Sunday, February 12

Not that I care - really - but can you decipher this?

"HIS WIFE was assaulted by and ex-boyfriend when she met with him after fighting with HER HUSBAND..."

HIS (Bill Lockyer's) WIFE was assaulted by and ex-boyfriend when she met with him (the boyfriend) after fighting with HER HUSBAND...(Bill Lockyer)

Such convoluted wording. Trying to keep Bill Lockyer's name out of the news?

Then... "According to columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, Bill Lockyer said his wife believed her former boyfriend was in crisis, but that he was angry and "violently assaulted" her." (The boyfriend was angry and "violently assaulted" her? Or Bill Lockyer was angry and "violently assaulted" her?

So - I THINK the author means the boyfriend was angry and "violently assaulted" her...

BUT... given the convolution, could the "he" be interpreted as "Bill Lockyer" (was angry and "violently assaulted" her.) just as easily?

Report: Bill Lockyer says wife assaulted by ex-boyfriend - David Siders/Sacramento Bee

It's clarified here: ◼ Bill Lockyer says wife assaulted by ex-boyfriend (Much better writing) Matier & Ross/SF Chronicle
Alameda County Supervisor Nadia Lockyer, wife of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, was "violently assaulted" by an ex-boyfriend she met up with at a Newark motel after the Lockyers fought, her husband says.... this weekend, he and his wife are attending the state Democratic convention in San Diego....

See - after the Lockyers fought, much clearer.