elementary
No More Excuses
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
- Reaction score
- 1
Laughable? In what way?2goldfish, I've gotta agree with this....
T's father was surprised with the recording and asked by LE (law enforcement) for an opinion if it was his son... he responded right away that it wasn't....
Once the TM family got their heads on straight and knew the recording questions were coming... they were much less likely to give a non biased answer. Furthermore, once they got an attorney, his job was to craft everything the family did to position for a civil award (read: defeat an SYG motion) and represent the family as an agent (trademark TM and associated terms, websites, images)...
They've done both of those things effectively so far... so I don't see how anything the TM family said after the first LE interview can hold much water...
Same goes for GZ's family... once it became evident the public outcry was going to be so great as to force the state to reverse itself, they went into protection mode.. but that being said, I haven't seen any outright suspicious or profiteering oriented....
As far as the mother knowing better, I'm certain that's a myth, it will have much more to do with how much exposure the family member had with TM, if they ever heard them under extreme stress, how perceptive they are to tonal changes and construction, etc...
Another point often brought up is the high tone of the calls for help making it impossible to be G... I dunno about the science involved, but I've heard huge 6'4" 300 lbs deep voiced guys sound like 12 yo girls when in great pain or startled etc...
So , in general.. I find it extremely hard to believe the audio evidence presented so far as being conclusive to IDing T as the voice.... in fact I find it laughable.....
And I imagine that a mother is more likely to know her child's voice than not.
As for the topic at hand, the FBI reported that both GZ's utterance and the terrified cries were not clean enough for identification. They recommended more sensitive headphones; but in the end the kibosh was put on any further exploration by the agent who requested the analysis.
Which also raises the question: if the FBI could not determine what GZ said after "f......g (?????), then how was the SA in their probable cause affidavit able to identify it as "punks"?