GUILTY CA - Mark & Jacob Iskander, 11 and 9, Killed by Drunk Socialite Rebecca Grossman in Veh vs Ped Hit & Run - Los Angeles, 2020 *GUILTY on all counts*

I am sure that there will be. I just dont know how ultimately successful it will be.

I am thinking that RG could be a tough nut to crack in the collection sense of the word. Most of the assets could be liquid.

Then the possibility of not enough assets to be easy to find, but enough assets to be able to hire expert advise on how to protect and hide them (I imagine technically, hired pros cant give advise on the "hide" side- but my bet is that they do via "theoretical discussions".

Likewise, I think there is a trend for high income people (husband is a doctor) in lawsuit risk professions to not truly own alot in the legal sense of the word. Thus, the "protection" side could have started years ago.

Agreed. The Grossman Burn Foundation was started by Grossman senior, no doubt as a corporation. Every thing gets wrapped in the "corporation", really a vehicle to save inherited wealth from taxes.

The heirs are usually selected as "officers", receiving a high salary to serve on the board. Also, a way of controlling heirs, if they don't follow the path, they are discharged as board members.

But, she may have some personal funds. And the Iskander family is also pursuing civil litigation against the City of West Lake, State of California, as well.


I believe that their plan is to endow a non-profit organization for foster children.

 

More information on the civil lawsuit, and the intersection where the boys were killed, now has a beacon for pedestrian crossing.
 
Article on sentence and appeal, "ineffective counsel". Of course.

 
I keep expecting to see a link to an article that she has been released on a technicality pending sentencing. Like I can’t believe there is not a loophole somewhere.

I can’t fathom how she must be doing. I have to think every day she wakes up in disbelief she didn’t get off.
 
I keep expecting to see a link to an article that she has been released on a technicality pending sentencing. Like I can’t believe there is not a loophole somewhere.

I can’t fathom how she must be doing. I have to think every day she wakes up in disbelief she didn’t get off.

Agreed. I am thinking that she looked long for an attorney that wouldn't tell her to settle and take a plea. The team of attorneys she had was from Texas! Really?!

Apparently, her first attorney was ill, and she didn't want his partner. And of course, she is going to file an appeal, ineffective counsel. LOL. Gotta say, we saw that coming. How much did she pay for that team of "losers"?! Good grief.

She is probably being held in the same area that Paris Hilton stayed when she was there.
 

How can they pick and choose which mug shots to release? Aren't they public records?!
 

How can they pick and choose which mug shots to release? Aren't they public records?!

From the first sentence of the article quoted above:

"...but many Californians are unaware that the less-than-glamorous shots are not considered part of the public record..."

~E
 
From the first sentence of the article quoted above:

"...but many Californians are unaware that the less-than-glamorous shots are not considered part of the public record..."

~E

I know, but the department should not be able to pick and choose which mugshots get released. Seriously. Release ALL of them, or none. It smacks of elitism.
 
I know, but the department should not be able to pick and choose which mugshots get released. Seriously. Release ALL of them, or none. It smacks of elitism.
iirc, when Paul Pelosi was attacked in SF, the mug shot of the attacker wasn't released because the law is designed to ensure a fair trial. But I don't understand why Grossman's is still not released. She has been convicted.

JMO
 
This is the link to the website that RG's daughter put together.


When did she put this up and what difference does it make now?

Are they trying to imply that there is new evidence that wasn’t admissible in the trial?
 
When did she put this up and what difference does it make now?

Are they trying to imply that there is new evidence that wasn’t admissible in the trial?

I just added this in case it was of interest. And yes, this is full of what should have been added to the trial, in their opinion.

Of course, they also omitted the 13 total speeding tickets RG received, and the racing course she took, which the judge declined to add.
 
I just added this in case it was of interest. And yes, this is full of what should have been added to the trial, in their opinion.

Of course, they also omitted the 13 total speeding tickets RG received, and the racing course she took, which the judge declined to add.

It’s clear they thought she would get a pass and still hoping something should undo the guilty verdict.
 

These documents are interesting, and solve the question of why Mr. Grossman was so adamant and supportive of RG, because he is named as a co-defendant in the civil lawsuit filed by the Iskanders. Probably because his name was on the title of the car that hit the boys.

That is the only reason why I can understand why he is included in the lawsuit.
 

According to court documents, Grossman told her daughter, Alexis, to make public a deputy-worn body-camera video that had been sealed by the judge and to direct another person to talk to the judge about a new trial. She also encouraged tracking down witnesses to get them to say their testimony was directed.

Alexis Grossman replies, “I will.”

Dr. Peter Grossman, Rebecca Grossman’s husband, then interjects: “Everything you want us to put out, honey, let us know. We’re going to put it all out.”

Gould and Castro wrote that two jurors have reported that three others on the jury were contacted by Paul Stuckey, a private investigator, despite the judge’s sealing jurors’ personal information.

Lots more at the link
 

I was expecting something like this. It wouldn't surprise me if they found some obscure reason for a re-trial. However, I believe that unlike Florida, even if a new trial is ordered, the original findings are upheld. It just delays the sentence. I am not sure about the case law on that though. It is not a "Get Out of Jail" free card. As far as I know...
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
221
Guests online
2,982
Total visitors
3,203

Forum statistics

Threads
592,657
Messages
17,972,591
Members
228,854
Latest member
Caseymarie9316
Back
Top