Terry,

All I saw was an official finding. I saw no evidence of or motivation for corruption. I have no idea whether there was potential liability for the park. Are you saying that the bridge did not comply with applicable safety regulations? I have no further information about the alleged discussions about suicide. Perhaps the investigators had extra information. Who can say- or more to the point, who *would* say? I have no idea whether the park or insurer is a political contributor to the coroner or to the "National Park Investigators" who seem to have made the ruling and closed the case. I see no evidence that the insurer, if any, applied pressure to void a policy. If you want conspiracy, my understanding is that insurers sometimes hold out on payment for as long as possible until their return on investment, which is far higher than you or I might expect, has covered the payout. But that is a completely separate issue.

You say you agree with me: presumably you agree with the above, in that case? Doing so will not make you a conformist, it will simply mean we have looked at the same data and reached the same conclusion.