‘Hell on Wheels’ killer Mackenzie Shirilla has been accused by former inmates of privately admitting she intentionally caused the crash that killed her boyfriend and a friend — contradicting her continued claims that the deadly 2022 wreck was an accident.

Shirilla, who was 18 at the time of the incident, was convicted after a judge found she deliberately drove her Toyota Camry into a brick building in Strongsville, Ohio, killing 20-year-old Dominic Russo and 18-year-old Davion Flanagan. She is currently serving a sentence of 15 years to life at the Ohio Reformatory for Women.

While Shirilla has consistently maintained her innocence in public interviews and a widely watched documentary, former inmates who say they spent time with her behind bars claim she told a very different story in private.

Anastasia, 30, a former prisoner at the same facility, said Shirilla would frequently speak about the case in a way that shocked those around her.

“She talked about it like it was something she controlled,” Anastasia alleged. “There was no confusion in what she said privately compared to what she says publicly. It didn’t match.”

According to Anastasia, Shirilla would describe the moments leading up to the crash in detail, and repeatedly insisted that she had not lost consciousness, despite her defense claims of a medical emergency.

“She made it sound like she knew exactly what she was doing,” the former inmate said. “It was the way she said it that stayed with people.”

Shirilla’s defense has long centered on her claim that she suffered from Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), a condition she says caused her to black out before the crash. In interviews and documentary appearances, she has insisted she remembers nothing of the final moments before impact.

But former inmates dispute that account.

“I never heard her say anything about passing out behind bars,” Anastasia said. “The version she told in there was very different.”

The allegations come as Shirilla’s case continues to draw national attention, fueled in part by renewed interest in true crime documentaries and social media debate over high-profile convictions.

Prosecutors at trial argued that Shirilla accelerated deliberately, reaching speeds of more than 100 mph before slamming into the building. The judge described her driving as controlled and intentional, rejecting the claim of a medical episode.

Now, years after the conviction, the debate over her intent continues to divide public opinion — even as those close to the case remain firm.

Family members of the victims say the renewed attention has only deepened their pain.

Dominic Russo’s sister, Christine, has spoken publicly about the ongoing impact, saying the family is forced to relive the tragedy every time the case resurfaces online.

“It never ends for us,” she said in earlier comments. “Every new claim reopens everything.”

Former inmates also described Shirilla as being aware of her notoriety, with some claiming she often engaged in conversations about how the case was being portrayed outside prison.

“She knew people were talking about her,” Anastasia said. “There was a sense she understood the attention.”

Another former inmate, who asked not to be identified, said Shirilla often appeared unfazed by the intensity surrounding her case.

“It didn’t feel like someone who was confused about what happened,” the former prisoner said. “It felt like someone who had heard the story so many times she had her own version of it.”

Shirilla has also faced allegations of repeated disciplinary issues while incarcerated, according to prison records cited in reporting over recent years. These include disputes with staff, contraband infractions, and misuse of prison communication systems. Officials have not publicly commented in detail on her conduct beyond standard disciplinary summaries.

Despite this, Shirilla continues to maintain a public stance of innocence. In interviews and filmed appearances, she has repeatedly insisted the crash was not intentional and that she has been unfairly portrayed by the justice system and the media.

Her supporters argue that inconsistencies in the investigation and lack of eyewitness testimony inside the vehicle leave room for doubt. Prosecutors, however, point to reconstruction evidence and surveillance data that led the court to conclude the act was deliberate.

The Ohio Supreme Court has previously declined to hear appeals tied to procedural issues in her case, leaving her conviction intact. As a result, Shirilla remains eligible for parole only after serving the minimum portion of her sentence.

Legal experts say cases like hers often remain controversial long after sentencing, particularly when competing narratives persist between courtroom findings and later personal accounts.

“This is the kind of case that never fully disappears,” one Ohio-based attorney said. “You have a firm conviction, but ongoing claims, documentaries, and social media keep it alive.”

For the families of Russo and Flanagan, however, the focus remains fixed on the loss rather than the debate.

“They don’t get their sons back,” one family representative said previously. “Every time this story resurfaces, it’s another reminder of that night.”

Shirilla’s case continues to be discussed widely online, where true crime audiences dissect court testimony, documentary footage, and prison allegations. Some view her as a calculated offender who has managed her public image carefully, while others argue that too much weight is placed on unverified inmate claims.

As the conversation continues, the divide between legal conclusion and public perception remains stark.

For now, Shirilla remains incarcerated, serving a sentence that keeps her behind bars for decades to come — while the debate over what truly happened in the final moments before the crash shows no sign of fading.