Question about the ending to The Dark Knight (2008).

Yeah that's a good point, I just thought that Batman taking the blame does possibly create more problems, compared to just jumping to the conclusion that it was the mafia, but the police cannot make a case out of it, sort of thing. I guess I just don't see why the public wouldn't be satisfied that it was the mafia. Because if the district attorney in your city arrested a few hundred mobsters, all within a week and then a few days later, he turns up dead, wouldn't it most likely be the mafia? I mean how is anyone going to think it couldn't possibly be them and there is just no way?

That's the part I don't get is, the people not being satisfied that anyone else other than Batman could have done it. Why is Batman the only satisfactory killer for Harvey Dent with the public? Just because he is uncatachable compared to the mob and that's it?

A lot of those supposed mysteries involving the Las Vegas massacre are flat out incorrect.
No phone data were wiped. There is no proof other wise.
As far as witnesses supposedly dieing afterward, this is also false.
I can go through this point by point if needed, but it would just derail this thread.

Well when compared to real life, what is a real life Martyr, like Harvey Dent, who was murdered, but the killer never caught. Are there any?

I think, it was too risky. If somehow cops found out that Harvey did it, then all the criminals will be released. Can't afford to take the risk. I also think Batman was kinda done at the point after failing to save Rachel. So if he was going to disappear, he might as well takes the blame with him.

Oh okay, I just felt the cops would still investigate and find out inconsistencies whether Batman took the blame or not. Or if Gotham is so full of people being murdered, that it could have been anyone, than they wouldn't have needed to think it was Batman if Harvey had so many enemies.

But if Batman really needed to do take the blame, than I guess he did.

Ironpony, I'm going to surprise you by being the one person here who kind of agrees with you. There was a need to cover up the true circumstances of Harvey's death to preserve his image as a hero.
But the main reason Batman took the blame for it was so the filn's creators could maintain Batman's image among Gotham City residents as a dangerous vigilante. A character can not maintain that image for long if he continues to save people, so he must be thought to have done something bad, such as killing a good person.
The same thing happened in Spider-Man's comic when he was held responsible for Capt. Stacy's death. It gave weight to J. Jonah Jameson's statements about him being a dangerous vigilante.
You could argue that Batman was satisfied with being considered a dangerous vigilante because it could turn off the imitators who were risking their lives to emulate him. But I'm not sure that would really work.

Well, the movie itself agrees, because again, the third film clearly shows us they were wrong to do it. They were just wrong in a moral sense which doomed it to fail, not because their idea was horribly unfeasible or irrational.

Predicting that the choice would backfire was the premise of this essay from 2011, in fact:

Yeah those are some good points. Batman's decision made enough sense on an emotional level for him, I guess I just thought that's the best you can come up with. But in a panic, I guess he made the best decision.

Sure, but we don't know about them!

Lots of cases where heroes were initially suspected as being villains (like Richard Jewel).
And where villains were thought to be the heroes (can't think of any off the top of my head).

I'm sure there are cases where the truth was never discovered or revealed and the falsehood still stands today.

Jussie Smollet tried to make himself a martyr, but was actually the perpetrator of the crime of hoaxing the authorities and the public into believing he was a victim.

Oh okay, well to compare to the movie, are there any real life cases where a figure who was very beloved by the public was murdered, and the public was not satisfied with who the police blamed it on? Not a person like Richard Jewell who was a suspect, and not beloved, or not a person like Jussie Smollet. I mean an actual publicly beloved Martyr? Did it ever happen where a publicly beloved Martyr was murdered, and the police new that if they didn't point the finger in the right direction that the city would go ape on them?