• OpenStars
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Tbf the evidence for the second person is not strong - that stuff does legit happen.

      But the first guy? Damn! That’s enough right there.

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well isn’t there a ruling in aircraft design and safety, that you calculate the probability of a certain failure and judge by its reoccurence if it was just random, or more than likely systematic?

        I think i read this in context to the two MAX planes crashing in the exact same way. The first one was ruled as maybe just being some very very freak thing to happen, but it happening twice made it entirely implausible to be without systematic cause.

        And well now it is happening twice in a few years with Boeing that weird things happen twice in a row with little time in between in relation to critical security flaws.

        • OpenStars
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well isn’t there a ruling in aircraft design and safety, that you calculate the probability of a certain failure and judge by its reoccurence if it was just random, or more than likely systematic?

          It sounds like neither of us know the answer to that, so I choose not to comment on that matter.

          I think i read this in context to the two MAX planes crashing in the exact same way.

          But how does that apply? One guy was a “suicide”, the other was bacteria - you just said it yourself, the metric only works if they crash “in the exact same way”, therefore by your own words, this seems to not apply?

          There is a natural human bias to want to “know” things. Sometimes we even make shit up out of desperation to fill that void, but the more honest way (but HARD to do, emotionally, as in it seriously goes against the grain of our pattern-finding brain’s natural instinctual algorithms) is to simply say “I do not know the answer here”. Please don’t misunderstand me as saying that it is likely that the second guy was not killed - that would be 100% tangential to what I am trying to convey!

          Rather, I am saying that the first guy looks to have been Epstein-ed, but we don’t know enough yet about the second guy. Could you imagine someone sent to kill him, and having a whole plan in place so that he wouldn’t even make it home but rather be taken care of in the car on the way there, but then he dies in his hospital bed first -> do you still get paid!?:-P Asking the important questions here!!:-D

          But again, what happened to the first guy is already enough to know that some shady shit is going on. And yeah, that should make us think twice about the second guy… but having done so, I think that we just don’t know enough there to make a firm determination like we could for the first guy, without additional evidence. Which does not absolve Boeing one iota for being so shitty for the last few years.

          • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

            years

            Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

            I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I agree, that we cannot rule either death to be an assassination by itself. But their distinct occurrence in this context, e.g. that they prevent whistleblowers from testifying warrants an in depth investigation into both of them. In particular given the circumstances it is sketchy if Police or other officials are eager to close the case and rule it as non assassinations, without actually analyzing what was going on.

            • OpenStars
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I don’t know the relevant laws there - but I am certain that an autopsy would have been done? Beyond that, what more could be done? If that means a more expensive autopsy, then yeah they should do that - even Boeing might agree on that point, to help absolve them, even if they did somehow give the bacteria to the guy, but like if they were confident that it could not be traced to them in that manner.

              Speaking of, even if they were guilty in this second case, that’s a very different thing than someone being able to prove it. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a foundational bedrock principle in the USA, and we cannot simply throw that away without losing something precious.

              And with them being military contractors, they probably have classified status to where local police can’t just go subpoenaing their records willy nilly. I could be wrong though. Then again, if they are used to dealing with the likes of e.g. literal Russian spies, then surely they would be smart enough to not leave a paper trail on something like this to begin with?

              But the first guy should already be enough to start an investigation. The second guy… I dunno what that one means, maybe yes but also might not be.

              • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                There can be far more done than just an autopsy in the second case. Is there a register who has entered and left the building? Is there camera footage showing anyone accessing the room that had no business being there? Is there anything unusual in the nurses schedules? Were all procedures followed according to the rules, especially sanitary rules?

                These are all things that should be investigated. If they show no signs of irregularities then the case can be closed. If there is irregularities, then these need to be investigated further, and then the question of motive comes into play, where there is one party with a very strong motive to silence the guy.

                • OpenStars
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I presumed all of that would already be done. Then again, perhaps not. Then again, a giant military industrial contractor may have ways around such anyway, which doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t look, though either way I would expect the situation to at least superficially look innocent.

                  You could write a letter, maybe get a petition signed to back it up, to the hospital and ask that their internal security do such? Or the police in that local area.

                • OpenStars
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Tbf, you did come out fairly condescending and combative, telling people what to do and how wrong they are, and even essentially calling them names. Putting aside being correct or not, people don’t take kindly to being told in that manner!:-P

                  But it’s not all bad, and that separates this place from Reddit. The latter I just never visit anymore, b/c there is simply no longer any point to do so. In contrast, this place is full of crap… but it’s not all crap, and that’s… well that’s… something, I guess:-).

                  Also, I kid - it’s generally significantly better than crap - it definitely contains crap, but it’s also got a lot of good stuff too.:-)

                  This post though is probably a lost cause indeed:-P.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t know if that’s a rule of thumb or not, but it certainly makes sense.

          First, the world of reliability runs on data and math. Lots of statistics, of course.

          And second, aircraft are over-engineered for safety margins on top of safety margins. The test data might say you need a part that’s X thickness of aluminum in order to be 99% sure to never fail in the field. So let’s just make it 3X thickness to be safe!

          So from that standpoint, back to back failures should pretty much always draw a bunch of attention in this industry.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I did do the math on it and the second guy only had a 1 in 3630 chance of dying of natural causes in that time window.

        • OpenStars
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          We do ourselves no favors by sounding like conspiracy nutjobs who are uninterested in facts. When they go low, we should retain the high road, imho.

          Edit: this… basically means tangentially what I had intended to say, so it is better off to be deleted, though I will leave it as strikethrough for the historical record (I really hate all those “deleted” messages, and don’t want to contribute one of my own too!).

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah yeah I suck, get in line and take a number. Now, will attacking me bring those two murdered men back to life?

            • OpenStars
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I apologize for my wording - I agree with you that I was out of line. There was some point I was trying to make, about the need to be cautious with our wording, but somehow I ended up doing the exact thing I was trying to warn about, didn’t I? Fwiw I don’t actually think that you suck at all - I was just really, Really, REALLY bad at expressing myself there.:-) Thank you for not returning the favor in like manner.

    • rsuri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There’s 2 kinds of evidence.

      • Circumstantial evidence - relies on an inference to connect it to the conclusion (e.g. guy saying before hand he won’t kill himself).
      • Direct evidence - no additional inference/evidence is needed (e.g. video of a guy going up to the car and shooting him).

      The guy saying he won’t kill himself requires inferring that he’s being truthful when he said it and that he didn’t change his mind. It’s not non-evidence, it does point to suicide being less likely. But it’s far from conclusive. If there’s no sign of entering the vehicle or that a struggle occurred, then I’d argue that far outweighs his prior statement.

      They just happened to work at the same company and die right before they could testify on the same thing.

      That’s also a common misunderstanding, at least regarding the first (I’m not as familiar with the second). I’m a bit unclear on the details of the deposition - which side wanted it and was asking the questions, etc. (detailed here) but whatever the case, it was Boeing that demanded he come back for one more day. So if Boeing wanted him to not testify that day, they’d just send him home as originally planned. The only reason they’d do it then was to silence him generally…but doing it in a way that draws so much suspicion to them seems like an implausibly bad decision. Then again, it is Boeing. (Note that this is also circumstantial evidence, and requires assuming that Boeing isn’t so dumb as to kill a witness in the middle of their own deposition, which may not be warranted).

      Edit: corrected my own misunderstanding of deposition

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Its also inferring his friend is being truthful when he said that’s what the guy said.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        there’s no sign of entering the vehicle

        Hey.

        Yeah?

        See this gun?

        I do.

        Kill yourself with it or I will kill everyone in your family. Here is a list of their names and addresses.

        What if I kill you instead?

        Guys who sent me will send someone else.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      That guy also had a history of mental issues and anxiety. He was away from home experiencing high stress environments, like a court room, and he was looking at another court appearance that day.

      It doesn’t take a genius to see that maybe, just maybe, this is a coincidence instead of murder. He had already given the bulk of his testimony, so I really don’t see the motive here.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes. What you are listing are coincidences.

      Also understand that it is pretty rare for a whistleblower to have any future in the industry they are blowing the whistle on. That is throwing away years of schooling and often decades of experience. People tend to not do that if they aren’t already ill and not expecting a long life.

      As for “if I die, it is not suicide”: Gonna get real dark for a moment. A lot of people are just looking for a way to make their life, or death, matter. Someone realizing they don’t want to put themselves and their family through a very long trial might very well use that as an excuse to take the easy way out.

      All that said: Obviously these need to be investigated. But there is a big difference between investigating a suspicious death and immediately jumping to conspiracy.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          And suicide rates go up drastically when people are overly stressed and think they have no future. Sort of like… having contributed to incredibly dangerous air travel and burning bridges with an entire industry.

          Similarly, like I said, a lot of whistleblowers are ill to begin with. Because, again, it is throwing away your future in an industry. It is a lot easier to consider that when your future on this planet is measured in years or even months.

          A LOT of documentaries/youtubes/whatever love to point out “the big evil company is ruining this man’s life when he is just trying to get his chemotherapy so that he can have a few more months with his family”. Which is indeed horrible (and why any good lawyer gets the testimony on record ASAP because people ARE pushed to suicide). But also kind of ignores that said company didn’t give them cancer… Unless we are having a repeat of the COVID conspiracy theories too.

            • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              The SEC had 12k. Whistle blower tips in 2022 alone, so I’m going to say that less then 1000 cases in recorded history is a lie.

                • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  And you are still enacting conspiracy theory 101. You have a questionable fact that you are going to keep drilling down on and use to justify every single claim you have. But you completely ignore why suicide rates might be higher for people in a whistleblower situation or why people might be at heightened risk of medical complications in 2024. And why that may also have a link to deciding to throw away a career in the interest of the public good.

                  And the worst part? This will do exactly what every other nutbrain conspiracy theory does. It provides incredibly easy to refute accusations and then undermines anyone who actually cares about how much boeing knowingly allowed. Because all the people who will point out exactly what these whistleblowers fought to get out there? They are dragged down by your ranting and raving.

                  Maybe it was murder, maybe it was just two tragic deaths. Time will tell. But let’s focus on the actual accusations rather than make up some because we want a really juicy true crime podcast?

      • Kedly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        How is your take also not a conspiracy theory? You just pinned it on the little guy instead of a megacorp