Convicted rapist sentenced in decades-old murders solved using discarded chewing gum 7%

By Mike Bedigan0%

5/16/2026, 4:02:05 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 476 faulty-reasoning hits from 498 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.6% and a BS Rank of 7% (19,024 of 20,364 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.40% of the article peer group.

A convicted rapist has been sentenced to 50 years in prison after the decades-long cold case murders of two women were solved using a piece of discarded chewing gum. 
Mitchell Gaff was apprehended after three undercover investigators posed as gum salespeople and entered his Washington home, according to court documents obtained by CNN. 
The 68-year-old unwittingly provided them with DNA samples through his saliva on the used gum pieces. 
Gaff was sentenced to a minimum of 50 years in prison Wednesday for the murders of Susan Vesey, 21, and Judith Weaver, 42, which occurred in the 1980s, according to the Everett Police Department. 
He was arrested and charged in May 2024 over the murder of Weaver, who was found dead in her home on June 2, 1984. 
Her body was found after Everett Fire Department responded to a fire  later determined to have been lit by Gaff. 
On March 13 of this year, Gaff was also charged with the murder of Vesey, who was found dead in her home by her husband on July 12, 1980. 
Court documents obtained by CNN detailed the so-called “gum ruse.” 
In January 2024 three investigators from Everett Police Department pretended to represent a gum company that was conducting research into the public’s favorite flavors. 
Gaff invited them into his home, according to Susan Logothetti, one of the officers. 
Logothetti told CNN that one of her colleagues had offered Gaff a dish to put his discarded gum in. 
“I remember watching him spit the first piece of gum into the ramekin and seeing the saliva, and it was very hard for me to contain my excitement,” she said. 
Gaff had been identified as a possible suspect after he was matched to DNA evidence from Weaver’s murder through the national Combined DNA System Index. 
His DNA was entered into the system after he was convicted over the rape of two teenage sisters in 1984, according to the court documents. 
Gaff pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder on April 16 in the deaths of Weaver and Vesey. 
Gaff ultimately provided statements in both homicides, admitting to his crimes in open court, and the details he provided were consistent with the determinations of the police investigations, according to EPD. 
In his plea statement, reported by CNN, Gaff said he was “trying random doors and found the victim’s door unlocked” and went on to beat, rape and strangle Vesey to death. 
Four years later he attacked Weaver in her bedroom, then set a fire in an attempt to destroy evidence, according to the statement. 
“Before leaving I wrapped cords around her neck and lit the corner of the bedspread in an attempt to cover up my crime and with the intention of killing her,” Gaff said, per CNN. 
“Ms. 
Weaver died because of my actions.” 
Gaff said in his statement he did not know either woman prior to each attack, the outlet reported. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.7%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Mike Bedigan: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.0%Mike Bedigan: 2.3%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.1%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.6%The Independent: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Mike Bedigan: 7.4%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 2.5%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.3%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Mike Bedigan: 8.8%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 2.5%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Mike Bedigan: 0.3%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error3.2%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.9%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.7%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 4.4%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.2%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.1%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.7%Mike Bedigan: 5.9%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority29.7%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.4%The Independent: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 3.5%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.8%Mike Bedigan: 7.8%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion6.8%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.1%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.2%Mike Bedigan: 0.9%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.2%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.1%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.0%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.3%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Mike Bedigan: 0.9%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 13.1%Mike Bedigan: 2.1%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection13.1%This article: 6.2%Mike Bedigan: 4.0%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice6.2%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.2%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.6%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Bedigan: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

498 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers39%attributed speech305writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageEverett Police Department • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageEverett Police Department • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Logothetti • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Logothetti • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Logothetti • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageEPD • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMitchell Gaff • 34 words • 100.0% coverageMitchell Gaff • 1 words • 100.0% coverageMitchell Gaff • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mitchell Gaff

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words21% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Quote-first Misdirection+72.8 ptsWriter: 10.2%Mitchell Gaff: 82.9%82.9%Unattributed Quote+17.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mitchell Gaff: 17.1%17.1%Biased Writer Voice-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%Mitchell Gaff: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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