Ex-Dodger makes shocking financial claim as jury weighs further punishment in fatal Grossman crash 50%

By Katie Jerkovich0%

6/6/2026, 5:14:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.1% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,032 faulty-reasoning hits from 498 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.2% and a BS Rank of 50% (10,987 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.20% of the article peer group.

Former Major League pitcher Scott Erickson said his millions are gone as the jury weighs his financial fate in the fatal crash involving two young boys in a Westlake Village crosswalk in 2020. 
Jurors must now decide whether to weigh punitive damages against both Erickson and his ex-lover Rebecca Grossman after they were found negligent in the death of 11-year-old Mark and 8-year-old Jacob Iskander. 
A jury awarded $176 million to the Iskander family on Wednesday, finding both the former professional baseball player and the Los Angeles socialite liable for the deadly crash that killed the brothers. 
During his testimony on Friday in the punitive phase of the trial, the ex-Dodger said his nearly $46 million earnings from his Major League Baseball career are practically gone. 
“I haven’t been able to get a job since the accident,” he told the courtroom. 
His MLB career ended in 2006, that along with a divorce, taxes and other bad decisions has left him with little more than $9,000 in the bank, per the report. 
However, Erickson still has $242,000 in a retirement account, equity in a condo in Las Vegas worth $200,000, and a $13,000 pension monthly from MLB, per the report. 
Grossman, who was convicted of murder for killing the two young boys with her car during a chase with Erickson, was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison in 2024. 
The former MLB pitcher was driving a separate car nearby that day, raising questions about whether the pair had been speeding together. 
Erickson, however, was never charged. 
The ex-Dodger finally addressed the tragedy when he took the stand last month in the wrongful death trial. 
He testified that he sped up when he spotted two young boys in the crosswalk moments before they were fatally struck in 2020. 
“I stepped on the gas for probably two or three seconds to get through, because I thought that was the safest process,” Erickson told the Van Nuys courtroom on May 13. 
During his testimony Friday, prosecutors questioned him about admitting his guilt for his part in the deadly crash six years later. 
“It took a jury verdict for you to come clean and admit under oath that you caused the deaths, you were part of it and you covered it up for almost six years, correct?” 
Attorney Brian Panish said, per ABC7. 
“Yes, that’s correct.” 
Erickson replied. 
The former professional baseball player also told the jury he now believes if he could’ve stopped, the Iskander brothers would be alive today. 
“I feel terrible about what happened. 
I feel really bad about my actions and some of the terrible behavior I did,” he said, per the Times report. 
“I have not been very honest. 
And no words can describe how I feel about what’s happened  I truly believe now if I could have somehow been able to stop, I probably, possibly, could have saved their lives.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.8%Katie Jerkovich: 2.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Katie Jerkovich: 5.9%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic13.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 11.2%Katie Jerkovich: 1.1%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.1%Katie Jerkovich: 13.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect23.1%This article: 12.4%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion12.4%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: 9.6%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 29.1%Katie Jerkovich: 14.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias29.1%This article: 12.2%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias12.2%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: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%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: 3.6%Katie Jerkovich: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias3.6%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: 4.2%Katie Jerkovich: 2.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 10.8%Katie Jerkovich: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma10.8%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: 9.6%Katie Jerkovich: 5.6%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization9.6%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: 12.0%Katie Jerkovich: 11.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion12.0%This article: 6.8%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question6.8%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: 6.8%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof6.8%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: 4.6%Katie Jerkovich: 7.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal4.6%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.9%Katie Jerkovich: 2.1%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.9%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: 6.8%Katie Jerkovich: 5.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote6.8%This article: 6.8%Katie Jerkovich: 2.5%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.8%This article: 3.6%Katie Jerkovich: 10.1%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice3.6%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%

498 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers53%attributed speech235writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 29 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageScott Erickson • 23 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Panish • 34 words • 100.0% coverageBrian Panish • 6 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 23 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 6 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 21 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 6 words • 0.0% coverageScott Erickson • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brian Panish

85%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words15% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Unattributed Quote+85.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brian Panish: 85.0%85.0%Quote-first Misdirection+85.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brian Panish: 85.0%85.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Brian Panish: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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