“Benjamin Wallace probably has no idea that he is libeling a large chunk of people.”
In order to prove libel, you’d have to be able to demonstrate that what he’s saying isn’t true. Good luck with that.
Saying that the facts make no difference to a group of people is deliberate libel when you’ve already noted the facts they cite as their reasons to question the narrative. You’ve already acknowledged that they have facts on which their questions are based. People can disagree about the significance of things like the explosion that occurred before the crash, the fact that somebody just happened to be videotaping right there at 2:30 in the morning at the time, the fact that earlier that night he asked his neighbor if he could drive her car because he believed his car had been sabotaged in an effort to murder him, etc..... but don’t mention facts cited by people and then accuse them about not paying attention to facts. Nothing this author wrote negates or explains away any of the cited facts.
The whole gist of the article is that Hastings lived close to the edge. That doesn’t change any of the facts. When a guy tells his neighbor he thinks his car has been rigged to kill him and then documentary footage shows that his car exploded before crashing that very night.... I’d say anybody who writes it off as coincidence is brain-dead.
The simple, documented fact of the explosion before the crash is the evidence that he did NOT die in a car crash. He died in a car explosion. So would this author claim that Hastings’ Mercedes spontaneously combusted - coincidentally, a short time after he told his neighbor he believed the car had been rigged to kill him? If so, then we’ve got a new definition for the word “gullible”.