1604

John Barnett had worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement in 2017.

In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.

Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett's passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.

It said the 62-year-old had died from a "self-inflicted" wound on 9 March and police were investigating.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] IzzyScissor@kbin.social 346 points 2 years ago

He was staying at a hotel out-of-state while giving evidence against Boeing.
He was found dead in his car in the hotel parking lot from a 'self-inflicted wound'.

There's really no other way to look at it logically than he was murdered by Boeing. Nothing else adds up.

[-] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 191 points 2 years ago

He wasn't even done giving the deposition that he literally volunteered to give...

[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 85 points 2 years ago

I mean, I think the logical thing to do is wait until the evidence comes out and we know for sure. It's entirely possible he was under a lot of stress from all this and did kill himself. Now, I don't deny that it's a HUGE. FUCKING. CONICIDENCE. but those do happen from time to time. Its also a hell of a story, good-guy whistleblower murdered by greedy multinational aerospace company and defense contractor...during an election year...if you wrote the script nobody would buy it.

Let's be suspicious, but not jump to conclusions.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Jesus, do you think maybe they're trying to run out the clock too? Who wants to bet that a certain CEO is angling for a political position within a certain potential administration? Perhaps head of the FAA?

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

This is the kind of go get em attitude a certain potential administration might be impressed by.

[-] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Hugely impressed. Big, so big. Huge

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 74 points 2 years ago

Look, I'm not gonna say Boeing did it. Though if they did, I'd bet money they drove.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 45 points 2 years ago

An investor could’ve threatened his family? (So not directly Boeing)

If he got a bunch of hate online, or had crippling anxiety about the testimony he still had to give? I mean you could even speculate he thought he would be killed someday, so he took it into his own hands.

(Please note the above is all BS!)

I would argue the jury is still out and that we may never know.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 45 points 2 years ago

Direct involvement might be a question still. But general involvement is absolute. If Boeing wasn't so shitty he almost assuredly would still be alive.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago

I suppose even if nobody ever said a word to him you could make that argument. No poor business practices = no testimony = no car in a hotel parking lot.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago

An investor could’ve threatened his family? (So not directly Boeing)

Or somebody involved in corporate corruption and embezzling in Boeing. That would be worse for Boeing as a whole than him remaining alive, but possibly better for that somebody who may not be identified.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

They don't gain much. The FAA is breathing down their neck already.

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 2 years ago

The FAA has allowed this mess to continue for far too long because Boeing is an industry titan. Too big to fail. Well, maybe not anymore.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago

Watch politician holdings of Boeing stock.

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago

I expect Nancy to sell lol

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Too big to fail is a terrible concept that was invented.

If a company gets too big to the point that it's failure is going to drag down the company. That company should be broken up to allow them to to fail. Anything else is either reward the company for making bad decisions or allow companies to become stagnant because if anything happens, the government will bail them out.

Edit: Spelling and grammar are important.

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

B-but the propagandists said that corporate consolidation was freedom!

[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

I would 100% vote for you (unironically).

[-] Kalysta@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

What do you mean? They fail all the time. Fail to secure doors. Fail to have working oxygen masks. Fail to warn pilots about a system that points the nose of the plane down constantly…

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Not sure how much jurisdiction or investigation the FFA does for murders that occur on the ground though.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

At the point of a deposition, his complaints are already documented and can be verified by regulators.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago

It makes no sense for them to kill him, that draws wayyyy too much attention. More likely if they were involved, they blackmailed him and that caused him to kill himself, or another party that also wanted to keep him quiet killed him and they didn't care if it looked like Boeing did it.

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
1604 points (99.2% liked)

News

35944 readers
667 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS