How Google Drive upload led to Metro Detroit physician’s assistant facing child porn charges 23%

By Brandon Carr4% Pamela Osborne10% Jason Wilger10%

7/21/2026, 3:17:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 22.7% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 473 faulty-reasoning hits from 379 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.4% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,850 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.00% of the article peer group.

GROSSE ILE, Mich.  A Grosse Ile man is facing federal child pornography charges after investigators say an FBI search of his home uncovered evidence connected to online activity reported through Google cyber tips. 
Michael Wendt, 38, was taken into custody following a federal search warrant executed at a home on Thorofare Road in Grosse Ile, according to court documents filed in the case. 
How the investigation began 
The investigation began after Google submitted reports to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children regarding suspected child sexual abuse material, investigators said. 
Court records state multiple uploaded files were flagged, including 11 images that authorities say met the federal definition of child pornography. 
Investigators said Wendt’s phone number, email address and internet protocol addresses were linked to the reported activity. 
What agents found 
Federal agents executed the search warrant and later obtained additional information from an individual who told investigators they had discovered hundreds of images of child sexual abuse material on Wendt’s computer about two years earlier but did not report it because they were concerned about how Wendt would respond. 
According to court documents, Wendt was later arrested during a traffic stop. 
Investigators seized and searched his phone, where a forensic review allegedly found hundreds of images of child pornography, including some that matched the files reported through the cyber tips. 
Authorities also said the device contained images depicting the sexual abuse of minors of various ages, including infants. 
Investigators said a review of Wendt’s internet browser showed multiple tabs open to child pornography websites and that screenshots from those websites were saved in his phone’s camera roll. 
Charges, case status 
Wendt has been charged with three federal offenses related to the alleged possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material. 
Court records do not indicate that Wendt has entered a plea. 
The allegations have not been proven in court. 
The case remains under investigation. 
The U.S. 
Department of Justice confirmed that the FBI was present in Grosse Ile on Monday (July 20) and, consistent with the DOJ policy, that a mugshot was not provided. 
The DOJ also said they were unable to comment further on the nature or circumstances of that activity. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.3%Brandon Carr: 4.5%WDIV: 3.0%Confirmation Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.5%WDIV: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 3.0%WDIV: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.5%Brandon Carr: 0.4%WDIV: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic5.5%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.4%WDIV: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Brandon Carr: 2.3%WDIV: 4.4%Framing Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.4%WDIV: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.4%Brandon Carr: 0.7%WDIV: 0.3%Status Quo Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.5%WDIV: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.2%WDIV: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.7%Brandon Carr: 5.6%WDIV: 6.0%Negativity Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.6%WDIV: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 12.9%Brandon Carr: 0.8%WDIV: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.4%WDIV: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.7%Brandon Carr: 3.3%WDIV: 3.9%Appeal to Authority22.7%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.7%WDIV: 2.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.6%WDIV: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.4%WDIV: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.7%Brandon Carr: 1.5%WDIV: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 14.2%Brandon Carr: 1.9%WDIV: 1.1%Burden of Proof14.2%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 1.3%WDIV: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.8%Brandon Carr: 2.8%WDIV: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.8%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Brandon Carr: 1.9%WDIV: 1.8%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 2.4%WDIV: 1.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.7%WDIV: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Carr: 0.0%WDIV: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

379 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech333writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Department of Justice

100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words100% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote+39.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Department of Justice: 39.1%39.1%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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