| In criminal law this sort of nonsense is explicitly inadmissible in court. It's why during the OJ Simpson criminal trial it was not possible for the defense to do anything more than point out inconsistencies with the chain of evidence: they could not say that it pointed to or was in any way evidence of a conspiracy. (In other words: you can't just say "it could be something else" because that's facile, easy to do, and has no means of disproof. So fucking prove it would be a useful rule to adopt.) Anyway, I'll be more charitable since this isn't court and you aren't a lawyer, but the substance of my point remains: even the circumstantial evidence does not appear to support murder. Certainly if it were murder it would be revenge, given that the whistle was blown five years ago, and the whistleblower will have provided sworn affidavits and is unlikely to be the difference between conviction and freedom for any individual. Moreover your insinuation of "a low-level VP" worrying about the testimony seems be totally euphemistic. Do you have any evidence that any one individual or number of individuals might be facing jail time as a result of the whistleblower's testimony, and could somehow avoid it without their direct testimony under cross-examination? I'm glad you've moved away from the insinuation that it might be a shareholder somehow taking it out on the guy for no reason, at least. Now you have all of your work ahead of you to explain how and why a Boeing executive would be motivated to murder someone five years after the fact when the damage is very probably already done. > And so statistically Suspect what you're about to say is going to be nothing to do with statistics > this seems a lot more likely than this otherwise stable person Just so we're clear, you think that this… "A Boeing executive committed or arranged a premeditated murder in public in broad daylight, five years after the fact, and made it look like suicide." …is more probable than this… "A whistleblower killed himself." Let's simplify it a bit: given 100 cases of whistleblowing, do you think you would see greater incidence of murder/violence perpetrated on the whistleblower, or greater incidence of the whistleblowers experiencing meaningfully deterioration of mental health? What about this one[^1]? Murder as well? What about Ian Gibbons? Elizabeth Holmes presumably killed him? [^1]: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article259213078.html |