[Las Vegas Ron]

Circumstantial evidence doesn’t amount to anything unless you can establish that an actual crime occurred. You see, first, you determine that a crime occurred,

Explain this then: Notable Murder Convictions Without a Body

If you don't have a body, how do you establish a body let alone murder?

Not saying I agree, just pointing out it's happened.

It's also why Casey Anthony was not convicted. There was no proof of a crime, ergo she was rightly found NOT GUILTY, even though we all know she was culpable.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Ooops..... If you don't have a body, how do you establish a DEAD body let alone murder?

[Boogieman]

There are plenty of ways to establish a murder occurred without a body, and yes circumstantial evidence can help establish that. However, that’s not the kind of circumstantial evidence that is being presented here. What is being presented here is circumstantial evidence that people think points to the idea that government murdered Hastings, yet they haven’t offered any evidence that Hastings was actually murdered. Why not? If they can finger the perp, it should be simple to establish that a crime occurred. So, show us that evidence!

People keep ragging on me because I’m skeptical, but skepticism doesn’t mean that I am just dismissing the idea out of hand. I just won’t conclude that a murder occurred when, from the facts that we have available, it seems much more likely to be a simple automobile accident.