Murder at the Bike Shop | Sidebar 5

Summary

Proof: A True Crime Podcast – “Murder at the Bike Shop | Sidebar 5”

Date: February 19, 2026
Hosts: Susan Simpson, Jacinda Davis, Kevin
Episode Type: Sidebar/Listener Q&A (Season 3, Episode 5)

---

Episode Overview

This week’s sidebar episode features Susan, Jacinda, and Kevin discussing listener questions and behind-the-scenes insights on Season 3, Episode 5, which re-examines the murder at the Warehouse/Bike Shop. The trio dig into the details and missteps of the investigation, trial evidence, and testimonies—and highlight recurring patterns in the cold case team's approach to wrongful convictions. The conversation also includes revealing interviews and thoughtful reflections on the criminal justice process.

---

Major Discussion Topics & Key Insights

1. The “Butterfly” Song and Its Use at Trial

• The prosecution cited Scott’s fascination with the song “Butterfly” as supposed evidence of his guilt.
• The hosts question this logic, discussing how using someone’s musical taste as proof of criminality is problematic.
• Jacinda jokes about her own Spotify playlist:
  “It did make me think about, like, you know, if people looked at my Spotify playlist and the songs I listened to, what they would think about me. Right.” (01:40)
• The original songwriter, Heather Thompson of Tapping the Vein, is interviewed to clarify the song's actual meaning (see Notable Quotes).
• Defense tried to claim the song reflected Scott’s struggle with drug addiction, yet there was no evidence he used drugs.

Timestamps:

• 01:23 – “Butterfly” and its evidentiary value at trial
• 16:22 – Defense’s claim regarding drug addiction
• 17:13 – Interview with Heather Thompson, song’s true meaning

---

2. The ‘Flowers on the Grave’ Testimony

• At Scott’s trial, Stacy’s testimony included a claim that Scott had confessed to leaving flowers on the victim’s grave.
• The prosecution suggested this was a unique act only the killer would do.
• The hosts debunk this, reminding listeners that people—including strangers—often leave flowers, and grave photos confirm someone else could have done it.
• Kevin:
  “...if you go on, like find the grave.com and look up the O’Byrne’s grave, there’s a photo with flowers on it. So clearly someone out there is putting flowers on his grave.” (01:49)

Timestamps:

• 01:49 – Discussion about flowers and the assumptions made at trial

---

3. Trial Witness Testimony and Its Shortcomings

• Amy Kennedy, a key witness, testified about alleged abuse and threats from Scott to Stacey. Her boyfriend at the time contradicts this.
• Jacinda:
  “He never saw Scott hurt Stacey or, you know, lay a hand on her or threaten her or anything.” (03:31)
• The hosts observe that Amy’s claims—about Scott’s theft and threats—did not play out in actual witness experiences.
• Scott’s own testimony did not differ from what he said privately; the team questions the defense's strategy.

Timestamps:

• 03:09 – Amy Kennedy’s contested testimony
• 08:30 – Scott’s own testimony and trial strategy

---

4. ‘Robbing’ the Bike Shop as a Teenager

• Scott admitted to taking a bike as a teenager—a common, low-level employee theft at that business, according to interviewees.
• Kevin contextualizes:
  “It's kind of a low level employee type theft, which a lot of businesses deal with, type thing.” (05:25)
• Multiple employees did similar things, often with management’s semi-approval.
• This context undercuts the prosecution’s argument that Scott’s “robbery” foreshadowed a violent crime.

Timestamps:

• 04:55 – Amy’s story about Scott’s “past”
• 05:25 – Hosts provide context for the so-called theft

---

5. The Theory of ‘Opportunity’ at the Time of Murder

• The jury was told Scott stumbled upon Earl O’Byrne outside the bike shop late at night, seized the opportunity, and committed murder.
• Multiple witnesses, including Karen Raymond, challenge the plausibility; Earl was extremely security-conscious and wouldn’t leave the locked area.
• Jacinda:
  “...he wouldn't even leave the building far enough to walk her to the car. So the idea that he's out there at midnight, 12:45, you know, walking around for fresh air... she does not believe that would happen.” (07:39)
• Testimony from coworkers confirms how unusual—and implausible—this behavior would be.

Timestamps:

• 06:13 – Jury theory and building security
• 07:16 – Karen Raymond’s disbelief at Earl’s movements

---

6. Errors Around Alleged Stolen Evidence (‘Bank Bags’)

• A key prosecution point: Scott stole cash-filled bank bags and coin boxes.
• But photos and witness statements prove those items were still present after the murder; they were never stolen.
• Jacinda connects this moment to a previous season’s revelation:
  “Seeing the bank bags and the evidence photos is sort of that moment, sort of like in season two when we filed the necklaces at the courthouse. It's like, wait a minute, it's right here.” (10:43)
• The property may have been logged under an unrelated found property case number, showing a critical failure of evidence management.
• No one caught this at trial or appeal—an omission with devastating consequences for Scott.

Timestamps:

• 09:57 – Prosecutor’s theft theory
• 10:43 – “Bank bags” in crime scene photos
• 12:00 – How property/evidence mix-up likely happened

---

7. The Role of Prosecutors, Defense, and Overlooked Evidence

• Prosecutors repeatedly cited the bags and Stacy’s unique knowledge of them as confirmatory evidence, despite photographic proof to the contrary.
• Even the cold case and original investigators missed these inconsistencies.
• Susan:
  “It just strikes me as so disturbing. The picture of the bag is there. It's right there.” (14:05)
• No one from the defense raised this at trial or appeal.

Timestamps:

• 14:05 – Systematic failures in recognizing and leveraging evidence

---

8. Themes: Constructing Narrative from Weak Evidence

• The hosts reflect on a pattern in cold case prosecutions: with little to no hard evidence, character assassination, circumstantial “quirks,” and unrelated behaviors (song choice, grave flowers, ordinary theft) are marshaled to paint the accused as guilty.
• Jacinda:
  “When there’s not a lot of evidence, you’re sort of grasping at straws. So you take song lyrics or you take flowers at a grave... None of that is really evidence.” (21:09)

Timestamps:

• 21:09 – The danger of using character evidence and circumstantial associations

---

9. Case Parallels: The Highland Sterling Case

• They compare Scott’s case to another (Highland Sterling), highlighting the same defense attorney and similar prosecutorial patterns: odd behavior treated as guilt, shifting key witness statements, investigative disregard for original detective testimony.
• Kevin:
  “A lot of the cold cases like to make their case rely on convincing the jury that the original detectives were a bunch of fucking idiots.” (23:56)
• Witnesses changed their stories, crucial documentation was missed, and misleading line-ups/photos were used.

Timestamps:

• 21:36 – Highland Sterling case comparison
• 23:56 – Common themes across wrongful conviction cases

---

10. Memorable Anecdotes & Sidebars

• The hosts have a lighthearted discussion about the first case involving male strippers and their desire to meet the characterful witness, Mildred.
• “I want to have a drink with Mildred.” (Jacinda, 25:57)
• Such moments bring levity while underscoring the variety and humanity present in these cases.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Flowers at the Grave Theory:
  Kevin (01:49): “...if you go on, like find the grave.com and look up the O’Byrne’s grave, there’s a photo with flowers on it. So clearly someone out there is putting flowers on his grave.”

• On the Flawed Theft Evidence:
  Susan (14:05): “It just strikes me as so disturbing. The picture of the bag is there. It's right there.”

• On Using Song Lyrics as Evidence:
  Jacinda (21:09): “When there’s not a lot of evidence, you’re sort of grasping at straws. So you take song lyrics or you take flowers at a grave... None of that is really evidence.”

• Interview with the Songwriter, Heather Thompson (of Tapping the Vein):
  Heather (17:29): “It’s not about murder at all... it’s about sexual abuse and incest within a family and the shame the victim feels, even though obviously it’s not their fault.”

• On Detectives’ Approach in Cold Cases:
  Kevin (23:56): “A lot of the cold cases like to make their case rely on convincing the jury that the original detectives were a bunch of fucking idiots.”

• On Evidence Management Failures:
  Susan (08:07): “Yeah, and to be clear, that means inside, like, he didn't have to leave.”

---

Episode Highlights by Timestamp

• 01:23 – Discussion on the “Butterfly” song and trial strategy
• 03:09 – Breakdown of Amy Kennedy’s disputed testimony
• 04:55 – Context of Scott’s teenage bike “theft”
• 06:13 – Jury theory about Scott’s “crime of opportunity”
• 07:16 – Karen Raymond’s disbelief and security habits of Earl O’Byrne
• 09:57 – Theory about what was allegedly stolen, and evidence refuting it
• 10:43 – Discovery of the bank bags in crime scene photos
• 12:00 – Mishandling of found property and evidence
• 14:05 – Prosecution misusing evidence for narrative purposes
• 16:22 – Defense’s disputed “drug addict” argument
• 17:13 – Songwriter Heather Thompson clarifies song’s meaning
• 21:09 – Reflection on the use of light evidence, parallels to other cases
• 21:36 – Parallels to the Highland Sterling wrongful conviction case
• 23:56 – Recurrent themes in cold case prosecutions
• 25:47 – Anecdote about the “first case with male strippers” and Mildred

---

Takeaways & Preview

• Core Issues: This episode underscores the smokescreen often created when hard evidence is lacking—songs, flowers, and character evidence are manipulated to sway juries. There is a recurring failure by law enforcement and legal teams to recognize exculpatory evidence that is hiding in plain sight (like the bank bag).
• Looking Ahead: Next week’s episode will focus on an alternate suspect in the bike shop case, promising new revelations.

---

For new listeners, this sidebar offers a compelling, transparent look at the intricacies and injustices often hidden beneath dramatic trial headlines—humanizing the people involved and urging a second look at surface-level conclusions.

Transcript

[Susan]

Carvana is so easy.

[Kevin]

Just a click and we've got ourselves a car. See so many cars. That's a clicktastic inventory. And check out the financing options payments to fit our budget. I mean, that's Clickonomics101. Delivery to our door. Just a hop, skip and a click away. And bot no better feeling than when everything just clicks.

[Jacinda]

Buy your car today on Carvana.

[Kevin]

Delivery fees may apply.

[Jacinda]

Why choose a sleep number Smart bed. Can I make my site softer?

[Kevin]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[Jacinda]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now, during our president's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed

[Kevin]

plus free home delivery with any bed

[Jacinda]

and base ends Monday only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com.

[Kevin]

Hello and welcome to this week's sidebar. We're here to discuss episode five of season three of Proof. As always, I'm with Jacinda and Kevin, and we're here to answer questions and talk about what happened behind the scenes with this episode. Hey, guys.

[Jacinda]

Hey, Susan. How are you?

[Susan]

Hey, Susan.

[Kevin]

So do you believe that Scott's love of the song Butterfly was proof of his guilt of murder? Just curious.

[Jacinda]

Well, obviously, yeah.

[Susan]

I mean, as soon as I heard the song, I. I mean, I was convinced right then and there that was it.

[Jacinda]

Yeah, it did make me think about, like, you know, if people looked at my Spotify playlist and the songs I listened to, what they would think about me. Right.

[Kevin]

But, yeah, you know, there was some evidence that I can see widely compelling against Scott. But at his trial, they also brought up this stuff that to me just seems like it never should have been talked about in the first place. Like the flowers we heard about and how Stacy supposedly said that Scott confessed to killing Erla Burr and putting flowers on his grave and flowers weren't seen on his grave and therefore had to be Scott because no one else would do it. But I mean, for one thing, if you go on, like find the grave.com and look up the O' Byrne's grave, there's a photo with flowers on it. So clearly someone out there is putting flowers on his grave.

[Jacinda]

Yeah. Also, I don't think it's hard to imagine. I know they didn't have a lot of friends or any friends, and they didn't have family, but there were a lot of people, a lot of customers, a lot of people who knew Them and like them. And it's not crazy to think some random person put flowers on his grave.

[Susan]

It's not crazy to think a random person put flowers on his grave. And you don't know why people would do something like that, but they do stuff like that. It's what happens when people die.

[Kevin]

Yeah, we know Scott couldn't put the flowers there because the timing of Stacey's story doesn't work for it. Like, it's based on what Karen Raymond says when she saw the flowers. It just literally cannot be Scott. Right.

[Jacinda]

Because if he confessed a few days later after the murder and was like, I put flowers on his grave, and Karen Raymond didn't see flowers until a year later. They're not the same flowers.

[Kevin]

We also heard a bit more about the other witnesses at trial, including Amy Kennedy, who was a girlfriend of a friend of Scott's. We were not able to speak to her ourselves. We spoke to her boyfriend at the time who told us that he. To his recollection, nothing she said about Scott being abusive towards Stacey was true. Nothing about him constantly threatening to kill her like she testified. He just did not remember any of that ever happening.

[Jacinda]

It was nothing he ever witnessed himself. He never saw Scott hurt Stacey or, you know, lay a hand on her or threaten her or anything.

[Susan]

None of it rung true to him. But the other thing that I remember about with sitting down with Hollis is I was on that trip with the two of you, and we were sitting in his house and he was just a nice, soft spoken person, but incredibly surprised by everything that we were telling him was said. Like, completely taken aback by it.

[Kevin]

He clearly didn't want to slander his ex. He was trying to be delicate about how he phrased things.

[Susan]

Yeah, no, absolutely. He didn't want to, but he was. I mean, I wish that we had recorded that interview so people could see his facial expressions at how surprised he was by the suggestion that Scott would have threatened Stacy like that. Because he was confused by the suggestion even.

[Jacinda]

Yeah. He was like, no way. If I even thought that was happening, he would have done something about it. That's probably why he wasn't called to testify. But he would have been a great witness for the defense.

[Kevin]

Amy's other testimony was that she was once driving by the bike shop and heard Scott say, I robbed that place once. And we'll get more into Amy's story here in later episodes. But even if this was totally true, which it could have been, it's not the damning evidence that Finn portrayed it as. I mean, Scott had in fact robbed that place once. That's why he lost his job there. Yeah.

[Jacinda]

When he was a teenager, he took a bike.

[Kevin]

We talked to a lot of ex employees who mentioned like this kind of arrangement going to the bike shop, like they would need a bike. And Earl or Johnny would say, like, here, we'll just take money out of your paycheck each week, get a bike, and you got one now. So that part of Scott's story is totally true. I know it sounds a little bit weird about how it operated there, but in this case, yes, Scott definitely took a bike that was not being offered to him, so he stole it. But it's nothing to be a prelude to a homicide of the sort that happened here.

[Susan]

No.

[Kevin]

Right.

[Susan]

It's kind of a low level employee type theft, which a lot of businesses deal with, type thing. Like he took more than was offered. That's absolutely, completely wrong what he did. But it's not like he broke in in the middle of the night and stole money. And it's a very different scenario. He's also, what, 14, 15 at the time?

[Kevin]

Yeah, somewhere between 14 15.

[Jacinda]

And from the people we talk to, he's not the only one who is doing stuff like that. Again, doesn't justify it, doesn't make it right.

[Kevin]

It was a pretty regular occurrence. From the sounds of it, there were lots of employees dealing with bike shop.

[Jacinda]

It also sounds like from the people we talked to that Johnny was the one between Johnny and Earl. Johnny was the one who'd be like, yeah, I'll take it out of your paycheck. And then probably never would.

[Kevin]

I probably wouldn't take out the paycheck. Yeah.

[Jacinda]

And Earl's the one who would make sure you paid him back.

[Kevin]

But if Johnny gave you this deal, you'd probably never get the money taken out your paycheck. And that was just how it was. We also heard this episode about how, like what the theory is here, like how supposedly Scott did this murder. And the idea that the jury convicts him on is that in the middle of the night, Earl o' Byrne came out of his little locked up fortress and just, you know, got some fresh air, wandered around in the parking lot in a little alley there, and by luck, Scott was driving around, saw him, decided to use the chance to like, you know, go in the open door and in the process killed him.

[Jacinda]

Now if you think about that, we know now that Earl would not have opened the door for anyone he didn't know. And Earl would not just be walking around. But if you're Sitting in the, you know, in the jury box and you hear the story that Earl went outside for fresh air. Scott happened to be driving by. It was a moment of opportunity. That. That actually makes sense. Right. You could see that happening.

[Kevin]

Abstract.

[Jacinda]

Yeah. But what doesn't make sense is that, you know, sometime earlier, we don't know when earlier he was. Earl was out there and was seen with a blonde man.

[Kevin]

And it was different guy entirely who left. Earl was fine.

[Jacinda]

Yeah.

[Susan]

Well, one of the takeaways for me is, you know, and Karen Raymond had said it earlier in the season, but just the shock that she experienced at the notion that Earl had been out walking around outside and that another employee, James Long, had testified to that.

[Kevin]

Yeah.

[Susan]

And that was unsettling for her because she didn't believe it. I mean, she said in the episode,

[Jacinda]

I don't believe it, he wouldn't even leave. So sometimes Karen would be the last employee to leave. And like, he wouldn't even leave the building far enough to walk her to the car. So the idea that he's out there at midnight, 12:45, you know, walking around for fresh air, just, you know, she does not believe that would happen.

[Susan]

Yeah. What did she say in episode one? Yeah, he would lock us out. He would like walk her to the door and lock her out.

[Jacinda]

He would shine a light down the path, but that was about it.

[Kevin]

She mentioned he'd occasionally gone from, like, his locked up residence into the bike shop, but, like, she would tell him not to even do that and he would stop. Like that was even a rarity because even that felt dangerous to him.

[Jacinda]

Yeah. And to be clear, that means inside, like, he didn't have to leave.

[Kevin]

Yeah.

[Susan]

Same building.

[Kevin]

Same building.

[Jacinda]

Like to unlock your bedroom door and walk down the hall to the bike shop, like that was it. Not to leave the bike shop.

[Kevin]

So another witness to testified at Scott's trial that we didn't talk much about in the episode was Scott himself. He took the stand in his own defense. And, you know, we didn't really get into it because nothing that notable was said. Like what he said on the stand is basically what he's told us in conversations. He talked about the Bondo. He talked about. I mean. Yeah, the same things you've heard Scott say on the episodes is the same thing he said on trial. But Finn's closing was that Scott's the only one here with an interest in anything and therefore you shouldn't believe him because he has only one motive to lie.

[Jacinda]

Yeah. So of course, anything he's saying on the Stand isn't true because he's trying to come up with excuses. But it is curious. Like, you know, I'd love to know why they decided to have Scott testify. Typically that doesn't happen. Maybe he wanted to, but it is a. You know, it's an interesting strategy.

[Kevin]

I could see in this case, maybe having him testify for a few certain quick points, but that didn't even effectively come out at trial. Things like his version of the bondo stick, like, maybe you would want him to say that because that's not going to be from any other witness. And he says that, but not in a way that's effective. Like, not in a way the jury is going to really get it. Like, if I was on that case, I would want to brought in a bondo stick to show the jury, like, here's what this could look like. Like, here's what Scott's talking about. Visualize it for yourself.

[Jacinda]

You'd want to see it so they know what they're talking about. I mean, I guess when there's not a whole lot of evidence, it really does become a story between if you believe Stacy or you believe Scott. And I guess maybe they thought Scott would present better.

[Kevin]

That's possible. But by all accounts, I mean, Stacy did pretty good on the stand. She had a lot of, you know, stuff being teached by and her past wasn't great, but she seems to have come off credibly in court. So in the end, of course, the jury convicts on this idea that Scott broke into the bike shop and robbed it and took the bank bags and the boxes of coins. Only as it turns out, those things were never stolen. Yeah, the bank bags, they were still there in the morning when the body was found. The boxes of coins may be in the photos. It's harder to say because, like, there's not the boxes in that shop. But James Long, one of the employees, says in his statement that those boxes were there when he and Lori Scott found the body. So there's no evidence that those things were taken. There's no evidence that anything was taken. But we know for a fact those things weren't because they're documented to be there the next day.

[Jacinda]

Seeing the bank bags and the evidence photos is sort of that moment, sort of like in season two when we filed the necklaces at the courthouse. It's like, wait a minute, it's right here.

[Kevin]

Like, but it's not even Scott knew. Scott has seen it before. He's like, I promise you guys, when you get the crime scene photos, you're Going to see that the bank bag is there. And we didn't have the crime scene photos at the time. Took us months. Once we got the crime scene photos from the police department, he was right. They're right there, just sitting there.

[Susan]

It's one of those incredibly disturbing and sad things. I mean, the whole premise of the case is that he stole this particular thing. And it's right there.

[Kevin]

Yeah. And it's not a mix up. It's not like, like, oh, there's more bank bags. The missing bank bags were described in detail. Like, it's the tannish, olive greeny one. So safari. Safari. And the black bank bag. That's the two bank bags on the desk. And we also have even have note. So what Karen Raymond said then is that one bag was used to take cash to the bank every single day. It'd be empty. The other bag was used to hold cash to make change for customers. And it'd have about, you know, a hundred or so dollars in it. And according to some notes in the police file, they did in fact check those bags and found that one was empty and one had about a hundred bucks in cash in it. Yeah, they were clearly there that morning, and some officer saw them and went through them and knew they were there.

[Susan]

And somehow everybody missed that.

[Kevin]

Yes, somehow the lead detective didn't know they were there and never learned it and never made its way into any reports. So this myth took over that these things were taken.

[Susan]

But what's so perplexing then is that, I mean, presumably the original detectives and the cold case detectives are looking at the crime scene photos and say, wait a minute, they're right here.

[Kevin]

All I can imagine is that if they saw those photos, they didn't process that they were the exact same ones and that they matched the key details from Karen's first statement way back in 88 about what was missing. So how, like, how does this even happen? Like, how does these. These bank bags go missing? I have a guess, and it's based on some really weird evidence practices by the Kalamazoo police department. We know that when Hector Jankis got there, the lead detect on the case, he got there later in the day, and about around noon or so, he and Karen went through and documented things. He finds some other money, like some, like a box of, like, like Canadian coins and some random monetary bits and pieces, and he takes them with him and he creates a new case number as a found property log and puts them under there. So they are no longer part of the homicide file. It's just A separate found property file for some money found at the bike shop. And we do have record of that, I think before he got there. So, like the first, you know, hour or two before he arrives, an officer went through the bike shop, did the same thing, collected the money and put it in a found property case number separate from the homicide. And somehow no one ever spoke to correlate the two and realized that, oh, wait, there was money here. It's just been put aside in different case number. That's the only thing I can imagine could have happened. Because we know from the Kalamazoo Gazette that, like, literally an officer told someone in the media that morning, oh, yeah, we found some money here. So it's wasn't the thesis probably, that's

[Jacinda]

just a theory, but it could explain why those money bags were never traced again.

[Kevin]

And yes, we did try and request other case numbers to find if something like that happened. What was the, like, absurd thousands of dollars request? We were cited to do that.

[Jacinda]

Oh, yeah.

[Kevin]

It was like many thousands of dollars to even get, like, the list of case numbers that could possibly contain this found property if it exists.

[Susan]

It just strikes me as so disturbing. The picture of the bag is there. It's right there.

[Jacinda]

Fenton keeps saying during trial closing, opening, you know, like, we know Stacy's telling the truth because she can describe the bank bags that Scott stole. No one pointed out. If someone had just said, hold up,

[Kevin]

actually, it's right here. Right here.

[Susan]

So now it wasn't actually stolen.

[Jacinda]

Right. Like, it would have changed everything for Scott.

[Susan]

He couldn't have brought the bank bag in through the window or anywhere because it was still in the bike shop.

[Kevin]

And if he had a bank bag, it didn't come from the bike shop. He robbed somewhere else. If he did rob somewhere.

[Susan]

That's right.

[Jacinda]

That makes me feel so sad for Scott, like, and couldn't this have been. I guess it could not have been brought up on appeal because the. The photos were available to.

[Kevin]

I think it could have been, but that's another question.

[Susan]

Sometimes you. You sort of shake your head and you're saying, how did everybody miss it? And this is one of those situations where it seems like everybody missed it. It was right there.

[Kevin]

Well, no way to know. Now.

[Jacinda]

When we talked to Richard Madison and showed him, he looked surprised to see the bank.

[Kevin]

He looked more than surprised. He looked a little bit.

[Jacinda]

Yeah, he did. He looked like, oh, shit. And I think his comment was it really felt like a good case at the time.

[Kevin]

I mean, you could see his brain turning. He's like, oh. Oh. I mean, it didn't convince him Scott's innocent. Far from it, as far as we're aware. But, like, he knew why this mattered, and he could see in real time as he's looking at those pictures that, like. Well, that's confusing.

[Jacinda]

I mean, if anyone had seen those, it would have changed the course of their investigation, I would think, both at the time.

[Kevin]

And it's not just seeing the bags. It's also seeing the bags and knowing they're the exact match for what Stacy said. I'm pretty sure the cold case detectives did see those pictures of bags. It does not seem like they realized that they were, in fact, the same bags that were supposedly stolen.

[Susan]

Right. And the fact that Karen Raymond is saying there were only two bags.

[Kevin]

Yeah, there weren't. Yeah.

[Susan]

There weren't more bags. It's not like they had six of these bags that said safari, Safari. And he could have taken one. There wasn't another one that said that.

[Kevin]

Yeah.

[Jacinda]

And that. That's what's heartbreaking. No one on Scott's team noticed it to bring it up.

[Kevin]

So one of the things that Scott's defense attorney argued in closing was that the song Butterfly, the one that the prosecutor said was about murder and Scott's guilt over it, was actually about Scott dealing with drug addiction. There's no evidence Scott had a drug addiction. Like, there's no evidence that Scott was involved in drugs at the time or that was motivating him in any way. But that was the way that the defense attorney explained away his love of the song. Not just like, oh, it's just a song he loved. It was. Oh, he connected with so much because of. Not because of murder, because of drugs.

[Susan]

Well, even Stacy said that he wasn't into drugs.

[Kevin]

Yeah, she hid her own druggies from him because he wasn't into it. So, anyway, I got curious, like, okay, what is the song about? Since that's apparently what the attorneys here think is the. The key point. So I spoke to Heather Thompson, who was the singer songwriter for Tapping the Vein, who wrote the song, and asked her what it was really about.

[Tyler Thompson]

My name is Tyler Thompson, and I'm the singer from Tapping the Vein. What kind of music is Tapping the Vein? It's dark rock with sort of hip hop, electronic elements underneath. Sad, sad lyrics generally. And the song Butterfly, when did that come out? When was that written? That was written in late 1995, early 1996. I mentioned to you when we talked online about how that song played a role in this case. The defendant, Scott Baldwin, was Apparently obsessed with the song. He just really liked it and played it, apparently, 24 7. Right. And the. What the prosecution said was that the song was about a murder. Because in the case that he was convicted of, a man was beaten and laid down in his bed. Bed area and died. Which they said matched in the lyrics in the song. Right. It's not about murder at all. Do you know what it is about? I do, because I wrote it. So what was it about? So it was about. I generally don't like to talk about what the songs are about just because people in music in general like to extract their own meaning. However, for the sake of what you're doing, it's about sexual abuse and incest within a family and the shame that the victim feels, even though obviously it's not their fault, but the shame that the victim feels. So blood isn't literal blood in my bed. Generally when there's physical damage to somebody, blood is left behind. But in this case, it was not meant as literal blood. It was more the aftermath, the shame of the damage that had been done to this person. You know, I had wondered if that was. That was my. When I read the lyrics, that's what I sort of went to. It definitely seemed to be like a song where the singer is singing Mutt Fling done to them, not something they did. Absolutely. How long was Ian for? Wrongfully convicted? 25 years. Oh, my God. Yeah. Susan, that's like, a terrible, terrible story. In fact, they used your song to convict him. It shocked me when I first read the transcripts. I've never, ever heard about this. If I had heard about it, I would have contacted someone. Yeah. Your music is usually not my style, but when I was working on this and the song started listening, it really did get into my head. Not just play on the repeat. I can see why you liked it. What else should I listen to? What kind of stuff do you like? You know, I'm not really a music person. It's awful to say. Okay, well, listen to one called Bury Me. It's. It's really. It's pretty. And. Yeah, listen to that one will do. All right, well, thank you so much. I appreciate your time. All right, thanks, Susan. Thank you so much.

[Jacinda]

When there's not a lot of evidence, you're sort of grasping at straws. So you take song lyrics or you take flowers at a grave or, you know, whatever it is. None of that is really evidence. It's not even really great circumstantial evidence.

[Kevin]

But it also helps you portray his character in a Bad light, getting there, talking about the waitresses and the cheating on his wife and all that.

[Susan]

Yeah. I mean, it starts to become more plausible to assume these things if you can create this aura that he's not a particularly good person.

[Kevin]

He did lie about playing bass for the band, so he's a liar, therefore, he's a murderer. Okay. So he also told me he's, like. Had one conversation. He's like, I also gave the waitresses a different CD I made of me playing for a Creed cd. Like, he played the COVID or bass on a Creed song and gave that to waitresses. And he's like, prosecution didn't bring that up, did they? We also heard in this week's episode about the case of Hyland Sterling, who had the same defense attorney that also worked in Scott's case. Hyland was convicted of a 1995 murder of his friend. And, I mean, there is a lot of colorful personalities going on in that case. But we tried to summarize it in the episode, you know, to break it down. I mean, from Hyland's point of view. He was acting weird after his friend died, but he says it's because his friend was also his accomplice on, like, a botched bank robbery.

[Susan]

He was trying not to get caught for another crime.

[Kevin]

Yeah. And while I can see why his behavior will be described as weird, it also doesn't sound to me like it even makes him look that guilty, necessarily. I mean, it was used that way at his trial, but, like, he shows up at the house, and he's like, where's the money that he knew Rob had? And where's the book where he wrote about our plans to do crimes if he had done the murder? Like, if Hyland had actually gone in the house and killed his friend, wouldn't he have, like, taken the book with him? Why would he leave the book behind?

[Jacinda]

Yeah, I thought the same thing. Why not just grab the book and the money right there and then?

[Kevin]

I mean, the money was gone, but presumably, like, if in this theory where Hanlon's the killer, he forgot to get the blue book that talks about their

[Jacinda]

crimes, and why come back when the police are still at the scene?

[Kevin]

Yeah, he just went over there because he says that Rob wasn't returning pages, and he was like, what are you doing, man? And only found out that way.

[Susan]

It's obviously just a crazy situation for him. You know, he's committed this other crime. He's obviously nervous about somebody finding out about that. But I. I was so taken aback by the. The story, when you all presented it at first, because it's yet another case, the cold case team, where a key witness has changed their story.

[Jacinda]

Before we talk about that, can I just point out, Kevin, that I think you just said y'.

[Kevin]

All. So the Rome is finally rubbing off on them.

[Jacinda]

Rome and Susan are rubbing off on you?

[Susan]

Yeah. So.

[Jacinda]

But, yeah, a key witness changes their story, and it's the details again that are overlooked.

[Kevin]

Although it's not exactly a detail to have the only possible eyewitness go from saying, I don't recognize Highland at all. He doesn't look like whoever I saw at the house this morning. Saying, no. I told police right then and there at the crime scene, that guy looks like the guy I saw at the house. This is another. Another common theme in the cold cases. A lot of the cold cases like to make their case rely on convincing the jury that the original detectives were a bunch of fucking idiots. There's not a nice way to put it. Like, that's, like. Requires you to believe that the original detectives were just, like, horrendously. Just gross failures. Otherwise, these cases don't work.

[Susan]

Yeah. I remember when we were all working on the Jeff Titus case, that sort of coming to that conclusion, that. That's what they were saying. They were just. They're ripping these guys just, like, about how terrible they were at their jobs.

[Kevin]

And look at these cops. They had the eyewitness at the scene saying, this guy right here looks like the killer. And they didn't even write it down.

[Susan]

Right.

[Jacinda]

They didn't even arrest him right there or question him.

[Kevin]

They didn't even acknowledge it. Instead, they took this witness down to the station, gave him a lineup, and didn't include the black guy at the scene. He's pointing out in the lineup, you

[Susan]

know, Highland Sterling's picture, the. The one picture with hair. It's the dirty trick.

[Kevin]

It's a dirty trick. He's being transferred. So that picture, we're pretty sure, came from when he was transferred from federal custody for the bank robbery to Kalamazoo jail. And while in transition and while, like. Like he was not shaving his head every day like he likes to do so, he had, like, a little bit of hair. Like, not even that much, but there's hair in his head because he couldn't

[Susan]

shave it because they didn't have a razor, like you said. But, like, it seems like. Yeah. Dirty trick. It seems disingenuous to present it that way. It doesn't seem like a quest for the truth anyway.

[Kevin]

No. And it was never brought to the jury. Like, don't use this photo to assume that's what Highland ever would have looked like in 1985.

[Susan]

Yeah, I, I also, I think it's the first story we've ever done together that involves male strippers.

[Kevin]

It is the first, yeah. First for me, anyway.

[Jacinda]

I wish Mildred was still around because I love to hear her story.

[Kevin]

I would love, from reading her statements, I'm like, I want to. I want to talk to Mildred.

[Jacinda]

I want to have a drink with Mildred. What does she say?

[Kevin]

I absolutely would love a drink with Mildred.

[Jacinda]

She's like 78.

[Kevin]

78, yeah. So Mildred, this is a total side note, but like, reading her reports, we know that, like, she knew exactly what she was getting money for. She knew she was giving money to them, so they buy this nightclub and do their nightclub stuff. But when the police come to talk to her about it, like, there's a whole side story about that. She pretends that she's like, oh, they told me it was for a youth center that they're building. No girl knew exactly what it was for and she's trying to cover a youth center. Yeah, that was like. She's like, oh, they told me they wanted to build a youth center for people, for teenagers to hang out and do good things in. That's why I was giving them money.

[Susan]

Maybe she just determines what a youth center is a little differently. Right. She's got these 20 year old guys, but yeah.

[Kevin]

So, yeah, no mil told had a drink with her, but anyway, next week, episode six, we talk about an alternate suspect. See you guys then. Foreign,

[Jacinda]

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

[Kevin]

Sam.