Intent goes both ways - while perhaps there was no intent to have people die, there was deliberate intent to not do something about safety being compromised that they knew they should've done something about (or that they should have known about, being in their position to affect it or bring it to attention, instead of hiding or skirting around it).
It's not unreasonable to think that compromising safety (which they knew they were doing) could bring harm to people (including death).
Typically to prove murder, one must prove purposeful intent to harm. In this case, that would be proving that the engineers/managers wanted people to die.
Obviously jurisdiction matters. This is a matter of legal doctrine, not linguistics or ethics.
I agree murder wouldn’t fit here (unfortunately), and I was speaking more in the context of negligence - there were definitively intentional things done that affected safety, with intent to either violate it or withhold information about it to third parties. Manslaughter definitively, but 'involuntary' I feel doesn't apply (nor does "voluntary manslaughter" because there wasn't that specific intent), which is why I'm going with "criminal negligence".
Specifically what I’m getting at is that they’d have a hard time claiming that they reasonably didn’t think any harm could happen given the context of what was said and done/not done.
