Someone stole the body!

[Minimalist]

The NT, of course, talks about persecutions of Xians, writing within easy living memory. We have Nero's 64AD persecution (Suetonius),  Josephus Antiquities (93/94 AD) mentions the earlier stoning of Jesus brother, and Pliny's Epistulae X.96 (110AD) discusses the torture and other routine nastiness to Xians.

Then you need to examine the top of your head.  Suetonius, was a second century writer who definitely wrote about "Chrestus" at one point and probably referred to Chrestians at another.  (We know that the original wording of Tacitus' supposed Annales commentary was "Chrestianos" thanks to the invention of ultra-violet light.)  Unlike christos we actually have archaeological evidence of "chrestians" in Rome in the early first century.  What we do not have are artifacts of a xtian presence in the first century, such as xtian catacombs.

Josephus, and leaving aside the brother of christos nonsense, is speaking of a power play within the Sanheddrin.  One high priest is fucking with another.  BTW, if you read the passage carefully you'll note that no where does Josephus say that the stoning was carried out. In fact, he notes that

but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;

Exactly how long do you think it would take to get from the temple to the king's palace.  Jerusalem was not that big!  In any event, Herod Agrippa removed Ananus as high priest and gave the job to Y'shua bar Damneus.... who is probably the person referred to in the awkward passage that you guys love to hang your hats on!

As far as Pliny goes, the "torture" was reserved to two female slaves who were called deaconesses.  Sad to say, this had nothing to do with jesusism but was a standard practice in Roman law.  Testimony from slaves had to be obtained under torture.  It's sort of the Dick Cheney approach to jurisprudence.

While you are at it, you should consider the reply of Emperor Trajan:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

You know, I would far prefer Trajan on our Supreme Court to the late Scalia and his nazi buddies.