Murder at the Bike Shop | Sidebar 10

Summary

Proof: A True Crime Podcast – “Murder at the Bike Shop | Sidebar 10”

Release Date: April 2, 2026
Hosts: Susan Simpson, Jacinda Davis, Kevin
Theme: Deep-dive sidebar discussion of episode 10, focusing on the investigation's alternate suspect, Alan Nutter, and broader reflections on police practices, suspect selection, and forgotten evidence in wrongful conviction cases.

---

Episode Overview

In Sidebar 10, Susan, Jacinda, and Kevin unpack the events and revelations from episode 10 (“The Wrong Fish”) of season three. This sidebar centers on their pursuit and interview of longtime alternate suspect Alan Nutter in the Earl’s Bike Shop murder, the implications of his involvement, and the chronic limitations of original and cold case investigations. Discussion branches into the culture of silence within police departments, the recurring mythos of certain case figures, and the practical gaps that continue to undermine justice for those wrongfully convicted.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Finding and Interviewing Alan Nutter

[02:03–05:09]

• Locating Nutter: The hosts recount the trials and near-misses in tracking down Alan Nutter, moving between leads at a mission, encampments, and mealtimes. Kevin ultimately suggests, “Why don’t you guys just go to the mission and ask for him?” ([02:33], Kevin), which finally brings the interview to fruition.
• Safety Considerations: Minor tension arises over Nutter’s reputation for unpredictability. “He was someone that nobody could find and we never did.” ([03:47], Susan)
• The Interview’s Content: Nutter repeats his well-known story. He emphasizes his relationship with Trudy Field, recounts his brother stealing $10,000, and confirms knowledge of stashed cash at the bike shop.
• Perceived Suspect Weight: The hosts discuss how, on paper, the case against Nutter looks far stronger than against Scott Baldwin, the man ultimately convicted:
  • Kevin: “If you were going to convict someone, why isn’t it this guy?...You can make a better argument for Allen, and they never did that.” ([05:09])
  • Susan: “There’s only one hole, really, in the case against Allen Nutter, and that’s that extremely extraordinarily unlikely that Earl would have opened the door for him.” ([06:12])

Why Wasn’t Alan Nutter Prosecuted?

[05:51–09:01]

• Known Quantity: The team explores why police never pursued Nutter, despite him fitting so many elements of the crime.
  • Susan reveals: “Rich Madison knew him…I knew who Alan was…big pain in the butt. But he didn’t think he was a murderer…He was a known quantity and…never made sense that it would have been him.” ([06:58], Susan quoting Madison)
• Police Investigation in 1988: Madison recounts being asked to help interview Nutter “so they didn’t have to raid the house and everything” ([07:56], Madison). Nutter was interviewed, not arrested, and subsequently cleared as a suspect.

Nature of the Crime & Alternate Suspect Reasoning

[09:22–13:57]

• Crime Analysis:
  • Kevin speculates: “It’s so clear that…whoever killed Earl didn’t do it intentionally…It wasn’t intentional.” ([09:27])
  • Susan: “Whoever did that was not consciously thinking, I want this guy to die.” ([10:13])
• Legal Implications:
  • Jacinda: “Nutter’s whole story should have absolutely been known to the defense, and it wasn’t.” ([10:23])
  • Susan stresses lost opportunity: “It would have been 100 times stronger if the defense was based on Allen Nutter and the bloody wrench…” ([12:18])
• Tunnel Vision: The hosts reflect on post-conviction defense efforts being fixated on Nutter as the alternate suspect, thereby overlooking other possibilities.
  • “Everyone had tunnel vision to make Allen…the alternate suspect and it backfired.” ([13:37], Jacinda)
• Delayed Disclosure: When the defense finally receives the “silent observer” tips—over a dozen focused on Nutter—it only fuels misplaced certainty:
  • “It must have been such overwhelming confirmation…Of course, it’s Alan Nutter.” ([13:37], Susan)

Police Practices, Internal Culture, and Cold Case Reflection

[19:13–23:46]

• Interview with Dennis Anderson:
  • Anderson, one of the few openly critical former officers, describes police culture:
    • “He uses the phrase moral compass in the interview…I think he takes his job very seriously with a moral compass and he expects everyone else to have the same.” ([19:46], Kevin)
    • “He told us about how other officers…would never do that kind of thing…but they won’t talk about some of the misconduct…That’s the culture—you don’t talk about it.” ([20:21–20:37], Susan & Kevin)
• Community Distrust: The lack of openness infiltrates public perception:
  • “They hear these stories of misconduct and they don’t know if the officer they’re talking to is one of the ones involved…causes community distrust all over.” ([20:52], Susan)
• Cold Case Team vs. Original Investigators:
  • “The cold case team takes over, they make an arrest, and [original police] kind of…assume they found the evidence…Which is shocking, because these investigators live the case.” ([22:58–23:10], Jacinda)
  • Critical insight: Cold case teams often excluded original detectives, missing undocumented insights and institutional memory.

The Mythos and Reality of Richard Vendeville

[25:27–29:55]

• Meeting Vendeville:
  • The team describes Vendeville—a mythic figure in police files and a prolific, often cryptic informant.
    • “He talks very much the same way [as he writes]...stream of consciousness…throwing all this stuff at you…he never gets to the punchline.” ([26:55], Jacinda)
  • His improbable knowledge of numerous cold cases is “go buy a lottery ticket, like, odds.” ([28:00], Kevin)
  • Susan: “For very good reasons, Vendeville should never be a witness that anything’s relying on in court.” ([29:12])
• Consistent on Titus: Vendeville has always insisted Jeff Titus is innocent, with no clear personal benefit, which the hosts find baffling but revealing.
  • “He’s very like…I know Titus is innocent. I know they got that one wrong.” ([29:49], Susan)
  • Jacinda: “The irony of it is that Vendeville said Jeff talked too much.” ([29:55])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Missed Suspect Opportunities:
  • Kevin ([05:09]): “If you were going to convict someone, why isn’t it this guy?...You can make a better argument for Allen, and they never did.”
• On Defense Rights:
  • Susan ([10:23]): “Nutter’s whole story should have absolutely been known to the defense, and it wasn’t.”
  • Jacinda ([12:33]): “It doesn’t have to be true to be a good defense. Right. It’s reasonable doubt.”
• On Police Culture:
  • Kevin ([19:46]): “He uses the phrase ‘moral compass’ in the interview…he expects everyone else to have the same.”
  • Susan ([20:45]): “It’s not just a police thing…it makes everything in the house look bad.”
• On Vendeville’s Outlandish Reach:
  • Kevin ([28:00]): “Mathematically…the idea someone would be involved in that many of the cold cases…It doesn’t add up…It’s not random.”
• On Tunnel Vision:
  • Jacinda ([13:37]): “Everyone had tunnel vision to make Allen…the alternate suspect and it backfired.”

---

Key Timestamps

• 02:00–05:09 — Tactics and near-misses locating Alan Nutter
• 06:12–07:56 — Discussion on why Nutter was never prosecuted
• 09:22–13:57 — Defense blind spots, missed evidence, impact of “silent observer” tips
• 19:13–23:46 — Interview with Dennis Anderson; police culture, original investigators cast aside
• 25:49–29:55 — Myth, reality, and impact of prolific informant Richard Vendeville

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is candid, often self-deprecating, and at times, darkly humorous. The hosts are forthright about investigative frustrations, skeptical of easy narratives, and laser-focused on how procedural blind spots can derail justice. Their dynamic is collaborative, critically-minded, and reflective, blending clear procedural insight with empathy for the individuals enmeshed in these wrongful conviction stories.

---

Summary Takeaway

Sidebar 10 reveals the tangled web of missed opportunities, institutional blinders, and cultural inertia within both the police and legal defense. Whether it’s the failure to seriously consider a more likely suspect (Nutter), the curse of singular focus post-conviction, or the enigma of prolific, unreliable informants like Vendeville, the episode underlines that the path to truth in wrongful conviction cases is rarely straightforward—and almost always depends on details deliberately or accidentally left in the shadows.

---

Listen for the next full episode (Ep. 11) covering Scott’s resentencing hearing, available Monday.

Transcript

[A]

I don't know about you, but I like keeping my money where I can see it. Unfortunately, traditional big wireless carriers also seem to like keeping my money too. So if you're tired of overpaying for wireless and fed up with crazy high wireless bills, bogus fees, and quote unquote free perks that actually cost more in the long run, switch to Mint Mobile.

[B]

At Mint Mobile, all plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. And it's easy. Bring your own phone and number, activate with ESIM in minutes and start saving immediately. No long term contracts, no hassle.

[A]

You can ditch your overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month.

[B]

15 bucks? I could be saving so much money.

[A]

Think of how many Manhattans you could buy for that savings.

[B]

Oh, I'm switching right now.

[A]

So if you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop [e-mail] proof that's mintmobile.com proof. Upfront payment of $45 for three months. Five gigabyte plan required, equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for first three months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[C]

Hey, sweetie. Your mother showed me this Carvana thing for selling the car. I'm gonna give it a try. Wish me luck. Me again. I put in the license plate. It gave me an offer.

[A]

Unbelievable.

[C]

Okay, I accepted the offer. They're picking it up Tuesday from the driveway. I haven't even left my chair. It's done. The car is gone. I'm holding a check anyway. Carvana, give it a whirl. Love ya.

[A]

So good you'll want to leave a voicemail about it.

[B]

Sell your car today on Carvana.

[A]

Pickup fees may apply. Hello and welcome to this week's sidebar. We're here to discuss episode 10 of season three of Proof. I'm here with Jacinda and Kevin, and this week we're talking about the wrong fish.

[B]

Hey, Susan.

[C]

Hey, Susan.

[A]

So this episode we heard about. Well, heard about a lot of things, but we also talked to Allen Nutter, finally. And Jacinda. That was really, really great of us, how we found Ellen Nutter.

[B]

Yeah, we had it in the episode and then we took it out. But we found Ellen Nutter.

[A]

Yes, totally us. We're great.

[B]

Yeah, we're so great. But Kevin, you remember how we found him?

[C]

I don't because my brain is like, on overload.

[A]

Oh, good. Let's leave that.

[B]

Okay. We can leave it at that, but let's move on.

[A]

It was your idea.

[B]

We should confess. It was your idea. You're like, why don't you guys just go to the mission and ask for him?

[C]

Yeah. Okay. Now I remember there are so many times where I just tell you guys exactly how to fix this scenario that they don't all stand out. But I do remember, like, several times looking for him on these trips, like, having driven into that parking lot at that place.

[A]

Well, he wasn't always there either, so we got a little bit lucky that day.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

No, I think what happened is, like, we would drive by at mealtimes assuming, like, thinking, okay, he'll come when they're serving meal. Like, I don't think we realized that there was a facility where people were sleeping.

[C]

I don't think anybody knew that. And then that one day, it started to become apparent that something else was going on. That's right. Now it's coming back to me. It was a sunny day.

[A]

We did know he used to sleep elsewhere. Anyway. I'm just saying.

[B]

Yeah. So one day. Yeah. Kevin's like, why didn't you just go inside and ask for him?

[A]

We're like, point being, meanwhile, Jacinda and I, literally. There was one day where there's this, like, encampment in, like, a sketchy wood area behind an Aldi's, and someone told us he might be there. Like, do we go in? Do we go in? We. We did not go in. We. In the end, we decided not to.

[C]

He was someone that nobody could find. Right. And then.

[A]

Well, everyone was seeing him too, so nobody can find the stretch because literally people were seeing him and we never did.

[C]

Yeah. And I think we all agreed he had the potential to be dangerous. And then I had to leave at the end of that interview. And I only left because my assumption at that point was that he was not dangerous and that we were in the middle of a facility. And then you found out that he's physically dangerous, but he's.

[A]

Jacinda and I, we had it handled between us. Yeah.

[C]

He's of questionable morality. Certainly.

[B]

Certainly an opportunist. Like, literally the minute you left Kevin, he was, like, up with his shirt off, heading towards Susan.

[C]

It was also in a conference room in the middle of, like.

[A]

Like a corporate setting.

[C]

Yeah. It's not like there weren't people, like, outside the door. And, I mean, it was sort of. That's sort of extraordinary.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So the interview cut short, but it was a good interview. He told us what he's Been telling people for decades now. He's been an alternate suspect for a long time. A lot of people have talked to him. I don't think he told us anything different than anyone else except for he confirmed his relationship with Trudy Field and

[A]

he went into more detail about his brother and his friend who stole the $10,000.

[B]

Right. Which also then confirmed that he knew of or is aware that at some point, Earl and his brother kept cash, a lot of cash, hidden around the bike shop.

[C]

The point that you two were making in the car after you left that interview is sort of the most profound thing about Alan Nutter, in that if you were going to convict someone, why isn't it this guy? Like, the pieces don't fit for Scott, like, you can make a better argument for Allen, and they never fit a lot better.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[C]

And they never did that. And every time you look for more at the case, you find something else. Oh, his brother stole money from the bike shop. Oh, Trudy Field. Oh, the wrench. Oh, he confessed to people.

[A]

Oh, he confessed to more people. Oh, yeah. I mean, so for me, the thing about another is realizing that if he'd been convicted of this crime, he would be unhelpable in a way.

[C]

Like, no way.

[A]

I don't think he did it. I really don't. But also, if he was convicted, I don't think there's any chance that anyone would ever look twice at the case.

[C]

Right. If you looked at the evidence against Allen Nutter and he was in prison and he said, I didn't do it, I'm innocent, I don't think any of us would be like, oh, well, certainly he didn't do it. The evidence is much more compelling against Allen.

[A]

Yeah. And there's no holes. The story against Scott Baldwin has some very apparent holes. Like, that does not make any sense. There's only one hole, really, in the case against Allen Nutter, and that's that extremely extraordinarily unlikely that Earl would have opened the door for him.

[B]

Well, that and the DNA doesn't matter.

[A]

And the DNA.

[C]

Yeah, but the Allen DNA situation could be explained the same way they tried to explain. Scott's right. Is that somebody else could have been there with him, because somebody else could

[A]

have been there with him, his brother or the other guy who worked there.

[C]

Yeah, he, like, did this professionally.

[A]

I'm not sure professional is the word I'd use for, like, Helenutt or Rob.

[C]

Like, he did this. Let's just say he did this for a living.

[A]

Committed hobbyist.

[B]

If you had to Guess if Alan Nutter is such the obvious suspect, why not go after him?

[A]

I think Rich Madison knew him. Rich Madison had dealt with him a lot as a officer over in Kalamazoo county, and that's where Alan lived. And he told us, like, I knew who Alan was. I knew I looked like I was familiar with him. He was like, big pain in the butt. But he didn't think he was like a. A murderer like this. Like, he was not an upstanding citizen, but. And I wouldn't say he liked the guy at all. Like, that's not the impression I got. But he knew him. He was a known quantity, and to him it never made sense that it would have been him. And he also knew we didn't include it in the show. I'm pretty sure back in 1988, when the police went to interview Alan Nutter because he'd been called in as a suspect, refugee people saying, like, you know, he confessed and all this stuff. They didn't want to have, like, an altercation, so they went to Madison because Madison knew him. So the city goes to Madison, says, hey, can you help us out with the suspect we wanted to talk to? Madison says, sure. And he goes to Nutter's house and is like, allan, don't make a deal of it. Just come out. These people want to talk to you and have a chat to you and bring you back.

[D]

Allen was always kind of a pain in the butt, but, you know, he was more smoking dope and being drunk. You know, I don't remember him ever being involved in a crime. But I was also working the day that the city came out and wanted to talk to Alan Nutter. And they asked for my help because I knew them to go up and, you know, so they didn't have to raid the house and everything.

[A]

Are we talking back in 1988 or.

[D]

Yeah, yeah. And so I went up, knocked on his door, and he came out on his porch, and I said, hey, Alan, I said, city detectives, they want to talk with you. What's this about? I said, why don't you talk to them? You know, I. I'm just helping them out. So he did. He got with him and went with them, and they had him down there for a couple hours, I guess, and they brought him home. So I don't know if they polygraphed him then or later or anything about it, but I heard that they were off of them, you know, as far as a suspect.

[A]

So he knows that the city police did talk to Allen. He didn't get the Full details at the time, I guess, but he, like, known they'd cleared him, basically. They didn't keep going after him. So I think the combination of things made him believe from when he took over in 2000 that, like, Nutter's not the guy.

[C]

Knowing what we know now, Rich Madison went to the interview so that Alan didn't lift his shirt up on it.

[A]

Good guess. That didn't happen. I don't know. Not. I wouldn't, like, bet everything on it, but probably not.

[C]

The interesting thing that I don't understand when it comes to Alan. Well, there are lots of things I don't understand. But it's so clear that, you know, whoever killed Earl, like, didn't do it intentionally. Not like there's this, like, massive, like, clean shot that fractures his skull and, like, kills him and like, his head's in pieces.

[A]

He bled to death.

[C]

Right? He bled to death. So that, you know, you say in theory, like, Alan's not capable of the crime. Well, whoever committed the crime, and I don't think it's Alan, but whoever committed the crime isn't doing it with the intention of murdering Earl. It's not specifically like a designed murder. It's just it happens by. I mean, accident isn't the right word because who knows? But wasn't intentional.

[A]

Yeah, whoever did that was not consciously thinking, I want this guy to die.

[C]

That's right.

[B]

And there is evidence that suggests whoever did it when they left, thought Earl was still alive.

[A]

Yeah, we don't think he did it. But at the same time, Nutter's whole story should have absolutely been known to the defense, and it wasn't. And in this case, it does seem to have been. Mostly because the prosecutor withheld those asylum observer tips. But like another to the cold case team to work him on Madison, both. Nutter was not a secret. So when they interview Scott Baldwin, they bring him in those two hours when they tell him, oh, Stacy's missing, come help us. So they bring him down there and they ask him, like, who else did Stacy date? And at one point Scott's like, this guy named Alan. Yeah, I don't really know about him. And then working with jumps in is like, Alan Nutter. Was she dating Allen Nutter? And he's like, I don't know who that is. So, you know, workin was thinking about Allen Nutter. We talked to a guy named Wes who told us that he had told Madison, like, told the cold case team. This Allen Nutter guy confessed to it. And he told us that Madison told him that's just hearsay and there's no report written about it.

[B]

We did look into it, and it doesn't seem like the Allen that Stacy dated.

[A]

Oh, yeah. To clarify, it's different Allan.

[B]

But the different Allan. But the point is that during Scott's interrogation, we know that Alan Nutter was on the cold case team's radar because they brought him up in that interrogation.

[A]

Yeah. They're actively thinking about him. He's a concern for them. They clearly don't think it's him. They think it's more Scott, but not to the point, like. Like they're still interested in anything Allen related. They still know it's like weird little thing hovering over the case.

[C]

And if she had been dating Alan

[B]

Nutter, things that would be very different,

[A]

but she was not.

[B]

And the other point I think you're making, Susan, is that, yes, Scott's defense should have known this. Right. Whether or not Allen had anything to do with it, and we don't think he did, it doesn't matter. Like, it's still a defense that Scott could have used. And I think that's kind of a hard concept to understand. Like, well, why does it matter if he didn't do it?

[A]

Because we don't know he didn't. And also because, like, we already know the defense did want to make a defense based on that bloody wrench. Because they did. And it would have been 100 times stronger if the defense was based on Allen Nutter and the bloody wrench and not just. Or Dwayne Field in the bloody wrench.

[B]

Right. So I guess it doesn't have to be true to be a good defense. Right. It's reasonable doubt. If you hear about the bloody wrench, you hear about Alan, you hear about Trudy, you hear about all these other tips that will make you question Scott's guilt.

[A]

Yeah. You don't have to think that Alan, as a juror, you hear that and you're like, well, the evidence is strong against this other guy. So clearly there's a doubt about, like, whether he did it or not. Then there's a doubt about Scott. And if there is a doubt, you acquit.

[C]

Like, if the serial killer had been considered in Jeff's case, maybe there's a different outcome.

[A]

So unfortunately for Scott, they didn't know at trial. And then afterwards, I think it almost hurt him both ways because, like, one he does not know before trial, which sabotages his defense, but then they find out right after trial. And I think that sabotage has pulled conviction for decades because everyone on this case like his innocence attorneys, like everyone who touched afterwards was fixated on Allen Nutter just spent decades banging their head against the wall trying to make Alan Nutter work as the alternate suspect. And it never did. And I think that blinded people to other options out there.

[B]

Everyone had tunnel vision to make Allen, you know, the alternate suspect, and it backfired.

[C]

There was this sort of echo effect when they finally get the tips. And yeah, everybody talks about Alan like, oh, my God, it's almost like they thought they were preparing for the original defense. Again, it's a different story when you're trying to get him out once he's been convicted.

[A]

Yeah. Well, from their point of view, from the defense's point of view, post conviction, they find out about these two people who didn't call tips in. They weren't silent observer tips. They're just people who were in prison with Allen. And after Scott gets convicted, they see it on the news and they're like, what the heck, Alan from Comstock, he told us he did that. Why is this other random dude getting convicted? So that's how the defense first learns about it shortly after the trial. And in their motions about it in their briefing, they're like, but what if Alan was mentioned in those SO tips? That would have been important. What if Alan's mentioned there too and they don't know about it and they lose because they can't prove that Alan is in the silent observer tips. And then years later, they finally get the silent observer tips and, oh my God, 14 of them are about Alan Nutter. And it must have been such overwhelming confirmation, like, we thought this all along. And it's true. Of course, it's Alan Nutter.

[C]

And the lengths that the prosecution goes to, to not let them have the tips, to not let them put on a full throated defense.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Is. I mean, it's just unbelievable.

[B]

But, Susan, from what you've looked at in the other cold cases, the SO tips, were they not allowed in any of the cold case trials?

[A]

So in Scott's case is different and they're actually litigated. Like the access to them is litigated before trial and after trial. The other cases just don't seem to mention them at all. Like, doesn't seem like attorneys tried to get them, which is unfortunate because I feel like that's a very important part of these cases.

[C]

No telling where the silent observer tips are coming from. Right?

[A]

Yeah. And keep in mind, we also never got silent observer tips in Scott's case from after the original investigation. The ones that were finally coughed up were from 88 to like 90. But there were silent observatives being called in for the cold case investigation in 2000, 2001, and no one's ever seen those. And they still can't be found. Like, they're nowhere. We know for a fact there were tips called in. And they're not anywhere in any files ever.

[B]

They're somewhere. Wouldn't you love to talk to the judge who upheld that decision to not let the silently observer tips be admitted and just ask like, you know, do you still think that was the right call?

[A]

Well, given that she was the judge that heard Scott's resentencing. So when Scott goes for resentencing, he already knows this judge has ruled against him several times in key matters. And she's the judge that said you don't get access to sound observer tips because you can't prove they're important, only for it to turn out they were super important.

[B]

I've been trying to do a little spring reset with my closet. Packing up some of my winter stuff and bringing out my spring stuff. But I realized I need to freshen up my wardrobe a little bit.

[A]

Always a great excuse to go to our favorite place for clothes.

[B]

Quince.com I 100% agree. Susan, have you got anything new recently?

[A]

You know I have. My latest purchase from them was their waterproof rain trench coat, which is super adorable and super useful with this rainy spring we've been having. Jacinda, can I buy you some stuff from quints because you need some more color in your. In your wardrobe. Would you. Would you wear it?

[B]

Well, I'm going to say yes.

[A]

So you.

[B]

You pick out something for me, and I will wear it and I will love it.

[A]

Luckily, Quince has a ton of great, cute options of colorful clothing. So coming your way soon.

[B]

Did I tell you that I actually went outside the norm of clothes and I bought some new earrings from Quince that I love. The mini Yoo hoops.

[A]

Cannot wait to see it. I'll believe it when I see it.

[B]

We're gonna look so styling next time we're out in the field.

[A]

Do you think the witnesses we talked to, like, recognize how stylish we are now? I hope so. So go ahead and refresh your spring wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.com proof for free shipping and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too.

[B]

Go to Q-U-I-N-C-E.com proof for free shipping and 360 five day returns. Quince.com proof.

[A]

All right, so to all the men listening to our show right now, go ahead and, like, press mute for the next 30 seconds or so. Okay. To all the ladies listening, we wanted to tell you about Honey Love.

[B]

Honey Love makes the best bras and shapewear out there.

[A]

Do you need comfy, reliable support for your boobs? Try HoneyLove.

[B]

No joke. It's really great. And, you know, if you don't like wearing underwire, honeylove is the solution.

[A]

Their modern wireless T shirt bra. It's amazing for a lot of reasons, but probably the main one. Jacinda.

[B]

Well, a big bonus for us is because going into prisons, having underwire makes the whole process much more difficult. Put on your Honey Love. Walk right through the metal detector.

[A]

Yeah. Comfy, stylish, and prison improved. What more can you need? So treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20% [e-mail] proof. That's honeylove.com proof.

[B]

After you check out, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you experience for yourself. The new standard in comfort and support with honeylove.

[A]

We also heard this episode from some other people we've talked to in Kalamazoo, including one of the original investigators who showed up at the scene, Dennis Anderson. He was there basically to kind of do, like, crowd control and talk to witnesses in the periphery of the bike shop, and he did not remember he did that at all. So unfortunately, he didn't have much to add about Scott's case. But he told us what he knew about the cold case team in general and some of the other issues that have hit the Kalamazoo police. And he is unique in that. He's one of the few officers that has talked openly and critically about some of the practices that were going on.

[C]

He uses the phrase moral compass in the interview, and I thought that was very sort of profound. Right. I think that he was moved by the not in a good way, by the Titus show that we worked on. And I think he takes his job very seriously with a moral compass, and he expects everyone else to have the same. And what did he say? I would have fought you to the death three years ago if I'd heard any of this.

[A]

Yeah, because no way that happened until it did happen. And there's proof of it. And he's like, oh, my God, the people I worked for, my. My police department, this happened here.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And he also talked about how other officers, he says would never do that kind of thing. Like good, upstanding officers. He understands why they won't talk about some of the misconduct that happened. And he understands the point of view, even while himself not feeling like that's the right way to do it.

[C]

Yeah. You don't. You don't talk. Right. Like, that's the culture. You don't talk about it. I think people are like that in general, oftentimes.

[A]

Yeah. It's not just a police thing. It's like all organizations, you don't want to talk about what happens in the house because it makes everything in the house look bad.

[C]

Right.

[A]

And he also told us about how it's like the people who are out in the community, when the police come up, like, please go drive by or come to their house to talk to them, they don't know. They hear these stories of misconduct and they don't know who it involves. Exactly. They don't know if the officer they're talking to is one of the ones involved. So it gives them. It causes community distrust all over the place.

[C]

There's no way to stop the community distrust because it's just a cycle. So if there's stuff going on and it comes out and nobody talks about it, the distrust is still there. Like, why aren't you willing to talk about it? And if people do talk about creates a distrust because everyone's like, oh, my God, how did all of this happen? And you would think that the same debate is going on right now in Kalamazoo with people we ask for comment, and with the community probably being like, what is the deal here? And I think people will find over the next couple of episodes, there'll be even more things to wonder about.

[A]

Yeah. What's interesting, though, is I feel confident saying that the reluctance to talk about some of what went on by police officers, it is not about protecting Mike workima is my sense. It's not like a conspiracy of silence because it's work and mother protecting. It's more about an institutional thing.

[C]

Like, yeah, I think virtually most police organizations would be like that. We're not going to talk. And also there has to be. If they're doing anything at all internally, there has to be some fact gathering as to what might have actually happened. Not everyone knows. I mean, we're talking about. This is decades ago.

[A]

We mentioned in our interview with Anderson, he reached out to Detective Jankus, who was the original lead investigator in the case of. And said, hey, these people are coming to town. Want to talk about the case. Do you want to talk to him. And as Anderson told us, he did not. However, we did later show up on his doorstep just to make sure he didn't want to talk to us. And he did talk to us briefly. He didn't, you know, it was a short conversation, but he didn't slam the door in our faces. And he told us, I think the most striking thing we walked away with Jacinda was he said, like, I know my evidence was. I don't know what the cold case team had. They didn't talk to me.

[B]

It was the same thing we've heard before with Jeff Titus. It's like the cold case team takes over, they make an arrest, and he kind of like, I assume they found the evidence. That's all, you know, which is shocking

[A]

because these investigators live the case. And, like, there's always going to be stuff that's. I mean, everything should be in a police record. Everything should be in a report somewhere. In reality, there's always stuff not in a report somewhere.

[C]

And what's not in the report is just like, what your instinct and intuition tells you. Those insights are important for. For whoever's taking over the case. I mean, it's.

[A]

Yeah, like, if I was a cold case investigator, my first, like, line of business is go talk to original investigators and hear from them. And instead, the cold case team, they basically cut out the original investigators. They did not want to hear from them. They did not want them involved, which is mind boggling to me.

[B]

I guess you could argue that they want to go in, you know, without blinders on, and they're going in, you know, with a new, fresh perspective, starting

[A]

from scratch, but to not use the info.

[B]

We did ask him and he said he stood by his investigation. And yeah, unfortunately, you know, it's a

[C]

similar story to Roy Ballot, Right?

[B]

Yeah, exactly. And Marcema, like, who are detectives in

[A]

the Titus case originally?

[B]

Yeah. The difference is, though, they were so sure Jeff was innocent that they took it upon themselves. Like, they were the ones who initially went to the Michigan Innocence Clinic and said, hey, you guys should take a look at this. Like, they weren't convinced, even though they were like, maybe they found evidence that we didn't know about and they asked for to see it and that nothing was presented to them, like they knew something was wrong.

[C]

Roy Ballot distinctly said after Jeff's arrest, he's like, what do you have? Like, show me what you've got. Like, he was totally willing to say, oh, he's guilty. And he's like, but they didn't have anything.

[A]

Right?

[C]

And then they wouldn't include me in it and they wouldn't tell me what they've got. And he felt like he was being shut out. They didn't even want to provide him with evidence of what they had against him.

[A]

All they had was the witnesses that he talked to had changed their stories.

[C]

That's right. And so they didn't want to talk to him about it.

[A]

So Detective Jenkins also told us probably one other thing that was of note. We asked him about the employees at the bike shop, and he told us flat out that they were never suspects.

[B]

They were never suspects. But they did polygraph all of the. The main employees and they all passed. But they should have.

[A]

They did a ton of polygraphs. They just kind of used them to rule stuff out and move on.

[B]

Yeah, they should have looked at it.

[C]

Everybody with a key is a suspect. Right. That's just the way it is. Everyone with the keys is suspect and you have to play it out.

[A]

But they didn't actually think they were really suspect. They weren't actually suspicious. They were just doing due diligence to a degree. Although I'd like to point out that polygraphs never due diligence in the scenario. We also heard this episode about the meeting with Richard Vinville, which very annoyingly, I could not be at. So just sending Kevin had to update me afterwards. Ryan Seacrest, his brother. Really? Yeah.

[B]

I mean, he was not what I was expecting at all. I don't know about you, Kevin, what you were expecting.

[C]

He'd become this like, myth or legend or something from being in all of these police files. And then, you know, he'd also just not that long ago finished up doing 20 years. 20 years in prison. And you don't expect people to come out sort of like, you know, bright eyed with their cheekbones, is doing well and.

[B]

And perfect teeth.

[C]

Yeah, right. And so there he was. And I was a little taken aback. It was like, man, like, I'm working so hard. I definitely don't look like that. Maybe I need a stretch somewhere so I can get some R and R and just relax.

[A]

Well, at this point, I've heard so much about him. I've read so many of his letters. Like in some of the police files, there's letters he wrote home from prison. Like, I know so much about this guy and yet I've never talked to him or met with him. I feel like the Vindeville interpreter at this point. Like, I've read enough of his letters. I'm like, I know how he writes. He's kind of allergic to Periods and punctuation.

[B]

He talks very much the same way.

[A]

You know he does.

[B]

It's like a stream of consciousness. And he's throwing all this stuff at you, all this information, but. But there's never really an ending to it. He never gets to the punchline. Right. And he's dangling all this stuff, and you're wanting him to say, okay, well, connect the dots, tell me what it means. And he won't do it.

[C]

It's all the tease, but the way

[A]

he does it, it makes it sound like it's all, like, invented or crazy or just, like, throwing out, like. Like he's trying to catch you, like, get your attention with fake stories, only he's not. Most of what he says, it doesn't sound like true stuff, but if you know the context that he's not adding in, these are real events he's talking about just in ways that don't come off that way. Although I will say, when y' all called me and told me what he talked about. So there's one cold case that Vinil, to my knowledge, had no connection to. Not a case that he was at all involved in, had nothing to do with it. It was not a V case. Like, literally no connection between him and it. I assumed. And then you called, like, one of the first things you told me, you're like, oh, he said that he saw the body getting buried for this case. And I'm like, what the. Like, really? Like, even the cases I thought were free of vendor bill, apparently, he's claiming

[C]

information about the one thing that I sort of take away from Vendeville, and I take this away after meeting him, too, is mathematically the idea that someone would be involved in that many of the cold cases. It is. I mean, we're talking go buy a lottery ticket, like, odds. This is. This is unreal. It doesn't add up. And I'm not saying that he doesn't have connections to this or he doesn't have connections to that. I'm saying it gives you pause because there's something not right there for one reason or another.

[A]

It's not random.

[C]

Yeah, it's not random. That's exactly right. The connections are sort of extraordinary. And he's a good storyteller, and he likes telling stories. And he's good at it. He's really good at it.

[B]

And he told us, Kevin, everything he said can be proven if we can just find the proof.

[C]

Yeah, Just find the paper it's written on, right?

[A]

Yep. He told y', all. You might not believe what I'm saying is true, but what I'm saying is in the papers is true. He's like, I know. I'm backed up by the papers. Good luck finding them.

[C]

That's right. It's exactly what he's saying. And. And he's right. You got to find something written down.

[A]

Yeah. Because, like, for very good reasons, Bendaville should never be a witness that anything's relying on in court.

[C]

He's a good storyteller. I don't know if I would call him charming.

[A]

I could see that. I'd say no in a way.

[C]

Yeah. Like, I think that because he's such a good storyteller, people are drawn in a little bit.

[A]

And I do find it a little bit. I don't want to say endearing, but, like, interesting that he has always been certain that Jeff Titus is innocent and, like, not quiet about it. I don't see if there's a benefit to him in that. I haven't seen it yet. I don't know exactly what the personal.

[C]

Yeah, that's what I keep wondering.

[A]

Yeah, he's very like. Like, I know Titus is innocent. I know they got that one wrong. And he'll tell you what he knows about that.

[B]

And the irony of it is that Vendeville said Jeff talked too much.

[A]

Meanwhile, Scott is there trying not to talk to Ben Deville. He was worried that Vindeville was trying to hurt Jeff because Jeff would keep talking to him. And honestly, if Vinoville had wanted to hurt Jeff, he could have. That's the mystery to me a bit. Jeff definitely put himself in a position where he would tell Vil anything and everything. And if Indville had wanted to try to hurt him, he definitely could have. And he never did. So next week in episode 11, we go to Scott's recenting hearing and find out what happened. I will say, though, that going into that hearing, I don't think any of us were confident of the outcome. So check your feeds on Monday for episode 11 of Murder the Bike Shop

[B]

Foreign. You've been listening to Proof. Sidebar, a podcast by Red Marble Media in association with Glassbox Media. Send us your questions and comments at proof crimepod gmail.com follow us everywhere with the handle at Proof Crime Pod and on our website proofcrimepod.com thanks so much for listening.

[A]

Quick reset. Something practical.

[B]

TikTok is packed with free workout plans, home training, fat loss routines, muscle tips.

[A]

No coach fee, no gym contract.

[B]

Just follow and move.

[A]

Download TikTok now.