I think this kind of framing, suggesting that seeking more information is some kind of irrational-yet-understandable emotional response, is kind of disrespectful and presumptuous. The family knows more about the situation that online commenters do, and they're choosing to get more information which they can only choose to do now. Isn't that appropriate and reasonable in the context?

I've never dealt with such a situation before. But after something bad and unexpected happens, shouldn't it be considered generally a good idea to collect/record a lot of information while it's still possible? After production outages we ensure logs and records and traces are preserved. After bad car crashes you get witness statements, take photos, etc.

Further, nowhere in the article are any family members quoted saying anything conspiratorial. It's people online who are talking about assassination by BigCorp. There are other possibilities besides suicide and being murdered specifically because of the whistleblowing. I think we should take seriously the possibility that an autopsy can be an appropriate and rational choice even without any conspiracy theory being true.