I'd be more convinced if there weren't reasonable explanations for every one of these facts already in the public record. At this point, were this an actual criminal trial, proof of homicide is way far out there.
Further, if someone powerful was worried he'd implicate them, killing him is a terrible way to keep the secret. With him dead, his effects and possessions are now no longer subject to Constitutional privacy protections and the FBI can go over them at its leisure to string together a case against his accomplices or any who used his "services" to arrange illegal sexual encounters.
(... civil trial burden of proof is mere "preponderance of evidence," and IIUC his estate is seeking civil trial, so they may win that case, make of that what one will).
That's assuming someone hasn't already gone and taken out whatever proof there was from his island. There have been drone footage taken by people showing how things were taken from his mansion.
I wouldn't trust it as proof, I'm just saying, there wasn't anything stopping people from taking away incriminating evidence before the FBI had a chance to get a warrant.
Further, if someone powerful was worried he'd implicate them, killing him is a terrible way to keep the secret. With him dead, his effects and possessions are now no longer subject to Constitutional privacy protections and the FBI can go over them at its leisure to string together a case against his accomplices or any who used his "services" to arrange illegal sexual encounters.
(... civil trial burden of proof is mere "preponderance of evidence," and IIUC his estate is seeking civil trial, so they may win that case, make of that what one will).