I’m not bothering with story links, because — as you’ll see — that’s a bit pointless. Or to the point, as it were.
To read the news, Nancy Pelosi’s drunkard hubby was attacked at home.
From there, everything in the news is subject to change without notice, before or after.
The alleged perp broke in. Except when they say there were no signs of forced entry.
The cops responded remarkably quickly (personally, I figured the Pelosi’s have a permanent protective detail outside the house). That quick response was…
1. An unexplained “emergency welfare check.”
2. In response to Pelosi calling 911 while fighting over a hammer with his assailant.
3. An emergency welfare check, but they got a 911 call during dispatch.
Pelosi didn’t know his assailant. Except for telling police (during the 911 call?) that he didn’t know him, but his name is Dave and he’s a friend. WTF?
Yeah, well; how well do you really know your friends? /sarc
The alleged assailant’s… clothing is of some interest. Yesterday, multiple news reports said the alleged assailant was only wearing underwear. Today, all of those reports seem to be “updated,” with no mention of clothing at all; or completely 404. I did see one story that said “underwear” yesterday, but has now deleted it, but had the semi-decency to include a note that the story was changed to remove the clothing description.
There are even discrepancies in reporting over just who actually had the hammer when the cops showed up, with bulk saying — directly or indirectly — that the alleged bad guy got control of the hammer when the police arrived.
Apparently the charges against the accused include “elder abuse.” That might be interesting, since most of the California elder abuse statutes seem to require a caretaker or familial relationship between the accused and victim. § 368(b) might be stretched to include an accused without such a relationship, though.
“News” services routinely bungle facts in their rush to scoop the competition. Maybe that’s what’s happening in this case. But a lot of those changes strike me as peculiar (particularly the underwear thing), and suspiciously convenient for the high profile hubby of a powerful politician who might be embarrassed by said hubby in a domestic spat at home with a much younger, underwear-clad man.
|If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)