Boeing whistleblower found dead in US

[Ancient-Mariner]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68534703

[iwalkedaway]

Poor fellow... Whistle-blowing and its decision/regret/sustain spin-off always applies almost unimaginable pressures to the individual concerned. Its associated backlash can make them simply unendurable.

Now he at least has found some peace...

[OldnGrounded]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68534703

Very sad. RIP, John Barnett.

[EddyCurr]

Unable at this point to find any indication of which hotel the parking lot is attached to. Charleston seems to me to be a potentially hostile environment for a well known ex-Boeing North Charleston plant employee-turned whistleblower to give evidence in a lawsuit against his former employer.

Whatever the circumstances of Mr Barnett's passing prove to be, here is hoping that the contributions he has already made and any that come to light now that he is gone succeed in achieving the improvements and accountability in airline safety that Mr Barnett was aiming for.

[EddyCurr]

https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/boeing-whistleblower-found-dead-in-charleston-after-break-in-depositions/
Boeing Whistleblower Found Dead in Charleston After Break in Depositions
By Editor
Corporate Crime Reporter 2024.03.10

In an email to Corporate Crime Reporter, [Barnett’s lawyer Brian] Knowles wrote that Barnett “was supposed to do day three of his deposition here in Charleston on his AIR21 case.” (AIR21 refers to a federal law that provides whistleblower protection for employees in the aviation industry.)

“Today is a tragic day,” Knowles wrote. “John had been back and forth for quite some time getting prepared. The defense examined him for their allowed seven hours under the rules on Thursday. I cross examined him all day yesterday (Friday) and did not finish. We agreed to continue this morning at 10 a.m. (co-counsel) Rob (Turkewitz) kept calling this morning and his (Barnett’s) phone would go to voicemail. We then asked the hotel to check on him. They found him in his truck dead from an ‘alleged’ self-inflicted gunshot. We drove to the hotel and spoke with the police and the coroner.”

[jolihokistix]

Just too sad.

[FroostTH]

MHHH, hopefully the DOJ investigation will be more interesting from now on.

[Pilot DAR]

A note from a moderator:

This is very sad, I think that we all agree about that. Let's withhold speculation about exactly what happened, or possible factors or associations, until those who might investigate have reported their findings. This event is not like an aviation accident, which we might discuss with some expertise. This event is a personal tragedy, with respect to which, at present, we have no information to associate anyone else.

Pilot DAR

[Mike Flynn]

You can’t stop news speculation and for those involved in corporate damage limitation this is a difficult time.

Mass media love this sort of stuff.

[RudderTrimZero]

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1767311900411642119 (https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1767311900411642119?s=20)

[OldnGrounded]

A note from a moderator:

Let's withhold speculation about exactly what happened, or possible factors or associations, until those who might investigate have reported their findings.

Pilot DAR

Yes, please, folks. We don't know and can't know, and feeding the storm of speculation building around this helps no one and no cause.

Statement from Barnett's lawyers:

“John was a brave, honest man of the highest integrity. He cared dearly about his family, his friends, the Boeing company, his Boeing co-workers, and the pilots and people who flew on Boeing aircraft. We have rarely met someone with a more sincere and forthright character.

“In the course of his job as a quality manager at Boeing South Carolina, John learned of and exposed very serious safety problems with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and was retaliated against and subjected to a hostile work environment, which is the subject of his pending AIR-21 case.

John was in the midst of a deposition in his whistleblower retaliation case, which finally was nearing the end. He was in very good spirits and really looking forward to putting this phase of his life behind him and moving on. We didn’t see any indication he would take his own life. No one can believe it.

We are all devastated. We need more information about what happened to John. The Charleston police need to investigate this fully and accurately and tell the public what they find out. No detail can be left unturned.”

~Statement from Barnett’s lawyers Robert Turkewitz and Brian Knowles

https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/charleston-pd-confirms-investigation-into-death-of-boeing-whistleblower-john-barnett/

[T28B]

The MH 370 posts have been moved to the appropriate thread.
Members are reminded to not pollute this thread with further digression into that event.
Thank you all in advance.

[lpvapproach]

He is now a Boeing Martyr

[MechEngr]

Typical reasons someone dies from a gunshot in America:

1) 50% of shootings are someone the victim knew or a misidentification in a purposeful shooting (more typical in drive-bys)
2) around 30% of shootings are from the demons they were fighting and could no longer overcome.
3) a large number remaining are during robberies.
4) a smaller number are accidents or mishandling the weapon. Gets more likely if the person got a gun for self-defense recently.

No one can tell about the demons. Many fight them so long they manage to let no one know.

Telling the difference between that and the others? Not at this point.

I cannot imagine any conspiracy to kill a whistleblower during testimony. As the British postal disaster points out, it is far easier to discredit the witness and bury the evidence. Much of what he claimed the FAA had already investigated; the FAA would have the most to gain. but why would they care?

Let the investigation continue, with the knowledge that coming to any conclusion may be problematic.

[BFSGrad]

Some clarification from those of ample legal wisdom and insight…

The media keeps reporting Barnett as a whistleblower in connection with the lawsuit that he was providing deposition for.

Some reports say this deposition was for a defamation lawsuit against Boeing with my assumption then being that Barnett was the plaintiff? If so, he wouldn’t have had whistleblower status (AIR21 WPP protections). I get it that Boeing’s potential defamation would be related to his previous whistleblower activity but a whistleblower claim would have been addressed through DOL/OSHA rather than a individual lawsuit.

I also wonder about the wisdom of Barnett’s attorneys advising him to pursue defamation against a large corporation that can afford top-tier lawyers with a loss putting Barnett in financial peril (depending on the billing arrangement with his attorneys).

[WillowRun 6-3]

No claim of legal wisdom or insight is made here - and it's not as if I needed to carry "the drag chain of the law" in order to consult the Times of New York. (description of law attributed to the late Howard Cosell, an American attorney prior to his sports broadcasting career)

"Mr. Barnett filed the complaint against Boeing with the U.S. Labor Department in 2017 under the AIR21 Whistleblower Protection Program, which protects employees of plane manufacturers who report information pertaining to air carrier safety violations. He left the company that year.
* * *
An administrative law judge with the Labor Department was hearing the whistle-blower case, which was in discovery. A trial had been set for June."

The claim reportedly was for retaliation. The NYT article in any event doesn't reference any defamation claim or lawsuit, so I don't know. Possibly the DOL complaint includes allegations about defamatory remarks made by management as part of an alleged pattern or scheme of retaliatory steps taken by the Company.

The article also reports that Counsel for Mr. Barnett indicated the family will continue to pursue the legal action.
(excerpt from NYT, March 12 2024, S. Ember by-line).

[Peristatos]

https://prospect.org/justice/2024-03-14-strange-death-boeing-whistleblower/

At Boeing’s Everett, Washington, facility, each quality assurance inspector was assigned to examine the work of 15 mechanics; in Charleston, that number was 50, and the mechanics themselves more often than not were guys who had been “flipping burgers” a month ago, as Swampy put it in multiple interviews. So every day, the workers he supervised inspected planes that had been assembled by complete amateurs, while the bosses to whom he reported insisted the fry cooks were perfectly qualified to self-inspect their own workmanship. “Every day was a battle to get Boeing management to do the right thing,” Swampy’s brother Rodney Barnett recalled in an email.

Deliberate nondocumentation was a cornerstone of the new Boeing culture with which Swampy came into constant conflict. In 2014, he was reprimanded in a performance review for documenting “process violations” in writing instead of flagging issues verbally and “working in the gray areas”—i.e., without leaving a paper trail. Nondocumentation was part of a larger “theory,” Swampy explained in an interview earlier this year with TMZ, that “quality is overhead and not value-added.”

​​​​​​​Swampy gently described how his team had been taken off a job for finding 300 defects on a section of fuselage, and his failed efforts to prevent mechanics from breaking into the cage where defective parts were stored before suppliers retrieved them to be repaired. Managers stole parts from the cage so frequently that he had the locks changed

[fdcg27]

Death by suicide can be very convenient for those subject to the testimony of the decedent.
A certain well known wealthy sex offender comes to mind.
Who knows?

[MechEngr]

Were I to write a novel, who would want to end him would be among the mechanics who he knew were putting defective parts into airplanes.

Or he recently got a gun "for protection" and fumbled it trying to get it into a pocket or out of a holster in the confines of a car seat.

Unless there is a camera recording someone leaving that vehicle after the shot it's going to be unclear.

[BFSGrad]

Unless there is a camera recording someone leaving that vehicle after the shot it's going to be unclear.
If suicide, there should be plenty of supporting forensic evidence.

Reminds me of the old Soviet intelligence apparatus saying (paraphrasing), “it’s easy to commit murder; it’s much harder to commit a good natural death.”

[Monarch Man]

https://youtu.be/sA44FFi95PA?si=yf_2Y8ZmY4i185hh

[Jonty]

https://youtu.be/sA44FFi95PA?si=yf_2Y8ZmY4i185hh

You know, I really try not to believe in conspiracy theories. The vast majority are just utter rubbish. But this I'm really struggling with. Just all seems too convenient.

[ATC Watcher]

If suicide, there should be plenty of supporting forensic evidence.
”
It would seem the police has concluded it was suicide ( see below) but it today's connected world it has become easy to bring someone to suicide using either social media ( normally traceable) but also phone calls. or simple F2F conversations. involving blackmail.
What I fond odd is the location , if you ae single in a hotel room , why using a shotgun in a parking lot? I hope someone finds out if there was foul play . I'm sure lots of lawyers are going to look into that on behalf of the family. .

Someone sent me this yesterday :
​​​​​​​WASHINGTON, D.C. | MARCH 13, 2024 — National Whistleblower Center (NWC) grieves the tragic passing of whistleblower, John Barnett.

The Boeing whistleblower was found dead at the age of 62. Barnett’s cause of death has been determined to be self-inflicted.

Barnett’s passing has sent shockwaves through the whistleblower community. As a vocal whistleblower protecting the lives of traveler at one of the largest airlines in the world, Barnett’s contributions to public safety cannot be understated.

At NWC we fight for the rights and the protections of whistleblowers wherever they may be. NWC advocates for effective enforcement and is disgusted by the treatment Mr. Barnett suffered as a whistleblower at Boeing.

Self-harm is a tragic action, no person should be subjected to the anguish and trauma Mr. Barnett has faced. Corruption takes lives and whistleblower like Mr. Barnett protect the public from the abuse of our trust and keep corporations accountable. Whistleblowers like Mr. Barnett deserve to live and to be celebrated.

Boeing’s condolences are not enough to sooth the grief Mr. Barnett’s family must be experiencing today. Real change, the end of corrupt behavior, improved safety, and respect for whistleblower are urgently needed to bring justice to the lives of these courageous fighters. To honor Mr. Barnett’s life, please tell Congress to hold Boeing accountable (https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=u001.gqh-2BaxUzlo7XKIuSly0rCz1jRbfpaYjwOjm2vsUbCBujpoK1pmY1b5scCjBfkJ 4P9DD-2FEoyWqYxe8NucGdYWwYUT7nMLRZzH64cKTN4gDl4-3DPLss_s4s3CAiQifknn9tUfiEZ-2FQ5MBlQepk4KpfgJbd8KhsRQ8TifYNmq79nlQUysfYVimePIfpsZcs2rwxX ieB9WfMZWdEpiZEz8qey5PyArNu-2BLa3VBoM4jegwMpL4dHcyOdJSNDHheab1CHa8-2Bthf4QUrkR-2FO0nIIuFQ1N847Ebq0Xc7b1UNC3S8fP1jOlXdC4bwSe-2BkXwlUoWWdQMjtIlyNFHCtf1VYZPc4J-2BhB-2FGm-2FuGWHyHMYNyh8FZuAtfeHiUrKDJhAy2CZXAkLa2ilMkODq5K0mKYdWZFo6U Z3XV-2FL5LWBKrW6deIhDaIFb-2BDsfHhddfogcRnbe1gjeBwLfwCiuc0GP7CAlv-2Fi3m9DEJ2NM-3D) by fully investigating and correcting the safety failures Mr. Barnett reported.

Our condolences go out to Mr. Barnett’s family, and any person who is currently struggling with the aftermath of experiencing retaliation or grieving the loss of a whistleblower. You are not alone. If you or someone you know is struggling with harmful thoughts or depression, help is available (https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=u001.gqh-2BaxUzlo7XKIuSly0rC-2BTsLyvdAp-2FUEgedeXn5yIUhBW9cvGLy8KZBZ5vuM7WYnJ27_s4s3CAiQifknn9tUfiEZ-2FQ5MBlQepk4KpfgJbd8KhsRQ8TifYNmq79nlQUysfYVimePIfpsZcs2rwxX ieB9WfMZWdEpiZEz8qey5PyArNu-2BLa3VBoM4jegwMpL4dHcyOdJSNDHheab1CHa8-2Bthf4QUrkR-2FO0nIIuFQ1N847Ebq0Xc7b1UNC3S8fP1jOlXdC4bwSe-2BkXwlUoWWdQMjtIlyPQm1eQqyyEd3pT3XgwU825kyj-2B-2BhgpWs539utP5UBYsbAFu-2BN57UMFGwo1chkmszccwQ0m6mMHXnJ2UUvTPDGxiQRcw6lbVFMLMBOCRSXx 4znpIuIpQIs7ZZ0S-2Bse1s-2BiXJ5ftCGwdoKmU-2BbXmMKqk-3D).

NWC Executive Director Siri Nelson is available for comment.

[Lonewolf_50]

As a vocal whistleblower protecting the lives of traveler at one of the largest airlines in the world, Barnett’s contributions to public safety cannot be understated.
Damning with faint praise. I suspect they meant "...Barnett’s contributions to public safety cannot be overstated."

[Monarch Man]

You know, I really try not to believe in conspiracy theories. The vast majority are just utter rubbish. But this I'm really struggling with. Just all seems too convenient.

Neither am I Jonty, but it all seems very very convenient doesn't it?
Let's hope the local Sherrif and or Coroner haven't suddenly become significantly wealthier.

[BFSGrad]

What I fond odd is the location , if you ae single in a hotel room , why using a shotgun in a parking lot?.
The reports I’ve seen indicate a silver handgun though it is certainly possible to suicide with a shotgun. As for the location, quite common for suicides to occur in vehicles, sometimes in commercial or business parking lots/garages.

One curiosity is the media’s continued use of images for the Holiday Inn Riverview even though the location of the suicide was the Holiday Inn Express at 17 & 526, which is a couple of miles west of the Riverview location.

[fdr]

Damning with faint praise. I suspect they meant "...Barnett’s contributions to public safety cannot be overstated."

"but they will be conveniently understated..."

AFAICR, the depositions would remain admissible, and could only be impeached by evidence showing they were altered, at least under the laws of another English speaking nation.

[Matt48]

This has provided us with a new quote.
' He was JFK'd, he was Epstein'ed, he was Boeing'ed.

[Matt48]

Neither am I Jonty, but it all seems very very convenient doesn't it?
Let's hope the local Sherrif and or Coroner haven't suddenly become significantly wealthier.

I wonder who is under a massive amount of pressure and would stand to gain. ?

[Matt48]

If suicide, there should be plenty of supporting forensic evidence.

Reminds me of the old Soviet intelligence apparatus saying (paraphrasing), “it’s easy to commit murder; it’s much harder to commit a good natural death.”
The rain around the time of 'the incident' would conveniently wash away any evidence.
Also,


Spirit mechanics were reportedly found using a hotel key card to check a door seal, which isn’t standard practice.
Sound a bit like a Mercedes Benz mechanic setting the valve clearances using a ringpull tab.

[jolihokistix]

This has provided us with a new quote.
' He was JFK'd, he was Epstein'ed, he was Boeing'ed.
Or could he have been Navalnyed?

[Matt48]

Or could he have been Navalnyed?


Or 'Arkancided.'

[Plastic787]

If he was harbouring a grievance against Boeing and was already suicidal then intimating that he was not suicidal - and that should anything happen it definitely wasn’t suicide - then taking your own life would certainly be a way of upping the ante so to speak.

[OldnGrounded]

The unfounded speculation in this thread has already slipped into the realm of "conspiranoia." There's absolutely no good reason to think that Barnett's death would provide Boeing (or anyone else, as far as we know) a major advantage or benefit, certainly not one that would outweigh the surge in reputational damage in an already-damaging case. And we don't really believe Boeing is assassinating whistleblowers, now do we?

According to the reports by the police and coroner, so far, this tragic event looks very much like a suicide. Some of you seem to think that the local authorities were likely bribed or otherwise influenced to alter their findings. That's not impossible, of course, but it is unlikely in the extreme — so unlikely that promoting the notion without evidence is both nonsensical and reckless.

You should stop it.

[Kraftstoffvondesibel]

This has provided us with a new quote.
' He was JFK'd, he was Epstein'ed, he was Boeing'ed.

I am not saying that this wasn’t a suicide, but it is far, far more likely to be more to this story than with the other two you mentioned!

[WillowRun 6-3]

I'd like to add, cautiously, a little bit different perspective. The whistleblower's deposition was in progress, set of continue (if I recall the news reports) the next day.

First, a somewhat sanitized story about a suicide of a prinicipal witness in a case I worked on some years back. The man was not a whistleblower per se, but rather the "ringleader" of the defection of a large cadre of employees of a client, who picked up en masse and moved to a competitor in the exact same line(s) of business. A competitor who was (at that time) only about ten times larger, and who also happened to be based in a large, and distant, U.S. ally. Fast-paced litigation ensued, based on the departing employees being subject to contractual agreements barring their use of company trade secrets in the service of a competitor. The case was resolved on terms mostly favoring my firm's client, with the ringleader being ordered by the court to adhere to more stringent restrictions than the others in the cadre (and to say more would leech over into "inside baseball").

Some time later we learned the ringleader had taken his own life. The word we received was that as he planned to lead the scheme to raid his employer and take an entire group to the competitor business, he had developed significant expectations of financial and other big-time status and success. And that these expectations spread to the group of employees who left the client with him. Which expectations, due to the illegality of the raid and the success in the court action against it, had not materialized, or not materialized nearly enough. This explanation was consistent with other information of a factual nature in the case record. Including deposition testimony.

It seems quite reasonable to think the whistleblower in similar fashion plausibly may have anticipated some level of reward - perhaps financial, perhaps in other forms - for his courageous exposure of Boeing's problems. Possibly in the course of the deposition, which still was in progress, the cold, harsh realities of the American legal process were brought into painfully stark relief. Lengthy and very difficult and tedious phases of the litigation process were yet to unfold, and if some rewards beyond the moral high ground had been envisioned, perhaps those hopes or expectations had crashed beyond recovery. I'm not saying this is what pushed the man to the brink and then over it - only that severely disappointed expectations relating to a major and risky personal decision could be the reason.

I hope his attorneys find a way to weave this tragic loss of a courageous seeker of truth into the claims still being litigated; just as an individual SLF who happens also to practice law, I believe Boeing holds indirect responsibility, morally at least, if not legally.

[OldnGrounded]

I'd like to add, cautiously, a little bit different perspective. The whistleblower's deposition was in progress, set to continue (if I recall the news reports) the next day. . . . Possibly in the course of the deposition, which still was in progress, the cold, harsh realities of the American legal process were brought into painfully stark relief.

Excellent post. Yes, I believe Barnett's counsel said that he had, the day before his death, finished being deposed by Boeing's attorneys and that cross-examination by his own lawyer was scheduled for the following day.

As you know, but not everyone does, being deposed is seldom a peasant experience and being deposed by high-powered, take-no-prisoners litigators in a case as hotly contested as this one is likely to be a pretty brutal experience. I've seen people shattered in relatively-minor business lawsuits where the stakes weren't nearly as high.

I hope his attorneys find a way to weave this tragic loss of a courageous seeker of truth into the claims still being litigated; just as an individual SLF who happens also to practice law, I believe Boeing holds indirect responsibility, morally at least, if not legally.

Absolutely. Amen.

[CW247]

And we don't really believe Boeing is assassinating whistleblowers, now do we?

The country is run by genocide supporting bandits, and an intelligence agency that has been doing it for decades. Of course, the entity known as Boeing wouldn't do it. But someone who is suffering financially as a result of the exposè might. So personally? Yes.

[Matt48]

I'd like to add, cautiously, a little bit different perspective. The whistleblower's deposition was in progress, set of continue (if I recall the news reports) the next day.

First, a somewhat sanitized story about a suicide of a prinicipal witness in a case I worked on some years back. The man was not a whistleblower per se, but rather the "ringleader" of the defection of a large cadre of employees of a client, who picked up en masse and moved to a competitor in the exact same line(s) of business. A competitor who was (at that time) only about ten times larger, and who also happened to be based in a large, and distant, U.S. ally. Fact-paced litigation ensured, based on the departing employees being subject to contractual agreements barring their use of company trade secrets in the service of a competitor. The case was resolved on terms mostly favoring my firm's client, with the ringleader being ordered by the court to adhere to more stringent restrictions than the others in the cadre (and to say more would leech over into "inside baseball").

Some time later we learned the ringleader had taken his own life. The word we received was that as he planned to lead the scheme to raid his employer and take an entire group to the competitor business, he had developed significant expectations of financial and other big-time status and success. And that these expectations spread to the group of employees who left the client with him. Which expectations, due to the illegality of the raid and the success in the court action against it, had not materialized, or not materialized nearly enough. This explanation was consistent with other information of a factual nature in the case record. Including deposition testimony.

It seems quite reasonable to think the whistleblower in similar fashion plausibly may have anticipated some level of reward - perhaps financial, perhaps in other forms - for his courageous exposure of Boeing's problems. Possibly in the course of the deposition, which still was in progress, the cold, harsh realities of the American legal process were brought into painfully stark relief. Lengthy and very difficult and tedious phases of the litigation process were yet to unfold, and if some rewards beyond the moral high ground had been envisioned, perhaps those hopes or expectations had crashed beyond recovery. I'm not saying this is what pushed the man to the brink and then over it - only that severely disappointed expectations relating to a major and risky personal decision could be the reason.

I hope his attorneys find a way to weave this tragic loss of a courageous seeker of truth into the claims still being litigated; just as an individual SLF who happens also to practice law, I believe Boeing holds indirect responsibility, morally at least, if not legally.

Somewhat different circumstances I feel, Barnett was acting alone, he wasn't a 'ringleader' as such, and I don't get the feeling he was in it for the money, as an employee of Boeing of some 32 years standing, he would have known a time when engineering counted, when getting it right trumped getting it out the door.

[antheads]

There's absolutely no good reason to think that Barnett's death would provide Boeing (or anyone else, as far as we know) a major advantage or benefit, certainly not one that would outweigh the surge in reputational damage in an already-damaging case. And we don't really believe Boeing is assassinating whistleblowers, now do we?

What makes you believe that Boeing wouldn't?

Hypothetically the benefit would be to scare other whistle-blowers who have been retaliated against, coming forward and launching their own court cases. Also the reputational damage of a 'suicide' is far less than the publicity of a precedent being set against Boeing and the media focussing on this poor person, when he won his court case.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Somewhat different circumstances I feel, Barnett was acting alone, he wasn't a 'ringleader' as such, and I don't get the feeling he was in it for the money, as an employee of Boeing of some 32 years standing, he would have known a time when engineering counted, when getting it right trumped getting it out the door.

I didn't, and do not, assert he was "in it for the money" and had noted (I thought obviously) the ringleader aspect of the individual in the unrelated lawsuit in which I was legal counsel simply to provide for a sufficiently clear squibb of the much longer story. And the point of relating that story is that severely disappointed expectations in an intense lawsuit situation, when realized in a sharp moment, appeared to have been the precipitating event.

The late Mr. Barnett had been intensely engaged in and, one would assume, devoted to the cause in the service of which he had embarked. I haven't paused to research when he first blew the whistle, or whether he asserted more than one set of company problems as time went on, because it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because just the commitment to a legal proceeding before the Department of Labor (pursuant to the applicable federal statute) would necessarily have required a substantial investment of time, effort, and most importantly, psychic energy. It would be expected that he sought a sense of his efforts being vindicated, even public recognition of same. Or at least the satisfaction of having brought the company's problems to light and seeing some change for the better in fact.

In many litigation matters, at the start of a dispute the gains a claimant expected to achieve were rationally proportionate to the situation and its facts. But as time went on, a mentality of a "quest" or "crusade" often set in. When a case yielded few gains for the claimant, or was defeated in court and no further recourse could be sought, in some instances claimants were reported not only to have been seriously disappointed, but with far more severe difficulties coping with the obvious tasks of getting on with their livelihoods or careers, and in some instances, with their lives.

What happened in the deposition that could have seriously affected Mr. Barnett? I've noted with interest that no one has said "I'd like to read the transcript complete with any exhibits that were used. Was the dep recorded on videotape? I'd like the record, please." Unless and until it becomes clear (and I'm not asserting that any particular legal standard of "clarity" applies here) that nothing seriously upsetting occurred in the deposition, I think it stands as the most likely source of a precipitating event. It appears at least plausible and perhaps likely that defense counsel raised serious lines of attack against him, by their questions and by their approach - not necessarily valid attacks, but recall, it's discovery, even only in the administrative process of DoL. If that occurred, Mr. Barnett's counsel might not have been able to assure him that negative impressions of his conduct and motives which (let's say) had been created by defense counsel on the record could be reversed or at least mitigated by their own questions the next day. I could see a witness in his place becoming despondent.

Again, this scenario is not a claim that he was seeking financial enrichment, despite the obvious fact that his DoL claim could produce a financial award. But if ever there was a universal litigation tactic, it is to wear the adverse party down. I agree there's a likelihood that the only satisfacion he sought was attaining the knowledge he had brought the company's problems to light and that these revelations had led to some positive action. If the deposition in some as yet unknown manner then appeared to crush those hopes, such an impression of lost hope, and prolonged litigation against an entrenched and (let's say) forceful adverse party, could have motivated his decision.

[Garcia37]

Boeing went from being a highly respected company in the 60s- mid 90s to being a piss-poor firm after the MD merge, B737 Max fiasco (and all the issues it had were known beforehand), CEO bailing out with a bonus and not being held responsible, silencing people that will raise concerns about the **** business that Boeing is. B777x and B787 production are even minor problems compared to this.
They truly deserve to go bankrupt and disappear forever.

[Garcia37]

The unfounded speculation in this thread has already slipped into the realm of "conspiranoia." There's absolutely no good reason to think that Barnett's death would provide Boeing (or anyone else, as far as we know) a major advantage or benefit, certainly not one that would outweigh the surge in reputational damage in an already-damaging case. And we don't really believe Boeing is assassinating whistleblowers, now do we?

According to the reports by the police and coroner, so far, this tragic event looks very much like a suicide. Some of you seem to think that the local authorities were likely bribed or otherwise influenced to alter their findings. That's not impossible, of course, but it is unlikely in the extreme — so unlikely that promoting the notion without evidence is both nonsensical and reckless.

You should stop it.

I'd like to add, cautiously, a little bit different perspective. The whistleblower's deposition was in progress, set of continue (if I recall the news reports) the next day.

First, a somewhat sanitized story about a suicide of a prinicipal witness in a case I worked on some years back. The man was not a whistleblower per se, but rather the "ringleader" of the defection of a large cadre of employees of a client, who picked up en masse and moved to a competitor in the exact same line(s) of business. A competitor who was (at that time) only about ten times larger, and who also happened to be based in a large, and distant, U.S. ally. Fact-paced litigation ensued, based on the departing employees being subject to contractual agreements barring their use of company trade secrets in the service of a competitor. The case was resolved on terms mostly favoring my firm's client, with the ringleader being ordered by the court to adhere to more stringent restrictions than the others in the cadre (and to say more would leech over into "inside baseball").

Some time later we learned the ringleader had taken his own life. The word we received was that as he planned to lead the scheme to raid his employer and take an entire group to the competitor business, he had developed significant expectations of financial and other big-time status and success. And that these expectations spread to the group of employees who left the client with him. Which expectations, due to the illegality of the raid and the success in the court action against it, had not materialized, or not materialized nearly enough. This explanation was consistent with other information of a factual nature in the case record. Including deposition testimony.

It seems quite reasonable to think the whistleblower in similar fashion plausibly may have anticipated some level of reward - perhaps financial, perhaps in other forms - for his courageous exposure of Boeing's problems. Possibly in the course of the deposition, which still was in progress, the cold, harsh realities of the American legal process were brought into painfully stark relief. Lengthy and very difficult and tedious phases of the litigation process were yet to unfold, and if some rewards beyond the moral high ground had been envisioned, perhaps those hopes or expectations had crashed beyond recovery. I'm not saying this is what pushed the man to the brink and then over it - only that severely disappointed expectations relating to a major and risky personal decision could be the reason.

I hope his attorneys find a way to weave this tragic loss of a courageous seeker of truth into the claims still being litigated; just as an individual SLF who happens also to practice law, I believe Boeing holds indirect responsibility, morally at least, if not legally.

Well, John Barnett himself stated that if something happened to him, it was not a suicide.

[NPayne]

Of course, the entity known as Boeing wouldn't do it. But someone who is suffering financially as a result of the exposè might. So personally? Yes.
Exactly. The first question is always "who stands to gain?" (or to loose, depending on the framing). And to focus not only on the biggest player. Subcontractors? Individuals?
And since you have referred to a "national security" actor, why stop there? National security is defined pretty widely these days. Not just that the other arm of Boeing is close to the apex of the "defense" pyramid, what about testimony harming directly or indirectly the national economy?
BTW: the accent goes the other way: é , but then nobody's perfect, especially not idle diffuse conspiracy speculators...

[OldnGrounded]

What makes you believe that Boeing wouldn't?

Hypothetically the benefit would be to scare other whistle-blowers who have been retaliated against, coming forward and launching their own court cases. Also the reputational damage of a 'suicide' is far less than the publicity of a precedent being set against Boeing and the media focussing on this poor person, when he won his court case.

With respect, I think you need a serious reality check on this issue.

[Matt48]

With respect, I think you need a serious reality check on this issue.

Do you think the C-suite knows what's happening on their shop floor or engineering offices, if so, they are no better than a serial killer. The Max8 comes to mind, someone knew how dangerous it was to have a single point of failure able to overwhelm a pilots input.
When it comes to morals or conscience, they are sadly lacking.

[OldnGrounded]

Well, John Barnett himself stated that if something happened to him, it was not a suicide.

Actually, some of Barnett's friends claim that he said that. It may be true, but it's not established. And whether it's true or not, it isn't, in and of itself, evidence relating to the cause and manner of his death.

The Charleston County coroner preliminarily said that Barnett's death appeared to be a suicide. The coroner's office has access to way more evidence than we do at this point. The local police are conducting an investigation. There's no reason to think that it will be anything other than fair, thorough and open-minded.

[OldnGrounded]

Do you think the C-suite knows what's happening on their shop floor or engineering offices, if so, they are no better than a serial killer. The Max8 comes to mind, someone knew how dangerous it was to have a single point of failure able to overwhelm a pilots input.
When it comes to morals or conscience, they are sadly lacking.

What does that have to do with conspiracy theories about Barnett's death?

Sheesh, folks, get a grip.

[OldnGrounded]

Well, John Barnett himself stated that if something happened to him, it was not a suicide.

Actually, some of Barnett's friends claim that he said that. It may be true, but it's not established. And whether it's true or not, it isn't, in and of itself, evidence relating to the cause and manner of his death.

The Charleston County coroner preliminarily said that Barnett's death appeared to be a suicide. The coroner's office has access to way more evidence than we do at this point. The local police are conducting an investigation. There's no reason to think that it will be anything other than fair, thorough and open-minded.

[Abrahn]

If the deposition in some as yet unknown manner then appeared to crush those hopes, such an impression of lost hope, and prolonged litigation against an entrenched and (let's say) forceful adverse party, could have motivated his decision.

Almost the entire world's press is jumping on every Boeing story and the quality control disaster that was Alaska 1282 has yet to reach climax. At the moment there's so much momentum behind his cause, including Congress, that it's hard to see anything that would happen in one minor skirmish causing that much despair.

There's no reason to think that it will be anything other than fair, thorough and open-minded.

Investigation by an elected official reliant on grant income in a county where Boeing is a large employer and giver of grants... you sure no reason?

...that might come over a bit conspiracy theory, not intended to just pointing out the fallacies in the two arguments.

[WillowRun 6-3]

To avoid any doubt, I'm definitely not asserting any degree of certainty about whether or not Mr. Barnett took his own life. Rather just trying to stay within my lane as SLF/attorney and commenting on the employment law, and general litigation, aspects.

Projecting outcomes of the legal case Mr. Barnett was pressing in the administrative law process of the U.S. Department of Labor is largely and maybe completely speculative without actual knowledge of what his Complaint - the legal filing actually made - asserts the company did as acts of retaliation. The Complaint (or other type of filing, if AIR21 cases have different terminology) might be accessible online but without more details, especially a case number, the DoL website for ALJ proceedings is pretty user-unfriendly. (If anyone has the complaint itself, feel free to post or DM.)

The best source I've found for what facts Mr. Barnett's claim probably asserts is an April 21 2019 New York Times article with the headline, "Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet." The article, generally, recaps many specific instances of employee concerns about 787 production, especially in a context of the company giving production rates higher priority than quality concerns. The article contains, in the pursuit of describing an overall set of problems in the plant, the quality concerns of several employees, some of whom filed whistleblower claims - presumably about the production issues themselves - and some of them also filed employment law claims.

Rather than trying to summarize the article's contents pertaining to Mr. Barnett, I'm posting a link to the article. As retaliation claims generally go under federal anti-discrimination statutes, the actions allegedly taken by the company, first, probably do evince retaliatory intent, but second, are far from the typically overt and severe actions (and stretch out over several years). In the aviation-related whistleblower arena, however, the legal and factual standards may be different - I don't know. And the employment ended with his retirement, rather than by a termination though - again without the DoL complaint he filed, whether the timing of the retirement was coerced isn't evident. Perhaps others are aware.

The NYT article link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html

[Garcia37]

Actually, some of Barnett's friends claim that he said that. It may be true, but it's not established. And whether it's true or not, it isn't, in and of itself, evidence relating to the cause and manner of his death.

The Charleston County coroner preliminarily said that Barnett's death appeared to be a suicide. The coroner's office has access to way more evidence than we do at this point. The local police are conducting an investigation. There's no reason to think that it will be anything other than fair, thorough and open-minded.
Sure, because the government or police can't be bribed eh? There are countless of cases where that happened (in other non related events I mean, not just this one).
Some other people were "suicided". That's how it works.
Lobbies also exist for a reason, and the government let them exist and have pressure on society while making rules or changes that benefits them
​​​​​​
​​​​

[Saab Dastard]

As this thread has descended into conspiracy theories and rather unsavoury speculation, this thread is now closed.