The question is ‘cui bono’. I don’t think Boeing does at this point in time. The death makes it worse for them PR wise. So, my theory, it was Airbus or another Boeing competitor.
I think airbus is really their only competitor, at least in the commercial airline arena.
Airbus would have to decide that a) they would get away with it, b) Boeing would get blamed and that c) the ambiguous death is way worse for Boeing than just letting the guy testify.
A and b are in conflict as if they hide their involvement too well it looks like a suicide and no corporation gets blamed. And if it turns out that his testimony wasn’t worthy of killing someone?
Well, the problem I see with making a murder look like a suicide is that it can be automatically suspicious if the victim said something along the lines of “if I die it wasn’t suicide”. Probably even if there was video evidence of it being legit. Why not make the death look like an accident instead? I’ve never murdered somebody, but I don’t think making the death look like an accident is that much more difficult than making it look like a suicide.
What’s your point? I know the guy in question is said to have suggested someone would try to kill him and make it appear as a suicide. Why would Boeing or Airbus for that matter be aware of those statements?
Sure accidents are great but if you just decide to off someone quickly it’s not like you can shadow them for weeks and wait for them to climb onto their roof or something. Dude was at a hotel all week 🤷
Possibly, though I’d wait until the scandal has blown over before killing the whistleblower. He did the most damage when he decided to reveal information, and with the Boeing plane related incidents, I doubt that the prosecution’s case would fall apart without him, so why should there be a rush with killing him?
The question is ‘cui bono’. I don’t think Boeing does at this point in time. The death makes it worse for them PR wise. So, my theory, it was Airbus or another Boeing competitor.
I think airbus is really their only competitor, at least in the commercial airline arena.
Airbus would have to decide that a) they would get away with it, b) Boeing would get blamed and that c) the ambiguous death is way worse for Boeing than just letting the guy testify.
A and b are in conflict as if they hide their involvement too well it looks like a suicide and no corporation gets blamed. And if it turns out that his testimony wasn’t worthy of killing someone?
Well, the problem I see with making a murder look like a suicide is that it can be automatically suspicious if the victim said something along the lines of “if I die it wasn’t suicide”. Probably even if there was video evidence of it being legit. Why not make the death look like an accident instead? I’ve never murdered somebody, but I don’t think making the death look like an accident is that much more difficult than making it look like a suicide.
What’s your point? I know the guy in question is said to have suggested someone would try to kill him and make it appear as a suicide. Why would Boeing or Airbus for that matter be aware of those statements?
Sure accidents are great but if you just decide to off someone quickly it’s not like you can shadow them for weeks and wait for them to climb onto their roof or something. Dude was at a hotel all week 🤷
I’m sort of wondering how difficult it is to stage a convincing suicide vs a convincing accident, and I think the latter might be easier.
I think if you have time to scope them out and their lifestyle
Short but bad pr in return they get long term security from a whistle-blower
Someone at Boeing may see this as the cost of doing business
And it deters others
Possibly, though I’d wait until the scandal has blown over before killing the whistleblower. He did the most damage when he decided to reveal information, and with the Boeing plane related incidents, I doubt that the prosecution’s case would fall apart without him, so why should there be a rush with killing him?