Case Facts
Undisputed Case Evidence
On September 29, 2020, a tragic accident occurred. For two years, the media has focused on only one side of this story.
The EVIDENCE prosecutors do not want the public to know about clearly shows that the allegations are part of a false narrative.
Critical Evidence Destroyed by Sheriffs. Actual Images (below) Within Seconds of the Accident. Only Clips Were Recorded on Iphones Erasing Raw Video.
Considering that we have received many inquiries as to why Rebecca Grossman did not attend the first four preliminary hearings held by Judge Shelley Samuels in 2020, we will be providing screenshots of every 977 Form (public record) that Judge Samuels signed in advance of each hearing notifying Rebecca Grossman that due to Covid restrictions, the Judge was excusing attendance and limiting the courtroom to only court employees and attorneys.
The actions of Judge Samuels when she invited media to the jury box prior to scolding Rebecca Grossman for not attending when she knew that she had signed these forms each time that were then given to Rebecca Grossman’s attorneys directing her NOT to attend was as shocking to Rebecca as it was to the public who did not know about the 977 forms signed by Judge Samuels.
Rebecca Grossman has attended all hearings required by Judges. Additionally, Judge Samuels, who had a fractured spine at the time of presiding over this preliminary hearing, wore a back brace and was on medication. Grossman’s attorney was terminally ill at the time. He eventually passed away. In December 2021, during the holidays, Judge Samuels (who also engaged in ex parte communications) gave Grossman 22 days to find new representation once her original attorney shared the information about his illness.
Facts of the Case Include:
1. Regardless of the false accusations released to the media, Rebecca Grossman WAS NOT OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT. She blew under the legal limit nine times in two separate PAS breathalyzer (Lifelock FC 20) devices , as will be shown in the trial on the body cam footage of the sobriety test, even after inhaling sodium azide and other chemicals released from the two airbags that deployed, the two highest recorded breath test were still under the legal limit and registered that she was, in fact, blowing hard enough into the Lifelock FC 20 devices. She performed all tasks well and spoke clearly. Later, BAC results were under the legal limit. She was not drunk or impaired and has NOT been charged with a DUI. Grossman has never had a DUI or her license suspended (as reported in the news) and has no priors.
The prosecution’s own expert witness admitted on Monday, Feb. 6th that the trace amount of Valium in Rebecca Grossman’s system was at least four days old as well as BAC being under the legal limit in every test from her lab. The tabloids (like the Daily Mail) continue to create headlines that are completely misleading.
These reporters are in the courtroom and they are hearing the facts yet continue to create salacious headlines.
Additionally, the nurse at the hospital came forward with a statement that she claims Rebecca said “3 years” after seeing her at the hospital and the statement fit exactly the narrative that the prosecutors are trying to create
2. This is NOT a “street racing” case, as the press initially reported after being given false information by the Sheriff. The District Attorney overseeing this case further made this clear in open court; the statement made by the DDA, Ryan Gould - in a court transcript is, “NO EVIDENCE OF RACING.”
The Judge approved the prosecution’s motion that this transcript stating “No Evidence of Racing” be withheld from the jurors
3. Rebecca absolutely did not flee the accident scene and fully cooperated with legal authorities. The Judge has confirmed that she waited for police to arrive as directed on the 911 call. Furthermore, the Judge has stated on the record that there is no evidence to suggest Rebecca saw anyone on the road and even stated that he believes she did not.
4. The police and prosecution insisted on relying on black box data that was clearly wrong and erroneous—data that greatly misrepresented Rebecca’s speed. The truth and indisputable fact that her speed was approximately 51.9 will be shown in court.
5. Video footage (ALSO posted in a link below) from area security cameras (although the original footage was not preserved by Sheriff’s) clearly shows several vehicles passing through the crosswalk at the time of the accident, including three vehicles behind Grossman’s vehicle that left the scene. NO efforts were made by the prosecution to determine who was driving the other cars that all left the accident scene or whether they were also involved in the accident as reported by THREE eyewitnesses who were present within yards of the accident. Those reports have been concealed from the public by the prosecution.
SEE WITNESS REPORTS BELOW
6. When the Grossmans asked for a limit on the media exposure in the courtroom, it was primarily due to threats made against Rebecca, her family, and the burn centers that stemmed from fake news & social media that included accusations that she was a driver in another accident. They even published her photograph side by side with another family when it was a completely different woman with the same name. The story reran in the Daily Mail four times over a year. This, among other fake stories, was circulated on hundreds of media websites.
7. A story told by a CHP traffic officer, Lefler, was falsified to bring Rebecca’s character into question. This particular officer claims that he recalls a story from a routine traffic ticket he gave Grossman nine years ago. This nine-year-old traffic ticket has been used by the prosecution as a basis for claiming that Rebecca had “no regard for human life”. The only notes that the officer wrote on the back of the ticket in the designated section for information was that “she was on her way to pick up her kids at school.” Now, years later, he supposedly recalls Rebecca “threatening” him and conveyed this to a fellow officer involved directly in the investigation only after he saw the story on the news. This officer also chose to send a representative in his place to tell “this story” at the preliminary hearing to avoid cross-examination by the defense. WHY DID HE REFUSE TO TAKE THE STAND IN PERSON? Furthermore, when the defense requested access to this officer’s record, union reps appeared in court to block access to his file. Why? In turn, Judge Samuels approved sealing the officer’s record.
8. Two airbags were deployed at the time of the accident. Vehicles shut down fuel pumps to avoid potential fire when a collision triggers the deployment of airbags. The power is shut off to the vehicle immediately, including to the “Black Box” that stops writing the report.
See: https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/beware-the-black-box
This is why Grossman steered her car to the side of the road to get out of traffic. The vehicle’s cabin became filled with fog from the sodium azide (and other chemicals) released from inside the airbag when the emergency bags began to deflate. This chemical causes burning to the eyes, visual impairment, and often triggers asthmatic reactions.
9. Among other “Black Box” anomalies, how reliable could the DA’s speed accusation be when Grossman’s “Black Box” has her average daily speed at 568mph!? Why did five of the 8 pieces of vehicle parts and debris simply vanish from the evidence room? Grossman’s vehicle did not have fog lights, but the documented debris indicated a fog light cover, which would be consistent with a different Mercedes vehicle, was found at the scene. This piece of physical evidence, which was in the possession of law enforcement, is now missing. How does evidence in a high profile “murder” case simply disappear?
Yes, the Legal Process is Confusing and Frustrating
The delays, in this case, have been extremely frustrating for all parties.
Some Additional Questions and Points to Consider:
- Why were all of the Los Angeles Sheriffs involved in this case (several of the very same officers involved in the recent Vanessa — Kobe-Bryant case that were found liable for destroying evidence) REFUSING to show up for depositions? Why are these same officers being shielded from depositions in the civil case? And why did the DDA Ryan Gould step out of his role and responsibility as a representative of the people in the criminal case and attend the hearing in the civil case to oppose the motion to compel the officers to be present for interviews? He claimed it would be an “UNFAIR ADVANTAGE” for Grossman’s defense team. If the officers are telling the truth, how is this an unfair advantage?
It would only be an unfair advantage if the officers involved are being dishonest. - Why did the lead investigator, LASD officer David Huelson (who took early retirement shortly after the charges were filed) say to attorneys, “Good luck serving me,” now that he resides in Tennessee? If he is telling the truth, shouldn’t he stand by his word and show up when requested? Why is he still REFUSING service to attend the trial and be questioned?
- Why is the DDA, Ryan Gould, supporting the absence of selected law enforcement officers involved in this case in any and all court proceedings, including contrived efforts to block scheduled depositions of these critical witnesses?
- Several members of the community reported to the city in recent years (among numerous complaints dating back to 2012 in 3000 pages of documents) that the intersection and crosswalk were so dangerous “that someone would get killed there” in emails to the city. Why hasn’t that been investigated or reported (as evident in the CIVIL CLAIMS POSTED BELOW ON THIS SITE )? Why did the city wait to attempt to make the crosswalk safer, only AFTER this tragedy, by placing a beacon traffic light at the intersection?
VIDEO - Below is a link to iPhone footage taken from security cam raw video footage that was erased.
There were two videos that captured footage within seconds of the accident, including all of the cars involved. The original footage was erased (destroying evidence) by LASD investigators, claiming “they did not have the updated equipment to download the original copies.”Fortunately, one officer took video of this footage on his personal cell iPhone 7 cell phone of the computer screens at the two locations that captured the original footage. Fortunately, an expert forensic videographer was able to capture speed and other pertinent details from the iPhone footage.The following video captures all the cars present seconds after the impact (roughly 250 feet past the said crosswalk). Grossman’s vehicle (the fourth vehicle of the seven captured traversing the road at the time of the accident) is documented to be traveling approximately 51.9 mph in this footage captured within 2 seconds of the accident. All vehicles in this video have their headlights on, although the prosecution claims there was light outside. The accident took place a half hour after sunset, at 7:10 pm. No investigator attempted to determine how it is physically possible for Rebecca’s car to have struck two children on skates, and the cars only seconds in front and behind her vehicle did not. Not one investigator ever tried to find the other vehicles involved or asked to see any vehicle they may have had access to in the days immediately following the accident. Rebecca Grossman was the only driver who stayed after the accident even though her car was still drivable and her home was only blocks away.
Below is witness testimony taken from eyewitness depositions and police reports. In discovery, it was found that witness reports came up missing, and we would like to ask the public again for its help.
If you know of anyone who was a witness to this accident and gave a report to the LASD officers the night of the accident, please call the following toll-free number as soon as possible:
866-202-1506
Witness Statements & Missing Reports:
Contrary to the information released by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) to the media in a press conference within hours of the accident, the following are statements by eyewitnesses who were on the street in the immediate area. The first witness below has NOT been called as a witness for the prosecution. Factually, this specific witness could not get law enforcement to return her follow-up calls after she gave the report below. She was also one of the first 911 callers.
WITNESS STATEMENTS:
- ******* ******* testified and reported to the Sheriffs the night of the accident that she was ”confident there were two separate and distinct impacts involving two separate vehicles.”
- ******* ******* testified to witnessing ”a young white male tell the same officer that he saw a silver car pull over and check for bumper damage before getting back into his car and leaving the scene.” This vehicle was roughly 10 seconds behind Rebecca’s vehicle.
- Two other separate eyewitnesses (taken from police reports) stated that they ”witnessed two vehicles that were gray or silver sedans racing.” The defense believes this may have been the two cars following in the video roughly ten seconds behind Grossman’s vehicle and also heard by witnesses on nearby tennis courts. Grossman’s vehicle is 240 feet behind the vehicle directly before hers. The two light-colored sedans within feet of each other left the scene quickly after passing through the accident site behind Grossman and subsequently passing her car, which was pulled to the side of the road.
The witness statement in the police report taken from the father of the children on the night of the accident by a deputy states that he was:
“approximately 100 yards behind the family pushing the stroller with the youngest and did not observe the collision occur.”
Considering that four of the six remaining family members were the only members on the road ahead (the mother on roller blades who crossed first with the youngest boy (5) on a scooter and the two boys that were involved in the accident on roller blades and a skateboard following behind (8 and 11), were roughly a football field apart from the father who was with the stroller when the accident took place, why was the following statement made to the press by the Sheriff’s department only a few hours later when they had the fathers reported statement (above) in hand?
“The father was barely able to get the stroller out of the crosswalk to avoid being hit”.
This completely untrue statement, among many, was made to dramatize an already horrific accident.
Several of these false statements were later retracted by Captain Becerra, who, at the time, was the Captain of the Malibu/Lost Hills Sheriff’s Department; however, the retraction was too late; the news went viral with the false and inaccurate information, including being posted on the Sheriff’s Facebook page during the investigation.
These careless and unverified statements also included claims of the accident being DUI-related, street racing by Grossman’s SUV, and the most egregious and false statement of all that claimed that Grossman’s vehicle carried a child on the hood for 100 feet. Then she attempted to brake so the child would roll off, in turn, immediately fleeing and running over the child. There is not one witness to corroborate this horrendously untrue statement, and experts confirmed that this accusation is completely false. This blatant lie, among other carelessly fabricated remarks, was made by the Sheriff in a press conference within hours of a terrible accident prior to any investigation, in turn fueling community outrage and biased opinions based on false information. How did these false and insensitive remarks help to ease the pain and suffering of the parents and all involved?
Considering that the mother stated in open court at the preliminary hearing that she did not see the children being struck by a vehicle (contrary to news reports), she deserves to know what exactly happened. In the video captured above, there are three cars that follow Grossman’s car. One pulls over as also seen by an eyewitness that night who states that the driver got out to check their bumper before leaving abruptly. However, all three of these vehicles captured on the video footage quickly drive away leaving the area, and were not among any of the 911 callers. You can hear the cars behind Rebecca Grossman’s car passing her in her recorded 911 call to the police.
This is NOT the narrative being presented by the prosecution or the press. These are facts that will come out in the trial.
The additional two vehicles that follow Grossman’s vehicle appear to be light-colored sedans that approach quickly (within 10 seconds behind Grossman’s car) and then drive away, in turn, passing by Grossman’s car that was pulled to the side of the road against the curb. A bicyclist witnessed and reported to the police that night that he saw two light-colored sedans racing. The defense believes these were the two vehicles seen in the video above that were behind Grossman’s car.
Rebecca remained on the 911 call connected to law enforcement for ten minutes. She then waited by her vehicle as directed for twenty minutes before they arrived. She did not know why her airbags suddenly deployed, and she had no idea that her car had hit someone. Her car was only temporarily disabled after the airbags were deployed but was still driveable.
Facts
- FACT: There were NO efforts to identify the other drivers captured in this video, who would have been key witnesses. Grossman was struck by multiple airbags that resulted in injury to her head, left shoulder, and her driving foot after being pinned against her seat by the vehicle’s front airbags. Regardless, she provided the police on the 911 call with her name, location, and all information requested without any hesitation within sixty seconds of the accident and waited twenty minutes for their arrival by her vehicle as instructed by the 911 officer.
- FACT: Not ONE investigator with the LA Sheriff’s Department listened to the “911 recorded call” prior to the preliminary hearing that took place 18 months after the accident occurred. How can one get a clear picture of what really happened if they don’t even listen to the recorded call with police that was made within seconds of the accident? The first time the investigating Sheriff heard this critical piece of evidence was in the courtroom at the preliminary hearing, a year and a half AFTER the accident occurred. And if they did not even care to listen to the accused 911 call, did they listen to the other 32+ 911 callers that were recorded?
- FACT: The District Attorney’s office charged Rebecca Grossman with double murder and never hired a certified accident reconstructionist until 2.5 years after the accident occurred. This was stated in open court by the DDA Ryan Gould and verified in court transcripts.