Proof: A True Crime Podcast

Season 3: Murder at the Bike Shop | Ep. 8 – Watch Out for Snakes

Original Air Date: March 9, 2026
Hosts: Susan Simpson & Jacinda Davis

Episode Overview

In Episode 8 of “Proof: Murder at the Bike Shop,” Susan Simpson and Jacinda Davis pursue new leads and untangle problematic witness testimony in the unresolved murder case of Earl o’Byrne. Central to this episode are attempts to contact former potential suspect James Long, re-examinations of witness stories—particularly from Stacy, a pivotal figure in Scott Baldwin’s conviction—and troubling revelations about reward money and how police and tipsters shared information. The hosts also scrutinize the effect of financial incentives and questionable investigation tactics, including the use (and misuse) of anonymous tip services like Silent Observer, on convictions in cold cases.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. A Lost Witness: The Search for James Long

• [01:03–05:05]
  • Background: James Long, former bike shop employee and potential suspect in Earl o’Byrne’s murder, disappeared after the murder. He and partner Jimmy Connell moved from Michigan to Alabama.
  • Attempted Interview: Hosts Jacinda and Kevin travel to Alabama to interview James, only to find out (via neighbors) he died 5-6 years prior. His partner, Jimmy, recently died, leaving their home abandoned.
  • Neighbor Insights:
    • Neighbors barely knew them; House was left to the next-door couple, who didn’t even know James’s name or orientation.
    • Reports of James being a loner: "He just sat on the porch smoking cigarettes all the time." ([04:22], Jacinda)
    • A neighbor’s suspicion: “James would sit there and watch them [her kids] play. And it creeped me out.” ([04:43], Jacinda recounting neighbor’s statement)

2. Memory, Manipulation, and Inconsistencies: Interviewing Stacy

• [06:14–14:03]
  • Witness Profile: Stacy’s shifting memory has been crucial to the prosecution’s case; discrepancies abound regarding when Scott allegedly confessed to her and details about the crime.
  • Examples of Contradictions:
    • Timeline of Scott’s confession changed during/after contact with the cold case team.
    • "See, that sounds like... they were manipulating me because I knew it wasn't no year..." – Stacy ([10:48])
    • Hosts raise the concept of “awakening” a memory, i.e., interview techniques influencing recollection.
    • Stacy expresses new doubt: "I never felt like they pushed me, but maybe I was just so naive. They didn't have to really push me." ([12:28])
  • Effect on Testimony:
    • Details emerge and change after police conversations (e.g., the color of the bank bag).
    • “It’s fascinating from somebody that’s never looked at the possibility that he didn’t do it.” – Stacy, reflecting on how her story was shaped ([13:22])

3. The Problem of Reward Money

• [15:11–17:59]
  • Silent Observer Funds: Stacy confirms her brother-in-law received reward money for his tip; Stacy herself was given $5,000 from detectives after testifying.
    • "I got money from Rich and Mike Workima personally... after everything was over. And they just came and gave me a check." – Stacy ([16:01])
  • Jury Never Knew: The prosecution stressed Stacy had no financial motive, yet she was financially rewarded post-trial. Juror interviewed later said, "If I had known, that could have changed things." ([18:39], Susan quoting juror)
  • Juror’s Outside Knowledge: Jury foreman brought in information from personal experience at the bike shop—something that could have invalidated the verdict:
    • “Jurors can’t take outside knowledge and bring it to deliberations. That’s a big no-no...” – Susan ([20:11])

4. Witness Corroboration Unravels

• [25:34–31:58]
  • Lloyd Magruder’s Interview: Key “corroborating” witness Lloyd only saw Scott painting his jeep; denies seeing anything suspicious or even being present with Stacy or Missy, contradicting Stacy’s testimony.
    • “Stacy was nowhere to be found. When I saw him painting his Jeep, she was nowhere to be found. It was Scott and I.” – Lloyd ([27:31])
  • Missy’s Situation: Missy Jarsma, another supposed corroborating witness, now suffers from severe memory loss due to medical issues.
  • Interview with Stacy: When told of Lloyd’s statements, Stacy speculates she might have misremembered:
    • “Maybe I knew Lloyd was out there with [Scott]. I could have just thought Missy was with him because I was talking to her that day. I don’t know, because, like I said, I was afraid to come up.” ([31:18])

5. Police Practice, Tipsters, and the Integrity of Silent Observer

• [35:30–47:26]
  • Silent Observer as Police Proxy: Silent Observer, a supposedly independent tip line, is described as being tightly connected to law enforcement.
  • Manipulative Tip Line Use: Informant Richard Vendeville claims Detective Werkema fed him inside information so he could “tip off” police anonymously and receive the reward.
    • “Workama kind of told me by what information I turned into how the reward would sum in a case and all of that.” – reading from Vendeville’s courtroom statement ([36:34], Kevin)
    • Hosts argue this allowed detectives to discreetly direct cases and reward cooperating informants.
  • Corky Lard/Wally Gould Case:
    • Vendeville’s tip and claimed confession set the direction of the investigation, though timelines and suspects (especially Tim Kissinger, a likely suspect cleared via polygraph) were questionable.
    • “Kissinger was never charged... police got a conviction against Corky Lard.” – Susan ([46:42])
    • Vendeville apparently received reward money in multiple cases, including possibly as the main suspect in another (the Polderman murders).

Notable Quotes and Moments

• On James Long’s Legacy:
  • “He lived there for two decades ... didn't talk to his neighbors ever. It’s like he’s a ghost.” – Jacinda ([04:29])
• On Witness Manipulation:
  • “It does feel like there was some sort of manipulation.” – Stacy ([12:50])
• Silent Observer Money:
  • “I got money from Rich and Mike Workima personally... And they just came and gave me a check.” – Stacy ([16:01])
• Juror on Reward’s Impact:
  • “If I had known, that could have changed things.” – Jury foreman ([18:39])
• On Informant Tip Strategy:
  • “He was just parroting the information Werkema had given him.” – Susan ([37:33])

Forensic Gamble: The Bag of Belongings

• [50:48–53:16]
  • Neighbors, unaware of the investigative value, collected belongings from James Long’s abandoned house—hats, jacket, etc.—and left them for the hosts.
    • “Forensically, this is kinda iffy... but it was also probably the only chance anyone would ever have to potentially maybe get a sample of James Long’s DNA.” – Susan ([51:32])
  • The hope: to test for DNA that could match evidence from the crime scene.

Next Episode Teaser

• The episode concludes with a preview for their next investigation into the Polderman case, with a focus on wrongful conviction themes and similar patterns of dubious informant activity.

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:03–05:05]: The James Long investigation and neighbor interviews
• [06:21–14:03]: Stacy’s interviews, memory inconsistencies, and influence of police questioning
• [15:11–18:39]: Silent Observer reward payments, undisclosed to jury
• [18:39–21:32]: Jury foreman interview, outside knowledge in deliberations
• [25:34–31:58]: Lloyd Magruder interview, unraveling “corroboration”
• [35:30–47:55]: Tipster manipulation, The Corky Lard and Wally Gould cold case
• [50:48–53:16]: The collection of James Long’s belongings for DNA testing

Takeaways

• The episode exposes significant flaws in the investigation and prosecution—including manipulated witness timelines, hidden financial incentives, and deliberate or unconscious manipulation of tipster and witness statements.
• Both the criminal justice process and “cold case” techniques can hinge on unreliable or manufactured evidence.
• The passing of time closes some avenues (as with James Long), but creative investigation—like securing possible DNA posthumously—continues, as Simpson and Davis doggedly pursue the truth.

For more details, transcripts, and behind-the-scenes content, visit proofcrimepod.com or follow @proofcrimepod on social media. Listener questions are welcome at proofcrimepod@gmail.com.