Because people want to know what happened and how. Otherwise liberty, accountability, and self-determination go out the window.

We are fully informed of what happened and how, including through detailed accounts, not least because, under UK law, a public inquest took place.

But, as said, I don't see the point of publicising videos of people being slaughtered.

There are numerous examples of public inquiries failing to provide a full picture of the truth which then came out many years later, eg in Northern Ireland. There's a documentary running on the BBC right now about the Troubles featuring lots of photographs and footage that were suppressed at the time.

I don't care whether you see the point; if I wish to investigate a matter of public or historic interest, why should I be bound by your preferences?

who is 'they'? There are vey few surveillance videos of that incident publicly available. I was thinking of this one when I wrote the above https://youtu.be/BR1s7az-f-k

> There are vey few surveillance videos of that incident publicly available.

Indeed. That's what I wrote.

I think it's a good thing.

Why would you want to be less informed? Such information shouldn't be sensationalized or exploited for profit, but nor should it be suppressed. If you choose to kept in the dark - which is not the same thing as choosing not to look - then you are inviting deception and exploitation.

The lack of presented evidence feeds theories and ideas about what actually happened, strengthens local anecdotal witness word of mouth stories. Epstein is a good example of this, more questions than answers and a sudden silence from the corporate media

There are no remotely mainstream conspiracy theories about the London Bridge attacks. There is enough trust in our police, government, legal and justice systems and journalists to assume they aren't making this up...