James Handy stabbing latest: Eerie 911 call revealed after son of Top Gun star’s girlfriend arrested ⁠38%

By Joe Sommerlad⁠0% Katie Hawkinson⁠0%

6/5/2026, 3:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 47.4% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 368 faulty-reasoning hits from 211 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠38% (13,608 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.20% of the article peer group.

Police revealed the eerie 911 call that led them to James Handy after he was fatally stabbed in Los Angeles. 
The 81-year-old character actor was known for iconic roles in films including Top Gun: Maverick and Jumanji. 
His girlfriend’s son has been arrested on suspicion of murder. 
Officers responded Wednesday morning to a home in the Tarzana neighborhood after a 911 caller said, “I am the son of man, I just killed the man of sin,” according to the Los Angeles Police Department. 
There, they found Handy unconscious in the front yard, suffering from a stab wound to his chest. 
He was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. 
Michael Gledhill, the 44-year-old son of Handy’s girlfriend, has been arrested and booked into Van Nuys jail. 
Gledhill told officers “he was the one they were looking for” shortly after the stabbing, according to police. 
Gledhill lived at the home with his mother, police said. 
His bail was set at $2 million. 
Handy made his film debut in 1981 and also appeared Bird, Arachnophobia, The Rocketeer, Logan and Suburbicon. 
He appeared on several TV shows, including NYPD Blue, The X-Files and The West Wing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.5%Joe Sommerlad: 4.9%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias8.5%This article: 3.3%Joe Sommerlad: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias3.3%This article: 26.5%Joe Sommerlad: 3.7%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic26.5%This article: 8.1%Joe Sommerlad: 1.1%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic8.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.6%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 9.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 47.4%Joe Sommerlad: 20.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias47.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 3.2%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error4.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 4.8%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.2%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.4%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.1%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 6.8%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%Joe Sommerlad: 4.2%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 2.7%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.5%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 8.3%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.9%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 8.1%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.5%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 5.2%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.0%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 4.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 2.0%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 30.3%Joe Sommerlad: 2.8%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote30.3%This article: 7.6%Joe Sommerlad: 2.9%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection7.6%This article: 17.1%Joe Sommerlad: 11.7%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice17.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.1%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 3.4%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 2.6%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

211 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker17%attributed speech175writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+84.0 ptsWriter: 16.0%Los Angeles Police Department: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.6 ptsWriter: 20.6%Los Angeles Police Department: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Los Angeles Police Department: 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.