"Hell on Wheels" Mackenzie Shirilla Murder Appeal Rejected

Summary

---

Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno

Episode: "Hell on Wheels" - Mackenzie Shirilla Murder Appeal Rejected

Guest: Nima Romani (former federal prosecutor)

Release Date: July 2, 2026

---

Episode Overview

Donna Rotunno and former federal prosecutor Nima Romani discuss the high-profile case of Mackenzie Shirilla, focusing on her failed murder conviction appeal and broader implications for criminal law, defense strategy, and the court of public opinion. The conversation unpacks the legal issues surrounding the appeal denial due to a procedural error, the realities of defense tactics, the impact of media attention, parole considerations, and the importance of centering victims in such discussions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Denial of Appeal: Procedural Grounds

• Summary:
  The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Mackenzie Shirilla’s appeal, affirming lower courts’ decisions. The appeal was filed late – on the 366th day instead of within the required 365 days due to a leap year miscalculation.
• Legal Analysis:
  • Strict Adherence to Rules: Filing deadlines are jurisdictional and non-negotiable. Courts have little to no discretion when requirements are missed.
    • [02:29] Nima Romani: "When you're talking about a jurisdictional requirement, there's really nothing the court can do...these deadlines exist for a reason. It's not like you can be a day late, even an hour late."
  • Potential for Malpractice: Possible ineffective assistance claim, but unlikely to change the outcome unless actual prejudice (per Strickland standard) can be shown, which both agree is doubtful.

2. Defense Strategy and the Failed POTS Defense

• Medical Defense Details:
  The defense invoked POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome) as a medical explanation (passing out while driving), using testimony from Mackenzie’s mother, not medical experts.
  • [06:23] Nima Romani: "It's not what I know, it's what I can prove...You're going to have to establish medical causation if you're going to present a defense like this...if you don't have the goods, you don't have the evidence, you don't have a doctor that's going to stick his or her neck out—then you really don't have anything."
• Weaknesses Noted:
  No documentation, hospital records, or professional testimony supported a medical event at the time of the crash.
  • Bodycam Evidence:
    • Notable Moment: Mackenzie is overheard on hospital bodycam, asking her mother in a coded language, "can't we just tell them I had a seizure?" [08:16]
    • [08:16] Donna Rotunno: "That's pretty damaging...even if she was to put forth some type of evidence that this was taking place because it was clear that she was trying to use that as a reason when clearly it wasn't."
• Expert Appraisal:
  Both hosts agree there was no viable evidence for the POTS defense—"it just wasn't there."

3. The Impact of Media and the Court of Public Opinion

• Netflix Documentary & Public Sympathy:
  • Media attention can drastically shape public perception and even influence legal proceedings.
    • [12:13] Nima Romani: "The attention the case has gotten really shows the power of a Netflix series...public support might be one of her best opportunities...prosecutors are either elected or appointed—if there is overwhelming support, someone might take a look."
• Changing Persona:
  Mackenzie’s appearance and demeanor have notably shifted over time, perhaps influenced by age, institutionalization, or media strategy.
• Phone Calls & Image Management:
  Mackenzie and her mother’s recorded phone calls are considered damaging, showing a lack of accountability and self-awareness, which could hurt her future parole prospects.
  • [16:21] Nima Romani: "When you're talking about being a victim when you're responsible for killing two other people—it's incredibly tone deaf, I think it's distasteful, and frankly makes her seem not likable."

4. Parole and Sentencing Analysis

• Sentencing Facts:
  Mackenzie received two 15-to-life sentences, but they run concurrently, making her eligible for parole in 15 years.
  • [17:08] Donna Rotunno: "That judge could have very easily ran those consecutive to one another, meaning she wouldn't have been up for parole for 30 years."
• Bench Trial vs. Jury Trial:
  The defense opted for a bench trial, an unusual strategy for this type of case.
  • [18:00] Nima Romani: "Defense lawyering 101, is you never waive jury trial...if the defense knew something about this particular judge, that's a different story, but not a typical decision."
• Parole Prospects:
  Given Mackenzie’s behavior in prison, lack of responsibility, and ongoing minimization by her family, her chances of early parole are slim.
  • [21:52] Nima Romani: "What parole boards look for is...acceptance of responsibility...her statements earlier that she too is a victim...does not strike me as someone that's deserving of any leniency."

5. Victims, Relationships, and Consequences

• Victims Centering Argument:
  The case’s coverage often focuses on Mackenzie, overshadowing the lives lost—especially Davion, who was uninvolved in the conflict.
• Toxic Relationship and Intent:
  Evidence supports that the act was intentional (EDR data: five seconds without braking at 100mph into a wall), born out of emotional instability rather than rational planning.
  • [27:34] Nima Romani: "Five seconds is a long period of time for no change in speed, for no change in direction. I think it all leads to one reasonable conclusion—that this was someone who was acting emotionally and she did not care for the safety...of anyone in that vehicle."

6. Fan and Supporter Dynamics

• Crime Fandom Nuances:
  Mackenzie’s supporters differ from other notorious defendant fan bases—many genuinely believe in her innocence or a medical event, not out of ideology or vengeance.
  • Contrasted with "Free Luigi Mangione" supporters, who openly acknowledge guilt but justify the act for ideological reasons.
    • [32:31] Donna Rotunno: "They're not there because they don't think he did it. They're there because they think he was justified."

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Filing Deadlines:
  • [02:29] Nima Romani: "It's not like you can be a day late, even an hour late...these deadlines exist for a reason."
• On Medical Defenses:
  • [06:23] Nima Romani: "It's not what I know, it's what I can prove."
• On Bodycam Evidence:
  • [08:16] Donna Rotunno: "Can't we just tell them I had a seizure? I mean, I think that's pretty damaging."
• On Media’s Influence:
  • [12:13] Nima Romani: "The attention the case has gotten really shows the power of a Netflix series."
• On Recorded Jail Calls:
  • [16:21] Nima Romani: "It's distasteful and frankly makes her seem not likable."
• On Parole:
  • [21:52] Nima Romani: "If you have someone that has not accepted responsibility...not deserving of any leniency."
• On Social Media Investigations:
  • [24:29] Nima Romani: "All of that now...is potentially very damaging for her, both from a PR perspective as well as any chance she has...for parole."
• On Walking Away From Jury Trials:
  • [18:00] Nima Romani: "You only have to convince one to hold out...I would not have waived jury trial."
• On Victim’s Families and Parole:
  • [28:56] Donna Rotunno: "...my heart goes out to them...the loudest voices will be the family of Davion saying this woman should be locked up for a very, very long time."
• On Crime Fandom:
  • [32:31] Donna Rotunno: "They're not there because they don't think he did it. They're there because they think he was justified."

---

Important Timestamps

• Denial of Appeal/Procedural Mistake: [02:29]
• POTS Defense and Medical Testimony: [05:08]–[07:44]
• Bodycam Evidence/Seizure Excuse: [08:16]
• Media Influence & Changing Personas: [12:13]
• Prison Phone Calls & Parole Impact: [16:21]
• Bench vs. Jury Trial Decision: [18:00]
• Parole Analysis: [21:52]
• Victims & Toxic Relationships: [27:34]
• Social Media Supporters & Fandom Comparison: [32:31]

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is sharp, analytical, and candid. Donna Rotunno and Nima Romani speak as seasoned legal professionals with a critical eye, often interjecting personal observations and shared frustrations about the broader legal system and public misperceptions. There’s empathy for the victims and their families, skepticism toward certain defense arguments, and a clear-eyed view of the realities defendants face in high-profile cases.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers an in-depth, lawyerly breakdown of the Mackenzie Shirilla case, with sharp analysis of both legal process and public perception. It highlights why procedural rules are vital, how defense strategies are chosen, the impact of media on legal narratives, and the complex realities around parole and post-conviction life—all while urging listeners not to forget the victims amid media frenzy.

Transcript

[A]

You're in your apartment alone. Then you hear something. You think, was it just the storm? You realize you're not alone. Your living room is not safe with Unhinged, the new immersive game experience brought to you by Netflix. To make it out alive, you must answer the phone. The question is, when your phone rings, will you answer, tap the banner to play Unhinged now only on Netflix.

[B]

This is crime and Justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. Mackenzie Scurrilla is back in the headlines after the Ohio Supreme Court has slammed the door on the Hell on Wheels case. If you missed our previous episode regarding MacKenzie with a former FBI profiler, be sure to go back and listen. Today we're joined by former federal prosecutor Nima Romani. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at foxnewswineshop.com with code FNRADIO20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31, 2026. Must be 21 or older. To order, please drink responsibly. So we're back with Mackenzie Shurilla. When you think that the saga of this case cannot get any crazier, here we are talking about not only did the appellate court deny her appeal, but now the Ohio Supreme Court just the other day has agreed and said that they are not going to be taking this case, which then affirms the decision of the lower court. And what I want to talk to you about here is, you know, this. The reason this appeal has been denied is it was filed and under Ohio state law, you must file your appeal within 365 days. And this appeal was filed, filed on the 366th day. Now, her lawyers recognize that. They said it was an error because it was a leap year and they didn't count the leap year. And that's why there was a mistake. So I want to get into with you, first of all, you know, we're both practicing lawyers. We understand what it means to follow rules and what rules are and why courts have them. What do you think about this decision? And there's a lot of people out there that are saying, you know, that's not fair. And so kind of give me your reaction to, to this decision, because I. It's definitely something to talk about.

[A]

Well, Donna, it may not be fair, but it's the right decision. When you're talking about a jurisdictional requirement, there's really nothing the court can do. I mean, these deadlines, they exist For a reason. It's not like you can be a day late, even an hour late. Right. So that's why as lawyers, your counsel don't file in the last day, don't even file on the last week. So it may be malpractice, may be ineffective assistance of counsel, but there's nothing that the appellate courts can or should do. If you file a petition like this late. And I know that people say, well, it's a year, but the statute specifically says within 365 days. So again, I don't want hate in the comments. It doesn't mean that, you know, it's not a decision on the merits. Right. It's just a decision on procedure and those procedural requirements matter. And there's really no wiggle room there. There's no discretion for the appellate judges. So they do have to deny these types of late petitions. And that's exactly what happened here.

[B]

Yeah, I would agree with you. I think when we're talking about these types of circumstances, the rules exist for a reason. And if you bend them here, then you're going to have every other defendant that's ever filed something late asking for the same relief. And you just, you can't have that. There's, there's a reason that the rules exist. Now, in terms of what you brought up regarding ineffective assist, does this now open the door for her to file another appeal regarding the fact that the lawyers made an error here?

[A]

Potentially. But again, I think they're not going to be able to establish prejudice. That's what you need in the famous Supreme Court case, Strickland. So for folks that are watching, there are different types of post conviction relief that's available. There's a direct appeal that's already been done and that's been adjudicated. Right. And this is different types of post conviction relief. So I'm sure we'll see habeas petitions in state and federal court attacking the conviction. But again, you really have to show that the result would have been different. And I don't think that they can necessarily prove that in this case. There's plenty of evidence of intent. I'm sure we're going to get into all that. And maybe from a defense strategy, it might have been better to go with the jury, it might have been better to prevent this medical condition or POTS defense. But I don't necessarily think, given the strong evidence to support the homicide charge, that it would have been effective in this case and the result would have been different. So regardless of whether this was timely or not or Whether there's another petition that's filed based on ineffective assistance of counsel, I do think it will be denied and the result here will be the same.

[B]

Yeah, I agree with you. And I think that even if they heard this case on the merits, it wasn't going anywhere, you know, and we'll, we'll definitely get into the issue regarding pots. Actually, let's just get into it now. So POTS was this defense that they sort of brought up, right? They brought it up through testimony of mom who testified that Mackenzie had been, been diagnosed with this diagnosis of pots, which then means that she could fall asleep or kind of pass out at any time. Now there was no medical backing up of that, that diagnosis. They didn't call any medical professionals. And I know that that was part of this appeal. Had it been looked at on the merits, that would have been something that the courts decided. Now you and I know, and talk to me a little bit about the way courts view attorneys decisions to not put on certain evidence because obviously they brought it up through the mom, because my guess is mom was saying to the lawyer, we have to bring this up, we have to bring this up. But lawyer probably knew that he did not have medical evidence to be able to establish that. That actually was an issue here.

[A]

I think that's right, Donna. And I always tell clients, it's not what I know, it's what I can prove. And it doesn't matter what you say or tell, we got to show it, right? So show versus tell. And obviously this is a judge. Judge isn't going to be stupid. You're going to have to establish medical causation if you're going to present a defense like this. And how do you get that through a medical doctor? So I'm guessing, although I'm not sure obviously that they couldn't find a medical doctor, a treating physician, someone that's gonna opine that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty Mackenzie Shurilla suffered some medical episode at or near the time of this crash. Right. I mean, obviously if they did, that would be a very good defense in this case. But if you don't have the goods, you don't have the evidence, you don't have a doctor that's going to stick his or her neck out and say that under penalty of perjury in a court of law, then you really don't have anything. You know, I think the self serving statement of Mom, dad, you know, McKinsey is probably not going to be enough in a case like this. Look, maybe for a jury potentially But a judge is going to see right through that. Right. Someone that is going to have an episode where they seize where they fall asleep. They otherwise have a lapse in consciousness without any medical support whatsoever, probably wasn't going to get them very far.

[B]

Yeah, that's what I think. I think that. That it just wasn't there. I mean, remember this crash happened. She was going almost 100 miles an hour into a brick wall and was obviously very injured and was taken immediately to a hospital for treatment. And so if during the course of that treatment they didn't find that anything, you know, happened to her or that there was no evidence that this episode or she had these episodes that took place, I. I just don't know where they think they were going with it. And I do. I think you're right. It was extremely sel. Let's put mom up there. Mom will testify to this, maybe throw it out there as some, you know, potential avenue for reasonable doubt. But, you know, obviously a judge knows what it takes to prove those things, and it just didn't happen. And so I think really, at the end of the day, the lawyer did probably the best he could with the evidence that was. That was available and that was there. And I think the thing that most people don't talk about because so many people online are discussing this, this POTS defense and that she should have been able to go down this road. And I don't think they real that she could have. The evidence just probably wasn't there. But I think they're leaving out a really important piece of information when we're talking about it, which was her statement to her mother when the police officer walked in the hospital room to try to talk to her. And on the body camera, you hear her asking her mother in this language that they speak to in each other, can't we just tell them I had a seizure? I mean, I think that's pretty damaging. Even if she was to put forth some type of evidence that this was taking place because it was clear that she was trying to use that as a reason when clearly it wasn't.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, that's certainly going to be harmful fodder for cross examination. And look, you know, I have family members with epilepsy that have suffered seizures. So I've dealt with it my whole life. It's certainly possible that you could develop it at a later age. But oftentimes, right. These types of seizures or seizing episodes, they manifest. Right. Someone's going to have seen a neurologist, they're going to have EEGs or other documented appointments, treatment. Oftentimes you're on seizure meds. Right. To just come up with it for the first time at a felony trial when you're facing a potential 15 to life sentence. Again, it's not going to fly. Again, it's possible, but is it reasonable? And whenever we're talking about doubt. Right. Any type of doubt has to be reasonable. So there's any type of argument that this is fabricated or for the first time in a setting where someone has died, that someone is talking about having a seizure. I think that's going to be a real tough argument. And they're really facing an uphill legal battle there.

[B]

Well, and in most states, if you do suffer from, from seizures, you can't drive a vehicle for an extended period of time from the time that you have a seizure until you can prove that there's a long period of time you have not had a seizure. So again, like you're talking about with documentation, if these types of things were happening to her on a regular basis, my guess is she wouldn't be behind the wheel as often as we saw her on social media, making her videos. You know, the whole thing just seems so ridiculous. And I'm sure the lawyer had the foresight to realize that this would be a, you know, tragic situation in a courtroom if they were to try to put this on and then all of the ways it could have been attacked without the proper documentation. So my guess is it wasn't really going anywhere. But this is something that obviously she didn't want to let go, her family didn't want to let go. The lawyers thought was important enough to put in this appeal. But I don't think even if the court looked at it on its merits, it was. It was really going anywhere. So we'll see. Why do you think that in this case she has sort of become this, like, different version of herself? We see that. Do you think it really has to do with just her age and getting older? Do you think it has to do with being sort of institutionalized in prison? I mean, we see her on these videos. We saw her in court when her first case went to trial or when the case went to trial and how she appeared? And then we see her in the Netflix documentary and we hear her now in all these phone calls with her mother, and she seems to almost have taken on a completely different Persona. It's like she looks differently, she speaks differently. What do you think that has to do with?

[A]

Well, I think the attention the case has gotten really shows the power of a Netflix series, right? I mean, it can completely change the course of a legal case. And obviously she's a little bit older now, she's a little bit more sophisticated. So she understands that if there is public support, it could potentially help her case. And look, we've seen it time and time again, right? I'm sitting here in la, right? If you told me the Menendez brothers had any chance of, you know, being out on parole at any time in their life, I would say you're crazy. Right? But look, the power of monsters, right? I mean, look at surviving R. Kelly, Britney Spears. I mean, there's so many different examples where a documentary has completely changed the course of a legal case. Again, Bob Durst, the jinx, right, finally brought to justice because of an HBO documentary. So now you have McKinsey who realizes that probably public support might be one of her best opportunities to. Because, look, I mean, every prosecutor in this country is either elected or appointed by someone who is. And I'm not saying that legal decisions are made for political reasons, but I'm also not naive. If there is overwhelming public support, all of a sudden, someone might take a look at a case. And I think probably the first example of this was cereal and Adnan said there in Maryland, right? I don't think, yes, that would have gotten all the attention. It did. He'd probably just be languishing away in prison. But all of a sudden, you know, there's a podcast and then there's a documentary and people like, wow, this guy might actually be innocent. So I think that mom And dad and McKinsey, I think they're savvy enough, even though they've said some incredibly, I think, off putting and stupid things as well. But I think they're savvy enough to know, like, hey, the way that we present ourselves and if there is sympathy. And look, the reality is in a murder case, a young female defendant is gonna be viewed differently than, you know, a middle aged dude. It's just, it's just the reality. So we need to understand, and I think everyone watching needs to know that they are playing into that. The sympathy factor for her is going to be very different than someone my age who is going to be convicted of murder. So I think that they are doing a good job. I don't want to use the word manipulating, but also understanding the importance of the public relations campaign outside the courtroom, the court of public opinion, not just what's going on in the courtroom and in those trial and appellate courts.

[B]

Well, that brings me to two things. That I want to get into one is there. I think they're savvy to a point. But then you listen to these phone calls and you listen to the things that she's saying on phones with her mother, which, you know, we all know that anytime you make calls to these institutions, every few minutes they're reminding you that your calls are being recorded. And yet I think that they should be using, if they're smart enough, they should be using those calls as an opportunity to maybe seem a little less clueless and maybe a little more dialed into the fact that these types of things maybe could help her. Because I don't think the communications she's having on these recorded lines are helping her at all. I think it makes her seem unbelievably tone deaf. I think it makes, you know, obviously anybody's mother is going to support them when they're in that situation. But I also think that it would behoove mom to maybe try to bring a dose of reality to mackenzie from time to time. And all she does is just sort of enforce what she thinks and baby her reactions. And so those phone calls we know will definitely be used at some point. Now we're hearing about them, right? They're, they're on social media, they're out in the world. People are talking about them. But how did they hurt her or help her when she's actually up for parole at the end of this 15 year period?

[A]

I agree with you, Donna. I'm on the side that they're harmful. Maybe this is a former prosecutor in me, but when you're talking about you being a victim when you're responsible for killing two other people, incredibly tone deaf, I think it's distasteful and frankly makes her seem not likable. Obviously, a lot of people are blaming the parents. You know, tolerance of marijuana use. I don't necessarily think it's, it had anything to do with this particular crash. But certainly I think the phone calls and some of the conversations do make McKinsey and her parents, especially her mom, seem not very likable, not very sympathetic. So I certainly understand the backlash on the other side.

[B]

Yeah. And I just don't see how when you're sitting in front of a parole board and just to be clear so the audience understands, she was convicted of the murder of two people. The judge gave her two 15 year to life sentences, but ran them concurrently. And I think that, you know, and we'll, I want to get into next, the decision to, to have a jury trial versus a bench trial But I think that maybe that played into the decision to do a bench trial. Maybe they thought the penalty would be less upon conviction. But that judge could have very easily ran those consecutive to one another, meaning she wouldn't have been up for parole for 30 years. So talk to me a little bit about why you think the judge chose to run the sentences concurrently and why you think they decided to go with a bench trial versus a jury trial here.

[A]

Yeah, I was certainly surprised when the defense went for a bench trial. Obviously, you really have to know your audience. The conventional wisdom, defense lawyering 101, is you never waive jury trial because again, you only have to convince one to hold out jurors. And we talked about the sympathy factor at play here, right? You know, some jurors might be looking at this young girl and saying, you know what? I can't put her away. Even though it's not the jurors in Ohio that decide the sentence, it's the judge, like it is in most states. But I would not have waived jury trial. I would say that the vast majority of criminal defense attorneys would not have waived jury trial. Now, obviously, if the defense knew something about this particular judge and had some insight, then that's a different story, but. But certainly not a typical decision. Now, as far as running the sentences consecutively or concurrently, obviously up to the discretion of the judge, you know, 30, and a lot of people, you know, that are watching probably think that she even deserves more than 30. Right. But, you know, 15 to life sentence is pretty significant for someone who was 17 years old, probably could have, maybe even should have killed herself as well during this. It's not like, you know, the fact that she is still alive is, is a minor miracle going, you know, 100 miles an hour into a brick wall without breaking, without steering. I mean, all that EDR data, I mean, it was so critically important in the trial, the fact that even she's alive. There would probably be some factors in mitigation if you're just setting aside, you know, guilty or not guilty, if you're just presenting a mitigation case. You're talking about a young girl, no criminal history. I don't know what her mental health is, but certainly it would potentially be at play if you were just making a mitigation case just at sentencing, or trying to put on some sort of mitigation package to the prosecution here, you

[B]

know, and I think you're right. And when I look at this, if I'm the prosecutor and, you know, I been on both sides, I'm currently a defense attorney, but I've been on both sides. And if I'm the prosecutor here, I'm looking at this when it comes to sentencing. And I'm showing the judge all the ways this girl has basically not only violated laws her entire, you know, teen life and, and forward, but showing sort of a disregard she had. I mean, there were so many instances on social media where she was just kind of a mean girl, like she thought the rules didn't apply to her, and she was constantly, always trying to push back on the system. And although I agree with you that in this particular circumstance where two people died, marijuana didn't probably play a major role. But there are all these videos of her in the car driving around smoking marijuana, clearly thumbing her nose at the law. And I think that I would have argued to the judge because if I look at this and I think, okay, two deaths, 15 years, you know, in most jurisdictions, I think that's a little light. I mean, if you, you know, if you stab somebody in, in Illinois, where I am, it's 20 to 60 years for one body. But if you stab two people and kill two people, it's 20 plus 20. So, you know, you have, you have the. There is no judicial discretion to determine whether or not those should be run concurrently or consecutively. They're automatically consecutive under the law. And so, you know, every state has different rules and different laws. But what' and here is it's 15 to life. And the odds of her achieving parole the first time around, given her behavior while she's in there. Right. I think is probably pretty slim. Right. The odds of her getting out at 15 when there was two dead bodies are probably, it's probably not going to happen in Ohio. What do you think about that?

[A]

I agree. It certainly wouldn't happen in California either. It's very rare for someone to get parole, period, during their first opportunity. And here you're right, what judges, what parole boards they look for is some sort of acceptance of responsibility. Right. And any state or even the federal system, if you have someone that has not accepted responsibility for what she's done, again, going back to some of her statements earlier that she too, is a victim in all this, I mean, that does not strike me as someone that's deserving of any leniency, deserving of any consideration when it comes to parole. So again, certainly not doing herself any favors. And like you said, all of this will be evidence that's presented to a parole officer or parole board when determining if that she should be released on Parole. I mean, obviously it's a discretionary decision. There's very little that can be done if parole is denied. And I would fully expect parole to be denied based on her behavior in prison so far.

[B]

Yeah. And on top of that, I just heard her mom on a podcast the other day talking about the violations that she's had, because apparently there have been multiple violations. And mom is, like, explaining them away, like, well, you have to understand that a ticket can mean anything. It can. If you have contraband, it could mean that you have somebody else's item in your cell that they let you have. And I'm thinking to myself, oh, my God, this woman is still making excuses for her. It's. If there's rules, follow them, whatever they are. And like to try to minimize every infraction she has is also not going to help her when it comes time to say, hey, look, what have you learned here? And, you know, what are the odds of. Of you being successful on the way out? And I also think that. And I want to talk about this idea that, you know, she was this victim, Right. So she. Everybody says she would have had to have a death wish. She would have wanted to kill herself, too. And I think that a logical person thinks that, and a logical person realizes that if you're driving a car over 90 miles an hour into a brick wall, odds of you surviving are probably not great. But I just don't think, given what we've seen about her before this case on all her social media in court, what we're seeing about her now, I just do not see that she was a person who. Who thought any of that through. I think this was like a manipulative. Manipulative reaction to something that was going on in that car. And it was basically like, I'll show you. Without the thought process of what the consequences might be.

[A]

Oh, there's no question. I mean, there's someone that still lacks the maturity to really understand the nature and consequences of our actions. Not to say that she's in any way not legally responsible, but. But, you know, the fact that she hadn't threatened this before, she apparently, according to cell site that had scoped out this scene, and apparently she has some issue. Right, right. With, you know, at least one of the individuals in the car. I mean, it's really an insane thing to do. I mean, one of the reasons the case got so much attention is because she was in the car. Right. Normally when people want to kill someone, they don't put themselves in as much of harm's way. That she did. Right. So I absolutely agree with you. I mean, it really was a death wish or potential death sentence for her as well, which makes the case even that much more shocking. And you're right. And now, of course, because of the high profile nature of the case, people are talking about, you know, her behavior in school, her behavior on social media. Right. How she treated other people. So all of that now, and that's because of social media and those Internet sleuths. Right. I mean, it's all coming out and it's a lot of it's potentially very damaging for her, both from a PR perspective as well as any chance she has if she were for some reason to grant a new be granted a new trial or any opportunity for parole.

[B]

You know, one of the issues that I thought was interesting in the Netflix, I think it was the Netflix documentary. And there was a couple, there was a couple on Hulu. And I tried to consume most things out there about this to, to learn as much as I could. But what I thought was really interesting was this whole idea about her being in the car with her boyfriend Dominic prior to the incident where Dominic and Davion were killed. But this happened prior and that Dominic had reached out to his mother, told his mother that she was kind of being crazy. Mom got involved, stepdad or some family member went out to go and get Dominic and mom is then texting Mackenzie. And in the appeal process, Mackenzie's mother is basically saying, you know, look, he grabbed the wheel before. Look at her text messages. Well, of course, all those text messages were what she was saying happened. Right. Completely contradicted by what Dom was telling his mother. And it seemed to me that like they wanted to paint this picture that she was this victim ahead of time, but that was the picture that Mackenzie was painting in the moment to counteract what Dom was telling his mother. So I looked at that and I thought, wow, they're really leaving an entire portion out of this. And it was. Is extremely self serving as you can get to try to be like, well, look, look at the text messages without ever pointing out what the counter response or what was going on at the same time. So I thought that was just extremely disingenuous.

[A]

Yeah, look, at a minimum, I think everyone would agree that it was a very toxic, tumultuous relationship. Right. There's a threat to crash the car. Right. Again, the fact that so much of the trial was based on this edr, the electronic data recorder. Right. The fact that, you know, you have a full five seconds is a long time you know, it'll be going full five seconds, 100 miles an hour, no braking, no steering, nothing. Right. It's such damaging evidence that I think there's really no real path for the defense, McKinsey, to argue that this was an accident. Right. I mean, five seconds is such a long period of time for no change in speed, for no change in direction. Right. So I don't think that that evidence, which really I think was not in dispute, plus this sort of volatile, toxic, highly emotional relationship, it all leads to one reasonable conclusion, that this was someone who was acting erratically, was acting rationally, was acting emotionally, and she did not care for the safety or the well being of either herself, Dominic or anyone in that vehicle. Right. I think that's the only reasonable conclusion.

[B]

And you know, poor Davion, the friend in the backseat. I mean, his family, they, they adopted Davion and his sister. I mean, this is just one of the most sad stories. And my heart goes out to them. Not, not that the tragedy is not for all of them in different ways, but something about that story. I mean, that kid was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, involved in probably some argument that he had nothing to do with and ends up losing his life. And so I, I would hate to go through, you know, an entire 30 plus and not mention and mention him because really the, the, the tragedy. And I, my guess is, you know, Dominic's family, of course, is grieving their son. But when it comes time for parole, my guess is the loudest voices will be the family of Davion saying this woman should be locked up for a very, very long time.

[A]

Yeah, I agree. And I think it's probably even harder because now you have, you know, these documentaries that have really shined a light on this case. And you know, let's be candid. You know, Mackenzie Shrub has some supporters, you know, who believe that she's actually innocent. And a case that really should be about the victims. It's really about the defendant and sympathy for the defendant, you know, and I could tell you, I got a 14 year old, I got a 15 year old, and this is every parent's worst nightmare. You always think like, who are my friend, who are my kids friends with? Right. Is something going to happen when they're with the group? Are they going to get in trouble? Are they getting drugs? Are they getting a car accident? Right. I mean, these are all the things you think of as a parent. And what ended up happening is every parent's worst nightmare something that could have, should have easily been avoided and it wasn't. And that's just incredibly, incredibly sad. So my heart goes out to the victims, their families. And you're absolutely right, Donna. Not enough is being said about them. So many people are talking about McKinsey because, again, she's claiming that she is the third victim. And I just, frankly, do not think that that's the case.

[B]

Yeah, I agree. When you look at these people that do support her, the one thing I will say, though, the supporters of Mackenzie Shurilla don't seem to be supporting Mackenzie because they are sort of, you know, supporting the cause. They're supporting mackenzie because they truly believe that maybe there was evidence here that this was not. Not done on purpose. And that's quite different, right, than the people that we see supporting Luigi Mangione, who quite frankly, believe that Luigi Mangione did it. But they don't care. They don't care. They believe that his ideology meant that he was entitled to take the life of someone else. So at least the supporters of Mackenzie are supporting her because they think maybe there was reasonable doubt or there was an avenue that this, you know, yes, she was in the car. Yes, she was driving, but maybe this was not her intention. So at least there I can understand people having that response versus, you know, what we see happening in Manioni, which is just bonkers to me.

[A]

No, I agree. I mean, the Mangione case and probably Tyler Robinson, another one. I mean, people that sort of excuse violence because they don't like the victim or what the victim represents that is distasteful. Obviously, in those cases, there's the risk of jury nullification because of the sympathy that the defendant. I mean, Mangioni especially. I've never seen a criminal case. I've been doing this 25 years where an accused murderer has that much sympathy. People are, you know, waiting overnight, you know, to get a seat in that courtroom. So obviously, fascinating case, but kind of goes on.

[B]

Not because they didn't think he did it. Right. It's not. They're not there because they don't think he did it. They're there because they think he was justified.

[A]

That.

[B]

That's the part that really just gets me.

[A]

Oh, yeah. And the Free Luigi, one of the most trending hashtags on social media. So fascinating case for different reasons. But again, kind of goes back to one of the things that we're saying, like, you know, if you have a sympathy angle, potentially. And I'm not saying that McKinsey Shurilla is in any way like Luigi Mangione. You know, it's even more reason to choose trial by jury. But I think you're right. I think there are people who are watching who believe that she's actually innocent, that, you know, she was denied a proper defense by her lawyers. This was a medical issue and an accident. And again, you know, the question I have is, you know, if that existed, why didn't the defense put that on? I just didn't think they had the goods. They did. You would have an expert.

[B]

Probably because it didn't, right? Yeah, probably because it didn't. But anyway, this is fascinating. You were great, Nima. Thank you so much for joining me. I know that this is probably something that's not going away, and at some point, I'm sure we'll be talking about it again. So thanks for being on with me, Donna.

[A]

Pleasure being on. Thanks again for having me. Looking forward to seeing you real soon.

[B]

Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions, or theories, and we will answer them on air.