WDIV17%

Mother says son’s remains were thrown in trash after deadly Inkster crash 57%

By Erika Erickson28% Lauren DesArmo73% Courtney Cook73%

7/30/2026, 2:51:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 189 hits. Analysis detected 1,116 faulty-reasoning hits from 720 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46% and a BS Rank of 57% (13,343 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.40% of the article peer group.

Mother says son’s remains were thrown in trash after deadly Inkster crash 
City of Inkster denies wrongdoing, cites internal investigation 
CANTON TOWNSHIP, Mich.  A Canton mother has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Wayne County, the City of Inkster and several officials, alleging authorities failed to properly collect and preserve her son’s bodily remains after a deadly motorcycle crash. 
She says they left pieces of her son in a parking lot and threw them in the trash. 
Jessica Ostrowski, 48, said she was “mortified” and “heartbroken” as she learned what she believes happened after her 19-year-old son, Ethan Bennett, was killed July 28, 2023, near Michigan Avenue and Harrison Street in Inkster. 
“It was awful, and it’s still awful,” Ostrowski told Local 4. 
“I was just mortified… How did he not matter?” 
‘There’s still no closure’ 
In the complaint filed July 23, 2026, Ostrowski alleges that “large pieces of Ethan’s brain and scalp” were not only left behind on the pavement but were also found in “a common garbage bin” after the crash scene was released to the public. 
Ostrowski told the Investigators on Local 4 that, even worse, the remains were found after they had already held a funeral and cremation for Bennett. 
“No mother, or anybody should ever have to go to a crash scene and witness that,” she said. 
“They found parts of head, hair, and brain matter in the trash and throughout the parking lot… And there’s still no closure.” 
She said what was found was not something minor. 
“One of Ethan’s best friends went in the middle of the night after the crash… he had found a large piece of Ethan’s head,” she said. 
Ostrowski also said other pieces of Bennett’s remains were discovered in a blue bin and by cement blocks and put into baggies. 
“This wasn’t missed. 
I mean, this was my son’s hair. 
You know, part of his skull,” she said. 
“In the trash… No family should ever have to go through this.” 
What the lawsuit says happened at the scene 
The complaint says Bennett “suffered a catastrophic head injury during the wreck.” 
It cites an Inkster Police Investigator’s Report that described arriving at the scene to find Bennett with his brain “fully removed from his skull” with “skull fractures” and hair from the deceased “scattered around the parking lot and the cement parking blocks.” 
The lawsuit also cites a report from the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office saying it arrived on scene to take “possession of the body and all body parts that had been separated.” 
It then alleges that Inkster Fire Department personnel arrived to “wash down” the scene. 
The lawsuit also says Michigan State Police Sgt. 
Brandon Buzanowski “observed suspected human bio on the parking lot,” but later, the medical examiner’s report allegedly stated that “Internally, no brain matter was present.” 
It also says the postmortem report said it “received separate from the body” a portion of scalp “with multiple attached fragments of fractured calvarium and 500 gm of pulpified brain tissue.” 
The lawsuit alleges that the “average weight of an adult male’s brain is 1400 grams,” and alleges that, after the scene was released, significant remains were still at the scene and “in a trash can.” 
When asked what the best outcome could be for her, Ostrowski said: “Accountability.” 
“I don’t think [they] should ever work in public service ever again,” she said. 
“I’m not going to stop fighting until they are all held accountable, because no family should have to deal with this.” 
The defendants’ responses 
The Investigators on Local 4 reached out to each defendant named in the lawsuit individually. 
Todd Perkins, attorney for the City of Inkster, responded saying: “The circumstances surrounding Mr. 
Bennett’s death in 2023 were tragic. 
Our thoughts and prayers remain with his family. 
With that understanding, calling to end these employees’ careers gets ahead of the facts. 
The City has conducted a complete and thorough investigation, and we’re confident the Inkster Police and Fire Departments handled the scene appropriately and professionally. 
Upon information and belief, this matter has been reviewed by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, and that office has charged no one with any wrongdoing. 
We await an opportunity to defend against these allegations in court.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.7%Erika Erickson: 4.6%WDIV: 2.2%Confirmation Bias4.7%This article: 4.9%Erika Erickson: 0.9%WDIV: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.9%This article: 12.1%Erika Erickson: 2.1%WDIV: 1.9%Availability Heuristic12.1%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 1.0%WDIV: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.7%WDIV: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Erika Erickson: 0.9%WDIV: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias3.3%This article: 1.9%Erika Erickson: 0.9%WDIV: 2.4%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 2.1%Erika Erickson: 0.3%WDIV: 0.4%Loss Aversion2.1%This article: 3.5%Erika Erickson: 0.2%WDIV: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.1%WDIV: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.3%WDIV: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Erika Erickson: 0.9%WDIV: 0.6%Pessimism Bias4.2%This article: 16.1%Erika Erickson: 4.7%WDIV: 4.3%Negativity Bias16.1%This article: 0.8%Erika Erickson: 0.3%WDIV: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.4%WDIV: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.1%WDIV: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 2.5%WDIV: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.4%WDIV: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Erika Erickson: 0.4%WDIV: 0.2%Primacy Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.1%WDIV: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.1%WDIV: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.3%Erika Erickson: 3.3%WDIV: 3.0%Appeal to Authority26.3%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.2%WDIV: 0.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.1%WDIV: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 1.7%WDIV: 1.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.1%WDIV: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.9%Erika Erickson: 0.2%WDIV: 0.3%Bandwagon2.9%This article: 23.8%Erika Erickson: 5.4%WDIV: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion23.8%This article: 0.4%Erika Erickson: 0.3%WDIV: 0.3%Begging the Question0.4%This article: 3.5%Erika Erickson: 1.4%WDIV: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.1%WDIV: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.5%Erika Erickson: 1.0%WDIV: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.5%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Erika Erickson: 2.9%WDIV: 1.7%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.5%Erika Erickson: 1.3%WDIV: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.9%Erika Erickson: 0.1%WDIV: 0.0%Special Pleading1.9%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.9%Erika Erickson: 2.6%WDIV: 1.5%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 1.9%Erika Erickson: 0.4%WDIV: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.9%This article: 7.6%Erika Erickson: 1.3%WDIV: 1.4%Biased Writer Voice7.6%This article: 1.8%Erika Erickson: 1.0%WDIV: 1.5%Indoctrination1.8%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erika Erickson: 0.2%WDIV: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

720 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers46%attributed speech388writer words
Selected voice

Jessica Ostrowski

100%flagged-word coverage
230 attributed words69% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-12.3 ptsWriter: 21.9%Jessica Ostrowski: 9.6%9.6%Biased Writer Voice-14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%Jessica Ostrowski: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+5.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jessica Ostrowski: 5.7%5.7%

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.