cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/news/t/910625

Boeing whistleblower John Barnett alleged in a lawsuit prior to his death in South Carolina that he was "harassed" and "humiliated" for speaking out at work.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 111 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Boeing's hit job must have been well planned.

The killer would have had to kill him in his car, wrap his hands around the gun to establish fingerprint marks. A company like Boeing that's part of the Military-Industrial Complex wouldn't have an issue finding a highly trained contract killer.

Bribes at the local authority level (maybe higher too) to have them rule it a suicide with no further investigation needed. No need for further pesky questions.

Now all I'm waiting on is for the judge to toss out his incomplete testimony since it isn't complete.

Then just wait a few weeks until the media focuses on other things.

Then the execs can have martinis while stock number go up.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    They don't need to do that, they could have just called him on a burner phone and threatened to kill his family if he didn't kill himself. Forensically indistinguishable from suicide, but absolutely murder by coercion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Has it ever happened to check the previous call logs of a suicide victim? Of course Boeing can bribe the telcom to keep shut / delete the info. But i'm curious wether it's ever been done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 2 years ago

    Regardless of if they actually hired a hitman, it's very clear that Boeing harassed and psychologically attacked this man to the point of him ending up dead.

    Whether they actually hired a man to pull that trigger or convinced him to pull it himself, legally his murder would be on their hands and they damn well need charged for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As it happened with Khashoggi and the same with Daphne and the list will always keep going on & on while we imagine hearing the clink of more glasses after.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why did they wait so long to off him then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Being willing to kill someone as a "last option" and wanting to kill everyone who poses the slightest threat are not the same motivations.

    Also thinking about it, how many people at a company the size of Boeing become a threat by being bothered with criminal practices violating safety and other law and ethic standards? How many do we not hear about because the "normal" coercion tactics work?

    Having half your engineering department wind up dead because they raised concerns about issues with the production could backfire much more to begin with, but also it would make every engineer look for a different employer quickly. So trying to destroy someones reputation first, ousting him, creating a "him vs. us" mentality is preferential. It also makes it easier for the company to move on after killing him, if the need arises.

    So both from a emotionally crippled, but not fully devoid point of view and from an completely psychopathic cold blooded strategy point of view it makes sense to not pull the trigger on everyone right away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments