> Sure, anybody can ask anybody else to investigate anything.

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)?

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?

If a mistake was made from lack of direct evidence, how many reports are actually amended after-the-fact?

The truth is there isn't anything in the world that would meet sufficient criteria to offset the sloth or the general resistance when the establishment makes a mistake and closes investigations early. To say the contrary amounts to a pleasant idea nothing more.

No government worker is going to create more work for themselves after someone else has closed prelims, which is why this needs to be done carefully and properly the first time not haphazardly closed.

> What you previously called evidence ....

Yes, what I called evidence for an investigation, the operating context was and remains investigation. Same word different context and now you are trying to confuse and change it after the fact.

I don't want to impugn your reading ability/comprehension but this was clear from the very beginning in the first sentence. You are confusing yourself unnecessarily.

> I find that someone disparaging someone's reasonable skepticism here is toxic to discourse.

What you are calling disparaging I and everyone else call disagreeing, and pointing out reasoning flaws.

Disagreement is not toxic, it is a mandatory requirement for intelligent rational conversation. In order to think and generally be intelligent, one must risk being offensive, and in order to learn one must risk being offended.

If neither are possible, because you associate any disagreement as disparagement, you end up in a delusion, divorced and not accounting for reality. This state is not sustainable, and brings with it questions related to Darwin's fitness for individual survival.

> contrived, self-serving, narrative description

While not contrived, of course this is self-serving, as it should be for you too if you are a citizen. If you blew the whistle, died, and someone made it look like you killed yourself before you could relate that information, wouldn't you want justice? Wouldn't you want closure for your family so they can properly grieve?

What you seem to find reasonable, I find highly dubious because it can hardly follow reason when the basis is fallacious, lacking in identity, and circular.

There is a duty of care to properly investigate when people die. When there are many suspicious deaths, even moreso.

When such preliminary investigations are closed immediately because its convenient politically, its the duty of any citizen to call it out and apply the appropriate political pressure so that a proper investigation occurs and justice gets served.

There was physical evidence of blood in areas that don't match the narrative being pushed (suicide), that in fact contradict it.

> The 1 person we're discussing...

It has been inherent in the conversation and media that there have been three whistleblowers that have died in the past year under very suspicious circumstances, that were all ruled suicide with little preliminary investigation, and it sure looks like OpenAI pulled a Boeing.

> Please don't exploit their memory for your own agenda

I have no agenda aside from wanting justice served.

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, and ignoring physical evidence reported that contradicts, it is completely irrational. These are well founded assertions that should be properly investigated.

It is clear from your stance that you would err on the side of doing nothing, not even properly investigating when suspicious deaths occur, and the resulting injustice would go unchecked.

If left unchecked by others, those shallow beliefs would lead to great destruction as a society.

When you support doing nothing and not even properly investigating, what you actually support is vigilantism or a brass verdict, and by extension the resulting additional victims (when information is false/incomplete but sufficient to spur others to action).

You either support a working system of non-violent conflict resolution which requires proper investigation upfront, or you end up supporting the latter (through inaction) and all the broad consequences that come with it.

Inaction is also an action. It is slothful to remain inert when action is dictated, but this is commonly seen in complacent people who have succumbed to the banality of evil. Left unchecked, this becomes a radical evil.