Former Missouri police chief gets 27 months in prison for stealing more than $300,000 from town 5%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

4/24/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 19.7% saturation with 83 hits. Analysis detected 381 faulty-reasoning hits from 422 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 19.3% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,940 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.70% of the article peer group.

The ex-police chief and city administrator for Velda City is going to federal prison for more than two years for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from his former employer. 
U.S. 
District Judge Cristian Stevens issued the 27-month sentence Thursday to 52-year-old Daniel Paulino. 
It was on the low end of the punishment prosecutors had requested, while Paulino had asked for probation. 
He will also have to pay restitution. 
The town of about 1,200 in north St. 
Louis County made Paulino its city administrator in 2021. 
The move put him in charge of payroll and gave him access to the city's bank accounts. 
At the time, he was already the city's police chief. 
Paulino admitted in November that he used the city administrator position to steal more than $300,000 from the city between 2021 and 2024. 
The scheme included using the city's credit card for personal expenses. 
He also directed city funds to support businesses owned by him and his spouse. 
The current city budget is about $845,000. 
"Instead of serving the public interest, [Paulino] systematically exploited his unique position for personal gain," Velda City Mayor Derrick Gill wrote in a victim impact statement. 
"He stole from the City while simultaneously being responsible for preventing and detecting such theft. 
The people of Velda City trusted their government to manage public funds responsibly and keep them safe. 
That trust was shattered." 
In asking for probation, Paulino's attorneys pointed to a number of serious health conditions that would be difficult and expensive to manage while in prison. 
They also noted that as a gay man and a former police officer, Paulino would be at "a heightened risk of abuse or other victimization by other inmates or prison staff during any term of incarceration." 
The city of Hillsdale, Missouri hired Paulino in an administrative role after he left Velda City. 
In a sentencing letter, Paulino's husband claimed his work brought in more than $100,000 in grants, an assertion backed up by Hillsdale's chief in other court documents. 
Hillsdale did not immediately respond to questions about Paulino's employment there. 
A local pay database put together by the St. 
Louis Post-Dispatch showed him earning about $33,000 in 2024. 
Paulino is not the first Velda City employee to steal from the town. 
Its former treasurer, Venita Sedodo, pleaded guilty in 2020 to wire and mail fraud totalling about $400,000. 
That scheme stretched from 2015 to 2018. 
Copyright 2026 St. 
Louis Public Radio 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias14.7%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.7%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion19.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote12.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice12.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

422 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers42%attributed speech246writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCristian Stevens • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSt. Louis County • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Paulino • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDerrick Gill • 26 words • 100.0% coverageDerrick Gill • 15 words • 100.0% coverageDerrick Gill • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDerrick Gill • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageHillsdale, Missouri • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Paulino • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Post-Dispatch • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageVenita Sedodo • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Derrick Gill

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words35% of attributed speech37% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice+41.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Derrick Gill: 41.9%41.9%Unattributed Quote+9.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%Derrick Gill: 24.2%24.2%

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.