Proof: A True Crime Podcast

Sidebar 3: Murder at the Bike Shop

Date: February 5, 2026
Hosts: Susan Simpson, Jacinda Davis, Kevin Fitzpatrick

Episode Overview

This Sidebar episode offers a behind-the-scenes discussion of the investigation into the “Murder at the Bike Shop,” focusing on their field work, interview experiences, and issues surrounding key witness testimony and cold case methodologies. Susan, Jacinda, and Kevin dig into their recent interview with an essential witness, Stacy, analyze patterns of changing testimony across several cases, and reflect on how these shifting narratives impact wrongful convictions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Visiting Stacy – A Key Witness

[00:49–03:14]

• Jacinda and Kevin recount their travels to Alabama to interview Stacy, a pivotal witness for the current season. The interview was conducted outdoors at a relative's home along a busy country road.
  • Kevin: “It was right in the front yard of a relative of Stacy's house… it was sort of like this 2/3 lane country route. So really loud. And it was a perfect setting.” [01:18]
• Both hosts were surprised by Stacy’s willingness and immediate readiness to talk.
  • Jacinda: “She says, I will tell you everything I know. And what I'm telling you is the truth.” [02:34]
• Stacy demonstrated confidence and certainty in much of what she said, though her timeline and details repeatedly shifted across interviews and over the years.
  • Kevin: "She doesn't come across as someone who's looking for the truth... she's certain in some of the things that she says... But the timeline issues are of great interest to us and to the case." [03:37]

2. Reliability and Consistency of Witness Testimony

[03:14–05:36]

• The hosts emphasize a pattern: witnesses like Stacy may have unchanging “core” elements (such as an alleged confession or a specific event), but their accounts shift in other essential details.
  • Jacinda: "Stacy's timeline changes and the memories change and when he confessed and when he didn't confess. But ... she has never changed, and those are that, one, he confessed to her, and two, that he came through the window the night that Earl O'Byrne was murdered." [06:49]
• The group discusses the physical implausibility and unnecessary nature of the alleged “window entry.”
  • Susan: “We could see, like, where the door was to the house ... it's quicker and easier to get to the basement through the regular door than, like, awkwardly climbing in through the windows.” [08:16]
• Yet, Stacy was adamant about this element, underlining the ways people’s memories can become fixed on specific, possibly erroneous, details.
  • Jacinda: “But the fact that the confession and the window are consistent, you know, in. For the past, what, how many years now since 1989?” [09:39]

3. Polygraph Reliance and Changing Stories

[05:36–08:29]

• The team critiques earlier investigative practices, especially reliance on polygraphs.
  • Susan: "The polygraph part. Irrelevant, distracting, kind of a failure on behalf of the original investigators. ... If you got a good polygraph result, like, they just stopped investigating." [05:41]
• Many of Stacy’s details, including the method and timing of the alleged confession, varied extensively. The group acknowledges that the consistency of a “confession” loses weight when it’s unsupported by detail or clarity.
  • Susan: “It's not hard to be consistent about a confession when the only thing you remember is he confessed that he killed the old man. No details, nothing beyond that.” [10:01]

4. The Problem with Evolving Witness Statements

[10:21–12:05]

• The hosts draw attention to how memories mutate under pressure, law enforcement coaching, or after repeated retellings. Witnesses’ stories often shift over time, generally to the defendant’s detriment.
  • Kevin: “One of the things that you can take away from all these changes and statements, Right, is they all change in one direction... they all change in the direction that's worse for the defendant.” [21:26]
• They express skepticism about the validity of “confessions” that lack concrete corroborating detail or that arise only after contact with cold case teams.

5. The Patrick Michelle Case & Further Examples

[15:02–22:36]

• The episode shifts to the Patrick Michelle case, another cold case with dubious evidence.
  • Patrick was convicted based on “after the fact” witness statements, not physical evidence. The only supposed tie to the crime were statements made years later, not at the time of the crime.
  • Susan: "There’s no physical evidence... They don't find the gun, they don't find gunshot residue. They don't find, like, the money that was stolen... It's just these future statements.” [16:32]
• Witness identifications are shown to be unreliable, with courtroom failures to even recognize the defendant.
  • Kevin: "Probably the only time in anyone's life... the person on the witness stand can't identify the... person the prosecutor asked them about.” [18:10]
• Further witness stories (such as those by Debbie Brown and Christine Newberry) changed multiple times and in each instance, only after police prompting.
  • Susan: "When they bring that up, she's like, my memory is probably all over the place... They have to work on her through the interview to get her to say, oh, it was after she died. So that's an example of a change that happens... in the direction they needed to change." [21:36]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "She was not hesitant to talk... She just sat down and gave us the story, and she's like, I'm telling you the truth, and here's what I'm going to say." – Kevin Fitzpatrick [02:19]
• "Stacy's timeline changes and the memories change and when he confessed and when he didn't confess. But... two things she says that she has never changed, and those are that, one, he confessed to her, and two, that he came through the window..." – Jacinda Davis [06:49]
• "It's not hard to be consistent about a confession when the only thing you remember is he confessed that he killed the old man. No details, nothing beyond that." – Susan Simpson [10:01]
• "Can you identify the suspect here in the courtroom today? And... the person on the witness stand can't identify... the person the prosecutor asked them about." – Kevin Fitzpatrick [18:10]
• "All of these changes in statements... the final statements... seem to be substantially different than they were at the beginning." – Kevin Fitzpatrick [22:17]
• "For almost all the cold cases... if witnesses stuck to their first statements, you don't get convictions." – Susan Simpson [22:36]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:49–03:14: Behind the scenes of the Alabama trip & Stacy’s pivotal interview
• 03:14–08:29: Analyzing consistency and implausibility in Stacy’s story
• 05:36–06:09: Discussion of problematic polygraph reliance in investigations
• 08:29–10:11: Susan highlights the selective—and problematic—"consistency" of witness narratives
• 10:11–12:05: Unpacking behavioral expectations after a murder confession & memory inconsistencies
• 15:02–16:32: Introduction to the Patrick Michelle case and the lack of physical evidence
• 18:10–19:05: Courtroom identification failures and their implications
• 21:26–21:36: On the one-way evolution of witness stories
• 22:36–23:28: Preview of next week and final reflections on the cold case pattern

Tone & Style

The discussion is informal, skeptical, and often wry, with the hosts balancing deep concern for wrongful convictions with moments of humor and camaraderie. Susan, Jacinda, and Kevin critically question law enforcement procedures, witness reliability, and the integrity of the justice system, always with an eye toward evidence and procedural fairness.

Conclusion

This Sidebar episode illuminates the challenges of cold case investigation—how shifting stories, pressured witnesses, and dubious police techniques can derail true justice. The hosts underscore the importance of scrutinizing the reliability and evolution of witness testimony, and tease more in-depth explorations of these themes in the ongoing season.