Two approaches to the same task, and both valid.E.Marquez wrote:Fair enough,, perspective, experience and being products of our environment lead us to different assumptions and preconceived positionsExcaliber wrote:
I've seen enough intentional deaths presented as accidents that, especially when something really unusual presents itself, I suspect homicide or suicide first and conclude "accident" only when the first two possibilities are eliminated by evidence.
It's true that very strange and borderline incredible things really do happen with fair frequency, but there are lots of stories I'm not willing to buy without a whole lot of corroboration.
For me, I look at an event like this from my experiences, hundreds of ND's and I see how that can prove true, open to how it could have been suicide or murder.
But I completely get how a person who investigates homicides, suicides or murders for a living would look at it as that, only seeing other if they find evidence that rules out those things leaving negligence or the like as a reasonable explanation.
The key is an unbiased examination of all the evidence, including the apparent anomalies that might not make any sense at all at first.