A few days ago I posted "Los Alamos whistleblower Tommy Hook assaulted". Hook is going to testify before Congress on financial irregularities at Los Alamos National Laboratories, where he's an auditor.

One will note that in that post I used the following hedge words: "reportedly" "apparently" "it doesn't look" "according to". I had a suspicion that something else might be afoot, and now we're told that the beating was because he backed into someone in the parking lot. And, the police have identified the perps and the case has gone to the D.A. for possible charges against either them, Hook, or both.

What's that you say? You have the nagging feeling that this is all too cut and dried? I mean, how difficult would it be for someone to stage being backed into, then get into a fight supposedly over that when in fact you were paid to intimidate someone?

Far-fetched you say! Not so to...

...colleague and fellow whistleblower, Chuck Montano, said he had secluded himself to recover from his injuries, but that Hook stands by his version of how the attack happened.

"What's unfortunate about this is that it appears to be Mr. Hook's word against the word of four or more assailants," Montano said. "These individuals involved would have every incentive to portray a different scenario than what Mr. Hook portrayed. That says volumes about how difficult it is as whistleblowers to bring issues to the surface."

But wait, that's just what you'd expect him to say. And, that's just what the conspiracy wants you to believe...