Lying about a stalker is the 2nd most disgusting lie he has told using family members as props.
From the Washington Post (which hates elon and self admittedly didn't publish all the stalkers crazy claims):
"The car’s renter, Brandon Collado, confirmed in interviews with The Post that he was the person shown in the video. He also provided The Post with videos he shot of Musk’s security guard that matched the one Musk had posted to Twitter.
In his conversations with The Post, Collado acknowledged he has an interest in Musk and the mother of two of Musk’s children, the musician known as Grimes, whose real name is Claire Elise Boucher. Boucher lives in a house near the gas station.
In his communications with The Post, Collado, who said he was a driver for Uber Eats, also made several bizarre and unsupported claims, including that he believed Boucher was sending him coded messages through her Instagram posts; that Musk was monitoring his real-time location; and that Musk could control Uber Eats to block him from receiving delivery orders. He said he was in Boucher’s neighborhood to work for Uber Eats." [1]
3 lies and one truth. Not a very good score. This is something Musk hasn't really clued in to: with every lie he tells people will be less inclined to believe anything he says in the future. All he wanted was a pretext and he seized the first opportunity in the most disgusting 'think of the children' way possible, whereas he could have simply said 'it's my prerogative to block whoever I want'. But that would not play so nice with his free speech stance (or pretend free speech stance) so he needed a pretext.
Pretty low.
"Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood.
Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family."
So for the scorecard:
Stalker: yes
Has to do with Musk: yes, it's his family
Didn't have anything to do with tracking his plane: Never made that claim. " legal action.... Taken against.... Who supported harm to my family" (I would add he could have used the words "supported potential harm)
Didn't happen in the way that musk described: he didn't describe how it happened. (unless from another source)
I think this is a good example of how going to original sources, not letting others prime opinions, and careful parsing of words is necessary in this world so as to not become a pawn in the game of outrage.
No, it had to do with Grimes, with or without Musk, with or without kid. She was the target and she's no longer Musk's family.