6 ms·

tangential, but this was an outright hit, right? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/12/business/john-barnett-boeing-whistleblower-dead.html https://www.nytimes.com

tangential, but this was an outright hit, right? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/12/business/john-barnett-boeing-whistleblower-dead.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/12/business/john-barnett-boe...

darkerside 3y ago
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but this stinks to high heaven
- greggsy 3y ago
  As bad as it seems, it’s just as plausible he was suffering from the stress. Do you really think a company that is already getting undesirable press coverage would put a hit on someone?
  - solarpunk 3y ago
    it's kind of the point right? Make an example of a prominent whistleblower.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > Do you really think a company that is already getting undesirable press coverage would put a hit on someone? I don't see why undesirable press coverage would make it less likely. If you're not already getting undesirable press coverage... why would you need to bother?
  - darkerside 3y ago
    Certainly is also plausible. All I'm saying is I hope they are investigating this very carefully. Frankly, the fact that they immediately called it self inflicted is suspicious to me. It smacks of ruling out other scenarios not on the basis of evidence.
Someone1234 3y ago
Very tangential as he didn't work at Boeing for 7-years before this incident (retired in 2017). People seem to be claiming that he was a whistleblower for this specific incident, which he was not. Plus I believe he was in a TV documentary where he discussed/disclosed all of the safety issues he witnesses at Boeing's plant/QA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnett_(Boeing_employee) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnett_(Boeing_employee)
- underlipton 3y ago
  He was about to testify in a few days.
  - Someone1234 3y ago
    About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings. Neither of which are related to this incident.
    - alias_neo 3y ago
      > About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings I'm no expert, but I'd expect a history of (criminal) negligence would be relevant in a legal proceeding about potential negligence, if only for precedent.
      - Someone1234 3y ago
        The lawsuit has already started on the door incident, and his testimony even if he was alive isn't relevant. The door was a process problem + screw-up, 2016 parts was potentially criminally illegal (and on purpose). Plus in civil court, where the standards are lower, they could bring in his interviews to the FAA/BBC anyway (they won't, because relevance). I feel like a bunch of people online have irrationally decided these two things are directly connected, and are now massaging the facts to meet that narrative. Aside from Boeing, there isn't a lot of reason to connect these two things. But people want to ignore the facts to make this sound like a sexy movie script. Two things happened. They happened around the same time. Even if he was alive today, it is unlikely the two would intersect outside of [bad] Boeing PR.
kube-system 3y ago
His own family doesn’t think so. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/12/1238033573/boeing-whistleblower-john-barnett-dead https://www.npr.org/2024/03/12/1238033573/boeing-whistleblow... > The family says Barnett's health declined because of the stresses of taking a stand against his longtime employer. > "He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing," they said, "which we believe led to his death."
legitster 3y ago
I'm but sure why a murder would make the situation better for Boeing. Especially after his depositions were recorded. If anything, his entire testimony is now fair game without the ability to cross examine him. Besides, this case was unrelated to the current issues and stemmed from practices under a previous executive team. Unless you really just love conspiracy theories, this one is awful.

darkerside 3y ago

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but this stinks to high heaven

greggsy 3y ago
As bad as it seems, it’s just as plausible he was suffering from the stress. Do you really think a company that is already getting undesirable press coverage would put a hit on someone?
- solarpunk 3y ago
  it's kind of the point right? Make an example of a prominent whistleblower.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Do you really think a company that is already getting undesirable press coverage would put a hit on someone? I don't see why undesirable press coverage would make it less likely. If you're not already getting undesirable press coverage... why would you need to bother?
- darkerside 3y ago
  Certainly is also plausible. All I'm saying is I hope they are investigating this very carefully. Frankly, the fact that they immediately called it self inflicted is suspicious to me. It smacks of ruling out other scenarios not on the basis of evidence.

Someone1234 3y ago

Very tangential as he didn't work at Boeing for 7-years before this incident (retired in 2017). People seem to be claiming that he was a whistleblower for this specific incident, which he was not. Plus I believe he was in a TV documentary where he discussed/disclosed all of the safety issues he witnesses at Boeing's plant/QA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnett_(Boeing_employee) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnett_(Boeing_employee)

underlipton 3y ago
He was about to testify in a few days.
- Someone1234 3y ago
  About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings. Neither of which are related to this incident.
  - alias_neo 3y ago
    > About illegal reuse of potential defective parts and potentially dangerous metal shavings I'm no expert, but I'd expect a history of (criminal) negligence would be relevant in a legal proceeding about potential negligence, if only for precedent.
    - Someone1234 3y ago
      The lawsuit has already started on the door incident, and his testimony even if he was alive isn't relevant. The door was a process problem + screw-up, 2016 parts was potentially criminally illegal (and on purpose). Plus in civil court, where the standards are lower, they could bring in his interviews to the FAA/BBC anyway (they won't, because relevance). I feel like a bunch of people online have irrationally decided these two things are directly connected, and are now massaging the facts to meet that narrative. Aside from Boeing, there isn't a lot of reason to connect these two things. But people want to ignore the facts to make this sound like a sexy movie script. Two things happened. They happened around the same time. Even if he was alive today, it is unlikely the two would intersect outside of [bad] Boeing PR.

kube-system 3y ago

His own family doesn’t think so. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/12/1238033573/boeing-whistleblower-john-barnett-dead https://www.npr.org/2024/03/12/1238033573/boeing-whistleblow... > The family says Barnett's health declined because of the stresses of taking a stand against his longtime employer. > "He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing," they said, "which we believe led to his death."

legitster 3y ago

I'm but sure why a murder would make the situation better for Boeing. Especially after his depositions were recorded. If anything, his entire testimony is now fair game without the ability to cross examine him. Besides, this case was unrelated to the current issues and stemmed from practices under a previous executive team. Unless you really just love conspiracy theories, this one is awful.