I'm not saying that Boeing had him assassinated, but I sure wouldn't put it past them. They've already shown themselves to be perfectly willing to sacrifice human lives for increased profits.
But I think it's more likely that a shareholder/high stakes person connected to Boeing might want to do it.
There is no way Boeing, the company, would do it in my opinion. That would be nuts.
A janitor who thinks they will lose their job which might be no money but critical (or feel critical) to them because of retirement or health care, maybe for a relative etc, or any rando that some nobody middle manager lizard pressured or even merely manipulated by just talking.
-- would have said someone a few years ago
What does it mean for Boeing, the company, to have done it or not?
Boeing is a large corporation comprised of individuals and assets. If foul play was involved, how many of these individuals would it take to be considered that Boeing carried out the murder? Would they need to have used company assets? Would it need to have come down the chain of command?
Imagine you had a highly lucrative SMB selling Microsoft services to some government/institutional customers, and some big court case threatened to cause MS serious harm, affecting your ability to sell those MS services. If you're a sociopath, you might want to shoot the star witness.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052116/top-3-...
Every single one of these companies were already pulling in a massive amount of wealth but they knowingly killed people just so that they could make even more money. They all put additional profits over human lives. There is no reason to think they wouldn't put a bullet into someone's head if they thought it would make them more money. In many cases it would have been much more humane if they had.
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversig...
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversig...
In light of the scandal the FDA started a "Closer to Zero" program (https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/clo...) because I guess zero poison in baby food is asking too much. The website shows that the FDA hasn't continued to outright ignore the problem at least, but you can see that they haven't come close to doing anything meaningful in terms of action levels and don't expect to until Dec 2024.
In the meantime, high levels of heavy metals are still being found in baby food sold in stores: https://www.consumerreports.org/babies-kids/baby-food/are-he...
There are ongoing calls for the FDA to step in and do more (https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2024/attorney-general-james-...) and there are lawsuits in the works (https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2024/january/appeals-court-r...) that you might want to check into since your child could be being hurt.
Some foods are worse than others (rice is a common culprit) so if you're stuck using any kind of baby food off the shelf you might be able to reduce exposure if you're careful about what you buy, but I wouldn't have much confidence in any of it. Once a company has proven that they're willing to poison babies for profit trust shouldn't come easy.
I'm sorry that I was the one to tell you about this, but I'm really glad that you now know and if beech-nut has been hurting your kid I hope the damage done is small and that you're able to get some kind of compensation for the harm they've caused your family. Until companies know that they'll face significant and meaningful consequences if they knowingly hurt us for profit they'll never stop hurting us.