'Hell on wheels' killer Mackenzie Shirilla’s latest appeal for new trial shot down ⁠74%

By Kenneth Garger⁠0%

6/23/2026, 5:22:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Loss Aversion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 54.6% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 386 faulty-reasoning hits from 163 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,804 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.50% of the article peer group.

Convicted “hell on wheels” killer Mackenzie Shirilla’s latest appeal for a new trial was rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court. 
The legal blow to Shirilla – who’s serving 15 years to life for crashing her sedan into a building, killing her boyfriend and a close pal in July 2022 – was handed down Tuesday. 
“Upon consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this case, the court declines to accept jurisdiction of the appeal,” read the ruling. 
Shirilla was found guilty of double murder in 2023. 
Her first appeal for a new trial was also denied. 
The 21-year-old’s lawyers had argued, in their latest appeal, that Shirilla suffers from a “pre-existing medical condition” that could be to blame for her blacking out before the fatal wreck in northeast Ohio. 
The killer’s attorneys argued that her past defense team failed to investigate or back up the alleged pre-existing condition with expert testimony. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.5%Kenneth Garger: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.5%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.2%Kenneth Garger: 27.1%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect20.2%This article: 20.9%Kenneth Garger: 5.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion20.9%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 54.6%Kenneth Garger: 31.0%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias54.6%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Kenneth Garger: 8.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error13.5%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Kenneth Garger: 1.5%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 6.1%Kenneth Garger: 1.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.2%Kenneth Garger: 5.1%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority20.2%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 3.4%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 13.5%Kenneth Garger: 8.4%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading13.5%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.5%Kenneth Garger: 3.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote13.5%This article: 8.0%Kenneth Garger: 2.0%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.0%This article: 54.6%Kenneth Garger: 35.7%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice54.6%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenneth Garger: 0.0%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

163 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.