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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 126 points 2 years ago (26 children)

They should really make some sort of incentive to keep these people alive. Like if a whistle blower dies before the verdict of the trial/hearing make it an automatic assumption and multiply the punishment by 3 times (Treble!). Then you would have companies doing everything to not have whistle blowers die, not what we have today.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 126 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Your competitors take out contract hits against your whistleblower and you need to have bodyguards to protect them.

    And then your head of security and the whistleblower fall in love until at the end of the movie the competitor assassin gets into the court waiting room and the head of security throws themselves into the ninja star's way and dies in the whistleblower's arms as the ultimate sacrifice is made for love and corporate profits.

    I tear up just thinking about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Bravo. Hope you make Hollywood kid, you got the vision we need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The current vision in Hollywood is sequels, reboots and milking any IP for all its worth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    They do have an disincentive, its called decades in jail if its discovered you kill him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    There should be presumption of guilt in this case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    What?? No that's ridiculous. People do kill themselves sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Then they'd be interested to hire him all kinds of councilors and security guards so that he doesn't kill himself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    What? And break into his home so he can't?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (9 children)

    That'll cost them less money and years of not seeing daylight, so why not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Because don't you think that in itself is a form of witness intimidation? Won't people be hesitant to volunteer to testify during a lengthy trial if it means a security guard literally watching them sleep and shower for months.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (7 children)

    I meant not that the witness would be obligated to accept that, but that a company would be interested to offer to pay for various measures to preserve their health, sanity and all that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    But the claim was that he committed suicide, say you're concerned about the company killing you so you accept their security. Couldn't the security then just have a good reason to be in your house to "find the body" when you "slip in the shower"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    You don't get it, his death before giving witness is unconditionally considered a murder by the company.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    So then someone else can kill him like others have said. But depending on what is being whistleblowed, someone in the company taking the fall for murder might not be as bad as what could be discovered. Especially if government agencies are included in this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    So then someone else can kill him like others have said.

    Which is why company is interested in preventing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Or, short of that.. If you're whistleblowing on Boeing, you should go to Airbus and Lockheed and tell them, "it's in your best interest that I stay breathing".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments