Feels kind of gross to include the nieces observation that he had been stressed as some kind of counterpoint to the statement in the title.
Things like: What did the note say? Where did the gun come from? Is there any CCTV video from the hotel and garage? still need to be investigated by the police.
It is possible that he was stressed, depressed, and expected to have his reputation (and life) destroyed by scorched earth lawyers for Boeing.
Now that Boeing is in the hot seat we want to identify journalist sources?
And I don't think there's a rule that we can only talk about things that have been fully investigated.
It's on ongoing current event and a development in it. It can be talked about if people want to talk about it and can do it civilly.
You calling it a counterpoint is actually my point - it in no way is. Being skeptical is good but that isn't skepticism its the gullibility of the cynic
You're grossly misrepresenting what the nieces actually said.
The article is quite unequivocal: the quote in the article is literally "stressed and depressed".
Why did you opted to omit the reference to depression? Do you think direct statements from his family should be ignored but your personal baseless assertions should take center stage?
In addition to that, here's what his own brother had to say about the apparent suicide:
> “He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing, which we believe led to his death,” the brother said.
Why is this fact glanced over?
Did I complain about that quote from the brother? So why are you bringing it up?
Its fucking ghoulish to use a nieces statement that the fun uncle got less fun leading up to this stressful thing as a counterpoint here.