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.

  • acetanilide@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • arglebargle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • arglebargle
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          That is something you can do, especially if you have as much money as these people do

          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.

    • arglebargle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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 …

      • CMLVI@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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?

        • arglebargle
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • CMLVI@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.