[donkeyd]

I worked as a detective in the Netherlands and we had a single task; 'waarheidsvinding', which means 'finding the truth'. We didn't have the task of convicting someone or finding a crime, we had the task of finding the truth. So in a case like this, that meant finding out exactly why someone jumped or fell from a balcony.

[foldr]

First of all, you obviously only did this in cases where there was some prospect that a crime might have been committed, not in any instance of something mysterious happening.

Second, the police did attempt to figure out why the man jumped from the balcony. However, without the cooperation of the other people who were in the apartment, there is really no way to know for sure. And without knowing for sure, there's little prospect of anyone being convicted of a crime. The police don't have infinite resources. At some point you have to accept that the circumstances around a death may never be fully known. This happens all the time in the real world.

[rsynnott]

> First of all, you obviously only did this in cases where there was some prospect that a crime might have been committed, not in any instance of something mysterious happening.

It's probably fair to say that nearly all mysterious deaths imply the possibility of some sort of malfeasance.

[diggan]

> First of all, you obviously only did this in cases where there was some prospect that a crime might have been committed, not in any instance of something mysterious happening.

How would you know if a crime has been committed or not unless you actually find out the truth about the event/situation?

[jalapenos]

So you could've done science experiments in your office then, or archaeology in the basement, and it'd have passed as doing your job.