I can understand that this man’s death may have gone unmourned in some quarters, but at the inquest it was found that he acted alone:
The coroner said that CCTV footage proved that he acted alone, adding: “I rule out completely the action of any other person.” She also said: “It seems to me that at the time of his death he was actually very poorly.” She had no doubt he intended to jump in front of the train, although: “The state of his mental health at the time meant he lacked the necessary intent to categorise this as suicide.”
What is that supposed to mean?
“The state of his mental health at the time meant he lacked the necessary intent to categorise this as suicide.”
So, he committed suicide, but he didn't know he was committing suicide?
By the way, how was someone who was not there able to assess the mental state of the victim at the exact moment of his death?
“The state of his mental health at the time meant he lacked the necessary intent to categorise this as suicide.”
Sounds like a tortured attempt to let the family collect life insurance, so the don’t fight the findings in court. Or maybe because of a guilty conscience and a lingering shred of humanity.