In recent weeks, public discussion around the Temujin Kensu case has intensified, particularly following reporting by The Murder Sheet podcast regarding digital contraband inside Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) facilities.
Separately, I have personally experienced online threats of litigation related to my coverage of these events. Similar threats have reportedly been directed at others who have written or spoken publicly about the same subject matter. I want to be clear: reporting on publicly documented matters, policy issues, and ongoing public interest questions is not false reporting, nor is it harassment.
You may remember from The Murder Sheet Podcast that Michigan DOC records revealed Kensu had recently been reprimanded for having eight jailbroken tablets and one wifi booster stick in his possession.
Clutch gained access to those records, and you can see them here.
New Information About Unauthorized Wi-Fi Access (Source-Based)
Since publishing my earlier reporting, an individual with firsthand knowledge of conditions at Macomb Correctional Facility (MCF) has come forward with additional context regarding how unauthorized internet access may have occurred.
According to this source, incarcerated individuals at MCF were allegedly able to access an external Wi-Fi signal originating from a neighboring property. Public mapping confirms that MCF is located immediately adjacent to Oak Ridge Golf Course, placing parts of the facility within potential signal range of a commercial or public hotspot.
The source explained that jail-broken tablets, devices altered to bypass MDOC security restrictions could, in theory, connect to such a signal using Wi-Fi-extending hardware. This explanation offers a plausible technical context for how internet access may have occurred, without relying on conspiracy or speculation.
Relation to Public Reporting
As previously reported by The Murder Sheet, MDOC records indicate that Temujin Kensu was disciplined for possession of multiple altered tablets and an unauthorized Wi-Fi-capable device. The podcast’s reporting raised questions about how internet access may have been achieved within the facility.
The explanation provided by my source does not introduce new allegations against any individual; rather, it offers a possible mechanism consistent with existing public reporting and MDOC policy concerns.
Institutional Response (As Reported by Sources)
According to the same source, once the neighboring property became aware of potential unauthorized use of its Wi-Fi network, steps were taken to secure the signal. The source further stated that facility inspectors at MCF were notified.
Following that notification, MDOC records reflect that Kensu was subject to institutional discipline, including segregation and removal of electronic devices. MDOC has still not publicly released a detailed statement outlining the sequence of events or the full scope of the incident.
See the FOIA Request here.
Online Speculation and What Can (and Cannot) Be Verified
Members of the true-crime community have long speculated about the authorship of social-media posts made in The Gallery, a Facebook group associated with The Prosecutors Podcast. The Murder Sheet addressed these questions directly, explaining why they believe Kensu himself authored the posts in question.
While timing and technical access have fueled online discussion, it is important to note that conclusions about online behavior must rest on documentation, platform records, or verified admissions rather than inference alone.
Unconfirmed Allegations and What Remains Unknown
My source also indicated that there may have been discussions involving third parties related to knowledge of unauthorized Wi-Fi use. Those discussions allegedly ended once institutional scrutiny increased. At this time, there is no public documentation confirming the nature or existence of any such arrangements, and no conclusions should be drawn beyond that acknowledgment.
It is also currently unknown whether MDOC or external law enforcement agencies are pursuing additional investigations related to the broader scope of unauthorized internet access at MCF. MDOC has not publicly disclosed whether other individuals were involved, what content was accessed, or whether any external harm resulted.
The Larger Oversight Question
The more significant issue raised by this situation is not individual misconduct, but institutional preparedness.
Correctional systems across the country are grappling with outdated digital infrastructure, inconsistent enforcement, and evolving technology. When secure systems fail to adapt, unauthorized workarounds emerge. This has prompted MDOC, like many states, to explore countermeasures such as signal detection and jamming technologies.
Understanding how and why digital contraband incidents occur is essential for evaluating whether current policies effectively balance security, oversight, and transparency.
A Note on Safety and Accountability
Public discourse around incarceration often frames prisons as mechanisms for public protection. When unauthorized communication occurs, it raises legitimate questions about whether existing safeguards are sufficient and how accountability is enforced.
MDOC has not, as of this writing, issued a comprehensive public explanation addressing the full extent of this incident. A pending FOIA request may provide additional clarity, and this reporting will be updated as verified information becomes available.
Update (11/20/25)
A new source shared a publicly available Facebook page operating under a pseudonym, which includes screenshots purporting to show communication with MDOC personnel regarding concerns about online behavior attributed to individuals connected to this case.
Dated August 18, 2025, an email to Michigan DOC staff member Todd VonHiltmayer references concerns about online conduct and public interactions. Because the sender’s identity cannot be independently verified and similar reports were submitted by numerous members of the public, it is not possible to determine authorship or intent.
However, public employee records indicate that an individual with a similar name is associated with Macomb Correctional Facility, suggesting the communication may have reached appropriate institutional channels. No conclusions beyond that can be responsibly drawn at this time.
