GUILTY CA - Paul Pelosi, the speaker’s husband, violently attacked after assailant broke into their SF home, Oct 2022 *arrest*

[cocomod]

who cares who opened the door??? a man was beaten over the
head with a hammer by an intruder!!!!

If he was unharmed when he opened the door and harmed afterwards while LE was there, it is an important part of the case against the accused. As with ANY criminal investigation, the timeline of events IS important. I don't know why anyone would question that .

 

[MAHBOOBOO]

<modsnip>

I'm glad PP will recover, not certain what the motive was but physically attacking someone should definitely get you punished.

 

[What's up Doc]

who cares who opened the door??? a man was beaten over the
head with a hammer by an intruder!!!!

Since it's been reported and apparently proven that PP opened the door to the police, then there is truth in the reporters written story. The reporter's story is being discredited by media now, and he has been suspended. It does matter to set the record straight.MOO

 

[cocomod]

Since it's been reported and apparently proven that PP opened the door to the police, then there is truth in the reporters written story. The reporter's story is being discredited by media now, and he has been suspended. It does matter to set the record straight.MOO

This!!!

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I honestly couldn't care less about the garbage folks say on social media. Frankly, if social media imploded today and never came back, I think the world would be a much better place.

That said, it's critically important to document, factually, detail by detail, everything that happened and establish the timeline of the events. In any case, this one or any other. This creep that broke in and assaulted PP is probably enjoying all this stupid controversy and I'm sure his eventual lawyer(s) are too, and will use it in his defense. And that's why, IMO it's vitally important ALL of it is documented. Including who opened the door, who was standing where, any conversation that happened, etc., before PP was attacked.

jmo

Legitmately curious here. Why is that level of detail so important? I don't see it on any other thread. When I'm following a thread and the perp has been arrested, no one says they need to know exactly where the perp was standing and the victim was standing when the bullet left the gun, they need to know exactly what was said (unless it's a self defense case or the perp hasn't been caught, neither of which apply to this case). Everyone seems to accept the bottom line which is that the perp allegedly shot the victim and where they were standing or what they said is irrelevant to the end result and to the criminal charges. So when I see it asked over and over again in this thread, I start thinking there's another meaning behind what's being asked. What is that meaning? I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

[Tutter]

Since it's been reported and apparently proven that PP opened the door to the police, then there is truth in the reporters written story. The reporter's story is being discredited by media now, and he has been suspended. It does matter to set the record straight.MOO

I don’t really know of this reporter but did he go on air with his story or was it a written article?

 

[ilovewings]

Legitmately curious here. Why is that level of detail so important? I don't see it on any other thread. When I'm following a thread and the perp has been arrested, no one says they need to know exactly where the perp was standing and the victim was standing when the bullet left the gun, they need to know exactly what was said (unless it's a self defense case or the perp hasn't been caught, neither of which apply to this case). Everyone seems to accept the bottom line which is that the perp allegedly shot the victim and where they were standing or what they said is irrelevant to the end result and to the criminal charges. So when I see it asked over and over again in this thread, I start thinking there's another meaning behind what's being asked. What is that meaning? I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

Thank you-- you expressed my thought exactly but I could not
Say it as well as you did!

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Legitmately curious here. Why is that level of detail so important? I don't see it on any other thread. When I'm following a thread and the perp has been arrested, no one says they need to know exactly where the perp was standing and the victim was standing when the bullet left the gun, they need to know exactly what was said (unless it's a self defense case or the perp hasn't been caught, neither of which apply to this case). Everyone seems to accept the bottom line which is that the perp allegedly shot the victim and where they were standing or what they said is irrelevant to the end result and to the criminal charges. So when I see it asked over and over again in this thread, I start thinking there's another meaning behind what's being asked. What is that meaning? I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

I see discussion of the minutiae of cases on nearly every thread I follow. Even though the big picture is known I think it’s the nature of the sleuther to want to know everything about anything, even though it doesn’t change the big picture.

When a journalist is suspended over a report that appears to be factual reporting, I want to know why. I am more curious now that another NBC affiliate is reporting the same things.

imo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I see discussion of the minutiae of cases on nearly every thread I follow. Even though the big picture is known I think it’s the nature of the sleuther to want to know everything about anything, even though it doesn’t change the big picture.

When a journalist is suspended over a report that appears to be factual reporting, I want to know why. I am more curious now that another NBC affiliate is reporting the same things.

imo

We must be reading different threads then. I follow a lot of cases that have a perp behind bars and by then, the discussion of minutia is all but gone. Certainly there are no implications against the victim.

I don't think we'll know anything about the NBC report until we have some more court documents in the case. It could be something as simple as that information was not supposed to be released because of the criminal case and the network got in trouble for it. It could also be that the reporter was burned by a source. Who knows? But I'm not sure what it has to do with the attack itself.

MOO.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Legitmately curious here. Why is that level of detail so important? I don't see it on any other thread. When I'm following a thread and the perp has been arrested, no one says they need to know exactly where the perp was standing and the victim was standing when the bullet left the gun, they need to know exactly what was said (unless it's a self defense case or the perp hasn't been caught, neither of which apply to this case). Everyone seems to accept the bottom line which is that the perp allegedly shot the victim and where they were standing or what they said is irrelevant to the end result and to the criminal charges. So when I see it asked over and over again in this thread, I start thinking there's another meaning behind what's being asked. What is that meaning? I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

Fair question and I'll try and answer the best I can. In the court cases I've followed over the last few decades, this is exactly the kind of stuff that comes up.

The level of detail I'm asking about is such things like: where was the RP (reporting party) standing, what was his/her demeanor, who answered the door? if anyone else was present, where were they in the room, in comparison to the RP, what did they say, what if any, kind of physical gestures did they make, were they holding any kind of weapon?

This kind of questioning almost always comes from the defense to create HUGE doubt, and explain away things, while the prosecution will attempt to show duress, or fear. Each side will use everything available to them - every word, every 911 call, everything they can, to prove or defend their case/client.

If there is bodycam footage or eyewitness testimony to corroborate the events, that changes things as well. If one side (not this case, but any case) is full of baloney, body cam footage is both invaluable and irrefutable.

So, justice, honesty, transparency and accountability are the reasons these details are important.

jmo

 

[Ontario Mom]

I see discussion of the minutiae of cases on nearly every thread I follow. Even though the big picture is known I think it’s the nature of the sleuther to want to know everything about anything, even though it doesn’t change the big picture.

When a journalist is suspended over a report that appears to be factual reporting, I want to know why. I am more curious now that another NBC affiliate is reporting the same things.

imo

You're right, it doesn't change the big picture. That being, PP was victimized by a nutter looking for his wife, to victimize her instead. That part alone is utterly nauseating.

jmo

 

[MAHBOOBOO]

You're right, it doesn't change the big picture. That being, PP was victimized by a nutter looking for his wife, to victimize her instead. That part alone is utterly nauseating.

jmo

We don't actually KNOW that though do we? I just read 4 articles from CNN, NPR, ABC & CBS and they all state that the source for the claim that the attacker was looking for PP's wife was "a source". That's it. They don't say the police said that, or that PP said that, nor do they cite a name, they just write "a source told us DP was screaming where's nancy".

In the case of the Associated Press, they don't cite a source at all, they just say that they (the AP) are releasing the statement saying that. And in most cases all these articles are copycatted from one another. So it's plausible that the AP IS the source for CNN, NPR, ABC & CBS.

Screenshot for reference, this one from NPR. Dispatcher's 'intuition' may have saved Paul Pelosi, San Francisco's police chief says


Here's a screenshot of the AP citing themselves as a source.



As for me, the only facts I'll accept in this case will be ones shown through bodycam footage or statements made by local LE. And I've yet to see a credible source state/facts that indicate that DP was looking to victimize Nancy.

 

[sds71]

In a Mirandized and recorded interview of DEPAPE by San Francisco Police Department Officers, DEPAPE provided the following information:


DEPAPE told Pelosi to wake up. DEPAPE told Pelosi that he was looking for Nancy.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1548106/download

 

[ilovewings]

We don't actually KNOW that though do we? I just read 4 articles from CNN, NPR, ABC & CBS and they all state that the source for the claim that the attacker was looking for PP's wife was "a source". That's it. They don't say the police said that, or that PP said that, nor do they cite a name, they just write "a source told us DP was screaming where's nancy".

In the case of the Associated Press, they don't cite a source at all, they just say that they (the AP) are releasing the statement saying that. And in most cases all these articles are copycatted from one another. So it's plausible that the AP IS the source for CNN, NPR, ABC & CBS.

Screenshot for reference, this one from NPR. Dispatcher's 'intuition' may have saved Paul Pelosi, San Francisco's police chief says
View attachment 380934

Here's a screenshot of the AP citing themselves as a source.

View attachment 380935

As for me, the only facts I'll accept in this case will be ones shown through bodycam footage or statements made by local LE. And I've yet to see a credible source state/facts that indicate that DP was looking to victimize Nancy.

David DePape’s creepy conversation with Pelosi detailed in court documents

SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — While Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband was unconscious and bleeding on the floor, David DePape told San Francisco police officers, “I’m sick of the insa…

www.kron4.com

Seems to me you don't want to believe the perp said "where is Nancy" and was looking to victimize her
That is your right of course---

 

[MAHBOOBOO]

In a Mirandized and recorded interview of DEPAPE by San Francisco Police Department Officers, DEPAPE provided the following information:


DEPAPE told Pelosi to wake up. DEPAPE told Pelosi that he was looking for Nancy.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1548106/download

Okay that's a sufficient source, thank you!

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Fair question and I'll try and answer the best I can. In the court cases I've followed over the last few decades, this is exactly the kind of stuff that comes up.

The level of detail I'm asking about is such things like: where was the RP (reporting party) standing, what was his/her demeanor, who answered the door? if anyone else was present, where were they in the room, in comparison to the RP, what did they say, what if any, kind of physical gestures did they make, were they holding any kind of weapon?

This kind of questioning almost always comes from the defense to create HUGE doubt, and explain away things, while the prosecution will attempt to show duress, or fear. Each side will use everything available to them - every word, every 911 call, everything they can, to prove or defend their case/client.

If there is bodycam footage or eyewitness testimony to corroborate the events, that changes things as well. If one side (not this case, but any case) is full of baloney, body cam footage is both invaluable and irrefutable.

So, justice, honesty, transparency and accountability are the reasons these details are important.

jmo

Thank you for answering. While I totally understand that, I'm still a bit confused. We're not trying the case here on WS. I've honestly never seen a thread where we "try" the case here, especially when LE sees the incident take place. If threads like that exist, could someone please link me? I'm genuinely curious how these threads go because this is something I didn't think was kosher on WS.

Understanding the mechanics of how something happens I get. I just don't get the insinuation of a cover up. If that's not what the implication is, I apologize. I'm really not sure what the answer to "who opened the door" would prove either way. If PP answered the door and didn't express distress, to me, that doesn't negate the fact that moments later he was still clobbered with a hammer. If PP didn't open the door or showed distress, it still doesn't negate the fact that moments later he was clobbered with a hammer. So why is who opened the door so important here on WS? It may be important to the defense in court, but why is it important to us or our understanding of the case? I think it would have been important if it was a he said/she said type case, but in this one, LE and medical records prove he was hit in the head with a hammer, so I don't get it.

I hope that make sense.

 

[ilovewings]

Thank you for answering. While I totally understand that, I'm still a bit confused. We're not trying the case here on WS. I've honestly never seen a thread where we "try" the case here, especially when LE sees the incident take place. If threads like that exist, could someone please link me? I'm genuinely curious how these threads go because this is something I didn't think was kosher on WS.

Understanding the mechanics of how something happens I get. I just don't get the insinuation of a cover up. If that's not what the implication is, I apologize. I'm really not sure what the answer to "who opened the door" would prove either way. If PP answered the door and didn't express distress, to me, that doesn't negate the fact that moments later he was still clobbered with a hammer. If PP didn't open the door or showed distress, it still doesn't negate the fact that moments later he was clobbered with a hammer. So why is who opened the door so important here on WS? It may be important to the defense in court, but why is it important to us or our understanding of the case? I think it would have been important if it was a he said/she said type case, but in this one, LE and medical records prove he was hit in the head with a hammer, so I don't get it.

I hope that make sense.

Thank you again: I think the implication of a cover up is what is getting my hackles up-- I have never seen anything quite like it, not just on WS but on social media and even MSM-- it is beyond understanding.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Thank you for answering. While I totally understand that, I'm still a bit confused. We're not trying the case here on WS. I've honestly never seen a thread where we "try" the case here, especially when LE sees the incident take place. If threads like that exist, could someone please link me? I'm genuinely curious how these threads go because this is something I didn't think was kosher on WS.

Understanding the mechanics of how something happens I get. I just don't get the insinuation of a cover up. If that's not what the implication is, I apologize. I'm really not sure what the answer to "who opened the door" would prove either way. If PP answered the door and didn't express distress, to me, that doesn't negate the fact that moments later he was still clobbered with a hammer. If PP didn't open the door or showed distress, it still doesn't negate the fact that moments later he was clobbered with a hammer. So why is who opened the door so important here on WS? It may be important to the defense in court, but why is it important to us or our understanding of the case? I think it would have been important if it was a he said/she said type case, but in this one, LE and medical records prove he was hit in the head with a hammer, so I don't get it.

I hope that make sense.

It does make sense, yes.

I don't think anyone is attempting to "try the case" here, nor am I suggesting there is a cover-up.
I'm also not suggesting at all, that PP was not in fact a victim of assault.

I've simply attempted to make the point that discussing an actual crime on a fact based true crime forum, means we have to have the actual facts of the case.

If we don't have the actual facts of the case, our understanding what happened, how it happened, why it happened and where it happened (in this case or any other), isn't going to be accurate.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Thank you again: I think the implication of a cover up is what is getting my hackles up-- I have never seen anything quite like it, not just on WS but on social media and even MSM-- it is beyond understanding.

To re-iterate, I am not at all suggesting a cover up of any kind.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I see discussion of the minutiae of cases on nearly every thread I follow. Even though the big picture is known I think it’s the nature of the sleuther to want to know everything about anything, even though it doesn’t change the big picture.

When a journalist is suspended over a report that appears to be factual reporting, I want to know why. I am more curious now that another NBC affiliate is reporting the same things.

imo

Yes, 100% on the bolded.

As to the suspended journalist, a LOT of people are asking questions about that one. It just comes across as shady.

jmo