[null and void]

Pop culture? You do know that's the mnemonic for the elements of evidence needed for a circumstantial case, don't you?

They are necessary (but not by themselves sufficient) elements for a criminal case to proceed.

In this particular case, they are augmented by deliberate destruction of evidence in direct violation of the families wishes, the fact that the pizzeria surveillance video shows a flash before the car collides with the palm tree, the sudden and unexplained death of a skilled hacker known to have been working on software take-overs of motor vehicles, the total and instant involvement of the crashed vehicle in fire, and the distance of the engine and transmission from the main crash scene, and the fact that the victim notified his friends that he needed to get out of dodge because he found out something.

But if you're happier thinking your government would never resort to force to control us, more power to you in your blissful little bubble.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Well argued, nully!

[Boogieman]

“Pop culture? You do know that’s the mnemonic for the elements of evidence needed for a circumstantial case, don’t you?

They are necessary (but not by themselves sufficient) elements for a criminal case to proceed. “

Yes, their are not by themselves sufficient, because you need, first and foremost, evidence that an actual crime was committed. Evidence that, despite all the non-evidence you cite in the rest of your post, you still don’t have. If you can’t even establish that Hastings didn’t crash his car himself, then you certainly can’t begin to prove that someone else hacked it in order to murder him.

[willyd]

Why did it have to be hacked? wouldn’t a small incendiary device also produce the same result without all the James Bond?

Didn’t Mercedes stop using that same coolant because it was known to be flammable? (so a leaking coolant combined with a spark from the road caused by a flat tire causes the flash)