[vnchr]

He was killed between pre-trial deposition interviews pertaining to a trial that is still upcoming.[1] One might speculate he was killed immediately after it was confirmed in a deposition that he had knowledge damaging to Boeing, and he intended to testify in that upcoming trial.

[1] https://au.news.yahoo.com/boeing-whistleblower-john-barnett-...

[lupusreal]

He may have been killed not because his own testimony was a threat to Boeing, but rather to make other presently unknown potential whistleblowers think twice and decide to never come forward in the first place. Sending an implied threat to Boeing employees.

For instance, any Boeing/Spirit employees who might be thinking about going to the FAA with information about who in management knew about and okayed the plug door "opening" scheme. Boeing surely wants the investigations to conclude that this is something no more than a few workers did of their own initiative and successfully hid from management, but that's probably not true.

[topspin]

IANAL. However: SC civil law Rule 32 USE OF DEPOSITIONS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS: (a)(3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (A) that the witness is dead; or etc...

This aligns very closely with the Federal rule on the same:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 32. Using Depositions in Court Proceedings (4) Unavailable Witness. A party may use for any purpose the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, if the court finds: (A) that the witness is dead; etc...

I can't tell which jurisdiction applies here because the news stories on the case itself are all hot garbage, I'm not trying that hard and IANAL, but my guess is it's the latter. Either way, the deposition(s) will likely get in.

Now, anything can happen, but it's hard to imagine Boeing or whomever, knowing that the deposition(s) is likely admissible in the event of the death of Barnett, would then assassinate him.

The cynic in me wonders if Barnett had recently learned his case was about to fall through for some reason we haven't learned of yet.

[1] https://www.sccourts.org/courtReg/displayRule.cfm?ruleID=32.... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_32#:~:text=A%20d....

[everforward]

He only made it through the first day of his deposition, he still had another day to go. Anything he was going to say on day 2 is now in the wind. They might also be able to have the deposition thrown out if Boeing wasn't there or had requested a different date (though that would have obviously terrible optics).

My guess is that he was killed, but I don't have a guess whether it was some kind of plot by a higher up at Boeing, a rogue Boeing employee, or some random wackjob that's not involved otherwise. Boeing higher ups have motive, but it does feel too sloppy for a planned hit by a defense contractor. Surely they would have some CIA/FBI contacts who could give them a better plan than a mysterious mid-deposition "suicide". Surely they could rig a car to crash or something that looks more accidental.

[alphabettsy]

He was suing the company for defamation. He was not some witness in a proceeding against Boeing and the government or something.

This isn’t a criminal proceeding. With his death, it essentially goes away regardless.

[salawat]

Yeah, which actually makes him more dangerous to the company. Because all he needs to subpoena and unearth shit in discovery is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything found in that civil trial would be admissible evidence to any criminal charges brought by the Feds.

Which, surprise! Has recently been announced to have been opened!

[everforward]

I believe his successor could take over the case. From the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 32:

(8) Deposition Taken in an Earlier Action. A deposition lawfully taken and, if required, filed in any federal- or state-court action may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties, or their representatives or successors in interest, to the same extent as if taken in the later action. A deposition previously taken may also be used as allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_32)

More specifically, his case was against Boeing for allegedly retaliating against him for being a whistleblower. He was a quality control manager.

So the FAA is crawling up Boeing's ass about poor quality control and lacking a safe and responsible culture, meanwhile a _former quality control manager_ is testifying about how they tried to tell Boeing about systemic quality issues and were retaliated against.

You really don't think Boeing has a vested interested in not being found liable for retaliating against quality control whistleblowers, _while being investigated for having quality control so poor people nearly died_?

If they lose this case, the FAA is going to notice, and they're going to be pissed. It's one thing to be negligent, Boeing could probably paper over that with the FAA and some small regulatory changes because they're defense contractor and vital to national security. It is another thing entirely to not only be aware of the problems due to whistleblowers but to both ignore the issues and attempt to silence the whistleblowers.

We're talking about a clusterfuck of proportions most of us can only have nightmares about. Boeing would spend the next 50 years with the FAA's hand jammed so far up their ass Kermit would feel bad for them. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC filing indictments for securities fraud for not disclosing known, material defects in their planes.

Even worse than that, Boeing really only has its "national security" shield in the US. I would expect Asian and especially European (because Airbus) regulators to take an exceptionally dim view of Boeing losing this lawsuit.

It's also very bad news for Boeing on any other wrongful death or injury lawsuits against them if there's a court case setting precedent that at best, Boeing retaliates against their whistleblowers, and at worst ignores them and retaliates against them. Other civil cases would be able to use the judgement against Boeing as evidence that they concretely retaliate against whistleblowers, and Boeing would be unable to challenge that assertion (you can't re-litigate the outcome of case A in case B, whatever was decided in case A is treated as fact).

Having a judgement against Boeing for retaliating against whistleblowers sounds like a great start to a wrongful injury/death claim based on negligence for anyone that got hurt on a Boeing plane. Boeing wouldn't be able to challenge that they retaliated against whistleblowers, so they would either have to claim that retaliating against whistleblowers isn't negligent (good luck with that) or that their negligence in retaliating did not contribute to that accident (again, good luck).

The importance of this case is almost entirely in second-order effects. I doubt Boeing cares about paying out a couple hundred thousand to Barnett for retaliating, they care about getting regulators off their backs and not losing every civil case filed against them for the next decade.

[alphabettsy]

> You really don't think Boeing has a vested interested in not being found liable for retaliating against quality control whistleblowers, _while being investigated for having quality control so poor people nearly died_?

I never suggested otherwise. Having a vested interest does not indicate murder, motive sure.

> If they lose this case, the FAA is going to notice, and they're going to be pissed. It's one thing to be negligent, Boeing could probably paper over that with the FAA and some small regulatory changes because they're defense contractor and vital to national security. It is another thing entirely to not only be aware of the problems due to whistleblowers but to both ignore the issues and attempt to silence the whistleblowers.

The FAA already started an investigation years ago when he first made the claims they are being sued for retaliating against.

> We're talking about a clusterfuck of proportions most of us can only have nightmares about. Boeing would spend the next 50 years with the FAA's hand jammed so far up their ass Kermit would feel bad for them. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC filing indictments for securities fraud for not disclosing known, material defects in their planes.

Yeah, as if the widely publicized major incidents weren’t enough already.

You may very well be right, but you may also very well be letting your imagination get far ahead of the facts.

[Kluggy]

I believe in certain cases, a judge may allow the deposition to be entered into evidence in the trial. The time to disappear someone is before their testimony is recorded.

[Hikikomori]

The deposition was ongoing.