Hawaii Doc Gerhardt Konig's Appeal, Ebony Parker Case Dismissed - "The MK True Crime Show" with Dave Aronberg, Phil Holloway, and Ashleigh Merchant

Crime Show hosted by Kelly's Court Favorites, Phil Holloway, Dave Aaronberg, and Ashley Merchant.

“It's called the MK True Crime Show, and if you like what you hear, you can go and subscribe”

on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for free. Enjoy. Welcome to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Dave Aaronberg, former state attorney from Palm Beach, County Florida, and current managing part of Dave Aaronberg Law. I'm joined today by my co-host, Ashley Merchant, criminal defense attorney from Atlanta, GA, although originally from the Sunshine State. Hello, Ashley. Hey, how are you? I'm doing great, you know, I'm the Florida law man,

but I'm on the road today. We're heading to CrimeCon, and we're both very excited. We can't wait to meet people and talk about True Crime. Let's go over what we have on the dock at today. The Maui Doctor convicted last month of attempted manslaughter for trying to push his wife off a cliff. Wants a redo? We'll discuss how post trial comments from the jury might make for a successful

“appeal. Why do they keep commenting? It probably would take that. I know, I know, and we've”

got an update in the case against the school administrator who has charged with negligence for allowing a six year old to stay in class after the school received reports that this child had begun. We'll talk about why the charges were dismissed and how that's actually good news for the shooting victim. Joining us later, behavioral scientists and host of the, I don't belong here show on YouTube. Samantha Benigno will share her insights on Mackenzie Schrilley and what

Netflix's Decrash can tell us about the hell on wheels double murder or Ashley. Let's start with a Gerhard Conegapio. This is the case. We've been talking a lot about on our show. I thought it was done, right? He was convicted of manslaughter not exactly murder but, you know, decent. And now he is ready to appeal. What's the deal? Yes, so apparently his lawyers got a, you know,

got some news that some of the jurors may have had second thoughts and you know that's not that

uncommon, but let's just kind of catch our viewers up on what happened in this case. So this is the case out in Hawaii where Mr. Coneg, he's a doctor, was a doctor. I guess he's not going to be from much longer, but he was charged with second degree attempted murder for assaulting his wife aerial Coneg. They were on a cliffside hike back in March of 2025. They were celebrating her birthday and apparently trying to repair their relationship after she had had an out-of-state affair with

the colleague. The allegations were that he actually attacked or she actually attacked him first and then that he hit her back with a large rock and self-defense. Here is Gerhard Coneg, a count of the attack. I felt like a shove and I was almost pushed over the edge. He felt a shove. Who shove you? Erie did. What did you do right after that? Barely caught myself and turned around and looked at her and was like what the fuck was that? Can you start walking towards her? Is she saying

anything? Not initially, but I turned around and I'm asking her like what the fuck just happened and what's going on. And as I'm starting to walk towards her, she starts yelling. She starts yelling. Yeah, help me help me. She kind of grabs my wrists and throws yourself on the ground and pulls me down with her. So she grabs me by the testicles and I'm trying to get her to let go of my testicles

“and then she hits me with rock on a side of the face. I finally get the rock. What did you do?”

I hit her with the rock. How many times do you think you hit her? I hit her two times. That's not what the witness has said. The witnesses saw her him hit her many times and it was an attempt to for in their mind to kill her and she survived thankfully. She's a small woman. He is the aggressor here and she was a bloody mess afterwards. Whereas he hardly had a scratch on him and yet he portrayed himself as a victim. He was found guilty of manslaughter because the jurors didn't

think that he had the intent to kill her. That's a problem though. Isn't that a problem? Yeah, that's a big problem. And so she testified, you know, she testified that he tried to inject her

with a syringe after beating her on the head. You know, gave pretty powerful testimony enough

that the jury, you know, voted to convict him and I think we've got her actual testimony. It's not too. You know, I'm screaming and I'm saying with the fuck are you doing? Get off me and he's saying like fuck you. You're done. So sick of your shit. So done with you. And I'm trying to kind of protect myself and get out of there. But also he's gripping his hand closed really hard.

Oh, I mean, I'm screaming and he's telling me shut the fuck up. Nobody's nobody's been hearing you out here. Nobody's coming to save you. I'm saying like you can't do this. Alright, everyone knows we're on a hike. They'll know this wasn't an accident. Our kids will

“be orphans. You're, you'll go to jail and I'll be dead. Like you have to stop. And again, he's saying”

like you're done. We're done with you. We don't need you anymore. You're done. You're done. And then he just starts hitting my face in my head with a rock. Yes, so the latest Dave is they filed an appeal. So apparently Gerard's defense attorney filed a motion for any trial based on some post-trial interviews that were given by jurors. And he said that while we were being grateful that Dr. Conan was not convicted of attempted murder

statements by certain jurors after the verdict demonstrate that he should not have been convicted of attempted manslaughter either. So apparently they're basing their appeal on that, Dave. That's a former prosecutor, normally. I just say jurors have a lot of leeway, a lot of discretion, and even if they get certain things wrong, you just say, hey, that's the jury process. But when it comes to an element of the crime here, manslaughter and murder, both require an intent

to kill someone. The difference is that manslaughter you're under extreme emotional distress. It's like the situation where you find someone in bed with your wife and you pull out a shotgun

“and kill him. That's manslaughter not necessarily murder. I think we all had a better perspective”

after reading instructions. So when we came in, we really had to dig down and focus on what the instructions were and what each can't was. The jury of seven women and five men deliberating for about eight

hours. The four person telling NBC News why they ultimately chose not to convict Conan of the

most serious charge, second degree attempted murder. We felt that with the language presented in our instructions that the definition of attempted murder was not fully met by the evidence show. We can see that there was definitely evidence of a track record of the ability for emotional disservice to have occurred. But juror Makala Bua atkins also says they didn't believe Conan intended to murder his wife that day. The intent to kill is improbable to us based on the

evidence we've had. What this juror for person just said is we didn't think that he was guilty of attempted murder in the second degree. So that's a little problematic. Dave, this is literally one of my worst nightmares as a defense lawyer. I've so many things when I

see this. So many different emotions and different memories come up. I clients always want us to

interview jurors after a verdict. They always do and I always caution them. Please don't. And, you know, I like to talk to jurors about things in the case because I learn from it. But interviewing jurors, you get this. And it is terrifying when you see how the actual sausage is made inside that jury room. I mean, what this juror is saying is that she voted to

“convict, maybe because she was confused on the law. I mean, that's what it sounds like because”

they voted to convict. Now she's saying we don't think that they proved it. Well, you voted to convict. So what are you doing now? Why are you changing your mind? And they do get a lot of discretion in there and you generally don't overturn a case because jurors were confused. But, I mean, I mean, I'd love to get your thoughts actually because as a defense lawyer, even though you don't want your attorneys and your clients are talking to jurors, the juror had a fundamental misunderstanding

of the law and voted to convict on an intent and manslaughter, even though that does require an intent intent to kill someone. So shouldn't that be enough for an appeal? Well, maybe maybe not. It's complicated as the kids like to say on Facebook. But I do think it raises legitimate questions that now puts a question mark at the end of this verdict. Yeah. And, you know, the lawyers in this case are smart, the way that they're attacking it because you can't typically impeach a verdict

and what does that mean in speech? It just needs to kind of undo a verdict by a juror changing their mind. And that's the law because jurors change their minds all the time. I mean, it's a heavy decision. You make it in a jury room when you're in a situation where you're talking with your fellow jurors. And a lot of people have second, you know, second get decisions on that, particularly when they hear about what the sentence is. You know, especially states that have mandatory minimums.

jurors aren't allowed to know about the mandatory minimums when they're voting to guilt, you know, for guilt or innocence. And then after they convict and they find out what the mandatory minimum are is a lot of them are horrified. I said, you know, if I had known that this person was going

to get life, you know, for example, I would never have voted to convict. But I think the lawyers are

smart here. The appeal is saying that the court that they're trying to give the court the opportunity

unjust result. And so the trial court does have broad discretion to do that. I don't think it's likely

“to win here because we don't like to overturn verdicts once they're once a jury speaks.”

But they are trying their best at this. And you know, they're arguing that juror instructions

can be complex. They can be confusing and misunderstandings happen. The problem is and that's one

of the reasons I spend so much time arguing jury charges and the law to jurors. I know it gets boring. And I always warn my jurors. I'm sorry. But I don't want to end up in a situation where a juror is doing something like this and saying, you know, I voted for it, but it's because I was confused. You know, that's always kind of a stressful situation. You say it's your greatest nightmare as a defense lawyer. It was prosecutor's greatest nightmare when I was at the state of

attorney's office where the jurors come out and they say, yeah, you know, I'm writing a book about this. No, don't talk about it. Oh my god. Yes. We've had a case overturned because of that because one of the jurors was writing a book. And so nothing good comes at comes after a juror starts speaking.

“Nothing good can come out of it. But, you know, they thank you for your service, your jurors,”

and you do a first-member rights, but you can then undo everything after that. And then, of course,

you can get the clerk of court to try to fix the case and have a book deal and then they get a prison and, you know, you can't make this stuff up. It's insane. It's insane. It's insane. Now, just before we go on to Abby's war, I do want to mention something. I don't understand how the jurors and I respect jurors. But I understand how they didn't think there was an intent to kill. He researched a cliff where they could walk, which was the most dangerous cliff where it was the nearest area

where she could fall off. And then, he told her to take a selfie like at the edge of the cliff. Yeah. And when she wouldn't, he got fears at her and then started hitting her with a rock. I completely agree with you. I agree with you. So this to me is a case of all or nothing. Either he was trying to kill or he wasn't. He wasn't trying to hurt her. He wasn't trying to threaten

“or he wasn't trying to harm her. He was trying to kill her or he wasn't. It was either an accident or”

it wasn't. I mean, I'm with you. I don't think this is really one of those issues that they really argued that sounds like a jurors just having second thoughts now because they've seen, you know, all the coverage, they probably learned something that they didn't learn during trial. And that I wanted to point out one of the big reasons that we don't let jurors impeach the verdict, you know, undo the verdict is because once they leave that jury room, their subjects to a lot of information

that they didn't have in the jury room. And there's reasons they didn't have it. There's certain evidence that's not reliable. And so a judge actually has to keep that evidence out. You know, if there's things that are illegally obtained, statements that are un corroborated, things that are unreliable, doesn't go in the jury room. So they made that decision when they had all that information. And now they're having hindsight, but perhaps they read a comment that

influenced them. Perhaps they heard an argument, a new argument. That's not fair because that's not something that was actually decided in that courtroom. So I really don't think we're going to see this though a whole lot, you know, whole lot further. I want to tell you about veracity. It's founder Ali Egan is a CEO and certified hormonal health coach who learned about metabolic health the hard way. For years, she struggled with undiagnosed Hashimoto's and autoimmune disease that attracts

that attacks the thyroid, the body's primary metabolic engine. See, she created veracity to ensure everyone has access to the holistic solutions and optimal health they deserve. The name veracity means accuracy and truth. And it's a company built on clinical integrity. They say the breakout product, metabolism ignite is an all natural way to help you slim down booster energy and sharpen your focus by tackling the root cause of so many health struggles, your metabolism. They say it's drug free,

clinically proven and doctor formulated to support your body's unique needs. Consider veracity and head to veracityhealth.co. Use the code mk for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's v-e-r-a-c-i-t-y-health.co for up to 65% off and make sure you use my promo code mk so they know I sent you. But we have, like you mentioned, Dave, another really interesting case. This is out of Newport News, Virginia, the elementary school teacher Abby's Warner. She was shot by a six-year-old

in her class back in January of 2023. And we've seen quite a few different cases with this. She suffered wounds from her hands or chest. Her left hand was actually shattered. She's had six surgeries, has permanent damage. A bullet went through her chest. It collapsed for long. I mean, so so we're talking some significant damage here from this six-year-old. But Abby's Warner, she sued the former vice principal of the school Ebony Parker for gross negligence and she got

a $10 million jury verdict. She was asking for $40 million. She got a verdict. And so now we're seeing

some criminal prosecutions happening in this case, Dave. Yes, our amazing producer asked also if attorneys generally ask for more than expect to get as a tactic. So if you ask for $40 million,

overplay your hand. You can lose credibility with the jury. You're asking for $40 million,

“but it's zero. So you have to be careful. It's like when prosecutors overcharge,”

you could lose everything. It's dangerous. But here, a jury found Parker liable for $10 million, and then there were criminal charges that were filed against Parker. And they were dismissed. But actually, you know how you win by losing, in this case, the victim won by losing that criminal case. And you know why, right? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So what happens? And we see this a lot of times with car accidents. Most the best example I could use is like a DUI, for example. You've got

someone that is driving drunk, and they have car insurance, and they hurt someone, kill them, something like that. There's a civil suit. Well, most of our insurance policies say if you're driving drunk, that's an exclusion. So I bet you anything that your insurance policy for your car says, if you are found guilty of DUI, we are not going to pay your claim. So what happens? That person who has actually run over, they get no justice in civil court. They get no money because the

person is then charged criminally. So it's always this, this tough, you know, a walking aligned,

do you want to have a civil case? Do you want to have a criminal case? And like we see here, a lot of times the government tries to do all of it. Because they have different different motivations, you know, the government who's deciding to prosecute, they're trying to think about future dangerousness, things like that. And then you've got the civil justice, which is

“about making the person whole. So they're different analysis in different reasons. And that's what”

we've seen in this case. So, you know, we've got Parker, who she was alleged to have received multiple reports that were known to be credible that this student was armed. So apparently she knew or should have known that this student was armed. Parker pulled a teacher to search the backpack, but didn't actually search the backpack until the mother arrived at school was waiting to search the backpack. And that's when this shooting happened. The mom, I thought, was interesting. The

mom back in 2023 of this student was actually sentenced to two years in state prison for child and neglect in connection with the shooting. She was released from custody earlier as month. But we've seen this a lot. We've seen this here in Georgia with a recent school shooting we've had. We've seen it in Florida, you know, all over the place where parents are starting to be charged when their kids do acts like this for child and neglect. And I think that's a big trend we're seeing in criminal prosecutions.

“But I think this criminal case against, you know, Ebony Parker against the school principal probably”

took it a little bit too far. Curious, your opinion, Dave is a former prosecutor. But, you know, just to catch our viewers up or listeners up, she was facing eight counts of felony child abuse and disregard for a life. One for each bullet in the gun found in the child's possession. The prosecutor says she ignored warnings that the child had a weapon and the defense argued that the allegations were not criminal in nature. And we had a trial and what happened there?

Yeah. Well, you had a trial, but in the case of any Parker, the judge just said, no, there won't be a trial because we're going to dismiss in advance, which is rare, but it happens. Right. And so the trial was the civil trial. And I think if you ask the victim here,

Ms. Warner, if she could choose between winning the $10 million in the civil trial or get Ms. Parker

convicted and sentenced to prison, 100 out of 100 times she would rather have the $10 million. Oh, and that's because of what you said, prosecutors represent the people, the state. They're not representing the victim. And the victim has her own lawyers representing the victim. And she got compensation. She didn't get $40 million, but $10 million is a good judgment if she can collect it from insurance and so forth. But you asked a question about the case before

we get to it. I want to place that spot for because we want to see how the judge dismiss the charges and then we'll talk about it on the other side. Those legal theories do not fit the planning of the statute. If they are allowed, if they are allowed to amount to a crime, then the legislature will need to codify it. Therefore, I do break the offense much into strife, info, one-all accounts, all eight accounts of funding child abuse and engagement under indictment C.R., the defendant number.

Four, nine, five, four, one, 10, zero, one, two, zero, eight. So those matters are dismissed. And so I want to add, my rule is today is based on legal principles only. Now, it is inappropriate for me to get my personal thoughts or express sympathy for concern. But it's understanding what happened that day was awful, that it was really harmful. The criminal man informed me that it does not call for me to assess the legal system,

or make political observations, and I will not comment on objects or evades speculation. Well, actually, you had asked me a question about, as a prosecutor, how tough is it to prosecute

come to school to gun. And we have tried this now multiple times at each time it has failed.

You've seen it Scott Peterson in the Marjorie Stelman Douglas case. He was the school law enforcement, the resource officer who did not run into the building. They charged him with criminal child neglect. But they said, well, it's weird. You're charging a cop for child neglect. And it's not really

“the right charge, child abuse. You have to have some sort of duty being a parent, or to actually”

be convicted of such a charge. And we've seen parents like the parent in this case. So he was acquitted. He was found not guilty. Now you also saw new vaulty Texas similar charges. And there too, you saw a not guilty verdict. And so here I'm not that surprised that again, you see a judge say, not only are we not going to let this go to a jury, we're going to end it right now. So it won't even be a trial. And I'm going to have a trial because you can't find

someone under these facts guilty of child neglect, child abuse. As a prosecutor, I wish we could. But that seal has not been broken yet. Right. That's up to the legislature if they want to criminalize that. But you know, and I agree with you. And it's interesting. And I want to talk for a minute about how this result came about. You know, how this trial came about. Because I think it's important when we talk about our next case up Mackenzie Schiller, who had a what's

called a bench trial. So in this case, so this case, Ebony Park owner, she was charged with these

“felonies. She went to trial in the opening statements. They had it. They had, you know, they”

started with the trial. And the prosecutor said that Parker was the only person with authority and knowledge of this arm student so that she's the person that could have intervened before the shooting happened. The defense said, well, if she was held liable, so should every other staff member. But what happened after the prosecution presented their witnesses before the defense started presenting their witnesses, they asked the judge to dismiss the charges. And that's the

thought you all just saw where the judge said, you know, I don't think that there was a crime committed here. And the judge made the tough decision saying, I don't think this can go to a jury. And the reason I want to highlight that for our viewers is when I watch and, you know, I watch the Netflix documentary The Crash and I saw her have a bench trial. And we talk about that a lot on this show. People maybe wave their rights to a jury trial and have a bench trial. This is a really

good illustration of why I always say, don't ever do that. And yeah, I mean, and this is it because

you've got a judge that is willing to get the charges dismissed, even if you have a jury trial, the judge can always dismiss the charges. So why would you wave that jury trial when you have a situation like you have here where the judge actually is the one that just misses it? Why would you give that up? Yeah. It is the most embarrassing thing for a prosecutor when they come back to my office and say, I just got jail wait because it almost never happens. So jail wait is judgment of

acquittal. And it is like the greatest thing for defense lawyer because I mean, oh, it is not right. jury, jury, you go home. When I mean let you hear it, but the standard, it's really hard and it's rare. You got to show you that the state didn't even put it on what's called a primate base of case, which means it doesn't, you didn't like what you presented. Even if it's true, doesn't convince someone like there's no crime here, right? And so it's rare, judges don't

like to take the decision making out of the jury's hands. And when it happens, it's humiliating for prosecutors. And I saw it ask you laugh because you've been there before. Oh, you have that. I have it is humiliating for prosecutors. I mean, it's one of those things. In this case, you know, the judge said, I don't see a legal basis for the charges. So the prosecution has done all this and the judge is saying, you're wrong. I mean, that's that's pretty bad. We did have a

question from our producer, which I thought was a great question. I wanted to bring up. She asked shouldn't that issue have been raised before the trial started? And isn't this something that defense should have moved for pretrial to dismiss it? And I can tell you that that is typically a really strong strategy decision. And there is a huge strategy between waiting until trial. And it is two words, double jeopardy. If you get a case dismissed pretrial without prejudice,

then the state can re-bring the case. And it is very hard to do that. It's very hard to get a case dismissed on double jeopardy grounds if the judge dismissed it pretrial. Because guess what?

Jeopardy never attached. Jeopardy attaches when a witness takes the stand or a jury is sworn in.

That's when jeopardy attaches. So if you have a judge just missing a case pretrial, there is no double jeopardy grounds. So most defense lawyers are going to want to wait until jeopardy has actually attached, which is when that witness is sworn in in a ben trial or the jury is sworn in in a jury trial. So I did want to answer our question on that. It's a great answer. Thank you for answering. And I want to also give Kudos to our producer,

“Michelle, for another great question. What did she do in the media? Maybe you should be a lawyer,”

Michelle? I know. I was like, these are great questions. This is what people want to know about. I love this. Yeah. Very impressed. I cannot wait the other way to talk about the chirolo case. I watched the Netflix documentary.

Man, it was good. It was so good. You know, Netflix is not a sponsor to show yet,

“but man, that was a good documentary. And we're going to be talking about it after the break. Oh, my goodness.”

So next, behavioral scientists and host of the, I don't belong here show on YouTube to Manta Benigno. joins us to discuss hell on wheels, killer McKenzie Schiroller is a collar, killer Chirolla. Day two. Let's be real. Between recording episodes, chasing fur babies, running errands and trying to squeeze in a workout. The last thing I want to do is to pile the whole family in a car and waste a perfectly good Saturday in some big box store just to look at

window treatments. Who wants to do that? There's a much better way. Three day blinds. The leading manufacturer of high quality custom window treatments in the US. They're local professionally trained design consultants of a free. No obligation quote the same day. Not handy. Same here. They handle

“every step. Design precise measuring and professional installation. Their Instagram is full of gorgeous”

inspiration picks and their smart motorized options connect right to Alexa. Total game changer.

Right now, I'll get quality window treatments that fit your budget with three day blinds. Head to three day blinds.com/mk for their buy one get one 50% off deal on custom blinds, shades, shutters and drapery. For free, no charge. No obligation consultation just head to three day blinds.com/mk. One last time. That's buy one get one 50% off when you head to the number three D-A-Y blinds.com/mk. Welcome back to the Mk True Crime Show. Join us now is behavioral

scientist and host of the I don't belong here show on YouTube. Samantha Beningo. Welcome Samantha. Thanks for having us. Thanks for being with me. Yes, thank you. So Samantha, you, along with us here at Mk True Crime have been revisiting the Mackenzie Shrillist story after the release of the Netflix's newest documentary The Crash. So just in case our audience hasn't watched The Documentary yet, let's show the trailer before we get into it.

This is Worcestershire, I don't know, it's been. For the occupants, 17 year-old female still breathing. Car crash, clamping two young lives in the end of the third early yesterday morning. This is the best friend and group that I've ever had in my life. We had just graduated high school. Dom and Kenzie. They love you baby. They're such a duo.

I was Davey Ann's best friend and we were going to be unstoppable. That split second changed all of our lives forever. It didn't add up. It was hard to comprehend that she could just drive into a wall.

I would never see her purposely wanting to hurt them. This was a clearly a toxic relationship.

We needed to get a full picture of who Mackenzie Shrill was. You can go yourself. The most significant piece of evidence there was no breaking. This was not an accident. What took place inside that car?

“I think that's the million dollar question, but just to catch everyone up,”

17 year-old Mackenzie Shrilla, she drove into a brick building and almost 100 miles per hour, killing two passengers. Her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, Dom, and also a friend, Davian Flanagan. One was 20 and one was 19. She went to trial. She waived her jury trial and had a bench trial. The judge found her guilty on numerous charges, including two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide. The judge and we'll listen in just a minute. The judge highlighted that

she didn't believe the act was reckless, but she thought it was a mission of death. So let's listen to the portions of her ruling while we show the video of the moments before the crash. The force from a responsible driver to literal hell on wheels, that she makes her way down the street. Mackenzie alone made the decision to drive the car,

and she executed it with precision. The mission was down.

So Samantha, I actually watched it, it was riveting, and let's just say that the defendant here, Mr. Rilla does not come across very sympathetically, but the only people who seem to come across worse are her parents, especially her father. So I've so many questions for you, because you're an expert on this matter. What do you think happened? In my mind, it was she and her boyfriend got in another fight, and she went crazy, and had a death wish, because I can't imagine that she

tried to kill them without knowing that it would be likely that she would die too. So is that what you think happened or something else? Yeah, I mean, so Mackenzie from a clinical perspective

has what we know to be a borderline personality disorder, and it's pretty obvious, self-evidence.

“And so while, yes, she absolutely, in my opinion, was in a rage. I think it was”

facilitated by fears of losing Dominic, but also anger that was overwhelming her that morning, because of Davey on as well, which is another conversation that most people haven't really touched upon yet, but also Mackenzie was an avid marijuana smoker, and while most of us think it's a pretty harmless drug for a person with this underlying personality disposition, and the amount that she had been smoking, my guess is she was in a form of withdrawal, because she had stopped

within 24 hours of the accident. So I think it was, yes, what you're saying, but there's more to it than that. That's interesting. So when we saw at the end of the documentary for there's who haven't seen it yet, Mackenzie is interviewed, and it becomes clear at the very end that she's got a lawyer in

“the room. You don't see the lawyer, but the lawyers back in the corner, and I can't help but think that the”

lawyer was there, and you know, drug there and didn't want to be there. But you see her turn back to him, or her, and you know, make sure that she did a good job. She says, I just want to make sure that I'm big on the no intent. There is no intent whatsoever, and I have excessive amounts of remorse, and it's not intentional, and I'll do everything I can to prove that. It's almost like that sort of scripted. You know, I know that you've said in your analysis before that you believe that she was

a cutely aware of the public sentiment about her, and that she's doing the documentary, because she doesn't want people to think she's a monster. Is that, you know, that section where she's looking back to her lawyer and making sure that everything, she did everything, okay, and I did okay.

“Is that what your reaction is to that moment? You know, you have to also understand that”

the Cherilla parents, her parents, do not allow McKenzie to take responsibility for herself, and you know, most of my career I've worked with young adults and adolescents and a lot of families, and a lot of parents. Most parents want you to help their child to learn to take responsibility. That's what they're asking of you as a clinical professional. McKenzie's family does exactly the opposite. They will not allow her to be responsible for anything she says or does, because this,

you know, for my view, this was predictable. This accident could have been avoided long before, and she was on a very predictable course that was bound to end this way or in a similar way. Yeah, David, I were talking about that at a break. I mean, it's, I have an 18 year that just graduated the high school, and I was immediately both of us agreed in the parent, what the hell? You know, what are the parents doing? I mean, yeah, like what, I mean,

what's wrong? Yeah, what's wrong? So you've done an linguistics analysis of, you know, of the parents can tell us about that? Oh yeah, I mean, you know, when you have somebody who starts threatening suicide, the way that McKenzie did, going back to certainly we know freshman sophomore year in high school, probably middle school, these tantrums, these anger outbursts, rage outbursts really, and she would threaten suicide. That was the go-to threat. Now, when you

have a child that's go-to threat suicide, you start to learn as a parent to get into a pattern of, just a piece of them. You don't want to make them feel bad about themselves, and that pattern of

appeasing and lack never-lawing her to take responsibility. I mean, this is the inevitable outcome

when you have a borderline personality disorder, and a child who was in the midst of a preservier substance use abuse episode, right, for many years. That's so interesting, because I thought

She would kill herself, and yet there's no indication she ever was suicidal. In fact,

“her best friend said she'd love life. She was like narcissists, and she would never try to kill”

herself. But what you bring up is so important. That turns out she has repeatedly threatened suicide. So that's important piece of information here. Yeah, for years and years, she also would talk to Dom. I mean, I've listened to hundreds of hours at this point of everybody and everything read thousands of text messages between her and Dom. She would repeatedly talk about how much she hates herself, threatened Dom with hurting herself. I mean, routinely, it had become a normal part of their

interaction. Everybody that knew her knew that this was a part of how she was, all of her friends. Everybody that knew her knew. Oh, so her best friend is a liar because I thought it was also very

important that the lawyer, the prosecutor, said, on camera said, oh, you spoken to the best friend.

I haven't. She won't return my calls. What did she say? I would have loved to have talked to her.

“So it looks she looks bad to that. Well, you have to remember Rosie is an influencer. She has a”

lot of followers. I believe either on TikTok or Instagram. I don't remember which. So she has her own personal investment. And I want to say, you know, looking good, coming out in a way that looks better for her. And that then also means no intent on the part of her really good friend Mackenzie. That's interesting. When you said the thing about her trying to commit suicide because I would, I'm like, Dave, when I saw the documentary, I immediately thought, well, either she did it

or she is trying to kill herself. And, you know, if she was trying to kill herself, why didn't they

use that as a defense? Because that's a, I mean, that's a plausible defense. You know, she could have

a mental health defense. And what you're saying about the parents, as soon as I just heard, you say that I'm like, oh my gosh, that totally clicks. Because I know as a defense lawyer a lot of times, we're stuck by what our clients want us to do. And if the parents and, you know, Mackenzie, a lot with the parents because of her age, you know, did not want that defense, did not want a mental health defense put forward, which happens a lot. I mean, most of the public thinks that everybody

wants to get off by not guilty by reason of insanity. But it's actually more often than not that clients forbid us from presenting that defense because they don't want to go to a, you know, mental institute. Because you could essentially be locked up for longer. And it seems like the parents thought that she was innocent. And so they probably thought she was coming home, didn't want to use this mental health defense because she could end up spending the rest of

her life in a mental institute. I mean, that's kind of what it sounds like. Maybe the dynamics behind, you know, all this with the parents. I mean, do you agree with that? Do you think that's plausible? Yeah, a couple of things too. So one of the symptoms of borderline is disassociation. So it's sort of like a sense of unreality. Like, I'm not embodied. So if you think about the suicidal intent, I don't think that Mackenzie actually understood, they really, this is how dangerous it is

to protect your child from not taking responsibility from themselves. Then they don't understand, you know, yeah, I'm about to drive this car into a wall, but there's not going to be a consequence. We're all just going to get up and walk out of it tomorrow. And we're going to go about our lives, right? Like, I don't think Mackenzie understood at that moment that it was the end. I really don't. Even though I agree that she did it on purpose, knowing that she could lose her life.

“Yeah, and you asked another question, and I don't remember what it was right now.”

Yeah, that was it you answered it. How's fascinating? Yeah, it's Samantha. You brought up Davey on earlier, and I just, that's another loose end here because what a tragedy. He was not the boyfriend. He was in the backseat of the car apparently, and just an innocent victim of this awful individual. What's your take? How does he play into this? You were alluding to it how it's on hold another matter here. Yeah, so it was really interesting when I did the in-depth statement

analysis of Mackenzie. I expected him to be, you know, like everyone described cargo in the backseat, but she had very distinct feelings for him. She that morning, she was angry with him. Now, I can't entirely discern whether he had been living at the house at this time or not, but it appears to me that on that morning, what most likely happened was Mackenzie wanted to be alone with Dom, and was irritated by Davey on being there, by his presence, feeling like when he was with Dom,

Dom's attention was going to be on Davey on and not on Mackenzie, and that is how petty Mackenzie is, right? Like, she wanted all of Dom's attention all the time and felt like if Davey on was there, that would mean she wasn't going to get it. And so there was definite anger specifically targeted

bit about her life in prison. So apparently, she's had a girlfriend in prison, um, about her girlfriend, they've now broken up. Does it surprise you at all? Your analysis of her, that she would be building these types of relationships behind bars? No, no, no. I mean, she's going to have many of these

types of relationships, um, you know, until she can find one that ultimately, she can hold hostage.

Uh, you know, and I hate to say it that way, because it sounds, but that is what it is. I mean, the feeling, you know, I think unfortunately Dom wasn't empathic. He was a sweet guy, and he, you know, he was being held hostage by Mackenzie. Yeah. Well, Samantha, I, uh, Ashley and I were talking off there, Ashley made a very astute observation. She saw a scale at Dom's house and noted that Dom didn't really have any way, any job, although they said he was a crypto trader,

and he bought Mackenzie a lot of gifts, and he was living pretty well. Was he a drug dealer? Yeah, of course. Yeah. I mean, I mean, you know, to me, I think he obviously was there was scales in the

car. Um, but I think he had a lot of aspirations. He was very stressed about money actually in the

months just before this. Um, you know, so he felt like he needs to take care of his family members, was very, very close family, the Russo family. So, you know, I think he felt the weight of other

“people's pain and suffering in a very real way. And, uh, that's how Mackenzie kind of got her clause in”

him. Um, he, he wanted to help her. I mean, he tried to get her to go to a therapist. He tried to even say, let's go together. We'll go together to get help. I mean, he knew more than I think anyone, what was, what the deal was with her. It was really interesting to see if I could follow up on that. I'm also actually that I'm a little surprised that any parent would allow their 17-year-old daughter to live with the 20-year-old drug dealer. I mean, she was still in high school at the time. And so

she leaves the house while she's 17 to live with her older boyfriend, who's a drug dealer, is that something that struck you as unusual? You know, when you, I mean, her parents were buying her alcohol. They were giving her money for drugs. Anything they could do to keep her from escalating. Like, the police had been there because of her tantrums when she was a sophomore in high school. You know, her tantrums were so extreme. She breaks stuff. I'm going to kill myself. Like,

she was so out of control, so reckless, so intense that I think her family just learned. Like, give her whatever she wants, try to keep the peace. And they saw Dom as, you know, like he loved her. He really did try to take care of her. I don't think anybody understood the ins and outs of that relationship, but I'm sure the family was also just happy to not have her in their crosshairs day in and day out, right? To have her with somebody they trusted and, you know, didn't have to,

you know, didn't have to be worrying about her night and day. Having said that, though, I'm not so sure she was living there. So I know we've heard that, but based on the language, it seems like she had stayed there quite a bit, but that whether she was actually living there at

“the time, is, you know, she wasn't actually technically living there. That's how I would say it.”

Interesting. So she told, so that, you know, she's had prison girlfriends and things like that. And she's told different inmates, different things. She's told some that the crash happened because she was high on mushrooms, and then she told Cheyenne her ex, that it was because of pots, and we saw in the documentary. Her mom saying it was because of pots, you know, this nervous system disorder that causes dizziness fatigue, things like that. And apparently she was diagnosed with that. Do you think

she really believes that it was about pots, or do you think she even knows what she's talking about at this point? Mackenzie? Yeah. No, Mackenzie knows exactly. Mackenzie knows what happened.

Mackenzie, she's trying to create this narrative there with pots like that she always does the

lie. Yes, yeah. Yeah. I mean, in the very first moments, you know, they have this gypsy language, the herner mom will speak, right? And the very first moments after the police show up to talk to her, and they're speaking in this gypsy language, and she says, "Can I just tell them I had a seizure?" You know, so that was from the jump what the plan was, and they took it and ran with it. You know, the way that amnesia works, it's not unusual to have amnesia from a crash,

“but you don't get amnesia in such a way where you remember everything up through to the turn,”

and then everything immediately following the accident, but not the four seconds between the turn and hitting the wall, right? I mean, it's just, it's silliness, is what it is. What do you think about that use of gibberish? What's wrong with this family? I mean, and has the family had any accountability, repercussion, responsibility? I mean, have they been

I think it's surprising to them. I really, I mean, you know, mom is interesting. She's a fascinating

character. Sometimes she just says things to McKenzie to try to appease her, but she doesn't believe. And again, this is from listening to hours and hours of their jail calls. Other times, you know, she does seem to feed into the narrative that, you know, it's not her fault. I mean, they still blame the accident to be very clear on the Russo family. They saw them. They owned the judicial system. You know, they were somehow secretly related to the judge.

It's all a big conspiracy. I mean, this is the narrative that mom is sort of feeding McKenzie. So, you know, this is, they, I think mom is a little delusional herself is really hoping that she can start like a free McKenzie movement. You know, I don't think they have anybody telling them the truth. Frankly, you know, gosh. Well, yeah, and there's, you know, some of the jail calls have actually been released. I know we've got one. We can play in a minute, it's not nine. But, you know, it's

between McKenzie and her mom and they were recorded and they're, it's just, it's kind of disturbing. If we can play, it's not nine. And then I'm really curious, you know, how you think that fits into all of this. So, we piece all over the world. Now, the station was like national news. Okay, I got to tell you one more thing. What? It was published in England. What? Yeah. It's in world news. I think the daily mail just publishes it in all the publications, but yeah, the UK.

“It's on the daily mail. And UK. Maybe Kim Kardashian will reach out herself. That's what I'm saying.”

I'm hoping. I would understand if they gave me like a normal charge, but like the charges that they gave me are like literally in the day. It's not. They're trying to make it seem something that it's not,

like, it's not, like, I didn't do this on purpose. Like, I got in the car accident. I'm a third victim.

Like, oh, that's, that's so, that's so painful to hear that for the families who have to endure that. And I felt bad, you know, I know I talked about dumping a drug dealer, but, you know, no one deserves that fate. That was just awful. And, and his parents seemed like good people. Unlike the Shorillas, his father and the sister seemed like good people. And the most of it that I thought were father was so compelling and his sister unbelievable. Do you think that all this, the fact that we're

so outraged on the outside by who she is and how, how, and how, with lacquer, more she has,

“do you think that that's going to prevent her from getting parole in 15 years?”

I think it depends on what happens along the way, right? I mean, the thing about this type of mental health problem is that she could get better. I mean, you know, if she had one strong positive influence in her life, you know, she could get better. The challenge is that mom, from what I can tell in these jail calls, really prevents her from ever changing or shifting the narrative. Like they're just totally focused on trying to get her out, trying to get her out of prison.

Yeah, not trying to get her through it or have her learn. I want to talk about that. In the time we got left, we have a few minutes left, but apparently this, and we're not calling, you know, Dom names or anything like that, we're certainly not trying to disparage, but I think it's relevant

to the facts of the case and to the relationship it appears that Dom always had Mackenzie actually

hold her drugs when she was a minor. We've got a sod on that, sod 11. And then I want to talk to you about some of the other things that sort of go along with that.

“Yeah, it's only charged with, like, I think that it, like, I shouldn't even be charged with it, though,”

like, because it was, um, like, I understand I have to take that fucking bullshit, the fucking drugs. Oh, you know, that's irritating. You know, no one's under two, and that makes me mad. I'm mad at him for that. Telling you that you can't get in trouble, so just to hold everything. He always told me that you always had me hold everything. I know, that's because you're a minor. So yeah, there's multiple texts also that have a surface that apparently her parents,

McKenzie's parents were well aware, and they weren't apparently concerned with this drug use. Her alcohol use, I mean, if you looked at her social media, you could see it. So she's 17. She's living with an adult male. And if we do the math, right, when they started dating, because they'd been dating for four years, she would have been 13 and he would have been 16. So how do you think that that situation was allowed to develop with the trillist knowing that

their minor daughter was engaged in all these activities? I mean, dangerous activities with apparently no push back at all, um, you know, this is just this is insane to me. I mean, how do you think that factored into all of this, um, you know, everything that's happened? You know, when they tried, you know, so for example, there was an incident where they tried to ground McKenzie when she was a

and you can't do this to me. I mean, just a complete, you know, tantrum, you know, you add suicidal

“threats, that ends any debate, pretty fast. They just wanted to try to get her through it.”

To try to appease her, you know, you can even hear it in these calls with mom, as soon as McKenzie escalates, she tries to say anything she can to like bring her, she calls it anxiety. Mom calls her tantrums, anxiety down and notch. Um, you know, and so, yeah, what do you do in that situation? You know, as a professional, those are moments that you know, you don't, you don't feed that. I mean, you don't appease it because that's what will cause it to get reinforced and then

grow, but they didn't get help. Um, and I think she was just really truly out of control. I mean, she was really a monster. And I hate to say that, right? I was in mental health professionals, especially I don't like using that language, but she was really out of control, fighting with neighbors, with teachers, with other students, you know, just a maniac, bus drivers. Um, right? So, okay, and then why, so why the judge goes so easy on her? It's a great question. You know, I think

“because she's young, right? I think that's why. I don't know. I think I think that's what it was, but”

I think she's young. Yeah, I mean, she's young. That's why. Yeah. Yeah, certainly didn't accept responsibility, so it wasn't that. It's got to be your age. I mean, I think that's the only thing it's got to be your age. And yeah, I mean, she still has not formed. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you so much Samantha. Where can our listeners find you? Um, yeah, you can find me my YouTube page at IDBH True Crime. Really easy to find me. Awesome. Well, thank you so much. Look forward to having you again.

So, up next, we've got your questions and our closing arguments. Stay tuned. When there are supply constraints on commodities, prices search, you saw it with full prices when the straight-of-ormous was blockaded. And you know what else is a limited commodity? Gold. They mind it out of the ground. And when it's gone, it's gone. Governments can't just print more of it.

“And that's why everyone from central banks to savvy, savers are diversified with gold. If you've”

been thinking about it for years, but have still never moved some of your savings into physical

gold, Birch Gold Group is who I trust to help you. Now through May 29th, Birch Gold is giving first time gold buyers a rebate of up to $10,000 on qualifying purchases for details and an information kit on diversifying into gold. Text MK to the number 989898. Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401K into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold. So text MK to the number 989898. To see if you qualify for a first-time gold buyer rebate of up to $10,000. Again, text MK to

989898 today. Welcome back to the MK Tree Crime Show. Now it's time for our closing arguments Dave, take it away. Thank you, Ashley, and for my closing statement. I want to add a post script to the Blake lively and Justin Baldoni case that settled before the world could gawk at the latest embarrassing celebrity trial. Eight figures and legal fees later, they settled for exactly $0 dollars.

They even put out a joint statement claiming the whole multi-million dollar spectacle was actually

about raising awareness, whatever that means. Talk about an expensive public relations campaign. Now, you may think that a walk-away settlement means nobody won, but you'd be wrong. One side absolutely dominated this case. The lawyers combined the legal teams raked in about about $60 million, which is even more than true crime podcasters make per episode, right? I kid. So what is the true crime lesson learned from all this? Well, it's simple.

Litigation is a precise, serious legal instrument. Not a branding exercise. If you are going to file lawsuit, you need a legitimate viable legal objective and a clear exit strategy. Otherwise,

you're just launching a multi-million dollar fulls error in that serves no one, but the billable

hour. Corrums are meant for achieving real justice, not funding your attorney's next luxury yacht. But if you do have a legitimate case that's going to end up enriching some lawyers anyways,

I love it. I can't wait to get the call, Dave. Well, I want to talk about one of the craziest

“cases of judicial misconduct that I've heard in quite a long time. I wouldn't say my lifetime.”

Quite a long time. So recently, in September of 2025, the chief judge of the Northern District of Georgia. And what is the Northern District of Georgia? That's the federal circuit that's here in Atlanta. Got a complaint about a federal judge out of none other than everyone's favorite, Fulton County, Georgia. And the complaint alleged that the subject judge, I'm going to call it her the subject judge. And I just said it obscies her. I'll tell you who it is at the end. But that the

subject judge had an extra marital affair with a law enforcement officer, a uniformed law enforcement officer, and that they had sex in and out of her office during work hours, within distance of the

judges' law clerks. So, you know, the judges' law clerks typically are either law students or

recently graduated law students, you know, young and pressional people excited to work for a federal

“judge. It's a prestigious gig sitting out there doing their business and apparently hearing”

moans and kissing and hissing and different things like that while they're trying to do their work. Couldn't focus, saw this going on, you know, while the judge is supposed to be working, while we're paying for the judge to be working. And so one of those law clerks had the guts to file a complaint. And so they filed the complaint. And what happens was it goes to the chief judge. So, that judge sends it to the chief judge of the 11th circuit. What's the 11th circuit? It is literally

one step down from the Supreme Court. The circuit courts of appeal are one step below the Supreme Court of the United States. So, pretty high up sends it to the chief judge for the 11th circuit, known as judge prior. Now, judge prior asks the subject judge. Again, the judge accused of this. Ask that judge for response. Says, you know, these are the allegations. Did you have this affair with this law enforcement officer, you know, Yadayata? And she denies it. So, this judge flat out denies

it because she denied it. Judge prior did what he had to do. He appointed a special committee to investigate the complaint. So, that special committee then had to retain counsel. So, we had to pay as taxpayers. We had to pay for counsel to be retained to assist in this investigation. This investigation were the judge flat out as we'll learn in a minute, lied to the chief judge of the 11th circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. So, this special committee did their

investigation and guess what? They corroborated the allegations. The judge was busted. The special committee

“said, we know what happened and here is, you know, here's our facts. What's your response?”

So, the judge had already had one chance at responding and said, no, no, no, it's all a lie. It's all a lie. So, this time the judge says, oh, I'm going to recant my denial and I'm going to admit to the affair. So, she admits to having this affair with this law enforcement officer in her office during working hours. She recanted her lie. She also admitted another violation that she had attended a partisan political event. Now, for those that don't know,

our federal judges are appointed for life. They don't have elections. They are appointed for the rest of their life. They have to go through senate appointment. It's a big deal. And because of that,

they're never allowed to participate in anything political. They have to be apolitical for the

rest of their life. So, one of the things they definitely can't do while sitting federal judge is attend a partisan political event. But again, this is full and county. So, you know, judge goes. Judge goes. Judge knows the rules. Judge knows you can't go to a party, a political party event. Judge knows that. And if the judge didn't know it, that's scary, you're right, think. If the judge was too dumb to actually know she can't break the rules like that, that's a little

terrifying for a federal judge. But either way, either she knew or she didn't know. I don't know which one's worse. But so, the subject judge was then accused of the misconduct for the affair and chambers, attending a political event. And guess what? A new charge, making a false statement, two among others, the chief justice of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The subject judge submitted her response, saying that the allegations were outrageous. They're baseless and

specifically denied the allegations. She even accused that poor little law clerk of making them up as retaliation. That law clerk apparently heard a judge say that she was going home one day because she had had too many martinis the night before at a primary election victory party for a district attorney. The law clerk's were mortified. The law clerk did not know what to do. They decided, again, to alleged this violation and this special committee did an investigation. Well, who is a

local district attorney that had a primary election and really likes Gregory Smartinis? This is

she's admitted again having the affair. We're back to admitting having their affair. But on to the

“DA, she says, "Well, I've been friends with this DA since 1999 and I just went to a mixer for the DA.”

You know, a mixer that was before the political event. There just happened to be big campaign event signs and celebrations and things like that. And when she was caught on this, she again says,

"I did do anything wrong. Nothing. It was just private mixer." But someone caught a picture of her

with her martini glass that she says did not have vodka in it. And that picture speaks a thousand

“words. She is standing behind none other than Nathan Wade at Fony Willis' election event.”

What happens to the judge you might wonder? After all of this, the judge admitted,

admitted to this work that she had absolute dishonesty. But she asked the committee to take into account

her prompt rehantation of the false statements. So, her excuse was, "I lied, but I said I lied really fast." So, this is like being a bank robber getting caught on camera and then saying, "Oh, I confess." So, since you saw the surveillance videos now, I'm busted. I confess. Please let me off. Well, the special committee did find that her false statements were actually material and that they were harmful to the administration of the course. What happened to the judge you might

wonder? What was the punishment for lying during a judicial misconduct investigation accusing a law clerk of fabricating allegations, having sex and chambers during work hours, an extramarital affair and then the less, attending political partisan events and compromising public integrity, public confidence in the judiciary, a private reprimand, a private reprimand. Again, none other than Fanny Willis and a federal judge sitting here in Fulton County.

“And if you want to see a picture and you want to read the complaint, I posted it on my Twitter”

account so that you can read it. It is all over the internet and it is just as shocking as you can imagine. So, that's my rant for today. I'm sorry I went on a little bit long, but I want to thank our guest, Samantha, Beningo, and to my co-host, Dave Aaronberg. And thank you all for joining us. Dave and Phil and I are going to be at CrimeCon this weekend so we hope that we'll get to see a lot of our listeners there. But everyone else have a great week.