I've noticed a few very subtle clues that indicate to me that Taser has been carefully laying the groundwork to try to achieve a legal 'soft-landing'.
For example, it is occasionally mentioned that Kroll does not speak for Taser (which almost makes no sense anyway). And then Kroll makes outlandish claims about the level of safety ("Safer than Tylenol" and similar nonsense). It is almost as if they laying a trap that legal attacks will be aimed towards Taser, but based on Kroll's statements. Then Taser will suddenly jump away from Kroll's opinions.
And the exact wording used by Tom Smith when questioned is very well rehearsed. Sometimes his mouth is moving, but nothing meaningful is being emitted. Many examples of very clever non-answers.
Also, I've seen the writings of Taser lawyer Michael Brave. There are some very clever word smithing that can be interpreted one way or the other.
It'll take an attentive lawyer to cut-off their pre-planned legal escapes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment