Episode
The Crash: Did Grief Decide What Happened to Mackenzie Shirilla?
- Published
- Jun 2, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 1148
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://audioboom.com/posts/8910427
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/true-crime-today-daily-true-crime-news-interviews-568948/episodes/the-crash-did-grief-decide-what-happened-to-mackenzie-shirilla/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/true-crime-today-daily-true-crime-news-interviews-568948/the-crash-did-grief-decide-what-happened-to-mackenzie-shirilla.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
The judge who convicted Mackenzie Shirilla of four counts of murder also denied her post-conviction petition — the one containing a neurologist's expert opinion that the crash may have been caused by a medical episode. Same judge. Same defendant. Same case. The petition was denied on procedural grounds — filed one day late — not on the merits. But the question lingers: when the same person makes every consequential decision about your fate, does confirmation bias become unavoidable? That question sits alongside a bigger one in Netflix's The Crash. Everyone involved in the Shirilla case has arrived at a conclusion — and none of them appear willing to consider the alternative. The families believe she's a monster because that's the version that gives their grief a target. The prosecution believes the footage proves intent because that's the version that justifies the charge. Mackenzie believes she doesn't remember because that's the version that lets her survive prison. And a fellow inmate says none of what Mackenzie presents publicly is real. The Strongsville, Ohio crash killed Dominic Russo, twenty, and Davion Flanagan, nineteen. Shirilla was seventeen. She's now serving fifteen years to life. The evidence is real — the footage, the data, the texts. But the interpretations of that evidence are shaped by need, not neutrality. Every person in this story is filtering the facts through what they need to believe. Robin Dreeke, who spent over two decades at the FBI studying how people construct and protect their version of truth, examines the behavioral dynamics driving every side of this case — and asks whether justice can function when the people inside the system are as invested in a specific outcome as the people outside it. Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES…