Bonus Episode 1 with Julia Cowley from The Consult

Jason Usry joins me to discuss the commutation hearing from 2010 as well as the evidence that works against Temujin Kensu ever having his sentence commuted or his conviction reversed.  Website: FramedPod.com Instagram: @FramedPod YouTube:  Framed: An Investigative Story - YouTube

The anguish over the lost habeas petition wasn't the only difficulty that Temujin Kensu and his supporters would face in the fall of 2010. A month before the decision, he stood before the Michigan State Parole Board, hoping to have his sentence commuted and ultimately win his freedom. But as the board peppered him with questions designed to assess his readiness for release, Kensu seemed to be his own worst enemy. And when multiple witnesses stepped forward to strenuously oppose his freedom, the weight of their testimony once again crushed his hopes of walking beyond the prison walls. Despite this considerable and rather alarming oppositional testimony, many influential advocacy organizations and powerful supporters remained steadfast in their belief in Kensu's innocence, sustaining their efforts in the hope of reversing what they considered his wrongful conviction. But were his advocates engaging in a righteous battle to correct a grave injustice, or were they instead unwitting pawns in a masterfully orchestrated deception? Framedpod.com

As we learned in the last episode, Temujin Kensu – formerly Fred Freeman, was now serving life without the possibility of parole in the Michigan prison system. Having been convicted of the crime of first-degree murder in the shotgun death of college student Scott Macklem, the jury had recommended the maximum penalty allowable in the state of Michigan. But true to his rebellious nature, Kensu would not settle silently into life behind bars. Kensu began educating himself in - among other subjects - legal matters. He had also garnered support and assistance from some enormously powerful organizations and individuals who believed him to be innocent of the crime for which he had been sentenced to life in prison. Would his efforts - and those of his many supporters - be rewarded, or would he be constantly frustrated in his attempts to win his freedom? Framedpod.com

Robin from The Trail Went Cold joins me to discuss how the defense attacked the prosecution's theory, their witnesses as well as how the public perceives a defendant with skeletons in their closet.

On May 15, 1987, twelve jurors were charged with determining the guilt or innocence of Frederick Freeman in the first-degree murder of Scott A. Macklem. The State's theory relied upon the jury believing that Freeman, 23, was a violent, manipulative, self-proclaimed ninja warrior who was consumed by jealousy and rage. With an unrelenting need to control his former girlfriend by any means necessary, the prosecution maintained, Fred deliberately ambushed and executed his unsuspecting victim as he arrived on the campus. The State had presented 30 witnesses – several of them eyewitnesses who placed Freeman near the scene – to support their theory. However, the defense countered that this was pure fantasy, and that Freeman was actually 436 miles away in Escanaba at the time of the murder – and they were able to provide a series of equally credible eyewitnesses to prove it. After nearly three weeks of harrowing, emotional testimony on both sides, it was now up to the jury to reach a conclusion – would Freeman walk out of the courtroom as a truly free man, or would he spend the remainder of his life in prison? Framedpod.com

Over the last few weeks, a St. Clair jury had been introduced to a variety of alleged eyewitnesses to the crime, and listened to damaging - but sometimes conflicting - accounts of the events of the morning of November 5th, 1986. Additionally, they had heard key testimony as to the defendant's character – primarily from the victim's fiancée, Crystal Merrill, who had briefly dated Fred. Her scathing portrayal of Freeman as a manipulative and abusive individual – who, according to her testimony, claimed to be a Ninja warrior in a secret organization. The prosecution's case also featured the testimony of Phillip Joplin, a career criminal who contended that Freeman had nonchalantly confessed to the murder to him while the two were being held for a couple of hours in the same cell. But now it was the defense's turn, and they had strong eyewitnesses of their own to present. Could a parade of purportedly unbiased individuals – several who, frankly, didn't even particularly care for Fred Freeman – counteract the impact of the prosecution's case? Website & Socials: Framedpod.com | @FramedPod

Brett from The Prosecutors podcast discusses the prosecution of Frederick Freeman, conflicts of interest, admission of evidence, and witnesses. Web and Socials:      FramedPod.com    |   @FramedPod

Frederick Freeman was sitting in St. Clair County Jail pending his April 1987 trial. He was facing first-degree murder charges in the death of St. Clair Community College student Scott Macklem, a member of a prominent Croswell, MI family. The motive for the killing seemed improbably thin; Port Huron police asserted that Freeman had shot the young man out of jealousy, based on his brief, two-month relationship with Macklem's fiancée, Crystal Merrill. The real hurdle was the fact that Freeman was seen 436 miles away right about the time of the shooting. Combined with the fact that no credible evidence of Fred's guilt could be found, the case should have been quite difficult to prove. However, the prosecution had a novel approach to presenting their case, and a truly imaginative theory of how a cash-strapped, 23-year-old who sometimes landed on the wrong side of the law could have accomplished what seemed to be impossible... Framedpod.com

The shocking murder of St. Clair Community College student Scott Macklem cried out for justice, and the State of Michigan was determined to hold someone accountable for the crime – even in the face of a seemingly airtight alibi. But considering the methods and theories used to achieve that goal, we must question whether justice can possibly be served when a case relies heavily on conjecture, supposition, wild theories, faulty hypnosis, and unreliable witnesses. To understand the present, we must disassemble the past and learn how we arrived where we are today… Framedpod.com

Julia Cowley of The Consult podcast joins me to discuss the first two episodes of this season. With her significant training and experience with the FBI, Julia talks about the evidence and the behaviors exhibited by the perpetrator as well as by the prime suspect in the case. Website: Framedpod.com Social media: @FramedPod