4 ms·
What would be the point of killing someone to silence them after they already spoke? The timing makes no sense.
by ars 3y ago
What would be the point of killing someone to silence them after they already spoke?
The timing makes no sense.
- exadeci 3y agoIt was only the first part, he hadn't really given much yet. Killing him after the first part tells everyone else that if they're thinking of doing the same they'll be killed, if they had "suicided" him before people could have though he did actually killed himself.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoIts very telling that the major corporate news site chose to frame it as suicide “after” testifying when in fact he was found dead just hours before he was scheduled to give more testimony. They just as easily could have said he was found dead before scheduled testimony.
- ars 3y agoMaybe I'm remembering wrong, but it said he did most of his testimony already, and had just one session left to finish. Seems pointless to kill someone at that point, not to mention how public his name is. If you were going to kill him, doing it a month ago makes way way more sense.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoIf testifying in court is stressful enough to cause suicide, it seems pointless to wait until you are almost finished to do it. The message other whistle blowers will get is that people who blow the whistle on corporate America will be found dead in their cars one way or the other.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- GaryNumanVevo 3y agoBoeing always had trouble delivering things on time