Not that wild. It's not like Boeing would convene a board meeting and take a vote, "should we hire a contract killer to eliminate this threat?" When a company

Not that wild. It's not like Boeing would convene a board meeting and take a vote, "should we hire a contract killer to eliminate this threat?" When a company hires a killer to kill somebody, it is almost always[1] one person, or perhaps in rare cases a couple people, within the company who do it to protect themselves and what they have, or what hope to get, or sometimes, sure, for revenge or because they're nuts. Just like when natural people hire people to kill people. That's why I liked the movie Michael Clayton. It was the only realistic[2] movie about that scenario. Alternatively, sure — your scenario is also quite plausible. Who knows? Not us. But neither scenario, nor the other "Boeing or some subset thereof leaned on him so hard without actually doing murder, and maybe even without actually doing anything criminal, that he thought his life was effectively ruined and so killed himself" seems "wild" to me. All plausible. [1]: source: it's obvious [2]: regarding the actual mechanics of "how 'a company hires killers to kill somebody' works" — not necessarily the rest; it's still a Hollywood movie