Nolan Wells Did Not Undergo An 'Independent Autopsy,' Despite What Ben Crump And The Race-Baiting Media Say 75%

By Eddie Scarry92%

7/23/2026, 7:36:22 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 37.6% saturation with 270 hits. Analysis detected 1,557 faulty-reasoning hits from 719 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,513 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.80% of the article peer group.

You can tell how giddy the national media are about the possibility of more race riots by their repeated use of the fake term “independent autopsy” to describe the latest development in the Nolan Wells case. 
There was no independent autopsy, but they’re using that phrase to warm up their trusty racial agitation machine. 
Shakedown artist and alleged attorney Benjamin Crump is back in the national spotlight of late, having parachuted into Jackson County, Mississippi, where 18-year-old Nolan Wells was found dead on July 6, floating face down near an island off the Gulf coast. 
Wells’ family commissioned a private autopsy, paid for by former NFL player Colin Kaepernick, the results of which  cause of death left “undetermined”  were announced by Crump at a press conference on Wednesday. 
This is what he does. 
Crump, in all his illiteracy, seizes on some tragedy involving a dead black person, stirring up suspicions and hurling accusations before ultimately trying to squeeze out a multimillion-dollar settlement from the government, of which he takes something like a third. 
A big part of that strategy is working with the media, always compliant, to push out racist narratives, along with allegations and insinuations of wrongdoing by authorities, well before official investigations are complete. 
In the case of Wells, there is neither a publicly available toxicology report nor an autopsy that has concluded his cause of death. 
The local sheriff’s department has only said Wells appeared to have drowned and that they had not found reason to suspect foul play, though an investigation was still underway. 
Friends who last saw Wells said they were boating with a large group that included Wells on Independence Day. 
They said they stopped at an island, and when the friends Wells had arrived with were ready to leave, he remained behind with others. 
There are reports that Wells' phone and keys made it back to the home of one of his friends who drove the boat, though it's unclear how. 
A publicly available photograph from July 4 appears to show Wells posing and smiling with three other boys, who are white. 
Three of them, including Wells, can be seen holding canned drinks. 
Few helpful details outside of that have yet to be confirmed by authorities or public accounts by witnesses. 
But why should that stop Crump? 
He's got a racial sore to rub! 
Crump has gone on TV to claim he heard about a possible argument between Wells and at least one other person on the day he went missing. 
He also said he spoke with someone who said Wells told her that he would be returning to the shore with the friends who brought him to the island, information that has not yet been corroborated by authorities. 
Then Crump hosted a press conference to publicize the details of an “independent autopsy,” a term that was then repeated in media reports, and which suggests there's something inherently partial or biased about an official state examiner's own autopsy. 
To the extent that there's such a thing as an “independent autopsy,” it's the one conducted by the state. 
Anything else is a privately funded project, which means the party who does commission it is the one with the vested interest. 
In this case, it's Crump, and every time he does this, he has every motivation to find a pathologist who will raise some form of doubt or suspicion over what happened to the victim. 
That is Crump's and the Wells' family's right, but to call it an “independent autopsy” is false and misleading. 
It's possible Wells was attacked by the people he was boating with or perhaps was the victim of a cruel prank that ended in his death. 
Or, maybe Wells did stay behind, got drunk, and accidentally drowned. 
Maybe he had left his keys and phone in his friend's boat, and nobody realized until his friends got back home. 
There is an infinite number of possibilities as to what happened that day. 
To immediately raise suspicions of race-motivated crimes and cover-ups is to encourage blacks and whites to stop socializing altogether, lest someone end up dead for it. 
That's what Crump is doing, as he eyes his potential cut of another settlement. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Eddie Scarry: 8.0%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Eddie Scarry: 6.2%The Federalist: 3.5%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 7.5%Eddie Scarry: 4.1%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Eddie Scarry: 1.3%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias1.8%This article: 7.8%Eddie Scarry: 7.0%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.6%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.1%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias4.5%This article: 20.4%Eddie Scarry: 25.0%The Federalist: 12.4%Negativity Bias20.4%This article: 12.2%Eddie Scarry: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias12.2%This article: 4.6%Eddie Scarry: 4.8%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error4.6%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 5.9%The Federalist: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 10.4%The Federalist: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 3.3%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Eddie Scarry: 19.1%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem10.8%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 8.1%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.6%The Federalist: 5.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.6%Eddie Scarry: 3.0%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 2.9%The Federalist: 2.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.7%Eddie Scarry: 21.2%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization0.7%This article: 0.8%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring0.8%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.6%Eddie Scarry: 14.4%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion24.6%This article: 8.9%Eddie Scarry: 3.1%The Federalist: 3.1%Begging the Question8.9%This article: 5.6%Eddie Scarry: 1.7%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.0%Eddie Scarry: 2.0%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof7.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.1%Eddie Scarry: 1.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division3.1%This article: 8.2%Eddie Scarry: 7.2%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal8.2%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.1%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.1%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Eddie Scarry: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground3.6%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.7%Eddie Scarry: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading4.7%This article: 5.6%Eddie Scarry: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy5.6%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.1%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.4%Eddie Scarry: 1.8%The Federalist: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.4%This article: 37.6%Eddie Scarry: 43.8%The Federalist: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice37.6%This article: 7.0%Eddie Scarry: 5.4%The Federalist: 5.2%Indoctrination7.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 28.8%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

719 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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