Indian AI CEO Suchana Seth was arrested in Karnataka for allegedly murdering her four-year-old son and stuffing his body into a bag. The incident took place between January 6 and 8 at a service apartment in Goa's Candolim where she checked into with her son.
Suchana Seth left the hotel without her son on Monday morning while carrying an unusually heavy bag.
On January 9, a CEO of an Indian AI startup named Suchana Seth was arrested in Karnataka for allegedly murdering her four-year-old son and stuffing his body into a bag. The incident took place between January 6 and 8 at a service apartment in Goa's Candolim where she checked into with her son. During the investigation, it was found that Suchana Seth had left the hotel without her son on Monday morning while carrying an unusually heavy bag. When the hotel staff went to clean their room, they discovered bloodstains and contacted Calangute police station who then called up suchana seth over phone enquiring about her son. She claimed he was with a friend in Fatorda but when the taxi driver was informed of this, it turned out that she had given him a fake address.
Suchana Seth, CEO of Mindful AI Lab, allegedly killed her 4-year-old son in Goa and stuffed his body in a bag before taking it to neighboring Karnataka.
The accused has told the police that she and her husband were estranged, their divorce proceedings are currently underway, and she checked into a service apartment at Candolim in North Goa with her son on January 6.
Accuracy
Suchana Seth allegedly killed her 4-year-old son in Goa and stuffed his body in a bag before taking it to neighboring Karnataka.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Suchana Seth killed her four-year-old son and stuffed his body in a bag before taking it to neighboring Karnataka in a taxi. However, this claim is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. The police only found blood stains on a towel when they went to clean the room where she stayed, but there was no mention of her son's body being found or recovered from anywhere else. Secondly, the author claims that Suchana Seth tried to end her life by cutting her wrist with a sharp object after committing this crime. However, this claim is also not supported by any evidence presented in the article. The police only mentioned that she had cuts on her wrist when they arrested her but did not provide any details about how or why she cut herself. Thirdly, the author claims that Suchana Seth's motive behind killing her son is unclear, which implies that there was no clear reason for it. However, this claim contradicts other information presented in the article such as their divorce proceedings being underway and her husband being estranged from her.
The author claims that Suchana Seth killed her four-year-old son and stuffed his body in a bag before taking it to neighboring Karnataka in a taxi. However, this claim is not supported by any evidence presented in the article.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Suchana Seth is among the top 100 Brilliant Women in AI Ethics for 2021 without providing any evidence or context about this claim. Additionally, the author presents a dichotomous depiction of Suchana Seth as both an accomplished CEO and a woman who killed her son, which oversimplifies complex issues and ignores other factors that may have contributed to the crime. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric by describing such actions as
Bias
(0%)
The article is biased by presenting the CEO of an AI start-up as a brilliant and successful woman without providing any context or evidence for these claims. The article also implies that her divorce proceedings are relevant to the crime she committed, suggesting that she killed her son out of spite or anger. The article does not explore other possible motives or factors behind the murder, such as mental health issues, abuse, financial problems, etc.
The accused woman is described as a CEO of an artificial intelligence start-up and among the top 100 brilliant women in AI ethics for 2021. This implies that she is highly accomplished and respected in her field, which may not be true or relevant to the crime she committed.
The article mentions that the accused woman was estranged from her husband and their divorce proceedings were underway. It also suggests that this may have influenced her decision to kill her son, implying a negative judgment of her personal life and choices. This does not provide any evidence or context for these claims, nor does it consider other possible reasons why she may have killed her son.
The article uses the term #Artificial Intelligence AI without providing any explanation or definition of what it means or how it relates to the crime. This may confuse or mislead readers who are not familiar with this concept, and also implies a bias towards promoting or glorifying this field as something positive or important.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on the topic 'murder of 4-yr-old son' as they are reporting on an incident involving Suchana Seth who is associated with Mindful AI Lab. The author also has a financial tie to Karnataka and Goa, which could affect their objectivity in covering these topics.
Suchana Seth is the CEO of Mindful AI Lab, which was mentioned as being involved in the incident.
The CEO of an Indian AI startup, Suchana Seth, has been arrested on suspicion of murdering her four-year-old son
Seth checked into a hotel with her son in Goa on Saturday (January 6) but the boy was not with her when she checked out on Monday night
Accuracy
Hotel cleaning staff found blood stains in the room after Seth checked out and informed the police
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that Seth was arrested for murder when no charges have been filed against her yet. Secondly, the body of the child was found in her luggage which suggests she killed him and then tried to dispose of his body by packing it into her suitcase. However, this is not clear from the article as there are conflicting statements about what happened to the boy when Seth checked out of their hotel room. Thirdly, Reuters Videos does not provide any evidence or quotes that support these claims and instead rely on unnamed sources such as police inspectors and local court reports which may be biased.
The body of the child was found in her luggage which suggests she killed him and then tried to dispose of his body by packing it into her suitcase. However, this is not clear from the article as there are conflicting statements about what happened to the boy when Seth checked out of their hotel room.
Reuters Videos does not provide any evidence or quotes that support these claims and instead rely on unnamed sources such as police inspectors and local court reports which may be biased.
The title implies that Seth was arrested for murder when no charges have been filed against her yet.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the CEO was arrested on suspicion of murder. The author does not provide any evidence or information about the investigation or charges against the CEO. Additionally, there is a lack of context for why the child's body was found in her luggage and what led to this situation.
The article states that Suchana Seth, who heads The Mindful AI Lab in Bengaluru, was arrested on suspicion of murdering her four-year-old son after his body was found in her luggage. This is an appeal to authority fallacy as the author does not provide any evidence or information about the investigation or charges against the CEO.
The article states that a Goa police inspector said Seth had checked into a hotel with her son in the state on Saturday (January 6) but the boy was not with her when she checked out on Monday night. This is an example of a false dilemma fallacy as it presents only two options, either Seth was with her son or she wasn't, without providing any context for what happened during that time.
The article states that hotel cleaning staff found blood stains in the room after she checked out and informed the police. This is an example of a slippery slope fallacy as it implies that finding blood stains automatically leads to suspecting foul play.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that implies the CEO is guilty of murder without providing any evidence. The author uses language such as 'on suspicion' and 'arrested after the body was found in her suitcase', which suggests guilt. Additionally, there are no quotes from anyone else to provide context or counterbalance this claim.
And arrested after the body was found in her suitcase
The CEO of an Indian AI startup has been arrested on suspicion of murdering her four-year-old son
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. The author is Reuters Videos which has a financial stake in the company that was arrested and may be hesitant to report on negative side effects of their products.
The CEO's arrest raises questions about his involvement with the company he founded, which could have implications for its future performance. The article mentions that the CEO has a financial stake in the company, but does not disclose how much or what specific investments they have made.
Suchana Seth checked into a luxury apartment in North Goa's Candolim on Saturday with her son and checked out on Monday morning.
During investigation, it was seen that Suchana Seth had left the hotel without her son and was carrying a bag.
Goa Police contacted the cab driver and spoke to Suchna Seth over phone enquiring about her son. She claimed he was with friend in Fatorda, Goa.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that Suchana Seth murdered her son at a service apartment in Goa and then tried to flee with his body stuffed in a bag. However, this information turns out to be false as it was later found that she had checked-in to the hotel with her son and only left without him. Secondly, the article quotes Suchana Seth mentioning an 'estranged relationship' with her husband as one of the reasons for murdering her son which is not supported by any evidence in the article. Thirdly, during preliminary interrogation, she mentioned that she had checked-in to a luxury apartment in North Goa on Saturday and checked out on Monday morning but this information was also found to be false.
The title of the article implies that Suchana Seth murdered her son at a service apartment in Goa and then tried to flee with his body stuffed in a bag. However, this information turns out to be false as it was later found that she had checked-in to the hotel with her son and only left without him.
The article quotes Suchana Seth mentioning an 'estranged relationship' with her husband as one of the reasons for murdering her son which is not supported by any evidence in the article.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author uses several logical fallacies to persuade the reader of her position. She appeals to authority by mentioning her credentials as an AI ethics expert and a fellow at Harvard University, implying that she is credible because of these affiliations. She also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the murder in graphic detail, which may evoke emotional reactions from the reader without providing any relevant information about the case. Additionally, she uses dichotomous descriptions by presenting her relationship with her husband as an 'estranged' one, suggesting that this is a sufficient motive for committing such a heinous crime. She does not provide any evidence or context to support these claims, and relies on emotional appeals rather than logical arguments.
She mentions her credentials as an AI ethics expert and a fellow at Harvard University, implying that she is credible because of these affiliations. This is an appeal to authority fallacy, as it assumes that someone's opinions or beliefs are valid simply because they hold certain positions or titles.
She describes the murder in graphic detail, which may evoke emotional reactions from the reader without providing any relevant information about the case. This is a rhetorical device used to manipulate the audience's feelings and distract them from examining her arguments. This could be an example of an ad hominem or a bandwagon fallacy, depending on how she uses these descriptions.
She presents her relationship with her husband as an 'estranged' one, suggesting that this is a sufficient motive for committing such a heinous crime. She does not provide any evidence or context to support these claims, and relies on emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. This is a dichotomous description fallacy, as it oversimplifies the situation and ignores other possible factors that may have influenced her actions.
She uses inflammatory rhetoric by calling the murder 'brutal' and 'horrific', without providing any evidence or context to support these claims. This is a form of hyperbole, which is an exaggeration used to emphasize a point, but can also be seen as deceptive or misleading.
She uses vague terms like 'estranged relationship' and 'some reasons' without specifying what they are or how they relate to the murder. This could be an example of a fallacy of ambiguity, which is when someone uses unclear language or concepts to obscure their meaning and avoid scrutiny.
She does not address any counterarguments or alternative explanations for her claims. She simply states her position as fact without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning. This could be an example of a fallacy of ignorance, which is when someone assumes that their opinion is correct because they have not heard any contradictory arguments.
She does not provide any details about the motive, method, or circumstances of the murder. She only focuses on her own background and credentials as if these were relevant to the case. This could be an example of a fallacy of irrelevance, which is when someone introduces irrelevant information in order to divert attention from their main point.
She does not acknowledge any potential biases or limitations in her reporting. She presents herself as an objective and authoritative source of information, without disclosing any possible conflicts of interest or sources of error that may have influenced her perspective.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'estranged relationship' to describe the motive for the murder which implies that Suchana Seth is a woman who has been abandoned by her husband and therefore may be more likely to commit such an act due to financial difficulties or emotional distress.
Suchana Seth, was caught from Karnataka's Chitradurga district while trying to flee in a cab with her son's body stuffed in a bag.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Pavneet Singh Chadha has a conflict of interest on the topic of CEOs and Bengaluru startups as he is an author for Indian Express. He also has a personal relationship with Suchana Seth who was involved in the murder case.
