I'm sorry, but he'd basically have to be followed for 50 miles and then around Lewisburg. If there were this assassin, why not kill him when he drove through a remote area where there is no cell coverage? Why wait until he goes to a populated area?
Further, why hide the body? It wasn't to send a message.
If this was an assassin, and that is your term, why not just shoot him and worry about things like identifying the bullet. Most professions don't keep the gun.
And none of those are assassins. The tend to personal crimes. Further, in those types of cases, rarely, if ever, to they follow the person 50 miles.
I certainly think someone previously associated with some case over a period of 33 years could have murdered RFG. So could jealous husband, for that matter. However, how does that murderer know that RFG would be in Lewisburg?
Following him, because of the distance and the time, is approaching the point of impossibility. Targeting him in a public place adds to that impossibility.
JJ, I had two categories: (1) assassinations (if a killing is professional or political, the deliberate killing of a public figure) and (2) garden-variety murders by someone who knows the victim. (There would be a third category, murder by random violence. I had discounted that category, but what the heck. Let's leave it in.) And "assassin" need not conjure up a man behind a rock with a rifle.
You assume someone would have to track RG to Lewisburg. Not if RG didn't go alone. Not if RG had planned to meet someone in Lewisburg (personal or professional). Not if RG told someone he was taking a day and driving to Lewisburg and that someone was the killer or told someone else. Not if RG encountered someone by chance in Lewisburg who killed him. Not if he had a tracker on the vehicle. Not if RG was killed elsewhere and the car dumped in Lewisburg. Aside from the eyewitnesses who claim to have seen RG (none of whom were family, close friends, or close colleagues) there is no evidence that he ever made it to Lewisburg, unless there are active cell pings from his cell from Lewisburg, and that would only show that the cell phone was there.
As to why hide the body? The body is "best evidence." It would eliminate or uphold, potentially, suicide and conclusively end speculation that RG was a runaway.
1. Family members and close friends hide the body often in order to make a case for "runaway," e.g., "my wife isn't dead, she's missing."
2. In RG's case, hiding the body allows people to call up the idea that RG might have committed suicide, as his brother was purported to have done. Without a body, that scenario can't be eliminated.
3. Professional killers (whether from organized crime or serial murderers) hide the body for the same reasons. Where, pray tell, is Jimmy Hoffa? Has anyone gone to prison for his murder? It is very hard to prosecute a case when there is no body or the body has decomposed to the point where cause of death cannot be determined.
4. Killers hide bodies because there is something about the site of the murder, the manner of the murder, the weapon, or the state of the body that would give away their secret.
5. When killers hide the body, what LE is investigating is not a murder, but a missing persons case. There is no determined crime scene, minimal forensics, no witnesses--just a missing adult who has the right to walk away. If a person wants to kill a sitting DA, either for personal reasons or "professional" ones, the best bet is to get rid of the body. As Joran van der Sloot's father famously remarked, "No body, no crime."
There are probably 4 or 5 more reasons, but those will do.
