The 'lack of remorse' argument falls flat with regards to Mackenzie Shirilla

I was born several months after the assassination of John F Kennedy and I was named after him. I literally have spent my entire life being gaslit by the national media who told us that the fatal shot came from the back. I don't know a single person who believes that.

In my life, I have seen far more than my fair share of liars, cheats and criminals in positions of authority, power and prestige. I have long-since been disabused of the idea that we should just listen to whatever they say and never question.

I never knew Mackenzie Shirilla, Davion Flanigan or Dominic Russo, nor have I ever personally known anyone who did know any of them. Thus, my observations and thoughts are completely objective.

In viewing this case, I was 100% open to being convinced that everything the media has said about this case was true and, if so, would be the first person to say that Mackenzie deserved to be sent to prison for life.

What I have seen is among the worst displays of outright bullshit, masquerading as evidence, that I have ever witnessed. This is a screenshot of the thumbnail of the video I included above. The video purports- as evidence- that Mackenzie showed 'no remorse'.

This is the biggest load of circular crap I think I have ever heard. 'Remorse', by it's very definition, describes the desired and proper disposition of a person who is guilty. The absence of remorse in a guilty person compounds the malice of the sin, to be sure. But to declare that remorse is appropriate for an innocent person is just nuts and to claim that a lack of remorse, for an alleged crime, constitutes evidence of guilt for the crime, is pretzel logic personified.

To summarize their circular nonsense:

Mackenzie is guilty, thus she should show remorse.

Mackenzie shows no remorse; thus, she is guilty.

Rinse, repeat

The talking heads in the videos want you to ignore your own lying eyes and allow them to gaslight you. They use words to describe her demeanor such as cold, uncaring, unconcerned.

This is not merely what they argued she actually felt but what she displayed.

I'm open to being convinced that Mackenzie Shirilla is an Academy Award worthy actress but don't insult my intelligence by saying that these images can be rightfully described by the words Cold, Uncaring and Unconcerned.

If we are to judge expression and demeanor, I'd describe these three pictures with terms like:

"Traumatized", "Deer in the headlights" and "Grief stricken".

Watching the actual video made me physically sick.

A girl being locked away on a double murder charge has the only tangible articles- bracelets- that connect her to her deceased boyfriend, broken and taken away. She breaks down and sobs,

So, obviously she is guilty.

She's guilty because she doesn't cry enough. She's guilty because she cries too much. Can we pick a lane, here?

More and more, I am becoming totally convinced of her innocence because of 2 reasons.

1. The preponderance of the physical and material evidence points to an accidental crash rather than a deliberate one.

2. The prosecution's entire case seems centered around gaslighting you into believing a 17-year-old shattered girl is the second coming of Charles Manson because of the bracelet she wore when she was arrested, the makeup she wore to a Halloween party and the fact that she had the audacity to proclaim her own innocence instead of simply cooperating like a good little girl as they slipped the noose over her head.

I am the type of person who is very slow to come to conspiracy theories and my heart breaks for the families of two dead young men. However, Justice is not served by railroading a teenager because of a tragic accident, and that really seems to be what happened here.