People are talking at KVI and around radio town. The consensus: they ain’t buying it.
And remarkably, she was a victim of a striking similar attack in Los Angeles in 2009.
Suits, a devout gundementalist, has long been fierce and outspoken about Latino illegals. Having lived in LA for a year or so, he considers himself an expert on the Spanish-speaking “dirtbag” community. He regularly leads the KVI choir of Latino-bashing xenophobes.
Yet, now, EVEN THOUGH HIS WIFE JUST GOT ALLEGEDLY STABBED BY TWO OF THEM, he’s uncharacteristically subdued.He’s limited comments about the incident to the sparsely listened-to 5a hour of his show. A KVI colleague says: “It seems very much like he's trying to downplay this thing hoping it will fade off. He turned down TV interviews with every local news station, which goes against the very fiber of being a news talk host, even during sad circumstances.”
(Bryan did say parenthetically: “I would
like to find them myself so I could kill them.” But it was with more irony than passion).
Rachel Suits told cops she was stabbed in the “lower back” by a couple of Latino robbers who wrestled off her jewelry including 3 earrings and her wedding ring.
They bashed her in the head, she says, a couple of times with a piece of concrete, punched her a few times in the side and slashed her with a knife.
With a flashlight in her eyes, she didn’t get much of an ID- the drawing above is all there is, except that the perps were diminutive in stature, Spanish-accented men, possibly teenagers.Random attacks are rare, ask any cop… but astoundingly Rachel Suits was the victim of another, remarkably similar attack a little over a year ago in Los Angeles.
Oddly, Bryan and Rachel’s story about that incident have varied. As recently as 8 months ago, Seattle co-workers say Rachel said she was car-jacked by Latinos who slashed her with a knife.
Bryan now says the LA attack was the work of “Armenian gang-bangers,” who used box cutters to cut her.
This has stirred-up, of course, all manner of vengeful rhetoric in the BlatherWatch and Seattle Times comments threads and on the air. The dittoheads point to the crime wave created by illegal immigrants, despite the "wave' only crashes anecdotally and on the shores of right-wing media.We pray godspeed for Ms Rachel's recovery, and Lake Forest Park police's progress in making some arrests. But with more questions turning up than being answered, this doesn't seem to want to go away. There's more investigating going on, both here and in Los Angeles. Stay tuned.
scarey stuff!
Posted by: Graphic Classes Los Angeles | June 11, 2010 at 11:59 AM
"Armenian gang-bangers"?
Kinda odd to pin on Armenians without more detail
Posted by: Coiler | June 11, 2010 at 12:07 PM
It's hard to comment because I don't want to add pain to pain... Maybe we need to wait for the facts to come in.
Posted by: joanie | June 11, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Anybody bother to check out the police reports of BOTH incidents...or would you say the police are in on it. UNfrickenREAL!
OMG, finally a decent and somewhat intelligent quote from joanie 'we need to wait for the facts to come in.' [operative term 'facts']
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Apparently Duffman didn't open the email: you're a yappy, nonsense-spewing, nano-endowed-in-every capacity twit who can't seem to post anything that contributes to the conversation ever. Without insults as your ammunition, you have nothing. A wizened old man who sits at a computer all day because you apparently have no friends.
With that, I'm off to Birch Bay for a lovely weekend - with friends.
Posted by: joanie | June 11, 2010 at 01:02 PM
Are the police reports available to the public? Can we get access to their exact contents?
Posted by: Andrew | June 11, 2010 at 01:17 PM
Police reports are not open to the public without red tape and depending on the need to know. You cannot walk into a police station and see a report. You can bet that if the police reports were helpful, the information included would already be public. Journalists usually have access.
It says above what Rachel told officers. That's what will be in the police report. The officers weren't there to see it.
Posted by: joanie | June 11, 2010 at 01:25 PM
Yes, police reports are available to the public; all you have to do is provide a 'need to know' and since you are the 'public' and help pay the taxes of our police departments you have a right to access such data.
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 01:27 PM
The 'freedom of information act' provides the basis; you-know-who doesn't know what she's talking about.
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 01:29 PM
The FOIA has been manipulated and can be manipulated. Remember Bush? It took months to get access. Often, partial access was allowed.
In Seattle, it requires that you make an application. Given that journalists have access, why does anyone think it isn't out there already. I'm curious.
I don't know about Los Angeles.
Posted by: joanie | June 11, 2010 at 01:34 PM
She is basing her expertise on when she briefly worked in that area. But, that was back when Marshall Dillon was running the show.
Andrew, you 'can' get copies of those reports.
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 01:36 PM
Michael posted what Rachel said. Where do you think that came from if not the police report? I'm laughing here.
Posted by: joanie | June 11, 2010 at 01:37 PM
Try laughing at B/B...BUH-bye.
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 01:38 PM
Thirty years is "briefly?" A bigger laugh.
Posted by: joanie | June 11, 2010 at 01:39 PM
God, you're dense...and you don't read. HE (Andrew) SAID: 'Can we get access to their exact contents?' DUHHHH!
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 01:45 PM
Dufffman is no Det. Munch. He would tell his colleagues "don't worry about it" and "It's in the report" so it must be true. I'm glad others are working in public safety.
Posted by: Coiler | June 11, 2010 at 01:47 PM
Go ahead and request the report, Andrew. Let's see what is involved and what it says. Would be interesting.
Posted by: Tukwila | June 11, 2010 at 01:48 PM
I'm for that, Andrew. It has been ten years for me and it might have changed. And I'd be interested myself in knowing if there's anything in it that hasn't been reported.
Coiler's right. If no witnesses, you're going to get what Rachel said.
Posted by: joanie | June 11, 2010 at 01:54 PM
And PLEASE remember, it doesn't stink until I say it does.
[BTW: Can ANYone come up with a viable reason why Suits and/or his wife would lie...in either case?]...of course not.
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 02:00 PM
Yeah Duff, you're the king of stink around here.
Posted by: Coiler | June 11, 2010 at 02:21 PM
That's all you've got???...c'mon coils you're weakening from an already weakened condition...
[lmao]
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 02:22 PM
The official blatherwatch agenda is actually saying that Bryan and his wife staged this?
Or that Rachel Suits is saying the two guys were "Mexicans" instead of the obviously young, white, conservative thugs wearing Rush Limbaugh T shirts that this blogger would insist they were?
Am I getting that right?
OK, our two sides will most likely never end our dispute over Liberal VS Conservative, but this is really just disgusting.
Maybe we should all let the facts be stated by the person who was there and reported the incident instead of pushing what we'd like it to be.
Posted by: Rat Bastard | June 11, 2010 at 02:23 PM
Spot on RB! And if any of you 'bothered' to listen to the first hour of Suits' Show the other day...he didn't say that the perpetrators were 'Mexican'...he said they could have been Spanish students practicing the language when they spoke. What he was clearly implying is that the investigation is on-going and we should let it come to conclusion without idiotic speculation.
NOW, again can anyone answer my question? I DIDN'T THINK SO.
Posted by: Duffman | June 11, 2010 at 02:28 PM
FOIA only applies to federal documents. In this case the Washington Public Records Act is the applicable law.
Posted by: Tod | June 11, 2010 at 02:35 PM
Personally I feel that Mr. Brian Suits has an anger issue. I will flat out say that I think both incidents were Mr. Suits beating his wife.
Posted by: Justindignation | June 11, 2010 at 03:56 PM
I think you all need to contact Shawna Forde about Spanish speaking criminals and false accusations of hoax crimes.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout | June 11, 2010 at 05:09 PM
If you're a woman and you must go for a walk at 1am you should have either a very large dog or a weapon on your person.
And wow, I wonder if they were illegal immigrants because, you know, that would like, so play into their conservative hands.
Posted by: Andrew | June 08, 2010 at 01:19 PM
Bryan, I wouldn't want you to think many people think like Andrew. Of course, there are a few snarky/ahole types on this blog but most people are behind you 100 percent.
Andrew, you are a real piece of work. For those that don't recall, Andrew was the one with the nasty personal remarks about NY Vinnie -under the guise of 'concern'- to the point that NY Vinnie himself came on this blog to settle Andrews hash. Prior to that, Andrew took off after the Sharkansky family.
You would think that Andrew would have learned a lesson or two after those humiliations. Evidently he hasn't.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 11, 2010 at 05:58 PM
Thirty years is "briefly?" A bigger laugh.
Posted by: joanie | June 11, 2010 at 01:39 PM
30 years with King County. Plus those earlier years in 'business.'
I really hope this is true as that means you have only had a couple years to impact the children in your current gig.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 11, 2010 at 06:00 PM
I smell a rush to judgment coming on about this. I will not comment further until more information is released.
Posted by: KS | June 11, 2010 at 06:04 PM
Look, I'm just not as naive as some of you. Hit in the head with a brick? Slashed? Earings and wedding ring stolen? In Lake Forest Park? Near identical situation and injuries not much more than a year ago? The only constant in all of this is Mr. Suits, his wife, and their highly dubious judgement.
And Mr Suits' used his terse Facebook statement to lament that this sort thing "was the main reason we left [California]", which of course we all know is full of Hispanics.
It "stinks"? uh, more like "reeks of ass."
Posted by: Andrew | June 11, 2010 at 08:03 PM
Oh come on Andrew, this is very similar to your rush to judgment when those towers were damaged adjacent to the housing development. You said it was those 'conservative homeowners' that committed the arson/damage without any proof other than they had a different set of politics and you could shoehorn it into an accusation.
The best part was even when the eco-terror group claimed credit for the crime on their website you still said it was those nasty conservative homeowners.
I guess when they catch the ones who committed this crime you'll still be saying that Mrs. Suits made this up?
Who's being naive and who's making up crap to score some political points.
Those wounds are real.
I'll stand by the war hero and his wife, the former police officer. You can be on the other side.
I have to ask why do you want to look foolish again? Sharkansky, NY Vinnie, the Eco Terrorist, ...I am seeing a pattern of you making an ass of yourself.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 11, 2010 at 08:57 PM
What is the status of the radio tower sabotage, Puts? Any convictions?
Posted by: Coiler | June 11, 2010 at 09:35 PM
What's your point - Why do you ask that question ?
Posted by: KS | June 11, 2010 at 09:39 PM
No convictions yet, ELF or otherwise.
Posted by: Andrew | June 11, 2010 at 09:56 PM
No convictions, just incriminating statements admitting guilt by ELF.
You still positing that those 'conservative homeowners' committed the crime and ELF willingly takes the blame?
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 11, 2010 at 10:15 PM
I think Ron and Don are behind this.
Posted by: Bob | June 11, 2010 at 11:00 PM
Hey Andrew. Don't be a fucking moron. Do you have any idea why Lake Forest Park has a police dept? Oh, come on, take a guess....... Maybe a clue would help. Lake Forest Park, like Beverly Hills and every other city in this country has crime and criminals to commit that crime.
It is unusual for a person to be a victim of violent crime twice in a year, but far from unheard of.
I have no idea why Bla'm is putting any effort in to changing Mrs Suits to criminal from victim. Makes no sense to me at all. Her background in law enforcement makes her well aware of the consequences of a false report.
The woman was violently mugged. That is a fact until any one of you doubting dick-wads can come up with any evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: chucks | June 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM
chucks... answer truthfully... would you tolerate your wife walking alone at midnight?
Posted by: Andrew | June 12, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Who the hell am I to tell my wife what she can and can not do?
Do you know for a fact that Suits even knew she was going out at that time? Would he have known if she was going to be armed?
A wife is not property that can be told what she can or can not do.
In fairness to Mrs Suits, my wife is a gurly girl, Mrs Suits has the courage to strap on a badge, a night stick and a 9MM and run towards trouble. My wife would lock the doors and hide.
Posted by: chucks | June 12, 2010 at 12:21 AM
So if your wife was having a mood let's say, and just went walking out the door and down the darkly lit streets, you wouldn't follow her to make sure she stays safe? You wouldn't concern yourself with the safety of the mother of your children? I don't know if your wife is a gurly gurl, but if this is your story, you're certainly no manly man.
Among the plethora of missing details is whether Mrs. Suits resisted these attackers; whether the wounds were defensive in nature, or an act of gratuitous violence. Either way, Mr Suits would have obviously misjudged his wife's defensive capabilities as well as her vulnerable nature. Or maybe he was aware of the risks she faced and just didn't care. And on top of that, she's a mother. He comes out looking pretty bad any way you figure it.
They say the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and there is nothing simple about this one. As someone pointed out, random attacks are very rare... but there is a very similar crime that is much more common. If you want to bet on the long shot, be my guest, but I prefer the safe bets.
Posted by: Andrew | June 12, 2010 at 01:00 AM
the guy that said SUITS beat his wife in boht incidents--uhh, Suits and his producer were at Mortons on LA when they got the call from police about the carjacking.......Suits seemed genuinely angry during his 5 oclock hour recounting of what happened...
Posted by: Tommy008 | June 12, 2010 at 01:08 AM
Actually the poster who said that made no claims of stating fact.
Look, I try to take the emotion out of it. I weigh things at face value. I make no apologies for having skepticism. If this were an episode of Fact or Fiction, I know how I would guess, but unless further detail comes out, we may never really know.
Posted by: Andrew | June 12, 2010 at 01:33 AM
I listened to the show when Suits talked about it. He explained that he would only discuss it in any detail during the 5 AM hour when few were tuned in. His reason was that he believed haters would accuse him of exploiting the incident for ratings/publicity.
Little did he know that by not talking, haters would accuse him of some sort of coverup. It should have been predictable, though. Lib haters are well-versed in magical thinking and can always invent 'logic' to get to the conclusion they want.
Cops these days are trained in and are very good at uncovering the kind of false reports being insinuated here. And Rachel, ex-cop, would know that. So she's going to make up a fake story? For what? So that her husband can say stuff about illegals?
This is about the dumbest thing I've seen on this blog since it was said that Stefan Sharkansky sent a relative to the trattoria in Fremont as an intimidator to get Ms Steff Bell fired. It turned out to be a 14-year-old girl who went (against Shark's advice) to stick up for her 5-yr-old bro. Some intimidator.
Posted by: woody held | June 12, 2010 at 04:01 AM
This is about the dumbest thing I've seen on this blog since it was said that Stefan Sharkansky sent a relative to the trattoria in Fremont as an intimidator to get Ms Steff Bell fired. It turned out to be a 14-year-old girl who went (against Shark's advice) to stick up for her 5-yr-old bro. Some intimidator.
Posted by: woody held | June 12, 2010 at 04:01 AM
Woody, if you'll recall it was Andrew that took up the cudgels against the Sharkansky family and was made to look damn silly.
Andrew, you're the one citing Ocham's Razor. The simplest answer to this is that a woman was viciously attacked and robbed. You keep making a big deal that this former law enforcement officer was strolling in her neighborhood late at night. This wasn't Belltown or Pike Place Market. Obviviously Mrs Suits felt safe and with the newborn asleep just needed to get out of the house for a bit. (Anyone who has had a young baby will understand that)
I still can't believe you're blaming the victim in this.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 12, 2010 at 06:15 AM
Did not recall that but I take your word for it. I did recall that it was claimed here and other places that Shark had dispatched an intimidator to the restaurant, which turned out to be a 14-yr-old girl (step-daughter, I think). LOL.
BTW should have credited you (PS) for reminding me of that incident. I wrote that at first, but had to edit down the post when it got too long. So thanks, and you're spot on as usual.
Posted by: woody held | June 12, 2010 at 06:35 AM
Thanks Woody
Andrew has problems. When you get nasty to the point that NY Vinnie has to come on this blog to tell ya to knock it off...well, you would think that was going to be Andrew's wake up call.
Hey Andrew, any-chance you'll call up Bryan and discuss your 'theories?'
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 12, 2010 at 06:49 AM
Andrew, I wonder if, in going out to watch the "little woman" walk the neighborhood if you would put the baby in a stroller, a back pack, cuddle her in his arms or just leave her sleep in her crib because Lake Forrest Park is such a safe, crime and criminal free neighborhood.
Are you saying that I am no manly man because I do not properly control my wife? You are one impressive man to be able to control the wife. Do you make her bring you a beer, chips and salsa during the game to impress your friends. Did you get her a vacuum cleaner or a mop and bucket for Christmas?
Posted by: chucks | June 12, 2010 at 07:27 AM
speaking of modern "man and wife" in America did you catch the Chase commercial playing on 97.3 now for a few weeks- the whiny wimpboy hubby being chastised by the "in charge" wife,with the defeminized "Fargo/Palin lady" voice, who makes fun of him for going across the street for donuts. What a pathetic , cockless fool.
Posted by: Tommy008 | June 12, 2010 at 07:59 AM
Andrew
You DO understand that the two attackers down in So Cali were caught. Via DNA. The attackers that tried to carjack his wife/young baby in california were two non hispanic gang banger wanna-be.
Was that all part of a setup?
If you go to Bryan's website, he talked about what happened as to the fact why he was asleep (he goes to bed around 9 pm to get up for his early morning show) and the fact that his wife -a former police officer- keeps different hours (fairly normal when you have a 14 month old) and genuinely felt safe in the neighborhood.
If anything, Bryan has been very low key on this and not trying to use this for ratings. He explains this all in his early morning hour.
go to hour 1 the inside story June 9
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 12, 2010 at 08:17 AM
Tommy008, you have hit the nail on the head about the Chase commercial. I have been telling anyone who will listen that I am sick and tired of all these commercials that constantly depict the man as a doofus and the woman as the wise one. Not that I am upset by the latter, no I am upset about the former. I believe this constant wife/girlfriend knows best propaganda is helping to destroy marriages/relationships. The most egregious example of this was a few years back. A visa commercial showed a man telling his girlfriend that No, they could not afford a European vacation. The next scene was the woman in Europe in a romantic embrace with a european male. The message was- don't listen to the man telling you that you can't afford it, dump him and use your visa to get what you want.
Posted by: thothman | June 12, 2010 at 08:19 AM