I think the CIA's "heart attack weapon" which was exposed to the Church committee in 1975 qualifies well enough as an "elaborate technique". There's also the myriad utterly ridiculous ways that the CIA attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the Bay of Pigs incident. None of these things are secrets and I think any well informed US person is at least familiar with some of the above. Any of the above ought to put to rest your apparent assertion that the CIA has an aversion to elaborate or even dubious assassination schemes. There's enough in the public record to suggest that the CIA might even prefer wacky assassination schemes over the boring straightforward ones.

>comments like this really have no place on HN and don't strengthen your position.

In your own post you admit that you know none of the relevant details (and apparently can't be bothered to look) about some recent event A which was covered widely in the press. But nevertheless, you can't believe that event A could have occurred in some particular way because you think it implausible or because you like a simpler or more familiar explanation. In fact, there is nothing at all implausible about steering a four wheeled vehicle by applying left or right brakes, and the correct spelling is brakes, not breaks FYI. Nor is it implausible for an attacker to take control of a vehicle's accelerator in a modern automobile. No, I am not going to prove that for you. If you think that I or any other poster on HN is your paid technical or historical research assistant / spoon-feeder, you are mistaken.