Murder at the Bike Shop | Sidebar 4

Summary

---

Proof: A True Crime Podcast

Season 3, Episode: Murder at the Bike Shop | Sidebar 4

Release Date: February 12, 2026
Hosts: Susan Simpson, Jacinda Davis
Guest: Kevin

---

Overview

In this "Sidebar" episode, hosts Susan Simpson, Jacinda Davis, and guest Kevin debrief listeners on key themes and revelations from Episode 4 of Season 3 of Proof: Murder at the Bike Shop. This sidebar provides in-depth analysis and behind-the-scenes context around Scott's trial and confidence in his innocence, re-examines eyewitness testimony, explores issues around jailhouse informants and confessions, and briefly delves into rumors of occult influence. The team also discusses a parallel cold case (Roberto Davanzo), sharing insights from defense attorneys and uncovering systemic issues with how cold cases are prosecuted.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Scott's Life Pre-Arrest and at the Time of Trial

• [01:57] Contrast between Scott’s life then and now:

  • Scott, arrested years after the crime, presented as an ordinary, settled adult — not a stereotypical "killer."
  • Quote (Susan): “They even make comments at trial about how he may seem like a normal white collar kind of guy, but when he was 19, he was a vicious murderer. To emphasize that, yes, like the person they were saying the jury saw at trial was not the person they claimed did this crime.” (02:19)

• [02:34] The disconnect between appearance and the crime:

  • Scott had a stable job, three kids, and a wife by the time of his arrest—far from a cold-blooded image.

2. Scott’s Perspective Leading Up to Trial

• [03:12] Confidence in the face of charges:

  • Scott and his legal team felt positive; the physical evidence appeared weak or even absent.
  • He believed he could disprove key witness Stacy’s story, particularly her claim about his supposed confession.

• [03:42] Example of debunking evidence:

  • Stacy allegedly claimed Scott confessed to her on a day he demonstrably was in jail.

3. Eyewitness Testimony & the “Bloody Stick”

• [04:23] Missy Jarsma’s statement:

  • Missy, Scott’s friend’s girlfriend, told police (years after the fact) she saw a “stick with a red substance”—seeming to corroborate Stacy.
  • The hosts scrutinize whether this is real corroboration or flawed memory, and discuss the unreliability and timing of police documentation.

• [06:35] Contested physical evidence:

  • Scott claimed the red substance was Bondo (a car repair putty)—not blood.
  • Quote (Susan): “I bought some Bondo, and I kind of just, like, rubbed it over a stick... when applied straight on like that, it looks like blood.” (07:26–08:02)
  • The hosts debate whether memories are influenced by police suggestions and acknowledge problems tying such details to real evidence.

4. Memory Reliability & Police Influence

• [08:14–09:33] Problems with cold case witness interviews:
  • After many years, memories are inherently fragile.
  • Police questioning (“Stacy told us you saw a stick...”) can reframe people’s recall, making it less reliable.

5. Implausible Narratives & Evidence Gaps

• [09:48–10:42] Breaking down witness narratives:
  • Stacy’s story is internally inconsistent regarding events, locations, and logic (e.g., why would Scott throw a “bloody stick” in a neighbor’s yard rather than burn it?).
  • Questions arise about whether the purported weapon was even wood, as trial claims asserted.

6. The Wood Chip Mystery

• [11:03–11:58] Physical evidence skepticism:
  • The hosts speculate the “wood chips” found at the scene could have arisen from collateral damage during a struggle, not necessarily as a direct result of a weapon.
  • They muse (jokingly) about experimentally re-enacting the incident:
    • Quote (Kevin): “We could try hitting Kevin over the head with a table leg and see what happens.” (11:38)

7. Scott’s Refusal to Take a Plea

• [12:07] Confidence backfiring:
  • Scott was so certain of acquittal that he declined a plea deal that could have freed him years earlier.

8. Roberto Davanzo’s Case – The Flawed Use of Jailhouse Informants

• [15:37–18:52] Introducing parallel cold case:

  • Roberto, convicted for hiring a hitman (girlfriend’s murder), had an ironclad alibi—he was in prison at the time.
  • His conviction was based solely on jailhouse informant testimony—no hard evidence, no identified hitman, no corroboration.

• [17:01–17:35] Defense attorney’s reflections:

  • Judge Chigarh, Roberto's former defender, remains deeply troubled by the case.
  • Quote (Kevin): “He said to us it sort of made him the judge he is today... he thought the jury got it wrong.” (17:15)

• [18:52–19:34] Dangers of jailhouse informant testimony:

  • Jailhouse informant statements were inconsistent and lacked genuine knowledge of the case.
  • The hosts critique their credibility and role in “solving” cold cases.

9. The Issue of False Confessions

• [19:34–20:32] Roberto’s “confession” under duress:
  • His statement, later ruled coerced and involuntary, supported by dubious informant accounts.
  • They discuss why false confessions happen – a struggle for many to understand, but a tragic reality.

10. The “Occult Motive” Angle

• [21:27–23:55] Rumors and misinterpretations:
  • The cold case team pursued the idea that Scott was a “devil worshipper,” with witnesses (including Stacy’s family and Scott’s ex, Tara) reporting rumors.
  • Example of police report errors:
    • Tara described Scott as a “warlock” because he played a computer game called Diablo 2 and had the WinZip “wizard” program on his computer.
    • Quote (Scott/Susan): “She saw that there was a WinZip wizard on my computer, [so] I had to be a wizard or wizard of witchcraft.” (23:19)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Scott’s confidence before trial:

  • “He just. He wasn’t that worried about it because he didn’t do it.” — Jacinda (03:55)

• On unreliable police reports and memory:

  • “According to the report, Missy's first statement talks about the bloody stick, but it's not contemporaneously recorded.” — Susan (06:19)

• On the “bloody stick” mystery:

  • “Like the bondo. When applied straight on like that, it looks like blood.” — Susan (07:59)

• On witness memory and leading questions:

  • “That memory from that moment is not a pure memory anymore.” — Kevin (09:26)

• On implausibility of the prosecution’s narrative:

  • “Scott makes a good point. Stacy’s like, he’s got a burn barrel. He's burning clothes... Yet, he throws a bloody stick... into the yard of a neighbor. Like, that makes no sense.” — Kevin (10:21)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Start of main content: [01:57]
• Discussion of Scott’s normal post-crime life: [01:57–02:53]
• Scott’s feelings and legal strategy pre-trial: [03:12–03:55]
• Eyewitness “bloody stick” evidence and reliability: [04:23–06:26]
• Physical evidence debate (Bondo vs. blood): [06:35–08:13]
• Memory manipulation & police influence: [08:14–09:33]
• Implausibilities in witness testimony: [09:48–10:42]
• Skepticism around physical evidence and comic relief: [11:03–11:58]
• Scott’s refusal of the plea deal: [12:07]
• Introduction to Roberto Davanzo’s case: [15:37–16:42]
• Defense reflections and impact on judge: [17:01–17:35]
• Problems with jailhouse informant cases: [17:35–19:34]
• False confessions discussion: [19:34–20:32]
• “Cult motive” rumors and comic game references: [21:27–23:55]

---

Tone & Style

The hosts maintain a conversational, skeptical tone, often interjecting humor and candor into the analysis while highlighting the systemic challenges of cold case investigations and wrongful convictions. The dialogue is fact-based but grounded in empathy for the accused and wariness about law enforcement practices in cold cases.

---

Summary

This sidebar episode pulls back the curtain on the pitfalls of memory, uncorroborated witness testimony, and the reliance on jailhouse informants in cold case convictions. Through Scott’s and Roberto’s stories, the hosts question the credibility of such evidence, the power of rumors (including occult allegations) to shape prosecutions, and the tragic consequences when confidence in innocence meets the realities of the justice system. Listeners are left contemplating the reliability of criminal convictions based largely on testimonies years after the fact, physical evidence that may be misinterpreted, and the ease with which innocent people can be ensnared by deeply flawed investigative practices.

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.

[C]

Think something's up?

[A]

You tell me. They got thousands of options, found a great car at a great price, and.

[C]

It got delivered the next day.

[A]

It sounds like Carvana just makes it easy to buy your car, Hank. Yeah, you're right.

[B]

Case closed. Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply. Hey, everyone. Before we continue with this episode, I want to tell you about another podcast. Have you ever wondered what it feels like to watch your house burn down or be attacked by an alligator? Or learn that your spouse hired someone to kill you? If you're dying to know, then what Was that Like? Is the podcast for you? What Was that Like? Is filled with real stories about the most surreal experiences of people's lives. On the show, host Scott Johnson dives deep with his guests into the unbelievable situations they found themselves in, like animal attacks, plane crashes, winning the Price is Right, and more. The show brings you tons of completely surreal, completely true stories, all told through the lens of the person who actually experienced it.

[C]

Check out some of these episodes about wild and gripping stories to gain some insight on what it was like to, say, be a professional bridesmaid or lose a leg in a shark attack.

[B]

Susan, I think you'd be a really good professional bridesmaid, and you'd be really.

[C]

Good at losing a leg in a shark attack.

[B]

Oh, gee, thanks.

[C]

So if you want to hear some disturbing, inspiring firsthand stories, you need to check out what Was that Like? Every story is thoroughly researched and fact checked, so, you know, even the most bizarre tales are someone's reality. Listen to what Was that Like on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hello, and welcome to this week's sidebar. I'm here with Jacinta and Kevin to talk about episode four of season three of Proof. Hey, guys.

[B]

Hey, Susan.

[C]

Susan. So in this episode, we heard about the lead up to Scott's trial and more about his feelings on the evidence against him. We heard about what his life was like after 1988, after this crime happened, and what he'd done in the intervening years and how normal, for lack of a better word, his life was the moment that he got arrested. They even make comments at trial about how he may seem like a normal white collar kind of guy, but when he was 19, he was a vicious murderer. To emphasize that, yes, like the person they were saying the jury saw at trial was not the person they claimed did this crime.

[B]

Yeah. By the time Scott's arrested, you know, he looks like a dad. Right. He's got three kids, a wife, a house, a job.

[C]

He'd be offended by that.

[B]

Cramping his style. So. Yeah, I mean, he doesn't. He didn't present as like a cold, cold blooded killer.

[A]

No, he didn't present as a cold blooded killer. And you know, even his own son Cody is like, he wasn't anything like he was, you know, when he was 19.

[B]

Yeah. None of us are. Scott, by his own admission, wasn't doing great things at 19, but, you know, doesn't mean he was out killing people.

[C]

Well, Scott talked about in the episode how he felt leading up to trial and why he felt so confident. And I think it like, from his point of view, like, even set aside question of guilt or innocence in his position, knowing what he knew ahead of trial, it makes total sense. He felt good. Like the case on paper would not have looked that frightening. Right.

[B]

Like there was no hard physical evidence. Right.

[C]

Everything believes Stacey's stories were proven wrong. Like he thought he had concrete evidence showing Stacy's stories cannot be true.

[B]

He could not have confessed in a jeep crying to her a year after the murder on that particular date because he was in jail on that day. Right. Like he thought he could disprove every claim.

[A]

Yeah. And as he pointed out in several of the episodes, you know, he felt good about it. He just. He wasn't that worried about it because he didn't do it. So I think that was still hanging in his mind that surely they won't be able to prove this with this evidence.

[B]

It also sounds like other people were kind of telling him that as well. His lawyers felt good about it. You know, it wasn't just him. He was getting that reinforced enforcement from other people as well.

[C]

We also talked this episode about one of the pieces of evidence that I found to be potentially persuasive or compelling against Scott. That was a statement of Missy Jarsma, Scott's friend's girlfriend, who told the cold case team when she was talked to, you know, years later in 2000, that she recalled going to Scott's house and seeing this stick with what she says is a red substance on it.

[B]

Yeah, I agree. It's like you hear Stacy say that and you can be like, well, you know, maybe it's true, maybe it's not true. But then to hear someone else corroborate that story, it. Yeah, you're right. Like that didn't look good. Yeah.

[C]

I mean, witnesses get Things wrong all the freaking time. Like, it's super common anytime there's one witness saying something I don't care like, doesn't mean anything. But when you have two saying something the same thing, like, it's much rarer.

[A]

She said it in her very first statement. Correct.

[C]

So here's one thing that I still have pause about. According to the police report, she said it in her first statement, the cold case team. Now that statement was made in November of 2000. She's one of the first witnesses they spoke to in this case. However, the report is not written until like four or five months later, until the next year. And at that point they've spoken to a lot more witnesses and have a different point of view on some of the stuff. We also know that she told them some things in that statement that they didn't even record in her written statement. For instance, Missy told the cold case team when they first talked to her, she said, oh yeah, I remember this. I found this newspaper about the murder at the bike shop and me and my boyfriend Lloyd and Stacy, we all confronted Scott's mom and said he must have done this murder. Well, no one else said that happened. Everyone else is very confident that didn't happen. And it's not totally clear what she's thinking of. But even Stacey is like, no, she must be confused. But that's not written in the report at all. That only comes out at trial. She said that initially. So clearly there's some sort of selective choices being made. But what is and is not written down in those police statements? All of that goes to say, like, according to the report, Missy's first statement talks about the bloody stick, but it's not contemporaneously recorded.

[A]

Yeah, either way, I mean, when someone, when someone sort of corroborates that, when someone says, yes, I saw that too, that's a big deal.

[C]

Now, let's assume she did see what she says. She saw what Scott said. He does testify at his own trial eventually. What he says is that he'd been working on his jeep for. Not just that day, he says, for a few days. And he was trying to fix all the rusted out patches on his jeep so he could paint it matte black and that he bought this, you know, gallon of Bondo to seal it up, make it pretty and all that, and he ruined it. And the red substance got hardened too soon, so the entire, like tube or jar of it he had to throw out. And he was pissed off that he'd wasted his money by doing it wrong. What did you guys think? When I texted y' all the photo I sent a few days ago, I.

[B]

Thought that it did look like blood, but I also thought that that's not what a stick would look like that you've used to stir.

[C]

Okay, well, so I bought some bondo, and I kind of just, like, rubbed it over a stick.

[A]

I thought that you were planting ev.

[C]

So I just rubbed some bondo on the stick and send them a picture without any context, and I thought they'd know what it was. Like, y' all knew that we're talking about the bondo stick, but apparently that. That did not come to mind.

[B]

No, it did. It did come to mind, But I just thought, like, okay, this is not what the stick looked like. I don't think that they saw. But it looks like blood.

[C]

Like the bondo. When applied straight on like that, it looks like blood.

[B]

It does look like blood, I have to say.

[A]

Yeah, no, it. It does look like blood. I mean, but I took it that just you and the dog and one of the kids were out for a walk.

[C]

Could have been, yeah.

[A]

It's also interesting when we talk about, you know, memory sometimes. And one of the things I wonder about some of these cold cases is so they don't talk to her for, you know, God knows how many years. Missy Jarsma. I mean, and she confirmed seeing the stick. But at the very time you're doing that discussion, very time you're doing that interview or talking to her, it's already clear, like, what the police think about the whole situation, whether they're influencing or not. Like someone showing up, asking questions about a potential murder. And did you see anything? I always wonder how much that influences what people are thinking and saying right off the bat. It's not, you know, somebody doesn't walk in the room. And without a little bit of an understanding of what they're doing there.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Unless you're Scott going in trying to help find a missing person.

[B]

Yeah, you're right. The fact that you have detectives asking you About a day, 13 years earlier, did you see Scott with a stick that may have been blood on it even at the time, you know, that's going to change the way you see. It's going to reframe your memory.

[C]

Or worse yet, they go in saying, stacey told us that you saw a stick with blood on it.

[B]

Right. Yeah. However it's presented, that memory from that moment is not a pure memory anymore.

[A]

Well, so one of the things I always want to know then is, did you think it was blood at the Time. And if so, where did you think it was from? Or why did you think he had a stick with blood on it? I mean, maybe they ask her those questions. I don't know.

[C]

But, I mean, there's a few problems with this whole story to begin with, too. Like, you break down the details, what Stacey says happened, it's a coherent story. But, like, each piece of what she says doesn't really make sense all the time. Her story is that she stayed in the basement all morning until Missy and Lloyd arrived, and yet somehow she was able to see Scott throwing this bloody stick across a yard when the angles of the windows in the yard don't really make sense for that.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Also, side note, okay, let's assume Scott's guilty for a second. Why the hell is he bringing like a 12 inch bloody stick home with them and throwing it into a neighbor's yard?

[B]

That's what I was gonna say. Like, Scott makes a good point. Like, Stacy's like, he's got a burn barrel. He's burning clothes. Or like, well, yet he throws a bloody stick, a murder weapon. A murder weapon into the yard of a neighbor. Like, that makes no sense.

[C]

And not into the burning barrel. Burn barrel right there going off. Yeah.

[A]

The logical question is, why wouldn't you just put it in the burn barrel?

[B]

Right.

[C]

There's also the question of was a wooden table leg or chair, like, actually the murder weapon? And, you know, that's what they say at trial, and they use the wood chips found at the scene to say that. But I am very unconvinced that that's what's going on. I mean, there's definitely no confirmation for sure that it was a wooden object at all. And evidence to the contrary as well.

[B]

Yeah. I also don't know how taking a pretty solid wooden chair leg or table leg and hitting someone is going to make it leave. Those chips, they're like. They almost look like shredded wooden chips.

[C]

It looks to me. I mean, this is. We don't know. This is just pure speculation. When I saw it, my first thought was whoever did this raised their hand over their head too far and smashed something behind them on a wall. And the walls, you know, full of shelves and shit and random objects everywhere, so who knows what it could have been? But, like, I felt like it was something that was smashed in the course of the assault.

[B]

But, yeah, when I first saw it, I thought it was something like wood chips that get dragged in from your shoes from the outside. I mean, we could. We could try hitting Kevin over the head with A table leg and see what happens.

[C]

I think we have to now for science.

[A]

Yeah, but then you guys would be denied my charming company for the rest of your lives, right?

[C]

I'm willing to take the risk.

[A]

Willing to risk that. Okay. Yeah.

[B]

We'll post a picture of these wood chips and see what everyone thinks.

[C]

So Scott was confident. That's why, like, he had no interest in a plea deal. One was offered. He'd have been out, you know, years ago if he took it. But he thought that Stacy's story would be easy to disprove. And as we'll hear next week, no, it was not. The jury did believe it. This summer when Jacinda and I were investigating out in the field, we. 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've been awkward, but, you know.

[B]

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

[C]

I prefer to have colors other than grayscale.

[B]

Well, it's good you have quints then. Cause 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 going to steal it, I'm sure.

[B]

I was going to say I'm going to 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 quince. Go to quince.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 dashe.com proof to get free free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.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, especially during the middle of our podcast season, I do not.

[C]

Have 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 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 prescribe proof Graza and use code Proof Graza 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 [e-mail] proofgraza.

[B]

So you also heard in episode four a little bit about Roberto Davanzo in his case. He was another individual convicted by the cold case team and we were curious about his case because he had the perfect alibi. He was in prison when his girlfriend was murdered. And so we reached out to his former defense attorney to see if he would be willing to sit down and talk to us.

[C]

You know, Roberto was actually the first of the other cold case defendants I spoke to. I'd seen his case and was reading about it kind of casually. I was like, oh, what's this other cold case I had around the same time? Immediately I'm like, what is going on? There's a lot of weird stuff here. And I was going to request files for it, but I was like, that's going to take a long time. And I was like, you know what? I'm going to email Roberto and see if he'll tell me anything. So that's how I started talking to him because I just couldn't figure out what I was reading about in the newspaper reports about it and figured you know, why not ask him directly, hear what he has to say? And after that, I was like, okay, we do need to look more into it. We do need to get the actual records and find out what's really going on.

[B]

Yeah. When I reached out to Judge Chigarh, you know, I didn't really expect to hear back. He's busy. He's a judge. You know, it's like. And, like, within minutes, I remember this case really well. It's a case I never forgot, basically. And so he was very willing to talk to us about this case as well.

[C]

Yeah. The case clearly bothered him, like, not just because he lost. You know, attorneys lose and they win and they move on. But this one bothered him because he felt like he shouldn't have lost, not just because of, you know, his presentation or his work on it, but because he thought the jury got it wrong.

[B]

Yeah. What he said to us was it sort of made him the judge he is today. Something about this case bothered him. Whether it was how things were presented or not presented or evidence was used or whatever it is, it bothered him. And he uses what he learned from this for the work he does today.

[C]

Yeah. So Roberto was convicted of hiring a hitman because there's no other way he could have done the murder, obviously. But the evidence against him that used a trial, like, I. I don't think I've ever heard of a case where the evidence is solely jailhouse informants. I mean, a lot of cases, and like, a whole lot of the cold cases use jailhouse informants, but usually it's like one part of a bigger picture. Whereas in Roberto's case, it just purely jailhouse informants all the way through. That's all they had.

[A]

Because jailhouse informants don't generally carry the same level of credibility as a regular witness, Right?

[C]

Well, I would argue no, but unfortunately, juries don't often see it that way. I realize that, but usually you have something else. It's not just people who are in jail with you saying, oh, I heard him confess once.

[B]

Yeah. And there was really nothing else in this case. Susan. I haven't had time to look yet, but how many other hitman cases are there where the hitman is never identified?

[C]

I mean, there are hitman cases where the alleged hitman is not prosecuted or gets acquitted or something. I have yet to actually find a case where there's not even a suggestion at trial of who the hitman is. At Roberto's trial, they never say, like, he hired so and so, or like, this is the person he Went to. They just kind of, you know, he hired someone.

[B]

Right. And there's no record of it. Here's the transaction receipt, or here's the wire transfer, or here was the money drop. Like, none of that.

[C]

Yeah. And again, the way they got these statements is itself kind of suspect for a number of reasons. I mean, look, whether Roberto did it or not, jailhouse informants shouldn't be believed. And I don't think there's. There's nothing in the statements from his jailhouse informants I find indicative of them actually knowing anything. If one of them had been like, oh, he told me who the killer is. Okay, that's some real info. Let's follow that. That. That's not the case. They were very vague, had no specific information. And information they did have, they all disagreed on. They all said Roberto claimed different things.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, a lot of people will look at the case and say, well, Roberto confessed to it. And I can understand why people will say that. I think that it sort of opens the door to this larger conversation about false confessions and why they happen. And, you know, a judge in this case is saying that he was pressured. He was.

[C]

A court ruled that he was coerced. That was under duress. It was not a voluntary confession at all.

[A]

Right. And so that stuff also matters in the. In the legal system. It also matters, I think, that the original police didn't believe what he was saying at all.

[C]

Yeah. They concluded like, okay, this is kind of fantastical. I mean, it doesn't sound like a real story. Nothing you've told us actually can be checked out. There's no confirmation for it. There's no evidence that what you're saying is true.

[A]

Yeah. I think it's so hard for some people to grasp, you know, why on earth someone would make a false confession. But the fact remains that they happen all the time.

[C]

I mean, confessions were a big part of how the cold case team solved their cases. Various, like either confessions to the police or to jailhouse informants, other people. Like, this is like, the spine of a lot of their cases. So you're going to hear about more cases involving confessions and questions about the validity of either what was said or if it was said at all. In Scott's case, of course, the evidence against him was a confession, but he says it was never even made in the first place. There's other cases where the defendants acknowledge making a confession, but say that for various reasons, that it hadn't been true. So next week, we talk about Scott's trial. But one thing we're not going to cover on the show, on the main show has to do with some of the evidence the Colke seems looking into about Scott and his possible occult motivations for the murder. Here's, here's what those witnesses had to say about that.

[B]

There was other evidence too, but Scott thought it wouldn't be hard to refute it at trial. The defense had been given copies of the police reports, so he knew. One thing the cold case team had been looking at was Stacy's claims about Scott's alleged devil worship. After interviewing Stacy, the cold case team had talked to Stacey's family too, and learned that Stacy had told her family stories about Scott being, quote, into the devil and being, quote, a devil worshipper. When we spoke to Stacy, she didn't mention Scott performing a cult ritual, though she did allude to some of her previous claims.

[C]

You don't forget, like when you feel like you're sleeping with the devil, basically. I mean that's, I don't like to put it that way because I'm not saying it's the. That was. He was definitely influenced, you know, by something darker. I don't know, but that was my opinion.

[B]

After hearing about Scott's alleged devil worship, the cold case team had tried to find other evidence of Scott's involvement in occult activities. One of the women they spoke to was his recent ex, Tara. That's the woman he temporarily left his wife for when detectives spoke to her. She had just given birth to Scott's youngest son, though Scott didn't know about that yet. As you can imagine, Tara was not Scott's biggest fan at that particular moment. But she told the cold case team Scott had never shown any signs of violence with her, that he was good tempered and well mannered. But when asked about Scott's possible occult tendencies, the police report says Tara told them the Scott seems to believe in witchcraft and considers himself a warlock and plays a witchcraft video game almost every day. She advises that Scott also went by the nickname or computer handle of WinZip.

[C]

If you're familiar with computers, you'll know what WinZip is. But because she saw that there was a WinZip wizard on my computer, I had to be a wizard or wizard of witchcraft.

[B]

And what about that witchcraft video game Tara told the cold case team about.

[C]

That was actually the Diablo 2 video game when Diablo 2 was the popular video game back in game off. So no, I wasn't a devil worshipper. All right. Back on Monday, talk about Scott's trial. See you then.

[B]

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

[C]

New Year, New Me Cute, but how about New Year, New Money? With Experian, you can actually take control of your finances. Check your FICO score, find ways to save, and get matched with credit card offers, giving you time to power through those New Year's goals you know you're gonna crush. Start the year off right. Download the Experian app, based on fico's great model. Offers an approval not guaranteed. Eligibility requirements and terms apply subject to credit check, which may impact your credit scores. Offers not available in all states. See experian.com for details. Experian.