Gothamist76%

Skeletal remains found in vacant East Harlem building 27%

By Charles Lane36%

7/9/2026, 10:23:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.9% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 644 faulty-reasoning hits from 511 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.1% and a BS Rank of 27% (15,654 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.90% of the article peer group.

Skeletal remains found in vacant East Harlem building, police say 
Published Jul 9, 2026 at 6:23 p.m. 
ET 
By submitting your information, you're agreeing to receive communications from New York Public Radio in accordance with our Terms . 
We rely on your support to make local news available to all 
Make your contribution now and help Gothamist thrive in 2026. 
Donate today 
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations 
Police said they found human skeletal remains on Wednesday inside a vacant East Harlem building where a homeless veteran was reportedly living, according to 311 complaints. 
Officers responded to a call at 219 East 115th St. around 3:46 p.m. on Wednesday and discovered the remains inside an apartment in the building, according to authorities. 
Police have not yet identified the person and couldn’t say whether the remains belong to the veteran described in the complaint. 
A representative for the owner found the remains while checking on the building, officials said. 
City records indicate the property owner is a mortgage company that did not immediately return requests for comment. 
The building is a narrow, three-story row house that has stood vacant for years. 
City Department of Buildings records show it has 25 active violations dating back more than three decades, from September 1994 to November 2025. 
None of them were resolved. 
A city inspector cited the building last year for a cracked and spalled facade, broken third-floor windows and dislodged cornice elements, records show. 
A 311 complaint filed last year described the building as a former drug rehabilitation facility that was abandoned, unguarded and left unsealed, with a homeless veteran living inside for at least two years. 
The city cited the building for a facade violation. 
Police have not said whether the remains represent a full body or partial remains, and have not released the person's age or gender. 
The chief medical examiner’s office is conducting a forensic examination to determine the person's identity, authorities said. 
Investigators have not said how long the building had been vacant or how long the remains may have been there. 
Charles is a Day-of reporter focused on breaking news and enterprise. 
He’s very friendly and can be reached at [email protected] , or more securely on whatsapp/signal 631-295-6715 
The Central Park Conservancy wants horse-drawn carriages banned. 
Its poll says NYC agrees. 
The most passionate responses are from respondents favoring a ban, pollsters say. 
Published Jul 9, 2026 at 4:33 p.m. 
ET 
Modified Jul 9, 2026 at 8:14 p.m. 
ET 
NY attorney general sues chemical companies for PFAS pollution 
New York’s attorney general filed a lawsuit Thursday against major chemical companies for knowingly manufacturing and marketing consumer products with toxic forever chemicals. 
We mapped every UES cooling tower in the area affected by NYC’s latest Legionnaires’ outbreak 
Education tech purchases on pause as NYC schools wrestle with AI 
NYPD officer charged with rape of a minor after internal affairs investigation 
Catch up on the most important headlines with a roundup of essential NYC stories, delivered to your inbox daily. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.0%Charles Lane: 2.4%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias1.0%This article: 2.7%Charles Lane: 1.8%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 14.3%Charles Lane: 3.5%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic14.3%This article: 11.0%Charles Lane: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 3.7%Charles Lane: 5.7%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect3.7%This article: 2.3%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion2.3%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: 2.0%Charles Lane: 1.3%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Charles Lane: 8.9%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Charles Lane: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error2.9%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: 5.5%Charles Lane: 1.4%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect5.5%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: 0.4%Charles Lane: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.4%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: 24.9%Charles Lane: 4.0%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority24.9%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: 1.0%Charles Lane: 2.9%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization1.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon1.0%This article: 6.1%Charles Lane: 3.4%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion6.1%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: 0.2%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: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 6.5%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote6.5%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.8%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 4.7%Charles Lane: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination4.7%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: 17.2%Charles Lane: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…17.2%

511 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers8.8%attributed speech466writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Public Radio • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCharles • 17 words • 100.0% coverageCentral Park Conservancy • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Charles

100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words38% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +89.1 ptsWriter: 10.9%Charles: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%Charles: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Charles: 0.0%0.0%

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.