• Doom@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Why is that important? No you assume they are/were killed until someone has some real fuckin proof about it

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Well, all the evidence points to a suicide so you don’t really have a point here.

        • john89@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The San Francisco medical examiner’s office determined his death to be suicide and police found no evidence of foul play.

          Do you have any evidence that invalidates this?

      • Doom@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        This isn’t proving a negative? Lol.

        This whistleblower is dead, they would be suspect #1 along with close family and friends. This is literally what the first step of an investigation should look like.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        That’s literally how police investigations work, you start assuming a crime has been committed and try to see if you can find evidence of a crime being committed.

        You don’t start assuming suicide by default. Not unless you’re a corrupt cop anyway.

      • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Yes you can. Mathematicians do it all the time.

        But that’s beside the point. I can prove you didn’t kill yourself by showing that someone else did