They had already been acquitted, sinking a yacht in a freak tornado makes zero sense as a way of assassinating someone, and the woman who hit Stephen Chamberlain with her car remained at the scene.
It's just more fun this way, isn't it? It might be rude or tone deaf but I don't think that anyone is serious on claiming that it was an assassination.
How could "they?" had pulled it off?
Scenario 1: They risk losing their money and go to jail because they expect that the court decision be reversed over some evidence they expect to surface. Both are actually alive, Lynch sabotaged his yacht to fake his death, used the storm to make it plausible. The co-defendant falsified hospital records, it was all coordinated based on the weather forecast.
Scenario 2: Someone held responsible over the huge loss decided to send a message. Paid someone to sabotage the yacht, knowing Lynch's plans to sail and the weather forecast also killed the co-defendant by making someone hit him on his daily jogging rutine.
Both unplausible, still fun. Murder mystery and conspiracy are popular genre.
And let's not forget there were plenty of other rich and powerful people on that yacht - for example the international chair of Morgan Stanley is also missing.
Though Morgan Stanley did downgrade HP on the 19th causing a 3.5% stock fall....
They had already been acquitted, sinking a yacht in a freak tornado makes zero sense as a way of assassinating someone, and the woman who hit Stephen Chamberlain with her car remained at the scene.
Sometimes things just happen!