San Diego wife’s disappearance tied to deadly herb and reports of witchcraft 59%

By Daniel Farr69%

5/20/2026, 3:51:22 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.8% saturation with 251 hits. Analysis detected 1,725 faulty-reasoning hits from 664 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.4% and a BS Rank of 59% (8,801 of 21,230 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.50% of the article peer group.

A chilling mix of alleged “hex” emails, a deadly plant poison, and a wife who vanished without a trace has gripped a San Diego courtroom as Larry Millete stands trial for the murder of his missing spouse, May “Maya” Millete. 
After opening statements wrapped Monday in Chula Vista Superior Court, prosecutors began calling their first witnesses Tuesday as the closely watched murder trial entered its first full day of testimony. 
Prosecutors opened the case with a blunt claim: Millete killed his wife because he would not accept the end of their 20-year marriage. 
“Divorce was not an option” for Larry Millete, San Diego County Deputy District Attorney Christy Bowles told jurors, painting a picture of a man determined to stop his wife from leaving at any cost. 
Maya disappeared in January 2021, just days before a planned family trip to Big Bear Lake for their daughter’s 11th birthday. 
She was never seen again. 
Her car remained parked outside the family’s five-bedroom home. 
Her phone went silent. 
Within days, her sister, Maricris Drouaillet, reported her missing. 
Now prosecutors say the case is not about a disappearance, but a murder. 
One of the most explosive allegations involves a vial found inside the Millete home. 
Investigators say it contained a liquid that testing later identified as hemlock, a highly toxic plant. 
Hemlock is not subtle. 
It attacks the nervous system and can trigger nausea, vomiting, rapid heartbeat, paralysis, and respiratory failure as the lungs shut down. 
Prosecutors also told jurors that Millete allegedly searched for information about hemlock online and looked up poisons that could kill quickly, suggesting a growing fixation on lethal methods. 
But it is the alleged “spell” communications that have added an unusual and disturbing layer to the case. 
According to investigators and statements discussed in court, Millete allegedly exchanged hundreds of emails with online “spellcasters” before his wife disappeared, seeking ways to influence or harm her through supernatural means. 
In one message, he allegedly asked, “Can you hex to have her hurt enough that she will have to depend on me or need my help?” 
He allegedly followed with more disturbing language, writing, “She’s only nice to me when she needs me or [is] sick. 
Thanks again. 
Maybe [an] accident or broken bone.” 
Prosecutors say the messages show a man escalating from emotional manipulation into darker fantasies of control and harm as his marriage collapsed. 
As testimony began Tuesday, jurors also heard emotional testimony from Maya’s father, Pablito Tabalanza. 
While being questioned by prosecutors, Tabalanza broke down crying on the witness stand and shouted directly at Millete: “I loved my daughter very much. 
Why did you do this? 
Why did you do this?” 
Maya’s sister previously told investigators that Maya had met with two divorce attorneys shortly before her disappearance and warned the split would be “messy.” 
She also said Maya confided a haunting fear, telling her, “if anything happened to her, it’s going to be Larry.” 
Larry Millete was arrested on Oct. 19, 2021, and charged with first-degree murder. 
He has pleaded not guilty and maintains that Maya left on her own. 
Defense attorney Colby Ryan rejected the prosecution’s theory, arguing investigators locked onto Millete too early and ignored other potential suspects, including a co-worker Maya allegedly had an affair with and the man’s pregnant wife, a county sheriff’s deputy. 
Ryan also challenged the poison evidence, telling jurors that most tests showed no sign of hemlock and suggesting the lone positive result could be a false reading caused by a similar plant. 
He called the prosecution’s case “tragic, emotional (and) provocative,” but said it only works if jurors believe Millete pulled off what he described as “the perfect murder.” 
The trial is expected to last about three months and is already drawing intense attention, even as Superior Court Judge Enrique Camarena barred cameras and live streaming from the courtroom, forcing observers to follow the case through a closed video feed. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.4%Daniel Farr: 3.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias27.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Daniel Farr: 4.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic17.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Daniel Farr: 12.8%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect14.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 37.8%Daniel Farr: 17.4%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias37.8%This article: 6.8%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.8%This article: 7.7%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error7.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Daniel Farr: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias10.7%This article: 6.8%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.4%Daniel Farr: 3.0%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority2.4%This article: 4.1%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.5%Daniel Farr: 3.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization12.5%This article: 5.7%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring5.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 29.2%Daniel Farr: 8.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion29.2%This article: 8.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question8.0%This article: 3.5%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Daniel Farr: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 3.2%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.8%Daniel Farr: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.5%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.3%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.0%Daniel Farr: 2.6%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote17.0%This article: 9.6%Daniel Farr: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection9.6%This article: 20.8%Daniel Farr: 12.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice20.8%This article: 5.1%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination5.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 3.8%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

664 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers25%attributed speech499writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageChristy Bowles • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePablito Tabalanza • 24 words • 100.0% coveragePablito Tabalanza • 5 words • 0.0% coveragePablito Tabalanza • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageColby Ryan • 38 words • 100.0% coverageColby Ryan • 32 words • 0.0% coverageColby Ryan • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Christy Bowles

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words21% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Christy Bowles: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-27.7 ptsWriter: 27.7%Christy Bowles: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-12.8 ptsWriter: 12.8%Christy Bowles: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%Christy Bowles: 0.0%0.0%

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.