D4vd's trial continues 98%

7/23/2026, 11:40:24 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Optimism Bias, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 41% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 557 faulty-reasoning hits from 195 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 97.6% and a BS Rank of 98% (470 of 21,827 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 97.90% of the video peer group.

Turned it over from the APM at the criminal courthouse here in downtown Los 
Angeles where we just finished the second day of a preliminary hearing to determine whether the singer David needs to go on trial 
for the stabbing death of 14-year-old Celeste Rios Hernandez. 
Today was a very technical day. 
We had a couple of criminalists from the LA Police Department talking about how they collected potential blood samples and potential DNA samples both from David's garage where prosecutors say he dismembered the body and from the Tesla that belonged to him where the body was found several months after they say she was killed. 
There weren't a lot of conclusions drawn. 
There wasn't a lot of drama. 
It was mostly just these technicians talking about how they collected the blood. 
They didn't even say they didn't necessarily get tested positive. 
Presumably more experts will come on in the coming days and confirm that part of it. 
We're also expecting tomorrow testimony from the medical examiner who from the autopsy and possibly more on what happened with this blood that was collected both in the car and in the garage. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
1.5%
Availability Heuristic
28.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
8.2%
Framing Effect
20%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
6.7%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
28.2%
Pessimism Bias
3.6%
Negativity Bias
41%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
28.2%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
16.9%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
28.2%
False Dilemma
11.8%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
11.8%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
4.6%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
5.1%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
28.2%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
6.7%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
6.7%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
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%

195 words analyzed.

Analysis

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