S.F. DA charges sheriff’s deputy for allegedly groping woman in jail 7%

By Abigail Vân Neely4%

7/13/2026, 5:04:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Quote-first Misdirection as the most egregious example at 18% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 362 faulty-reasoning hits from 289 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.2% and a BS Rank of 7% (20,436 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.40% of the article peer group.

San Francisco’s district attorney on Monday charged a sheriff’s deputy with two misdemeanors for allegedly assaulting a woman in jail last year. 
Deputy Nanette Musto on July 12, 2025 allegedly asked the woman, who was not identified by the DA, if she had “surgically augmented her body,” the DA’s office wrote in a statement. 
“Upon receiving the inmate’s answer, Deputy Musto reached out and, without permission or lawful necessity, touched the inmate’s breast.” 
“The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office takes all allegations of employee misconduct very seriously,” Moriarty said. 
The complaint against Musto was immediately assigned to the sheriff’s Criminal Investigations Unit, Moriarty said. 
When the unit completed its investigation, the case was referred to the DA for an independent review. 
The woman remains detained in County Jail No. 2 at 425 7th St., according to jail staff and her attorneys. 
She is named as a plaintiff in a separate May federal class action lawsuit filed against the city, sheriff, sheriff’s department and individual deputies. 
That lawsuit accuses deputies of forcing women held in County Jail No. 2 to strip down in front of each other while the deputies laughed and filmed them with body-worn cameras. 
The women said the alleged May 2025 mass strip search was just one example of a pattern of harassment and retaliation. 
Criminal cases require a higher burden of proof than civil cases. 
Elizabeth Bertolino, a civil rights attorney for the plaintiffs, said it was notable that the DA believed there was enough evidence to file criminal charges. 
“Today the district attorney confirmed what our client has said all along: a deputy criminally violated a woman inside that jail,” Bertolino said. 
“This is vindication.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 5.7%Mission Local: 2.7%Confirmation Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Abigail Vân Neely: 2.4%Mission Local: 2.9%Availability Heuristic7.3%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 2.7%Mission Local: 0.4%Hindsight Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Abigail Vân Neely: 1.2%Mission Local: 4.7%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Abigail Vân Neely: 5.1%Mission Local: 5.9%Negativity Bias15.2%This article: 9.7%Abigail Vân Neely: 3.2%Mission Local: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.3%Abigail Vân Neely: 2.4%Mission Local: 4.8%Hasty Generalization7.3%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.7%Mission Local: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion1.0%This article: 8.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 2.7%Mission Local: 0.6%Begging the Question8.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.8%Abigail Vân Neely: 3.9%Mission Local: 1.1%Burden of Proof11.8%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.6%Abigail Vân Neely: 5.9%Mission Local: 1.0%Unattributed Quote17.6%This article: 18.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 6.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection18.0%This article: 3.5%Abigail Vân Neely: 1.2%Mission Local: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice3.5%This article: 6.6%Abigail Vân Neely: 2.2%Mission Local: 0.9%Indoctrination6.6%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Vân Neely: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

289 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers28%attributed speech208writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageMoriarty • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMoriarty • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Bertolino • 25 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Bertolino • 23 words • 100.0% coverageElizabeth Bertolino • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elizabeth Bertolino

100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words63% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+31.2 ptsWriter: 13.9%Elizabeth Bertolino: 45.1%45.1%Unattributed Quote-24.5 ptsWriter: 24.5%Elizabeth Bertolino: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Elizabeth Bertolino: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Elizabeth Bertolino: 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.