Family of killer California mom who slaughtered husband and 6-day-old reveals chilling final hours before bloodbath ⁠51%

By Daniel Farr⁠69%

6/6/2026, 7:52:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Framing Effect, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 40.8% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 957 faulty-reasoning hits from 277 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (10,715 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.00% of the article peer group.

A California family’s joyful gathering just hours after welcoming a newborn turned into a horrifying murder-suicide, after authorities say a mother fatally shot her husband and two young children before taking her own life in North Hills. 
Marine Basmajian, 30, killed her husband Khajag Basmajia, 31, and their two children, 2-year-old Alec and six-day-old baby Ella, inside the family’s home on Londelius Street on May 27, just before 8 p.m., according to the Los Angeles Police Department. 
She then turned the gun on herself. 
Officials said the couple’s home situation had recently shifted after they were staying temporarily at Khajag’s parents’ residence in North Hills due to safety concerns. 
Family members said the break-ins left Marine especially frightened. 
After the first burglary, Khajag purchased a handgun for protection, the same firearm later used in the killings, according to relatives. 
What makes the case even more disturbing is what happened the night before the violence. 
Family members said the household had gathered to celebrate the birth of infant Ella, who was just six days old. 
The evening reportedly included music, pizza, and dancing with family. 
In the aftermath, relatives have been struggling to understand what led to the killings. 
Some believe Marine may have been suffering from severe postpartum psychosis, a condition that can cause a break from reality following childbirth, bringing hallucinations, delusions, confusion and extreme mood changes. 
Shamlyan said: “Postpartum depression is the only thing that we can think of because what she did was not like her.” 
The LAPD continues to investigate the circumstances surrounding the North Hills tragedy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.4%Daniel Farr: 3.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias18.4%This article: 7.6%Daniel Farr: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias7.6%This article: 29.2%Daniel Farr: 4.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic29.2%This article: 10.8%Daniel Farr: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.8%Daniel Farr: 12.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect31.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.3%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.3%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: 35.4%Daniel Farr: 17.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias35.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 3.2%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.2%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: 5.4%Daniel Farr: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 3.0%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.6%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma7.6%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: 7.6%Daniel Farr: 3.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization7.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.7%Daniel Farr: 8.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion13.7%This article: 7.6%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question7.6%This article: 40.8%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)40.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Daniel Farr: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 10.8%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature10.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.2%Daniel Farr: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal11.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.4%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.4%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground5.4%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: 32.5%Daniel Farr: 2.6%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote32.5%This article: 13.4%Daniel Farr: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection13.4%This article: 27.1%Daniel Farr: 12.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice27.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%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: 3.0%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%

277 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers26%attributed speech204writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageShamlyan • 21 words • 100.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Shamlyan

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words29% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+92.2 ptsWriter: 7.8%Shamlyan: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-44.1 ptsWriter: 44.1%Shamlyan: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.8 ptsWriter: 36.8%Shamlyan: 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.