- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.
I’m certainly suspicious, but if you’re basing that “probably” on the information provided in this article…well your critical thinking skill leave a lot to be desired.
I think a “probably” is pretty reasonable considering the circumstances. Its a lot less certainty than I’m seeing in the rest of these comments.
No, it’s not. It’s based on nothing but suspicion. Unless I’m missing something, there is nothing that indicates that this was even a murder, let alone anything linking that murder to Boeing. It’s just blind speculation. It’s the same shit I deal with constantly with Trump supporters, where their suspicions about the 2016 are more important than actually having the facts to back it up.
At this moment we have no motive for suicide and motive for murder.
But we have actual evidence for suicide (coroner report) and none for murder. But sure your ignorance of what’s going on in his life trumps actual facts.
What if the dude was so stressed out by all of this he just said fuck it, I’m done, and blew his brains out?
I’m not saying I think this is true any more than I think Boeing had him killed. Just providing it as a plausible motive for suicide to show that we really need more information to be revealed from a proper investigation before we attach ourselves to assumptions.
I know its speculation, that’s why I’m using the word probably. There is a rock solid motive, but no hard evidence. Which is why I’m not going to outright claim they did it. Maybe your definition of probably is different than mine, but to me, it means there is a very real possibility that I’m wrong.
Blind speculation. You have nothing to support the claim. You’re just suspicious about it. There is no “probably” here, it just a possibility.
Probably means more likely than not. You have precisely zero to back up your claim. The evidence suggests that Trump probably (i.e. more likely than not) raped Jean Carroll, which is why a jury found him liable for it. If you brought the evidence you have right now that Boeing killed this guy for a civil claim, you would be laughed out of court.
Its a possibility that seems very likely, that’s what I mean by probably.
That’s very interesting, however, I am not in court.
So we do have different definitions of probably. Yours just means reasonably possible. Mine actually means probably, which is “Most likely; presumably.”
I understand that. But you are claiming that it “probably” happened, and I’m pointing out to you that the evidence you’ve provided wouldn’t even come close to be enough to make the claim in court. It’s so far from it that you wouldn’t even make it to a trial where a jury would then weigh the evidence to determine how likely it is.
The 2016 ey