"I wanna kill him so bad"
Credibility score: 34/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed ""I wanna kill him so bad"" and rated it 34/100 for credibility (a BS score of 66/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-13. Its weakest claim — "Uses hyperbole to frame police inaction as 'every criminal's dream treatment'." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as emotional button. 12 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 12 claims analyzed: 7 scored under 40, 5 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
All authorities 'mysteriously declined' vs. one journalist gets credit — loaded framing — Loaded Language (35/100)
At 0:00
Calls every refusal 'mysterious' — implies conspiracy without naming who blocked what.
Why this score: The speaker contrasts 'every single person or institution' that 'mysteriously declined' with one named journalist who 'needs to be given immense credit.' By labeling non-action as mysterious rather than 'no comment' or 'ongoing,' the framing steers the viewer toward assuming deliberate obstruction instead of routine bureaucratic inaction or legal limits. A neutral version would simply state which agencies were contacted and what responses were received.
Original quote: “The firebombing of my house. This event I would have much preferred that the New South Wales police handled failing that any responsible authority. Yet so far every single person or institution with an obligation to investigate has mysteriously declined or just plain failed. Apart from Kate…”
Claims police rejected good leads for 3 years — uses 'mysterious reason' to imply malfeasance. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:43
Calling the police's inaction a 'mysterious reason' frames it as suspicious rather than simply inefficient or under-resourced.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language ('mysterious reason', 'downright reject') to imply that the police's failure to follow up on leads is not just incompetence but a deliberate, hidden agenda. A neutral framing would simply state that leads were not followed, without attributing a 'mysterious' motive.
Original quote: “as I have waited 3 years for the police to do something. During these three years, I've not only watched them pass by on numerous chances to solve this mystery, but also somehow, for some mysterious reason, downright actually reject good leads that I've been aware of.”
Uses hyperbole to frame police inaction as 'every criminal's dream treatment'. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 2:50
Compares alleged police inaction to a 'criminal's dream' — a dramatic, emotionally charged statement to rile up the audience.
Why this score: This is a clear use of an 'emotional button'. By framing the situation as 'every criminal's dream treatment' and listing extreme actions like 'burn down a house, threaten to kill people,' the speaker is trying to evoke outrage and anger in the audience. It's an exaggerated, hyperbolic comparison designed to make the alleged police inaction seem more egregious and to bypass rational assessment of the facts.
Original quote: “This is every criminal's dream treatment. Burn down a house, threaten to kill people, have it reported to police, and then the police do nothing.”
Speaker uses 'grave allegations' and 'damning news' to heighten emotional impact. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Using words like 'grave' and 'damning' before presenting evidence sets a strong emotional tone. — It's all about making you feel the weight of the accusations.
Why this score: This is classic loaded language. By describing the allegations as 'grave' and the news as 'damning' right out of the gate, the speaker is pre-framing the audience's perception. It's designed to evoke a strong emotional response and make the audience more receptive to the negative portrayal of Mimmud Fazal, even before specific details are shared. A neutral framing would simply state that allegations and news are emerging, letting the facts speak for themselves.
Original quote: “at in light of I have to stress grave allegations, death threats from one of their reporters. Which brings us to now where even more damning news about Mimmud Fazal is coming out news that to be honest is really scaring me.”
Speaker links ABC journalists to an organized crime gang. — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 7:04
The speaker uses 'Alamadans, an organized crime gang' and 'certain ABC journalists' to imply a direct, nefarious connection. — It's all about guilt by association here.
Why this score: The speaker frames his previous video's 'oblique reference' by asking 'Why do the Alamadans, an organized crime gang, give so much access to certain ABC journalists?' and 'Why is the ABC so ardent in defending these certain journalists?'. This uses 'Loaded Language' and 'Missing Context' to create a strong implication of wrongdoing without stating it directly. By repeatedly using 'certain' and linking 'organized crime gang' to 'ABC journalists,' he's steering the audience to infer a corrupt relationship, even if the actual 'access' could be for legitimate journalistic purposes. It's designed…
Original quote: “So let's see what the chain said. Some context. The day earlier I released this video about the conviction of Tufi whatever his name is for firebombing my house. I made this oblique reference to Fizale. Why do the Alamadans, an organized crime gang, give so much access to certain ABC journalists?…”
Using 'dog' and 'rat' to frame someone as disloyal and deserving of punishment. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 8:35
Calling someone a 'dog' and 'rat' isn't just descriptive; it's designed to make you feel contempt for them.
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, derogatory terms ('dog', 'rat') to describe an individual who 'ratted me to jack (police)'. This isn't neutral reporting; it's an attempt to dehumanize the person and justify negative actions or feelings towards them by framing them as inherently bad or disloyal. It primes the audience to view the individual negatively without presenting objective facts about their actions.
Original quote: “Nah, he has to get what he gets. He's a dog. Ratted me to jack. Jax means police.”
Accuses hypocrisy by contrasting background vs evidence framing — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:30
Frames Mimmud as ignoring his own 'hard evidence' standard — loaded comparison that skips whether the evidence was actually equal.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a clean binary: Mlimont used evidence, Mimmud uses background. This is classic loaded framing because it assumes the two situations are structurally identical without showing the actual evidence in either case. A neutral version would ask what specific evidence Mlimont presented and whether Mimmud's counter actually addresses it.
Original quote: “How does he not see how hypocritical that is? Mimmud, didn't you claim Mlimont was relying on your background to stereotype you when she relied entirely on hard evidence for her claims?”
Claims Mimmud only attacks background while admitting texts are real — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:41
Presents 'tacitly admitted were real' as fact — but the transcript never shows that admission, only the speaker's interpretation.
Why this score: The move here is to treat an interpretation of Mimmud's past statements as established fact. By saying he 'tacitly admitted' the texts, the speaker bypasses needing to quote the actual admission. Fair framing would either show the clip where Mimmud supposedly concedes or acknowledge this is the speaker's reading of his words.
Original quote: “Now you're relying solely on Domingo's background to refute text chains, some of which you yourself have tacitly admitted were real, just out of context.”
Questions business partnership using Nco's alleged criminal history — Emotional Button (35/100)
At 11:02
Stacks 'criminal history, harassment, dishonesty' without evidence shown — emotional weight before the actual question lands.
Why this score: The speaker repeats the serious allegations as given ('in your words') but never displays the documentation. This creates a strong negative impression that makes the later question feel obvious. Cleaner framing would either link to the documented record or ask the partnership question without the loaded preamble first.
Original quote: “if Nco is a liar, if he has, in your words, a criminal history, a history of harassment, and a documented record of dishonesty, why start a business with him?”
Frames ABC inaction as institutional failure on journalist threats — Emotional Button (40/100)
At 11:29
Uses 'passing on threats' and 'demanding cash' as settled fact — both are serious accusations presented without supporting evidence in this segment.
Why this score: The rhetorical power comes from treating the allegations as already proven then asking why the ABC hasn't acted. This reverses the normal burden: instead of showing the conduct happened, the speaker asks why the institution hasn't responded to it. Neutral framing would first establish what the journalist actually did before questioning the ABC's response timeline.
Original quote: “What is a four corners journalist doing passing on threats to other journalists and demanding cash from this person? And why did it take until now for the ABC to even acknowledge that that might be a problem?”
Labels Fazal's work as taxpayer-funded 'fiction' selling crime lords as victims — loaded moral framing — Loaded Language (30/100)
At 13:29
Stacks 'sympathy for murderers' three times — emotional button to paint the journalist as traitor.
Why this score: Repeating 'sympathy for' turns a tonal critique into a moral accusation. The speaker also shifts from 'the reporting is soft' to 'the reporting sells the public a fiction,' which is a much stronger claim. Without showing specific false statements or omitted facts, the language does the heavy lifting of making Fazal sound complicit rather than just overly access-friendly.
Original quote: “It's very clear in this where Fizale's sympathy lies. It's sympathy for criminals, sympathy for murderers, sympathy for traffickers, sympathy for business, taking our tax money to try and sell the Australian public the fiction that wealthy crime magnates are some sort of downtrodden, forgotten…”
Calls coverage "crime porn slop" & demands arrests — emotional button + loaded language — Emotional Button (30/100)
At 14:26
Stacks "slop" twice then pivots straight to "cowards" — pure outrage framing, zero evidence shown.
Why this score: By labeling the material "crime porn" and "propaganda" without naming specific errors or sources, the speaker triggers disgust first. The immediate jump to "make an arrest, you cowards" then frames police inaction as cowardice rather than a legal or evidentiary question. A neutral version would cite the exact falsehoods or legal thresholds that should trigger an arrest; this version skips that step entirely and relies on emotional heat to carry the argument.
Original quote: “produce crime porn slop. Propaganda slop tailor made for organized crime. Make an arrest. Make an arrest, you cowards.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →