>Also weird that BBC is already memory-holing that it was a gunshot wound.
Another source backs this up, and seems to have interviewed the man's attorney in the past. [0][1]
It's tempting to dismiss foul play on the basis that it's too brazen in the middle of a deposition. However, that's also the height of plausible deniability because cross examinations can get personal and thus emotional.
---
I can't help but be reminded of a film quote:
"But that's the way it works with corporate murder. Boss gets wind of something, calls in his head of security, who talks to someone, who talks to a friend of someone. Finishes up with an answering machine in a rented office, a couple of sensitive gentlemen in a blue pickup truck. They will never know who ordered the hit." [2]
Edit: In all seriousness, I don’t think the situation presented in the aforementioned movie quote is implausible, though I’m inclined to doubt foul play here unless there’s specific evidence to that effect. Depositions can be extraordinarily stressful; compound that with the anxiety of being a whistleblower, and I can see how someone could snap. At the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there was foul play.
Suppose you believed that a particular someone is responsible for, through incompetence or on purpose, deaths of 500 people and is making your life hell. Do you:
I think that when someone is experiencing extreme anxiety over an extended period of time, their actions aren’t necessarily going to be logical. Most people will recover once the stressor is removed. Some people will give up and choose option A. Still others will choose option B.
Nobody said anything about the CEO. Not sure exactly what you are arguing here. You seem hellbent on proving everyone who wants to listen that it's absolutely impossible for someone to act as an agent of a corporation in killing or ordering someone to be killed in the interest of the corporation. I understand 'movies aren't real, brah' but you seem to have some sort of superior understanding that the rest of us is lacking in order to be so determined.
If anything, the film quote is less realistic here insofar that it's not in context of a defense contractor with a large Rolodex.
Professionals tend to leave doubt rather than evidence. That said, even they make mistakes and therefore—to your point—it's unlikely it would be risked despite layers of intermediaries.
On the other hand, media cycles are short and PR is already in the trash can. This took place at the height of plausible deniability, and barring irrefutable evidence proving it wasn't foul play, it will be giving other potential whisleblowers pause.
The man's own attorney wrote:
"They found him in his truck dead from an ‘alleged’ self-inflicted gunshot."
Another source backs this up, and seems to have interviewed the man's attorney in the past. [0][1]
It's tempting to dismiss foul play on the basis that it's too brazen in the middle of a deposition. However, that's also the height of plausible deniability because cross examinations can get personal and thus emotional.
---
I can't help but be reminded of a film quote:
"But that's the way it works with corporate murder. Boss gets wind of something, calls in his head of security, who talks to someone, who talks to a friend of someone. Finishes up with an answering machine in a rented office, a couple of sensitive gentlemen in a blue pickup truck. They will never know who ordered the hit." [2]
[0] https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/boeing-whist...
[1] https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/brian-knowle...
[2] https://www.scripts.com/script/the_constant_gardener_702/17