Teen girls thought they were chasing modeling careers. Prosecutors say they walked into a nightmare. 5%

By Paul Farrell21%

8/5/2026, 6:02:32 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.2% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 327 faulty-reasoning hits from 504 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 13.3% and a BS Rank of 5% (29,044 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.00% of the article peer group.

A photographer who lured teenage girls with promises of modeling careers before sexually abusing them and producing child sexual abuse material has been sentenced to 40 years in federal prison. 
Robert Koester, 59, also known as Bert Kay, was sentenced this week in Oregon after pleading guilty to producing child sexual abuse material involving victims in Oregon and California. 
The federal sentence comes seven years after he received a 25-year prison sentence in California for separate state convictions involving many of the same victims. 
Prosecutors said Koester used his modeling agency, Frank Model Management, to target girls as young as 15, promising them opportunities in the fashion industry before inviting them to stay at his homes in California and Oregon. 
According to prosecutors, Koester paid for some victims' airfare and gave them cocaine, marijuana and alcohol before coercing them into posing nude. 
They also alleged he administered drugs commonly associated with drug-facilitated sexual assaults before abusing the girls and photographing or filming the attacks. 
Assistant U.S. 
Attorney Mira Chernick described the case as extraordinary because of the number of victims and the "sadism" involved in the abuse. 
During the sentencing hearing, the court heard a victim impact statement from one survivor, who said Koester deliberately targeted girls from troubled families because they were more vulnerable. 
"I still don't trust my own judgment. 
You are a danger to others and I will never forgive you," the statement said. 
The victim also said she still checks her bedroom for hidden cameras because of the trauma she endured. 
Given the opportunity to address the court, Koester said he was "mortified to have harmed" the girls. 
"I absolutely take responsibility for any harm I've caused," he said. 
"I don't know why I did what I did but I know I'm tremendously ashamed by it." 
Koester was arrested in Carlsbad, California, in 2018. 
He later pleaded guilty in San Diego County to nearly two dozen felony charges, including rape, sexual assault and producing child sexual abuse material. 
Prosecutors said some victims were unconscious during the assaults. 
Federal court records state investigators found child sexual abuse material involving victims on electronic devices seized from Koester's California apartment. 
A subsequent search of his home and photography studio in Carlton, Oregon, uncovered additional images and videos, including footage prosecutors said showed Koester sexually abusing victims who appeared to be unconscious. 
Investigators also recovered vials containing substances later identified as drugs commonly used to facilitate sexual assaults. 
As part of his plea agreement, Koester forfeited his Oregon home, which was later sold for about $750,000, along with his photography equipment. 
"Koester's crimes against children are among the worst this district has seen," U.S. 
Attorney Scott E. 
Bradford said in a statement. 
"His violent abuse of these girls created scars they will carry their entire lives, and the images of that abuse will haunt them. 
I hope today's sentence brings a measure of justice and healing for the victims." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.6%Paul Farrell: 1.9%The Independent: 2.8%Confirmation Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.8%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Paul Farrell: 3.3%The Independent: 3.1%Availability Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 2.0%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 1.2%The Independent: 7.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Paul Farrell: 1.0%The Independent: 2.3%Optimism Bias2.8%This article: 4.8%Paul Farrell: 1.3%The Independent: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 20.2%Paul Farrell: 7.3%The Independent: 11.5%Negativity Bias20.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 1.0%The Independent: 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.5%The Independent: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.5%The Independent: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Paul Farrell: 0.4%The Independent: 1.4%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 2.7%The Independent: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.4%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.9%The Independent: 3.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.1%Paul Farrell: 5.6%The Independent: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion17.1%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 2.2%The Independent: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.1%The Independent: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 1.3%The Independent: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.0%Paul Farrell: 2.7%The Independent: 7.3%Biased Writer Voice6.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.3%The Independent: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 1.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Farrell: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

504 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers12%attributed speech446writer words
Selected voice

Scott E. Bradford

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words64% of attributed speech34% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Scott E. Bradford: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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