Boeing: Dead whistleblower warned of safety breaches
bbc.com
A former Boeing employee, who was found dead in March, accused the company of "countless" violations of US law in testimony given just before his death.
John Barnett claimed the firm tried to "eliminate" quality inspections at a plant that makes 787 planes.
The former quality control manager had been giving a formal legal deposition against the plane manufacturer.
The transcript of Mr Barnett's deposition has now been released by his lawyers. The lengthy document runs to more than 140 pages.
The bulk of Mr Barnett's deposition focuses on the period from 2010 onwards, after he had moved from Boeing's facility in Everett, Washington to what was then a brand-new factory in North Charleston.
You are viewing a single comment
This makes no sense.
Tell me who did it: The CEO? The share holders? A disgruntled co-worker?
Then give me motive. Nothing got stopped from coming out. And even if he had testified, no one is ever going to be punished. Money will smooth over problems as always.
So unless you can make a convincing argument, this seems very unlikely.
Tbh it doesn't even have to be boeing who did it. Boeing is important to the government (actually multiple governments) and it's not exactly a stretch to consider said governments are involved.
Also if we go with thinking boeing did do it, look at almost any organized crime related murder.
Or some combination of the two.
People have been killed for far, far less. And there are a lot of people who will hurt other people purely for revenge, regardless of any other factor.
The point is, I don't think it's as much of a stretch as you seem to think.
I just don't see it.
Any wealthy person simply uses wealth. If this was not America, I would think maybe. But this is America. It is easier to buy and sell favors then bother with messy killings.
Killing someone is a favor than can be purchased. I don't think anyone is saying the CEO of Boeing went there and killed him himself. People are saying they had him killed, as in paid someone to kill him. That is something you can do, especially if you have as much money as these people do. Hell, you hear about it occasionally with people who have normal amounts of wealth.
But then there is a trail of money, and people to keep quiet. Most wealthy people can afford NOT to go around killing people. Because what is going to happen to them if they don't? NOTHING.
Yes, yet people get away with this all the time. Even if the killer gets caught, loyalty can be enough to keep them quiet.
Think about all the people that Putin has "probably" had killed. And the assassinations by the CIA and other intelligence agencies throughout the world.
Here are the notable hitmen that we know about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contract_killers_and_hitmen
Ok people have been killed for things. So who did it. And more importantly, why? There is zero gain here.
Unless it a reverse ploy, where the threat is against Boeing.... if they don't get their shit together .....
There are $105.6 billion in reasons. Public knowledge of safety measures and quality control directly effects stock price. That's billions of dollars tied up in knowledge not becoming public. Who benefits? Shareholders. Not knowing who did it doesn't mean it wasn't murder. Plenty of murders happen without knowing the culprit or even specific motive. The guy outright said "if I die, I was killed". And then he kills himself for the memes? What's his motive for suicide, especially given his quotes regarding it?
So now it might be a shareholder? I am beginning to think it is just as likely that the Union did it, as opposed to the CEO or Board. Maintain power, keep benefits for the employees, keep the eyes off of just how bad the drug problems had been on the lines.
Think about it, Barnetts death doesnt even benefit Boeing. It only causes more controversy, and everything he was going to testify about gets even more scrutiny. Public opinion is even worse. Boeing is going to be found negligent, they are going to pay fines, and those things really will have no major effect on the company or the people with money.
It's the exact same argument for the company. Protect the money. Benefits for the Union? It's money via benefits. If stock price isn't motivation for the company, it isn't motivation for the Union. If keeping the negatove publicity of a drug problem on the lines a secret is motivation for the Union, keeping the negative publicity of a corner cutting secret is motivation for the company (ESPECIALLY amid previous negative publicity with the 737 Max fiasco). If maintaining power is motivation for the Union, keeping power via Boeings 42% market share is motivation for the company. Unless Boeing is not motivated by money, or it's not motivated to keep a positive public appearance, or it's not motivated by keeping power, which I'd argue are ALL motivations of a publicly international corporation worth hundreds of billions of dollars, then I fail to see why these are motivations that preclude Boeing Co.
Are you asking who killed him specifically, like in-person killed him? Probably someone unrelated if I had to guess. You can hire actual hitmen. That's a real thing that exists if you go to the right (or rather wrong for most people) places on the internet.
Maybe to act as a chilling effect on future whistle blowers?
When you're done with your crystal ball, can we use it too?
Come on, you know that tye company will take the blame and individuals will not. Simply look how often that is the case in the US.
Lol get out of here
Well, you see, I don't have any proof, hell I don't even have any evidence. But it fits my world view, and that's all that matters.
Also everyone else lacks the ability to think critically and I'm totally rational.