> wrongful death liability (even based on a trial and evidence) doesn't indicate that one has even approximately committed murder

This is true in general, but not true specifically for this case. A wrongful death case does not need to indicate murder, as wrongful deaths can occur for many reasons. But in this case, the award of the $20 million in punitive damages (damages to punish the defendant, not to compensate the victim) specifically were for the torture and murder, with intentional malice, of Faull.

>the judgement was a default judgement because McAfee didn't answer the lawsuit, not a judgement based on evidence.

No it wasn’t. He didn’t automatically lose because he didn’t show up. The court, specifically the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, allowed the Faull estate to petition for a default judgement due to McAfee’s continued failure to respond and due to the merits of the case presented. They did not, and would not, allow a default judgment on a meritless case.

Pdf of the actual Decision. https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/03/20/mcafee-belize.pdf

> It establishes civil liability, but does not indicate anything (or even that anyone has reached any judgement) about the relevant facts.

Hence the word culpable, and not guilty.

The point is that "murder" and "civil law" don't go together. Murder as a concept is always a criminal law issue.

My point was that the claim was of limited relevance in context, not that it was false.

You immediately call it false in your response.

That he was found culpable is irrelevant. That it was “of murder” is false. The grandparent was focussed on the discussion of culpability in the context of the segment that was quoted in the comment it responded to.