It’s also, as far as you or anyone else can see, a plausible explanation for the known facts:

It is not presented as a 'plausible explanation', but as something that is established. If it were presented as speculation, alright, I'd rather not potentially smear someone who was just the victim of a violent crime unless I had rock-hard evidence, but fair enough.

-The Pelosis are great friends with long time meth-abuser and callboy-murderer Ed Buck

For literally anyone in politics you can find similar connections, simply because they know a lot of people.

-A third unnamed man opened the door (from the INSIDE) for the police. Who tf is this third person? Bodyguard who was told to take a walk while his boss got freaky? = odd, instantly suspicious

Yes, that is pretty odd. That said, odd facts do not establish some sort of crazy counter-narrative, which is what this post does claim. That depends on the evidence.

Why is it so unimaginable that some rando in the SFPD leaked this after interrogation began?

Is it 'imaginable'? Sure it is. Is there even a speck of evidence for it? No.

Not everything that is 'imaginable' is true.

Anyway, I guess we’ll see.

See, that's the best attitude.

But right-wingers are so paranoid that they immediately want to call everything a fake or a false flag or whatever. Call out people who try to use this for political gain without making crazy, unevidenced claims of your own. Is that so hard.