Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Drunk Socialite Rebecca Gross Heads Back to Court, Hit by Parents Civil Suit

Episode Date: October 12, 2024

A judge has set a new trial date in a civil case against Rebecca Grossman. The socialite was convicted of second-degree murder in the deaths of two Westlake Village boys, Mark and Jacob Iskander. The 8- and 11-year-old boys were struck and killed by a speeding car driven by Grossman. Just after 7 p.m. on a September evening, Jacob and Mark Iskander, their siblings, and parents went for an evening stroll to a nearby lake. The six-member family was crossing in a crosswalk at a three-way intersection when mother Nancy heard a speeding car coming their way. She says her husband and daughter were farther from the street. She tried to signal to two approaching SUVs to slow down. She managed to grab one of her children and dive out of the way, but Jacob and Mark were hit. Mark Iskander died at the scene, and Jacob died later at the hospital. According to police, Mark was thrown 254 feet. Nancy Iskander told police that two SUVs were "zig-zagging with each other as if they were playing or racing." She said the drivers didn’t stop at the intersection, not even when the 11-year-old was on the hood of the car. Deputies reportedly caught up with a white Mercedes with significant front-end damage a third of a mile from the scene. Behind the wheel was Rebecca Grossman. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department believes the vehicle was traveling over 80 miles an hour. Grossman’s breathalyzer test after the crash showed a blood alcohol content of 0.076%, according to local news reports. The legal limit in California is 0.08%. A blood sample taken three hours after the crash registered at 0.08%  Joining Nancy Grace Today: Matthew Mangino – Attorney, Former District Attorney (Lawrence County); Author: “The Executioner’s Toll: The Crimes, Arrests, Trials, Appeals, Last Meals, Final Words and Executions of 46 Persons in the United States;” X: @MatthewTMangino Caryn L. Stark – Psychologist, Renowned TV and Radio Trauma Expert and Consultant; Instagram: carynpsych/FB: Caryn Stark Private PracticeRobert Crispin – Private Investigator, Former Federal Task Force Officer for United States Department of Justice, DEA and Miami Field Division, Former Homicide and Crimes Against Children Investigator, “Crispin Special Investigations” CrispinInvestigations.com, Facebook: Crispin Special Investigations, Inc JoScott Morgan – Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, “Blood Beneath My Feet,” and Host: “Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan;” X: @JoScottForensic Joseph Tremblay – Senior Forensic Engineer and Accident Reconstructionist, Veritech Consulting Engineering Stacey D. Stewart – CEO of Mother Against Drunk Driving (MADD); Twitter: @maddnational Eamon Murphy – Writer for ‘The Acorn’ Newspaper in California; X: @EamonPMurphy  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. In the last days, a major update in the case of a wealthy socialite, Rebecca Grossman, who mows down two little boys while drunk. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. That's right. The parents of two little boys mowed down by a wealthy socialite, Rebecca Grossman, make a major move in court. If you'll recall, Rebecca Grossman, married with all sorts of high society connections, is having a booze-filled lunch with her boyfriend before she mows down two little boys, reportedly drag racing in the street. In the last days, the parents filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Grossman. What happened?

Two little boys dead, ages 8 and 11, while this plastic surgeon's socialite wife is drag racing on the open road after a boozy lunch with her lover? Uh-uh. No. Let me just take these words in, fit it together in one sentence. A plastic surgeon's socialite wife mows down two little boys. So many questions. Let's start it off.

Listen. Just after 7 p.m. on a September evening, Jacob and Mark Iskender, their siblings and parents, go for an evening stroll to a nearby lake. The boys enjoy rollerblading and skateboarding. The six-member family is heading home, crossing in a crosswalk at a three-way intersection when Mother Nancy heard a speeding car barreling their way. The mom says her husband and daughter were further away from the street. She tries to signal to the two SUVs heading their way to slow down. She tried to pull the children back, only managing to grab one of them, a five-year-old, and dive out of the way. Jacob and Mark, who were farther out in the crosswalk, are hit. Mark Iskender dies at the scene. Jacob dies later at the hospital. According

to police, Mark was thrown 254 feet. 254 feet. I've got an all-star panel joining me, but first I want to go to private investigator, former Federal Task Force officer for the U.S. DOJ Department of Justice with the DEA in the Miami Field Division. No lack of business in Miami-Dade. Former homicide investigator. You can find him at crispininvestigations.com. Robert Crispin, have you ever, first of all, 254 feet. A child is thrown through the air 254 feet. Wait. Okay. Now, I'm a lawyer. I'm not a sports broadcaster, but I was a cheerleader

only because I didn't make the basketball team. One girl got cut, me, so I became a cheerleader. 100 yards. Okay. That's 300 feet. Okay. As you can tell by my stilted questions, they did not teach me that in law school. So this child is thrown nearly the length of a football field? Yeah, not uncommon for the pedestrian to be thrown quite of a distance. This particular case, if you look at the crash impact on the Mercedes, it's pretty much a dead center hit. Robert Crispin, I appreciate all of your knowledge, but that was a yes, no. This little child was thrown nearly the length of a football field?

He was. And that's a long way. Okay. Another quick question. This is a yes, no to Robert Crispin before you, you know, lay all your knowledge on me. Robert Crispin, have you ever been out for a walk or a jog, maybe with your family, and somebody speaks by and you try to,

you say, slow down, or you gesticulate toward them. Has that ever happened to you? Of course. I think it's happened to everybody. Okay. Did they stop? Did they slow down? Not at all. They're oblivious. Not at all. In fact, they speed off. I tried to take the picture of a speeding car the other day that sped by Lucy and me as we were walking. As soon as I held my phone up, it scratched off, Crispin. So the mom, can you imagine? There's all the children. Let's see.

There's Mark 11, Jacob 8. The parents are there, Kareem and Nancy, the brother, Zachary, who's just five, the husband. They're all out for an evening stroll at a lake. I don't think too far from their home. And this socialite married to a plastic surgeon, just stinking of money comes flying by and you can hear the car first speeding. Cause I can hear it when I'm with the twins. I'm like, go get off the road. Get over. I hear a car coming. And sure enough, here it comes barreling down. The mom heard it first and immediately starts trying to get everybody.

And she couldn't get the two little boys fast enough. You think I've got those facts right, Robert Crispin? Listen, your facts are right. And I've, you know, with my own son, when I'm out walking with him, he gets so far away and someone comes speeding by. I cannot imagine of how close she was to just potentially grabbing them and pulling them back and not being there and watching that impact had to be horrific. Horrific. And you know, the other little brother, Zachary's five, he remembers this crystal clear. Okay, let me get back to the facts. Listen. Nancy Iskander tells police that two SUVs

were speeding toward her family and were, quote, zigzagging with each other as if they were playing or racing. She says the drivers didn't stop at the intersection, not even when the 11-year-old was on the hood of the car. She describes how 8-year-old Jacob was lying near the curb. Mark was in the road with a visibly broken arm and, quote, blood coming out of his mouth. She says her 5-year-old watched paramedics perform CPR on his brother. When asked if she could see which driver or SUV struck her son, Iskander said no, she was diving out of the way, pulling her five-year-old along. As I mentioned, with me an all-star panel to make sense of what we know right now. But now I want to go to Eamon Murphy joining

us, investigative reporter, writer for the Acorn newspapers. Eamon, thank you for being with us. Explain to me what facts I've left out so far, up to the point where CPR is being given by the EMTs. Well, Nancy, you basically got it right. It was the evening of September 29th, 2020. The family, the Iskander family, were out for a walk. You know, this is during COVID. So they're, they're getting out, getting some air. Um, Nancy Iskander is crossing the road.

It's called Tranfo Canyon road in Westlake village. It runs right along the lake. She's crossing towards the lake with her three boys. She's got the youngest boy right at her hip. And they're in front. The two older boys are behind her. That's Mark and Jacob. Her husband and their baby daughter continue walking up the road. They don't cross, so there's some distance away. Nancy Iskender hears the roars of two engines, she says, and she turns and she sees these SUVs coming. She's able to jump out of the way of the first one. That's a black SUV with her youngest son. But then behind her, the second car, which is a white Mercedes SUV,

hits the other two boys. And that's the one driven by Rebecca Grossman, authorities say. Okay, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. Eamon Murphy. First of all, Rebecca Gross whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. Amen, Murphy. First of all, Rebecca Grossman. Okay. Well, she's beautiful. Number one.

But she is married to a plastic surgeon. So I don't know how much of that is God given. Not judging. Don't care. But, you know, you normally think of a lady of her standing, her age, she's a grown woman. I don't really picture her zigzagging at what, 80 plus miles an hour in a residential area. Zigzagging like on Fast and Furious. You've seen that, right?

I've seen all of them with my son. OK, actually, I liked them, so I can't really blame him. Eamon, have you ever seen that, the zigzagging? And I'm trying to imagine, I'm looking at a picture right now, this lady, well, she's no lady. She's killer, according to me. Actually zigzagging in a residential area at 80 plus miles an hour, right? I'll say it's a problem in the LA area. I mean, in this quiet, sleepy part of town,

I mean, the first time I drove by this road, I saw numerous pedestrians, numerous cyclists. The thought of going 81 miles an hour, which is the figure we've been given, that's unthinkable on that road. I mean, completely unthinkable. But the judge in the preliminary hearing said that Grossman was playing a high-speed game of chicken with the other driver in the incident, Scott Erickson. And police said that they were racing from a restaurant to a house. The judge in the trial has taken a more skeptical stance towards that term. And street racing is not part of the charges in this case. But the prosecutor who has said it's not a grease style dropping of the handkerchief scenario, he doesn't want to have to stop a witness from using that word in the colloquial sense to describe what they saw as the mother in this case has done the mother of the victims but uh there is a there is a history of speeding tickets

and this driving record it was accompanied by a warning from the highway patrolman who said you know you could kill somebody driving like this on the freeway how do we know he said that on one of her last speeding tickets is it on body cam I'm not sure if it's on body cam or if a note was made of it some other way. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. And now to the California big dollhouse. What's that? I'm talking about jail. Incarcerated California socialite Rebecca Grossman slammed with a civil lawsuit as grief-stricken parents of two little boys that she mowed down in a drunken hit and run seek to hit her where it

hurts in the wallet. What happened to that day? 81 and a 45. And when you say this sleepy little area of L.A., for most people, we think of L.A. Although I lived there for a while, I do know that there are sleepy little areas. Most people think of, you know, the Walk of Fame. They think of downtown LA, what we see in movies and TV. What part of LA is a sleepy little borough? Well, this is not the city of Los Angeles. This is the absolute western edge of Los Angeles County. It's a city called Westlake Village, which is less than 8,000 people. And most of the city was annexed by Ventura County and became part of Thousand Oaks. So it's a tiny little affluent suburb just on the edge of the county. And, you know, really the point of it is it's not Los Angeles, the city. You know, it's a different kind of a place. You know, Eamon Murphy, I'm trying to parse everything you're saying because you're giving me so much correct information.

You said that L.A. has a problem with drag racing or speed racing. I think that he said that. Yeah, by gang members. I don't think of some plastic surgeon, this old lady out there dragging with her lover after they booze it up at lunch. That must have been some long lunch because now it's the evening and she's drag racing with her, excuse me, alleged lover, alleged. I haven't seen them in bed together. I don't know for sure that they're lovers, but that said this grown lady, drunk as a skunk, drag racing and most all that. You know what?

Money cannot buy class. That is for sure. What do you buy an AMG car for? I mean, one thing the prosecution wanted to bring in is the fact that she took a one day performance driving course on a closed track in 2018. And the judge said, no. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You're awesome, number one. AMG.

Yeah, AMG, it's a high performance kind of a Mercedes, you know, these cars with the really loud engines. And so that if you buy one of these cars, you can participate in a course on a closed racetrack where they kind of give you the you have an instructor and you have a chance to, you know, drive fast. And of course, you're not on the street. So it's not dangerous in that way. And you're told that the course, you know, this is, you know, very controlled conditions. You can't drive like this in the real world. So she attended one of these in 2018, and the prosecution had wanted to introduce this and bring this warning in to show, because street racing in the legal sense is not part of the

charges, but the prosecution means it in the more colloquial sense of two cars driving very quickly, mirroring each other, something we see a lot on the freeway and something that a witness in the case might say about this incident as the mother of the victims has done. Joining us, former prosecutor in Lawrence County, PA, author of The Executioner's Toll. Wait for it. The Executioner's Toll, the crimes, arrests, trials, appeals, last meals and final words of executed persons, 46 people across the U.S.

I love that title. You can find him at Matt Mangino dot com. Matthew Mangino. We both tried a lot of homicide cases to show intent to a jury. You can show them intent either implied or express. Express means I say, Jackie, I'm going to shoot you dead right now. And I shoot her dead. That's not going to happen because I need you desperately.

And there is implied intent, such as you choose to get stinking drunk walk to your car insert the key start the ignition put it in reverse put it in drive hit the gas or let me give an easier one with implied intent I go and I practice shoot at a range for 20 hours then I go by mmm let's just go with a Glock. Then I stalk my husband who I find out has been cheating. Not true. And then I get him in the crosshairs and I, I spy on him until he comes out of the office and I train across the parking lot and boom, he gone. All right. So that is implied intent. It was a very long drawn out plan, even though I didn't expressly say it. I think here I would argue to the jury. I'd show them this picture of her car totally bashed in in the front and go through what all she did before she landed right here. All the warnings, all the speeding tickets, all the booze that afternoon and say that's implied intent.

Right. You know, second degree murder in California is you have to show malice of forethought. You don't have you don't show deliberation or premeditation, just that malice. In drinking, where you have a blood alcohol content, three hours later, that's 0.08, which is clearly indicative that it would have been higher at the time you were driving. And that you're driving 80 miles an hour in a 45-mile-an- hour zone where there are pedestrians frequently in that area is enough to show malice. I mean, plus her history of driving at an excess of speed at times, all amounts to her malice. She's grossly negligent. She's reckless in getting behind the wheel and driving at that speed in an area in which there frequently are people and young people exercising involved in recreation. And because of that, there's ample evidence to convict her of second degree murder. Well, now we're getting a whole spin on it. And luckily, fortuitously today, we have with us a premier accident reconstructionist, senior engineer, co-owner of Veritech Consulting Engineering at Veritech,

E-N-G for engineering.com, Joseph Tremblay. Joseph, I've got a few things to run by you. But first, Stacey Stewart, the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MAD, which has now taken off across this country and is a veritable force against drunk driving. Stacey Stewart, Eamon Murphy, isn't it true that she would not willingly give a blood draw and that she wouldn't, quote, really blow into the breathalyzer? I've heard that about them, that she wasn't really blowing. And that's why they wanted to get the blood and why you had those readings that were 0.076. And then later on, the blood draw reading is higher. She did not give consent to have the blood drawn. She said she wanted to ask her husband when they said, will you consent to

this? So instead, there was a forced blood draw. She was taken to the hospital by the police. And there her blood was taken. And that's where they got the 0.08 result. OK, Stacey Stewart joining us, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Mad. Stacy, if she's.08 hours later once she gets to the hospital and they perform the blood draw, there's no telling what she was because alcohol dissipates in the body. That's exactly right. And if she was at.08 three hours after the crash occurred, then she was significantly higher than that, presumably at the time of the crash. I know that that's what the prosecutors will argue. And one of the things that I think a lot of people in the

NC don't understand is that even at levels less than 0.08, drivers are impaired. You know, there was a bill introduced in California and there's one that's been introduced in other states trying to move the legal limit to 0.05, seven times higher as compared to for drivers that are anywhere from 0.05 to 0.08 as compared to drivers with no alcohol in their system. So we know that at any level of drinking and driving, a driver can be impaired and can dangerously put themselves at risk or others as is the case here, from the facts that we know. There's one other thing to say here, Nancy, which is that the toxicology report also showed a small amount of Valium. So the prosecution is going to say that there's an interaction between the Valium and the alcohol, which increases the impairment effect, even if you have a level of reading that is not all that high in terms of the legal limit. Nancy, one thing I would just say about that is one of the things I would just say

about that point is that we are seeing a concerning trend of what we call polyuse. So the use of alcohol and other substances like prescription drugs, Valium, like cannabis. So in states that have also legalized marijuana, where it's more widely available, moving the blood alcohol concentration level to 0.05, it's even more critical because multiple substances can lead to even more impairment by drivers. And we're seeing a disturbing trend about that, where we've seen an increase in impaired driving fatalities of 35 percent even over the past few years. So we're seeing an increasing trend. And of course, this multiple use of substances is obviously an issue that we have to address. Joseph Scott Morgan joining us, professor of forensic at Shaxsville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon and star of a hit series, Body Bags with Joe Scott Morgan.

Joe Scott, why and how does all that alcohol dissipate in just three hours? Well, it's metabolic change or processing rather. So your body is actually metabolizing this alcohol that has been ingested previously. And that's why once someone has become inebriated over a period of time, once they stop drinking, it stands to reason that the body is still processing all of this alcohol that's contained in the body, the ethanol. And as it's being burned off in the body, you begin to kind of return back to a level of normalcy. But it takes a while for it to all get out of your body. And so what's key here is when you are in law enforcement and you're attempting to conduct a test on an individual to measure it, you're fighting against time here because you can't fight metabolism in the body. So it's a race. So the longer you wait, the less the level will be. But you kind of project this

back. If you're talking about a three-hour delay, you can kind of hypothesize that the level would have been much higher and with a much greater level of impairment as well. And you couple that with Valium and it's a deadly mix. The grieving parents of two little boys mowed down dead by a wealthy socialite, Rebecca Grossman. Oh, it was a horrific, horrific hit and run, waited nearly four years to see her finally convicted by a jury and sent to jail for 15 years to life. Don't worry, she'll get out early. But now they're hitting her and her family where it hurts them the most, in the bank account. That's right. The parents have filed an unlawful death civil lawsuit against Grossman. They've even asked an L.A. judge to let them probe the finances of Grossman, who is estimated to be worth at least $20 million.

This after they have been forced to endure losing their two beloved little boys, Mark 11 and Jacob 8. Take a listen to Captain Salvador Becerra. Two cars were racing. We believe speed is a factor. Alcohol is a factor. The family were in a marked crosswalk, clearly marked. As she realized there were two cars speeding her way, she was able to reach out and grab one of her children off of a razor scooter, pull the child back with the stroller, with another child in the stroller, as the car entered the intersection and hit the other two boys. What more do we know about what happened when these two little boys were mowed down dead? Listen to our friends at Crime Online. Deputies reportedly catch up with

a white Mercedes with significant front end damage a third of a mile from the scene. Behind the wheel is Rebecca Grossman. A deputy describes finding the vehicle stopped at the curb and Grossman saying she didn't know why her airbag had been triggered. As Grossman speaks to a 911 operator, she's asked if she hit someone. Grossman can be heard saying, I don't know what I hit. One of the boys struck in the crosswalk is pronounced dead on the scene, according to KCAL, and another boy dies in the hospital. Police were able to arrest 57-year-old Rebecca Grossman, a well-known figure in the community who appeared on KCAL in the past. As the founder and chair of the Grossman Burn Foundation, she's also been recognized for her humanitarian work around the world.

Captain Salvador Becerra says it is senseless and could have been avoided by ordering an Uber or calling a friend. Rebecca Grossman did not stay on the scene. She was arrested a quarter of a mile away. So Eamon Murphy from the Acorn newspapers, she flees the scene and starts saying, I don't know what I hit. She's in the white, high-powered Mercedes with all of the damage to the front right in the middle of the grill. That's right. She kept driving.

The engine was cut off remotely because the airbag had deployed. So the car eventually stopped and she was found by deputies. That's probably the only reason she stopped is because the car forced her to stop when the airbag deployed. With me is Joseph Tremblay, a premier accident reconstructionist, senior engineer, co-owner, Veritech Consulting Engineering. Joseph, I wanted you to hear these facts so you could give me your analysis. What do you think? Well, let's talk about that car a little bit more

and the damage to the front end. It's pretty obvious that there's significant damage to both the front clip and the hood, which is very consistent with contact made between the car and a pedestrian. In this case... Oh, wait, I see what you're talking about. When you say the front grill, or I say grill and you say hood, you know, if you look at that picture, Joseph Tremblay, and of course, I'm a civilian in this matter. It looks like there is a spot where a boy's body could lay almost like a hammock has been formed in her hood. Yeah, that's correct. And I think that's probably what happened in this case is that one of the little boys actually ended up on the hood, as tragic as that sounds,

and was carried by the car for a significant distance after impact. And another thing that's interesting to note on that picture that you're referring to, where you see the front end damage, you also see underneath the car, there's a puddle of fluid, almost as if perhaps the car sustained some sort of mechanical damage from this contact. And not only was the car disabled because of the airbag deployment, it may not have been drivable at all because of the coolant leak. That's probably what happened here. Hold on, I'm trying to furiously take notes as you write. It's amazing to me that her defense is that it was her boyfriend that did it the one

driving the other car when they pull this vehicle over she had been forced to stop either from the fluid leakage or because the airbag deployed she did you hear this part to you Robert Crispin't, quote, really blow into the breathalyzer? Don't you know it's because she knew she was drunk and she thought by just going, and not really blowing into it fully, she might beat the breathalyzer? So listen, the breathalyzer machines are very accurate and they're very sensitive and they're built for people that are going to do that. So clearly it obtained a reasonable sample to come up with an indication in a reading being the.076. So, yes, I've had a bunch of people and I've arrested over 100 people for DUI in my career.

Yes, people always try to do that. They always try to very lightly blow. But these machines are built for that. in my career. Yes, people always try to do that. They always try to very lightly blow, but these machines are built for that. They sense that. The machines aren't stupid. So if I could just add one thing about the point, once you went up to the 0.08, and I think your doctor will also be able to confirm with this, you can drink alcohol and have three drinks right now and get in your car in two seconds, which is a very stupid thing to do, but you can drive a half a block away and get home. And you're probably still under the legal limit because as the doctor says, the alcohol hasn't

processed your body. Clearly she was going up in her BAC level or her blood alcohol level, which I surmise is why the prosecution did not charge her with DUI. Because at the time she took that first test, now maybe it was a PBT test, maybe it was a roadside test, I don't know. But whatever machine she blew into, and then they took the other blood tests at the hospital, I believe in the three hours, and the doctor can confirm this, her blood alcohol level was going up. And I have a feeling that the prosecution said err on the side of caution because they're going to say she wasn't DUI at the time of the crash. At the time of the crash. That's a big deal. At the time of the crash.

Yeah, that explains why they didn't charge her driving under the influence, because if they lost that count, it could taint or poison the rest of the counts. They absolutely know they can prove to be DUI. Yeah, to be DUI across the country, you've got to be in most jurisdictions, 0.08. And at first she blew 0.076, which rounds up to 0.8, but that's not good enough. When she gets to the hospital, she does, the blood test shows 0.08. I personally trust a blood test more than the breathalyzer and the breathalyzer may have hit low because she was going and not really blowing into it. But we're going to hear more about that during the trial.

You know, another thing, and I'm very curious about this. I'll throw this to Joseph Trimbley. Our accident reconstruction is joining us. A former L.A. County sheriff's deputy who specializes in traffic crashes, testified at a preliminary hearing, his name Robert Apodaca, that he had never seen a person thrown 254 feet by impact. It's the farthest he has ever known a human to be thrown in a crash. What about it, Trimblelay? I think that is a significant distance, and I am also very surprised at that distance. That's incredible. And I think there's probably two factors that really contributed to that number. And the first was that, as we touched on earlier,

I think one of these pedestrians, one of these little boys, was actually up on the hood for a distance while the car was driving. And you know, this car is going pretty fast, 70, 80 miles per hour, according to evidence. And it doesn't take a whole lot of time to cover that kind of distance. So there was probably a portion of that 254 feet in which the little boy was on the hood and then was vaulted off of the hood at some point. And then, you know, unfortunately came to rest where he did. But both of those factors kind of contribute to that distance. And I want to swing back and talk about this car a little bit more. One thing that's kind of unique to Mercedes is Mercedes has done a lot of safety improvements to their vehicles because they know that pedestrian accidents are very, very dangerous,

and they're usually fatal. And it's very serious when these occur. So one of the safety features on all Mercedes cars ever since 2019 is called PreSafe. And that's a system that's designed to detect pedestrians. Now, the only way that that system will work is if the car is traveling 45 miles per hour or less. So it goes to stay that we could consider if this driver, Grossman, if she was traveling the speed limit, this accident may have never happened. Wow. I didn't know about pre-safe on Mercedes. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. In the last days, two grieving parents state in court, quote, in light of the defendant Rebecca Grossman's five felony convictions and all the evidence to date, there's a substantial probabilityimely deaths back September 29, 2020. The Iskanders

completely devastated. I know money will not bring the little boys back, but this is a move that would hit the wealthy socialite driving drunk where it hurts in her piggy bank. What is a grown woman doing drag racing drunk as a skunk and high as a kite off of Valium and booze? Karen Stark joining me, a renowned psychologist joining us out of the Manhattan jurisdiction at Karen Stark dot com. Karen with a C. Karen, what's a grown woman doing? Drag racing with her alleged lover? And this guy is no schlump.

L.A. Dodgers, play with the L.A. Dodgers and with the New York Yankees. And he's having this alcohol-soaked lunch with this married multimillionaire. And then they decide to go drag racing really oh you're not talking about the kind of grown woman that we would imagine that they've been spending the whole afternoon having a great time drinking allegedly he's an ex-lover and where i don't know supposedly for a trip i don't know what they were doing, but she's not a sedate, controlled person. She now has Valium in her system. She's drinking. She's having this great time with an ex-lover, and she's just letting loose.

What's really telling to me, I don't know about, this isn't my expertise, but the fact that she said, I don't know what I hit, to me is saying that she knows she hit something. She just doesn't know what it is that she hit. I mean, get real, Karen Stark. Come on, please get out of that ivory tower. She drives, what was it, a quarter of a mile a half a mile emon murphy right with the little boy on her hood exactly how far did she drive emon with the boy on the hood well i'm not the the detail about the boy on the hood has has been contested um a bit what does the state say i mean initially i i'm not I don't want to say the say that the figures in the past because they've been they've been challenged. I mean, the car,

the car continued driving before she stopped either a quarter mile or a half mile. So she was, you know, she was continuing. Well, where was the little boy's body found? There was one of them was found in the crosswalk, basically, and another was found around 200, 200 some feet away. OK, Trimbley, that's to you. The little boy was found 200 feet away, at least 200 feet away. So she drove two thirds of a football field with the boy on her hood. What, she couldn't see that? No, I think she's oblivious, and it really surprises me that

not only did she not see these two little boys before impact, I mean, this is a wide-open intersection, and it's a very well-lit, well-marked crosswalk. It's got, there's flashing lights overhead. You can see it for about a thousand feet before you get to it. So it's, let's, let's make sure that that's a point that we talk about here is that there's no visual obstructions to what, you know, she can see. But, but not only that after impact, she's completely oblivious. There's,

there's a little boy on her hood and she continues to drive. That's how serious this is. That's just plain egregious. You know, Matthew Mangino, sometimes the defense shoots themselves in the foot. And I think that happened here because the defense came up

with a new theory as defense claiming the alleged lover. He's the one that was driving her Mercedes as they were drag racing and chasing each other through this residential neighborhood. And now the prosecutor, Jamie Castro, will argue that she, Rebecca Grossman and the professional athlete, Scott Erickson, had been in a sex affair. They said they were not going to bring it up until she's now blaming him, claiming it has now become relevant because the defense intends to argue that the black car is at issue in this particular scenario and that they had swapped. So by coming out with this defense, now their sex affair is going to come into evidence. Yeah, it will. And as you said, it wasn't the state's intention to bring up the affair

until they tried to put forward this defense that he was driving her vehicle. So that whole issue with regard to their relationship is now something that can be brought before the jury. And obviously, you know, a jury is going to make a decision here and they're going to consider the fact, but they also are going to consider the credibility, the believability of witnesses. The mother of the two little boys who were mowed down dead actually runs out of the courtroom sobbing. Eamon Murphy joining us, investigative reporter, writer for the Acorn newspapers. Go ahead.

Well, Nancy, we heard from the mother of the victims, Nancy Iskander, who described having to jump out of the way of an oncoming black SUV with her youngest son. Then a white SUV coming just up behind it ran through the intersection where her other two boys were. She didn't see it hit them, but she heard a crash as it went by, and then they'd been struck. At one point after she had testified, there were photographs shown that another witness had taken of the aftermath of the scene, including of a broken skateboard. Her oldest son, Mark, had been on a skateboard, and also of Mark's body. And Nancy Iskender, at that point, cried out her son's name, Mark's name, and had to leave the courtroom in distress. We also heard from some other witnesses of the collisions. None of them saw the white car hit both of the boys, but two of them saw the white car hit one of the boys, but two of them saw the white car hit one of the boys.

And none of them attributed any impact to a black vehicle, which has been the defense's claim that the black car driven by Grossman's then boyfriend, Scott Erickson, was responsible for hitting the boys. We also saw the defense very aggressively cross-examine two investigators, one of whom did the initial crash report. They were going after his measurements of the debris, which led to his conclusion that speed was the cause of the accident, as well as his conclusion that all the debris was consistent with the white Mercedes. He was also the same officer to initially come into contact with Rebecca Grossman and her disabled white Mercedes after the accident. And then the officer who conducted the field sobriety test under cross-examination acknowledged that not all of the tests were conducted according to the book, which cast some doubt onto his conclusions that she was impaired when he arrested her. Testimony has gotten up to the point where Rebecca Grossman's blood was drawn at the hospital after a warrant was obtained to do a blood draw. So next, they're going to get into the chemist's account of the test results, which is important because that result is what was at the 0.08 level

three hours after the incident. The breathalyzer results were 0.076 and 0.075, which are just below that threshold for impairment. You can still be impaired technically below that limit, but it's going to be important for the prosecution to get that test established at that point. Oh, it level. And the defense is going to go after the blood draw and the testing method. You know, Stacey Stewart, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Mad. I don't get why after all the publicity that Matt has generated, people still drive drunk. You know, it's it's it's a problem. And as I mentioned earlier, Nancy, we're seeing the numbers going in the wrong direction. A 35% increase in the past several

years is astounding. And I think one of the things that's really important is it's really time for us to revisit the laws and the technology that we have in place. I just was just listening to the technology in Mercedes. You know, even that technology is not sufficient to stop something like this. But I do want you to know and others to know that in 2021, November 2021, the HALT Act was passed. It is new legislation that now requires passive advanced impaired driving prevention systems to be integrated into all new cars starting in 2026. This is passive technology that would detect impaired driving. And it's these kinds of cases that this technology, if it were in place, would have prevented anyone getting behind the wheel at the level of illegal impairment,

would not be allowed to operate their car. And right now, Matt's biggest priority is getting this technology implemented, getting the legislation implemented. We're in the process of public commentary right now. This is a huge win, but it's not a win for drivers and for public safety if we, every day that we don't have this technology included in cars, but we are close to it. And frankly, this kind of prevention system would have been enormously helpful to have saved the lives of these two precious little boys. Well, you're right. You're right, Stacey Stewart. And you know what else would have been helpful?

If Rebecca Grossman hadn't gotten drunk as a skunk at lunch and hopped behind the wheel of her high-powered Mercedes. That would have helped. We wait as justice unfolds. Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.