Then suddenly said that there never were any cameras

GoPro cameras are neat, but I do not believe they are bullet-proof.

Also, a lot of impressions and statements made during the heat of and immediately after an encounter simply turn-out to be wrong. For instance, recall it was first thought that there were three shooters.

I don't attach much importance to the GoPro claims. If they exist and functional, they're a great piece of evidence, and in time we'll learn more. If they don't exist or were destroyed, it's also unsurprising.

Think of an object roughly the size your fingernail, and a bullet just happened to hit not one,
but two of them during the exchange of gunfire?

Even if they relied on internal data storage, what are the odds of both cameras being destroyed to the point
that any information is unrecoverable?

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

scaring the shit out of the public that there is a boogie man under every bed, the stories are always spiced up to advance an agenda.

And they share a one common trait, the friggin' cameras always disappear, malfunction, or are confiscated and never returned.

If the GoPros were destroyed by gun fire, why not just say so?

As far as smelling a rat, I'm not quite sure why there would be some kind of conspiracy theory here. A very valid explanation for not talking about the cameras is they may contain sensitive information (ie. a recording of someone who was helping them), that the investigators don't want to be made public. That would be a perfectly sound reason to keep it quiet while they discretely try to locate such an individual.

apartment en masse so soon after the attack.

The apartment owner sold entry to the news.

The apartment owner, who sold entry and the news organizations are the ones at fault.

That was strange.

Also wouldn't the 4th amendment still apply since technically the parents material goods are handed down to their orphaned infant or wouldn't they have to have the families attorney authorize camera crews access to the place?

Some strange occurrences for sure.

The original search and processing of the crime scene was accomplished under a legal warrant. The authorities then released the premises to the landlord, and the 4A was no longer implicated.

The landlord permitted the press enter the apartment. If this was a violation of the lease or relevant law, the family can sue the landlord in civil court. Given the value of the personal property, cost of litigation, risk of further public scrutiny and condemnation of the family, and an unsympathetic local jury pool, I don't foresee any legal action (unless the landlord violated a court order or similar unknown facts are discovered or released).

Against the M$M I guess, I doubt the landlord has their kind of cash.

I doubt they would have any liability. In fact, I doubt the case would be worth much at all, assuming a local judge or jury was at all sympathetic to the family of terrorists. As I indicated earlier, I also doubt the family wants to undergo even more public scrutiny, no less have to publicly testify in open court (or worse, claim 5A protection), and drag out this spectacle for months or even years after it may otherwise leave the news cycle.

What happened to the story of three shooters? Why isn't there any video? Something is not right.

"black helicopters", for instance. But, I definitely smell a rat here.