I’m firmly in the camp that believes good true crime, reputable true crime, should never be about sensationalism. It should be about uncovering uncomfortable truths long buried beneath bias, conspiracy, and narrative convenience. It should prioritize records over rhetoric and verification over vibes.
This week, a podcast happened to catch my ear; one that made a lot of things click into place.
The subject was Temujin Kensu. What stood out wasn’t just the case itself, but the way it was handled. The analysis rang true because it was disciplined. It resisted mythology. It insisted on distinguishing between what people say happened and what the record actually supports.
When Charisma Replaces Verification
One reason this episode hit home is personal.
At one point, I too believed claims I should have verified sooner. I was new to criminal justice advocacy, overwhelmed by my own circumstances, and searching for something that felt coherent and hopeful. Like many people, I was drawn in by confidence and conviction rather than documentation.
That’s not an excuse. It’s a lesson.
What I’ve since learned is how easily advocacy spaces can become vulnerable when loyalty and persuasion start to stand in for evidence. When a single narrative or figure becomes central, pressure can quietly build; pressure to defend, to amplify, to “do the work” on someone else’s behalf. Over time, that dynamic can blur boundaries and create real harm, even when participants believe they’re acting for a just cause.
I’m deliberately avoiding naming private individuals here. This isn’t about settling scores or assigning labels. It’s about recognizing a pattern: when belief outruns verification, accountability erodes.
Why The Murder Sheet Gets It Right
The Murder Sheet’s deep dive into the 1986 murder of Scott Macklem and the conviction of Temujin Kensu (formerly Frederick Freeman) exemplifies responsible true crime reporting. Their work doesn’t ask listeners to pick a side based on personality or emotional appeal. It asks them to follow the evidence.
The podcast carefully dissects claims that have circulated for decades and tests them against the record; trial testimony, witness statements, investigative findings, and appellate decisions. It doesn’t sensationalize inconsistencies; it contextualizes them. And it’s that methodical approach that makes the analysis compelling.
Key Takeaways from the Series
1. The Alibi Narrative and Memory Contamination
Listeners often hear the claim that Kensu was “hundreds of miles away” at the time of the murder. The Murder Sheet doesn’t simply repeat that assertion. It examines how alibi testimony evolved, how witness memories were influenced over time, and why those accounts failed to persuade a jury. The takeaway isn’t that memory is malicious, it’s that memory is malleable, especially when reinforced through repeated contact and shared narratives.
2. The Flight Theory in Context
The idea that Kensu could have traveled to commit the crime and returned has been framed as implausible. The podcast clarifies that this theory was not at all the cornerstone of the prosecution’s case. It emerged as a rebuttal after alibi claims were raised and was weighed alongside the totality of evidence. Whether or not one finds the travel scenario persuasive, it was not dispositive on its own.
3. Evidence of Threats and Consciousness of Guilt
What distinguishes The Murder Sheet’s reporting is its attention to texture: allegations of threats, efforts to alter appearance, and conduct interpreted by investigators and jurors as consciousness of guilt. These elements aren’t presented for shock value; they’re examined for how they fit into the broader evidentiary picture considered at trial.
4. A Daughter’s Account
In two powerful episodes, the podcast gives space to the perspective of Kensu’s biological daughter, Leyna. Her account describes fear, emotional control, and the lasting impact of incarceration dynamics on a family. Whether listeners agree with every interpretation or not, her testimony provides insight into the human consequences that extend beyond courtroom arguments.
Why This Analysis Matters
In an era saturated with revisionist storytelling and online conspiracy, The Murder Sheet models something increasingly rare: careful reporting anchored in primary sources. Their conclusions align not just with media narratives, but with findings upheld by courts, jurors, and reviewing authorities.
That doesn’t mean the system is infallible. It means claims deserve to be tested, not recycled.
Pulling It Together
What this podcast reinforced for me is how easy it is to confuse wanting something to be true with it being true. Charisma is powerful. Conviction is persuasive. But neither substitutes for records.
If there’s one takeaway I hope readers leave with, it’s this: don’t beat yourself up for believing a compelling story. Many people do. But believing something doesn’t make it factual, and advocacy doesn’t excuse skipping verification.
How to Avoid Getting Duped
Do your homework. Hot takes don’t free people or keep communities safe. Primary sources do. Here’s a practical way to sanity-check any case:
- Start at the docket. Pull charging documents, complaints, and case registers. Note dates and filings.
- Follow the record. Read both sides’ briefs and the court’s orders. Work backward.
- Review sworn testimony. Treat unsworn statements with caution.
- Examine exhibits. Photos, videos, phone records, expert reports—avoid cropped screenshots and summaries.
- Read appellate opinions. They often clarify what actually mattered legally.
- Build a timeline. Plot events against objective records.
- Separate claims from findings. Label each item clearly.
- Ask who benefits. Consider incentives behind every narrative.
- Cross-verify. If it isn’t corroborated, treat it as unproven.
Bottom line: don’t outsource your judgment to influencers, headlines, or even your favorite podcast. Especially in a space where many voices are new and still learning the discipline of research.
Read the filings. Compare the facts. Always do your homework.
And if something smells off, it probably is.
Podcast Episodes:
- The Murder of Scott Macklem: The Guilt of Temujin Kensu: Leyna’s Story: Part One
- The Murder of Scott Macklem: The Guilt of Temujin Kensu: Leyna’s Story: Part Two
- The Murder of Scott Macklem: The Guilt of Temujin Kensu: The Police Investigation
- The Murder of Scott Macklem: The Guilt of Temujin Kensu Part Seven: Questions
Check out the full podcast here or anywhere you get your podcasts.
