That depends on the conclusion. Concluding that something fishy is going on here, that's likely murder being covered up and that hard questions need to be asked of is rational. Assuming someone found dead with bruises on their neck without even a rope being mentioned killed themselves, and calling it a suicide from the get go, is not rational, it's not neutral, and accepting it without a peep is practically siding with killers, whoever they and their motives may be.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/journos-debunker-mentality-rus...

> Witness the mainstream media’s rush to tsk-tsk the deluge of social-media speculation in the aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody. Within hours of the story breaking, writers at mainstream outlets went patrolling the Internet for “conspiracy theories” to debunk, usually with that tone of superiority and self-satisfaction that so endears the blue-check Twitterati to the American public.

But hey, let's not rush to any conclusions, just to the gatekeeping -- let's just move on, if we never get back to this, no biggie either. That's not rational nor noble, it's just saying "not my problem".