When Tragedy Is Used to Incorrectly Prove a Point: Why We Need to Slow Down Especially Those Who Have Influence.

CAVEAT - When this incident first began circulating widely across social media, we received a number of messages from followers asking for our thoughts. At that time, we made a deliberate decision not to comment. Based on our experience, we knew that early reporting in cases like this is often incomplete, and that critical context tends to emerge only after careful investigation. Rather than adding to speculation or amplifying a narrative built on headlines, we chose to allow the investigative process to unfold. We are writing now because, despite new information coming to light, there are still some voices continuing to push a simplified and misleading explanation of the “why” behind this tragedy. That persistence matters. When inaccurate narratives are repeatedly shared, especially by those with influence, they can shape public perception, parental fear, and policy conversations in ways that are not grounded in evidence. This article is not about silencing concern or minimizing risk. It is about slowing the conversation down, respecting the complexity of real lives, and refusing to reduce a tragic event to a single, convenient cause when the facts do not support it.

Over three decades in policing, Darren investigated many deaths by suicide. In some cases, the reason was tragically clear, such as terminal illness or profound loss. In others, what initially appeared obvious fell apart once the full context was examined. Early assumptions often did not survive careful and thorough investigation.

That perspective matters when we look at the recent and heartbreaking deaths of three sisters in India, aged 16, 14, and 12, who appear to have jumped from their ninth floor bedroom (1). As news of the event spread, headlines and social media posts quickly settled on a simple explanation. The girls were described as socially isolated since COVID, withdrawn from school, immersed in phones, and allegedly addicted to K-pop, Korean dramas, and online content. Reports then claimed that when their father took away their phones, the girls ended their lives.

That narrative travelled fast across social media and mom discussion platforms. It also travelled far beyond the evidence.

One of the reasons we are cautious about early explanations like this is something well documented in psychology known as the suicide contagion effect. This refers to the increased risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviours following exposure to suicide, particularly when the event is framed in simplistic or sensational ways. It is not about imitation in a casual sense. It is about how repeated, emotionally charged explanations can lower psychological barriers for vulnerable people.

From the outset, several aspects of the reporting raised serious questions to us as online investigators, especially given that it was reported that these three youth died by suicide at the same time, which is extremly unusual.

Other questions we had, if these girls had truly been isolating since COVID, that would place them at roughly 10, 8, and 6 years old when this isolation supposedly began. If they were not attending school for years, how did that happen without intervention? If phones were central to the explanation, why were the devices no longer available for police review, one having already been sold by the father? None of these details align with how thorough investigations typically unfold.

As more time has passed, responsible investigative reporting and police work are now painting a more complex and deeply troubling picture. Emerging information and evidence suggests that the home environment may have included significant emotional, psychological, and possibly physical abuse of these three youth. This context fundamentally changes how we should understand what happened. Some of the new information that has been made public include:

• An eye witness who stated that is was only one of the teens who was attempting to jump and was sitting on the balcony railing, while the other two were attempting to pull their sister down. This resulted in all three falling to the ground.

• The girls were not just sisters, they were half siblings who lived with their father and his three wives, as well as another 4 year old sister who is still alive,  in a small apartment.

• The father was battling serious financial debt

• In the diary recovered in the girls room, there was an entry that read, “Did we live in this world to get beaten by you? Death would be better than beatings”

• Another cryptic message that mentioned marriage, saying the idea caused “tension in our hearts”

So, why are we writing this article, because there have been some who have publicly pointed to this event implying that these three youth were so addicted to their phones and social media, that when their phones were taken away, it lead all three to suicide. 

Headlines in the media such as, “'Is snatching your child’s phone a sin?”, “3 Teen Sisters Jump to Their Deaths from 9th Floor Apartment After Parents Remove Access to Phone”, or parents posting articles about this incident and tagging them with  #mobilephoneaddiction, #digitaladdiction, and #childrenscreenuse in social media feeds to buttress their arguments over phone and social media bans. 

Recently, we also saw a family physician publicly comment on this incident in a way that strongly implied causation. The suggestion was that the three youth were so addicted to their phones and social media that removing those devices directly led to their deaths. When one follower pushed back, noting that there was far more emerging information about the underlying circumstances than what had been shared, the physician responded by saying that “those details often aren’t captured in the headline.”

That response raises an important question. If those critical details are known to be missing from headlines, why would a physician weigh in on such a serious and complex event based primarily on a headline, and not actual evidence, in the first place?

Using the deaths of three children to advance a political or ideological agenda is not just irresponsible, it is harmful.

Based on decades of investigative experience and what we know about youth behaviour, we strongly suspected the phones were not the cause of this tragedy. It is far more likely that in this specific case the heavy phone and online use, if confirmed, functioned as what Dr. Rachel Kowert has called a “maladaptive coping mechanism”, given the life they were forced to live. For many young people living in distressing or unsafe environments, screens are not the source of pain, they are often a refuge from it.

Compulsive phone use can absolutely be a concern. It deserves thoughtful conversation, boundaries, and guidance. What it does not deserve is to be turned into a convenient villain, without having the complete picture of the “why”, when the real issues are harder, messier, and far more uncomfortable to confront.

Parents deserve better than fear based comments based on very little information to draw a “causation” narrative. They deserve evidence, context, and restraint. Most of all, they deserve honesty about what we know, what we do not yet know, and the difference between correlation, coping, and causation. Tragedies such as this should prompt care, not confirmation bias to support a political agenda.

Digital Food For Thought

The White Hatter

Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech