If people had reason to kill him, it would likely be that he knew scandalous information. The public wouldn't really know that people cared about him or what that information was.
I have no idea if McAfee had such knowledge, but "I don't know any reason why someone would kill him" doesn't mean much.
Whatever McAfee would "reveal" would just be his word. Which isn't great. Unless he knows how to obtain evidence of things, what he "knows" is just rambling.
Movies have instilled in us this notion that simply knowing something is good enough. It's not. Let's pretend for a second that McAfee knew that certain public figures were, without a doubt, 100%, Satanic pedophile lizard people or whatever the flavor of the month panic is.
If his only proof of this is that he saw Person X devour a live baby while molesting children in the basement of a pizza parlor, it's kind of meaningless. It's not much better than just saying you know it because you believe it really strongly.
The information he would have to know would be specific to uncover something in a way that people could actually act on that information.
Otherwise, it's like what Bill Murray whispered in my ear after he painted my house last night, "No one will ever believe you".
> It's not impossible that his word could provide evidence, he may know where (possibly metaphorical) bodies are buried.
Yes, and even if not, testimony alone is evidence, even if it doesn't lead to other evidence.
It may or may not be evidence that a trier of fact views as credible or sufficient on its own to meet the applicable standard of proof, but it is evidence.
> he may know where (possibly metaphorical) bodies are buried.
Because founding and running an anti-virus company for a while gets you invited to all the big shots' murder rampages...?
Was he ever even a largish campaign contributor, or anything that might have got him hobnobbing with (people that later turned into) The Powers That Be? I've never heard anything such about him; have you?
I'll repeat myself by saying "I have no idea if McAfee had such knowledge." You just can't say he didn't have some knowledge because you are unaware of any important information or connections he had.
Hasn't "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" been debunked enough already?
Yes, I can. He was no Epstein; he didn't extortionably frolick around on his yacht with underage girls and politicians, billionaires, and celebrities of science, media, and entertainment. The only commonality McAfee's sad "frolicking" had with Epstein's was that it was on his yacht. But it was with his ex-hooker wife, crew and servants, and Idunno what more-or-less temporary "friends" and other hangers-around he may have picked up. Sure, some of the latter may have been second- or third-rate celebrities in their Latin American or Southern European home countries. Do you think that's the kind of people who have the clout to have someone "whacked" (or even the reputation to need "I snorted bathsalts with John McAfee on his yacht" suppressed)?
I mean, sure, I'm perfectly prepared to believe that he might have had some "whackable" knowledge, after all... As soon as anyone presents even a shred of evidence for that. But as far as we know, he didn't have any inside knowledge that needed to be "silenced". That's the null hypothesis; it's claims to the contrary that need evidence in their favour so as not to be dismissed out of hand.
I have no idea if McAfee had such knowledge, but "I don't know any reason why someone would kill him" doesn't mean much.