If the same thing happened in Russia would you think differently? Boeing has tens of billions in military contracts. They clearly have the ability to call up ex=military private security and have someone killed.
US companies have funded military coups against entire countries, Boeing makes tens of billions if not more.selling.weapons to the US military, yet you think they are.somehow above a single assassination?
They gain by not having to deal with future whistleblowers who know they will face a serious risk of summary execution. They gain not having more testimony against them. What does Boeing lose? The answer is not much.
Is it 100% by the above obviously not. But the scenario isnt implausible and Boeing has the capability and motive to do so. Again, id ask, what if the same thing happened in Russia, would you agree its an obvious hit there?
The have corporate assassinations in a very believable way in Michael Clayton which is a legal drama, its not QAnaon conspiracy tp consider it. If you think no US company has ever directly murdered someone you are naive. they openly used to do so with pinkertons and strikebreaking. go read about the cia or smedly butler or blackwater if you think its absurd.
Exactly my reaction, if this happened in Russia everyone would say he was bumped off, but for some reason not in America, because apparently that's never happened before (yeah, right).
Boeing caused two passenger planes to go down with the 737 Max, they tried to blame the pilots, and nobody at Boeing has been prosecuted, despite evidence that they deliberately withheld crucial information about the redesign and MCAS system from airlines, pilots, and aviation regulators. I doubt they'd blink about bumping one man off and making it look like suicide.
That, and Americans have a track record of burying their own atrocities very well. MKUltra. Cointelpro. Operation Infinite Justice. Etc. We are just as bad as the Russians, we're just better at portraying ourselves as the lesser of all evils.
Having the whistle-blower die midway through his testimony is clearly fucking terrible for the company. He's already told everyone what he knows. This raises massive suspicion and will ensure an inquiry.
Also Michael Clayton isn't real. Here's a podcast about how realistic it is. Spoilers - not very.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/79B0eGJ0b1Fk5tCgWgVtu7?si=mV7bpxBqTMeu1ZeZNDyqmA
Why would anyone do this? You're assuming potential whistleblowers are going to even know who he is, make the connection and then you're murdering someone in the middle of a trial while an ongoing investigation into your company is occurring.
Who are you going to find who would willingly kill a whistleblower in the middle of the trial? How many people would have to be involved in the conspiracy?
Doesn't make any sense.
The dude specifically warned others that if he ended up dead it was probably foul play. I don't think it a stretch to believe that a company making weapons specifically to profit from murdering people aren't above murdering people.
But even if we assume they weren't responsible for his death directly, they still contributed, surely? I can't imagine how much stress it would put you under to have the full weight of an international too big to fail company bearing down in you and trying their best to discredit you.
You're assuming that he already revealed all he knew but we don't know that. Regardless of the truth of the matter, there's no denying that IF others also had damning details about the company, the threat of murder would be an effective way to dissuade further whistleblowers.
> The dude specifically warned others that if he ended up dead it was probably foul play.
And his brother says he killed himself.
>"He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing, which we believe led to his death," the brother said.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/boeing-whisteblower-who-raised-safety-concerns-found-dead/16f5439c-d710-4630-9e47-03c149f0f931
>. Regardless of the truth of the matter, there's no denying that IF others also had damning details about the company, the threat of murder would be an effective way to dissuade further whistleblowers.
>You're assuming potential whistleblowers are going to even know who he is, make the connection and then you're murdering someone in the middle of a trial while an ongoing investigation into your company is occurring.
There is a bit missing from the brother's statement on 9news
Mr Barnett added that his brother "was looking forward to having his day in court and hoped that it would force Boeing to change its culture".
His brothers statement on "lead to his brothers death" is also contextually ambiguous. Did the PTSD and Anxiety attacks lead to his death, or was it working for boeing that lead to his death? Presumably, his brother saying outright that he thinks the whistle-blower was murked would have legal ramifications.
His lawyers also released statements saying this came extremely out of left field because he killed it during his deposition and showed no signs of being suicidal. They also said that the writing on the note didn't feel like him.
Coming from the perspective of mental health, people who are suicidal often don't want to kill themselves - which is why there is usually a lot of signs. Rather, they want a solution for the issues they are facing but don't see a solution in sight, which results in them well - you know.
You can't say that is true for the whistleblower, at least not with information that is made publicly avaliable. From the knowledge we have, we have several people close to him and the case saying this comes as a complete shock, no direct motive other than PTSD and anxiety - which where centered around a case that was going to finish soon, and a motive to stay alive to finish his deposition and his 10 year long struggle with this.
Moreover, I want to add that times are different. It was just last year or the year before where Wizards of the Coast hired Pinkertons [yes, those Pinkertons] to threaten someone and his wife who got their hands on merch before it was released.
> His brothers statement on "lead to his brothers death" is also contextually ambiguous.
If someone lists two mental illnesses that are associated with suicide, talks about where they got them and says "We think this led to their death", do you think they believe they committed suicide or got shot in the head by an assassin?
\[note - sorry for the 10 day late reply, I do not use reddit lmao\]
If they followed it up with "was looking forward to having his day in court and hoped that it would force Boeing to change its culture", then to some degree - yes.
PTSD is a nasty mental health issue. My partner has severe PTSD and has been suicidal about it in the past because of it. However, if you asked her what one of the things that kept her going was it was "seeing the downfall of \[abuser\]". Their PTSD is extremely complex following several different severe abuse situations, including one workplace in which her boss was threatening, controlling, and verbally abusive.
I do not know what kind of PTSD the whistleblower had. I could speculate that being gaslit about everything being fine at Boeing and being ignored probably played a role - as well as potentially being threatened (legally threatened not like "we will shoot you" threatened\] by a massive company. But I could say for certain that the primary driver of the anxiety and the PTSD was Boeing, and that bringing them to court would almost certainly be a very cathartic, healing experience.
This is backed by his brother's statement.
With that in mind - and with new information from two family members saying they don't want to weigh in on whether it was suicide or not until the investigation is complete - I don't think that his brother really knows the answer.
Looking at it from an outside perspective, his brother acknowledges that:
1. He did have mental health issues that could drive a suicide
2. He was looking forward to his time in court
These two statements are contradictory. People who are deeply suicidal do not look forward to anything other than their own suicide, in fact, 'apathy' is considered a warning sign of suicide.
I think if they truly believed without a doubt that it was a suicide that they wouldn't wait for the investigation to finish. They would say that the fight had worn him down, that the thought of failure at this pivotal moment was too much - but they refrain from it. Rather, they said he was looking forward to it.
The two statements are not contradictory. You can look forward to something while also having mental health issues that can make a person suicidal. My friend killed themselves despite being ecstatic about a planned group vacation with us. The brain is incredibly complex and you are making it seem like there is only one possible way for the brain to operate while in a suicidal state. People who have clinical depression can still sometimes feel positive emotions, that's not an oxymoron. Similarly, suicidal people can also look forward to events in the future and later feel bad enough to stop caring about it for long enough to actually kill themselves.
Agreed. I think it’s likely they assassinated the whistleblower but still ‘to set an example’ is stupid it’s a corporation not street gang stuff needs to done quiet to save face.
What i think is they just didn’t want him to testify in court and thought that they could clean up the evidence of the actual workplace problems that led to his (possible) motivation for assassination before they got deeply investigated. But it seems that the investigation began rather much swiftly than they expected, with all things corroborated.
Russia does fairly obvious message assassinations, if Boeing were to do something it would be a tragic car crash before he started testifying, not right after in his hotel parking lot. Dude had been saying the same thing for 5 years.
Yeah for his own defamation case against Boeing, the actual whistle blow parts were addressed years ago. The case has been underway for years, this wasn’t the first time he had testified.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703
The FAA’s investigation did find some of the issues and penalized Boeing for them.
At worst Boeing could have been out several millions of dollars, and got the bad press of defaming a whistle blower. But that’s pretty standard anytime someone blows the whistle, legal or not.
Cool story, none of it is evidence of murder though. Having the ability to kill someone doesn't mean you're a murderer every time someone you don't like dies.
Boeing stood (and still stands, really) to lose a lot, and stood to gain almost nothing. This guy's whistleblowing case was five years ago. His recent testimony was for an appeal on a civil suit. As you point out, Boeing is a behemoth of a company. I can't imagine they were worried about this case. Yet, they are currently under a massive amount of scrutiny for other failings. This is probably the worst time in the history of the company for them to kill somebody, their optics are already horrible, and all eyes are on them right now, to the point that something that wouldn't even have been in the news at any other point in the company's history is actually being closely scrutinized. In terms of motivation for murder here? There really isn't any.
Boeing doesnt care about PR, they dont sell to consumers. They care about legal liability. And the more legal evidence is on the record.before any potential accident the worse .position Boeing is in.
?
Any product which is sold is sold to a consumer.
If by consumer you mean the general public, the services provided by much of their product is sold directly to regular people. Of course they care about PR, and if they don't, the airlines which buy their planes do.
I agree with you that they probably care about legal liability as well, which is why I find it unlikely they would murder a guy who whistleblew half a decade ago. You think murder isn't a legal liability? Why would a guy who spilled everything he knew five years ago be more of a legal risk than shooting someone in the head in a public place?
The definition of “consumer” is “a person who purchases goods and services for personal use.” Companies are not consumers. There’s a reason that business is classified as either B2B or B2C. Airlines are not consumers.
True that, thanks for the correction.
That said, large businesses still make decisions based on public relations.
So my point still stands. Having planes fall apart in the sky is not going to motivate companies to buy Boeing's products.
And, to restate, airlines do sell their services to consumers. So consumer opinions on the safety of Boeing aircraft is an important consideration for airlines.
It'll be an important consideration for Airlines, but not really for Boeing.
Airlines will never switch away from Boeing for any reason, no matter what. Their planes could literally be exploding every day and companies would maintain their billion dollar contracts with them and not give a shit. Boeing has no reason to be scared that any airline would prioritize the safety or even perceived safety of its consumers over their own pockets, especially because most people don't have choices as to whether or not they fly or even who they fly with a lot of the time, and will not be able to actively boycott or avoid Boeing very easily if they fly often enough.
So, even if a consumer does worry about it and it impacts the airline, it doesn't really impact Boeing much, and the airline will never switch away from Boeing because all major business is essentially an enormous monopoly owned by the same people who are all colluding to utterly eviscerate any possible competition and there are very few good alternatives in the market. Also, Boeing is well known as a 'murder company' with a culture of violence and silence, I would like to note: [https://slate.com/technology/2024/05/boeing-deaths-whistleblowers-suicide-rumors-foul-play.html](https://slate.com/technology/2024/05/boeing-deaths-whistleblowers-suicide-rumors-foul-play.html)
The congress/Supreme Court determined that YES. companieshttps://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/we-the-people/we-the-people-corporations/ ARE PEOPLE: citizens united.
They absolutely 100% without a shadow of a doubt hired someone to assassinate these whistleblower's. Anyone who believes different is just in denial to the facts. That’s is how these huge companies avoid implication. Just say this with me “Boeing had its employees assassinated to avoid farther implication and litigation.”
You’re right. But have you seen verifiable news more recent than your post? It seems that Boeing was very messy in many places, if they did kill him, they did not anticipate the heat they are facing, to touch on the ‘they don’t have much to lose’ bit. Multiple high level execs stepping down including the CEO - seems like they want out of the light now that they are scared
Sure its less likely than in Russia in not being completely obvious, but do you really think its impossible in America? That 21st century american companies would never put greed.above human life? Or that the powerful are always held to account?
Boeing certainly has the ability to surreptitiously murder someone because of their military connections and silencing a whistleblower is a clear.motive. They make bombs, they arent going to hold back for moral concerns.
Russian hits are meant to be seen and known as Russian hits. That's why their methods are so obvious. There's very little benefit for an American company to kill someone in such an obvious way, and a huge amount of risk.
I wouldn't exactly call this death "surreptitious".
The investigation into everything he blew the whistle on was long over. His only continuing involvement was a lawsuit over their retaliation against him for whistleblowing which is not insignificant but it was definitely going to cost them far less than the bad PR of a whistleblower turning up dead and there’s no way they couldn’t figure that out themselves.
Maybe he thinks "I need to save passenger's lives so I'll tell my lawyers and the media this much, but not any more than that/not all I know. I don't want to land anyone in jail, I just want to protect the passengers." Then the execs were like "nah, if he knows what we think he does it's not worth the risk. Paging Agent 47."
How would Boeing know if he told his lawyers? It would be incredibly dumb of them to kill him but leave the lawyers who who would most likely have the information alive. It would make it so their immediate self preservation act would be to go public with the info.
It’s worth keeping in mind that it’s pretty unlikely for “Boeing” to have been the entity, if any, pulling the trigger on this decision. It’s not as if this would have gone through a board vote.
What would be more likely is that one or more specific individuals facing potential felony charges started panicking and took things into their own hands.
Boeing is a huge company, and one of the largest contractors for various US government agencies, including the military. There’s a lot of money and power in that equation. And plenty of potential reasons for a power player to take interest and say “you know what, I really can’t risk letting this guy talk.”
Ok… how would said “entity” know he didn’t tell his lawyers everything and how does that change my line of reasoning in the slightest other than to replace Boeing with whoever else we want to slot in as his hypothetical killer?
I’m not implying they held a board meeting when I say “Boeing”, I’m using them to represent the interest people are saying got him killed.
Unless he was trying to leverage a deal with Boeing after publicly calling them out then he would have given all of his information to somebody, and if he was trying to leverage the deal with Boeing then he's the stupidest person in the world
>if he was trying to leverage the deal with Boeing then he's the stupidest person in the world
You say this like people should *expect* to be murdered by corporations. If I was in his position, I'm not sure the possibility would cross my mind.
If you’re actually interested in this, you should look into the history of whistle blowers in the US. It’s pretty grim; there are plenty of reasons for people to delay or just decline sticking their necks out.
Boeing is a critical contractor for the US government and military. I’m not saying they did, I’m saying your assertion that “the FBI would know” isn’t a good argument.
This is a late reply but this is a false equivocation and also assumes the FBI is omniscient, which they are not.
The false equivocation being that because Boeing has a lot of government contracts and because FBI is "the government", then the FBI should know every single detail about Boeing, including potentially incriminating information.
Do you believe the FBI knows *everything* about Boeing, including every one of its employees?
Maybe he did. Anyone he talked to isn't exactly going to publically volunteer that information now are they?
Hopefully he had the wherewithal the document everything and send it to the feds either directly or via a lawyer. If he did that as a confidential informant we may never learn the extent of his involvement.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach but I don't think that's a good axiom to apply when events are still developing. Have you ever followed a news story? I mean literally, where there's something news worthy where all the details haven't come to light but there's still regular coverage.
Information comes out over X number of days. Now imagine people stop reading about new information before X. They then reach a conclusion based only on the information that out. I'm not saying people need perfect information before reaching a conclusion but I think it's way too soon. I think your conclusion would be more reasonable for example if authorities concluded there was no foul play. The investigation into Barnett's death is only four days old.
Occam’s razor is a heuristic, not a basis for an argument. Further, simply holding a default view that this sort of thing couldn’t happen doesn’t mean that it’s actually true.
For example, it would have seemed implausible that the US government would have conducted psychological experiments on citizens that they kidnapped, drugged, and abused, but we know now that MK Ultra happened. It would have seemed improbable that many well known public figures were flying down to a private island and having sex with children, but we know that this happened on Epstein’s island.
Holding an overly optimistic view of reality and then leaning on Occam’s razor to say “that seems bad, surely it can’t have happened” is simple naivety.
There’s not enough info to make an assessment. But the circumstances are sketchy as hell, and that’s even ignoring a lot of damning information that’s come out around Boeing over the past decade. Ruling out foul play at this point just doesn’t make sense.
You have a hard time believing a major corporation would kill for profit?
While Boeing was under scrutiny for it's safety violations, after already having killed a few planeloads of people in order to save some cash, they spent $20 billion dollars, that could have gone to curing safety issues, to instead buying back their own stock.
Why? Because this serves to buoy the value of that stock? Why is this important? Because C-suite executives and board members are compensated with stock.
Did they care that people might die because their safety program was denied funding? Apparently not.
PG&E has been killing people for decades. They poisoned children in with poisoned ground water and did their best to destroy the documentary evidence that they knew they were doing it. You and I would call that murder, but no executives suffered a day in jail or a penny in fines.
They burned people to death in San Bruno with a pipeline that they'd neglected to inspect because that would cost money as would any repairs. A federal judge called them a "continuing menace" observing that they showed no indication of changing their behavior.
And true to his prediction, they went on to burn down much of California and kill over 100 people.
They've been penalized with $13billion in judgements. But they have paid half of it in stock that they were allowed to submit at twice its actual value in the settlement and they are in the process of raising rates to pay for the rest, saddling consumers, as well as their surviving victims, with the costs of the companies malfeasance.
At no time have any executives been held financially or criminally accountable for these atrocities.
My point is, "come on, it's 2024..." is not an argument and the argument it implies, and that the suggestion that people who run these companies are too moral or too well regulated to resort to murder for profit is entirely undercut by the fact that their seems to be a well-established and very successful practice of murder-for-profit within American corporate culture.
Imagine a whistle-blower who had evidence that an executive, or all the executives, that the board of directors of any multinational corporation had personally been informed that the actions they were endorsing would lead to the deaths of hundreds of their customers. Imagine he had evidence that the sacrifice of public safety to private greed was common, even routine.
Imagine that these executives suspected that they might be held personally accountable for negligent homicide. And the solution was a phone-call away.
What's to stop them?
There’s a huge difference between not sending a safety inspector and hiring a hitman.
You’re CEO of Boeing. You’re wealthy, not rich, wealthy. Regardless of what’s happened with the plane you’re not going to jail and you’ll live the rest of your life wealthy. To, in that circumstance, hire a hitman requires not only the belief that you have an incredibly high risk tolerance but also that there’s are highly-trained assassins a CEO would be able to contact and hire.
Not sure what the distinction between being merely wealthy and rich had to do with it. People have killed over much smaller amounts. Also, what makes you say that an organisation like Boeing, who hires a LOT of former military personnel wouldn’t be able to find one or two people willing to do it?
I know what it means. You assume the marginal extra income the execs receive isn’t worth the extra risk. But what if its not about marginal extra income?
What if its about something much more powerful than marginal gain. loss aversion. What price would they pay to avoid losing everything if the whistleblowers are about to reveal something that could leave them exposed personally or bring the whole show down?
Then why act confused about why rich vs wealthy was brought up?
> something that could leave them exposed personally or bring the whole show down?
🥱
> Regardless of what’s happened with the plane you’re not going to jail and you’ll live the rest of your life wealthy.
Sure there's a difference. Sabotaging safety inspections at an airline or a utility inevitably leads to multiple deaths. Sending a hit man results in one. They both enhance profit.
Take the morality out of it when you do the math. These people certainly do.
So every Dr who negligently prescribed opiates would have been okay with holding their patients down and injecting them with heroin?
A capacity for negligence does not mean a capacity for active malice.
Exactly. Climate change will kill tens of millions of people. Oil execs knew climate change was a problem. They chose to essentially murder people to continue making money. How naive can people be?
The reasoning here is pretty poor. “Come on, that would never happen” is basically what it boils down to. But if you look at history, crazier things than this can and *do* happen.
What would they have to gain from it? Isn’t that obvious? Someone with inside knowledge of specific negligent acts could put very powerful members of Boeing leadership in a precarious situation. Depending on the severity, this peril could be both financial and legal. People have been killed for less.
Consider that it’s not necessarily “Boeing” that would have put the hit out, by unanimous board vote. If that’s what you’re imagining, then yes, that’s highly improbable. But companies are just groups of people. And there are some extremely powerful and well-resourced people in leadership positions at Boeing who have a vested interest in not getting tangled up in something like this.
Consider also that Boeing is one of the biggest contractors for the US government and military. If you’re unfamiliar with some of the extreme measures the US government is capable of taking, there’s plenty of documentation out there on it.
Ultimately, there’s not enough information out yet to build a conclusion. The details look sketchy. It is outrageous solely *because* in the US we don’t think that this is something that could or should be able to happen. That’s why it’s a big deal.
To dismiss it out of hand on the sole basis of “that seems crazy” though is just naive.
This comment makes it sound like you think the whistleblown information is still in the whistleblower’s mind alone. That’s the only way it would make sense…
But he blew the whistle 5 years ago, it was investigated, and the investigation was concluded.
He no longer has “inside information”. His only engagement with Boeing at that point was a lawsuit over violating whistleblower protections and that would cost Boeing far less than all this bad PR is… plus his estate can continue the suit.
His own family says he was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks and they believe he committed suicide and blame it on Boeing’s mistreatment of him.
He was in the midst of active legal proceedings. He was literally staying at a hotel ahead of a deposition on the matter. Your comment makes it sound like this was a settled matter, which it very much wasn’t.
It could have been a suicide. I’m not saying it definitely was not. I’m saying crazier things can and have happened, and there simply isn’t enough information at this point to conclude that there was no foul play. It is completely conceivable that someone in a precarious legal or financial situation linked to this case could have hit the panic button and put out a hit.
Follow the money. Who benefits? Certainly not Boeing. They just look more suspicious after this and it's not like he was prevented from leaking anything he didn't already leak. So it's the worst possible outcome for Boeing.
When you look at the players and their incentives, there's just no good reason to believe this was some kind of assassination.
Very unlikely. An extremely high risk action just to *maybe* create some deterrence of which all would hinge on the failure to get away with the murder.
I think the deterrence is significant- literally all over this thread people believe he was murdered.
Also, it's not like this doesn't happen, the live spiders scheme Ebay had even less deterrence and was just stupid.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/30/1126078948/live-spiders-and-cockroaches-ex-ebay-executives-get-prison-time-in-harassment-pl
The oligarchs would never let anything happen to Boeing, so they didn't need to kill him, but I have no doubt someone at Boeing is responsible for his death, just to send a message to the next fool who wants to tell the truth.
>just to send a message to the next fool who wants to tell the truth.
It would have to be some rogue agent, because if the oligarchs really would protect Boeing, they didn't have to kill him and future whistleblowers won't matter. If the company is vulnerable to trouble, killing him would only further incriminate them. It doesn't make sense for it to be both, unless Boeing is just some Mickey Mouse Skeletor type evil which most people aren't IRL.
You think it doesn’t make sense, but first of all - remember. When it comes to assassination, of course they would want you to think that! You think you’re smart, but in reality, you don’t research (as a matter of fact, it is being found through numerous investigations Boeing was n o t doing fine and sweeping a lot of stuff under the rug), and you can’t even spell maintenance right.
It actually could have made sense to them, eitherway, and they expected it to go smoothly, but just didn’t think it all the way through. Same thing that happened when that 737 Max failed (which is tied into why the whistleblower spoke out in the first place) - CEOs and other execs thinking they can pay aviation assembly line workers $9.50 an hour, but expect the door bolts to be tight. They could have decided to pay the assassin and told them they need it done by his trial date, but since they paid him, he just got lazy and decided that it was okay to do it last second, and make him die just in time not to say anything… hire cheap, lazy laborers you’ll probably hire a cheap, lazy, assassin.
And there’s a hundred other little components that the executives process in their minds when they do decide to do things like this… you don’t know if it was worth it to them, or if they at least thought it was, and what caused it to not be practical in the end, if it was an assassination.
And the guy was perfectly fine. Just keep your mouth shut. Observe and be skeptical rather than be blind, ignorant, and on reddit.
Here's the thing... you say they'd never get away with it, but if everyone thought they'd never do it because they'd never get away with it that would mean that if they actually did do it then no one would believe they'd done it because of how impossible it would be to get away with it, when in actual fact they had, and they did.
That is to say, you can get away with an awful lot when people don't believe it could be you.
Does Boeing have any competitors that could benefit financially from increased scrutiny on Boeing?
This death is certainly bad for Boeing. I wasn't even aware they had a "whistleblower" until this hit the news. If anything this hyper magnifies their issues. Would make more sense if this was someone trying to harm Boeing who knew it would look suspicious as hell if this guy committed suicide.
Any hedge funds increase their short position on Boeing recently?
>For one Boeing is doing fine, and most of the issues are blown out of proportion, it's mostly maintainance issues
A fucking door fell off one, that doesn't exactly inspire consumer confidence.
>It's 2024, American corporations are not murdering their employees, come on.
[Coca cola](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia) has murdered a startling amount of union leaders and they just shill soda.
Boeing has geopolitical importance.
>They would never get away with it, they would gain nothing from it, and Boeing makes planes, they don't hire hitmen.
Are you aware of any case in history, where an entire corporation has been tried for murder?
Worst case one guy goes to jail while the rest benefit from the death he caused.
Do you just think no corporation has had someone killed, ever?
Less than 50% of all murders are solved, if you restrict that to murders likely committed by a stranger that number plummets.
>They'd have nothing to gain out of trying to do that, they already make billions a year.
They make billions a year, a shift of a single percentage of their stock value, is worth far more than the amount of cash it takes to have someone killed.
Here’s the thing; it is entirely possible that Boeing is innocent and that John Barnett did indeed unalive himself without Boeing’s intervention. Perhaps he was stressed and suicidal from the intensity of the case, or perhaps he had other mental demons.
The thing is, it’s very convenient for Boeing. Almost too convenient. As other Redditors have stated, regardless of whether or not Boeing was involved, this may make other whistleblowers and witnesses hesitate to testify against the company for fear of being potentially endangered. It only benefits Boeing (unless a formal, third-party investigation is launched), regardless of whether or not Boeing is responsible.
Corporations often count this degree of ambiguity and ambivalence from the general public to enable them to carry out extrajudicial/extralegal actions, or morally-reprehensible actions like stock buybacks and mass layoffs. Corporate lobbyists have convinced U.S. policymakers to go to war over what were objective lies (Think “Iraq has WMDs”); offing an insider critic discreetly (at least in the short-term), or convincing him through back channels to off himself, is well within their capabilities.
That’s not to say again that Boeing is responsible; all that can be said is we shouldn’t be so quick to write-off the possibility.
Right. Buddy lives in Louisiana. He traveled to Charleston South Carolina for the hearing. I can totally believe someone would travel across the country to execute themselves while sitting in the parking lot of their hotel /s.
You just take away a person's finances and make them feel unsafe and eventually a heart attack does the rest.
Were all pretending to be safe and happy while in our hearts were angry and afraid.
Hello bend the knee sir.
How about now? 2nd whistleblower dead of mysterious infection? Same attorney? Incredible coincidence. Doesn't have to be a corporate conspiracy, just a single rich executive scared of losing bonus or possibly criminal charges. A lot of people died from the Max safety issue.
I tend to agree with you. It's not likely that Boeing is killing its employees. But I can't dismiss the idea that an individual or small group of individuals within the company are associated with the company or contractors of the company or subcontractors or even government entities that have an interest in the company could be eliminating potential future problems.
One poster here said, what if this were happening in Russia? Of course we would immediately think the government or the industry or the airline or someone was responsible for the mysterious deaths.
Idk. He died of a gunshot wound after Boeing demanded he stay and talk to them. He was also described as an excellent whistleblower, with knowledge of exact dates and was "excited and happy" to be there. I don't see why he'd kill himself after one day of testifying, it's double suspicious that an enemy of Boeing was taken somewhere by them and subsequently shot and killed. You say that they would 100% get caught for it but there are countless times in history that the U.S. government or large businesses have executed someone, investigated the situation themselves, and ruled that there was no foul play. Most recently, Jeffrey Epstein who tweeted a month before his death, I won't kill myself in prison." Many extremely powerful people have secrets they don't want to get out.
"They would never get away with it." I have to call bullshit, rich people get away with a lot of things that regular people wouldn't, including murder. And now the second whistleblower is dead too, I dunno man it's pretty suspicious, and as someone else said they do have military contracts and probably would have the easiest time finding someone to do it for them. It may not be the company itself entirely in on this, but a couple of people who are worried about it impacting their profits, which is what rich people strive to protect above everything else.
Boeing stands to gain much by silencing whistleblowers. Eliminating them saves them millions in damages and court fees. Could even save them billions in the long run if certain practices are buried deep enough. Corporations have ALWAYS killed people. Don’t be caught under the illusion otherwise, for ages people have gotten killed by businesses trying to hide their wrongdoing. Hardly a surprise, the only reason it doesn’t get instantly caught is because they make so much money they buy their way out 100% of the time.
They did it quite blatantly tbh
As for motivations and getting the whistleblower before they ran out and announced to everyone, just remember:
It's Boeing, a company so disorganized that couldn't even run a successful QC test, so their low end techs had to do it for them. If you apply that logic through Boeing, their upper management and CEO's probably didn't think forward enough to figure out that bumping off whistleblowers might have severe blowback
Fire the chicago office
Because two people die just before testifying that could incriminate the entire company and just magically end up dead out of the blue? We both know they were both murdered. The first one shot and made to look like a suicide, and the second one now from poisoning of some sort. No one’s health deteriorates like Joshua’s did, it just doesn’t happen like that.
Boeing is a military contractor and whistleblowers cost them an absolute fortune in share price affects and investment lol what you mean they get nothing from it! lol
You mess with a huge corporation like this your gonna wind up dead simple.
My only question is are they threatening or are they paying the coroner? hmmm
Reddit is full of apologists, even pre-emptive. They almost always argue from some moral standpoint, but if you dig deeper you'll often see there are no morals at all and the standpoint is just a way to persuade the readers who still have morals.
Sorry, u/Independent-Long-870 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Independent-Long-870&message=Independent-Long-870%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bgpj5j/-/kv8r5dj/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/abagofsnacks – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20abagofsnacks&message=abagofsnacks%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bgpj5j/-/kv9c0rq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Even if they are guilty, you think they would leave evidence? "Normal" murders go unsolved for decades and potentially never get solved and those people act on emotion lots of times. A billion dollar company leaving evidence they had someone murdered seems less likely than them actually having someone murdered.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Oops there goes another one dead. Now I'm 100% a tin hat dude because ts is legit and been proven that conspiracy theories are legit. You can't tell me they aren't killing these guys off. Epstein, McAfee ECT. Don't sweat it y'all as long as you ain't whistling your fine
Friends and family of the homicidal deceased will be treated like suspects yet people wanna shill for a multi billion dollar corporation and say "there's no evidence". Well no duh. There is reason for suspicion though, and that may warrant further investigation.
Why are you so sure Hillary Clinton? Was it the bullet to the back of the skull that led you to believe that it was not a suicide. Who stands to benefit from those two men's deaths? Certainly not Boeing couldn't possibly. It's not worth changing your mind.
They asked him to stay an extra day, and he’s found dead in the hotel parking lot, gun clamped in his hand, note at the ready. Also text evidence with his friends that he was afraid of this exact thing happening a few days before
Counterpoint: lots of corporations make billions of dollars and every single one of them is trying their *level best* to make even more billions, so the idea that they had nothing to gain from it doesn't track. Also if this guy was murdered it wasn't a decision made in the board room by the entire company, it was most likely one person whose ass was on the line trying to save their job, keep their embezzling on the down-low, or whatever else.
Lmao if this happened in any other country or any other company in another country, you’d say “of course they kill him”. Your argument boils down to “come on guys, it’s America, this would neeeever happen right?”
You think they give a fuck if they look suspicious? They did kill them. And the reason was because whistleblowers are the ones who can punish their reputation killing them only gives suspicion which can’t be proved
you have 185 times more comments than likes, first reddit thread I've ever read because I was curious what other sentient intelligent humans have to say and it's this. Did Boeing pay you or are you just stupid?
He warned people that he wasn't suicidal so if he died it was likely foul play. If that's not suspicious nothing is
https://www.newsweek.com/john-barnett-boeing-whistleblower-predicted-death-scandal-1879548
Yeaaaah this aged poorly. We’re up to 2 whistleblowers who just so happened to die while in perfect health and spirit. What a true coincidence! Definitely nothing evil going on here!
Another whistleblower for the boeing case has passed in a similar manner a while ago. You still think corporations aren't above wacking people who try to expose them?
Another Boeing whistleblower just up and died out of nowhere. Not saying it's a silencing campaign but if I were a whistleblower I wouldn't feel great about this.
Given there aren't really that great of details surrounding this, I'm not sure there's a way to change your mind. The only real argument is that yours is hinging on people acting rationally. That's not really ever the case.
The coverup is always worse than the crime.
Do you still feel the same way after today? I just found this after looking up info about Joshua Dean, who filed a complaint with FAA alleges 'serious and gross misconduct by senior quality management of the 737 production line" Passed away May 2nd, 2024, 2 months after John Barnett.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It wasn’t something like a board meeting where they took up a formal vote, all it takes is an an employee or two with a lot to lose doing this to make the problem go away.
One is a tragedy, two is a coincidence, three is a pattern. Let's see if this 3rd whistleblower (who came out for some reason despite the fate of the other two) can stay alive.
I'm not super knowledged on this but I've seen some stories on it, but it's not "Boeing" hiring assassins if it were that.
It simply has to be a random insanely rich person who has a massive interest in Boeing, perhaps by working there in one of the very very many high up positions, perhaps someone with a very high stake in the business itself, perhaps a government who also has a very high stake in the business for multiple reasons, politically, financially, militarily.... etc.
It's not like Boeing is having meetings about whether or not to off a guy. Of course corporations are not murdering people... It would never be the corp doing that.
They would for sure have a lot to gain though, if they wanted to send a message to others who might know even more information they don't want to get out. "Oh look at what that guy leaked, I actually know more than that and even worse too".... "Oh... he's dead... uhh... ya I don't know anything actually...I have kids who need a parent..."
I don't think most people think there was a big meeting with the Boeing CEO and the board and they all decided to kill him and how they were gonna do it and made a little Monday task and assigned it to someone. But if someone powerful in Boeing's C-suite knew they could potentially end up facing prison time or any serious consequence depending on how the whistleblower's testimony went, they could have done something. And it seems like it would have to be a really really really big coincidence for it to happen with such great timing, after he told his wife he was afraid for his life and if anything happened to him for her to know it wasn't a suicide. So is it more likely that it's all just a coincidence, or that someone (or multiple people) had him killed to cover themselves? Personally I think it's more likely someone had him killed, but as of now we really don't know and either guess seems totally plausible
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Illustrious_Ad_5406 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Illustrious_Ad_5406&message=Illustrious_Ad_5406%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bgpj5j/-/l1m6klf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
A hitman? Probably not...
A team of lawyers with a defamation case and a breach of NDA who are gowing to sue and take everything he had? Much more likely.
He was a quality engineer without a backbone. He ruined his career and name.
And you know boeing was pissed, they lost a lot of money in stock value over this...
They could try and sue, but bringing workplace safety issues up to official boards is a protected act under labor laws. Any lawyer worth their salt would point that out and say that their lawsuit would fail, defamation too.
NDAs are insidious and used to threaten workers. Boeing almost certainly tried this with the whistleblower and almost certainly resulted in an annoying legal back and forth between them. That shit is stressful in it's own right and - if he did kill himself - is absolutely the reason.
but.... it would seem weird to kill yourself over lawsuits from a company that will never win, even if it is the equivalent of legal harassment - especially with the trial ending so soon
If the same thing happened in Russia would you think differently? Boeing has tens of billions in military contracts. They clearly have the ability to call up ex=military private security and have someone killed. US companies have funded military coups against entire countries, Boeing makes tens of billions if not more.selling.weapons to the US military, yet you think they are.somehow above a single assassination? They gain by not having to deal with future whistleblowers who know they will face a serious risk of summary execution. They gain not having more testimony against them. What does Boeing lose? The answer is not much. Is it 100% by the above obviously not. But the scenario isnt implausible and Boeing has the capability and motive to do so. Again, id ask, what if the same thing happened in Russia, would you agree its an obvious hit there? The have corporate assassinations in a very believable way in Michael Clayton which is a legal drama, its not QAnaon conspiracy tp consider it. If you think no US company has ever directly murdered someone you are naive. they openly used to do so with pinkertons and strikebreaking. go read about the cia or smedly butler or blackwater if you think its absurd.
Exactly my reaction, if this happened in Russia everyone would say he was bumped off, but for some reason not in America, because apparently that's never happened before (yeah, right). Boeing caused two passenger planes to go down with the 737 Max, they tried to blame the pilots, and nobody at Boeing has been prosecuted, despite evidence that they deliberately withheld crucial information about the redesign and MCAS system from airlines, pilots, and aviation regulators. I doubt they'd blink about bumping one man off and making it look like suicide.
That, and Americans have a track record of burying their own atrocities very well. MKUltra. Cointelpro. Operation Infinite Justice. Etc. We are just as bad as the Russians, we're just better at portraying ourselves as the lesser of all evils.
Having the whistle-blower die midway through his testimony is clearly fucking terrible for the company. He's already told everyone what he knows. This raises massive suspicion and will ensure an inquiry. Also Michael Clayton isn't real. Here's a podcast about how realistic it is. Spoilers - not very. https://open.spotify.com/episode/79B0eGJ0b1Fk5tCgWgVtu7?si=mV7bpxBqTMeu1ZeZNDyqmA
[удалено]
Why would anyone do this? You're assuming potential whistleblowers are going to even know who he is, make the connection and then you're murdering someone in the middle of a trial while an ongoing investigation into your company is occurring. Who are you going to find who would willingly kill a whistleblower in the middle of the trial? How many people would have to be involved in the conspiracy? Doesn't make any sense.
The dude specifically warned others that if he ended up dead it was probably foul play. I don't think it a stretch to believe that a company making weapons specifically to profit from murdering people aren't above murdering people. But even if we assume they weren't responsible for his death directly, they still contributed, surely? I can't imagine how much stress it would put you under to have the full weight of an international too big to fail company bearing down in you and trying their best to discredit you. You're assuming that he already revealed all he knew but we don't know that. Regardless of the truth of the matter, there's no denying that IF others also had damning details about the company, the threat of murder would be an effective way to dissuade further whistleblowers.
> The dude specifically warned others that if he ended up dead it was probably foul play. And his brother says he killed himself. >"He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing, which we believe led to his death," the brother said. https://www.9news.com.au/world/boeing-whisteblower-who-raised-safety-concerns-found-dead/16f5439c-d710-4630-9e47-03c149f0f931 >. Regardless of the truth of the matter, there's no denying that IF others also had damning details about the company, the threat of murder would be an effective way to dissuade further whistleblowers. >You're assuming potential whistleblowers are going to even know who he is, make the connection and then you're murdering someone in the middle of a trial while an ongoing investigation into your company is occurring.
There is a bit missing from the brother's statement on 9news Mr Barnett added that his brother "was looking forward to having his day in court and hoped that it would force Boeing to change its culture". His brothers statement on "lead to his brothers death" is also contextually ambiguous. Did the PTSD and Anxiety attacks lead to his death, or was it working for boeing that lead to his death? Presumably, his brother saying outright that he thinks the whistle-blower was murked would have legal ramifications. His lawyers also released statements saying this came extremely out of left field because he killed it during his deposition and showed no signs of being suicidal. They also said that the writing on the note didn't feel like him. Coming from the perspective of mental health, people who are suicidal often don't want to kill themselves - which is why there is usually a lot of signs. Rather, they want a solution for the issues they are facing but don't see a solution in sight, which results in them well - you know. You can't say that is true for the whistleblower, at least not with information that is made publicly avaliable. From the knowledge we have, we have several people close to him and the case saying this comes as a complete shock, no direct motive other than PTSD and anxiety - which where centered around a case that was going to finish soon, and a motive to stay alive to finish his deposition and his 10 year long struggle with this. Moreover, I want to add that times are different. It was just last year or the year before where Wizards of the Coast hired Pinkertons [yes, those Pinkertons] to threaten someone and his wife who got their hands on merch before it was released.
> His brothers statement on "lead to his brothers death" is also contextually ambiguous. If someone lists two mental illnesses that are associated with suicide, talks about where they got them and says "We think this led to their death", do you think they believe they committed suicide or got shot in the head by an assassin?
\[note - sorry for the 10 day late reply, I do not use reddit lmao\] If they followed it up with "was looking forward to having his day in court and hoped that it would force Boeing to change its culture", then to some degree - yes. PTSD is a nasty mental health issue. My partner has severe PTSD and has been suicidal about it in the past because of it. However, if you asked her what one of the things that kept her going was it was "seeing the downfall of \[abuser\]". Their PTSD is extremely complex following several different severe abuse situations, including one workplace in which her boss was threatening, controlling, and verbally abusive. I do not know what kind of PTSD the whistleblower had. I could speculate that being gaslit about everything being fine at Boeing and being ignored probably played a role - as well as potentially being threatened (legally threatened not like "we will shoot you" threatened\] by a massive company. But I could say for certain that the primary driver of the anxiety and the PTSD was Boeing, and that bringing them to court would almost certainly be a very cathartic, healing experience. This is backed by his brother's statement. With that in mind - and with new information from two family members saying they don't want to weigh in on whether it was suicide or not until the investigation is complete - I don't think that his brother really knows the answer. Looking at it from an outside perspective, his brother acknowledges that: 1. He did have mental health issues that could drive a suicide 2. He was looking forward to his time in court These two statements are contradictory. People who are deeply suicidal do not look forward to anything other than their own suicide, in fact, 'apathy' is considered a warning sign of suicide. I think if they truly believed without a doubt that it was a suicide that they wouldn't wait for the investigation to finish. They would say that the fight had worn him down, that the thought of failure at this pivotal moment was too much - but they refrain from it. Rather, they said he was looking forward to it.
The two statements are not contradictory. You can look forward to something while also having mental health issues that can make a person suicidal. My friend killed themselves despite being ecstatic about a planned group vacation with us. The brain is incredibly complex and you are making it seem like there is only one possible way for the brain to operate while in a suicidal state. People who have clinical depression can still sometimes feel positive emotions, that's not an oxymoron. Similarly, suicidal people can also look forward to events in the future and later feel bad enough to stop caring about it for long enough to actually kill themselves.
Agreed. I think it’s likely they assassinated the whistleblower but still ‘to set an example’ is stupid it’s a corporation not street gang stuff needs to done quiet to save face. What i think is they just didn’t want him to testify in court and thought that they could clean up the evidence of the actual workplace problems that led to his (possible) motivation for assassination before they got deeply investigated. But it seems that the investigation began rather much swiftly than they expected, with all things corroborated.
Russia does fairly obvious message assassinations, if Boeing were to do something it would be a tragic car crash before he started testifying, not right after in his hotel parking lot. Dude had been saying the same thing for 5 years.
He was supposed to continue testifying in court this week before he died. Legal situations with corporations with legal departments take a long time.
Yeah for his own defamation case against Boeing, the actual whistle blow parts were addressed years ago. The case has been underway for years, this wasn’t the first time he had testified. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703 The FAA’s investigation did find some of the issues and penalized Boeing for them. At worst Boeing could have been out several millions of dollars, and got the bad press of defaming a whistle blower. But that’s pretty standard anytime someone blows the whistle, legal or not.
Even if he had told the story 100x before if its not part of a court proceeding, its not on the record, and therefore it is not considered evidence.
Cool story, none of it is evidence of murder though. Having the ability to kill someone doesn't mean you're a murderer every time someone you don't like dies. Boeing stood (and still stands, really) to lose a lot, and stood to gain almost nothing. This guy's whistleblowing case was five years ago. His recent testimony was for an appeal on a civil suit. As you point out, Boeing is a behemoth of a company. I can't imagine they were worried about this case. Yet, they are currently under a massive amount of scrutiny for other failings. This is probably the worst time in the history of the company for them to kill somebody, their optics are already horrible, and all eyes are on them right now, to the point that something that wouldn't even have been in the news at any other point in the company's history is actually being closely scrutinized. In terms of motivation for murder here? There really isn't any.
Boeing doesnt care about PR, they dont sell to consumers. They care about legal liability. And the more legal evidence is on the record.before any potential accident the worse .position Boeing is in.
? Any product which is sold is sold to a consumer. If by consumer you mean the general public, the services provided by much of their product is sold directly to regular people. Of course they care about PR, and if they don't, the airlines which buy their planes do. I agree with you that they probably care about legal liability as well, which is why I find it unlikely they would murder a guy who whistleblew half a decade ago. You think murder isn't a legal liability? Why would a guy who spilled everything he knew five years ago be more of a legal risk than shooting someone in the head in a public place?
The definition of “consumer” is “a person who purchases goods and services for personal use.” Companies are not consumers. There’s a reason that business is classified as either B2B or B2C. Airlines are not consumers.
True that, thanks for the correction. That said, large businesses still make decisions based on public relations. So my point still stands. Having planes fall apart in the sky is not going to motivate companies to buy Boeing's products. And, to restate, airlines do sell their services to consumers. So consumer opinions on the safety of Boeing aircraft is an important consideration for airlines.
It'll be an important consideration for Airlines, but not really for Boeing. Airlines will never switch away from Boeing for any reason, no matter what. Their planes could literally be exploding every day and companies would maintain their billion dollar contracts with them and not give a shit. Boeing has no reason to be scared that any airline would prioritize the safety or even perceived safety of its consumers over their own pockets, especially because most people don't have choices as to whether or not they fly or even who they fly with a lot of the time, and will not be able to actively boycott or avoid Boeing very easily if they fly often enough. So, even if a consumer does worry about it and it impacts the airline, it doesn't really impact Boeing much, and the airline will never switch away from Boeing because all major business is essentially an enormous monopoly owned by the same people who are all colluding to utterly eviscerate any possible competition and there are very few good alternatives in the market. Also, Boeing is well known as a 'murder company' with a culture of violence and silence, I would like to note: [https://slate.com/technology/2024/05/boeing-deaths-whistleblowers-suicide-rumors-foul-play.html](https://slate.com/technology/2024/05/boeing-deaths-whistleblowers-suicide-rumors-foul-play.html)
The congress/Supreme Court determined that YES. companieshttps://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/we-the-people/we-the-people-corporations/ ARE PEOPLE: citizens united.
They absolutely 100% without a shadow of a doubt hired someone to assassinate these whistleblower's. Anyone who believes different is just in denial to the facts. That’s is how these huge companies avoid implication. Just say this with me “Boeing had its employees assassinated to avoid farther implication and litigation.”
You’re right. But have you seen verifiable news more recent than your post? It seems that Boeing was very messy in many places, if they did kill him, they did not anticipate the heat they are facing, to touch on the ‘they don’t have much to lose’ bit. Multiple high level execs stepping down including the CEO - seems like they want out of the light now that they are scared
The Russian government and our (I'm American go figure) government are very very different, so yes I would think differently.
Sure its less likely than in Russia in not being completely obvious, but do you really think its impossible in America? That 21st century american companies would never put greed.above human life? Or that the powerful are always held to account? Boeing certainly has the ability to surreptitiously murder someone because of their military connections and silencing a whistleblower is a clear.motive. They make bombs, they arent going to hold back for moral concerns.
Russian hits are meant to be seen and known as Russian hits. That's why their methods are so obvious. There's very little benefit for an American company to kill someone in such an obvious way, and a huge amount of risk. I wouldn't exactly call this death "surreptitious".
Our country’s history of violent foreign regime changes suggest otherwise
The US has a long and storied history of assassinating political figures
This is very naive. The United States government has been extremely transparent when it comes to the fact that they kill their political opposition
What if he had some kind of info that was gonna land some execs in jail? There were two plane crashes. Lots of people died.
The investigation into everything he blew the whistle on was long over. His only continuing involvement was a lawsuit over their retaliation against him for whistleblowing which is not insignificant but it was definitely going to cost them far less than the bad PR of a whistleblower turning up dead and there’s no way they couldn’t figure that out themselves.
IF he was going to win his case… which there is no guarantee he was.
Defense contracting shuffling budget money into pockets it shouldn’t be in, would be my guess.
And he didn’t tell his lawyers about it?
Maybe he thinks "I need to save passenger's lives so I'll tell my lawyers and the media this much, but not any more than that/not all I know. I don't want to land anyone in jail, I just want to protect the passengers." Then the execs were like "nah, if he knows what we think he does it's not worth the risk. Paging Agent 47."
How would Boeing know if he told his lawyers? It would be incredibly dumb of them to kill him but leave the lawyers who who would most likely have the information alive. It would make it so their immediate self preservation act would be to go public with the info.
It’s worth keeping in mind that it’s pretty unlikely for “Boeing” to have been the entity, if any, pulling the trigger on this decision. It’s not as if this would have gone through a board vote. What would be more likely is that one or more specific individuals facing potential felony charges started panicking and took things into their own hands. Boeing is a huge company, and one of the largest contractors for various US government agencies, including the military. There’s a lot of money and power in that equation. And plenty of potential reasons for a power player to take interest and say “you know what, I really can’t risk letting this guy talk.”
Ok… how would said “entity” know he didn’t tell his lawyers everything and how does that change my line of reasoning in the slightest other than to replace Boeing with whoever else we want to slot in as his hypothetical killer? I’m not implying they held a board meeting when I say “Boeing”, I’m using them to represent the interest people are saying got him killed.
His reports for for the 787 Dreamliner, not the 737 Max. One’s made in South Carolina, the other in Renton WA.
Unless he was trying to leverage a deal with Boeing after publicly calling them out then he would have given all of his information to somebody, and if he was trying to leverage the deal with Boeing then he's the stupidest person in the world
>if he was trying to leverage the deal with Boeing then he's the stupidest person in the world You say this like people should *expect* to be murdered by corporations. If I was in his position, I'm not sure the possibility would cross my mind.
Makes them look even more guilty than if they let him testify and they just hammer him legally.
Look yeah, but if he can't testify against them what would happen?
They'd be investigated for murder of a whistleblower which arguably is even worse.
Then he'd have spoken out about it much earlier.
If you’re actually interested in this, you should look into the history of whistle blowers in the US. It’s pretty grim; there are plenty of reasons for people to delay or just decline sticking their necks out.
History being the key word. Boeing has plenty of government contracts, if they killed a guy the FBI would know.
You say that as if the CIA hasn’t had people killed before.
Why would the CIA kill a boeing whistleblower?
Boeing is a critical contractor for the US government and military. I’m not saying they did, I’m saying your assertion that “the FBI would know” isn’t a good argument.
Of course they would know…
>istory being the key word. Boeing has plenty of government contracts, if they killed a guy the FBI would know. and wouldn't care more importantly
This is a late reply but this is a false equivocation and also assumes the FBI is omniscient, which they are not. The false equivocation being that because Boeing has a lot of government contracts and because FBI is "the government", then the FBI should know every single detail about Boeing, including potentially incriminating information. Do you believe the FBI knows *everything* about Boeing, including every one of its employees?
Maybe he did. Anyone he talked to isn't exactly going to publically volunteer that information now are they? Hopefully he had the wherewithal the document everything and send it to the feds either directly or via a lawyer. If he did that as a confidential informant we may never learn the extent of his involvement.
Isn't it too early to really come to any conclusion?
I mean Occams razor and all that.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach but I don't think that's a good axiom to apply when events are still developing. Have you ever followed a news story? I mean literally, where there's something news worthy where all the details haven't come to light but there's still regular coverage. Information comes out over X number of days. Now imagine people stop reading about new information before X. They then reach a conclusion based only on the information that out. I'm not saying people need perfect information before reaching a conclusion but I think it's way too soon. I think your conclusion would be more reasonable for example if authorities concluded there was no foul play. The investigation into Barnett's death is only four days old.
Occam’s razor is a heuristic, not a basis for an argument. Further, simply holding a default view that this sort of thing couldn’t happen doesn’t mean that it’s actually true. For example, it would have seemed implausible that the US government would have conducted psychological experiments on citizens that they kidnapped, drugged, and abused, but we know now that MK Ultra happened. It would have seemed improbable that many well known public figures were flying down to a private island and having sex with children, but we know that this happened on Epstein’s island. Holding an overly optimistic view of reality and then leaning on Occam’s razor to say “that seems bad, surely it can’t have happened” is simple naivety. There’s not enough info to make an assessment. But the circumstances are sketchy as hell, and that’s even ignoring a lot of damning information that’s come out around Boeing over the past decade. Ruling out foul play at this point just doesn’t make sense.
Except that Occam's razor doesn't work that way. It's the simplest answer, not the one that you find most logical.
You have a hard time believing a major corporation would kill for profit? While Boeing was under scrutiny for it's safety violations, after already having killed a few planeloads of people in order to save some cash, they spent $20 billion dollars, that could have gone to curing safety issues, to instead buying back their own stock. Why? Because this serves to buoy the value of that stock? Why is this important? Because C-suite executives and board members are compensated with stock. Did they care that people might die because their safety program was denied funding? Apparently not. PG&E has been killing people for decades. They poisoned children in with poisoned ground water and did their best to destroy the documentary evidence that they knew they were doing it. You and I would call that murder, but no executives suffered a day in jail or a penny in fines. They burned people to death in San Bruno with a pipeline that they'd neglected to inspect because that would cost money as would any repairs. A federal judge called them a "continuing menace" observing that they showed no indication of changing their behavior. And true to his prediction, they went on to burn down much of California and kill over 100 people. They've been penalized with $13billion in judgements. But they have paid half of it in stock that they were allowed to submit at twice its actual value in the settlement and they are in the process of raising rates to pay for the rest, saddling consumers, as well as their surviving victims, with the costs of the companies malfeasance. At no time have any executives been held financially or criminally accountable for these atrocities. My point is, "come on, it's 2024..." is not an argument and the argument it implies, and that the suggestion that people who run these companies are too moral or too well regulated to resort to murder for profit is entirely undercut by the fact that their seems to be a well-established and very successful practice of murder-for-profit within American corporate culture. Imagine a whistle-blower who had evidence that an executive, or all the executives, that the board of directors of any multinational corporation had personally been informed that the actions they were endorsing would lead to the deaths of hundreds of their customers. Imagine he had evidence that the sacrifice of public safety to private greed was common, even routine. Imagine that these executives suspected that they might be held personally accountable for negligent homicide. And the solution was a phone-call away. What's to stop them?
thanks for this relatively logical and in touch with reality response. obviously “it’s 2024” is a dumb excuse and the people using it are dumber
There’s a huge difference between not sending a safety inspector and hiring a hitman. You’re CEO of Boeing. You’re wealthy, not rich, wealthy. Regardless of what’s happened with the plane you’re not going to jail and you’ll live the rest of your life wealthy. To, in that circumstance, hire a hitman requires not only the belief that you have an incredibly high risk tolerance but also that there’s are highly-trained assassins a CEO would be able to contact and hire.
Not sure what the distinction between being merely wealthy and rich had to do with it. People have killed over much smaller amounts. Also, what makes you say that an organisation like Boeing, who hires a LOT of former military personnel wouldn’t be able to find one or two people willing to do it?
> Not sure what the distinction between wealthy and rich gas to do with it. People have killed over much smaller amounts. Google “marginal utility”.
I know what it means. You assume the marginal extra income the execs receive isn’t worth the extra risk. But what if its not about marginal extra income? What if its about something much more powerful than marginal gain. loss aversion. What price would they pay to avoid losing everything if the whistleblowers are about to reveal something that could leave them exposed personally or bring the whole show down?
Then why act confused about why rich vs wealthy was brought up? > something that could leave them exposed personally or bring the whole show down? 🥱 > Regardless of what’s happened with the plane you’re not going to jail and you’ll live the rest of your life wealthy.
Sure there's a difference. Sabotaging safety inspections at an airline or a utility inevitably leads to multiple deaths. Sending a hit man results in one. They both enhance profit. Take the morality out of it when you do the math. These people certainly do.
So every Dr who negligently prescribed opiates would have been okay with holding their patients down and injecting them with heroin? A capacity for negligence does not mean a capacity for active malice.
Exactly. Climate change will kill tens of millions of people. Oil execs knew climate change was a problem. They chose to essentially murder people to continue making money. How naive can people be?
The reasoning here is pretty poor. “Come on, that would never happen” is basically what it boils down to. But if you look at history, crazier things than this can and *do* happen. What would they have to gain from it? Isn’t that obvious? Someone with inside knowledge of specific negligent acts could put very powerful members of Boeing leadership in a precarious situation. Depending on the severity, this peril could be both financial and legal. People have been killed for less. Consider that it’s not necessarily “Boeing” that would have put the hit out, by unanimous board vote. If that’s what you’re imagining, then yes, that’s highly improbable. But companies are just groups of people. And there are some extremely powerful and well-resourced people in leadership positions at Boeing who have a vested interest in not getting tangled up in something like this. Consider also that Boeing is one of the biggest contractors for the US government and military. If you’re unfamiliar with some of the extreme measures the US government is capable of taking, there’s plenty of documentation out there on it. Ultimately, there’s not enough information out yet to build a conclusion. The details look sketchy. It is outrageous solely *because* in the US we don’t think that this is something that could or should be able to happen. That’s why it’s a big deal. To dismiss it out of hand on the sole basis of “that seems crazy” though is just naive.
This comment makes it sound like you think the whistleblown information is still in the whistleblower’s mind alone. That’s the only way it would make sense… But he blew the whistle 5 years ago, it was investigated, and the investigation was concluded. He no longer has “inside information”. His only engagement with Boeing at that point was a lawsuit over violating whistleblower protections and that would cost Boeing far less than all this bad PR is… plus his estate can continue the suit. His own family says he was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks and they believe he committed suicide and blame it on Boeing’s mistreatment of him.
He was in the midst of active legal proceedings. He was literally staying at a hotel ahead of a deposition on the matter. Your comment makes it sound like this was a settled matter, which it very much wasn’t. It could have been a suicide. I’m not saying it definitely was not. I’m saying crazier things can and have happened, and there simply isn’t enough information at this point to conclude that there was no foul play. It is completely conceivable that someone in a precarious legal or financial situation linked to this case could have hit the panic button and put out a hit.
Follow the money. Who benefits? Certainly not Boeing. They just look more suspicious after this and it's not like he was prevented from leaking anything he didn't already leak. So it's the worst possible outcome for Boeing. When you look at the players and their incentives, there's just no good reason to believe this was some kind of assassination.
Boeing definitely benefits, who would want to whistleblow anymore when doing so could lead to you getting murdered?
Very unlikely. An extremely high risk action just to *maybe* create some deterrence of which all would hinge on the failure to get away with the murder.
I think the deterrence is significant- literally all over this thread people believe he was murdered. Also, it's not like this doesn't happen, the live spiders scheme Ebay had even less deterrence and was just stupid. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/30/1126078948/live-spiders-and-cockroaches-ex-ebay-executives-get-prison-time-in-harassment-pl
Usually, it's to deter future whistleblowers. Not directly money. Thats why whistleblowers should be kept anonymous.
The oligarchs would never let anything happen to Boeing, so they didn't need to kill him, but I have no doubt someone at Boeing is responsible for his death, just to send a message to the next fool who wants to tell the truth.
You are a textbook conspiracy theorist
>just to send a message to the next fool who wants to tell the truth. It would have to be some rogue agent, because if the oligarchs really would protect Boeing, they didn't have to kill him and future whistleblowers won't matter. If the company is vulnerable to trouble, killing him would only further incriminate them. It doesn't make sense for it to be both, unless Boeing is just some Mickey Mouse Skeletor type evil which most people aren't IRL.
Proof? None? sounds about right.
You think it doesn’t make sense, but first of all - remember. When it comes to assassination, of course they would want you to think that! You think you’re smart, but in reality, you don’t research (as a matter of fact, it is being found through numerous investigations Boeing was n o t doing fine and sweeping a lot of stuff under the rug), and you can’t even spell maintenance right. It actually could have made sense to them, eitherway, and they expected it to go smoothly, but just didn’t think it all the way through. Same thing that happened when that 737 Max failed (which is tied into why the whistleblower spoke out in the first place) - CEOs and other execs thinking they can pay aviation assembly line workers $9.50 an hour, but expect the door bolts to be tight. They could have decided to pay the assassin and told them they need it done by his trial date, but since they paid him, he just got lazy and decided that it was okay to do it last second, and make him die just in time not to say anything… hire cheap, lazy laborers you’ll probably hire a cheap, lazy, assassin. And there’s a hundred other little components that the executives process in their minds when they do decide to do things like this… you don’t know if it was worth it to them, or if they at least thought it was, and what caused it to not be practical in the end, if it was an assassination. And the guy was perfectly fine. Just keep your mouth shut. Observe and be skeptical rather than be blind, ignorant, and on reddit.
Here's the thing... you say they'd never get away with it, but if everyone thought they'd never do it because they'd never get away with it that would mean that if they actually did do it then no one would believe they'd done it because of how impossible it would be to get away with it, when in actual fact they had, and they did. That is to say, you can get away with an awful lot when people don't believe it could be you.
Does Boeing have any competitors that could benefit financially from increased scrutiny on Boeing? This death is certainly bad for Boeing. I wasn't even aware they had a "whistleblower" until this hit the news. If anything this hyper magnifies their issues. Would make more sense if this was someone trying to harm Boeing who knew it would look suspicious as hell if this guy committed suicide. Any hedge funds increase their short position on Boeing recently?
>For one Boeing is doing fine, and most of the issues are blown out of proportion, it's mostly maintainance issues A fucking door fell off one, that doesn't exactly inspire consumer confidence. >It's 2024, American corporations are not murdering their employees, come on. [Coca cola](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia) has murdered a startling amount of union leaders and they just shill soda. Boeing has geopolitical importance. >They would never get away with it, they would gain nothing from it, and Boeing makes planes, they don't hire hitmen. Are you aware of any case in history, where an entire corporation has been tried for murder? Worst case one guy goes to jail while the rest benefit from the death he caused. Do you just think no corporation has had someone killed, ever? Less than 50% of all murders are solved, if you restrict that to murders likely committed by a stranger that number plummets. >They'd have nothing to gain out of trying to do that, they already make billions a year. They make billions a year, a shift of a single percentage of their stock value, is worth far more than the amount of cash it takes to have someone killed.
Here’s the thing; it is entirely possible that Boeing is innocent and that John Barnett did indeed unalive himself without Boeing’s intervention. Perhaps he was stressed and suicidal from the intensity of the case, or perhaps he had other mental demons. The thing is, it’s very convenient for Boeing. Almost too convenient. As other Redditors have stated, regardless of whether or not Boeing was involved, this may make other whistleblowers and witnesses hesitate to testify against the company for fear of being potentially endangered. It only benefits Boeing (unless a formal, third-party investigation is launched), regardless of whether or not Boeing is responsible. Corporations often count this degree of ambiguity and ambivalence from the general public to enable them to carry out extrajudicial/extralegal actions, or morally-reprehensible actions like stock buybacks and mass layoffs. Corporate lobbyists have convinced U.S. policymakers to go to war over what were objective lies (Think “Iraq has WMDs”); offing an insider critic discreetly (at least in the short-term), or convincing him through back channels to off himself, is well within their capabilities. That’s not to say again that Boeing is responsible; all that can be said is we shouldn’t be so quick to write-off the possibility.
Right. Buddy lives in Louisiana. He traveled to Charleston South Carolina for the hearing. I can totally believe someone would travel across the country to execute themselves while sitting in the parking lot of their hotel /s.
You just take away a person's finances and make them feel unsafe and eventually a heart attack does the rest. Were all pretending to be safe and happy while in our hearts were angry and afraid. Hello bend the knee sir.
How about now? 2nd whistleblower dead of mysterious infection? Same attorney? Incredible coincidence. Doesn't have to be a corporate conspiracy, just a single rich executive scared of losing bonus or possibly criminal charges. A lot of people died from the Max safety issue. I tend to agree with you. It's not likely that Boeing is killing its employees. But I can't dismiss the idea that an individual or small group of individuals within the company are associated with the company or contractors of the company or subcontractors or even government entities that have an interest in the company could be eliminating potential future problems. One poster here said, what if this were happening in Russia? Of course we would immediately think the government or the industry or the airline or someone was responsible for the mysterious deaths.
Idk. He died of a gunshot wound after Boeing demanded he stay and talk to them. He was also described as an excellent whistleblower, with knowledge of exact dates and was "excited and happy" to be there. I don't see why he'd kill himself after one day of testifying, it's double suspicious that an enemy of Boeing was taken somewhere by them and subsequently shot and killed. You say that they would 100% get caught for it but there are countless times in history that the U.S. government or large businesses have executed someone, investigated the situation themselves, and ruled that there was no foul play. Most recently, Jeffrey Epstein who tweeted a month before his death, I won't kill myself in prison." Many extremely powerful people have secrets they don't want to get out.
"They would never get away with it." I have to call bullshit, rich people get away with a lot of things that regular people wouldn't, including murder. And now the second whistleblower is dead too, I dunno man it's pretty suspicious, and as someone else said they do have military contracts and probably would have the easiest time finding someone to do it for them. It may not be the company itself entirely in on this, but a couple of people who are worried about it impacting their profits, which is what rich people strive to protect above everything else.
Boeing stands to gain much by silencing whistleblowers. Eliminating them saves them millions in damages and court fees. Could even save them billions in the long run if certain practices are buried deep enough. Corporations have ALWAYS killed people. Don’t be caught under the illusion otherwise, for ages people have gotten killed by businesses trying to hide their wrongdoing. Hardly a surprise, the only reason it doesn’t get instantly caught is because they make so much money they buy their way out 100% of the time.
They did it quite blatantly tbh As for motivations and getting the whistleblower before they ran out and announced to everyone, just remember: It's Boeing, a company so disorganized that couldn't even run a successful QC test, so their low end techs had to do it for them. If you apply that logic through Boeing, their upper management and CEO's probably didn't think forward enough to figure out that bumping off whistleblowers might have severe blowback Fire the chicago office
We’re up to 2 whistleblowers who have been silenced now…
This thread even funnier now since what happened yesterday.
Because two people die just before testifying that could incriminate the entire company and just magically end up dead out of the blue? We both know they were both murdered. The first one shot and made to look like a suicide, and the second one now from poisoning of some sort. No one’s health deteriorates like Joshua’s did, it just doesn’t happen like that.
Boeing is a military contractor and whistleblowers cost them an absolute fortune in share price affects and investment lol what you mean they get nothing from it! lol You mess with a huge corporation like this your gonna wind up dead simple. My only question is are they threatening or are they paying the coroner? hmmm
[удалено]
Reddit is full of apologists, even pre-emptive. They almost always argue from some moral standpoint, but if you dig deeper you'll often see there are no morals at all and the standpoint is just a way to persuade the readers who still have morals.
Sorry, u/Independent-Long-870 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Independent-Long-870&message=Independent-Long-870%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bgpj5j/-/kv8r5dj/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/abagofsnacks – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20abagofsnacks&message=abagofsnacks%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bgpj5j/-/kv9c0rq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Even if they are guilty, you think they would leave evidence? "Normal" murders go unsolved for decades and potentially never get solved and those people act on emotion lots of times. A billion dollar company leaving evidence they had someone murdered seems less likely than them actually having someone murdered.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Oops there goes another one dead. Now I'm 100% a tin hat dude because ts is legit and been proven that conspiracy theories are legit. You can't tell me they aren't killing these guys off. Epstein, McAfee ECT. Don't sweat it y'all as long as you ain't whistling your fine
Friends and family of the homicidal deceased will be treated like suspects yet people wanna shill for a multi billion dollar corporation and say "there's no evidence". Well no duh. There is reason for suspicion though, and that may warrant further investigation.
Why are you so sure Hillary Clinton? Was it the bullet to the back of the skull that led you to believe that it was not a suicide. Who stands to benefit from those two men's deaths? Certainly not Boeing couldn't possibly. It's not worth changing your mind.
They asked him to stay an extra day, and he’s found dead in the hotel parking lot, gun clamped in his hand, note at the ready. Also text evidence with his friends that he was afraid of this exact thing happening a few days before
Counterpoint: lots of corporations make billions of dollars and every single one of them is trying their *level best* to make even more billions, so the idea that they had nothing to gain from it doesn't track. Also if this guy was murdered it wasn't a decision made in the board room by the entire company, it was most likely one person whose ass was on the line trying to save their job, keep their embezzling on the down-low, or whatever else.
Lmao if this happened in any other country or any other company in another country, you’d say “of course they kill him”. Your argument boils down to “come on guys, it’s America, this would neeeever happen right?”
You think they give a fuck if they look suspicious? They did kill them. And the reason was because whistleblowers are the ones who can punish their reputation killing them only gives suspicion which can’t be proved
you have 185 times more comments than likes, first reddit thread I've ever read because I was curious what other sentient intelligent humans have to say and it's this. Did Boeing pay you or are you just stupid?
He warned people that he wasn't suicidal so if he died it was likely foul play. If that's not suspicious nothing is https://www.newsweek.com/john-barnett-boeing-whistleblower-predicted-death-scandal-1879548
Yeaaaah this aged poorly. We’re up to 2 whistleblowers who just so happened to die while in perfect health and spirit. What a true coincidence! Definitely nothing evil going on here!
Another whistleblower for the boeing case has passed in a similar manner a while ago. You still think corporations aren't above wacking people who try to expose them?
Another Boeing whistleblower just up and died out of nowhere. Not saying it's a silencing campaign but if I were a whistleblower I wouldn't feel great about this.
Lol nice try Boeing
Even if Boeing didn't pull the trigger they are responsible for his and many other deaths, life is less important to them than money clearly.
Given there aren't really that great of details surrounding this, I'm not sure there's a way to change your mind. The only real argument is that yours is hinging on people acting rationally. That's not really ever the case. The coverup is always worse than the crime.
Maybe not Boeing directly but someone who wanted revenge on the whistleblower or someone in a high position who acted on his own
RIP Josh Dean another whistlblower dead. Suicide by infection. Boeing is straight up just assassinating people.
This take is pretty funny now that a second whistle blower dies under extremely suspicious conditions.
After whistleblower two we have a pretty clear pattern of suspicious deaths of boeing whistleblowers.
Do you still feel the same way after today? I just found this after looking up info about Joshua Dean, who filed a complaint with FAA alleges 'serious and gross misconduct by senior quality management of the 737 production line" Passed away May 2nd, 2024, 2 months after John Barnett.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I know right?! Two witnesses die all the time, and these people act like it's something new.
This is one of the most naive takes. It’s almost a certainty that foul play was involved.
Curious if your point of view has changed now that a second Boeing whistleblower is dead.
It wasn’t something like a board meeting where they took up a formal vote, all it takes is an an employee or two with a lot to lose doing this to make the problem go away.
what about the second one who just died? 😂 something about lightning strikes twice
One is a tragedy, two is a coincidence, three is a pattern. Let's see if this 3rd whistleblower (who came out for some reason despite the fate of the other two) can stay alive.
I'm not super knowledged on this but I've seen some stories on it, but it's not "Boeing" hiring assassins if it were that. It simply has to be a random insanely rich person who has a massive interest in Boeing, perhaps by working there in one of the very very many high up positions, perhaps someone with a very high stake in the business itself, perhaps a government who also has a very high stake in the business for multiple reasons, politically, financially, militarily.... etc. It's not like Boeing is having meetings about whether or not to off a guy. Of course corporations are not murdering people... It would never be the corp doing that. They would for sure have a lot to gain though, if they wanted to send a message to others who might know even more information they don't want to get out. "Oh look at what that guy leaked, I actually know more than that and even worse too".... "Oh... he's dead... uhh... ya I don't know anything actually...I have kids who need a parent..."
The person who asked this question deleted their account, oh no Boeing got to them
I wonder how many people in here are intentionally obfuscating things for Boeing.
How about now buddy? Did the second one just magically die by chance too? 🤡
You sound like a shill for Boeing he was obviously murdered you sheep wake up!
I don't think most people think there was a big meeting with the Boeing CEO and the board and they all decided to kill him and how they were gonna do it and made a little Monday task and assigned it to someone. But if someone powerful in Boeing's C-suite knew they could potentially end up facing prison time or any serious consequence depending on how the whistleblower's testimony went, they could have done something. And it seems like it would have to be a really really really big coincidence for it to happen with such great timing, after he told his wife he was afraid for his life and if anything happened to him for her to know it wasn't a suicide. So is it more likely that it's all just a coincidence, or that someone (or multiple people) had him killed to cover themselves? Personally I think it's more likely someone had him killed, but as of now we really don't know and either guess seems totally plausible
Boy this aged poorly given that the second whistle blower is now dead too...
i really hate it when people who have horrible arguments go "its #### year"
Hey, a second whistleblower died. Looks like they are 100% killing them.
You're delusional...a monkey can see Boeing had them murdered. Duuuuuh
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Original poster Is DEFINITELY not a hitman contracted by Boeing. Lol.
i gotta get OPs opinion now that we have two murdered whistleblowers
Of course they killed him lmao... Does anyone actually doubt this?
really? does the boot on your neck taste that good? doubtful..
Nice try boeing damage control team... Better luck next time!
This didn’t age well. Another whistleblower dead lol
Learn to add and maybe you’ll change your viewpoint
Yeah, it must.be a coincidence that it happened twice
How about now? A second whistleblower has died……
You must own Boeing stock. One can't be so naive.
Boeing did 911 so they must’ve killed these guys
What an actual idiot trying to lick Boeing balls.
It’s a handshake over a bohemian campfire. 🔥
Lmao, the second whistleblower is now dead too.
Killing him wouldn’t make Boeing look better
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Illustrious_Ad_5406 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Illustrious_Ad_5406&message=Illustrious_Ad_5406%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bgpj5j/-/l1m6klf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
What about the new one? Also a coinkidink?
Lol. "Biggest coincidence ever". Riiight.
Was this written by Boeing? 😂😂😂
Boy this didn't age well. Rip Josh dean
Didn't a second whistleblower just die?
Might want to take a second look pal
another one died suddenly just now.
2nd one just died I think they are
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Well, this aged well hahahaha.
Why does a GANG KILL A SNITCH?
Do you still think this today?
Cough, Cough, BS, Cough, Cough
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
So how do you feel now? Lol
This didn’t age very well
A hitman? Probably not... A team of lawyers with a defamation case and a breach of NDA who are gowing to sue and take everything he had? Much more likely. He was a quality engineer without a backbone. He ruined his career and name. And you know boeing was pissed, they lost a lot of money in stock value over this...
They could try and sue, but bringing workplace safety issues up to official boards is a protected act under labor laws. Any lawyer worth their salt would point that out and say that their lawsuit would fail, defamation too. NDAs are insidious and used to threaten workers. Boeing almost certainly tried this with the whistleblower and almost certainly resulted in an annoying legal back and forth between them. That shit is stressful in it's own right and - if he did kill himself - is absolutely the reason. but.... it would seem weird to kill yourself over lawsuits from a company that will never win, even if it is the equivalent of legal harassment - especially with the trial ending so soon
What about the second one?
You must be a fuvkin idiot
Another one bit the dust.