New court filings and recently disclosed text messages are adding another layer to the ongoing legal battle surrounding convicted Ohio murderer Mackenzie Shirilla, as her attorneys continue to argue that a medical condition—not intent—may have played a role in the deadly crash that killed her boyfriend and a close friend nearly four years ago.

Shirilla, now 21, is serving two concurrent prison sentences of 15 years to life after being convicted in 2023 of murdering her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, 20, and their friend, Davion Flanagan, 19. Prosecutors successfully argued that she deliberately accelerated her Toyota Camry to nearly 100 mph before crashing into a brick building in Strongsville, Ohio, during the early morning hours of July 31, 2022.

The devastating collision instantly transformed what initially appeared to be a tragic accident into one of the most controversial criminal cases in recent Ohio history.

At the center of the latest legal fight are text messages that defense attorneys say support a long-standing claim that Shirilla suffered from episodes involving dizziness, blackouts, and blood pressure complications before the fatal crash occurred.

The messages, obtained from law enforcement records, reveal that Shirilla discussed troubling health episodes with Russo years before the collision. In one exchange from 2020, she told him she had experienced what she described as a particularly severe blackout.

“I had a rlly bad blackout today fr,” she wrote.

Nearly two years later, only weeks before the fatal crash, Shirilla again referenced experiencing another episode.

“The one I just had was probably the worst black out like pain level I’ve had,” she reportedly texted Russo on July 2, 2022.

The messages have become a focal point for supporters who believe Shirilla may have suffered a medical emergency behind the wheel rather than intentionally causing the crash.

However, prosecutors have consistently maintained that the available evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the collision was deliberate.

During the original trial, investigators presented extensive data recovered from the vehicle’s event data recorder, commonly referred to as a car’s “black box.” According to that evidence, the accelerator was fully depressed during the final moments before impact.

Perhaps most significantly, investigators found no indication that Shirilla attempted to brake during the five seconds leading up to the crash.

Surveillance footage introduced during the trial also showed the vehicle traveling at extreme speed moments before smashing into the building.

Prosecutors argued that the combination of vehicle data, video evidence, and testimony regarding Shirilla’s relationship with Russo demonstrated intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense has spent years challenging that conclusion.

In recent filings submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court, Shirilla’s attorneys argue that critical medical evidence was never fully explored during the original proceedings.

According to the appeal, Shirilla suffered from a pre-existing condition that may have caused her to lose consciousness while driving.

Her lawyers contend that trial counsel failed to adequately investigate those medical issues and did not secure expert testimony that could have supported such a defense before the judge reached a verdict.

The argument has become the foundation of Shirilla’s latest attempt to overturn her conviction.

Earlier appeals have already been rejected by lower courts.

In one recent setback, judges ruled against a post-conviction petition after determining that it had been filed outside the legally permitted time frame.

According to court records, the filing missed the statutory deadline by a single day due to a leap-year calculation error.

Defense attorneys argue that such a technical mistake prevented important medical evidence from receiving full judicial review.

Prosecutors, however, have countered that the law clearly establishes filing deadlines and that the courts correctly applied those requirements.

The legal battle has gained renewed attention following the release of the Netflix documentary “The Crash,” which introduced millions of viewers to the case and reignited public debate about what happened that summer morning.

The documentary featured Shirilla speaking publicly for the first time since her conviction.

During one interview segment, she was asked directly how a medical emergency could explain the specific actions recorded by the vehicle before impact.

“I’m unsure because I have no recollection of that morning,” Shirilla said.

She insisted that she never intended to harm Russo or Flanagan.

“I know nothing about it was intentional because that’s not my character,” she said.

The documentary also highlighted the emotional toll the tragedy has taken on all families involved.

Russo and Flanagan were both remembered as beloved young men with promising futures.

Family members described their deaths as devastating losses that continue to affect them years later.

Meanwhile, Shirilla’s parents have remained vocal supporters of their daughter.

They have repeatedly argued that she never intended to kill anyone and have pointed to her alleged health struggles as evidence that the crash should not have been treated as a murder case.

Critics of that theory note that evidence supporting a medical emergency was never presented during the original trial in a manner that convinced the court.

Judge Nancy Margaret Russo, who presided over the bench trial, ultimately concluded that the crash was a deliberate act.

Her ruling described Shirilla’s actions as “hell on wheels,” a phrase that would later become widely associated with the case.

The judge cited the speed of the vehicle, the lack of braking, and the circumstances surrounding Shirilla’s relationship with Russo as key factors supporting the murder convictions.

Since then, every major challenge to the verdict has failed.

Yet the case continues to generate significant public interest.

Supporters of Shirilla argue that unanswered medical questions remain and deserve additional review.

Others believe the evidence presented during trial already established exactly what happened and that further appeals merely delay closure for the victims’ families.

Legal experts note that convincing a state supreme court to hear an appeal is often difficult, particularly after multiple lower courts have already ruled against a defendant.

The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will agree to review Shirilla’s latest filing.

If the court declines, one of the final avenues available to challenge her conviction could effectively come to an end.

For now, Shirilla remains incarcerated while the legal process continues.

The deaths of Dominic Russo and Davion Flanagan remain at the center of a case that has sparked intense debate across the country, fueled by courtroom testimony, competing narratives, and renewed attention from the popular documentary.

As judges consider whether additional review is warranted, the newly revealed text messages have become the latest piece of evidence examined by both supporters and critics.

Whether those messages ultimately change anything about the legal outcome remains uncertain.

What is clear is that nearly four years after the crash, the tragedy continues to raise difficult questions about intent, accountability, and the role that medical evidence may play in one of Ohio’s most closely watched criminal cases.