If they could actually could really get into the phone, why let anyone know they really could or couldn’t get into the phone? I mean, they didn’t know there was this private company that supposedly just did it for them back then? How does it make sense from a law enforcement or anti-terror intelligence standpoint?
From what I understand of it, I like that Apple stood up to them. I’m just not sure any of it makes sense.
Freegrds
Just presenting the data in open court would be an admission of guilt.
They needed a fig-leaf, a plausible legal means of "acquiring" the data the already had.
The lie "Apple [or some nameless hacker or hackers] cracked Apple's encryption" is less harmful to the FBI than admitting "We work closely with the NSA (who is forbidden by law from harvesting anything but meta-data within the US) to intercept every syllable said, every word texted and every byte loaded by any electronic means."
So what if it would damage Apple to have its crown jewels compromised, that's Apple's problem, not The Government's!
Besides, Apple is evil! They actually turn a profit!
But remember, we are not at war with the terrorist (although they are at war with us!)
We can't just shoot them, we have to build a case, arrest them, and try them one by one in open court (and reveal in excruciating detail ever technique that we used to gather the data) and hopefully obtain a conviction, and get a slap-on-the-wrist imposed by the court, and overturned on appeal.