The Crash documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just watched this documentary. If you’ve seen it, do you think Kenzie is guilty? Seemed pretty obvious to me that she deliberately ran her car into the building to kill her boyfriend.

Unless there is more to this story, then I don't think she did it intentionally. Maybe, depending on what happened, some sort of manslaughter or negligent homicide, at worst.

first of all, we don't know what went on in the car. Was she driving fast intentionally, as a result of an argument, etc. etc.? were they trying to stop her and struggled? Fear or stress can result in a freeze reflex (i.e., keeping the foot on the pedal). Also, she seemed to be an unstable teenager without a fully formed brain . . . . so maybe she wasn't rationalizing the danger of what she was doing? It makes no sense whatsoever to drive into a building with yourself in the car if you only intended to hurt or kill your boyfriend.

is she responsible? yes. Was it murder? all we have is circumstantial evidence and a "psycho ex girlfriend" trope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why were the parents letting her live with her BF as a 17 yo?!

Because they Aren’t Like Other Parents. They trust their kids judgement over all else. The school sending her home over discipline issues? Too many lame rules to follow? Smoking marijuana while driving and posting videos of it on the internet? It’s just pot. They don’t set boundaries. They let her live her life and it’s never been a problem.

I still can’t believe the parents were so delusional after their daughter — at best, accidentally killed two people while under the influence and, at worst, intentionally drove into a wall at 90 mph with no regard for the other occupants of the vehicle. The whole family seemed to have no remorse.

Intentionally?
Was that proven or just speculated?
She would have had to be very suicidal to be intentional.

Data from the car indicated she had her foot fully depressed on the gas and that there was no attempt at braking. There was an attempt to shift the car from drive to neutral.

That does not mean intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was 17 I was in a car accident where my friend, another teenager, was driving his car way too fast around the turns out River Road. We got to the 90 degree turn to the left- having been familiar with that stretch of the road I warned him to slow down for the turn- he laughed and gunned it.

Car was totalled into a tree, I got a head injury, another teenage passenger racked himself so bad he became sterile, another injured his back.

He wasn’t trying to kill us, just an egotistical a$$hole in a fast car who thought he was invincible, as we all did. We all could have died. There by the grace of god go we.

So I’m on the fence as to her intent. Maybe she was trying to scare him to prove a point? Maybe she was just that dumb. Or maybe she was trying to take them all out (although I think Davion was collateral damage). Admittedly her character and that of her parents haven’t helped her defense.

So you are saying that the police did not investigate and he was not charged with attempted murder?

Murder requires intent.

And have you never met a teenager? Even an older one simply does not have the same brain mechanics as an adult. And some of you all are not giving that aspect enough weight in these cases.

[Anonymous]

She’s guilty and smug.

[Anonymous]

Oh please. If a 17 year old doesn't know that driving head on into a brick building at 100mph will probably kill or gravely injure everyone in the car then they need to be in special needs residential care. I have had kindergarteners in my back seat laughing with joy if I hit 60, they felt the “ high speed “.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. If a 17 year old doesn't know that driving head on into a brick building at 100mph will probably kill or gravely injure everyone in the car then they need to be in special needs residential care. I have had kindergarteners in my back seat laughing with joy if I hit 60, they felt the “ high speed “.

What makes me think that there is more to the story is that she was not suicidal. Murder suicide is an immense tragedy and there are plenty warning signs before. An on again and off again romance does not meet my expectations of burden of proof

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep seeing people describe Strongsville as an “upper middle class” community but based on the documentary it seems much more downscale? 17 year olds living with boyfriends, none of these kids heading to college? Is Ohio UMC really that different from DMV UMC?

...Were you expecting a Cleveland suburb to be chock full of Ivy-educated biglaw partners?

No but as another PP says, there are Cleveland suburbs where the parents are doctors, accountants, etc. and the kids are largely college-bound. These kids were going nowhere.

Glad DCUM is focused on the important issues, as always /s/

They can't even get through a true crime documentary without being elitist. Such miserable people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was 17 I was in a car accident where my friend, another teenager, was driving his car way too fast around the turns out River Road. We got to the 90 degree turn to the left- having been familiar with that stretch of the road I warned him to slow down for the turn- he laughed and gunned it.

Car was totalled into a tree, I got a head injury, another teenage passenger racked himself so bad he became sterile, another injured his back.

He wasn’t trying to kill us, just an egotistical a$$hole in a fast car who thought he was invincible, as we all did. We all could have died. There by the grace of god go we.

So I’m on the fence as to her intent. Maybe she was trying to scare him to prove a point? Maybe she was just that dumb. Or maybe she was trying to take them all out (although I think Davion was collateral damage). Admittedly her character and that of her parents haven’t helped her defense.

So you are saying that the police did not investigate and he was not charged with attempted murder?

Murder requires intent.

And have you never met a teenager? Even an older one simply does not have the same brain mechanics as an adult. And some of you all are not giving that aspect enough weight in these cases.

The prosecution argued that the drugs in her system didn’t affect her. Prosecutors always argue the opposite

[Anonymous]

Could someone explain the strategy for choosing a bench trial here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep seeing people describe Strongsville as an “upper middle class” community but based on the documentary it seems much more downscale? 17 year olds living with boyfriends, none of these kids heading to college? Is Ohio UMC really that different from DMV UMC?

...Were you expecting a Cleveland suburb to be chock full of Ivy-educated biglaw partners?

No but as another PP says, there are Cleveland suburbs where the parents are doctors, accountants, etc. and the kids are largely college-bound. These kids were going nowhere.

My Dad is from one of those suburban towns outside of Cleveland (my entire family went to Ivies as engineers/physicians) and the average income is 30% higher than Strongsville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone explain the strategy for choosing a bench trial here?

Yes. With those videos of her blowing smoke at the camera after hitting a bong? Videos of smoking blunts in the car while driving, and posting it to brag about lifestyle? You don't want a jury seeing that. They won't remain objective. A judge will.

If I were her attorney and there were a jury, I'd try to keep all of that out, but chances are it would come in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. If a 17 year old doesn't know that driving head on into a brick building at 100mph will probably kill or gravely injure everyone in the car then they need to be in special needs residential care. I have had kindergarteners in my back seat laughing with joy if I hit 60, they felt the “ high speed “.

What makes me think that there is more to the story is that she was not suicidal. Murder suicide is an immense tragedy and there are plenty warning signs before. An on again and off again romance does not meet my expectations of burden of proof

In the documentary, the prosecutor mentioned a witness. I think it was a friend of Dom who spoke to him on the phone a week before the crash. Dom was in the car and Mackenzie was driving and the witness could hear them arguing and Mackenzie said “ I am going to crash the car” in a threatening way Dom. The prosecutor claimed that that was evidence of “ prior intent “ ie planing.

I don’t think that she was necessarily suicidal. Like has been mentioned she was a teenager and impulsive and with anger issues and narcissism. I think that she just didn’t put that much thought into it. It’s “ I am mad at Dom for not giving me what I want, I am going to crash the car to subjugate him, I will put my seatbelt on, hopefully I don’t die too”.

[Anonymous]

I agree that she may not have been suicidal but certainly has issues with impulse control. Her social media is evidence of that. She was trying to scare Dom and FAFO. she needs serious mental help.

[Anonymous]

I think she was impulsive and immature and crashed intentionally. She was driving erratically and the passenger attempted to shift the car into neutral.

I will never understand what compels people to participate in documentaries like this. shirilla's parents could not look worse if they tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone explain the strategy for choosing a bench trial here?

Yes. With those videos of her blowing smoke at the camera after hitting a bong? Videos of smoking blunts in the car while driving, and posting it to brag about lifestyle? You don't want a jury seeing that. They won't remain objective. A judge will.

If I were her attorney and there were a jury, I'd try to keep all of that out, but chances are it would come in.

Yes but it only takes one juror to think that this didn't meet the requirement for murder vs manslaughter or vehicular homicide - I think they would have had a hung jury and the defense attorney was did them a disservice by choosing bench trial.