I may perhaps be forgiven my preempting any conclusions to be argued here, by titling this article "Yet More Banksters 'Suicided'"... In fact, it could be argued that I am making two assumptions, not only that they are being "suicided", but that they are "banksters" to begin with. To clarify the latter point, in today's world, where a criminal British bank keeps sending me form letters to accept their usurious credit cards, and which I keep refusing (using their return postage paid envelopes to send my angry form letters demanding that they cease and desist perstering me with their crummy offers and to participate in their criminality), I assume that banking is now more or less a "family business" rather like the Mafia, and some members of the family may be relatively isolated from the family business; others, like Michael Corleone, might be pressured by circumstances to take "a more active role." As for so many banksters taking walks off of roofs, yes, I do think this is a pattern, and not accidental. After all, even though all the families are involved in the same criminal business, and cooperate in it to rig markets and rates (think LIBOR here folks), they also turn the guns loose on each other, make each other wear concrete boots for a walk on the river, or throw each other off of roofs, or use the old tried and true nail-gun-in-the-head method. It's all just Venice, Florence, Genoa, and Amsterdam, updated with a bit of theatrical modern technology.
In fact, my dot-connecting has been positively tame compared to some of the emails I receive in this regard. One gentleman nicely reminded me that M. Christophe de Margerie was the oil tycoon that reminded the whole world that petroleum did not have to be traded in dollars, and that his "death by lone nut snow plow driver" and "airplane crash" might be payback for the untimely death of David Rockefeller's son in an airplane crash earlier this year. Well, personally, I have no idea... is Mr. Rockefeller a Michael Corleone? or is the family business run by other more "let's loose the thugs against the competition" people, like grand-dad, the old family don himself?
All this, of course, is prelude to the point: there are now yet more banksters who have been suicided, one of whom, M. Thierry, we have already noted. This one, however, is a former Deutsche Bank lawyer, and this one is almost, in a certain sense, too good to be true, or rather, too bizarre to be believed save as a bad plot in a bad Hollyweird B movie:
Yes,you read that correctly: (1) a lawyer,(2)with the surname of Gambino, (3) working for Deutsche Bank... It doesn't get any better....
...or does it?
Mr. Gambino, as noted, was found hung by a staircase banister - a bit of intriguing symbolism if one thinks about it a bit, shades of another Italian banker found hanging beneath a bridge, and other stuff - but the real question is, why would anyone want him suicided? I believe a threadbare pattern is beginning to emerge, one disclosed in the Zero Hedge version:
"As a reminder, the other Deutsche Bank-er who was found dead earlier in the year, William Broeksmit, was involved in the bank's risk function and advised the firm's senior leadership; he was "anxious about various authorities investigating areas of the bank where he worked," according to written evidence from his psychologist, given Tuesday at an inquest at London's Royal Courts of Justice. And now that an almost identical suicide by hanging has taken place at Europe's most systemically important bank, and by a person who worked in a nearly identical function - to shield the bank from regulators and prosecutors and cover up its allegedly illegal activities with settlements and fines - is surely bound to raise many questions.
"The WSJ reports that Mr. Gambino had been "closely involved in negotiating legal issues for Deutsche Bank, including the prolonged probe into manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, and ongoing investigations into manipulation of currencies markets, according to people familiar with his role at the bank.'
"He previously was an associate at a private law firm and a regulatory enforcement lawyer from 1997 to 1999, according to his online LinkedIn profile and biographies for conferences where he spoke. But most notably, as his LinkedIn profile below shows, like many other Wall Street revolving door regulators, he started his career at the SEC itself where he worked from 1997 to 1999."(Emphasis Zero Hedge's).
In other words, part of the bankster suicides have to do with market manipulation, and some of them, like the unfortunate Mr. Richard Talley, who woke up to nails in his head, were involved in mortgage titles; and against the wider context of the financial fraud and bailouts, we saw (1) a massive expansion of credit default swaps and derivatives, which collapsed with the "housing bubble", which in turn exposed the massive mortgage fraud and hence bad paper in the system(which may have been exposed by assiduous title researchers like Mr. Talley). Interestingly, Deutsche Bank's exposure to both is rather high, if recent Fed pronouncements are of any value. And both the mortgage fraud and the bad paper are, as readers here know, intimately related to the bearer bonds scandals (their own unique kind of bad paper), and drug traffic, and hidden systems of finance.
So, what's the bottom line for today's high octane speculation? It would appear that the bankster suicides might indicate that the whole post-war system of hidden finance is in danger of coming unraveled faster than a new system can be erected, and that various people in management positions in prime banks are beginning to connect dots that were connected by a previous generation, and realizing how deep, pervasive, and fragile the whole system is. It might indicate therefore that they are realizing that the central player in the central banking model is no longer the central banks, but that dangerous alliance between the technology corporations, the intelligence apparatus, and international criminal enterprises like the drug trade. Would all the rival members of the family - the Banksterini, the Technocrati, the Intelligentsi, the Mafiosi - want to keep the thing from unraveling until a new system could be erected? Let us hypothesize further:Would they want to conceal how a new equity based system of finance was brought into existence through decades of criminality and massive fraud by burning the bad paper, and anyone who knew of it, or at least of significant parts of the story?
I suspect you know the answers to these questions already, and I suspect you know that this means that the banksters, even the "really bad" ones in the central banks, might not be the ultimate bad guys in the play, but rather, the intelligence-technocratic corporation interface. But it is, after all, high octane speculation, the stuff of "out there" Lewis Perdue thriller novels (and a certain one were, as it turns out, very prophetic) and Hollywood B gangster movies, starring Edward G.Robinson and James Cagney and Sydney Greenstreet.
See you on the flip side.