2 ms·

> However, I think it's an illustration of the fact that the police's role is to determine if a crime has been committed, not to figure out exactly what happene

> However, I think it's an illustration of the fact that the police's role is to determine if a crime has been committed, not to figure out exactly what happened in the case of any mysterious death. That’s a very limited point of view and is more representative of the role of the police in a given context. This might be how it works in London and in the US, but it is not the case everywhere. There are systems, for example, with different police forces, one for actual policing and one working with the judiciary and whose role is explicitly to investigate and find the truth in such cases. In this case, yes. London and the whole British establishment are thoroughly corrupt and the police is subservient.

foldr 3y ago
>This might be how it works in London Yes, that is what I am talking about, as this happened in London. As far as I'm aware, most police forces (of the kind that anyone would want to emulate) are focused on investigating crimes, not on attempting to resolve arbitrary mysterious circumstances. >London and the whole British establishment are thoroughly corrupt and the police is subservient. The simplest explanation for why the police stopped investigating is that there isn't any very strong evidence that anyone still alive (Sharma is now dead) is legally responsible for the death of the man who jumped from the balcony. Even if you are right that everything is the worst and everyone is corrupt, it doesn't follow that corruption is explanation for what happened in this instance. The police attempted to find out the truth, but none of the key witnesses were cooperative.