Missouri auditor launches investigation into St. Louis building division following federal indictments 0%

By Kavahn Mansouri59%

3/26/2026, 1:20:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, False Dilemma, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 10.9% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 207 faulty-reasoning hits from 376 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

St. 
Louis’s troubled building division will face a state audit just a week after a former building inspector was indicted. 
Missouri Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick announced the audit on Thursday, saying that his office found evidence of improper governmental activity after the federal indictment broke last week. 
Earlier this month, federal prosecutors revealed the indictments, alleging former St. 
Louis building inspector Adebanjo “Banjo” Popoola steered $1.6 million in funds meant for the repair of decrepit city buildings to himself and members of his family. 
Popoola was indicted in U.S. 
District Court in St. 
Louis on three counts of wire fraud related to money he obtained from the city's Prop NS and Stable Communities STL programs during his time as a building division inspector. 
Prosecutors said of the 59 contracts awarded to the Stable Communities STL program, Popoola steered 13 toward Farst and 10 to Premier. 
As for the Prop NS program, of the 144 contracts awarded, Popoola moved eight to Farst and 23 to Premier. 
Fitzpatrick’s office says the investigation was prompted by whistleblower complaints, a public request by former St. 
Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones and media reports regarding Popoola’s ties to construction companies that received large contracts from the city 
"While the city's building stabilization program was shut down last year and a former building inspector is now facing charges for stealing more than $1.6 million, there are still many questions about what happened that only an audit can answer. 
The people of St. 
Louis want and deserve the truth about how this was able to happen and the city needs to know how to ensure it can't happen again," said Auditor Fitzpatrick. 
Mayor Cara Spencer’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
The auditor’s office says outside of Popoola’s alleged crimes, it has also identified building inspectors soliciting charitable donations while on city business. 
"With our audit we will look not only at the millions that moved through the building stabilization program, but at the division overall and the work it does. 
If the alleged wrongdoing proves to be true, our audit can make recommendations that will help the city minimize the risk of fraud and abuse in the future." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Kavahn Mansouri: 5.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.6%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma10.6%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 7.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination7.7%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

376 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker34%attributed speech247writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageScott Fitzpatrick • 40 words • 0.0% coverageScott Fitzpatrick • 4 words • 0.0% coverageScott Fitzpatrick • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageScott Fitzpatrick • 28 words • 0.0% coverageScott Fitzpatrick • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Fitzpatrick

75%flagged-word coverage
129 attributed words100% of attributed speech17% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Indoctrination+22.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scott Fitzpatrick: 22.5%22.5%

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.