westyvw

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.

The motive is either “silencing him so he can’t reveal more”, “intimidating other potential whistleblowers”, or a combination of both.

These are not motives. If you read what I wrote, you get to the true motive. These are actions, they do things, but who cares if they reveal more? Who cares if more people are whistle blowers? That is where you will find motive. Which I talked about, and which demonstrates that the consequences of this action serve no purpose. It is always about money.

It is disappointing you cannot seem to have a discussion without personal attacks, like calling me stupid. But to take it right back to you: do you always believe in conspiracy?

Edit: Hell I would be more likely to believe that the Union did it, because they have used lax rules at the plant to smuggle drugs or some other illicit substance. Which is what I am trying to get at: WHO is responsible, and WHY. Boeing the company is going to be investigated by the FAA either way, so is there some dirty secret that we dont know about? After all a Union chief (and 23 others) pleaded guilty in 2012 to drug trafficking.... https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/breaking/20120816_Ex-union_chief_caught_in_Boeing_drug_sting_gets_6_months.html

If they were wealthy people (CEO, Board of Directors) like I said before, none of this would be worth murder. They make money either way.

No need for personal attacks. You did not answer the question. What is the motive? You describe actions that can be taken, but to what end? More money? More power? Simply a fuck you? Worried they are culpable and might go to jail?

Now tell me exactly WHO this person is, or are you suggesting that is a group of people? Board of Directors? The more people who know the more people will need hush money, the more complicated it gets.

And for what? Nobody is going to lose money, nobody is going to jail. Not if there are more whistleblowers, not if their are fines, nothing. The company will bear the weight of the problem, the government will socialize the solution to fix the problem, and the people with money will walk away or somehow get wealthier in the process.

So excuse me for thinking a bit critically about this conspiracy.

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 .....

What is the motive? and exactly who cares when money can make this go away? But no, murder will make everyone not care, really? This is absolutely silly.

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.

OK, so Boeing cannot be a murder, there has to be someone who actually did it. So who would that be? The CEO? A hired hitman? Who?

And WHY? It would make no difference, the testimony is already out there. It would be cheaper and easier to simply lawyer up and fight, then to hire and then have to pay off somebody. Because that somebody would always have dirt on whoever did the hiring.

Maybe I am wrong, but this really makes no sense.

This makes no sense.

Tell me who did it: The CEO? The share holders? A disgruntled co-worker?

Then give me motive. Nothing got stopped from coming out. And even if he had testified, no one is ever going to be punished. Money will smooth over problems as always.

So unless you can make a convincing argument, this seems very unlikely.