> There is a duty of care to properly investigate when people die.
Yes, usually every death is already investigated and run by a medical examiner. This is a proper amount of investigation, unless there is evidence to support a more extensive one.
> When there are many suspicious deaths, even moreso
Is there any evidence linking this death to the others you mention, and any consensus that all of them were suspicious, other than in your personal narrative of events? I have seen neither.
> Have you dealt with government workers before? Do you know any of them that would re-open an investigation on their own from submissions from an independent person that shows they got it wrong (egg on face)?
Obviously they wouldn't (and shouldn't) do it if you didn't have any evidence showing that the previous conclusion was wrong, and I have not seen any presented here.
> What would convincing evidence even look like to spur the necessary action after an investigation has been closed solely based on a medical examiner's report?
I've answered this twice, once in each of the above posts, suggesting what direct, non-circumstantial evidence might look like. A conspiratorial, self-serving personal narrative, conflating unconnected events, unfortunately isn't that.
> You are talking yourself in a circle, where overwhelming evidence that isn't quantifiable must be present before investigation, when such evidence can only be acquired in an investigation
This is actually a circle that you are talking yourself in. Things like search warrants can't be granted on the basis of 'another person [out of billions] also took their own life a while ago while under stress, that seems sus to me', and that doesn't sound like a good justification for focusing resources, either. What, then, are you proposing a new investigation should do?
Have you seen any direct, non-circumstantial evidence? Witnesses? Videos? Communications ordering a hit? Documents discussing it? Anything like that?
I haven't. And unfortunately you did not answer this question previously, so now it must be re-asked. I'm genuinely asking here. Maybe I missed some direct, non-circumstantial evidence. You mentioned something about blood, could you please [link] us to what you're talking about there?
Do you really think any proper investigation can be completed in the time it took them to close this?
For the record, that time was 40 seconds from the time they arrived at the scene. They couldn't even have had the firearm ownership information by that point.
The parents also found blood spatter where it shouldn't have been if it were a suicide, and signs of a struggle in the bathroom.
There needs to be a proper investigation. The duty of care has not been met.
Thanks -- can you please elaborate on the specifics of the "signs of struggle" and "blood spatter", as claimed by the family?
As for the investigation, your link says it was worked on, and is still ongoing. A private autopsy was completed, and from what I can gather, it did not prove the conspiracy either. What specifically are you proposing the investigation do, then?
Yes, usually every death is already investigated and run by a medical examiner. This is a proper amount of investigation, unless there is evidence to support a more extensive one.
> When there are many suspicious deaths, even moreso
Is there any evidence linking this death to the others you mention, and any consensus that all of them were suspicious, other than in your personal narrative of events? I have seen neither.
> Have you dealt with government workers before? Do you know any of them that would re-open an investigation on their own from submissions from an independent person that shows they got it wrong (egg on face)?
Obviously they wouldn't (and shouldn't) do it if you didn't have any evidence showing that the previous conclusion was wrong, and I have not seen any presented here.
> What would convincing evidence even look like to spur the necessary action after an investigation has been closed solely based on a medical examiner's report?
I've answered this twice, once in each of the above posts, suggesting what direct, non-circumstantial evidence might look like. A conspiratorial, self-serving personal narrative, conflating unconnected events, unfortunately isn't that.
> You are talking yourself in a circle, where overwhelming evidence that isn't quantifiable must be present before investigation, when such evidence can only be acquired in an investigation
This is actually a circle that you are talking yourself in. Things like search warrants can't be granted on the basis of 'another person [out of billions] also took their own life a while ago while under stress, that seems sus to me', and that doesn't sound like a good justification for focusing resources, either. What, then, are you proposing a new investigation should do?
Have you seen any direct, non-circumstantial evidence? Witnesses? Videos? Communications ordering a hit? Documents discussing it? Anything like that?
I haven't. And unfortunately you did not answer this question previously, so now it must be re-asked. I'm genuinely asking here. Maybe I missed some direct, non-circumstantial evidence. You mentioned something about blood, could you please [link] us to what you're talking about there?