Lawyers allege conflict of interest as spat to replace St. Louis sheriff continues 0%

By Chad Davis0%

4/15/2026, 12:52:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Status Quo Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 18.2% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 396 faulty-reasoning hits from 274 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.

A St. 
Louis judge is weighing whether the sheriff’s department can be part of a lawsuit over who gets to select the interim sheriff. 
Judge Thomas McCarthy heard arguments from the state, city and the sheriff’s department during a hearing Wednesday. 
Sheriff’s lawyers filed a motion to intervene in the case, arguing that when Judge Christopher E. 
McGraugh filed an order to appoint John Hayden Jr. as interim sheriff in October, it was a final decision. 
“The time to appeal has passed, and that order remains final,” sheriff’s department lawyer David C. 
Mason said. 
It’s the latest in an ongoing battle over who has the right to select the interim sheriff. 
The city filed a lawsuit in December claiming the mayor has the authority. 
The St. 
Louis Board of Aldermen filed its own motion to intervene before McCarthy removed it in January, ruling that the board cannot file a suit separate from the city. 
The attorney general’s office has argued Gov. 
Mike Kehoe has the power. 
State lawyers also objected to the sheriff’s office's motion to intervene, arguing the office has to provide a right to intervene. 
The state maintained there’s a conflict of interest because the same lawyers are representing the sheriff’s department and Montgomery. 
Montgomery is asking for a new trial after a judge removed him from office. 
“The goal of that representation is at odds,” Assistant Attorney General Greg Goodwin said. 
Mason said there isn’t a conflict and submitted written consent from Montgomery and Hayden about the double representation. 
McCarthy will make a decision at a later date. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%Chad Davis: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Chad Davis: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.6%This article: 6.9%Chad Davis: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias3.3%This article: 11.3%Chad Davis: 8.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect11.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 13.5%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 4.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Chad Davis: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 15.0%Chad Davis: 9.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias15.0%This article: 6.6%Chad Davis: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias6.6%This article: 6.9%Chad Davis: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error6.9%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.7%Chad Davis: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 9.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.9%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question6.9%This article: 5.1%Chad Davis: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.2%Chad Davis: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.2%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.8%Chad Davis: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.8%This article: 5.1%Chad Davis: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 3.6%Chad Davis: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

274 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers38%attributed speech170writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Thomas McCarthy • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDavid C. Mason • 16 words • 100.0% coverageDavid C. Mason • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Board of Aldermen • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Goodwin • 14 words • 100.0% coverageDavid C. Mason • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Thomas McCarthy • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Greg Goodwin

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words13% of attributed speech49% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Greg Goodwin: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Greg Goodwin: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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