The assumption here is that Boeing is responsible for these.
What exactly does Boeing gain from murdering whistleblowers after the fact? At this point Boeing's reputation is already tarnished and they're already going to be under a microscope, so what does murdering whistleblowers even achieve?
A deterrent to prevent additional whistleblowers from coming forward? If the issues are as massively systemic as facts to date suggest, it seems like there might be a number of other shoes that could drop. Boeing's reputation (as well as that of its higher ups) could get a hell of a lot more tarnished and even breach further into legal culpability territory.
I'm not fully convinced that's what's happening here, but two whistleblowers on a massive US company that also happens to be a defense contractor dying in suspicious and unusual ways (especially that first one "killing himself" after he said if he died it wasn't suicide and also smack in the middle of his deposition days...) certainly warrants a non-trivial amount of concern and a deeper investigation.
This assumes the risk of getting caught offing whistleblowers is less than the risk of more whistle-blowers coming out. Does it really make sense that you'd risk exposing a whistle blower murder program as opposed to whatever corporate problems they have? Not to mention, it's a lot easier to smooth over corporate screw ups than getting caught hiring hit men.
If these are hits, i would think it's one or two rogue execs or stakeholder with a lot of personal money to blow doing this, OR they are leveraging US military contacts to get it done. It's probably impossible to keep an assassination program from leaking carried out in any other way.
I think if Boeing care's about their reputation so badly, they'd get out of the defense contractor business. But there's too much money to be made there. Silencing whistleblowers could be very beneficial to their bottom line:
* Protects their existing IP, as well as any classified information the whistleblower may have had access to.
* Prevents further leaks from the whistleblower, which could impact existing/future contracts, or the company's ability to win them.
* Sends a chilling message to future would-be whistleblowers.
* Sends a reassuring message to the defense industry: "we have a zero-tolerance policy for leaking information and your business is safe with us."
>I think if Boeing care's about their reputation so badly, they'd get out of the defense contractor business.
Huh? Boeing's defense products are a separate division from commercial aviation. And those products are the best out there. Maybe expensive, I guess, and the usual criticism of scope creep and project management applies.
That may be the case, but I think many people will hear "Boeing" and immediately classify them along with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grunman, Raytheon etc.
I mean… isn’t the obvious answer a “chilling effect”?
If you were to subscribe to the idea Boeing murders whistleblowers, how is the most obvious reason for why not to prevent more people from speaking out?
What exactly does Boeing gain from murdering whistleblowers after the fact? At this point Boeing's reputation is already tarnished and they're already going to be under a microscope, so what does murdering whistleblowers even achieve?