Murder at the Bike Shop | Sidebar 3

Summary

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.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, Sal.

[B]

Hank.

[A]

What's going on? We haven't worked a case in years. I just bought my car at Carvana and it was so easy. Too easy. Think something's up? You tell me. They got thousands of options, found a great car at a great price, and it got delivered the next day. It sounds like Carvana just makes it easy to buy your car, Hank. Yeah, you're right. Case closed.

[B]

Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply.

[C]

Hi, and welcome to this week's sidebar. This week we're covering episode three of season three of Proof. I'm here with Jacinda Davis and Kevin Fitzpatrick. And as always, I'm Susan Simpson. Hey, guys.

[B]

Hey, Susan.

[A]

Hey, Susan.

[C]

So this week we heard about the trip that y' all took to Alabama without me.

[A]

Ru, I love how you say y'.

[B]

All.

[A]

That's amazing.

[B]

Yeah, it was rude that you weren't with us. That's. That's what the route.

[C]

And y' all went to go see Stacy, and luckily she talked to you. She gave you, I mean, a long interview. I wasn't there, obviously, but I saw pictures. It looked like an amazing setup out in the country.

[B]

Yeah. Kevin, do you want to describe our interview setting?

[A]

Yeah, I mean, it was right in the front yard of a relative of Stacy's house where she was staying at that time. And, you know, there was a. It's furniture for us to sit on. It was literally right by sort of. I don't want to call it a highway, but it was sort of like this 2/3 lane country route. So really loud. And it was a perfect setting.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

So there's a lot of character there.

[B]

A lot of character. But I didn't really care about the setting. I was just happy she was willing to talk to us. And, yeah, she was the first interview we did for this season.

[A]

Like, yeah, she was the first interview we did. And I remember Jacinda and I had been filming something for a TV show and we actually drove right past Rome, Georgia on the way.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Did we stay in Rome for a night? I don't even remember.

[B]

We did. Yeah, we stayed in Rome for a night and were able to see Lee and Joey and our favorite bar down there. So.

[A]

Yeah, and I will say this, like, once we sat down with her, she was not hesitant to talk.

[B]

No, not at all. She says, I will tell you everything I know. And what I'm telling you is the truth. Like, she. I don't know, is eager the right word. Like, she was.

[C]

She wasn't scared of talking that's for sure. Exactly.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. So sometimes, you know, in these cases, we run into what I would call key witnesses who are, you know, hesitant or reluctant to talk. Not because they're afraid to talk, but I think because they've been kind of traumatized by the story and they've been through a lot, and they don't want to sort of sit down and go through it again. And 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. So I was a little surprised by that. Given everything we knew about the case at that point and the fact that she was such a key witness, I thought she was going to be hesitant to talk. I thought she wasn't going to want to talk, and that was not the case at all.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So you might recall for season two of Proof, the first interview we did in person was Josh Burrows. And it's sort of a similar reason we started with Stacy for this season, in part because, like, these are the key witnesses, and if we hear from them and we're confident or even mostly confident that this crime happened the way they said it did, well, there's, you know, it's kind of a timesaver. We're not going to continue on.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, she's obviously very important witness, and I think we'll. We'll all talk about this more as the season goes on. One of the things I was taken with during much of Stacy's discussion with us is that she's certain about a lot of things that she says. Now, there are, you know, timeline issues and all this stuff, but she doesn't come across as someone who's looking for the truth. Right. Like, whether that means she believes it.

[C]

You mean, looking for the truth isn't trying to fabricate the truth. Right.

[A]

Like, she's. She's certain in some of the things that she says. In her mind, there are moments where she's obviously confused about the timeline, and those are of great interest to us and to the case. But Jacinda, when we were sitting there, I don't think either one of us was thinking, oh, man, this woman in. Is just bullshitting. This woman is just making things up. Like there was. There was a certainty to the way that she was speaking.

[B]

Yeah, I agree, but you know me, I believe anybody. Whatever anybody tells me. But.

[C]

But no, the problem is this actual content of her statements just does change radically all the time.

[A]

No.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And that's what I'm saying. Which is. Is like, there are timeline issues, but I've sat down with a lot of people who are witnesses in a case or who I'm interviewing for a show, and it feels like they're searching for facts or they're searching for answers. I didn't feel like she was doing that. That was my first takeaway from sitting there with her for a while. Is she was. She was certain of it. Now, she's told the story a lot. Right. And the dates have changed a lot, but she's been through that. That outing of telling the story numerous times. And so, I don't know, there's a confidence to her, which I didn't expect. And doesn't change the fact that there are lots of timeline issues. I was just saying that was my takeaway from sitting there with her.

[C]

Yeah. Well, there's also the fact that in her very first interview back in 1989, she failed a polygraph.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Which for me personally, the polygraph part. Irrelevant, distracting, kind of a failure on behalf of the original investigators. You see this again and again in the old Kalamazoo City files and county, too. I mean, there was just an intense reliance on polygraphs to the point that if you got a good polygraph result, like, they just stopped investigating, that's the end of it. Like, that. That was taken as the truth. When we know that's not how it.

[A]

Works, the cold case team certainly tells us that's not how it works. Right. I mean, like, you can take someone who failed it and it's okay, and you can take somebody past it and throw it out.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

The thing that I came away with, you know, from that interview, even more than when I went into it, because I think because Susan wasn't there, I was sort of getting up to speed on the case, like, as we were driving there, and you guys are bringing me up to speed on the details, and then the change in the timeline over and over and over again was sort of like, wait, what? Like, how many times did you tell it and when and what day and what were you wearing that day? And so it's different.

[B]

You're right. Like, Stacy's timeline changes and the memories change and when he confessed and when he didn't confess. But there are, like, two things that she says that 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.

[C]

The basement window.

[B]

The basement window, yeah. So. And I say the night he was murdered, one night, you know, that she Remembers was a day or two days or a couple days before she found about Earl o' Byrne's murder. But the fact is, you know, that doesn't change. He came through the basement window and he confessed.

[C]

And it's a weird part of the story, too, because, like, one, it's gotta. Physically gone through that window. Yeah, probably, yes. But, like, it's. It would not be comfortable. Like, he could have done it, but it would have been a very tight fit and just such an unnecessary one. We drove by the house later on. Obviously, Scott's family isn't there anymore, but we could see, like, where the door was to the house and, like, where the basement bedroom was. And the owner described where the stairway. The basement was. And it literally is right into, like, the entranceway. You immediately turn left and go down the stairs, and you're in the basement bedroom. The bedrooms for the rest of the house, for, like, his mom and his sister on the other side of the house. So you're not going near there. Like, you're not risking them seeing you by going in that door. Like, it is quicker and easier to get to the basement through the regular door than, like, awkwardly climbing in through the windows.

[A]

Right. If he was trying to avoid them, if they were in their bedrooms, he wouldn't have had to go through the window.

[C]

Yeah. And Stacy even testifies at trial that she thinks his mom wasn't even, like, around during this time. So, like, why is he going through the window in the first place?

[B]

Yeah. And Scott says he didn't go through the window. Like, there's no reason he would go through the window that we could come up with when he could just open the door and go straight down the stairs to the basement.

[C]

But Stacy's also very consistent about it, which is, like, I don't know, like, maybe he came through a window. I. If he did, I'm still baffled as to why or when or when. But I'm being. Yeah. That is one thing she is consistent about.

[B]

I do want to point out, Susan, you said the current owner of the house told us this. That was after we circled the block, like, three times.

[C]

And she awkwardly is like, what are you going doing?

[B]

He, like, kind of flagged us down, like, what. What do you guys want?

[C]

Oh, well, we're looking into a murder. She got much friendlier, actually, when she heard that. She's like, oh, yeah. I'll tell you.

[B]

Well, she said, you know what? You're not the first people who've come knocking on my door about that.

[C]

Yeah. That made it less Weird for her, awkwardly, I saw. Hiding in her house.

[A]

Susan, do you say. Do you mind if I crawl through your basement window to check out a theory I have.

[C]

I would have, but she. She installed these new, like, glass brick windows so you couldn't anymore.

[B]

Yeah, you would have. You did.

[C]

I totally would have done it. I think I did. Yeah, it's probably you.

[B]

And she said you can't flashback to the.

[A]

To the you being pregnant running across the.

[C]

I wouldn't be able to get through there then, that's for sure. Yeah, so.

[B]

So yeah, I just. I wanted to point out that the timeline changes and that is significant. That the change of when he confessed or how he confessed or where he confessed or what night came through the window. It is important. But the fact that the confession and the window are consistent, you know, in. For the past, what, how many years now since 1989 when she went to the police.

[C]

Yeah, except 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. That's literally the entire confession is he killed the old man.

[B]

Right. So if someone was to confess murder to you, you might have a clearer locked in memory of when it happened and what they said and.

[C]

Or at least ask like what or why or how. Like apparently she has to not a single thing further.

[A]

Yeah, I agree with you. Like, she doesn't ask anything else. And I guess I. I could see that because I remember going through this in my head when it happened. I could see her not asking something. Like I could make an argument for that. But what I don't understand is how she wouldn't remember when it was when he confessed. That's what I don't understand. The idea that it was a couple days after or the first week might be. Yeah, okay. But then it's a year later. Like the. The when it happens seems to be like it would stand out to you in some way, shape or form. At least I can buy that. Maybe she didn't ask him something. I mean, I would ask a question, I'm sure, but. But I could buy it. But the when of it and not being clear, I mean, someone's not telling you something regular or, you know, common. This is a pretty.

[B]

Yeah, people don't confess murder to you every day.

[C]

Yeah, so. And of course there's. There's Scott's side of it, which is that he says he never confessed, didn't happen. There's nothing like he doesn't know why she's saying that or what she's referencing. And as far as he's concerned, she's not talking about any real events at all. Like, there's not something else that happened that she could be describing. He just flat out did not confess to her. And, I mean, her story about the details of her change so much it's hard to even pin down when it really did occur. Like, she changes which house she's at, she changes where Scott picks her up. Is it at work? Is it her sister's house in Portage? The one in Kalamazoo? Stacey told you guys that she was certain it was the Jeep that he confessed in, but the Jeep was sold within two weeks of o' Byrne's murder, so then it has to be right after that it happened. Whereas at trial, she's certain it's, you know, down in Portage where they lived a year later.

[B]

Yeah. So it's all over the place. And like you said, Scott is adamant he did not confess. So in the end, it comes down to a she said, he said story.

[C]

Yeah. This summer, when Jacinda and I were investigating out in the field, we basically both lived in Quint's clothes.

[B]

It is so true. I think everything I packed came from Quint's.

[C]

Luckily, I wear color and you don't, so we didn't end up being twinsies, which would have been awkward, but, you know.

[B]

Oh, you don't want to be twinsies with me, Susan.

[C]

I prefer to have colors other than grayscale.

[B]

Well, it's because you have Quince then. Because they have both black stuff for me and colorful stuff for you.

[C]

The problem is it is now cold as heck, and we need new clothes to go out in the field or I'm not going.

[B]

Well, go back to Quint's. I just ordered some cashmere sweaters that are super warm and super comfortable.

[C]

That's funny, because I'm actually literally about to buy the Mongolian cashmere sweatshirt.

[B]

You should totally do that. I splurged, and I got my husband the Mongolian cashmere pullover hoodie, which is really nice.

[C]

And you're gonna steal it, I'm sure.

[B]

I was gonna say I'm gonna start wearing it for myself.

[C]

Quince is all about elevated essentials that feel effortless. They're designed for layering and mixing, and each piece helps build a timeless wardrobe made to last winter or summer.

[B]

And Quince works directly with safe, ethical factories and cuts out the middlemen. So you're not paying the brand markup, just high quality clothing.

[C]

Refresh your wardrobe with quint Go to quint.com proof for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too.

[B]

That's Q-U I N C E.com proof to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com proof.

[C]

So we're obviously in the middle of the podcast season now. Things get hectic and sometimes trying to figure out and shop for dinner is the bane of my existence.

[B]

I think shopping and planning for dinner is the bane of your existence on any day. But yes, especially during the middle of our podcast season, I do not have.

[C]

The emotional bandwidth or labor to be able to plan out healthy meals. Which is why Green Chef is amazing.

[B]

I agree. If it wasn't for Green Chef, I don't think we'd be eating dinner at night.

[C]

We would not have eaten last night. But we had salmon and cough couscous and it was hands down the best couscous I've ever had in my life.

[B]

It's funny because I had the same one yesterday and it was really good. It was so good. So if you're like us and finding time to make meals and planning is a nuisance or you just want to eat healthy, try Green Chef.

[C]

With Green Chef you can trust every bite with over 40 clean, customizable weekly recipes designed to give you peace of mind.

[B]

And you can reach your wellness goals with options like Mediterranean, high protein, high fiber, plant based and more.

[C]

My wellness goal is not starving to death. So right now go to greenchef.com proof graza and use code proofgraza to get started with 50% off Green Chef plus free Graza olive oil set in your second and third boxes. This 50% off offer is only available for a limited time, so don't wait. That's code proof Graza at greenchef.com proofgraza. We also talked this week about another cold case, the Patrick Michelle case. He was convicted in 2005 of murdering his girlfriend, Christine Dimick. They both were employees at a sort of a chain of convenience stores, Minute Markets. And recently she'd been promoted to assistant manager of the Minute Market on Stadium Drive. Which forms the basis of the motive in this case. Allegedly because Patrick did not get the promotion to assistant manager and she did. And his jealousy over that compounded with some other claims of risque behavior on her behalf. I guess I'll phrase it that way. I don't know how else to say that. We'll get more into that later. Make up the motive in the case.

[B]

Yeah, so basically what they Say to Patrick, the cold case team picks up the case because it goes cold. And they say to Patrick, you know, we know she taken your job and she thought about leaving you, you had enough, and that's why you killed her and made it look like a robbery. So at the. They looked at. They looked at him because, of course, they should have, because he's the boyfriend and they couldn't make a case.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And the evidence against him is largely based on statements he either made or allegedly made after Chris's murder. Stuff that happened years in the future. Not based on, like, new evidence from the crime scene or things like that. Because, again, like we said in the show, there's no physical evidence they ever turn up. Like, they don't find the gun, they don't find gunshot residue. They don't find, like, the money that was stolen. They don't find the VCR tape that was stolen. So there's nothing about the crime scene that's linked to him. It's just these future statements that he makes. As we heard in the show, at least one of those women, Debbie Brown, is someone that Patrick is adamant he never knew. And it's really hard to prove a negative, especially in a town like Kalamazoo that, although not like tiny, feels like it sometimes when everyone's connected to everyone. But there's just literally no evidence that these two people knew each other. Her statements don't support the idea that knew each other at first. And the statements she later gives the Cold Case team are just so bonkers and so all over the place. Even the Cold Case team report says that they're like, every time I talk to her, story changes. I mean, my conclusion is, is that he really did not know her. She did not know him, and she made up the entire story of the affair and him confessing to her.

[A]

Well, there's this sort of stunning point, and I wasn't there when you two interviewed Patrick's lawyer, but this idea that. That standard question from a prosecutor that, like, everyone seen in, like, every courtroom drama that's ever been on television or in the movies, like, can you identify the suspect here in the courtroom today? And probably the only time in anyone's life that they've been looking at one of these cases, the person on the witness stand can't identify the. The person the prosecutor asked them about.

[C]

Okay, so. So we'll get into this more later. But it happens twice to Patrick.

[A]

I mean, that's. That's just. It's staggering. Like, can you imagine that the. The woman's on the stand.

[C]

It's also not hard to figure out who the defendant is in a courtroom. Like, if you. There's.

[B]

There's literally a sign on the table that says defendant.

[C]

Right.

[A]

And so she's standing up, she's looking around, like, trying to identify him. Like it's a Where's Waldo game or something like that. And he's sitting right there at the table, and she can't identify who he is.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And, I mean, that is the first time you two told me that. I was just blown away. I was like, what do you mean? Because he was like, his hair was different or he looked like. No, it's just. Just can't identify who he is.

[C]

And there's also the fact she never mentioned this at all back in the original investigation. Like, the story about the affair and the confession and, like, confessing where the gun went is all after she starts talking to the Cold Case team.

[A]

Well, we talk about, you know, the Jeff Titus, Bonnie Huffman story in this episode, and the moment you two started talking to me about this story, and you explained that to me, I had this flashback to the Bonnie Huffman situation. Like, how the timeline of when she spotted Jeff in the neighborhood kept changing. And I remember Roy Ballot, the late Roy Ballot, one of the original detectives on the. On the Titus case, I mean, interviewing him in Kalamazoo years ago, and him saying, that's a drastic difference in the timeline, the number of hours that it had changed. And this is, like, a drastic difference in her relationship with this. With Patrick.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And we also. The fact that she says that, again, this confession happened two days after the murder, and she says she drove straight down. She says that Patrick's in her car. Like, they go to the Minute Market, and he confesses and, like, chokes her. She drives him home. Then she immediately drives down to the police station and reports his confession. And there is no report found. There's nothing located. Like, there's no evidence of a report of her saying, hey, Patrick, Michelle just confessed to me that he killed his girlfriend, Christine Dimick. We also heard episode two about a different woman who testified against Patrick. This one actually knew him. Christine Newberry. She describes their relationship as, like, dating. And that's not, like, an unfair term. They were friends, and she was interested in him, but doesn't sound like it ever really went anywhere. So, like, I don't know, they were talking, I guess, like, they knew each other. That part's true. Her story of trial, though, was about, again, like, she goes to his house, confronts him, says, you killed her, didn't you? And he chokes her and says, I'll do to you what I did to Chris. And her story, again, changes all over the place. Like at one point she has a story that he says this. He chokes her and says, I'll do to you what everyone thinks I did to Chris. Which is similar, but very different in meaning if that even happened. But again, back to her very first original statement ever. She gave no mention of any of this. Like, she didn't mention the confession. The choking just didn't come up, I guess. But it's also very similar to Debbie Brown's story in that she says that the time Patrick does, you know, choke her and confess, she immediately, like that night, calls the police, they pick her up at Patrick's house, and she tells them, he confessed to me. He killed Christine Dimmock. Officer makes a report of it and it disappears. It's never found.

[A]

One of the things that you can take away from all these changes and statements, Right, is they all change in one direction. And by that, I mean they all change in the direction that's worse for.

[C]

The defendant to a degree. So with Christine Newberry, there's also the problem that when they confront her about some of her changes in her story, the cold case team does they. They talk to her and her story has changed a lot from how it was originally. And when they bring that up, she's like, my memory is probably all over the place. So some of her changes were also just like, she does not know what she said previously, but she also does tell them, like, whatever Patrick told me happened before Chris died. And 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, like, while talking to the cold case team in the direction they needed to change and seems to have actively evolved in the course of a conversation with her.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, the. All of these changes in statements, you know, I mean, we all know memories change over time, but the statements in court or the final statements, as we'll say in all of these cases, seem to be substantially different than they were at the. At the beginning. Yeah.

[C]

And this is something that'll come up again and again and you'll hear more about it. But for almost all the cold cases, I mean, for a very, very good many of them, I think it's safe to say that if witnesses stuck to their first statements, you don't get convictions. So next week we're going to talk more about what happened in the lead up to trial, like after the cold case team found Stacey, got her statement and believed that Scott's probably their killer. How they investigated from there. And we'll hear Scott's point of view and what he says really happened with some of the stories about him. And we'll also hear about another one of the cold case team's cases. And this cold case is one of the ones where the most damning evidence is the own confession. Bye for now, and we'll be back Monday with episode four of this season of Proof.

[B]

You've been listening to Proof Sidebar a podcast by Red Marble Media in association with Glass Box Media. Send us your your questions and [e-mail] follow us everywhere with the handle @proof crimepod and on our website, proofcrimepod.com thanks so much for listening.