Mom of 2 boys killed by LA socialite in hit-and-run crash reveals vile message killer sent from jail 86%

By Katie Jerkovich0% Daniel Farr69%

4/15/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Loss Aversion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 50.7% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 566 faulty-reasoning hits from 361 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.8% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,175 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.50% of the article peer group.

A mom still mourning the tragic deaths of her two boys after a LA socialite killed them after speeding through a crosswalk reacted to the disgusting message the killer sent her from jail. 
The boys’ mother, Nancy Iskander, who lost her sons Mark and Jacob in the 2020 hit-and-run crash, wrote in a post on X about the vile request she got from their killer Rebecca Grossman last week. 
“Last week, Rebecca Grossman—the woman who killed my two precious boys, Mark and Jacob, by speeding through a crosswalk—made a request that I would go visit her in prison… to ‘see the circumstances she is in.’ 
And that she is ‘A victim,’” the mom’s post read. 
“I’m still trying to process how someone could make such a request. 
While I can only imagine how difficult her life behind bars must be, the truth is this: I would trade places with her in a heartbeat.” 
Iskander added, “I would live in any prison cell, under any conditions, for the rest of my life… if it meant my beautiful boys could be alive again—laughing, dreaming, growing up, and chasing every beautiful future they deserved.” 
In March, the California appeals court rejected Grossman’s final bid to overturn her 2024 conviction and keep her behind bars with no early release and no reprieve. 
The ruling cements her fate: 15 years to life in prison for a crash that shocked the nation and claimed the lives of two young brothers. 
The tragedy unfolded in 2020 when Grossman’s SUV slammed into 11-year-old Mark and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander in a marked crosswalk. 
Also drawing scrutiny was Scott Erickson, a former Major League Baseball pitcher who was driving a separate car nearby, raising questions about whether the pair had been speeding together. 
Erickson, however, was never charged. 
Even behind bars, Grossman had faced scrutiny for alleged attempts to access restricted materials. 
Iskander has spoken about her heartbreak, emphasizing the stark contrast between her children’s lives and the privileged world Grossman once inhabited, filled with charity galas, magazine spreads and elite social circles. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Katie Jerkovich: 5.9%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.1%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.7%Katie Jerkovich: 13.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect22.7%This article: 17.7%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion17.7%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 50.7%Katie Jerkovich: 14.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias50.7%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 3.7%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.4%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.3%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.0%Katie Jerkovich: 5.6%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization8.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.4%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.1%Katie Jerkovich: 11.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion14.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 7.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.1%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 5.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.8%Katie Jerkovich: 2.5%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 24.1%Katie Jerkovich: 10.1%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice24.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.9%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 3.5%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

361 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker34%attributed speech239writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageNancy Iskander • 36 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Iskander • 10 words • 100.0% coverageNancy Iskander • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Iskander • 26 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Iskander • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nancy Iskander

90%flagged-word coverage
122 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.4 ptsWriter: 36.4%Nancy Iskander: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+8.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nancy Iskander: 8.2%8.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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