Gothamist77%

Man accused of stalking singer H.E.R. in Brooklyn over 2 years, police say 0%

By Charles Lane36%

4/9/2026, 1:29:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Quote-first Misdirection, and Framing Effect, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 10.5% saturation with 28 hits. Analysis detected 133 faulty-reasoning hits from 266 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 Brooklyn parking attendant is accused of stalking Grammy, Emmy and Oscar-winning musician H.E.R. over two years  including sending her unsolicited messages and following her to her home and car, according to police and court records. 
Jonathan Goldstonewerse, 34, was arrested Tuesday at the 84th Precinct and charged with stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree, officials said. 
He pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance, authorities said. 
According to court documents, the alleged victim is Gabriella Wilson, the singer known professionally as H.E.R., who lives in Brooklyn Heights. 
Goldstonewerse worked at a parking lot where Wilson parked her car, police said. 
Wilson has won five Grammy Awards, an Academy Award and a Children’s and Family Emmy Award. 
Prosecutors said Goldstonewerse texted Wilson, claiming they had met in the parking lot and that he missed her. 
In one message, he wrote, “Hey sweatheart [sic], wish you would check on me, got a lot going on.” 
He also sent her a video of his feet, according to the complaint. 
Between 2023 and 2025, Goldstonewerse is accused of following Wilson to her apartment and her car and, at one point, trying to open her car door, authorities said. 
He also left flowers and a card on her doorstep, according to court records. 
Stalking in the fourth degree is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail. 
Goldstonewerse’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment. 
Efforts to reach Wilson’s representatives were unsuccessful. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 2.4%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.8%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 3.5%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Charles Lane: 5.7%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.3%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Charles Lane: 8.9%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.5%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Charles Lane: 1.4%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 4.0%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 2.9%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 3.4%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 2.7%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.6%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.5%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.5%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.1%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote7.1%This article: 7.1%Charles Lane: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection7.1%This article: 6.0%Charles Lane: 1.8%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice6.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.3%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

266 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.1%attributed speech247writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Goldstonewerse • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech32% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jonathan Goldstonewerse: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jonathan Goldstonewerse: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Jonathan Goldstonewerse: 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.