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

[Lilibet]

I work in HR and it's also not 'damning' if a company is silent about an internal investigation while it's ongoing. (Or even when it's done.)

Exactly. It’s a personnel issue. An employee has a right to privacy in this situation.

 

[cocomod]

If say someone hired this wackadoodle to try to kidnap Nancy, would that be important information? Just because a perp is arrested doesn’t mean the investigation should be 100% complete. This is just an example, but as a sleuth, I know plenty of people here question all kinds of investigations. Just like LE recently ruled a case as suicide, but the exact circumstances are not clear, so as public, we often will question and talk with each other. This is the same here. Talking about the exact circumstances is something that happens in almost every case I follow. It doesn’t mean we believe in the wild conspiracy theories, but we can doubt exact circumstances and wonder if there is more to it. Especially if MSM articles are contradictory and a journalist is suspended for reporting information contained in a police report. That just stinks like something more is up. MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If say someone hired this wackadoodle to try to kidnap Nancy, would that be important information? Just because a perp is arrested doesn’t mean the investigation should be 100% complete. This is just an example, but as a sleuth, I know plenty of people here question all kinds of investigations. Just like LE recently ruled a case as suicide, but the exact circumstances are not clear, so as public, we often will question and talk with each other. This is the same here. Talking about the exact circumstances is something that happens in almost every case I follow. It doesn’t mean we believe in the wild conspiracy theories, but we can doubt exact circumstances and wonder if there is more to it. Especially if MSM articles are contradictory and a journalist is suspended for reporting information contained in a police report. That just stinks like something more is up. MOO

Sure, but in those cases, people usually say why they're asking certain questions. I feel like here, we have a lot of questions being asked, but some of us have asked repeatedly why that matters and no one answers. I mean, if there is any evidence or hint of something being amiss, we should be able to talk about it. Maybe the perp was working for someone else. That's a great thought. So let's discuss that. But I'm still confused on why it matters who opened the door? What does that prove (or disprove) is what I'm asking I guess.

MOO.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Sure, but in those cases, people usually say why they're asking certain questions. I feel like here, we have a lot of questions being asked, but some of us have asked repeatedly why that matters and no one answers. I mean, if there is any evidence or hint of something being amiss, we should be able to talk about it. Maybe the perp was working for someone else. That's a great thought. So let's discuss that. But I'm still confused on why it matters who opened the door? What does that prove (or disprove) is what I'm asking I guess.

MOO.

No one, eh? Just kidding. I have answered as best as I can, and I do appreciate the questions you're asking. And you make a great point about something being amiss.

Let's say, PP did not open the door. Let's say, the responding officer actually opened the door, went inside and rushed at the suspect. That chain of events caught DD off guard then he attacked PP. Obviously I'm not saying any of that did happen but if the public is being told one version of events, and the actual version of the events went down much differently, well then we don't really have a factual understanding of what really happened.

Let's flip it around. Let's say PP did actually open the door, and instead of trying to leave the residence he turned around and walked back into the home in the direction of DD as they continued to have whatever discussion they were having, and he invited the officers in. I can't say if that's what really happened either because we're getting conflicting info, but if this IS what happened then the events around the actual attack are not being truthfully reported, for some reason that doesn't make any sense. Not just to me, but other reputable journalists as well that are speaking up publicly and calling NBC to account for their handling of this.

I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that DD did assault PP with a hammer. What folks are questioning is basically everything else that happened, in the sequence of events that it happened. Body-cam footage would clear it up immediately and yet we're not seeing that either. You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to question why the public is getting conflicting info about this event. You don't have to believe in secret cover-ups to want the media coverage of a story, to make sense.

jmo

 

[Sunshine95]

If say someone hired this wackadoodle to try to kidnap Nancy, would that be important information? Just because a perp is arrested doesn’t mean the investigation should be 100% complete. This is just an example, but as a sleuth, I know plenty of people here question all kinds of investigations. Just like LE recently ruled a case as suicide, but the exact circumstances are not clear, so as public, we often will question and talk with each other. This is the same here. Talking about the exact circumstances is something that happens in almost every case I follow. It doesn’t mean we believe in the wild conspiracy theories, but we can doubt exact circumstances and wonder if there is more to it. Especially if MSM articles are contradictory and a journalist is suspended for reporting information contained in a police report. That just stinks like something more is up. MOO

Where is there information that the reporter was referencing information from a police report? I thought it was from an unnamed source? TIA

 

[Missing Susan]

If you don't think the detail about "who opened the door" is at all important, why would nbc suspend an award winning journalist for (possibly accurately) reporting about "who opened the door"? Why not let him correct the record? No harm, no foul.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

No one, eh? Just kidding. I have answered as best as I can, and I do appreciate the questions you're asking. And you make a great point about something being amiss.

Let's say, PP did not open the door. Let's say, the responding officer actually opened the door, went inside and rushed at the suspect. That chain of events caught DD off guard then he attacked PP. Obviously I'm not saying any of that did happen but if the public is being told one version of events, and the actual version of the events went down much differently, well then we don't really have a factual understanding of what really happened.

Let's flip it around. Let's say PP did actually open the door, and instead of trying to leave the residence he turned around and walked back into the home in the direction of DD as they continued to have whatever discussion they were having, and he invited the officers in. I can't say if that's what really happened either because we're getting conflicting info, but if this IS what happened then the events around the actual attack are not being truthfully reported, for some reason that doesn't make any sense. Not just to me, but other reputable journalists as well that are speaking up publicly and calling NBC to account for their handling of this.

I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that DD did assault PP with a hammer. What folks are questioning is basically everything else that happened, in the sequence of events that it happened. Body-cam footage would clear it up immediately and yet we're not seeing that either. You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to question why the public is getting conflicting info about this event. You don't have to believe in secret cover-ups to want the media coverage of a story, to make sense.

jmo

Apologies. You're right, you did answer and I appreciate it.

So say PP opened the door and returned to the perp. I can see wondering why it wasn't reported that way. I'm not sure why the body cam footage isn't released, except maybe it's important to the trial? Not sure. I can see wondering about this and I think that's totally fine.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If you don't think the detail about "who opened the door" is at all important, why would nbc suspend an award winning journalist for (possibly accurately) reporting about "who opened the door"? Why not let him correct the record? No harm, no foul.

I don't believe he was suspended over "who opened the door." It seems the entire report, which contradicted LE's version of events, was based on a source that the network supposedly found untrustworthy. If I'm wrong on the above, please feel free to correct me with a link.

MOO.

 

[LinasK]

Sure, but in those cases, people usually say why they're asking certain questions. I feel like here, we have a lot of questions being asked, but some of us have asked repeatedly why that matters and no one answers. I mean, if there is any evidence or hint of something being amiss, we should be able to talk about it. Maybe the perp was working for someone else. That's a great thought. So let's discuss that. But I'm still confused on why it matters who opened the door? What does that prove (or disprove) is what I'm asking I guess.

MOO.

It doesn't. It was bad reporting. The bottom line is that DePape went there with the intention of harming one or both of the Pelosis and he did so in front of police. Who opened the door, and whether Paul walked back towards him or not, Paul was still very much in danger, as the resulting outcome showed.

 

[LinasK]

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

There isn't truth to his story because the story was spun to imply that Pelosi was not in danger. Clearly he was. NBC did the right thing in suspending an irresponsible journalist in my opinion.

 

[LinasK]

The way I read the OP's question was not that the victim was being wondered about, as to question his legit victimhood in this case, but instead "would the media have covered this the same way, and would there be so much speculation and skepticism if this were anyone else?" (OP can correct me if I misunderstood).

I think we all know the answer to that, and it doesn't mean PP is any less a victim at all. Celebs and athletes and politicians, etc., are treated far differently by the media and by the public, than the average citizen who is not well known. It's just the way it is. Folks in that category absolutely DO receive extra attention whether they "deserve" it (or want it) at all.

If it were elderly Bob Smith from down the block, attacked by some nutter, we probably wouldn't even be talking about it, and neither would anyone else that didn't know him personally.

jmo

Well there are added penalties for attacking a government official or their spouse.

 

[What's up Doc]

There isn't truth to his story because the story was spun to imply that Pelosi was not in danger. Clearly he was. NBC did the right thing in suspending an irresponsible journalist in my opinion.

It has been reported numerous times that Pelosi did not indicate he was in trouble.

Body Cam Video Shows Paul Pelosi Opened Door for Police, Despite DOJ Saying Otherwise: Source

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit spoke with a source familiar with the Pelosi investigation, who personally viewed body camera video recorded by officers responding to the Pelosi’s San Francisco home.

www.nbcbayarea.com

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

 

[LinasK]

It has been reported numerous times that Pelosi did not indicate he was in trouble.

Body Cam Video Shows Paul Pelosi Opened Door for Police, Despite DOJ Saying Otherwise: Source

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit spoke with a source familiar with the Pelosi investigation, who personally viewed body camera video recorded by officers responding to the Pelosi’s San Francisco home.

www.nbcbayarea.com

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

Just because a victim isn't aware that he's in danger doesn't mean that he isn't. Clearly he was.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Seems to me Mr Pelosi was trying to diffuse the situation by not antagonising the man, trying to keep him calm.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It has been reported numerous times that Pelosi did not indicate he was in trouble.

Body Cam Video Shows Paul Pelosi Opened Door for Police, Despite DOJ Saying Otherwise: Source

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit spoke with a source familiar with the Pelosi investigation, who personally viewed body camera video recorded by officers responding to the Pelosi’s San Francisco home.

www.nbcbayarea.com

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

And?

 

[Tutter]

And?

And, why did doj say otherwise? It doesn’t matter, really, but why do they say one thing and police report says another? Things like that drive the questioning of what the situation was before Mr Pelosi got hit with a hammer.

so, why? There must be a reason they want to keep quiet who opened the door, though that seems a really trivial part of this crime.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

And, why did doj say otherwise? It doesn’t matter, really, but why do they say one thing and police report says another? Things like that drive the questioning of what the situation was before Mr Pelosi got hit with a hammer.

so, why? There must be a reason they want to keep quiet who opened the door, though that seems a really trivial part of this crime.

Or, it's just that people remember trivial details like that differently. JMO.

 

[LinasK]

And, why did doj say otherwise? It doesn’t matter, really, but why do they say one thing and police report says another? Things like that drive the questioning of what the situation was before Mr Pelosi got hit with a hammer.

so, why? There must be a reason they want to keep quiet who opened the door, though that seems a really trivial part of this crime.

Why would they want to keep quiet who opened the door when there's body cam footage of it which may eventually be released, and it's irrelevant to the level of danger that was present?
To me this is an open and shut case- whether or not Mr. Pelosi had his alarm turned on or not- he clearly was unaware that a stranger came armed into his house intending to cause harm to him/Nancy. DePape admitted out of his own mouth that he came there to harm the Speaker of the House for that reason. He had no fear of attacking him in front of the police. So much has been misreported on this story, including what DePape was wearing, which fueled the conspiracy theories. Even if DePape showed up in his underwear,(which he didn't) it only proves that he was a wierdo- nothing else.

 

[Betty P]

And, why did doj say otherwise? It doesn’t matter, really, but why do they say one thing and police report says another? Things like that drive the questioning of what the situation was before Mr Pelosi got hit with a hammer.

so, why? There must be a reason they want to keep quiet who opened the door, though that seems a really trivial part of this crime.

Do you have a link for that? TIA

JMO, it sounds like PP was trying to keep the crazy guy calm while he got the police there. Victims of crime sometimes do that. Talking to the attacker in a calm manner, letting him know you're not a threat can sometimes help.

I've heard of women kidnap and assault victims doing this to get their attacker to release them. If you have no weapon and no easy means of escape, its always worth a try. It can also buy you some time to check out your surroundings, see if there's a way you can escape or defend yourself.

It sounds like it was working ok so far for PP. It kept the attacker calm enough until the police arrived, but he was apparently triggered by seeing the officers. Has it been determined if the attacker was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc? He sounded very psychologically unstable, so his behavior was unpredictable. He brought a weapon, so he planned to use violence.

JMO, everyone responds differently in these situations. You don't know how you'll respond until it happens to you.


ETA: I just read the link above about DOJ difference. Since DOJ wasn't at the scene, it sounds like someone just made an error. No big deal. The people who know are the first responders. The LE bodycam video will probably be used as evidence in the attacker's trial. Prosecutors don't like releasing evidence publicly before trials.

ETA2: The Fed Court statement doesn't specify who opened the door. It just says the door was opened.

At 2:31 a.m., San Francisco Police Department (“SFPD”) Officer Colby Wilmes
responded to the Pelosi residence, California and knocked on the front door. When the door was
opened, Pelosi and DEPAPE were both holding a hammer with one hand and DEPAPE had his
other hand holding onto Pelosi’s forearm. Pelosi greeted the officers. The officers asked them
what was going on. DEPAPE responded that everything was good. Officers then asked Pelosi
and DEPAPE to drop the hammer.

 

[LinasK]

Paul Pelosi attack: New judge to preside over DePape case

A new judge will be presiding over the high-profile case against the man accused of attacking Paul Pelosi with a hammer at the Pelosi home in San Francisco.

www.cbsnews.com