Judge allows criminal case against St. Louis County Executive Sam Page to go forward68%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

12/19/2025, 2:24:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Genetic Fallacy, and Anchoring Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 44.3% saturation with 179 hits. Analysis detected 301 faulty-reasoning hits from 404 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.6% and a BS Rank of 68% (7,007 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.00% of the article peer group.

A judge in southwest Missouri has allowed the criminal case against St. Louis County Executive Sam Page to move forward. 
Greene County Judge Kati Greenwade on Friday denied a motion from Page’s attorneys to dismiss the case. 
She did not rule on a second motion to throw out evidence set to be collected from Page’s cellphone. 
A grand jury in July charged Page with two felonies and two misdemeanors related to the April municipal elections. 
He is accused of theft of public money for spending county funds on a flyer and mailer opposing Proposition B, a ballot measure that would have given the county council more power to fire department heads. 
Page has said the materials were educational. 
The language of the election statute says public funds cannot be spent “directly” to “advocate, support, or oppose the passage or defeat” of candidates or ballot issues. 
But the indictment says Page “purposely expended” public funds. 
That difference in language, his attorneys argued, meant that Page could not be exactly sure of the conduct the state considered criminal  “like a speeding ticket that does not say how fast the driver was going,” they wrote in the motion to dismiss. 
Greenwade found the difference between “purposely” and “directly” to be the most “compelling and concerning” argument in that motion. 
But she ultimately accepted the explanation of prosecutors, who said the word “purposely” spoke to Page’s state of mind when he authorized the materials. 
There are two ways a public official can violate this part of election law, said Assistant Attorney General Shaun Mackelprang: The official could spend the public money directly or send public funds to a campaign committee that then advocates for or against something. 
The printing of the flyers and the mailers, Mackelprang said, was the direct spending of the money. 
He said the state would be OK with changing the language of the indictment to match state law. 
Greenwade will rule at a later date on a second motion that asks her to throw out evidence that is set to be collected from a cellphone seized from Page. 
Defense attorneys say that falsehoods in a court document submitted to get the warrant to search the phone mean the warrant should not have been issued in the first place. 
The case against Page is set to go to trial in March. 
Both sides agreed in September to have the case heard in Springfield, Missouri. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 44.3%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect44.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.7%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 10.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy7.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

404 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.