Medical examiner wants details about Celeste Hernandez's death to be public 99%

7/21/2026, 12:02:51 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Overconfidence Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56.7% saturation with 156 hits. Analysis detected 1,367 faulty-reasoning hits from 275 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 99.6% and a BS Rank of 99% (247 of 18,898 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 98.70% of the video peer group.

As soon as she died, the uh effect on the community started to tick at that moment. 
What happened to her? 
The families wondering, what happened to her? The The community, the neighbors are what happened to What if my daughter? What if my son, you know, is involved with something? 
And so, by keeping it a secret, uh the community has a lot of anxiety and depression about that, and maybe they can't even focus and function because they're concerned about what happened, and no one's telling them. 
Uh and so, that's why it's so important for us to uh release the information that she did not die from something natural. She did not die from drugs. 
Uh she was stabbed. 
The Rhyners case is one that's uh straightforward. Uh 
There was actually information provided about the deaths before we even were called out. 
That was shared. 
Uh and it's unclear to me what sort of, you know, information we have that would ruin the case if someone else uh found out. 
out. I was part of a community meeting where someone said, "One thing we got to do is separate the coroner from the sheriff. 
That's a big problem in our county." To this person's surprise, I said, "There's no such thing as a coroner in LA County." We're pretty certain that, you know, the sheriff and the coroner because of the the association. So, that's why it's so important to establish our independence as an agency where we independently determine the cause of death and also uh the manner of death. 
Confirmation Bias
18.9%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
25.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
6.2%
Overconfidence Bias
53.1%
Framing Effect
56%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
56.7%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
10.9%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
9.1%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
38.9%
False Dilemma
10.9%
Slippery Slope
9.1%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
13.8%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
50.5%
Begging the Question
10.5%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
20%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
6.5%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
13.8%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
42.9%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
10.9%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
33.1%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

275 words analyzed.

Analysis

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