize on numerous inconsistencies or valid alibi evidence.
- The problem of distinguishing actual guilt from unreliable, post-hoc reconstructions is shown to be systemic.
- Example: Despite a star witness describing the perpetrator as a man with longer hair, Sterling was always bald. A prosecution photo taken during Sterling’s time in federal prison—when he couldn’t shave—is used to misleadingly suggest he had hair at the time.
"If anything, I'm upset with Michael Hills about... Why aren't you arguing?" — Hyland Sterling, [58:32]
9. The “Stolen” Bank Bags That Were Not Stolen
[58:48-63:37]
- The episode returns to the central “Safari Safari” bag. Photos and early news coverage reveal the bags and coins reported as “stolen” were visible and accounted for at the crime scene after the murder.
- Therefore, Stacy's entire account—so crucial for conviction—could not have been based on personal knowledge and may have been influenced by conversations with investigators.
"Which means there's only one way Stacy could have known the color of that bag, and that's if someone on the cold case team told her." — Jacinda Davis, [63:05]
10. The Systemic Origin of the Mistake
[63:37-64:15]
- The hosts point out that key details about the bank bag's discovery (it was NOT missing, as first believed) were mentioned in early media, suggesting knowledge within the police department never made it into official reports.
- The cumulative effect of this, they argue, is that Baldwin’s conviction was based on an error—critical exculpatory evidence was either misunderstood, overlooked, or concealed.
“We don't know for sure how this mistake happened, but it did happen.” — Jacinda Davis, [64:15]
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- “He knows money's in there. He's worked there before. And so he saw a target and he took advantage of it.” — Stuart Fenton's closing, as recounted by Kevin Fitzpatrick [01:25]
- “All of your reason and common sense tells you… The evidence was that obvious. It was a good closing argument. Fenton wasn't wrong about that. Too bad none of that was true.” — Susan Simpson [01:25]
- “Whichever version of Stacy's story you go with, it's still impossible for Scott to have placed those flowers. The timing just doesn't work…” — Kevin Fitzpatrick [08:23]
- “I would have remembered that.” — Hollis Van Der Lune [18:24]
- "This opening statement is the attorney equivalent of writing a book report about a book you didn't actually read." — Kevin Fitzpatrick [35:03]
- "If anything, I'm upset with Michael Hills about... Why aren't you arguing?" — Hyland Sterling [58:32]
- “Which means there's only one way Stacy could have known the color of that bag, and that's if someone on the cold case team told her.” — Jacinda Davis [63:05]
Timestamps for Important Segments
| Timestamp | Segment Description | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:25 | Introduction to prosecutor’s case, strength of closing arguments | | 05:07 | Details about flower on grave; timelines for Scott’s alibi | | 11:48 | Contradictions in Amy Kennedy's testimony; Hollis' recollection | | 18:32 | Analysis of Laura Walkley’s confession testimony, missing report | | 26:33 | “Butterfly” song and the use of song lyrics at trial | | 32:40 | Critique of the defense's brief and ineffective opening statement | | 35:34 | Transition to Hyland Sterling case, mirroring patterns recounted | | 54:44 | Star witness changes story after pressure from cold case team | | 58:48 | Revealing the bank bags weren’t actually stolen | | 63:05 | Conclusion: case built on mistaken evidence; systemic failures |
Tone and Style
The hosts, Susan and Jacinda, balance measured skepticism with dry wit and relentless attention to detail. The episode is rich in firsthand interviews, quoted transcript segments, and pointed analysis, blending journalistic rigor with empathy for the accused and skepticism about the criminal justice system’s reliability in cold cases.
Final Reflection
Episode 5, "Safari Safari," serves as a devastating critique of the ways in which wrongful convictions can take shape: through plausible-sounding but erroneous evidence, witnesses telling inconsistent or incentivized stories, police procedural mistakes, and defense counsel missteps. The investigation continues, now sharply focused on alternative suspects and the failings of the original case. The episode closes with a preview of next week’s pivot: the possibility of another, previously unexplored real killer.
“So if Scott didn't kill Earl O’Byrne, who did? Next week on Proof.” — Jacinda Davis, [64:15]
Listeners are left with a bracing sense of how fragile criminal convictions can be, and how much hinges on getting the details right.