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

Episode Information:

• Title: The Murder of Scott Macklem: The Guilt of Temujin Kensu Part Three "You Weren't in The Car"
• Release Date: May 13, 2025
• Podcast: Murder Sheet
• Hosts: Áine Cain (Journalist) and Kevin Greenlee (Attorney)
• Description: The Murder Sheet takes a journalistic approach to true crime, delving into both high-profile and obscure cases with in-depth coverage, legal analysis, and expert interviews. This episode continues the series on the 1986 murder of Scott Macklem and the conviction of Temujin Kenzu.

Introduction to the Case ([03:49] - [07:31])

The episode commences with host introductions, followed by a transition into the central true crime discussion. Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee set the stage for Part Three of their deep dive into the murder of Scott Macklem and the subsequent conviction of Temujin Kenzu.

Case Background and Conviction ([04:00] - [10:00])

Scott Macklem's Murder: On November 5, 1986, 20-year-old Scott Macklem was tragically shot to death in a parking lot outside St. Clair Community College in Port Huron, Michigan. Scott was on the verge of significant life milestones, including expecting a baby with his fiancée, Crystal.

Temujin Kenzu's Conviction: Six months post-murder, Temujin Kenzu was found guilty by a jury and has remained incarcerated since. Kenzu, who has used multiple aliases (e.g., Frederick Freeman, John Lamar), staunchly maintains his innocence. His wife, Paula Kenzu, has actively campaigned for his release, including controversial actions such as publicly attacking a woman Kenzu allegedly raped and disclosing her personal information.

Hosts' Stance: Áine Cain asserts, “We concluded he was guilty as charged,” aligning with numerous court reviews that upheld the jury’s verdict ([05:20]-[10:00]).

Evidence Against Kenzu ([08:12] - [10:00])

Kevin Greenlee outlines the key evidence that led to Kenzu's conviction:

• Violent History: Kenzu was known for violent behavior, including rape and threats against Scott.
• Witness Placements: Multiple witnesses identified Kenzu at the murder scene and his distinctive coat was found in his vehicle.
• Weapon: Kenzu owned a shotgun matching the murder weapon, which vanished post-crime.
• Incriminating Statements: Kenzu made statements implicating himself in phone calls with Crystal and Philip Joplin.
• Appearance Alteration: Kenzu attempted to change his appearance before witness lineups, indicating potential guilt.

Áine Cain emphasizes the robustness of this evidence, stating, “We are in agreement with the many courts that have reviewed his case and found no reason to doubt the jury's verdict” ([09:33]-[10:00]).

Alibi Witnesses and Their Manipulation ([10:25] - [35:20])

Alibi Claims: Kenzu and his supporters posit that he was in Escanaba, Michigan, hundreds of miles from Port Huron at the time of Scott's murder. Initially, multiple witnesses appeared to support this alibi, though their testimonies fall outside the critical time window necessary to exonerate Kenzu.

Key Points:

• Witness Testimonies: Only two witnesses, Kathleen Dyer and John Manali, placed Kenzu in Escanaba during the crucial time frame.
• Memory Manipulation: Both witnesses received calls from Kenzu attempting to alter their recollections. Melvin Carlson, another witness, testified that Kenzu tried to confuse him about his presence on the day of the murder ([12:12]-[35:20]).
• Judicial Observations: A juror noted, “His alibi was too perfect. He called too many people” ([34:21]), indicating the jury’s skepticism toward the manipulated alibi.

Hosts' Analysis: Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee argue that the alibi witnesses were manipulated, diminishing their credibility. They highlight that the jury, observing the pattern of manipulation, likely dismissed these alibi claims despite hearing firsthand testimonies ([24:11]-[35:20]).

Prosecution's Rebuttal: The Plane Theory ([35:20] - [42:29])

Rebuttal Witness: The prosecution introduced a minor witness to explain how Kenzu could have traveled from Escanaba to Port Huron swiftly, potentially by plane. However, Áine and Kevin assert that this aspect was not central to the case and largely exaggerated by Kenzu’s defenders.

Hosts' Perspective: They contend that the plane theory was a peripheral element, insufficient to counteract the core evidence against Kenzu. They emphasize that the jury likely did not find this rebuttal compelling enough to overturn the conviction ([35:20]-[42:29]).

Philip Joplin's Testimony and Recantation ([42:29] - [52:12])

Initial Testimony: Philip Joplin, who shared a cell with Kenzu, testified that Kenzu boasted about an "airtight alibi." Joplin’s statements were considered credible and consistent during the trial ([43:51]-[44:51]).

Recantation Claims: Years later, Joplin purportedly recanted his testimony, claiming he was coerced into implicating someone else. However, Áine and Kevin highlight inconsistencies:

• Hearsay Nature: Joplin's recantation was informal and lacked the credibility of sworn testimony.
• Lack of Action: Despite multiple years passing, Joplin never formally recanted in court before his death in 1998, raising doubts about the legitimacy of his claims ([45:31]-[52:12]).

Prosecutor’s Statement: Robert Cleland, the prosecutor, asserted that Joplin had motivations rooted in resentment and personal safety, undermining the credibility of his recantation ([52:12]-[53:45]).

Michelle's Credibility and Strategic Absence ([52:12] - [59:18])

Michelle's Role: Michelle, Kenzu’s partner at the time of his arrest, was prepared to testify that Kenzu was with her during the murder. However, Kenzu’s defense attorney, David Dean, strategically chose not to call her as a witness.

Reasons for Exclusion:

• Potential Deception: Hosts argue Michelle may have lied out of fear or trauma, given Kenzu’s history of abuse. Áine notes, “Michelle was living in fear” and has admitted to lying to investigators, thereby discrediting her potential testimony ([55:23]-[59:18]).
• Strategic Risks: Including Michelle could have exposed Kenzu’s abusive behavior, weakening the defense’s case and reinforcing the prosecution’s narrative ([56:48]-[57:34]).

Hosts' Conclusion: Áine and Kevin contend that Michelle’s exclusion was a calculated move to avoid unreliable or damaging testimony, further questioning the defense's strategy rather than the validity of Kenzu's conviction ([54:03]-[59:18]).

Hypnosis of Witness Renee Gobain ([59:18] - [66:22])

Witness Background: Renee Gobain witnessed the murder scene and provided a description of Kenzu. Due to uncertainties in recalling the license plate, he underwent hypnosis to aid memory.

Hosts' Analysis: Áine and Kevin clarify that:

• Non-Influential: Hypnosis did not alter Gobain’s core testimony. Pre- and post-hypnosis statements remained consistent.
• Judicial Safeguards: The judge limited Gobain’s testimony to details established before hypnosis, ensuring no tainted information influenced the trial ([62:19]-[66:22]).

Conclusion on Hypnosis: The use of hypnosis was a non-impactful procedural step that did not compromise the integrity of Gobain’s eyewitness account ([66:22]).

Conclusion and Teasers for Future Episodes ([66:22] - End)

Áine and Kevin wrap up the episode by addressing future topics, including:

• Kenzu’s Conspiracy Theories: Previewing discussions on Kenzu’s own unfounded theories about the murder.
• Public Hearings: Teasing a detailed examination of the 2010 public hearing at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility regarding Kenzu’s potential release.
• Victims' Voices: Highlighting testimonies from Kenzu’s victims and why he remained incarcerated.

Final Remarks: The hosts reaffirm their stance on Kenzu's guilt, emphasizing the pattern of manipulation and abuse that solidifies the conviction despite claims of wrongful imprisonment.

Notable Quotes:

• Juror on Alibi: “His alibi was too perfect. He called too many people.” ([34:21])
• Kenzu’s Letter to Daughters: “You each have the temerity and thus the stupidity to imply that I might be guilty of this crime...” ([61:06])
• Prosecutor Cleland on Joplin: “I believe that the most reasonable explanation for Joplin's decision to avoid Woodside... had an obvious motivation to disclaim the truthfulness of his trial testimony.” ([52:12]-[53:45])

Key Takeaways:

• Strong Evidence: The hosts present a compelling case supporting Kenzu’s guilt, highlighting consistent evidence and the dismissal of manipulated alibi witnesses.
• Witness Manipulation: Emphasis on Kenzu’s attempts to alter witness testimonies undermines the claims of a wrongful conviction.
• Strategic Defense: The exclusion of key witnesses like Michelle indicates strategic defenses rather than factual exoneration.

This detailed analysis provides listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding the murder of Scott Macklem and the conviction of Temujin Kenzu, reinforcing the podcast's commitment to thorough and thoughtful true crime reporting.