Did you guys see the 16 page PDF detailing remote auto take-over? Some are speculating that his car was remotely controlled via this method or tampered with such that his breaks failed.
If you haven't seen that PDF, ill to find the link.
If you haven't seen that PDF, ill to find the link.
Check this out and look at the source as well as take some time to critically think about the technical resources a group like the NSA has vs. the researchers of this paper...
You think that "It's hard to imagine any remotely competent government group or organized crime group" choosing it" is an informed position?
I would HOPE you are aware of Stucnet, as well as Duqu...
Do you recall this: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/20121116284...
This was supposedly the work of the USG/Mossad in Iran. If you think that they would use lowly tactics like a magnetic car bomb -- but would be "too competent" to employ remote hijacking of a late model car, then I simply cannot agree with you on this matter.
This guy's car crashed into a tree. He was doing national security reporting. That's all the factual information you have right now. But peoples' cars crash into trees all the time. Contrary to message board opinion, many of those cars do indeed catch fire. Weigh against that the silliness of this particular means of assassinating someone. Occam's Razor kicks in.
With Stuxnet, Duqu and Mossad car bombings of scientists in Iran, my point was that I would not put the ability past them to be able to hijack a car in a method similar to the one described in the PDF.
Personally, I have no clue/opinion on if they actually killed Hastings.
I say "some are speculating" because there are a bunch on Reddit, I.e. some people, who I do not know personally, and have handles as opposed to real-names, so I cannot say "Bill, John and Mary speculate"
So, as I am not using the weasel word in the way you describe (as if I were to say "a source close to the crash victim") -- the terminology is still valid in common dialogue.