Former Pewaukee bus driver sentenced to 60 years for sex crimes ⁠14%

By Adrienne Davis⁠71%

7/24/2026, 7:38:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Recency Bias as the most egregious example at 22.4% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 298 faulty-reasoning hits from 223 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠14% (18,918 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.40% of the article peer group.

A former Pewaukee school bus driver convicted of eight of 11 charges involving sex crimes against minors has been sentenced to prison, according to online court records. 
Thomas Felser, 63, was ordered to serve 60 years in prison followed by 40 years on extended supervision on July 24. 
Felser was convicted on four of seven counts of sexual misconduct by school staff or volunteer, three counts of repeated sexual assault of a child, and one count of first-degree child sexual assault. 
In addition, the judge ordered Felser to comply with Wisconsin's lifetime sex offender registry. 
Felser's trial began May 4. 
After a four-day trial, a jury found him guilty on eight charges May 7. 
He has remained in the Waukesha County Jail since May 2025, according to online court records. 
The Waukesha County District Attorney's Office filed additional charges in late May 2025 after police reviewed more security footage from Felser's bus routes and discovered Felser touched a second child inappropriately on multiple occasions. 
He received additional charges in July 2025 after more incidents involving two more children were uncovered. 
Adrienne Davis is a general assignment and breaking news reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 
Got any tips or stories to share? 
Contact Adrienne at amdavis@gannett.com. 
Follow her on X at @AdriReportss. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.3%Adrienne Davis: 2.9%Journal Sentinel: 2.5%Confirmation Bias19.3%This article: 9.4%Adrienne Davis: 1.8%Journal Sentinel: 0.7%Anchoring Bias9.4%This article: 7.2%Adrienne Davis: 2.3%Journal Sentinel: 2.4%Availability Heuristic7.2%This article: 14.8%Adrienne Davis: 1.6%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic14.8%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 3.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Adrienne Davis: 5.2%Journal Sentinel: 6.1%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 1.5%Journal Sentinel: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.9%Journal Sentinel: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 2.5%Journal Sentinel: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.2%Adrienne Davis: 12.0%Journal Sentinel: 7.0%Negativity Bias20.2%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Adrienne Davis: 2.4%Journal Sentinel: 0.6%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 22.4%Adrienne Davis: 1.8%Journal Sentinel: 1.1%Recency Bias22.4%This article: 6.3%Adrienne Davis: 0.5%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Primacy Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.7%Journal Sentinel: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 1.8%Journal Sentinel: 1.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.9%Journal Sentinel: 2.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.9%Journal Sentinel: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 1.8%Journal Sentinel: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 17.3%Journal Sentinel: 10.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 4.7%Journal Sentinel: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.2%Adrienne Davis: 1.9%Journal Sentinel: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.2%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.9%Journal Sentinel: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.8%Journal Sentinel: 0.5%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.5%Journal Sentinel: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.7%Journal Sentinel: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 3.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Adrienne Davis: 0.6%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.6%

223 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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