The Murder of Scott Macklem: The Guilt of Temujin Kensu: Kensu v. Kensu Part One

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] If you want to take your business to the next level, you need Upwork. Their talented freelancers will have you winning the talent game and scaling up fast.

[00:00:08] [SPEAKER_03] Upwork is a one-stop platform for finding, hiring, and paying expert talent. The people you need to do the jobs that need to get done right. Upwork boasts talent across 125 categories. Marketing, business operations, data and analytics, software development, creative writing, and much more.

[00:00:27] [SPEAKER_01] Upwork lets you grow your team by pairing you with excellent, experienced freelancers. Hire one fast. Get the expertise you need now for the project that will make your business triumph.

[00:00:39] [SPEAKER_03] Upwork is all about delegation. Because you don't have to do everything all by yourself, you can bring in trusted, capable freelancers for a single project or again and again.

[00:00:50] [SPEAKER_01] Upwork works. I know. I was an Upwork freelancer for years writing all kinds of romance novels anonymously. I got paid fast and I was dedicated to my work in helping small publishing concerns grow and scale.

[00:01:03] [SPEAKER_03] Upwork gives you an easy win for your business. With their Business Plus, you'll even access the top 1% of talent on Upwork.

[00:01:11] [SPEAKER_01] Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That is Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's UPWORK.com, Upwork.com.

[00:01:24] [SPEAKER_03] Anya and I both wear glasses. We would have a really hard time without them. But here's the thing. They're expensive and an inconvenience to replace. So both of us tend to hang on to them for years and years, even after they get scratched or loosened or we're not loving the way they look anymore.

[00:01:42] [SPEAKER_01] But we're giving our old way of doing things the side eye thanks to Zenni Optical. They're an online eyewear shop with lots of stylish prescription glasses, sunglasses and customizable lens options, all starting at under $30.

[00:01:56] [SPEAKER_03] I picked the unisex full rim black stainless steel square eyeglass frame. I love the way they look. Understated, but stylish. I'm going to use them to read mostly. As our listeners know, we enjoy reading a lot of crime nonfiction and fiction. So my Zenni glasses are going to be put to good use this summer as I seek to drive up the number of books I read. With Zenni, you can buy that special pair of glasses for a particular activity or outfit without driving up your bill.

[00:02:25] [SPEAKER_03] These glasses were only $68. And in most places I've shopped for glasses, I'd expect to pay many times that. That scratched up pair has done its job. Upgrade today with Zenni. Go to zenni.com slash podcast and use code podcast15 for 15% off your first order plus free shipping on all U.S. orders over $65. These styles sell out, so don't sit on it.

[00:02:54] [SPEAKER_03] That's Z-E-N-N-I dot com slash podcast. Promo code podcast15.

[00:03:01] [SPEAKER_00] As a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises. Like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's a surprise you will like. With Progressive, small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as eight minutes at progressivecommercial.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates.

[00:03:29] [SPEAKER_00] Discounts not available in all states or situations.

[00:03:33] [SPEAKER_03] I'm Kevin, and today we will be answering a lot of the questions we've all had about the end of the marriage of Temujin Kinsu and his wife Paula. Content warning, as I said, this episode is about Temujin Kinsu. So that means we have at least the potential to have foul language, talk about murder, talk about sexual abuse, talk about the abuse of children, including infants, talk about the abuse of animals, just about everything imaginable. Because again, it is a Temujin Kinsu episode.

[00:04:01] [SPEAKER_01] And murder and violence.

[00:04:03] [SPEAKER_03] Yes. Anya, remind us, just in case there are some fortunate souls out there who have not heard about Temujin Kinsu, can you give us a very, very, very brief overview of this case?

[00:04:14] [SPEAKER_01] Sure. So November 5th, 1986, in the parking lot of the St. Clair Community College in Port Huron, Michigan, a young man named Scott Macklin, one of the students at this community college, is gunned down with a shotgun as he is getting out of his car around 9 a.m. A man now going by the name Temujin Kensu was convicted of that murder.

[00:04:39] [SPEAKER_01] And the evidence that came out indicates strongly to us that he was motivated because he had previously dated Scott Macklin's fiance, Crystal. And when I say dated, I mean he invited her on a date, proceeded to rape her, and then for several weeks would rape, strangle, beat, threaten her. It was really more of a hostage crisis than a relationship.

[00:05:05] [SPEAKER_03] And I want to jump in here very quickly and point out a fact which often is not pointed out by Mr. Kinsu's many, many advocates, which is that a few days before the murder, Mr. Kinsu learned by his own admission that Crystal was pregnant. And Mr. Kensu had the wrong idea he thought was potentially his baby, and we believe that is what triggered this murder.

[00:05:28] [SPEAKER_01] That's correct. So we've been covering this case for a while now. We've gone really in-depth into a lot of angles. We've talked to a lot of people. We've explored the trial transcripts. We've explored the police case file. We have explored the commutation hearing that happened years later. We have, you know, we've done a lot of shoe leather reporting on this one.

[00:05:46] [SPEAKER_01] And this continues that, where we are trying to get more information about it, because I think, unfortunately, misinformation persists in the case.

[00:05:58] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, misinformation certainly does persist in this case. Mr. Kinsu, back in 2022, married a woman now known, I guess, as Paula Kinsu. Paula Kensu became a very zealous advocate for Mr. Kensu and his interests to the point where some would say she was potentially harassing critics and stuff. We made some criticisms of Paula on this program, which I think we'll have some comments about in a few minutes.

[00:06:29] [SPEAKER_03] Considering her very strong advocacy for Mr. Kinsu, her husband, a lot of us were more than a little surprised when late last year, word kind of trickled out that she had filed to end her marriage to Mr. Kinsu. We had questions. Did not get any answers at that time because the case was sealed.

[00:06:51] [SPEAKER_03] Now, a few weeks ago, Mr. Kinsu very helpfully made some comments on his Facebook page that made us wonder if the situation had changed and if the case had been open to the public. That made us check, and we found out it had indeed been unsealed. So we contacted the collective courts, paid our money, and we got as much of the file as the court felt did not violate the privacy interests of the parties involved.

[00:07:22] [SPEAKER_03] So now we know exactly what is at the heart of this case, precisely what the final straw was that prompted the breakdown of this marriage. And in our minds, it is the very same secret that also lies deep at the heart of the murder itself. Namely, Mr. Kinsu's outrageously inflated ego, his narcissism, his entitlement, his outrageous sense of self-worth.

[00:07:49] [SPEAKER_03] In this instance, all of that is manifested in this book he wrote in which he tried to create his own religion. That volume is called The Sacred Rilve, The Ancient Wisdom of the Cathal People. Now, Mr. Kensu has long tried to hide how important this book remains to him.

[00:08:13] [SPEAKER_03] Some, like Aaron Habel, who is now hosting a podcast series which appears to be arguing for Mr. Kensu's innocence, appear to take Mr. Kinsu at his word when Mr. Kinsu downplays the importance of this book to him. But frankly, I think you'll agree with me on this, Anya, it is a huge mistake to credit anything Mr. Kinsu says on any subject. Yes.

[00:08:38] [SPEAKER_03] When you look at the record and consult other sources besides Mr. Kinsu, it becomes clear that the malignant narcissism at the heart of his book remains central, not only to who Mr. Kinsu was when he wrote the book, but also to who Mr. Kinsu is today and who he was in 1986 when he made the choice to murder Scott Macklin. If you want to understand this murder, you need to understand Mr. Kinsu as he actually is

[00:09:07] [SPEAKER_03] and not as who he wants you to see him as. You need to understand this book and how it is still so critically important to him. With all of that in mind, let's take a look at the actual record.

[00:09:18] [SPEAKER_01] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:09:21] [SPEAKER_03] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:09:24] [SPEAKER_01] And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:09:25] [SPEAKER_03] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is The Murder of Scott Macklin. The Guilt of Temujin Kinsu. Kinsu v. Kinsu. Part 1.

[00:10:26] [SPEAKER_03] Anya, I mentioned earlier that in previous episodes we were pretty hard on Paula and I said our thinking might have changed a bit. Can you elaborate?

[00:10:34] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I think with Paula, you know, the context of some of our criticisms were she would do things on social media such as accuse Scott Macklin, the victim in this case who cannot defend himself of raping a girl and perhaps speculating that that was behind this without evidence. There's no truth to that. She would post taunting messages for like Scott Macklin's family of like, why don't you care about his murder?

[00:11:00] [SPEAKER_01] I do. She would post she in one instance actually post the phone number of Crystal telling people to call her and ask for the truth. She would post stuff about Crystal's family members and their businesses kind of with the indication that people should go harass them. And all of this really disgusted us. And we spoke out about it and we felt that she was a woman who was making the choice to do this.

[00:11:24] [SPEAKER_01] And I think as we've gone on, we've learned more about coercive control, intimate partner violence. And what I say when I say intimate partner violence, that does not always entail someone getting punched in the face. OK, the signs that violence is intermittent, the signs that a relationship is meshed, enmeshed in a coercive control setting do not always involve physical violence.

[00:11:52] [SPEAKER_01] They can involve emotional abuse, psychological abuse, religious abuse, financial abuse. And those are still part of the same environment. We tend to look at physical violence as like the most severe because, you know, I can understand that someone gets injured, someone gets killed. But there can be a lot of patterns that flow into that. And in this case, we should remember that Mr. Kenzu is incarcerated.

[00:12:17] [SPEAKER_01] So, you know, physical violence on a daily basis, at least, would be something difficult for him to use to control his partners. Whereas some of this other stuff is in his toolkit. I think for me, what shifted for me with Paula was listening to tape recordings made by Kenzu's late wife, Denise, and hearing what she went through, hearing the abuse, the just

[00:12:45] [SPEAKER_01] like the multifaceted abuse that he's hurling at her when she's his biggest advocate. To me, that really shifted my thinking with Paula and thinking, OK, the women who are doing this to some extent are victimizing others on behalf of Kenzu. I don't think this erases that. It doesn't erase the pain felt by those who are there targeting. And to me, it doesn't fully erase someone's agency in the matter. But it does inform my thinking that people like Denise and Paula are absolutely victims of Kenzu's as well.

[00:13:15] [SPEAKER_01] And that they are acting from a place of trying to placate a violent man who on some level they are afraid of.

[00:13:25] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, I certainly stand by what you're saying there. And I'd like to add that one thing about a lot of the coverage of Mr. Kenzu over the years that has caused me great concern is that people were read or listened to or watch some of this coverage and then say, gosh, I want to advocate for this man. And they will get themselves entangled with him. And what you need to know is if you get yourself entangled with this man, then at some point he

[00:13:53] [SPEAKER_03] will either ask you to do something you cannot do or you would do everything he asked, but you would still fall short of his impossible standards in any of an infinite number of ways. And he will abuse you for it. It's not going to be a happy situation.

[00:14:11] [SPEAKER_01] And I think that is why it really behooves creators covering this case to make it clear who Kenzu really is. It's not simply a matter of even just honesty. It's a matter, in my view, of the safety of your audience. If you are selling them a person who does not exist and they get involved in some kind of advocacy project that leads to their own psychological decimation, you know, that is on the person who sold them a bill of goods.

[00:14:40] [SPEAKER_01] And I think people, in my view, people currently have a lot to answer for for that, at least in some of this some of this instance. And so I just want to say that for not understanding the dynamics at play behind the scenes, for not understanding the level of abuse hurled not just towards Kenzu's perceived enemies, but

[00:15:05] [SPEAKER_01] towards his allies, towards his wives, towards people who love him, for not understanding that and for commenting on it, we apologize. Because I think simply looking at Paula as a perpetrator is not fair to her. It's also not accurate to the situation. And so we will be reframing that going forward.

[00:15:29] [SPEAKER_01] And noting that these women who get involved with them are, in their own ways, victims of his as well. And we'll be speaking about them accordingly.

[00:15:40] [SPEAKER_03] A couple other things before we get into the heart of this. I mentioned briefly at the top of the episode some things Aaron Habel said about Mr. Kenzu's book. I believe he said those in an interview with Tim and Lance.

[00:15:53] [SPEAKER_01] Of Crawl Space. And his show is called Framed.

[00:15:55] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, a lot of people have been asking us about what we think of Mr. Habel's program. In fairness to him, we are going to refrain from making too much comment about it until it is complete. And then we look forward to making some comments. We'd love for him to be a part of that discussion. We have, in fact, made several requests for him to come on our show and hopefully he will accept. I think it's when you have a controversial case like this, it's important to really engage

[00:16:25] [SPEAKER_03] with people who, even when they disagree with you. For instance, Anya and I recently talked about the case on the Truth and Justice podcast. If you're not familiar with that show, I think it's fair to say that's a program that focuses on what they consider to be wrongful convictions. That is not a program whose audience is likely to agree with our views on this case. We thought it was important to have that conversation.

[00:16:50] [SPEAKER_01] And we ourselves have had on people who strongly disagree with us, who we respect. Julia Cowley of The Consult and Brett of The Prosecutor's podcast were kind enough to come on our show, converse, share their viewpoints. We shared ours. It's less of a debate, more of a conversation of where everyone stands. And I think those things can be helpful, enlightening, and frankly, kind of give everyone a chance to sort of see where everyone stands. I think we are in the minority when it comes to believing in Kenzu's guilt. Although, shout out to the Viper Pit.

[00:17:19] [SPEAKER_01] They definitely believe that too. Love coffee and waffles.

[00:17:22] [SPEAKER_03] I want to make an interesting point here that I think I've made before. When it comes to the true crime podcast community, we are in the minority and we're out of the mainstream. But when it comes to the courts, when it comes to the legal professionals who actually work in this space and who know Michigan law, we're very much in the majority because those courts have consistently ruled that this is a guilty man who got a fair trial.

[00:17:49] [SPEAKER_03] And it is the podcasters who have much more limited information by and large than those courts who they're the outliers. The people who know this case best, the legal professionals, are convinced that not only he's guilty, but he got a fair trial. You do not need a crowded, cluttered closet overflowing with a bunch of pieces you never wear to be stylish. You need our wonderful sponsor, Quince.

[00:18:15] [SPEAKER_01] They have the right garments to help you refresh your look this August, which, let's be real, is pretty much the Sunday of summer, that transitional point before things cool down in the fall. Try Quince and get yourself situated for the changing seasons while bringing a little luxury into your life for less.

[00:18:32] [SPEAKER_03] You see, Quince is all about affordable, high-value, luxurious goods for less. Ultra soft organic cotton and premium Mongolian cashmere sweaters. We both have those and they're soft and perfect for fall. We can wear them to court or to a nice dinner on the town.

[00:18:48] [SPEAKER_01] They also have premium stretch denim starting at just $50. So you have the perfect fit with your denim with the structure and weight you'd expect from a luxury designer brand. This summer, we went to beautiful Columbus, Ohio for a huge book festival where we were featured authors and moderators. I rocked my 100% European linen fit and flare midi dress in deep navy. Paired with some red high heels, it made me feel polished but also comfortable. And I'm not going to lie, I've got to feel pretty confident and comfortable to rock straps over my usual sleeves.

[00:19:17] [SPEAKER_01] So that tells you how much I love this dress. It makes me feel really, really pretty.

[00:19:21] [SPEAKER_03] All of their stuff is terrific and priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands.

[00:19:27] [SPEAKER_01] Upgrade your every day. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com slash msheet. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's quince.com slash msheet.

[00:19:44] [SPEAKER_00] Every day as a small business owner feels like solving a puzzle. One moment you're cruising along and the next, there's a shipping snag that has you scrambling. But here's a surprise you will like. With Progressive, small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So go ahead, surprise yourself. Get a quote in as little as 8 minutes at progressivecommercial.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Discounts not available in all states or situations.

[00:20:13] [SPEAKER_01] Where are Michigan gavels are in the mail?

[00:20:17] I guess.

[00:20:19] [SPEAKER_03] One more thing. We're going to be talking a lot about his religion and the tenants of that religion. Before we do, I just want to say a very quick statement about it. It's not a real religion. When we talk about religions, we try to be respectful. All of us have different personal beliefs. This is not a real religion. And because of that, it does not deserve your respect. This is something he made up himself.

[00:20:47] [SPEAKER_03] And he wrote an almost unreadable 600-page book about it. And as far as I can tell, the major tenet of this religion is that Temujin Kinsu is a really cool guy and he has the right to do whatever he wants.

[00:21:03] [SPEAKER_01] Yep, pretty much.

[00:21:04] [SPEAKER_03] So that's what you need to know at this point. As we go on, we'll be talking about some of the other major beliefs of this religious system. With that said, let's get to it. On December 18th, 2025, Paul Kinsu filed not for divorce, but for an annulment. So a divorce, I think we all know what a divorce is. That's a legal action that ends a marriage. It means you had a marriage. That marriage is now over.

[00:21:33] [SPEAKER_03] An annulment, on the other hand, and this is something that can only be granted under certain conditions, says the marriage never even existed from a legal point of view. It never happened. And this can have a big impact when it comes to things like dividing marital property. And Paula says that she wanted the annulment under MCL 552.2, which states,

[00:22:03] [SPEAKER_03] Invalidity of marriages, marriages of person under age of consent, marriage by fraud, lack of cohabitation. In case of a marriage solemnized when either of the parties was under the age of legal consent, they shall separate during non-age and not cohabit together afterwards. Or in case the consent of one of the parties was obtained by force or fraud, and there shall be no subsequent voluntary cohabitation of the parties, the marriage shall be deemed void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.

[00:22:31] [SPEAKER_03] So in other words, the marriage never existed. And she says, in my case, it only happened because of fraud. And we never lived together afterwards.

[00:22:40] [SPEAKER_01] Because he's in prison.

[00:22:42] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, he's in prison. So therefore, it should be annulled. So what is this fraud? Anya, can you read a little bit from the affidavit she filed?

[00:22:50] [SPEAKER_01] Absolutely. Religious representations prior to marriage. Prior to the marriage, defendant represented himself to plaintiff as a Christian and affirmatively conveyed that the parties shared substantially similar religious beliefs and values, which plaintiff understood to be foundational to the marriage. Disclosure of prior religious writing. Plaintiff was aware prior to the marriage that defendant had previously authored a religious

[00:23:16] [SPEAKER_01] manuscript associated with the belief system defendant referred to as Cathalian. Representation of abandonment. Defendant represented to plaintiff that he had abandoned that belief system several years prior to the marriage and that it was no longer part of his identity, practice, or expectations for a spouse. Plaintiff's reliance. Plaintiff relied on defendant's representations that the belief system had been abandoned and that the marriage would be grounded in shared Christian faith and mutual respect

[00:23:46] [SPEAKER_01] for plaintiff's beliefs.

[00:23:47] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah. So, Anya, this is about his so-called Cathalian beliefs. Yes. Yes. Again, this is something that some people say isn't too important to him. We're about to find out otherwise. It is, in fact, incredibly important.

[00:24:00] [SPEAKER_01] And remains important to him in 2026 right now.

[00:24:03] [SPEAKER_03] Yes. At the same time, literally, people are saying, oh, yeah, this doesn't mean that much to him. There's literally a court battle going on.

[00:24:10] [SPEAKER_01] But how important it is.

[00:24:11] [SPEAKER_03] Yes. And so just for the sake of convenience, I don't know what the official name of his religion is. He seems to be calling it a Cathalian. So let's call it Cathalian.

[00:24:21] [SPEAKER_01] Sure. Cathalianism.

[00:24:24] [SPEAKER_03] With that in mind, Anya, can you go back to this affidavit filed by Paula?

[00:24:29] [SPEAKER_01] Post-marriage reassertion of belief system. Following the marriage, defendant explicitly asserted that the Cathalian belief system was a huge part of who he is and always will be and stated that he wanted a Cathalian for a wife. Expectation of spousal conformity. Defendant communicated that the plaintiff should read, study, and adhere to defendant's religious manuscript, The Sacred Real Ve, and criticized plaintiff for not practicing or adopting defendant's belief system. Rejection of plaintiff's faith.

[00:24:59] [SPEAKER_01] Defendant dismissed plaintiff's Christian identity, told plaintiff she did not understand real Christianity, and asserted intellectual and spiritual superiority over plaintiff regarding faith.

[00:25:10] [SPEAKER_03] Interesting. Interesting. So I think one question a lot of you might be having at this point is, well, if Paula had chosen to follow Mr. Kinzu's phony made-up religion, how would that have negatively affected her? What exactly, in other words, did Mr. Kinzu want from her? Let's go back to the affidavit.

[00:25:35] [SPEAKER_01] Non-monogamous and alternative marital concepts. Defendant referenced alternative marital structures and practices associated with his belief system that are inconsistent with a traditional monogamous marriage, none of which were disclosed or agreed to prior to the marriage. Plaintiff did not consent to, and would not have entered into, a marriage involving non-monogamous

[00:25:58] [SPEAKER_01] or plural spousal expectations, and defendant's post-marital statements in this regard further revealed that the parties did not share a mutual understanding of the nature of the marital relationship at the time of the marriage. Absence of informed consent. Plaintiff did not consent to a marriage requiring religious conversion, ideological submission, rejection of her faith, or adherence to a belief system defendant had represented as abandoned.

[00:26:27] [SPEAKER_01] Coercive context affecting consent. During the marriage, defendant engaged in a recurring pattern of intense verbal pressure, extended rants, and dismissive or hostile responses when plaintiff attempted to express disagreement, assert boundaries, or even disengage from conflict. This pattern created a dynamic in which plaintiff reasonably perceived that compliance, or withdrawal, was necessary to avoid escalation.

[00:26:54] [SPEAKER_01] As a result, plaintiff's temporary acquiescence following defendant's post-marital revelations did not reflect informed or voluntary consent, but rather an effort to maintain stability and de-escalate conflict.

[00:27:08] [SPEAKER_03] Let me jump in here for a second, Anya. That behavior you're discussing there, where she says basically he would bully her and she would have to agree just in order to end the conflict. That's certainly what we heard on the tapes of him with his previous wife, Denise.

[00:27:26] [SPEAKER_01] That's absolutely what we heard.

[00:27:27] [SPEAKER_03] And I think that it also fits a lot of what we've heard from other women who've had the great misfortune to come in contact with this man.

[00:27:35] [SPEAKER_01] That's correct.

[00:27:36] [SPEAKER_03] And I think when you think back on all of the appearances Paula has made on different podcasts and stuff, how free was she when she was making some of those comments? It's just, it's troubling to me. She clearly was an abused woman.

[00:27:51] [SPEAKER_01] I want to say this because some of you might be wondering, well, I mean, gosh, guys, like, yeah, but he was really mean on the phone. But why, you know, can't Paula or Denise before her just hang up? And what I think it's important is to note the way that his innocence fraud movement actually plays into the victimization of these women. You know, probably inadvertently, I'm sure most of the people in that are not trying to make that happen.

[00:28:15] [SPEAKER_01] But these women get convinced that his release is imminent, that he will get out and that he will inevitably get out. And when he gets out, do you really want him coming by and he's really mad at you because you abandoned him or because you rejected his Catholic beliefs? For all of us, we know he's incarcerated. We know it's a life sentence. We know that his release is very unlikely to happen. I mean, I don't think it will happen, but he's going to die in prison.

[00:28:44] [SPEAKER_01] But for these women, that's not their reality. They're living in a different reality where, you know, Gretchen Whitmer is about to throw in the towel and reveal Dana Nessel's corrupt and we're all going to prison. And, you know, I mean, Big Pickle's going to be exposed as the thing that's keeping in prison. So I feel like, you know, you have to remember that they have an inaccurate view of the case and that actually informs their own victimization. So I just wanted to say that.

[00:29:13] [SPEAKER_01] Should I continue with more?

[00:29:14] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, I want to continue with point 17.

[00:29:16] [SPEAKER_01] Material misrepresentation. Defendant's post-marital statements and conduct revealed that his premarital representations regarding abandonment of the Catholic belief system and shared religious foundation were materially false, misleading or incomplete. Lack of mutual marital intent. Defendant's conduct demonstrates that he did not intend to enter into marriage between equals,

[00:29:41] [SPEAKER_01] but rather expected unilateral authority, ideological conformity, and personal advancement through plaintiff. Plaintiff's lack of knowledge at inception. Plaintiff would not have entered into the marriage had defendant disclosed that he continued to identify as Cathalian, required a Cathalian spouse, or rejected plaintiff's Christian identity. Marriage voided inception. Because the parties lacked a shared understanding of fundamental aspects of marriage, including

[00:30:10] [SPEAKER_01] faith, marital structure, and mutual respect, the marriage was void from its inception.

[00:30:16] [SPEAKER_03] So, Anya, it's fair to say not only are you and I not Michigan lawyers. No. We're not experts on annulment.

[00:30:25] [SPEAKER_01] No.

[00:30:25] [SPEAKER_03] So not really qualified to make statements as to whether or not what she is alleging here are grounds for an annulment. But I'm curious. How would you feel if I came home one day and said, Anya, I know I told you when we got married it'd be a monogamous relationship, but secretly, I always planned on insisting on having lots and lots and lots of wives and you have to be okay with that. What do you think, sweetie?

[00:30:56] [SPEAKER_01] I was going to make a really dark joke, but I feel like it's not appropriate on a true crime podcast. I was going to say jump cut to like the Dateline episode. Keith Morrison comes out. That was the day Kevin Greenlee made a big mistake. Yeah. No, that's definitely horrifying. I mean...

[00:31:14] [SPEAKER_03] Pretty big sense of the trail, I'm guessing.

[00:31:15] [SPEAKER_01] I love and trust you so much. Like, I know you would never do that and you wouldn't hurt me like that. But it would be like earth shattering if you love someone and then have them do that. I'm not making any sort of comment on open relationships or things that people go into polyamory with mutual consent, informed consent, and that people are... You know, again, like that lifestyle may not be for me, but I'm not saying that that's inherently bad or I disapprove of it.

[00:31:45] [SPEAKER_01] It's simply that it's about what you're getting into, what you know when, and then how it's being pitched. If it's something that's like, I want to open up the marriage, that can be a conversation between equals where everyone's needs are taken care of. But to be berating someone into something like that, it's really disturbing. And, you know, even the religious aspect, you know, I'm religious. I'm a Catholic. And you're not. And that's okay. Like, you know, there wasn't anything you're like, I'm the most Catholic guy around. And I was like, yeah, let's go. You know?

[00:32:16] [SPEAKER_01] Woo! You know, there was no trickery. So it's like, you know, something like that. It's like, whatever. It doesn't matter. You know, like it's my religion is important to me. But it's about like misrepresentation and marrying someone who doesn't actually exist because they're just telling you what you want to hear until they get you in a position where you're vulnerable because you're already tied to them financially, religiously, all these other things.

[00:32:43] [SPEAKER_01] And then they've got you where they want you because they can control you more. So it's really scary. I mean, it really as someone who I feel like we have a very happy marriage and I love you more than anything. But it's like, you know, the idea that like someone who's my rock, someone who's like my person could shift like that, you know, and change and turn out that's not real is a scary concept. I think for anyone, whether you've been in a bad divorce or whether you actually have a happy marriage. But it's like the concept of this is frightening.

[00:33:13] [SPEAKER_03] I was interested is I think you were as well and some other insights into this marriage that were offered in this document. Can you read a little bit more from this affidavit on you?

[00:33:23] [SPEAKER_01] Certainly. So control and coercive dynamics. Defendant used dismissive, demeaning and directive language toward plaintiff, including shutting down discussion, instructing plaintiff to stop talking and characterizing plaintiff as deficient or inferior for not conforming to defendant's beliefs and expectations. Escalation and denigration. Defendant further criticized plaintiff's character, fitness, intellect, background, ancestry and

[00:33:50] [SPEAKER_01] personal development, framing plaintiff as unworthy or inadequate for failing to conform to defendant's ideological framework. Boy, folks, does this sound familiar.

[00:34:01] [SPEAKER_03] It does. And let's be honest, people in divorces often say harsh things about one another. But again, this reminds us of what we heard of Mr. Kenzoom, the prisoner phone calls with his late wife, Denise. What were you going to say?

[00:34:14] [SPEAKER_01] Denise and he weren't getting divorced. That's just how he talks to people when they're not doing what he wants them to do. He would call her fat. He would call her dumb. He would tell her to shut up. Those are some of the probably nicer things he said. He said some really horrible things to Denise. I would not be surprised if he said some very horrible things to Paula as well.

[00:34:32] [SPEAKER_03] And many of the people on Team Kenzoom, many of the people in his cheering section always tried to maintain that he's changed, even if he was awful to Crystal, even if he was awful to Denise. He's now seen the error of his ways and he's gone to the promised land of treating women with respect. This behavior that we are reading about here, this is 2025 and this court battle has gone into 2026. It's now.

[00:35:01] [SPEAKER_03] This man has not changed. He's never changed. He will never change.

[00:35:06] [SPEAKER_01] Kevin, he's had an explosion in personal development in a couple of months. What are you talking about? That's what they're talking about. The past is 2025. I mean, it also shows you the insufficiency of some of these innocence narrative reporting because we often hear, oh, he's changed. He's changed. But we never hear what he's changed from. What exactly are they saying? Oh, he was a worse person in the past. What does that mean? Does that mean he used to jaywalk? Does that mean he was kind of rude to waitstaff?

[00:35:35] [SPEAKER_01] Or does that mean he was raping people? I mean, which is it? Or is he not admitting to that, but he is saying he was he treated women badly. What does that mean? And I wish somebody would ask him, what do you mean you're a better person now? What were you doing that made you a bad person? And what are you doing differently now? And I can tell you the answer is he's doing nothing differently. He's just in prison.

[00:35:57] [SPEAKER_03] That's the difference. He's still an abuser. He routinely employs coercive control when dealing with intimate partners. Now, here's some more evidence of that. Paula asked the court to temporarily seal this file, and they did so. Why did Paula make that request? Let's go to the filing.

[00:36:16] [SPEAKER_01] Defendant is currently incarcerated within the Michigan Department of Corrections, which creates unique safety, privacy, and retaliation concerns for plaintiff. Plaintiff has experienced coercive and controlling conduct within the marital relationship and is seeking judicial relief to formally dissolve the marriage. Public access to the docket and filings would unnecessarily expose sensitive marital facts.

[00:36:40] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff's identifying and contact information, financial and property information, matters that could reasonably be used to harass, intimidate, or exert pressure on plaintiff.

[00:36:52] [SPEAKER_03] Paula is explicitly saying there that she is scared of retaliation from Kenzu. Think about that. The woman who was married to this man and knew him so much better than any of us is worried he might harm her. I will say that some of the material she was concerned about is redacted, and we would not be sharing any contact information for her. Mr. Kenzu replied to this through his then-attorney, Jeffrey Perlman.

[00:37:22] [SPEAKER_03] He made the argument in his filing that an annulment can only be granted if there was fraud. He doesn't think that what Paula alleges rose to that level. He thinks that the appropriate step is not annulment by a rather divorce. He also indicates he wants spousal support.

[00:37:41] [SPEAKER_01] What can I just say? Spousal support is meant to be for instances, my understanding, Kevin, you know, you're an attorney, where let's say you have a man and a woman married. The woman gives up her career to watch the children and misses out on a lot of opportunities that a career would have brought her in terms of earning money, building equity, all these things, learning skills. And it's to basically say that, like, that those opportunities lost through the marriage

[00:38:08] [SPEAKER_01] can then be sort of recompensated in some way through ongoing spousal support, you know. And it doesn't have to be the man versus the woman. Often that's the dynamic. But that, you know, it could be the man saying, I gave up these things to be a stay-at-home dad. Um, like, I'm giving one example. It can be more multifaceted than that, certainly. But what opportunities did this man miss exactly being in the McComb Correctional Facility? Like, what are we talking about? What?

[00:38:37] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, he's been incarcerated. I don't see how his life would be much different either way. I don't think he has a real basis for asking for spousal support. So one thing he says is that it's not fraud because in my mind, in my mind, me being Mr. Kinsu, Paula knew about this religious book. She knew this book existed. So therefore, according to Mr. Kinsu, uh, he can't, she can't say that he lied to her about it.

[00:39:03] [SPEAKER_03] So I'm going to read now the exact words from this filing prepared for Mr. Kinsu by his attorney on this point. Quote,

[00:39:34] [SPEAKER_03] What the hell?

[00:39:36] [SPEAKER_01] What is that word salad?

[00:39:38] [SPEAKER_03] A restoration of both ancient and new poetic work. That should be the new slogan of the murder sheet. It doesn't make any sense. I don't know what that means.

[00:39:47] [SPEAKER_01] What does that mean? Comprehension and stories about faith?

[00:39:52] [SPEAKER_03] And remember- Arcane schools. This is a book, this religious book, like, has a part where Mr. Kinsu befriends a mouse. It has a part where he says, I get to have all the wives I want. What a wise book, Anya. What a wise book.

[00:40:05] [SPEAKER_01] It's a story about faith, you know? The Temujin story.

[00:40:10] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, it's quite a ride, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:40:12] [SPEAKER_01] I don't, I don't-

[00:40:13] [SPEAKER_03] And I want to caution people. When I say things, I'm making the book sound more interesting than it is.

[00:40:19] [SPEAKER_01] It's not.

[00:40:21] [SPEAKER_03] It's unreadable garbage.

[00:40:23] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, that's fair.

[00:40:24] [SPEAKER_03] I could take a few things out of context.

[00:40:26] [SPEAKER_01] And make it sound really funny, but it's not funny. It's really boring.

[00:40:30] [SPEAKER_03] Yes.

[00:40:31] [SPEAKER_01] Like, I don't, I remember, you know-

[00:40:36] [SPEAKER_03] And a lot of it is like in a font that is just physically difficult to read.

[00:40:39] [SPEAKER_01] The font is torture. The font is, like, banned by the Geneva Convention. I feel like the font could be used to break people. And I think maybe it could break us if we, but, you know, I don't know. I feel like it's just the pretension that they're describing some, the ramblings of a complete lunatic with. It's just arcane schools, philosophy, stories about faith. He made it up, folks. I don't know what to tell you.

[00:41:04] [SPEAKER_03] So, again, Mr. Kinsey's position is that Paula should not get an annulment. It should be a divorce. He wants the court to dismiss the annulment request. He wants Paula to be ordered to pay his attorney fees. And, again, he wants spousal support from Paula.

[00:41:19] [SPEAKER_01] I just want to say a lot of this feels like an extension of the coercive control. Like, this is a situation where his life is not really going to materially change much through the divorce, through losing Paula. Paula has done a lot for him. We disagree with a lot of the things she's done with for him. But, I mean, for him, she's been a loyal soldier for many years. So, this idea that he's fighting her on any of this, we know, I mean, listen, he still has rights, right?

[00:41:45] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, if there's certain things in the divorce that he disagrees with, I think he has the right to say, well, I want this done with this or whatever. But a lot of this seems more like making it as rough for Paula as possible in order to continue to have something over her, in my view.

[00:42:01] [SPEAKER_03] So, Paula objected to all that. She files a response explaining why. The audience will be reading from here in a second. I should mention, I mentioned the name of Mr. Kinzu's attorney. Paula, at this stage, is representing herself. I want to say, for what it's worth, over and above whatever you might think of the legal merits of her case, I thought her filings were generally well written. I don't know if she had some sort of legal training. I don't know if she had a friend helping her. I don't know if AI was used.

[00:42:31] [SPEAKER_01] She uses a lot of AI in social media posts. So, I would not be surprised if it was that. But I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.

[00:42:37] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah. So, in this filing that where Ania is about to read from, she basically makes the case. It's too early for the court to consider dismissing her request for an annulment. That in order to know whether or not she actually has a good case for an annulment, will take getting more facts into the record. And she asked the court to allow the time for that to happen. And along the way, she says some things we wanted to highlight. Ania, read from this.

[00:43:07] [SPEAKER_01] Defendant frames plaintiff's claims as a mere disagreement regarding beliefs, expectations, or post-marital dissatisfaction. That is not plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff does not allege that the marriage failed due to incompatibility, differing values, or disappointment arising after the marriage.

[00:43:25] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff does not rely on misrepresentation as a standalone theory, but alleges fraud and duress recognized under MCL 552.2, including concealment of material facts and coercive conduct negating consent. Plaintiff alleges that defending concealed material facts and governing conditions affecting the nature of the marital relationship prior to marriage, and that such concealment was not discovered until after the marriage occurred.

[00:43:53] [SPEAKER_01] Courts distinguish between ordinary marital disagreements and allegations that go to the essence of consent. Plaintiff's claims fall within the latter category. Plaintiff alleges not merely that defendant held certain beliefs, but that defendant withheld material information regarding the nature, expectations, and conditions of the marital relationship. And that plaintiff relied upon defendants' representations and omissions in consenting to the marriage.

[00:44:20] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff alleges fraud affecting the essence of the marital relationship itself, not peripheral attributes.

[00:44:27] [SPEAKER_03] So in other words, she's saying he lied about things that were so fundamental to the marriage relationship that it was impossible for true consent to exist. A little later on, she says something else that we wanted to highlight, Anya.

[00:44:41] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff's allegations of abuse are not asserted as an independent cause of action, nor are they offered to invite the court to advocate fault or credibility at this stage. Rather, the allegations are relevant to plaintiff's claim that her consent to the marriage was not freely and voluntarily given, and that the marriage was induced and maintained through coercive control and duress. Plaintiff alleges that following the marriage, defendant engaged in controlling, intimidating, and coercive conduct.

[00:45:10] [SPEAKER_01] Such conduct is probative of the conditions under which plaintiff's consent was obtained and maintained, and whether that consent was the product of free will, or instead compelled by fear, pressure, or domination. At the pleading stage, plaintiff is not required to prove the extent or credibility of such conduct. It is sufficient that plaintiff has alleged facts which, if proven, could support a finding that her consent was vitiated by duress and coercion.

[00:45:36] [SPEAKER_01] Whether such conduct occurred, and the weight to be afforded to it, are questions of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

[00:45:45] [SPEAKER_03] So she says, quote, The marriage was induced through coercive control and duress. So many women, Anya, have come forward and said that Mr. Kinzu had sex with them without their consent, and now Paula takes that even further and says he essentially married her without her consent through deception. What do you make of that?

[00:46:05] [SPEAKER_01] Well, you know, I think people were like, how did she not consent to the marriage? She agreed to it. She knew what kind of person he was. But what she's specifically, if we drill down what she's specifically saying, is that I would not have gotten into a marriage with a guy who has his own, like, self-startup cult that he does from prison. I wanted a Christian husband. I thought this was going to be a Christian marriage. My Christian beliefs are important to me. And I was tricked. And when something is obtained through trickery, it is not obtained through consent.

[00:46:32] [SPEAKER_01] Mr. Kinzu has a long history of not respecting consent and not caring about consent in other instances. But it certainly fits the pattern that we've observed, where a woman's consent is not necessary for him when we're talking about sexual things, when we're talking about the coercive control he employs on people. So, I mean, it very much fits into that for me.

[00:46:55] [SPEAKER_03] I think it's certainly possible to make the argument that, well, if Paula did all of this, she was very naive. But just because you have a person who is naive or in love, that doesn't make it legal or all right to trick or manipulate them.

[00:47:14] [SPEAKER_01] And certainly it's morally wrong. I mean, whether, you know, we're not Michigan attorneys. So whether this actually is grounds for an annulment is something I don't really know. But I feel like it's certainly bad. I mean, it's certainly like that's not how you should treat other people. I also want to point out here that, you know, like it also fits the pattern here. And we're going to talk about this a little bit later. We're going to get into this more. But we see a pattern where Kinzu, and he did this seemingly with Mr.

[00:47:44] [SPEAKER_01] Habel in the Frame podcast, downplays the importance of his Cathalian beliefs. I think on some level, he knows that he sounds nuts because they're nuts. And I think when he's trying to impress people, he knows not to lead with that. So he meets a woman who expresses that her Christianity is fundamental to her and she wants a Christian husband. Well, he says he's a Christian.

[00:48:11] [SPEAKER_01] And then he does the bait and switch of actually, I'm Cathalian. Welcome to the wonderful world of, you know, polyamory. I think that is that is very much par for the course with him where he's concealing something that he knows is kind of looks kind of bad for him. Instead of just being honest about it, instead of coming out and being like, no, I want someone who's OK with this. He'll just hide that in order to get what he wants from somebody. And then that's just not true.

[00:48:41] [SPEAKER_01] It's not like I don't think this is a situation where he changed his beliefs. I think this is just something he was just waiting to spring on this woman.

[00:48:47] [SPEAKER_03] I think he is a liar and a con man. And people who take him at his word, whether they are podcasters or prospective wives, are naive and they are victims.

[00:49:00] [SPEAKER_01] And if I think the wives are, I don't know about the podcasters to me. I mean, the podcaster.

[00:49:05] [SPEAKER_03] If you walk away liking him, it's because he has recognized, oh, this looks like a person who would like this, this or this. I'm going to emphasize those things. So he likes me.

[00:49:16] [SPEAKER_01] It's manipulation. OK, we've all met people who. They wear a different mask, whatever room they're in. They're the person who tries to be what others want them to be rather than being themselves. And we know that those can be kind of sad cases. They can be kind of pathetic or they can be dangerous.

[00:49:36] [SPEAKER_03] And I respectfully suggest that if you don't recognize that about Mr. Kinsu, if you don't recognize that he is a liar who will change himself in an effort to charm you, then I'm not sure how much interest I have in hearing what you have to say about the case, because something fundamental about this case is this man is a liar and a con man who's very good at presenting different faces to different people.

[00:50:02] [SPEAKER_03] You have to recognize that in order to have a serious discussion about this case.

[00:50:06] [SPEAKER_01] And you have to ask him pointed questions.

[00:50:12] [SPEAKER_03] So Paula replied that financial discovery should not be done until after the court makes a ruling on the annulment issue. Financial discovery, that's usually in a divorce proceeding. Both parties need to disclose, oh, we have this money, we have this money, or I have this account by myself, because the court needs to know basically all about the finances of both people involved in the divorce in order to help make a fair split.

[00:50:39] [SPEAKER_03] And Paula is saying, well, we shouldn't be giving the court information about finances that will be split after a divorce until we know whether or not there's even going to be a divorce, because I think there shouldn't be a divorce. I think there should be an annulment. That would just be a waste of our time. So she files another affidavit with the court on March 4th, 2026, and it starts sketching in a few more details that I think is worth hearing. Anya hit us with this.

[00:51:07] [SPEAKER_01] I entered into the marriage with defendant on or about November 4th, 2022, believing the marriage to be monogamous and consistent with my Christian faith. Prior to the marriage, defendant represented that he had abandoned the Catholic doctrine in 2017 and had returned to Christianity. I relied upon this representation in deciding to enter the marriage. And no time prior to the marriage did defendant disclose that he considered himself permanently Catholic or that he required a Catholic wife.

[00:51:36] [SPEAKER_01] And no time prior to the marriage did defendant disclose an intention or expectation of plural marriage. On or about November 22nd, 2025, defendant first stated that he desired a Catholic wife. On or about December 5th, 2025, defendant raised the concept of a sister wife. On or about December 16th, 2025, defendant followed up regarding the sister wives matter after I had not agreed.

[00:52:01] [SPEAKER_01] These statements revealed expectations that were materially different from those represented to me prior to the marriage and were material to the essence of the marital relationship. I did not consent to plural marriage. I did not consent to religious marital requirements inconsistent with my faith. I would not have entered into the marriage had these material expectations been disclosed beforehand. Upon learning of these undisclosed expectations, I promptly sought legal advice.

[00:52:27] [SPEAKER_01] I filed my annulment action on December 19th, 2025. I have preserved written communications, evidencing these disclosures and can produce them upon the request of the court. I have not acquiesced to accepted or agreed to plural marriage or to being required to adopt Catholic identity as a marital condition. Can I just say something?

[00:52:48] [SPEAKER_03] Please do, Anya. Please do.

[00:52:49] [SPEAKER_01] I just want to say it is so creepy that this couple wed on November 4th, the day before the anniversary of Scott's murder. That is the creepiest thing I ever heard.

[00:53:05] [SPEAKER_03] This case is full of little details like that that are disturbing.

[00:53:12] [SPEAKER_01] What a creep. I mean, geez. Anyways, go ahead. What were you going to say? I just want to, I just, whenever I see that, I knew that, that I, I was aware that they got married on that date. I always just found that a really creepy detail.

[00:53:25] [SPEAKER_03] So let's take a look at another one of Paula's filings. This one contains some interesting exhibits. So as is often the case with these sorts of things, she repeats some big picture items, but provides more details. Anya, are you up to reading this? Sure.

[00:53:42] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff alleges that defendant concealed material facts and misrepresented essential expectations regarding the structure of the marriage prior to the party's wedding. Specifically, defendant repeatedly represented to plaintiff that he had abandoned the Cathalian doctrine years earlier, including representations that he had done so in approximately 2017. After the marriage, plaintiff discovered that defendant continued to identify as Cathalian and required a Cathalian spouse.

[00:54:05] [SPEAKER_01] Less than two weeks later, defendant was encouraging plaintiff to agree to plural marital arrangements and told her that it was an ancient practice also permitted in and in the Old and New Testament, as well as the usor, the law of the Cathalian.

[00:54:20] [SPEAKER_03] Anya, you didn't mention in there that she mentions in the middle of that paragraph, Exhibit A.

[00:54:25] [SPEAKER_01] Exhibit A!

[00:54:26] [SPEAKER_03] What is Exhibit A? Oh, no. Exhibit A! Exhibit A is preserved telegram communications between the plaintiff and the defendant on November 22, 2025, in which the defendant states that he is a Cathalian and that the belief system is a significant part of his identity and that he requires a Cathalian for a wife. Exhibit A plaintiff, plaintiff, Mrs. Kinzu states that she married defendant believing he was a Christian based on prior representation, which the defendant does not dispute.

[00:54:55] [SPEAKER_03] Telegram communications such as this, that's basically text messages exchanged on the telegram messaging app.

[00:55:03] [SPEAKER_01] Which I guess he's allowed to have in prison.

[00:55:05] [SPEAKER_03] I don't know if he's allowed to have it in prison or not, but apparently he has it in prison.

[00:55:10] [SPEAKER_01] Hey, Michigan Department of Corrections, what do we think here? Are we listening? What are we doing?

[00:55:15] [SPEAKER_03] We're done. We're here more about things he has in prison that he shouldn't have. Ayan, you want to read these messages back and forth?

[00:55:24] [SPEAKER_01] So, yeah, these are telegram messages between Kinzu and Paula on November 22, 2025?

[00:55:31] [SPEAKER_03] Yes.

[00:55:32] [SPEAKER_01] That's the time frame?

[00:55:32] [SPEAKER_03] Yes.

[00:55:33] [SPEAKER_01] I think you're going to be Temujin and I'm going to be Paula?

[00:55:35] [SPEAKER_03] Yes, I'll be Mr. Kinzu.

[00:55:39] [SPEAKER_01] And I'm the one on the, I guess, on the right, right? Yes. I forgot to tell you that.

[00:55:44] [SPEAKER_03] It has nothing to do with any of that. It is what I believe. It is a huge part of who I am and always will be. I want a Cathalian for a wife. You never tried to understand. Better yet, practice any of it. You never will. And no, Josie absolutely cannot see or have that book. Go to bed, Paula.

[00:56:02] [SPEAKER_01] Temujin, you married a Christian. You knew that's who I was. And I thought I was getting a Christian husband, which is who I thought you were. It's who you said you were.

[00:56:14] [SPEAKER_03] You know nothing about real Christianity. You know what you think it is and you have no interest in learning anything else or more. So one thing. Good Lord. As we were preparing this, you jumped on the reference to Josie. He doesn't want Josie to see his book. Anya, elaborate on why that's important.

[00:56:35] [SPEAKER_01] Well, we can't know for certain. But we believe that Josie refers to writer and I believe police abolitionist Josie Rice Duffy, who is currently working on an in-progress podcast on Kenzu's case that will come out from the media company Pushkin.

[00:56:53] [SPEAKER_01] And I will note that we have noticed Rice Duffy kind of hanging out around extremely low turnout YouTube lives associated with supporters of Timogen's case. We believe that this is likely going to be another innocence project. That's just kind of all signs point to that. But that being said, it's not out yet, so we can't really judge it.

[00:57:20] [SPEAKER_01] I would say that it's very significant to me that Kenzu is very adamant that she not get a book. What we believe is going on here is that he's talking about the book of his beliefs, the sacred real day. He does not want Rice Duffy to see that. I think that's cognizant. I think he's cognizant of how it looks and kind of how insane it makes him seem.

[00:57:42] [SPEAKER_03] He doesn't want her to see it. He wants Aaron Habel to think it's very, very unimportant.

[00:57:47] [SPEAKER_01] It's not who he is anymore.

[00:57:48] [SPEAKER_03] So basically he's lying to these people.

[00:57:51] [SPEAKER_01] You know, and I just will say this. This is the example. We were talking about this when we were walking the dogs. You know, I said, Kevin, it's sort of like you and I did a really like we talked to so many of Scott's friends who knew Scott. Right.

[00:58:03] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:58:04] [SPEAKER_01] And what they all said was, hey, he was not a drug dealer. He was not into drugs. That's totally not who he was. He never was into that. If we had learned that one of them was attempting to conceal that Scott got busted in some major FBI cocaine deal in Florida a few months before his murder and that they were texting people, don't don't show that case file, the murder sheet. We don't want them to see that. That would really fundamentally alter my view of their credibility.

[00:58:33] [SPEAKER_01] And I'm making that up. That never happened. But if that happened, if it were to happen, I would I would that would that would definitely shake my belief in what they were telling me. But whether or not this will prompt any soul searching from people who are basically saying that this guy is so believable that we're going to use him as a source and not really question him on our podcast.

[00:58:58] [SPEAKER_01] I would hope that it would prompt some soul searching and maybe like looking into things he doesn't want you to know about.

[00:59:05] [SPEAKER_03] Yes. And I would wonder he's saying this belief system is a huge part of who I am. By the way, Aaron is not important to me. By the way, Josie, you can't you shouldn't even see the book. He's lying. He doesn't want his advocates to know who he really is. And if you are an advocate for this man, you should ask yourself why. What else is he hiding? And you should be concerned that you're falling victim to a con man.

[00:59:30] [SPEAKER_01] I want to note something, too. When we first reached out to Paula for comments, you know, years ago at this point, a year and a half ago, a year and a half ago, maybe a little more than a year. Feels like years. And one of the people she listed as being an advocate for Kenzu was Josie Rice Duffy, I believe, in that response.

[00:59:48] [SPEAKER_01] So at the very least, their view of Josie Rice Duffy, whether this is accurate on their parts or not, is that she is not merely someone who is covering the case and is looking for information, but is someone that they view as someone who is going to advocate for them and do what they want to do. So Kenzu is directing Paula and instructing her. That's not going to help us with that, I believe.

[01:00:10] [SPEAKER_03] So, Anya, I think it's important to, again, hear from one of Paula's filings about what she feels are the pertinent issues at stake in this matter. And I think this is important because it gives us kind of the prism through which Paula sees the facts that she presents. Can you read this next section?

[01:00:28] [SPEAKER_01] These expectations were not merely private religious beliefs, but conditions defendant expected plaintiffs to satisfy within the marital relationship. Defendant's requirement that his spouse adhere to the Catholic doctrine and his contemplation of plural marital relationships were never disclosed prior to the marriage, despite plaintiff's reliance on defendant's repeated representations that he had abandoned that doctrine years earlier. Plaintiff would not have consented to the marriage had defendant disclosed these expectations prior to the marriage. The issue presented is not a disagreement over theology.

[01:00:58] [SPEAKER_01] The issue is whether defendant accurately disclosed the conditions he expected within the marital relationship. Plaintiff relied on defendant's repeated representations that he had abandoned the Catholic doctrine and intended a traditional monogamous marriage. By concealing that, he continued to identify as Catholic and expected a spouse who would adhere to that doctrine. Defendant deprived plaintiff of the ability to make an informed decision about entering into the marriage.

[01:01:22] [SPEAKER_03] Yes. So he's lying to everybody about this. Let's see how Paula backs up her claims. Can you read this next little section?

[01:01:30] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff has preserved the final telephone conversation between the parties, which further demonstrates the continuing importance of the Catholic doctrine in defendant's life.

[01:01:39] [SPEAKER_03] When Paula says she, quote, preserved the final telephone conversation she had with Mr. Kinsu, we imagine that means she recorded it. And we find it interesting that both of Mr. Kinsu's two most recent wives have found it necessary to at least occasionally record their calls with him. Anya, tell us about that call from Paula's filing.

[01:02:01] [SPEAKER_01] In that conversation, defendant became upset with plaintiff regarding the delivery of the book he authored concerning the Catholic doctrine. During that conversation, defendant described the book as his life's work and emphasized its importance to him. Defendant demanded that plaintiff locate the book and ensure that it was delivered to another individual, indicating that the doctrine remained active in defendant's life and that he expected plaintiff to participate in promoting it.

[01:02:26] [SPEAKER_01] Defendant's statements during this conversation demonstrate that the Catholic doctrine was not a historical belief he had abandoned, but remain a central part of his identity and purpose. These statements directly contradict defendant's prior representations to plaintiff that he had abandoned the doctrine years earlier. A transcript excerpt of that call is attached to Exhibit D.

[01:02:45] [SPEAKER_03] Transcript excerpts? Yeah, we got to do this, right?

[01:02:49] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, yes.

[01:02:50] [SPEAKER_03] Why don't you... I love transcript excerpts.

[01:02:53] [SPEAKER_01] I do, too.

[01:02:53] [SPEAKER_03] Why don't you read, like, the legal talk and when this transcript excerpt has comments made by Mr. Kinsu, why don't I jump in and read those?

[01:03:05] [SPEAKER_01] Do you want me to read the timestamps, too? Yeah. That'd be funny. All right. Let's do it. Exhibit D. I'll be the fancy book-learned attorney lady talking lady. And you'll be the crazy guy. Just like life. Yeah, just... Well, no. I think in life it might be... Might be flipped. Might be flipped. Exhibit D. Transcript excerpt. Recorded, preserved telephone conversation between plaintiff and defendant on December 18th, 2025.

[01:03:32] [SPEAKER_01] This exhibit contains excerpts from a telephone conversation between plaintiff and defendant that plaintiff recorded while speaking with defendant through the Michigan Department of Corrections telephone system. MDOC telephone calls are announced as recorded at the beginning of each call. The following excerpts reflect statements made by defendant during the conversation. During the recorded call, defendant expressed anger regarding a missing shipment of a book he authored and demanded the plaintiff ship to a woman in Australia.

[01:03:59] [SPEAKER_01] Defendant repeatedly emphasized the importance of the book and demanded that plaintiff locate the shipment. Relevant excerpts include the following statements by defendant. 1050.

[01:04:09] [SPEAKER_03] 1050. It's not a fucking book. It's my life's work. And it's not replaceable. 1106. I told you I was worried about this when you shipped it. I said you make sure nothing happens to it and you're acting like it's a fucking joke, Paula. And it's not a fucking joke. You understand me?

[01:04:26] [SPEAKER_01] 1115.

[01:04:27] [SPEAKER_03] You didn't want to read it? Fine. Other people do.

[01:04:31] [SPEAKER_01] 1125.

[01:04:32] [SPEAKER_03] Now, is this going to be an issue for us?

[01:04:34] [SPEAKER_01] 1140.

[01:04:35] [SPEAKER_03] That's 20 years of my work. You don't know the amount of work that I put into that book.

[01:04:40] [SPEAKER_01] 1229.

[01:04:41] [SPEAKER_03] And if you did something with that, we're going to have a problem.

[01:04:44] [SPEAKER_01] These statements demonstrate that defendant considers the book to be his life's work, representing approximately 20 years of effort, and that he intended for others to read the work and demanded that plaintiff locate the ship book, which plaintiff was required to distribute to an Australian woman. This conversation came after the November 22, 2025 statement.

[01:05:03] [SPEAKER_03] I want a Cathalian for a wife.

[01:05:05] [SPEAKER_01] And after repeated inquiries to plaintiff about a polygamous marriage. This was the last phone call plaintiff accepted from defendant and the last time they spoke. Plaintiff filed motion for annulment on December 19, 2025. Plaintiff filed for annulment immediately after discovering defendant's continuing adherence to Cathalian doctrine and the associated marital expectations.

[01:05:26] [SPEAKER_03] I think she's emphasizing there that she filed so quickly because if it's a situation where, oh, I found out this particular detail, but then I hung out in the marriage for a few months or a few years afterwards, then maybe you accepted it. But she'd say, no, as soon as I found out, I called a cab and got out of there. Do you have any comments about those transcript excerpts?

[01:05:48] [SPEAKER_01] Good Lord. That's all my, that's my comment.

[01:05:50] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, they speak for themselves.

[01:05:52] [SPEAKER_01] They do.

[01:05:53] [SPEAKER_03] I wanted to point out, we're not going to go over everything that was in the file of documents that we received. Many things contested in a divorce are simply not that interesting to someone who is not involved in the process. There's some back and forth over some funds in an account, for instance, and also about some of the couple's dogs. You see those sorts of things in almost every single court action involving the end of a marriage.

[01:06:18] [SPEAKER_03] And again, at least in our view, are not very interesting unless you are Paula or Mr. Kenzu. And I should say, stick a pin in those references to the Australian woman.

[01:06:30] [SPEAKER_01] We'll see more of her later.

[01:06:33] [SPEAKER_03] So, let's get to something more illuminating, which is a May 2026 filing from Paula called plaintiff's statement in support of request for issuance of non-party discovery subpoenas. What does that mean? Well, basically, she wants the court to issue subpoenas to certain third parties to require them to give her information. Presumably, information which Paula feels will help her case against Mr. Kenzu.

[01:07:02] [SPEAKER_03] And in this document, she's going to be laying out the case for that, telling the court, here is why I think you should make these people or agencies give me the information I want. So, let's get into it and let's start by hearing exactly what Paula wants and why she wants it.

[01:07:20] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff respectfully submits this statement in support of her request for issuance of limited non-party discovery subpoenas to the Michigan Department of Corrections and or any appropriate communications, visitation, telephone, or electronic messaging records custodian. Plaintiff is unrepresented and therefore requests court authorization for issuance of non-party discovery subpoenas pursuant to MCR 2.305.

[01:07:44] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff seeks record narrowly directed to the threshold issue before the court, whether the parties have mutual assent to the same essential marital relationship, including monogamy, exclusivity, marital intent, and the nature of defendant's representation and conduct during the alleged marriage period. Plaintiff is not seeking these records for harassment, embarrassment, general character evidence, or broad divorce-style discovery.

[01:08:11] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff seeks limited records bearing on whether defendant conducted himself as a monogamous spouse or whether his communications, visitation activity, collectivity, or relationship planning reflected romantic, sexual, plural marital, non-monogamous, or otherwise non-exclusive conduct inconsistent with the marital representation made to plaintiff.

[01:08:30] [SPEAKER_01] Plaintiff requests records beginning December 27, 2019, because that is the date plaintiff first contacted defendant and the date from which defendant's relationship-related representations and conduct became relevant to plaintiff's annulment claim.

[01:08:45] [SPEAKER_03] So that's a lot of lawyer talk, but let's cut through it with some plain language. Mr. Kinzu is quite obviously and quite properly incarcerated. That means all of his calls, all of his texts, all of his emails, except those with his attorneys, are theoretically monitored and presumably recorded and preserved.

[01:09:06] [SPEAKER_03] So Paula wants to take a look at all these communications he's had with other people over the years so she can see if he was messing around on her while the two of them were in what she considered a monogamous relationship. Does that make sense? It does. Obvious question. Does Paula have a good reason for this?

[01:09:25] [SPEAKER_01] Here's what Paula says. Plaintiff has a good faith, non-speculative basis for this request. After plaintiff ended communication with defendant and filed for annulment, defendant very quickly and publicly appeared to elevate Deb Possil, also known or believed to be known as Deb O'Sullivan, Deborah Possil, Deborah O'Sullivan, or a similar name or alias, into a significant personal and legal role in his life.

[01:09:47] [SPEAKER_03] So this woman, Ms. Possil, she's been quite public about her connection to Mr. Kinzu. You can see it all over her social media, all over his social media. So naming her is not a violation of her privacy. No. We reached out to her at one point and she says, don't contact me again. So we did not reach out to her prior to this episode because we wanted to respect her wishes.

[01:10:14] [SPEAKER_03] I do want to note, based on everything we now know about how Mr. Kinzu operates and how he treats the women in his life, there is every reason to believe that Ms. Possil is either now or will someday become a victim of Mr. Kinzu.

[01:10:30] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, should I go?

[01:10:31] [SPEAKER_03] Read the next section of this filing.

[01:10:33] [SPEAKER_01] On or about December 22nd, 2025, defendant publicly identified Ms. Possil slash O'Sullivan as his new media liaison. Only days after plaintiff filed this ennulment action, plaintiff further understands based on defendant's public statements and other communications that defendant and Ms. Possil O'Sullivan were in a romantic slash domestic relationship by at least January 2026, Exhibit A.

[01:10:56] [SPEAKER_01] And that they discussed purchasing or sharing a home together upon defendant's release and that defendant identified or appointed Ms. Possil Sullivan as his legal representative.

[01:11:07] [SPEAKER_03] So let's check out this exhibit. It's screenshots of postings on Mr. Kinzu's Facebook page from early February.

[01:11:16] [SPEAKER_01] On or about February 4th, 2026, I believe.

[01:11:19] [SPEAKER_03] Abandoned, claimed and loved again. And he's reposting something that he says to his Suki bear. I've fallen in love with every part of you. I wish I could watch your eyes open and see that first sleepy smile, blah, blah, blah. Anya, I think this might be a good point for you to prepare to hit the button for the music. We've got a lot more to go through.

[01:11:45] [SPEAKER_03] We've got lots of screenshots, including back and forth between Paula and Mr. Kinzu, some communications between Mr. Kinzu and Ms. Possil.

[01:11:55] [SPEAKER_01] Pretty shocking communications as well.

[01:11:57] [SPEAKER_03] Yeah, we've got a lot to go through. I don't want to cram it all into this one episode. Why don't you hit the music and we'll come back in a bit.

[01:12:04] [SPEAKER_01] All right, Suki Bear.

[01:12:04] [SPEAKER_03] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[01:12:25] [SPEAKER_01] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:12:49] [SPEAKER_03] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[01:12:58] [SPEAKER_01] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. Thanks for listening.