Resolution criteria:
Sufficiently strong evidence is uncovered and/or someone involved in Boeing leadership is prosecuted for the assassination of one or more whistleblowers.
Does not need to be a decision made by any group within Boeing, an individual shareholder being discovered to have hired a hitman is sufficient for this market to resolve YES.
If any deaths of whistleblowers are discovered to be foul-play and there is no prime suspect/criminal trial of a murderer with motives unconnected to Boeing - this market likely also resolves YES - perhaps after a poll to decide if Manifold agrees there is sufficient evidence to conclude Boeing was involved in the death.
"We found this hitman who murdered one of these whistleblowers, but there's no evidence to connect them to leadership in Boeing..." - yeah, Boeing probably was involved in that.
So, what does Manifold think? Is Boeing killing whistleblowers?
Related questions
@RobertKennedy Basically no-one calls foul play on either of the whistleblowers killed so far, or whatever foul-play isn't at all related to either one of them being a Boeing whistleblowers
I don't think any possoble investigations have been settled yet. I've heard the second victim's family is pressing for a full autopsy due to the huge surprise of his death - but results are not expected for possibly several months. Additionally, for the first who died of a gunshot wound - potentially suicide - in his car, I haven't heard that investigations have been closed and it was determined to actually be a suicide.
If foul play becomes the dominant explanation for either of these, I will continue to withhold resolving until actually unaffiliated-with-boeing sources have been ruled out.
You should perhaps think of this market as "Did either of the two dead whistleblowers die of foul play due to the fact they were Boeing Whistleblowers - instead of foul play caused by any other fact about their lives?"
If they died of natural causes/legit suicide - that's "no."
If one died because someone killed them because that one once bullied them in highschool - that's "no."
... If there's a serial killer killing whistleblowers of any company/group, that's also a "no." Even if the killer's manifesto is super enthusiastic about Boeing in particular being a great company that requires heroic defending from loose lips.
If one of them has a mistress who poisoned them because she was jealous of all the time they were spending whistleblowing - that also resolves "no." They could have been doing any other number of things to send lover into a fit of murderous pique instead of whistleblowing.
If someone heavily invested in Boeing with no public ties to their decision making is prosecuted - I think it's fairly justified to say that's Boeing killing people - and I'd resolve "yes" in that situation. A partial owner of Boeing would have decided that a message needed to be sent & lips sealed.
That's basically the breakdown of different possibilities this market is aiming at.
@NevinWetherill ummm I was looking for something like "by Jan 1 2024" or something that helped me understand what state of mind you'd be in when clicked the NO button?
Would you click the NO button today on a similar market, but for Epstein? Or McAfee?
@RobertKennedy Hmmm. The Epstein question is interesting. I think in that case the most well justified take I have is that there was a moment where he was informed that he had to die, he was likely pushed to the first incident by his cell-mate, then after that was unsuccessful he was moved away and given allowance to do it on his own.
If this market was "Was Jeffrey Epstein's killed by his compromising connections to powerful people?" I think I'd be personally somewhat unsatisfied by it resolving yes... But also, I'd probably hit that button after trying to do a review in the comments of what has been uncovered about it so far.
I know less about McAffee, and would require a similar review of the state of investigation into the case and what is known so far.
I think the end-time is when it seems like we are unlikely to get further evidence, short of one of those black-swan news story investigative reporting/whistleblowing events that occasionally drops.
I set the end date on this to 2030 because that's long enough that all evidence we'll ever get will likely be out. If there isn't broad consensus/legal convictions about what that evidence points to, then I'll probably need to cross that bridge with the traders/community when we get there - but I'm committed to following common sense takes on what is probably actually true in real life about whether someone related to/invested in Boeing decided these people needed to die.
@NivlacM https://youtu.be/URoVKPVDKPU?si=XM7sbrAfEdYmhzFD
There was Boeing 🤩, and then there was Boeing 👀
I also want them to get better. New (old) ways need to be adopted. Something cracked and the whole thing slipped sideways.
And people are trying to fix it ... They just are getting shot or "suddenly dying unexpectedly."