The Murder of Scott Macklem: The Guilt of Temujin Kensu: Part Three: "You Weren't in The Car"

[00:00:00] If you're like us and looking to refresh your style this spring as the temperatures rise, you should seriously check out our wonderful sponsor, Quince. You're going to feel put together and fashionable without trying and without spending a lot of money. See, Quince has these 100% European linen shorts, they've got dresses from $30, they've got swimwear that will make you feel really luxe at the beach or the pool, Italian leather platform sandals, and more.

[00:00:27] Quince achieves lower prices by cutting out the middlemen, giving you luxury items that cost 50-80% less than those of their competitors. You know I love my Mongolian cashmere sweaters, but right now I am looking at their washable silk shirts and skirts. They're so cute, but they also seem to go with anything. Those are great fashion staples for your wardrobe this spring. And again, you can get them without breaking the bank. I'd really like to wear some of these on a yacht while celebrating after I've escaped from my latest cereal heist.

[00:00:56] Hypothetically. Treat your closet to a little summer glow up with Quince. Go to quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash msheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. Thanks to our sponsor Happy Mammoth for supporting our show.

[00:01:23] Happy Mammoth is a wonderful natural wellness brand that can help you solve the mystery of out-of-control hormones. Happy Mammoth is here to help you maintain optimal hormone levels and boost your gut health. This is such a great company because so many things can disrupt our hormones from skincare products to the food we eat. And all of that can really impact our quality of life. Happy Mammoth will help you tackle the case of your own hormones. You can take their two-minute quiz.

[00:01:48] The results will include personalized, tailor-made recommendations to help you ensure your hormones are in an optimal spot. I've been taking their hormone harmony supplements, which I love. These are great for women at all stages of life. For me, it's a great way of promoting gut health and reducing my cravings. That's been my experience. I really just don't get as randomly hungry for, say, like, pepper jack cheese slices. Or even my beloved Macintosh apples, which are frankly out of season anyway. For women dealing with menopause or perimenopause,

[00:02:19] Hormone Harmony supplements can help relieve those symptoms, reduce mild mood swings and hot flashes, give you more energy, and help you sleep. It's a wonderful solution for so many women. Hormone Harmony has science-backed herbal extracts known as adaptogens. They're there to help your body adapt to stressors. One survey found that 86% of respondents said they started losing weight, and 77% of respondents felt it helped them with their mood.

[00:02:44] For a limited time, you can get 15% off on your entire first order at happymammoths.com. Just use the code MSHEAT at checkout. That's happymammoths.com and use the code MSHEAT for 15% off today. Content warning. This episode includes discussion of murder and rape. This is the third of a series of episodes on the 1986 murder of Scott Macklem.

[00:03:11] On November 5th, 1986, Scott was on the verge of so many things. The 20-year-old was expecting a baby with his fiancée, Crystal. He was attending college. But he didn't get to live the life he was meant to. Instead, he was shot to death in a cowardly ambush. He was killed a little before 9 a.m. in a parking lot outside St. Clair Community College in Port Huron, Michigan.

[00:03:37] About six months later, a jury found the man now known as Temujin Kenzu guilty of that crime, and he has been behind bars ever since. Over the decades, the case has become well known in some circles as an instance of a supposedly wrongful conviction. The convicted man, who has been known variously as Frederick Freeman, John Lamar, and Temujin Kenzu, as well as other asserted aliases, has long maintained that he is innocent of the crime.

[00:04:06] He and his wife, Paula Kenzu, have waged a public campaign to get him out of prison. And, as we will see, that campaign has gone to some shocking lengths. They have, for instance, publicly attacked a woman Kenzu raped. And not only that, but they also published her full name as well as her phone number.

[00:04:30] If you haven't listened to our previous episodes on the case, we recommend you go back and do so. They go into the considerable evidence against Kenzu and explain why the jury, and the two of us, concluded he was guilty as charged. In this episode, we are going to discuss the claims that Kenzu and his advocates have made over the years. The arguments they maintain support his innocence. We will see whether or not they hold water.

[00:04:59] We are going to continue to cover this case, but we want to cover other topics and cases as well. So, for the next few weeks, most of the time, we will be releasing no more than one episode a week on this case. In episodes to come, we will take a look at testimony from Kenzu's commutation hearing, where we will learn disturbing details of Kenzu's vile treatment of those unfortunate enough to be in his life.

[00:05:33] We will be following the case, and we will be following the case. And this is the murder sheet. 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 Macklem, The Guilt of Timijin Kinzu, Part 3. You Weren't in the Car.

[00:06:42] We would like to begin by repeating a couple of the notes we made at the start of last week's episodes. At times, we will be presenting excerpts from testimony and affidavits, and some of those will be edited for clarity. The man now known as Timijin Kinzu has also used a variety of names and aliases throughout his life. That can get very confusing very quickly. In our episodes, we will always refer to him by Timijin Kinzu, which is the name he uses now.

[00:07:12] This means that if we quote someone who refers to him by another name, we will silently change that name to Timijin Kinzu. And again, this is something we are doing for clarity. Before we get into it, let's quickly review the heart of the case against this man who now calls himself Timijin Kinzu. He is a violent rapist who terrorized Crystal and repeatedly threatened the life of her then-former boyfriend, Scott Macklem.

[00:07:39] Scott knew about the threats and spoke of them to friends and family, specifically mentioning that they came from Kinzu. Scott's car was also broken into. Multiple witnesses placed Kinzu at the murder scene. Other witnesses were not close enough to get a look at the man, but they recognized a specific coat the man wore. A coat of that description was later found in Kinzu's vehicle. Before the murder, Kinzu owned a shotgun that was consistent with the one used to murder Scott.

[00:08:10] After the murder, it seems to have disappeared. After the murders, Kinzu made incriminating statements in a phone call with Crystal. He made further incriminating statements to Philip Joplin. After his arrest, Kinzu also went to great lengths to alter his appearance before crucial witness lineups. He managed to get unauthorized access to a razor so he could shave before the witnesses could even get a look at him. This meant he would look different than he had on the morning of the murder.

[00:08:38] It is clearly the action of a guilty man who was trying to manipulate the process to benefit himself. The jury in his trial considered all of this, and they reached the same verdict we did. Himijin Kinzu is guilty. He killed Scott Macklem. Our saying that Kinzu is guilty puts us on the outer fringe of the true crime community.

[00:09:02] But it also places us squarely in agreement with the many courts that have reviewed his case and found no reason to doubt the jury's verdict. Over the years, the convicted murderer and his defenders have offered a host of complaints about the investigation of the murder of Scott Macklem and of the trial that ended in Kinzu's conviction. We simply do not have time to get to them all, and so we are going to focus on the ones we find most significant.

[00:09:31] If there are others that you would like to hear about, let us know. If you knew only one thing about the Temujin-Kenzu case before listening to our earlier episodes, it was probably something like this. Eyewitnesses placed Kenzu hundreds of miles away from the murder scene, and the only way the prosecutor was able to get a conviction was to dream up a scenario where Kenzu got to the crime site and back by chartering a plane. Let's get into that.

[00:10:01] Got to start by making a crucial point. Sometimes we hear about incredibly important witnesses and evidence being uncovered long after a trial. In those instances, it can be argued that the jury may not have ever gotten the chance to hear important evidence before reaching a verdict. But let's stress, that is not what happened here.

[00:10:25] Kenzu did have alibi witnesses who said they saw him in Escanava, Michigan, on November 5th, 1986, the day Scott was killed. Over 400 miles away in Port Huron, Michigan. Escanava is in the state's upper peninsula. Port Huron is about an hour north of Detroit. Kenzu's alibi witnesses actually testified at the trial. The jury got the chance to do what we cannot.

[00:10:51] They could not only listen to these witnesses, but they could look at them as they spoke and carefully evaluate their stories. And despite all of that, they still voted to convict Kenzu. The jury heard these witnesses and they rejected their stories. That should give you the idea that there may have been some serious problems with these witnesses. These witnesses are not as compelling as Kenzu suggests.

[00:11:20] And that is absolutely correct. The most significant issue is that the witnesses are all tainted. Kenzu contacted the Escanava witnesses and tried to confuse and manipulate them into believing he was there on November 5th when he actually was not. And we know about this because it didn't always work. And the people it didn't work on came into court and they testified about it. Let's hear, for instance, from Melvin Carlson.

[00:11:50] Melvin owns some property, a short drive from Escanaba, Michigan, that he rented to Kenzu. When you listen to him, keep in mind that Kenzu told Melvin that his girlfriend Michelle was his wife. So when Melvin refers to Kenzu's wife, he is talking about Michelle. Remember, too, that the crucial date is November 5th. That's the date of the murder. With all of that in mind, let's go to Melvin's testimony at Kenzu's trial.

[00:12:14] You will hear that Kenzu tried to get Melvin to change his story about the details and dates of an occasion Michelle delivered some vitamins to Melvin. Kevin will read the questions from the prosecutor, and I will read Melvin's words. On approximately the 14th of November, about 630 in the evening, did you receive a phone call from Port Huron, Collect? Yes, I did. Who was on the other end of the line? Temujin Kenzu.

[00:12:41] Do you remember what the conversation consisted of in main part? Yes. He said, Mel, he says, do you remember me being at the house on the 5th of November? How did you respond to him? I said, no, you weren't here. But he asked if you remembered him being there on the 5th and you responded that you didn't. Is that correct or am I not correct? He said that he was there on the 5th for a certain purpose. What purpose? The purpose, he said, was to give me some vitamins pills.

[00:13:12] All right. Now, what did you tell? How did you respond to that? I said, no, you didn't give me the vitamin pills. Your wife gave them to me. Now, let me ask you in truth. Was there an occasion that related to Temujin Kenzu and some vitamin pills? Did such a thing actually happen at some time that you received vitamin pills? Yes, it is correct. Okay. How did that happen? How did that vitamin pill transaction happen? And to the best of your recollection, when did it happen?

[00:13:39] I would say maybe I didn't write this down. I didn't document. So this is recollection. I would say between the 8th and the 10th of November. And how do you remember it coming to pass? What happened with this vitamin pill incident? My wife and I go to the senior citizens for our noon meal. And this one particular day, when we came back from our meal, I imagine this would be about 1230. Temujin's wife's car was in my driveway.

[00:14:07] So my wife and I had to park in the street. And when we parked in the street, we saw Michelle sitting in the car. Then she got out. She had a paper bag. And in it, she had what she said was vitamins and minerals that I had gotten from Temujin and that we had talked about before. While she was standing on the sidewalk in front of our home, I looked in the car that was still parked in my driveway. And there was no one in the car. No other person in the car. I happened to remark to her that her husband had said that she was going to have a baby in January.

[00:14:36] And she patted her abdomen. She smiled and said, yes, that's true. Within a matter of, say, maybe three to five minutes, she left. And she left in her car and she left all alone. Now, I want to go back to the conversation when on the 14th of November, Temujin Kinzu called you collect at your house up in Gladstone. Now, he was saying to you, do you remember that Wednesday the 5th I was there to deliver vitamins? Yes, that's correct.

[00:15:05] And how did you respond to him then? I said, no, Temujin, you didn't. Your wife brought the vitamins. And did he come back to you after you stated that? Yes, he did. He said, well, I was outside sitting in the car and Michelle brought the vitamins in the house and I was sitting in the car. I said, no, you didn't because we were on the street and you were not in the car. We could see that there was no one in the car. And did he go further than that then? Yes, he did. He said, well, I took a ride around the block. Then I got in the car and left with her.

[00:15:35] I said, no, you didn't. Because when she left, she left all alone and you were not in the car. OK, so according to Melvin, Kenzu phoned him and tried to confuse him. It was a situation where Kenzu was basically saying, don't you remember you saw me the day of the murders? What? You didn't see me? Well, don't you remember that was because I was driving around the block? But try as he did, Kenzu could not plant the false memory in Melvin's head.

[00:16:03] These days, we're all vulnerable to surveillance and data breaches. Delete Me is a service that lets you remove your personal data online. And it's easy, quick and safe. We all know that it's easier than ever to find someone's address, phone number and close relatives online. That is not good when there's plenty of bad actors who want that information. Delete Me can help you protect yourself by removing your information from hundreds of data broker websites.

[00:16:32] That prevents the bad guys from getting a hold of your sensitive information. We love Delete Me. We've used it long before this company even sponsored us. The reason we love it is because it works. And to be frank, we've run into our fair share of weirdness online. That includes all manner of threats, a few stalkers and one person who even said they wanted to harm Kevin so that they could marry me. So fun. The thing is, when you run a true crime podcast and you talk about some of these cases, you just attract the attention of some people who are kind of unhinged.

[00:17:01] And seriously, that can be pretty scary. And we're not alone in this kind of situation. Identity theft, doxing, harassment, stalking. These things can happen to anyone. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Today, get 20% off your Delete Me plan by texting SHEET to 64000.

[00:17:27] The only way to get 20% off is to text SHEET to 64000. That's SHEET to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. If you're like us, you sometimes struggle to lose weight or maintain a healthy weight. Well, that's where Lean comes in. This is not a weight loss injection. It is a weight loss supplement formulated by doctors.

[00:17:53] A doctor and a university researcher teamed up to create Lean and target the same goals as a GLP-1. Lean's ingredients are shown to lower blood sugar, reduce appetite, and burn fat. This is for people who are serious about weight loss and who are frustrated that they aren't getting anywhere. I myself have started taking Lean supplements. It's really helped curb my appetite so far. Just listen to these testimonials. Patty S. said, I finally found a weight loss product that works.

[00:18:21] I wanted to lose 20 pounds and Lean really curbs my appetite. Lori M. wrote, I've struggled to get weight off and Lean has been a lifesaver. I've been losing a couple pounds a week or more. And Kelly F. said, amazing. I immediately noticed an energy boost and a healthy weight loss in weight. I would promote this product to anyone. And Murder Sheet listeners are in luck. Let's get you started with 20% off. Just use code MSHEET20 at TakeLean.com.

[00:18:48] That's code MSHEET20 at TakeLean.com. Again, TakeLean.com. T-A-K-E-L-E-A-N.com. Results vary. These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease and is not a substitute for care from a health care provider. We want to note that Kenzu continued his campaign of manipulation with other people, though.

[00:19:17] Let's talk about Karen and Jim Dombrowski. The couple ran a music store in Escanaba, Michigan. And again, this community is hundreds of miles away from where Scott was killed. Kenzu would come in regularly for music lessons. He did not have a lesson scheduled for November 5th, the day Scott was murdered. But he did have one the next day. In any case, just like Melvin, Karen received a call from Kenzu. Let's go to her testimony.

[00:19:44] Kevin will read the prosecutor's questions and I will read Karen's answers. Has it come to pass that you've spoken with him? He called me. It was a collect call from Temujin Kenzu. And I took the collect call and spoke with him. And do you remember what went on during that call? He was real nice. He just asked if I remembered him coming in Wednesday, the 5th. And I said, I didn't remember. And he said, don't you remember? I came in and fixed the door. I was working with Jim fixing a door. Your door wasn't working at the time.

[00:20:14] And I apologized because I, you know, I liked him. And I said, I just didn't remember. I'd like to help him. But I didn't remember him coming in because our door had been broken a long time. And I didn't want to commit that I had seen him that day. Well, for what it's worth, we should add that Karen's husband, Jim, testified that Kenzu helped him with that door on a Saturday. Now, November 5th, the day Scott was murdered, was a Wednesday.

[00:20:43] So this is all a repeat of what we saw with Melvin. Kenzu contacts a witness and tries to manipulate and confuse them into believing something that's not true. Oh, don't you remember you saw me that day? Don't you remember that that was the day we did this or that? This is a pattern with him. Ask yourself, is that something an innocent man would do? I would expect an innocent man to give the names of his alibi witnesses to police and let them handle it from there.

[00:21:11] But Kenzu instead called them and tried to trick them into adopting his narrative. And with some of the witnesses, it worked. So let's talk about Kenzu's alibi witnesses. These are the people who testified that, yes, we saw Kenzu on the day of the murder and he was in Escanaba, which was hundreds of miles away from where Scott was killed. If you look at accounts online, you will hear that there are different numbers of these alleged witnesses, 10, 12, even more.

[00:21:39] Now, the first thing to point out about them is that none of them testified that they saw Kenzu in Escanaba at the time of the murder. So stick a pin in that. We'll return to it later. Scott was killed at 9 a.m. It takes about six hours to drive from Escanaba to Port Huron, where Scott was murdered. Any sighting of Scott in Escanaba outside of a roughly six hour window before and after the murder, therefore, doesn't say much about his innocence.

[00:22:06] If someone saw him, for instance, at 5 p.m., he would have had enough time to have shot Scott at 9 a.m. and driven back to Escanaba. Most of the alleged sightings in Escanaba are indeed outside of that window of time. Therefore, they do not add any credence to claims of him being innocent. Of all this varying number of witnesses you have heard over the years, there are exactly

[00:22:32] two who claim they saw him in Escanaba within that crucial window of time. The witnesses to place him in Escanaba claim they saw him around noon in a karate studio. Because they placed him in Escanaba at the earliest time, they are Kenzu's most important witnesses. Their names are Kathleen Dyer and John Manali. We're also going to discuss a third witness named Mark Sherman. Here's what we find interesting about them.

[00:23:01] Usually, a person's memory of an event is better the more recent it is. I remember what I did last Wednesday better than I do a Wednesday a month or two ago. That's just common sense. But if first, none of these witnesses could remember what day they saw Kenzu at the karate studio. Was it the Wednesday of the murder or another Wednesday or another day of the week altogether? As time passed, their memories did not get worse as you would expect.

[00:23:30] Instead, their memories actually got better. How did that happen? Well, they worked together to try to sharpen their memories. And they had some help. Help in the form of a call Manali received from Temujin Kenzu. Let's hear an excerpt from Manali's testimony at trial. This is from his direct examination. So the questions are being asked by Kenzu's defense attorney, David Dean. Kevin will again read the questions and I will read the answers.

[00:23:58] When was it, if you know, the date that you were approached by police? I don't know the date. Can you recall anything about it? The first time that the detectives came in to talk to me, I had no idea what was going on. At the time, the only thing that they really let me know was that they were looking for the defendant. And for reasons I believe that they said was murder or assault, the second time that they came in, they came in right prior to my first class of the day. And I had the phone ringing and it was pretty hectic.

[00:24:28] Did he ask you anything about the defendant? Basically, whether he was there on November 5th? Yes, he did. Do you recall what you said initially? Well, at that time, I hadn't given it any prior thought. I had no time to really think about it on my own. And at that time, I was very unsure. I thought he was either there on a Monday or a Tuesday or a Tuesday or Wednesday without being able to think about it or to talk to anybody else who was there at the time. I couldn't be sure.

[00:24:57] And so I take it the police weren't there on November 5th. It was sometimes after that they interviewed you. Yes, it was. It was a month or two afterwards. And you gave him a statement. Is that correct? Yes, I did. And you told him that basically what? You weren't sure? At that time, I couldn't honestly say that I knew for sure. So let's stop here for just a second to stress that point. Manali could not say for sure when Kinzu was at his karate shop.

[00:25:26] And that was when he got the helpful reach out from Temujin Kinzu. Let's go back to his testimony. Did you ever talk to the defendant about this? Did he ever ask you whether or not you recall? He did call me one time. Did he? Okay. Did he? Was he threatening you or intimidating you in any way? No. What did he say to you, if you recall? He was trying to jog my memory, stating things. Don't you remember we talked about this or that? Okay. Okay.

[00:25:55] So Manali was unsure about what day he saw Kinzu. Until Kinzu helped him out with a friendly call. We want to make what should be a blindingly obvious point here. Kinzu interfering with a witness paints that witness. If Manali only recalls that Kinzu was there on a particular day after Kinzu tells him that, then we should not lend much credence to Manali's testimony.

[00:26:23] We believe Kinzu's efforts to manipulate potential alibi witnesses shows consciousness of guilt, and that it diminishes the value of the testimony of those witnesses. We believe this is one of the reasons why the jury ultimately did not seem to believe them. We saw Kinzu manipulate Crystal. In the commutation testimony, we will hear later how he manipulated still other women.

[00:26:46] So it should not come as a surprise that this habitual master manipulator did his best to control these witnesses too. We referred, though, to three important witnesses, and we've only discussed Manali. Let's discuss the others. Kathleen Dyer also testified that she saw Kinzu at that karate studio in Escanaba around noon on the day of the murder.

[00:27:11] She gave the police that information months later and also told them that the fall of 1986 had been a hectic time in her life. She remembered seeing Kinzu at the karate studio. Now, unlike the others, she did not get a call from Kinzu to help with her memory. Instead, she heard from her fellow witness, Manali. And, of course, Manali had gotten a call from Kinzu. Let's go to Dyer's testimony. Here, she is being examined by defense attorney David Dean.

[00:27:40] Again, Kevin will read the questions and I will read the answers. And did there come an occasion when John Manali called you and talked to you about this? Yes. What was the purpose of you talking to each other? John Manali had been approached by someone involved with the investigation, I believe. He could not recall precisely if he had seen Temujin Kenzu on that day. He called me and asked, this is the conversation.

[00:28:05] He said, Kathy, hi, yes, this is John Manali, which was unusual because he doesn't ever call me. He said, do you remember seeing Temujin Kenzu in here? And I said, yes. He said, do you remember what day? I said, well, I don't know because, you know, I didn't know what this was all about. I said, I only come in on Mondays and Wednesday. And he said, oh, that's right. And that Monday you didn't come in.

[00:28:31] So Manali, the witness who was tainted by Kenzu, turns around and taints Dyer. We note that he seems to have suggested to her that Kenzu had to have been in the studio during one particular week. Therefore, if Dyer saw him and that week she was only there on Wednesday the 5th, then that had to be the day Kenzu was there. Manali and Dyer did not seem to consider the fact that Kenzu could have been in the studio on another week or another Wednesday.

[00:28:59] Under cross-examination by Cleveland, Dyer even said that back then, one Wednesday was very much like any other Wednesday for her. So how could she be certain that she had seen Kenzu on Wednesday, November 5th, instead of, say, Wednesday, October 29th? One reason she says she was able to feel so sure about it was the third important alibi witness, Mark Sherman. This gets a little complicated.

[00:29:44] For us, the problem remains the same. Kenzu came to the studio relatively often. Manali, Dyer, and Sherman were interviewed well after the murder about the timing of one of his visits. Now, he visited often, so they would have no reason to recall the details of one specific visit. To make matters even more complicated, Manali consulted with Kenzu, and then the three of them consulted with each other. To us, it is unclear how much the three independently recalled

[00:30:13] and how much they innocently constructed working with one another after one of them had talked the whole matter over with the manipulator, Temujin Kenzu. Let's be clear. We don't believe these witnesses knowingly lied. We believe they, like Crystal, fell prey to a master manipulator. Because of all of that, it is difficult to place much credibility or reliance on these witnesses.

[00:30:39] Keep in mind, as we pointed out, the jury heard these witnesses. They literally got the chance to watch them as they testified. And that jury still convicted Kenzu. That tells us that they heard the testimony of the other prospective Escanaba witnesses, and they put together the pattern. Kenzu was working to concoct an alibi and trying desperately to confuse people into supporting that alibi.

[00:31:08] By all accounts, Kenzu is a master manipulator. We have again seen how he manipulated and controlled Crystal. And we will see later how he did this to other women. And in this instance, he plainly is manipulating witnesses. It is possible they reached their verdict because they simply believed Manali Dyer and Sherman were victims of Kenzu's manipulation, that they were confused and mistaken. Not every member of the jury has spoken out about their verdict.

[00:31:37] But a few have, and their comments on this point say it all. A couple of them were interviewed by the Port Huron Times-Herald back in 1987. One juror made it clear that they believed Dyer could have been mistaken about the time she saw Kenzu. Another juror said something we feel is crucial. We will quote it directly. His alibi was too perfect. He called too many people.

[00:32:06] That says it all. This juror saw Kenzu's manipulation of these witnesses. And so that juror determined that they, therefore, could not assign credibility to those witnesses. We've said it before, but it is worth stressing. Unlike us, the jury got to see and hear all these witnesses. They did not have to rely on possibly biased accounts from one side or another. They saw and heard it all.

[00:32:36] And they rejected those witnesses. But not every juror spoke out. Perhaps other jurors had a different view. It is also possible for them to believe the trio did see him in Escanaba a few hours after the murder. It is possible for them to believe that he was able to travel the hundreds of miles from the crime scene in Port Huron to Escanaba in just a few hours. And this is where the plain testimony comes in.

[00:33:03] This is one of the most misunderstood and derided parts of the entire case against Kenzu. And we get that. When it's described briefly and unsympathetically, it sounds absolutely ridiculous. It's like a hook to get people into the mindset to believe the whole thing is definitely a wrongful conviction. But let's talk about what actually happened. After the defense rested, the prosecution presented a pilot as a rebuttal witness.

[00:33:30] To be more specific, Kenzu had presented alibi witnesses who, as you've just heard, claim they saw him in Escanaba a few hours after the killings. That opened the door for the prosecutor to rebut that. To say, in essence, that even if you believe those witnesses, Kenzu could still be guilty.

[00:33:51] And that is why he brought this witness to the jury to explain that it would be possible for a plane to have taken Kenzu from Escanaba to the murder scene within a couple of hours. At first blush, this seems a bit far-fetched. We understand that. But it is important to note a few things. First, for all the hue and cry that Kenzu has made about it over the years, the business about the plane was a tiny, tiny portion of the case.

[00:34:19] And not at all crucial to the final result. Cleveland only mentioned it very briefly in his closing. Truly, just like a few sentences. We tend to think that Cleveland introduced this witness in the rebuttal just as a precaution. He wanted to offer something for the jurors to consider if, for whatever reason, they chose to believe the so-called alibi witnesses.

[00:34:44] But if you believe, as we do, that Kenzu's two alibi witnesses were manipulated by him, then you don't need the plane to figure into it at all. You can just throw the plane out. We tend to think it's extremely likely that the jury just did not believe those two alibi witnesses. Additionally, we should say that it came up in his closing argument.

[00:35:09] Closing arguments are a time that prosecutors and defense attorneys can let loose a little bit and argue their cases. It's less stringent. It's not as if this prosecutor centered his whole case around that or said that Kenzu had to have traveled by air. That is a misrepresentation of the record. If this had actually been an important part of the case, the prosecutors would have brought it up in their case-in-chief. They did not.

[00:35:35] This was strictly a minor rebuttal witness, and Team Kenzu has vastly exaggerated its importance over the years. Next, please note that the prosecution did not just invent the plane story out of whole cloth. The first person to mention the short time it would take to fly from Escanaba to Port Huron was none other than Temujin Kenzu himself. Let's go back to the testimony of David Hall. You will remember that he was a police officer in Port Huron.

[00:36:03] He listened in on a long phone call between Crystal and Kenzu that took place not long after the murder. With that reminder out of the way, let's hear some more of what Hall told the court he heard Kenzu say. We will pick up with a question from Prosecutor Cleland. Again, Kevin will read the questions, and I will read the answers. Did he talk during this conversation about the town of Escanaba or the area of Escanaba, Michigan,

[00:36:30] and the area, the comparison between the area of Port Huron and how far it is and so forth? Yes, he talked about that. He wasn't in Port Huron. He kept trying to convince her. I wasn't in Port Huron that day. I was in Escanaba. And if I was in Port Huron, you know, I was 560 miles away. And then he talked about, you know, how long it would take him to travel. He says, I could drive in eight hours or I could take a ferry across to Green Bay, Wisconsin.

[00:36:56] Or, you know, I could take an airplane out of any airport and make it in a couple of hours. He said I could fly out of any airport? He said he could fly, make it in a couple hours. I don't know if he said any airport, but he inferred he could fly, take an airplane, and be in Escanaba in a couple of hours. So, all right. In the days after the murder, Temujin Kinzu, for some reason, knew just how long it would take to go by plane from Escanaba to Port Huron.

[00:37:26] Why would he have that information at his fingertips? That is interesting. And there is something else. Kinzu had witnesses testify on his behalf, who placed him in Escanaba as late as around 1 or 1.30 a.m. on the morning of the murder. Scott Macklin was killed around 9 a.m. Kinzu's next alibi witness does not place him in Escanaba until around noon. That leaves a gap of roughly 10 hours,

[00:37:52] during which no witness was willing to testify they saw Kinzu in Escanaba. Why is there such a long gap? Why wasn't anyone willing to tell the jury they saw Kinzu in Escanaba closer in time to the killing? What happened during those missing hours? Given the fact that Kinzu did indeed bring up the travel time by air between the two communities, and given the fact that no one testified to his whereabouts for a several-hour period,

[00:38:22] both before and after the murder, it seems plausible that he may indeed have traveled to and from Port Huron by plane on the day he murdered Scott Macklin. Some pilots at that time did what was called hangar flying, which meant that they would happily ferry a person anywhere for little more than their own expenses just because they wanted to get flying time. And in small so-called uncontrolled airports, like those near Escanaba and Port Huron,

[00:38:49] there would not need to be a record of such flights. That was something that the pilot witness testified to. To repeat ourselves, we are absolutely not saying that this is what happened. Based upon the facts, we feel it more likely that Kinzu's efforts to confuse and manipulate the alibi witnesses were successful, and that the witnesses were simply mistaken as to what day they saw him at the karate studio in Escanaba.

[00:39:17] But either possibility could have been what happened. And it's important to remember that it was not up to the state to prove how exactly Kinzu traveled that day. That was not an element of the crime. All they had to show was that he was there. And we believe they did just that. When you hear us discussing all this business about the alibi witnesses and the possibility of the plane, your mind might be going back to the testimony of Philip Joplin.

[00:39:45] He testified that Kinzu bragged about having an airtight alibi that no one would ever crack. As he so often was, Kinzu was wrong. But bringing up Joplin also raises another issue. As a reminder, he was the person who briefly shared a cell with Kinzu and offered testimony at the trial about incriminating statements Kinzu had made. By the time Joplin wrote a letter to the prosecutor to tell him about his conversation with Kinzu, Joplin had already pled guilty and had been sentenced.

[00:40:13] We point this out because we want to stress that he was not offered or given any special deals to come forward with what he knew. He had literally already been sentenced. He was not promised special treatment and he did not get any. That's worth repeating. Philip Joplin did not receive any special treatments or benefits for testifying. We should also mention that Joplin served his sentence and was released. And after that, he got in trouble with the law once again and ended up being sent back to prison.

[00:40:41] With all of that out of the way, let's talk a bit about how and when Joplin came on the radar of prosecutor Robert Cleland and his team. To do that, let's listen to the words of Cleland himself. This comes from a sworn statement he made and will be read by Kevin. Joplin's information was revealed to us only days before the commencement of the trial, which had been investigated and prepared for many weeks.

[00:41:07] Approximately 80 witnesses had been identified and interviewed for possible testimony when Joplin wrote his letter on April 22nd. We received it on Friday, April 24th, and trial began on April 27th with motions in limine. The jury selection began April 28th. Any suggestion that the trial was built upon Joplin's testimony is wrong. Joplin's testimony, although it was objectively credible,

[00:41:36] internally consistent, and not influenced by any threats or promises, was presented merely as a supplement to the other more direct and substantial witnesses. Though Cleland did feel other witnesses were more substantial, he did stress in his statement that he found Joplin highly reliable. Let's hear what he had to say. All objective indications point to Joplin's testimony being credible. It was not overblown and it was internally consistent.

[00:42:05] The information he conveyed was very memorable to him. The information was of very recent origin. Joplin did not vary in response to cross-examination. When challenged that he might be willing to implicate someone in murder, he clearly said, I'm not implicating anybody in anything, but nonetheless stood by what he heard petitioners say. When asked if he was ever told what to say, he replied in his own words, No.

[00:42:33] You specifically told me to say what I remembered. And that was it. In 1990, Kenzu wanted a new trial. The possibility that Joplin had been given some inducement to tell his story was raised. And so Joplin was brought in. He gave sworn testimony in which he once again stated that his 1987 trial testimony had been accurate and that he had not been given any promise or any rewards to testify. But that is not the end of it.

[00:43:01] In 1993 and 1994, Joplin gave three interviews to reporter Bill Proctor and private investigator Alan Woodside. During those interviews, Joplin dramatically changed what he had said before. Now he suddenly claimed he had lied in his sworn testimony in 1987 and 1990. He said that he never explicitly told the prosecutors he was lying, but felt they should have known it and that he felt pressured into testifying.

[00:43:31] He said he had been pressured into it by his parole office and that the prosecution team had coached him. He said one prosecution team member, Kenneth Lord, even gave him daily coaching. He was now coming clean, he said, because he was dying and wanted to clear his conscience. That was obviously an interesting development, but it was not as cut and dried as it seemed at first glance. For one thing, Joplin's recantation was hearsay.

[00:43:57] That's a lawyer's way of saying that it came in the form of unsworn testimony outside of a courtroom. For it to mean it much in a court, it would need to be in the form of a sworn statement. Doesn't sound like that would be much of an obstacle, does it? In fact, Woodside did, in fact, take steps to make that happen. Let's hear his tale of what occurred in his own words, read by Anya. After transcribing Joplin's recorded confession and preparing it in a typed format,

[00:44:25] I returned to Jackson Prison to see him again for his acknowledgement and signature in order that I may submit it to Ralph Simpson of the State Appellate Defender's Office. When I arrived and prepared to go in to meet Joplin, the guard handling visitations called into the cell block over a PA system and announced, Philip Joplin, you have a private investigator here to see you. I waited for quite some time and then the guard informed me Joplin did not wish to see me. Okay, so that's strange.

[00:44:55] Joplin swore under oath, not once but twice, about what Kinzu had said to him, then supposedly announced it was all a lie, but he was unwilling to make a sworn statement recanting it. Now, if he'd been motivated to recant it because of his feeling that he was dying, one would think that he would feel particularly anxious to sign that statement, but he did not. We should also note that during this time, Joplin was not quite at death's door. He spoke with Woodside and Proctor in 1993 and 1994,

[00:45:25] but he did not pass away until 1998. There would therefore have presumably been plenty of time for Joplin to make a formal sworn statement recanting his testimony, but he never did. Again, that's odd. And it makes us tend to doubt the truth of his unsworn statements to Woodside and Proctor. There's something else. If you were a part of the Temujin-Kinzu team and you found out in 1994 that Joplin had supposedly recanted, what would you do?

[00:45:54] It's actually not a difficult question. If you had faith in Joplin's words, I imagine that you would bring them to the court's attention as soon as possible. I imagine there'd even be some time pressure if you thought Joplin was dying. Personally, I'd want the court to hear about it immediately so that Joplin could potentially be called to testify so a judge could hear exactly what he had to say. But Temujinzu did not bring it to the court in 1994.

[00:46:22] They did not bring it to the court in 1995. They did not bring it to the court in 1996. They did not bring it to the court in 1997. They did not bring it to the court in 1998, the year Joplin died. They did not bring it to the court in 1999. They did not bring it to the court in the year 2000. They did not bring it to the court in the year 2001. He did not bring it to the court in the year 2002. He did not bring it to the court in 2003. No, they waited until 2004.

[00:46:52] This was 10 years after Joplin's statements and six years after the man died. Kenzu did not explain why he and his team waited so long to raise this with the court, nor has there been a satisfactory explanation for why Joplin never made a sworn statement on these issues. A court cannot take unsworn hearsay seriously, and that means they cannot take Joplin's comments to Woodside and Proctor seriously.

[00:47:19] Meanwhile, we have gotten some sworn statements on all of this. You remember that Joplin said he received daily coaching from prosecution team member Kenneth Lord. Anya, we'll now read what Mr. Lord had to say about all of this. In 1987, I was a senior trial attorney in the St. Clair County Prosecutor's Office. I assisted on a limited basis in the prosecution of Temujin Kenzu.

[00:47:44] I have reviewed the affidavit prepared by a private investigator that contains statements of Philip Joplin. Those statements pertain to my alleged involvement in the preparation of the state's case against Temujin Kenzu. I have found numerous fabrications and outright misrepresentation of the facts. I never took part in or had anything to do with presenting false testimony. I never had any extensive interview with Philip Joplin and never discussed pertinent case information in preparing him to testify.

[00:48:14] I never had daily meetings with Philip Joplin in the library. I did not coach Philip Joplin prior to his testimony, other than to encourage him to sit up straight, answer the questions, and look at the jury. So this is where we're left. If you want to believe Joplin actually recanted, you need to believe he lied under oath not once but twice, even though he never had a deal with the prosecution and in fact never received any benefits from the state for his testimony.

[00:48:41] You also need to believe that a legal professional chose to lie about this matter under oath and that the real truth was only revealed by a man once he was able to talk when he wasn't under oath. I mean, that's confusing and frankly rather hard to swallow. But then we are faced with a question. Why would Joplin falsely recant? And why did he refuse to do so under oath? For a possible answer to all that, let's hear from Robert Cleland,

[00:49:10] the man who successfully prosecuted Kenzu. Kevin will read his words, which we take from a sworn statement he gave in the matter. I believe that the most reasonable explanation for Joplin's decision to avoid Woodside that day and to avoid signing the Woodside affidavit is that although he was willing to participate in conversation and perhaps enjoy the attendant fanfare of a professionally videotaped interview with a local television personality,

[00:49:37] he was not willing to sign any resulted affidavit under oath and be forever committed under penalty of perjury to this position he had informally discussed with a friendly interviewer. I'm aware of a document containing the public record of petitioners' application for commutation that purports to be, and I believe to have been, written by Joplin. In the document, Joplin states the reason he signed a previous affidavit circa 1990

[00:50:05] was that by that time he had, quote, no love for St. Clair County. I conclude that Joplin, having no love for St. Clair County by the mid-90s and having by that time returned to the same state prison system in which Petitioner had become an established life resident and where it is dangerous to be known as an informer, had an obvious motivation to disclaim the truthfulness of his trial testimony.

[00:50:31] The two most obvious motivations for Joplin to falsely recant were therefore, one, to retaliate generally against the county that had re-incarcerated him, and two, to save himself from grief or danger in the hands of fellow inmates. I believe the latter to be the more likely. Let's move on to another issue Kenzu and his team have raised over the years. This one revolves around a witness who never actually testified at trial.

[00:51:00] This is a woman named Michelle, a woman Kenzu was living with at the time. In fact, when Kenzu was arrested, Michelle was actually pregnant with Kenzu's child. Kenzu's defense attorney, David Dean, chose not to call Michelle to the stand during the trial. Kenzu says that this was a catastrophic mistake on Dean's part, that had Michelle been called, she would have given testimony that would have surely gotten Kenzu acquitted. Let's explain his thinking. Kenzu has, as you've heard,

[00:51:30] alibi witnesses who placed him in Escanaba hours before the murder. He also has alibi witnesses who claim they placed him in Escanaba several hours after the murder. But what he didn't have was an alibi witness who described exactly where he was and what he was doing at the time of the murder. That's where Michelle comes in. She was prepared to testify that Kenzu was with her all that morning. And so, according to Kenzu, if his attorney had only bothered to call her to the stand, then surely the entire course of the trial would have been changed.

[00:52:00] Like so much presented by Temujin Kenzu and his team, it sounds compelling. But only at first. When you take a deeper look at it, you start to see the problems. Before we start enumerating them, we will tell you exactly where we are headed with this. The decision not to call Michelle was born not of incompetence, but rather out of strategy. Whether you agree with it or not, there were plenty of reasons not to call her.

[00:52:29] Let's start with a pretty big one, and we're just going to be blunt here. Michelle was prepared to lie for Kenzu. We do not say that casually or lightly, and we do not say it with any judgment towards Michelle. Like so many women in Kenzu's life, Michelle lived in fear. Lying on behalf of Kenzu would have been a natural thing. It would keep her and her child safe. Michelle herself has freely admitted that during the investigation of Scott's murder, she lied to investigators. She told them, for instance,

[00:52:59] that she did not recognize a picture they showed her of Kenzu, who, of course, was the man she lived with at the time. She also told them she was living with someone else altogether. These were not just lies. They were lies with a purpose. Michelle was quite clearly telling these untruths in an attempt to help Kenzu, to make it more difficult for police to track him down and arrest him. If she was willing to lie for him before his arrest, it seems likely that the prosecution could suggest to the jury

[00:53:28] that she would also be willing to lie for him after the arrest. She would therefore have been impeached and her testimony would not have meant much. That is especially true when you recall that the jury did not seem to hesitate to disregard Kenzu's other alibi witnesses. If they did not take the word of disinterested witnesses, why would they instead choose to believe Kenzu's credibility-challenged girlfriend? Moreover, having Michelle testify

[00:53:56] could have created problems for the defense. Prosecutor Cleland could have asked her a number of questions she would likely not have wanted to answer, like how Kenzu treated her and whether or not it was similar to how he treated Crystal. That could have gotten bad. For this reason alone, it could have been a disastrous strategic move to put Michelle on the stand. Perhaps you disagree and feel it was a big mistake for him to not take that step. But the important thing to remember

[00:54:25] is that there were indeed valid strategic reasons not to risk having her testify. And the purpose of criminal appeals is not to give defense attorneys and their clients a chance to get a do-over on their own strategic choices. Before we leave the subject, we want to give an example of what we consider to be an instance of Michelle lying for Kenzu well after his arrest. If you listened to our previous episodes on this case, you heard in disturbing detail

[00:54:54] how Kenzu raped, harassed, and terrorized Crystal and how Crystal wanted nothing more than for him to just leave her alone. In a 1999 affidavit, Michelle unconvincingly claims that that was not how it was at all. Anya would now read from that affidavit. It is my personal belief from direct observations that it was Crystal who pursued Temujin and that Crystal became a nuisance to Temujin shortly after he met her

[00:55:23] in that she was to our home at all hours of the day, often waking up Temujin and demanding to spend time with him even when he did not want to see her. So Michelle tells us that Crystal, the woman who was raped and beaten by Kenzu, was actually the bad guy in the relationship and the aggressor. That frankly seems too absurd to take seriously. But we will quickly note that Crystal's testimony about being physically and sexually abused by Kenzu was backed up by people

[00:55:53] who remembered seeing her dealing with trauma. Crystal has never been plausibly accused of lying about her relationship with Kenzu. In fact, we asked Herbert Welzer, one of Kenzu's own investigators, about Crystal's credibility. He wrote to us, quote, I do not have any evidence that Crystal committed perjury, unquote. On the other hand, we are not aware of anyone other than Kenzu who backs up Michelle's alternate version of events. Let's just be blunt

[00:56:22] and not mince words. Michelle is lying. That in turn raises another question. Why would Michelle lie for him? We believe you can find a possible answer in a remarkable letter Kenzu wrote to his daughters in 2002. We are going to talk more about this lengthy letter in our next episode, but for now, we just want to highlight a small portion of it. Kevin will now read the words of Temujin Kenzu himself. Except for my case, I never intended to see Michelle again, although she lives

[00:56:51] to tell ridiculous stories about how I'm going to kill her. We think it is important to strip away some of the bluster there and look at what Kenzu is really saying about his star witness. As we have seen, Kenzu has a history of physically and sexually abusing women. In that little snippet, he is telling us that Michelle is telling people that she thinks he might hurt her. She thinks he might kill her. Knowing what we do about Temujin Kenzu, Michelle is smart to be afraid of him. We don't blame her for that.

[00:57:21] We believe that Michelle is a victim of abuse, just like so many of the women whose lives Kenzu upended. If she lied years after Kenzu was incarcerated, we believe there's a reason for that. Lingering trauma, residual fear, or a concern about what he would do to her and her family if he ever got out. But let's be honest, when a person is fearful of someone, they are not going to offer testimony that they worry might cause anger or offense to that person.

[00:57:51] And so we believe that Michelle's justifiable fear of Temujin Kenzu is likely a big part of the reason why she has lied for him over the years. Kenzu's daughters also seem to recognize that Michelle was not telling the truth about being with him on the morning of the murder. Again, let's listen to Kevin read a couple of lines from Kenzu's memorable 2002 letter to his daughters. You each have the temerity and thus the stupidity to imply that I might be guilty of this crime as if you were

[00:58:20] somehow smarter than the police, including state troopers and homicide specialists, polygraphers, legal experts, lawyers, private investigators, attorney generals, and even my own trial lawyer who was a former judge and prosecutor, all of whom know I was innocent and all of whom are wise enough to know the difference in garbage and corruption versus evidence of guilt. So for now, ignore the conspiratorial hints of corruption. We will get to that in a whole other episode. And again, strip away the bluster.

[00:58:49] What Kenzu is telling us there is that his own daughters have implied he is guilty. Not only do they know him better than any of his defenders, but his daughters, one of whom is Michelle's child, also have presumably had access to Michelle. Why would they think he was guilty if they actually believed she was with him in another town at the time of the murder? Do they know something we do not? Let's wrap up this episode by talking about another issue raised by Kenzu and his team. There's been a lot of talk from them about how a witness in this case

[00:59:18] was hypnotized and the implication seems to be that there was something unsavory about that. So let's dive into that issue. Before we do, we want to stress that the information out there about this is generally inaccurate. The claim that this witness in question had to be hypnotized in order to recover memories of the appearance of the suspicious person he saw, I mean, that would clearly be highly inappropriate, but that's just not what happened. As you've heard in our previous episode on this case, a man named Rene Gobine

[00:59:47] was in the area of the murder at the time it happened. He saw a man in a car drive away from the scene. He gave police a description of that man and later identified him as none other than Temujin Kinzu. In addition to all of that, Rene did something that day that would make about an hour and a half after the shooting, Rene was interviewed by poor Huron police officer James Carmody. Rene told Carmody the same story

[01:00:17] he would later testify to in court. Namely, Rene was standing in the college parking lot a short distance away from where Scott Macklin was shot and killed. Rene heard a gunshot and a scream. He then saw a vehicle pull away from that area and the driver of that vehicle was trying to hide his face. That seems suspicious to me, Rene. Despite the driver's efforts, Rene got a good look at him and provided a description of the man to Officer Carmody. In addition to that, Rene made a note of the car's license plate and he gave that to Carmody as well.

[01:00:47] Carmody called his office and had them run the license plate number. He came back as being registered to an industrial company in Detroit. The officer checked back with Rene. Was he positive he had gotten that license plate number down correctly? Rene conceded that he might have made a mistake with a few of the numbers. And this is where he got the idea that would really complicate things down the road. He told Carmody that he was about to go to his psychology class. Maybe the teacher, a man named Dr. Mooney,

[01:01:16] could use hypnosis on Rene so they could get an accurate license plate number. Carmody told him not to do that, that he should just wait and see what the detectives on the case said. But Rene went ahead and did it anyway. So let's just stop here for a second. This hypnosis was not done at the request of the police. And the focus of it was to try to get a license plate number. And here's the most important point to remember. The hypnosis only happened after Rene had given

[01:01:45] a detailed statement to the officer about what he had seen. And that statement included a description of the man he had observed. The reason that is crucial is because Michigan does not want to allow in unreliable testimony. They don't want the jury to hear something from a witness that may have been tainted by the hypnotic process. Having a detailed pre-hypnosis statement from Rene allowed the court to easily compare what Rene remembered before the hypnosis to what he recalled

[01:02:15] after the hypnosis. And, as it turned out, his memory of the event did not seem to have been affected in the slightest by the hypnosis. Rene then was allowed to testify about what he saw in the parking lot that morning. But, out of an abundance of caution, he was only permitted to testify to details he had related to the officer prior to being hypnotized. So that meant the judge refused to allow him to talk about a few items.

[01:02:44] For instance, after the hypnosis, Rene made a statement about where exactly he saw the hands of the driver of the car. But he was not known to have made any statement to the officer about the driver's hands prior to being hypnotized. So, the judge did not allow him to testify about that detail during the trial. The upshot of all of this is, at least in our minds, the talk about the hypnotized witness is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it happened, but it did not affect Rene's recollection of what he saw. And furthermore,

[01:03:14] the judge took pains to ensure that Rene did not bring up any details in his testimony that he had not reported prior to the hypnosis. It seems clear that the use of hypnosis here did not have an impact on Kenzu's right to a fair trial. Now, after listening to all this, we imagine there is one thing you must be curious about. Temujin Kenzu says he did not kill Scott Macklin. So, who does he think did it? Well, we will explore that in one of our next episodes. Spoiler alert, Kenzu's theory

[01:03:44] is stupid. We will also discuss the disturbing things Kenzu and his wife do online in the name of their so-called advocacy. We will also share a letter that we feel offers perhaps the purest look at the real Temujin Kenzu. But, in our very next episode on this case, we will ask you to go back with us to 2010 and join us at a public hearing at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility. The topic is whether or not Temujin Kenzu should be released from custody. And, as you will hear,

[01:04:14] a lot of his victims had quite a lot to say. And here's another spoiler alert. He did not get out. This episode will explain why. 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.

[01:04:44] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murder sheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murder sheet. We very much appreciate any support. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can

[01:05:14] find on the web at kevintg.com 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.