From the moment Rebecca Grossman’s name emerged as one of the drivers involved in the September 29, 2020 tragedy that claimed the lives of Mark and Jacob Iskander, the mainstream media abandoned any pretense of neutrality. Fueled by inaccurate and misleading information supplied by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Lost Hills Station, reporters rushed to construct a narrative rooted in outrage rather than evidence. Headlines, soundbites, and imagery painted Grossman not as a defendant in a complex and evolving investigation, but as a one-dimensional symbol of privilege and recklessness. Branded early on as the “L.A. socialite” who killed two children, she was reduced to a tabloid archetype, her wealth and social status overshadowing any examination of facts. This distorted framing set the tone for years of coverage, where sensationalism and selective reporting buried forensic disputes, alternative theories, and even fundamental truths about the case.
SOCIALITE OR DEFENDANT
Nearly every major outlet, from People, to The Guardian, to The Times, seized on one descriptor: socialite. The word was repeated like a mantra, deliberately framing Rebecca Grossman as a wealthy woman living above the law until tragedy finally caught up with her. Headlines such as “L.A. Socialite Sentenced…” sent their message before a single fact was presented: this case wasn’t just about a fatal accident, it was about privilege. In the emotionally charged climate of the pandemic – when inequality was a political flashpoint – this framing transformed Grossman into a ready-made villain. The tone was set long before the trial began, ensuring that public perception would be anchored in outrage, not evidence.
In doing so, the press set up a familiar archetype, an affluent woman cast as detached and entitled, while leaving little space for nuance. That framing fueled outrage but also flattened complex legal questions into a simple morality play.
EMOTIONAL SHOCK AS STRATEGY
Coverage leaned heavily into emotional shock. Reporters amplified the prosecution’s claim that Grossman lacked remorse and “blamed others.” Outlets quoted the boys’ grieving mother calling the 15-to-life sentence a “stab in my heart,” using her words to symbolize the supposed leniency of the outcome.
While victim impact statements are undeniably powerful, the media’s selective focus elevated them into the centerpiece of coverage – pushing aside evidence-based analysis and the complexities of the case. Grief and condemnation became the headline, while forensic disputes and contradictory details were buried or ignored. In doing so, the press crossed from reporting into advocacy, effectively serving as a second prosecutor and shaping public opinion against Grossman long before a jury was even seated.
THE EVIDENCE: REPORTED OR RECONSTRUCTED?
The Sheriff’s Department told the press that Grossman was traveling at 81 mph, citing data from her Mercedes’ electronic data recorder (EDR). That detail was repeated endlessly in headlines, even animated in crash reconstructions. Yet, what was omitted is that the same EDR also logged Grossman’s average daily speed at an impossible 568 mph. When questioned, prosecution experts dismissed the 568 mph figure as an obvious error, yet insisted the 81 mph and 73 mph readings were accurate. Accepting some data while discarding others from the same device raises profound questions about reliability – questions the media declined to ask.
Defense arguments that another vehicle, Scott Erickson’s large SUV, which Grossman’s car was following, may have been involved, were mocked as desperate rather than examined as legitimate. Grossman herself has always maintained that she never saw the boys, because her vision was blocked by Erickson’s vehicle in the dark.
Grossman did accept responsibility for being involved in the tragic accident, even sending heartfelt letters of sorrow and remorse to the Iskander family both before and after the trial. She did this entirely on her own volition, without any plea offer from the District Attorney’s office. Ironically, those letters were later weaponized against her by prosecutors in post-trial hearings. What she never admitted, either in those letters or at any other point, was guilt for the tactical vertical and horizontal overcharging pursued by the prosecution: implied malice, second-degree murder, gross negligence, or fleeing the scene. The question that lingers is whether this four-year ordeal would have ever unfolded the way it did had the prosecution offered a plea deal for simple vehicular manslaughter.
The prosecution leaned on impairment to argue implied malice, even though Grossman was never charged with DUI. In what many view as a staggering miscarriage of justice, Judge Brandolino allowed the argument to stand, paving the way for prosecutors to overcharge her. This represented a clear misapplication of the law: tragic accidents do not automatically equate to gross negligence, particularly when key evidence, video showing multiple vehicles, eyewitness accounts describing two impacts several seconds apart, conflicting EDR data, debris consistent with a second vehicle, and the fact that Grossman’s car was following Erickson’s SUV, pointed to reasonable doubt. Critics argue the court should have limited the case to negligence-based charges. Instead, by allowing gross negligence and a fleeing charge to remain, even though Grossman stayed by her car waiting for authorities, as instructed by the Mercedes emergency system operator, the judge effectively laid the foundation for implied malice and the ultimate murder conviction.
PUBLIC OUTRAGE AMPLIFIED
The media also gave megaphone space to public sentiment, often quoting anonymous Reddit users to bolster the tone of fury. Comments like “Evil woman. Runs down two boys then drives away. I hope she never sees the light of day again” were presented as representative of the public mood.
This mob amplification was compounded by misinformation. One of the most damaging falsehoods came from the Daily Mail, which claimed Grossman had been involved in a separate hit-and-run in 2012. That was proven untrue, it was a different Rebecca Grossman entirely, but the story was never retracted. To this day, the article remains online, poisoning the public well against her.
But by showcasing the most extreme voices, reporters blurred the line between news and mob justice. Public outrage became part of the story, amplified by headlines, embedded quotes, and emotional framing, until it fed back into itself, reinforcing the media’s chosen narrative.
TRIAL BY SOCIAL MEDIA
If the mainstream press acted as a second prosecutor, social media became the courtroom of the mob. On platforms like Reddit and Facebook, outrage was amplified into a frenzy, with strangers trading insults, spewing venom, and declaring Grossman guilty long before the jury ever returned a verdict. Posts dripped with moral condemnation: she was called “evil,” “arrogant,” and a “monster,” with no space left for evidence, nuance, or doubt. The focus was Grossman and only Grossman.
One of the most active sources of misinformation and harassment came from Julie Cohen, who has used the Justice for Mark and Jacob Iskander Facebook page as a megaphone for lies and intimidation. Far from advocating for justice, the page is a platform for personal attacks, demeaning anyone who dares challenge the “official” narrative. That includes smearing my work as an investigative reporter for pursuing uncomfortable truths in this case – and there are many.
For more than a decade, community members have trusted and supported my reporting. One community member reached out in outrage as Cohen’s smear campaign has escalated into a direct assault on me personally, an attack not just on my credibility, but on the very principle of holding power to account through investigative journalism.
Instead of engaging with facts, Cohen’s coalition peddles distortions and character attacks, weaponizing grief to silence legitimate scrutiny. And this pattern is not new. In 2007, Cohen (under her former name, Julie Logudice) was sued by two individuals, underscoring that her current campaign of harassment fits a long-standing pattern.
The result has been a toxic echo chamber where mob outrage substitutes for evidence, and harassment replaces debate that continues until this day. Social media, rather than serving as a space for accountability, has functioned as a digital lynch mob, one that not only pressures the courts through public opinion, but actively tries to intimidate and discredit those who question the inconsistencies and bias that define this case.
THE DEFENSE ON TRIAL IN THE PRESS
When the defense tried to implicate Erickson, point to the crosswalk’s dangerous design, or raise visibility issues, coverage cast those arguments as hollow. Headlines emphasized the defense’s “attempts to deflect” rather than presenting them as legitimate legal strategies. The idea that Grossman’s upbringing or emotional state could mitigate sentencing was dismissed as manipulative rather than examined as context.
The media did not just cover the defense, it mocked it, further cementing the sense that the case was open-and-shut, despite serious evidentiary disputes that were left largely unexplored outside the courtroom.
A NARRATIVE PRE-WRITTEN
Ultimately, the tone of mainstream reporting was less about careful investigation and more about affirming a social narrative: privilege unchecked, tragedy inflicted, justice demanded. The public was invited to see Grossman not as a defendant in a complex criminal trial, but as a symbol of entitlement punished.
In the process, facts blurred into storytelling. Selective evidence, sensational headlines, and emotional testimony were presented as the whole truth, while contradictions and inconvenient details quietly disappeared.
The Grossman case revealed as much about the press as it did about the tragedy. The media, chasing clicks and outrage, became an actor in the drama, not an observer. And in doing so, it delivered its own verdict long before the jury: guilty not just of a crime, but of being who she was.
DISCLAIMER: Investigative reporting in high-profile litigation cases published by The Current Report is non-commercial, fact-based journalism; any project fees compensate research and reporting labor only, sources participate solely in accuracy verification, and final publication is approved exclusively by The Current Report after fact-checking is confirmed.
