I'm sad to see this be the case. I think most right-thinking people were careful not to jump to conclusions based on his apparent background, and were inclined to at least contemplate his explanation that he was looking to generate some overtime. It didn't make sense that he was "negatively-impacted" by the contract situation, as he said, because while improvements in his situation are delayed until there is a contract, there were certainly no steps backwards, but I wrote that off to a reporter's misinterpretation of some nuance we didn't understand. Also, it occurred to me that in a work slowdown, overtime might be already readily-available for people who wanted to work.
So I realized that I didn't really understand his story as to why he did it, but it wasn't completely-implausible. After all, we're presuming that it isn't logical to generate overtime by sabotaging aircraft in the first place, so I wouldn't expect fully to follow his logic. And I know that people can just do surprisingly-stupid things.
But I also felt that one shouldn't be so careful not to assume anything because of his name that they overlooked the other, horrible possibility.
And while I think that the new story seems to lack any hard evidence of some kind of conspiracy, and might just be prosecutorial vituperation, I am glad that they're at least going to take a hard look at what might really be going on -- which may well be zero.
PS I never really understood what the sabotage was. Reading the clueless Miami Herald article, it sounds like he put something to obstruct a pitot tube, but even that is not clear.