But you can't really compare the idea of 'evidence' when it comes to foul play versus accidental death.
Here's why: it is inherently difficult (if not impossible) to find
evidence that any death is an accident, and yet these kinds of deaths occur all the time. Accidents just happen out of nowhere and leave no hard evidence; they lack motive, planning, and execution--the kinds of processes that leave behind evidence. So generally the evidence for an accidental death is circumstantial: a) there is no evidence of foul play, and b) there is no evidence of intentional suicide. That leaves you with a strong indication of an accident.
On the other hand, it's very possible to find evidence of foul play. That doesn't mean people can't cover it up, or that the authorities always discover that evidence. But hard evidence is extremely common with foul play. It's almost non-existent with accidents. How do prove that a sudden, random event happened once that event is over and no one witnessed it? How do you get inside the mind of a dead person? You can't. But you can definitely find evidence that someone did something on purpose. So lack of evidence for foul play is inherently more powerful than lack of evidence for an accident... but again, I'm speaking in generalizations. I realize that these are not hard rules. But they are true
most of the time. :twocents: :twocents:
And on top of that, remember that
we don't know what evidence or knowledge they have. We only know what we know, which is not a complete picture of what they have. Until we know more about the evidence and/or autopsy, we can only assume that they know more than we do. Hopefully we will have more info soon!
Unfortunately, we will never, ever know for absolute sure that what we're being told is true, but I guess that's true of almost everything in life.