amny.com43%

Upper West Side stabbings: Suspect in custody after bloody attack on two men; possible hate motive investigated 29%

By Barbara Russo-Lennon42% Dean Moses44% Robert Pozarycki31%

7/23/2026, 1:24:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 18.1% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 628 faulty-reasoning hits from 548 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.1% and a BS Rank of 29% (15,717 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.80% of the article peer group.

Two men were stabbed on the Upper West Side Thursday afternoon, sources close to the investigation said, and a suspect is now in custody. 
According to law enforcement sources, a 40-year-old Asian man was walking on the sidewalk on West 84th Street and Central Park West at around 1:30 p.m. on July 23, when the suspect approached him from behind and stabbed him in the back with a knife. 
Moments later and two blocks away on West 86th Street, a 50-year-old Jewish man was stabbed in the chest by the same suspect, authorities said. 
This time, the suspect's weapon of choice was a screw driver. 
In both instances, sources close to the investigation said, the perpetrator allegedly shouted "Allahu Akbar," Arabic for, "God is great." 
Police are determining if the incidents will be investigated as hate crimes. 
NYPD Emergency Service Unit officers located the suspected individual, a man in his 50s, inside a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) apartment building located at 587 Amsterdam Ave., and took him into custody. 
The suspect was brought out of the building in handcuffs and remains in police custody. 
Both victims were taken to Mt. 
Sinai-St. 
Luke's Hospital were there are in serious but stable condition. 
Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch identified the suspect Thursday evening on X (formerly Twitter) as 51-year-old Raul Morales in connection with both assaults, adding that no other people are being sought. 
"Detectives are continuing to work the case and determine motive, but according to victim and witness statements, Morales yelled “Allahu Akbar” during both attacks," the commissioner said. 
"The NYPD is currently evaluating whether this is a potential hate crime." 
While the perpetrator has no known mental health history with the NYPD, the initial investigation suggested that mental health may have been a factor, the commissioner went on to say. 
"At this time there is no known link between Morales and either of the victims, nor between the victims and each other," Tisch added. 
Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who was briefed on the situation, took to X to condemn the attacks. 
"According to witness and victim statements, the perpetrator yelled 'Allahu Akbar' during both attacks. 
I am relieved that both victims are in stable condition. 
The NYPD responded immediately and arrested Raul Morales in connection with both assaults—and I am grateful to the officers for their swift response," the mayor posted. 
"These hateful and despicable attacks have no place in our city." 
Marianna Ellenberg was in an Uber when she saw the first stabbing victim on 86th Street. 
“I looked out the cab, and he was standing there still like a statue with the blade sticking out of his back. 
He was just not moving,” Ellenberg said. 
“His wife was there and the workers at the building ran to get help and was trying to comfort her.” 
Tisch thanked a witness for helping police locate the suspect. 
"I want to commend the bravery of a good Samaritan who led our officers to the location where the perpetrator was hiding, as well as our NYPD cops who brought an end to the incident without further injuries," she said. 
The investigation remains ongoing. 
This is a developing story. 
Check back for updates. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.1%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 2.8%amNewYork: 3.4%Confirmation Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.3%amNewYork: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 7.2%amNewYork: 3.8%Availability Heuristic10.6%This article: 4.6%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.9%amNewYork: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 7.1%amNewYork: 5.5%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 1.9%amNewYork: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.7%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 1.7%amNewYork: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 3.7%amNewYork: 3.7%Optimism Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.3%amNewYork: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 8.7%amNewYork: 7.0%Negativity Bias13.0%This article: 4.7%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.7%amNewYork: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 1.2%amNewYork: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.4%amNewYork: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 1.7%amNewYork: 2.2%Halo Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 1.5%amNewYork: 1.1%Recency Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.5%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 3.2%amNewYork: 3.5%Appeal to Authority5.5%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.6%amNewYork: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.6%amNewYork: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.1%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 6.1%amNewYork: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion11.1%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.5%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 1.3%amNewYork: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.8%amNewYork: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.9%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 2.3%amNewYork: 1.6%Anecdotal6.9%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.3%amNewYork: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.7%amNewYork: 1.4%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 3.6%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 1.6%amNewYork: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 3.1%amNewYork: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.9%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 3.4%amNewYork: 1.6%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Barbara Russo-Lennon: 1.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.7%

548 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers55%attributed speech249writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJessica Tisch • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJessica Tisch • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJessica Tisch • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJessica Tisch • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJessica Tisch • 24 words • 0.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 16 words • 100.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 14 words • 0.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 10 words • 0.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 26 words • 0.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMarianna Ellenberg • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMarianna Ellenberg • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMarianna Ellenberg • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJessica Tisch • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJessica Tisch • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jessica Tisch

94%flagged-word coverage
173 attributed words58% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Jessica Tisch: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Jessica Tisch: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Jessica Tisch: 0.0%0.0%

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.