May 31, 2007

2 get plea deals in beating of LANL whistle-blower outside Cheeks






By Jason Auslander | The New Mexican
May 31, 2007


Prosecutor says man suffered earlier attack in topless bar's parking lot

A Los Alamos National Laboratory whistle-blower was attacked twice outside a Santa Fe topless bar nearly two years ago, not just once, a prosecutor said during the attackers' sentencings Wednesday.

The first time occurred as Tommy Hook was leaving Cheeks after spending three hours allegedly waiting for a fellow whistle-blower to show up, Joseph Campbell said. An unknown man hit him in the back of the head outside the bar, knocked him to the ground and said, ``You ought to keep your mouth shut,'' Campbell said.

The second attack occurred minutes later in the strip club parking lot when Hook backed his car into a different man and initiated an ill-fated confrontation with the man, Campbell said. Hook, who said he was lured to the bar by a mysterious, late-night phone call, sustained serious injuries that night, though police later said his whistle-blower status was not the reason he was attacked.

On Wednesday, the two men involved in the second attack -- Joseph Sandoval, 26, and 29-year-old Zeke Nevarez -- accepted plea deals in connection with the beating and were sentenced in state District Court.

Campbell's version of what happened the night of June 5, 2005, differed from previous reports about the beating, which mentioned only the one attack on Hook by Sandoval and Nevarez. Campbell also supplied several other unreported details about the events of that night, including the fact Hook started the physical altercation with the much-larger Sandoval.

The same week the beating took place, Hook was preparing to meet with a congressional investigator about allegations he'd made about fraud and waste at LANL. Hook and another lab auditor also had filed a lawsuit against the lab before the beating, alleging they had faced retaliation after speaking out about the alleged fraud and waste.

The incident in June 2005 began just after 10 p.m., when Hook received a phone call at his home in Los Alamos, Campbell said. Hook thought the call was from a fellow lab employee who wanted to help blow the whistle on the allegations Hook had brought to light, he said. The employee suggested Cheeks -- a topless bar on Cerrillos Road -- as a meeting place, Campbell said.

Hook, whose wife was visiting their grown sons in Albuquerque at the time, arrived at the bar shortly after 10:30 p.m., Campbell said. He spent about three hours at the strip club, talking to other patrons and buying drinks for some of them, Campbell said.

A lawyer for Cheeks said at the time that Hook drank six beers, sat with two attractive women at the bar, bought drinks for the women, bought dances for the two women and, around midnight, bought a dance from a waitress in the VIP room. Roger Purcino, the lawyer for Cheeks, also said Hook told Cheeks employees he'd won $500 at a casino earlier that night.

Campbell said he has e-mail records showing Hook was home until nearly 10 p.m. Purcino didn't return a phone call Wednesday seeking further comment.

As Hook left the bar and was walking to his car, a mystery man hit him in the back of the head, Campbell said. Campbell said he did not know if the man -- who warned Hook to keep his mouth shut -- used a weapon in the attack, but said Hook was knocked to the ground, where he lay in a dazed state for about two minutes. Hook only saw the man's legs and feet.

Hook was still dazed when he made it to his car and began to drive away, he said. However, before leaving the parking lot, Hook decided he should report the attack to police and was re-parking his Subaru to do so when he backed into Sandoval's leg, Campbell said. Sandoval, who had just arrived at the bar to pick up Nevarez and hadn't been inside, kicked the bumper of Hook's car in response, he said.

Hook -- who is about 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighs 150 pounds -- got out of his car and pushed Sandoval -- who is about 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighs 275 pounds -- in the shoulder area, Campbell said. Some witnesses said it looked as if Hook was going for Sandoval's throat, Campbell said. Hook's move, however, had no effect on the much-larger Sandoval, the lawyer said. Sandoval struck back, knocking Hook to the asphalt, ``and the beating ensued,'' Campbell said.

As Hook fell to the ground, Nevarez, who hadn't been involved in the situation up to that point, joined the fray and began punching and kicking Hook while he lay on the ground, Campbell said. Witnesses said Sandoval also beat Hook while he was the ground, Campbell said. Damian Horne, Sandoval's lawyer, said his client, who does not drink, do drugs or have a criminal record, did not participate in the beating after Hook fell to the ground.

State District Judge Michael Vigil asked who hit Hook from behind the first time. Campbell said no one knows who the first assailant was, but it wasn't Sandoval or Nevarez.

Hook said Wednesday in court that he has gone through two years of rehabilitation for injuries to his shoulder, neck, hand, wrist, foot and scalp. He also suffers from cognitive problems, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and attention deficit disorder, he said. ``I can no longer add simple numbers,'' Hook said. ``These guys almost killed me.''



Susan Hook, his wife, said the couple has been married 31 years, but during the past two years, ``he is not the same person I married.''

``They treated him like a piece of meat,'' she said. ``He would have been beaten to death if the security guard hadn't come out. No human being deserved that, no matter what reason he was there.''

Santa Fe police found a bruise on the back of Sandoval's leg that was the same height as the bumper on Tommy Hook's car and concluded Sandoval had been hit, Campbell said. FBI investigators found no evidence of the contact, the prosecutor said.

FBI spokesman Bill Elwell said Wednesday that he didn't know if agents found evidence of the car hitting Sandoval. He also said he hadn't heard of an attack preceding the beating from Sandoval and Nevarez.

FBI investigators found that Tommy Hook, who'd had ``a few drinks,'' became belligerent with Sandoval and was beaten. Also, investigators found the comment about keeping his mouth shut was made by Sandoval in response to Tommy Hook's belligerence, and Hook was at the bar of his own accord and never received a phone call prompting his presence, Elwell said.

``We found the altercation had absolutely nothing to do with his being a whistle-blower,'' Elwell said. ``He tried to tell us he was lured there, but that wasn't the case.''

The FBI is not investigating the report of the alleged first attack, he said.

Campbell said he doesn't have records proving a phone call prompted Tommy Hook's trip to the nightclub. But e-mail conversations Hook had that night indicate he was summoned to the bar, he said. In addition, Campbell said he believes some of the injuries Tommy Hook sustained that night support Hook's contention of a first attack to the back of his head.

``If he was hit in the back of the head as he claims, I would believe it was because of his whistle-blowing status,'' Campbell said. ``I believe he was assaulted twice.''

Sandoval entered an Alford plea to conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, was given a conditional discharge and sentenced to one year of probation. Nevarez entered an Alford plea to one count of aggravated battery and was sentenced to four years in prison. However, District Judge Michael Vigil suspended three of those years and sentenced Nevarez -- who apologized to Tommy and Susan Hook -- to a year of house arrest.

``What I did was wrong,'' Nevarez said. ``I just don't ever want to be in this courtroom again.''

In an Alford plea, a defendant doesn't admit guilt but acknowledges that sufficient evidence exists to convict. A conditional discharge means the felony charge will be wiped off Sandoval's record if he successfully completes his probationary period.

Vigil ordered both men to pay restitution to Tommy Hook for medical bills as part of their sentences.

Bob Rothstein, Tommy Hook's lawyer in the civil lawsuit against the lab, said Wednesday that a judge is considering motions for summary judgment filed by the lab, and the case is on hold until those decisions are made.

Contact Jason Auslander at 995-3877 or jauslander@sfnewmexican.com.

83 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hook is clearly lieing.

One might ask why Hook who started the fight was not arrested for assault.

Anonymous said...

Tommy Hook may have been naive in wanting to do the right thing for a Laboratory that has lost it's soul, but heaven help us all when brave souls like his cease to exist. As for those who could care less, heaven have mercy on the rest of us who'll always be their victims because of it.

Anonymous said...

9:32AM said "clearly lieing?"

What the hell is "lieing?"...and clearly at that? Clearly to who? How can you tell? Are you palm reader, except in your case you read the bruises on the face of the person assaulted? The rape victim is "clearly" at fault as well, right? Moron!

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

Hook was not charged/arrested/or anything else because the DA and the Grand Jury didn't believe what the SFPD was saying. If you had read the entire article in detail or had any first hand information in the case , you would know that Mr. Hook did not hit anyone with his vehicle. This fact was investigated by the FBI and private investigators. Neither party found
any evidence that MR Hook's car was involved in striking ANYONE that horrible night. The only thing found was Mr. Sandoval's footprint where he kicked Mr.Hook's car. That is the only actual evidence involved in the matter. If the Mr anonymous who cannot spell above the fourth grade level would notice others inlcuding Mr Hook testified to the fact that MR Sandoval not only knocked Mr Hook to the ground but continued to kick and beat Mr. Hook until the bouncer stopped the beating. I have serious problems with gutless wonders taking cheap shots at someone who is now permanently disabled.

Anonymous said...

"The same week the beating took place, Hook was preparing to meet with a congressional investigator about allegations he'd made about fraud and waste at LANL."

Was there ever any follow-up on this?

Anonymous said...

It's time to clean up Los Alamos, from top to bottom, or lock the doors and throw away the keys once and for all.

Who the hell runs that place, Tony Suprano?!

Anonymous said...

Don't malign Tony S. He has more class than the thugs responsible for this, and I'm talking about the ones in charge of that Lab, not the ones that beat up this guy.

Anonymous said...

Yup, Marquez and all.

Anonymous said...

Hey, sorry, anyone, I mean anyone, in a strip club parking lot after midnight is a low-life scum whose presence on earth is not required. End of story. Surprised about getting beaten up? Think you were in a Home Depot parking lot on Saturday afternoon?? What on earth did you think you were exposing yourself to?? Disneyland?? Look at the perps - stand-up citizens all, right? Geez.

Anonymous said...

So using the logic of the previous genious, if you go to a public toilet and somebody jumps all over you while you're in the stall and shits all over your face, hey...what else can you expect? After all, it's a toilet stall, right? What kind of stupid Jerry Falwell logic is that?

Pinky and The Brain said...

"whose presence on earth is not required"

I'll bet the person who whacked Hook on the back of his head was thinking the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Oh come now? To suggest UC isn't still in the picture at LANL is like saying the Pope doesn't really have a foothold in the Vatican. LANS was UC's creation if you recall. LANS was UC's last ditch effort at maintaining a stranglehold on Los Alamos and it worked. So UC used the same strategy on Livermore, and it worked there as well. Same monkeys, as Sig Hecker used to say, just different trees. Nothing has really changed in other words.

Anonymous said...

Just to be fair, shouldn't we say "I'll bet the person who 'allegedly' whacked Hook on the back of his head was thinking the same thing." Didn't notice where the mystery person's presence was established or where it was clearly established that the earlier blow actually happened. Interesting that it took three hours of partying to finally cause Mr. Hook to decide his contact was a no show. I guess I get added to the "genius" list.

Pinky and The Brain said...

I'm just going by what was reported.

"In addition, Campbell said he believes some of the injuries Tommy Hook sustained that night support Hook's contention of a first attack to the back of his head."

Also missing from the press coverage is an explanation for how the FBI knows there was no phone call inviting Hook to meet at Cheeks. Were they listening to his phone calls?

"The FBI is not investigating the report of the alleged first attack".

Do they know there was no first attack? Did they have him under surveillance that night? It does seem that we still don't have all the details.

Anonymous said...

Look it is Hook who should be in jail right now.

Pinky and The Brain said...

Neither of the two people who beat him to a pulp are going to jail. By that standard, what did Hook do that merits jail?

Dr. Strangelove said...

Pinky -

The quality of comments has gone way down lately.

Hook may have lied about why he was at Cheeks, We doubt he started the fight in any significant way.

Hook may have made up some of his "whistleblowing" but we see no motive for him making it all up.

Sandoval and Navarez (and maybe the mystery "hit-me-from-behind" person) clearly were out for a good time of the worst kind.

Maybe one or all of them were threatening/retaliating against a LANL whistleblower. Probably not.

- doc

Pinky and The Brain said...

Hook knows if he's a liar. I just can't see why anyone else claims to *know* he's a liar. At least I can't see it from what has been reported in the press.

Either there is more to the story or the story should be about a sloppy investigation. I'm curious to see how it plays out.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Strangelove just keeps getting stranger and stranger. You're sounding more and more like Rich Marquez with each post.

Anonymous said...

Doc is speaking clearly.

Anonymous said...

Clearly? As a drunken sailor perhaps.

Anonymous said...

To Pinky and the Brain

I am very surprised by your comments. If you remember Hook said that he went
to Cheeks to get information on a case. He said that he had only two drinks and was there for only a few hours. In fact the witnesses said that he had up to six drinks, a lap dance,and was there for 4 to 5 hours. He left near closing time on a Fri night when his wife was out of town. From this is seems highly unlickly that he went to Cheeks
to meet somone on a case. There was
no phone record, email record, and the person in question he was suppose to meet did not give his name or come forward afterword.
You would also figure that since they captured the two suspects that they would have said
if they got paid by some external sourceso they would get off lighter.

In the very least he knowinly lied about aspects of that night.

From this it seems you could make a case that he made up the story about the being beaten up for being a whistleblower. This is a serious charge againts LANL. I think that for making such a false charge he should be prosecuted and jailed.

Also in light of all this it would seem Mr Hook will make things up so it casts serious doubt on his previous whistleblower claims.

Pinky and The Brain said...

I don't know Hook and I've never been to Cheeks. Again, I'm just going by what was in the news. There is no explanation for how it is "known" that there was no phone call. If the call was local there wouldn't be a record of it, would there?

Also, only the suspects in the second attack were captured. If the person who made the phone call was the person responsible for the first attack that would explain why he never came forward. It doesn't explain why the FBI didn't know about the first attack until a few days ago.

Beer and lap dances while his wife was out of town don't make him a liar. Lying makes him a liar. From what I'm seeing in the news story, nobody *knows* he's a liar and nobody has tried very hard to find out. I'm still betting there is more to this story.

K. Boland said...

I heard that after they beat the shit out of him, they made him breathe some aqua regia vapors. Then Pete Bussolini ran him over with a Mustang he stole from Wen Ho Lee.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the laugh, KB!

Is it just me, or have the comments on the blog really gone downhill. I might have thought it was bad before, but, man, this is truly horrid...

Anonymous said...

10:26 am (Pinky and whatever..)

"Beer and lap dances while his wife was out of town don't make him a liar."

Obviously, but maybe there are worse things than being a liar? "Well as long as he didn't lie we should all respect him?" Character is as character does. Disregard for one's spouse and a blind spot on observable behavior that will ruin your reputation, job, clearance, etc. is just as bad as provable "lying."

Pinky and The Brain said...

Perhaps everyone is so familiar with this case they only read the headline of the article. My two questions are based on what I read, not a defense of Hook's carousing on the night of the beating.

"Hook was at the bar of his own accord and never received a phone call prompting his presence, Elwell said."

Maybe he didn't recieve the phone call. That would indeed make him a liar. My first question is how does the FBI *know* he didn't receive the phone call?

"He [FBI spokesman on Wednesday] also said he hadn't heard of an attack preceding the beating from Sandoval and Nevarez."

"The FBI is not investigating the report of the alleged first attack, he said."

Something isn't adding up here. The prosecuter knew about the first attack. My second question is, why didn't the FBI?

Anonymous said...

I think it would be easy to show that
there was never a phone call. Also it seems like bs to me that there was a first attack. The other two guys just said that to clear themselves. No one
else saw anything. Hook lied, end of story. Lay this to rest.

Pinky and The Brain said...

I would lay this to rest if I knew what the FBI knows or what Hook knows, but I don't.

Hook could lay this to rest if he admitted he was lying, but he hasn't.

The FBI could lay this to rest by saying how they know there was no phone call but they haven't.

If you could tell us how you know Hook is lying then you could lay this to rest.

Anonymous said...

"reasonable doubt"...throw all three of them in jail and move on!

Anonymous said...

If you are in law enforcement, it is pretty simple to get records of calls that a given telephone receives. You don't even need a court order for it.

Notice that I didn't say "recordings" of calls'; it is simply a list of telephone numbers. Like a record of what your caller ID shows.

I can remember whent the Hook story hit that I read a report that said that the police had checked Hook's phone records. Presumably they identified the callers by the numbers shown on the report, and concluded that none of them was the mysterious caller that Hook went to meet.

The story that I read pretty consistently, and which isn't contradicted by the new story, is that Hook got into a verbal altercation with those two, pulled forward and hit one of the guys with his bumper, and they pulled him out of the car and beat him. Supposedly one of the guys had a bruise on his leg that was at the proper height to have come from Hook's bumper.

It's also pretty clear from interviews with the dancers (as reported in the papers) that Hook was there for much longer than he initially reported to police.

It is really too bad that the guy got beaten up so badly; he didn't deserve what he got.

But shame on him for trying to pin it on the lab. He should have had more integrity that to make a situation (the situation at LANL, and the press coverage) worse simply for his own personal gain.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the thugs of Santa Fe have more than a friends working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.If I had previously been exposed going on travel with my secretary at taxpayer expense, I guess I'd be pissed with Hook as well. Or if I was brought to the carpet for rigging a contract award in favor of my buddy's company, I'd hate Hook too. Or if I'd been investigated for claiming to be at work when, in fact, I was at the casino, I'd probably also want to get back at Hook in any way I. could. In other words Hook was. the guy in charge of conducting such investigations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and so it's no surprise some of the rifraf he might have offended over the years would be making a showing here on this blog, taking pot shots at a man who is in no position to defend himself anymore. We can all now see that the FBI did a very shoddy job investigating the attack on this man and now that he has been vidicated, by the revelation that he was, in fact set up and was, in fact, assaulted because of his whistleblower status, his enemies are still trying to muddy the waters with diversionary arguments no longer relevant, much less factual. This is uncalled for and not what we, as a national laboratory should be known for. Because of a few bad apples who insist on carrying out a vendeta against this man the entire institution is being tainted. Hook isn't our worst enemy, we are.

Anonymous said...

To all of the Anonymous Bloggers:

To the individual who said "low lfe scum whose presence on earth is not required." You are one sick puppy! If you hold a Q clearance it should be pulled immediately. Next you will tell us you are a Christian aND YOU SIT NEXT TO US IN CHURCH.
Your comments sound like another form of death threat to Mr. Hook. Would you please identify yourself to medical because, man you really need to get some professional help.

Anonymous said...

Don't know Hook, came to the Lab after 2002, have no reason to attack him as the result of a vendetta, etc. However, reviewing the information here, not so willing to accuse the FBI for doing shoddy work on a case that doesn't appear to have provided a lot of conspiracy evidence, and the fact that Hook behaved questionably that night at best, I have to defer to Occam's Razor (paraphrased "the simplest answer is usually correct"). A simple attempt to distract attention from an embarrassing personal situation.

Pinky and The Brain said...

10:28,
I know a little about this and that's why I ask the question. Telephone switches generate records of calls placed, not received. Phone companies didn't normally keep records of outgoing local calls prior to the Patriot Act for a number of reasons, mainly because they couldn't bill for them.

If telephone switch configuration and operational status are verified, it is possible to say with a high degree of confidence that a call was not placed to Hook's home from a particular phone number.

Telephone switch configurations and capabilities vary widely across and even within phone companies. It isn't possible to conclude that Hook received no phone call based on switch records.

Therefore the question remains, how does the FBI know Hook did not receive a phone call on the night of the incident?

Perhaps the spokesman was misquoted? Mistaken?

Anonymous said...

There are a COUPLE OF PRETTY INSIGHTFUL PEOPLE COMMENTING ON THIS STORY.
MAYBE A FEW FACTUAL TIDBITS FROM SOMEONE IN THE KNOW MAY HELP YOU. The FBI could not verify or deny that Mr. Hook received the call at home on June 4, 2007. This is a fact, that the FBI so professionaly failed to mention.
Mr. Hook told the SFPD and FBI the day after his beating about the first assailant, he asked for a sketch artist while the attacker's face was distinct in his mind. The FBI and SFPD refused, telling him that they had already caught the guys.
Mr. Hook told a second FBI agent about the first attacker the following day and again asked for a sketch artist. All the people around him, family, attorney's, friends were well aware of the first attacker on june 5, 2005. The Police and FBI were initially told on 6/6/05
Mr. Hook with his attorney present attempted to again tell the FBI and SFPD a few weeks later about the first attacker. They wouldn't listen to him and threatened him with filing false claims if he made allegations against the UC he couldn't prove. Mr. Hook has never made any such public allegations, although he would tell you that he still has suspicions and wonders why the SFPD and FBI appear to be hiding the fact that they well knew about the first attacker. Mr Hook formally told the SFPD in writing about the first attacker in a statement provide to the SFPD. The SFPD must have misplaced the statement. How convienent, well others still have it.
Mr. Hook told the Grand jury about the first attacker over one year ago.
Hook's story has never changed. But clearly the FBI's and SFPD are playing loose with the facts.
Well guess what? The DA's office and the judge didn't buy it. Two of his attackers plead to Felony's, a very serious plea.

Why do you think Hook has been keeping quiet, he was a very bright guy and I'm sure you will find out more in the not to distant future.

Anonymous said...

First of all I want to thank my ol friends at Los Alamos. Thank you for defending my integrity and for hanging out to dry those who turn good ol boys like myself into the authorities. Secondly, I want to reinforce what you all are saying. Me and my new colleagues here agree with you 100%. Yep, the only good snitch is one that's battered and bruised, or preferably worse.

P. Bussolini
Folsom Prison

Here's my story:

URL: http://www.abqjournal.com/north/181281north_news05-30-04.htm


Sunday, May 30, 2004
Lab Worker Aided FBI in Theft Case
By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer
For months, John Jennings led two lives.
On the surface, the longtime Los Alamos National Laboratory employee continued his relationship with his boss, Peter Bussolini, whom he viewed as a mentor and father figure.
For his part, Bussolini seemed to encourage that relationship, alternately praising and criticizing Jennings and referring to him as his "son" in various communications.
But at the same time, Jennings was tormented by the work he secretly performed for the FBI, which was investigating suspected fraud and theft of laboratory property. Many of those allegations centered on Bussolini, and Jennings reported to federal agents many of the specifics that contributed to Bussolini's firing in December 2002.
The double life lasted only seven weeks, from Sept. 13 through Oct. 31, but Jennings said during this period he was so stressed he gained 10 pounds a week.
"I was eating to kind of numb my feelings and hide what I knew," he said.
The 67-year-old Bussolini, who was earning $150,000 a year at the time he was fired, and Scott Alexander, 42, a purchaser who worked for him, were both indicted last week on 28 federal counts of theft, fraud and other charges.
The charges stem from allegations that the two used their positions of power, influence and familiarity with LANL's procurement system to illegally buy more than $328,000 worth of equipment, some for their own use, between February 2001 and October 2002.
Gear found by LANL officials included high-end barbecue grills, night-vision binoculars, TVs and thousands of dollars worth of military knives.
"Jennings was a key player in bringing the house of cards down," said Glenn Walp, former LANL head of security investigations.
Until now, Jennings, 54, says he was loyal above all to the laboratory, where he has worked for 28 years— and, by extension, to his boss, Bussolini.
Jennings worked under Bussolini for close to a decade, most recently as a safety specialist. He repeatedly refused interview requests, saying the time wasn't right.
Now he blames the laboratory for turning on him— even though he revealed to the FBI what he knew about the man he once considered "family."
And that, he says, is why he now has agreed to tell his story.
'Unwilling participant'

Blinded by his affection and loyalty to Bussolini, Jennings said he unwittingly helped transport about eight boxes of lab-bought equipment and patio furniture to Bussolini's home in 2001 before becoming suspicious.
Transporting the boxes is the biggest factor in LANL's decision to reprimand Jennings for failing to adequately safeguard lab property, even though LANL investigators conclude: "In the final analysis, it appears that Jennings was nothing more than an unwilling participant to the extent he assisted (Bussolini's) misconduct."
LANL spokesman James Rickman said LANL officials responded to the situation appropriately: they fired Bussolini and Alexander and gave Jennings a formal reprimand.
The reprimand will stay in his personnel file for two years, then disappear without negative consequence as long as he is not involved in another incident.
"Mr. Jennings stopped transporting materials to Mr. Bussolini's house after becoming suspect of the transfers but failed to report that to Laboratory officials at the time," according to LANL's reprimand of Jennings.
Jennings is challenging the lab's findings.
Work relationship

The last time Jennings saw Bussolini was the day his boss was put on investigative leave on Oct. 31, 2002. Bussolini hung up the phone after being called into the office of their division director, Jennings said.
" 'I hope to God you had nothing to do with him calling me,' '' Jennings said Bussolini told him.
Jennings said he didn't.
"'Cause I'd kill you if you did,' '' Jennings said Bussolini replied.
Bussolini, who has not returned repeated phone calls seeking comment and declined an interview when a reporter knocked on his door months ago, is suspected of doing "enormously inappropriate things" to Jennings at various times, according to LANL witnesses quoted in an internal investigation.
The report noted LANL witnesses said Bussolini "played upon Jennings' weaknesses and manipulated him into doing his bidding, and constantly threatened Jennings' job."
Bussolini was highly respected and well liked in Los Alamos. He was on the board of trustees for the Los Alamos United Way, and he won environmental engineering awards at the laboratory.
But according to LANL's internal report on Jennings, Bussolini played mind games with Jennings, sometimes berating him— one day he poured Coke all over Jennings' desk as Jennings sat there, watching him— then complimenting him.
Jennings said Bussolini would often encourage him, tell him he loved to see him at work early and lingering late at night, told him he couldn't do his job without him.
"I eat that stuff up more than I do a paycheck, you know?" Jennings said.
"The guy (Jennings) had a very low self-esteem, and he basically wanted to be accepted by everyone," especially by Bussolini, said Steve Doran, a LANL security specialist working in cooperation with the FBI at the time, in a phone interview with the Journal.
Doran and his boss, Walp, were both fired from LANL in November 2002 and later settled out-of-court claims that they were fired in retaliation for trying to expose the wrongdoing.
"Bussolini basically acted like a father figure to John, and I believe John, at that particular point in time, would have done anything for Bussolini," Doran said.
On Oct. 4, 2002, just weeks before the FBI would search his home, RV and office, Bussolini sent an e-mail to Jennings.
He wrote, "I need you to be the 'rock of Gibralter (sic)' right now for me ... You are still my 'son' so don't worry and be happy."
Within this context, Jennings says he tried to do the right thing, but it was hard— painfully hard.
He knew Bussolini and respected him. He knew Bussolini's wife, Lee.
'I feel betrayed'

Jennings moved to Los Alamos in 1960 and went to school with Lee's younger sister. And Jennings recalled an incident in which his daughter had been badly injured in an automobile accident years earlier. Jennings said Lee Bussolini— a Los Alamos nurse— administered CPR to his daughter in the back of an ambulance en route to Santa Fe.
"(Jennings) basically feels like whatever Bussolini says is law," Doran said in describing Jennings' allegiance to Bussolini.
But eventually, Doran said, Jennings saw things were going wrong. Things started to change when Alexander, who grew up across the street from Bussolini in White Rock, became Bussolini's "boy" over Jennings, Doran said.
Jennings said the turning point came the day he made his final delivery of boxes to Bussolini's house. Bussolini's daughter asked Jennings, "So, you're stealing for my daddy?"
But it was still several months before Jennings would report anything to LANL officials.
Not until May 2002 did Jennings go to Walp and make the first vague allegations that something was wrong.
Several days later, Jennings said he went to LANL's Audits and Assessments division to tell officials there they should look into a blanket purchase agreement that had little oversight or accountability.
"Two hours after I went there, Pete found out that I talked to them, so that started making life get miserable," Jennings said.
But Jennings said things took another turn for the worse once he started cooperating with the FBI in September. He said he felt like he was betraying a man he loved.
Jennings' eyes filled with tears as he described a confrontation with Bussolini in which his boss sought assurances that Jennings was keeping quiet about the things he knew.
"He said, 'Look me in the eyes, John, and tell me nothing's wrong.' ''
Jennings told him, "Nothing's wrong," but the stress of the confrontation ended with Jennings retching outside the building afterward.
"I had to keep lying to Pete," he said. "(FBI agent Jeff) Campbell said I didn't have any choice. I didn't want this to be part of my job."
But it was, and LANL officials don't think he did it well enough.
By accepting Bussolini's claims that he paid for the items himself, "Jennings essentially turned a blind eye to the possibility that (Bussolini) had obtained the items inappropriately," according to LANL's report.
To Jennings, a year short of retirement, this conclusion is a stain on what he says is an otherwise-unblemished record that has left him angry and hurt.
"I feel betrayed by the laboratory because I have really lost so much and stuck my neck out so much," he said.

Anonymous said...

If I had to choose there’s no doubt I’d rather have Mr. Hook living next door to me than the two hoodlums who attacked him. How can anyone rationalize the brutalizing of another human being? To me it sounds like relatives of those hoodlums have infiltrated this thread, or perhaps there are two posters (at most) who worked with Mr. Hook at the Los Alamos National Laboratory that still hate him for reporting their shenanigans at one point or another. These repeated pot shots at Mr. Hook demonstrate not only a total lack of compassion for a man (and his wife) who has just been put through hell, but perhaps says even more about the folks doing this. It’s small wonder that institution is in the mess it’s in.

Anonymous said...

Even if the first attack is true it is not clear that it had anything to do with him being whistleblower. In any case it was the second attack that was the severe beating and it is clear that had absolutely nothing to do with him being a whistleblower.

It seems to me that SFPD and FBI did nothing about the first attack since there was no witnesses and no physical evidence. Maybe Hook said that to because he knew that he started the fight with the other two guys so he had to make up a third mysterious attacker who really did not hurt him enough to leave a distinguishing mark.

Also add this up with his actions at the club which do not seem to coincide with someone on essentially a business outing.

Anonymous said...

The SFPD and FBI certainly aren't without blemish (or baggage). Any fool knows that cops and FBI agents can and do play the games with people's lives at the drop of a donut. In the Hook case, I believe they knew exactly what they were doing. By not looking for any evidence that would serve to connect the man’s beating to the Congressional scrutiny of the Lab that was on going at the time, of course none would be found. And that was objective. Just one phone call from St. Pete would have been all it would have taken to make sure of it. It was absolutely critical that no connection be made because the Lab’s funding picture was already under scrutiny, and the last thing St. Pete needed was another controversy tied to Los Alamos. His role in the recent U.S. Attorney firing fiasco provides but a glimpse into how things really work with our good Senior Senator from New Mexico, and that's just the tip of the iceberg I’m sure. So let's stop pretending law enforcement is anything other than a taxpayer-supported security service for the rich and powerful, or that Senator Domenici gives a damn about getting to the truth with respect to Hook beating. The truth? The truth is it’s all about power and control, and it’s that way here in the U.S., here in New Mexico, and everywhere else across the globe. We just like to pretend we’re different. Remember when the police used to brutalize union organizers in the 50s? Remember law enforcement’s role when it came to suppressing the rights of blacks, women, and other groups being persecuted in the 60s? Remember Kent State in the 70s? How about what the Los Angeles police did recently when law-abiding citizens rallied in of immigrants? Once again they lived up to its sordid reputation. But in reality all law enforcement behaves like the LA police, it’s just a question of degree. Santa Fe cops aren't any different. As for the FBI, time and time again the FBI has shown it's hardly more than a legalized Cosa Nostra—setting people up, infiltrating legitimate community groups who are perceived as a threat to the powerful, planting evidence, illegal wire-tapping and God knows what else. And what about the CIA? Still not convinced? Well then you probably still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at every local daycare across the U.S. Unfortunately, for some folks reality will simply never be as convincing as innuendos, half-truths, gross distortions and personal bias. My prayers go out to Mr. Hook and his family.

Anonymous said...

Just face it - the Lab can get away with ruining anybody's career if they happen to be involved in an event the puts a blemish on the Lab (recall: Disk drives, laser incident, americium incident, aqua regia incident, HCl indicent, DX security breach,etc. - many in each of people who have had their careers ruined). From this post, we now know that the Lab can hurt people physically if they cause trouble for the Lab and its leaders. Nice insurance policy to make sure people bahave.

Anonymous said...

6:26pm
7:18pm

You sound pretty crazy.

Anonymous said...

I tend to agree with the previous post. Law enforcement, like politics, does tend to favor those with influence.

Anonymous said...

7:38PM represents the problem we have at Los Alamos. What's crazy is how badly we treat those who blow the whistle on fraud, waste and abuse. In this regard the University of California appears to be in a league of its own:

http://www.geocities.com/apausa/RETALIATIONS.html

Livermore lab has adequate whistle-blower protections, according to chief spokeswoman Susan Houghton. "Absolutely," she said. "If anyone feels they're not, we'd sure like to hear about it,""Settling a case should not be a sign that we've done something wrong," Houghton said. "We could settle a case just to avoid higher court costs in having to defend ourselves."

Susan Houghton once said lab director Michael Anastasio would ask workers to come forward with any remaining problems. "Our lab is under a great deal of scrutiny right now. I think we realize that we have to get things right," she said. "We certainly don't want to shoot the messenger."

APAs hope the director meant what he said referring to the “remaining problems” that these do not stop short at just the mismanagement in security breaches but also reaches the concerns of discrimination against APAs.

Fear of retaliation has been engrained in employee’s mind since early 90’s. LLNL Employee Communications Audits conducted by Myron Emanuel/Communication found Laboratory employees are apprehensive about the consequences if they complain, criticize, or blow the whistle. However, with the examples of retaliation against Kotla, and others, would further discourage many from coming forward to report management’s manipulative and unscrupulous behaviors. APAs who filed lawsuits and saw their careers stalled, destroyed and most of them were forced to retire; some of the remaining workers are under continued harassment and retaliation.

In January 2005, two of them filed additional retaliation complaints and received the Right-To-Sue (RTS) from DFEH while RTS from EEOC for these accusations are being issued through Department of Justice (DOJ).
Yet whistle-blowers say the university grievance system is fraught with conflicts of interest managers tend to back up managers at the lab, and the university almost never reverses lab findings on grievances. So whistle-blowers increasingly have turned to the courts. And there, they report finding a consistent defense strategy: String out the litigation to drain the whistle-blower's resources and fold only in the face of certain defeat.

"They don't settle until they've gotten their pound of flesh out of the whistle-blower," said Tom Carpenter, who has represented nuclear whistleblowers for 20 years as a Seattle-based lawyer with the Government Accountability Project. "Their whole strategy is to. delay any trial date and cause the plaintiff to spend as much money as possible. Usually settlement will come when it looks certain it's going to trial and they're going to lose."

Anonymous said...

For those of you who do not know Tommy Hook, he spent a significant portion of his own time helping those
who had somehow got screwed by the UC
management. There was no benefit for Mr. Hook, but he tirelessly served as an advocate for fellow staff that he knew, even after he was threatened by UC senior management to stop. Mr. Hook was fearless in his opposition to the mistreatment of co-workers.
Yes, he was the type to get out of bed drive to Santa Fe and attempt to help those in trouble. If you deny that or even question it, you simply don't know him and you are just gossiping or enjoying harassing the man. He deserves far better treatment.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, he was the type to get out of bed drive to Santa Fe and attempt to help those in trouble."

Not only would he go to Santa Fe to help someone, he would also selflessly drink six beers, get a lap dance, brag about casino winnings, and start a fight. I do cocede that he did buy drinks for some other people which is sort of like helping them. I would add that he apparantley was going to drive home after that much drinking, a point that seems to get overlooked.

Anonymous said...

Bravo 1:16pm.

Anonymous said...

Another Anonymous writer slandering Hook. If you are going to slander someone use your name, if not you are nothing but a coward attempting to hurt others. I hope you know that the anonymous blogging doesn't protect your identity. For legal purposes it can be found out. Slander is illegal in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

The last "slanderous" writer presents themselves to the readers as being factual in nature, when in truth it is something far less. Whether the writer agrees or not Hook clearly helped others LANL. That is a fact.
As for how many beers Mr. Hook had, the writer wasn't there, he is basing his "facts" on the newspaper accounts. Any of us that have ever dealt with the printed press know the problems with veracity one faces. Mr. Hook admitted to 3 beers. The bartender who said she sold Hook 1 beer, but somehow estimated others must have sold him 6. No other waitress's or bartenders gave statements to the police or FBI. The police did not administer any tests for blood alcohol for Mr. Hook. How does the slanderous writer know Mr. Hook had a lap dance was he in the so called VIP suite when it supposedly happened. Of course he wasn't, the writer simply doesn't know, and based on newspaper accounts he slanders the victim. Most importantly is the smokescreen put up the SFPD and the writer continues their effort. The alleged lap dance has nothing to do with the subsuquent beatings that occured or why MR Hook was there that night. The writers sarcastic remarkd about Mr. Hook buying drinks again isn't based on facts, was the writer sitting next to Hook? Of course he was not there.
The writers paranormal abilities appear unlimited in his knowing what happened with buying drinks, or is the writer just enjoying beating a man when he is down.
Last but not least how does the writer know Mr. Hook was driving home that night. The facts of the matter are that he simply doesn't know,but that doesn't stop the slanderer of spreading his venom. I hope that Hook or his attorneys find out who you and others like you are, so you can have your day in court. I would pay to be there as the attorney for Mr. Hook makes clear the idiot that you are, in addition to your character in the matter. I'm a strong believer in "What goes around comes around."
I hope you are the next one that proves this idea correct.

Pinky and The Brain said...

6/5/07 8:06 AM,
Anonymous comments to this blog are pretty darn anonymous. Google sends me an email when there is a comment which contains exactly what everyone else sees when they read the blog. Even if Google, the commenter's ISP, or some government agency can trace back where the comment came from, the best they could do is say what computer it came from. They couldn't say who typed the comment into that computer. The kind of person who would delight in Hook's suffering would no doubt blame his own children should the authorities ever come knocking at his door.

Anonymous said...

8.06

Something is only slander if it is not true. It would seem that the 1.16 poster was quoting statements made in the newspaper article from the original post. Are you saying that most of the information in the New Mexican newspaper article was false?

Quoting a newspaper is not slander.
Below is a post on this.

"Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources."

If you believe that most of the newspaper articles on this topic are fairly accurate
and that the Santa Fe police and the FBI are not involved in a conspiracy than a reasonable opinion would be that Hook was not beaten because he was a whistleblower, he was not honest about the reasons why he was at the club, and that he acted badly by starting a fight after drinking.

Anonymous said...

Clearly the above are not legal eagles. Slander is verbal (or fleeting). Libel is written, or blogged. Comments to the blog would be a matter of libel, not slander, even if we might consider these comments to the blog to be fleeting.

Anonymous said...

I think those that are "implying" that Hook is lying are doing so because they know or have interacted with him in the past. Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know the Legal difference between Libel and Slander! What I do know are what the facts are. No one has said that the SFPD and/or the FBI is involved in a conspiracy against Mr. Hook. What I will say is based on fact, not newspaper articles that are meant to sell papers not to document the facts. The Santa Fe DA believes there was a initial attack not investigated by the SFPD or FBI. The DA serves as the officer of the State, he takes info from both sides plus the indictment of the Grand Jury. Mr. Hook told the Grand Jury about the first attack, this is a fact you can obtain a copy of Mr. Hook's Grand jury testimony, I would suppose. Mr. Hook gave the SFPD a written statement documenting the initial attack. That is a fact.
MR HOOK did not have charges brought against him by the DA before the Grand Jury. 2 of the attackers were indicted and plead guilty to Felonies in the beating of Mr. Hook. The individuals with their attorney's involvement voluntarily agreed to the pleading to the felonies. The judge involved accepted the individuals felony pleas. All of these are facts. Mr Hook was never charged much less convicted of lying or hitting his assailant. That is a fact. The FBI and private investigators performed tests of Mr. Hook's bumper and both found that there was no evidence that Mr. Hook's car hit anyone. According to experts some factual evidence would have been found if Mr Hook had hit anyone. Those are facts. The only related damage to Mr. Hook's car was a shoe print marking where his attacker kicked his car. That is a fact.
As for starting a fight, evidently those that were independent and closest to the case, the DA and Grand Jury did not charge Mr. Hook with assault or attempt to get an indictment against him. That is a fact.
The FBI and the SFPD never confirmed one way another about whether or not Mr. Hook received a call at home the night of the beating. This is simply an unknown. Mr Hook did provide documentation to the SFPD that proves he was at home at 10:00 pm the night of the beating. This is a fact. Bringing into question other witnesses negative comments about Mr. Hook, they claimed he was at the bar as early as 8:30. The fact here is that those witnesses either did not remember correctly or lied to law enforcement.
My opinion's which is all that most of the negative comments are based on, are that the FBI wanted to get rid of this "hot potato" as quick as possible. Once Mr. Hook told the FBI he had no evidence that would show UC involvement the FBI ran away from this issue as quick as possible. Is that a conspiracy, I think not, but clearly Mr. Hook's earliest statements to the SFPD and FBI stresses the existence of the first attacker and
the fact that Mr Hook offered repeatedly to work with a sketch artist to identify that criminal. Mr Hook's requests were never followed up on by either the FBI or SFPD. Is that a conspiracy, who knows for sure what they were thinking? We will never know.

So to the writer who believes in the newspapers as fact providers, many of those similarly involved with the press would strongly argue that what is printed is even close to being the way it happened. In this case the newspaper simple printed what the SFPD told them. Which mostly dealt with oral testimony by those associated with Mr. Hook's attackers. I would ask that those of you who have any level of compassion deal with facts not your personal grandiose opinions.

Anonymous said...

To the last blogger who said people are implying Mr. Hook is lying because they know him. Many would argue that opinion. But again why express an opinion that does not deal with facts. The hurtful opinions posted on this blog topic, demonstrate the level that "human beings" will go to to hurt or put down others. Please get a life and keep your negative opinions to yourself.

Anonymous said...

One important fact that anyone can gain access to the information involves the SFPD's relationship with Mr. Navarez. If anyone is interested in the facts perhaps one should read the plea agreement between the US Attorney and Mr. Navarez.
Everyone in Santa Fe knows Navarez was a drug dealer who became an informant for law enforcement in New Mexico. Does that Fact give The SFPD the incentive to attempt to save Mr Navarez from what he did to Mr. Hook? These are facts not opinions.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the last posters. If you don't have facts, your opinions are absolutely worthless. Those who post negative comments without the facts are harassing Hook for their own petty purposes. I vote that enough has been said and whoever is in charge of the blog, please stop the posts on this issue, enough is enough.
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Many of the “facts” presented here are not verifiable and are filtered through pro-Hook interpretations. These interpretations would require that we believe that both local law enforcement and the FBI are totally incompetent, a place I am not prepared to go. Based on the lively chatter here, I am not alone. As to asking Pinky and the Brain to terminate this discussion – kind of defeats the purpose of the Blog doesn’t it?

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous6/7/07 7:09am,

The facts are the facts, if you will get off your lazy ass and do the research that some of us others have done you can figure it out. But from your previous posts you don't seem to be that type of guy to make that type of effort. Bloggers have even told you where you can find these facts, to much work for you though. Thank god for the great job the FBI and SFPD, do you have a relative that works there? I don't know anyone that really doesn't think the SFPD is corrupt, and the FBI has proven its metal over and over again at LANL the past few years. Can you spell Wen Ho Lee? How about the X division missing CD's, and many more. The FBI has been a laughing stock at LANL fora long time. You must be a newbee.

Anonymous said...

Lack of facts never stopped Hook.....

Anonymous said...

To "Lack of Facts" never stopped Hook. Stand up or shut up!

Anonymous said...

I agree with last blogger. If you have something negative to say in denigrating Mr. Hook, you should back it up. If you can't then you are nothing but scum trying to build yourself up while tearing people down. If you can prove anything that Mr. Hook has said or done that isn't factual show it to us.

Anonymous said...

6-7-07 2:36 PM

I’m neither lazy nor a newbie. I’ve done more research than you seem willing to accept and once we get beyond the emotionalism here, it still comes down to the basics of a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. The facts just don’t support a “shot from the grassy knoll.” The conspiracy theory can only be derived from Mr. Hook’s statements. For example, the force necessary to show indication of a “bump” to a person on a bumper would have left more than a bruise on the person struck. Sufficient force necessary to bump someone enough to piss them off and start an altercation would not necessarily leave evidence on either the person or the car. No one has ever doubted that the two individuals that were recently indicted are guilty of egregious harm against Mr. Hook. It is not uncommon for a Grand Jury not to indict the most injured individual in a bar fight when all parties share guilt. However, there still is not and cannot be evidence of the call that Mr. Hook claims to have received. The presence of a third person (first hitter) cannot be confirmed, even if Mr. Hook is or was willing to work with a sketch artist. With the significant damage done to Mr. Hook there is no way to independently verify a “first blow to the back of the head.” True, I have not verified that the DA thinks there might have been an earlier attack, though I am touched by the fact that since the DA is an officer of the State and might be willing to consider a first attacker, you find the DA acceptable. At the same time you have no problem finding the SFPD (qualified law enforcement) and the FBI (officers of the Federal Government) to be less than competent. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like Hook is the closest thing to a national hero that Los Alamos has seen since Oppie and friends developed the world's first weapon of mass destruction. So the guy helped exposed fraud at Los Alamos, saving us taxpayers some change along the way. Well any "rocket scientist" can see then why he didn't win many friends among some of this thieving colleagues, including those numb-nuts who create blogs and their groupies who frequent them. Too bad there aren't more like Hook walking around. Maybe we'd be able to cut our tax bill in half if there were.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like Hook is the closest thing to a national hero that Los Alamos has seen since Oppie and friends developed the world's first weapon of mass destruction. So the guy helped exposed fraud at Los Alamos, saving us taxpayers some change along the way. Well any "rocket scientist" can see then why he didn't win many friends among some of this thieving colleagues, including those numb-nuts who create blogs and their groupies who frequent them. Too bad there aren't more like Hook walking around. Maybe we'd be able to cut our tax bill in half if there were




What drugs are you on, and where do I get some?

Pinky and The Brain said...

6/8/07 8:11 AM
You're calling yourself a groupie of a numb-nuts? I think you need to read through the comments again. I've repeatedly questioned how the FBI could know that Hook didn't receive a phone call luring him to Cheeks and why they didn't know about the first attacker until last week.

Cheers,
Pinky

Anonymous said...

Pinky,

You are right on track with your latest comment. They can't track incoming calls to a land line telephone. If the FBI and SFPD could have done that, they would have. With everything that the SFPD leaked to the papers, would one wonder why they wouldn't have leaked the proof that the phone call didn't happen?

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 6/8/07-6:58 am.

If you are so confident in your opinions why not post with your name.
Is it because you are afraid to expose yourself to the magnifying glass that you have put yourself under. One would think that someone as strong in their convictions as you appear to be would name themselves. Well, unless you are afraid to face the public scrutiny that Mr Hook has faced for the past 2 years. I can understand why those who are what you called "Hook Supporters" aren't posting their names. I'm sure LANL management would love to give them a bonus or kick out the door.

Anonymous said...

I can't help but respond again to the
nut who is not a newbee at LANL. Are you a relative of someone Hook investigated at LANL, if I recall correctly Hook issued over 200 reports in that role at LANL? Are you someone he investigated? Were you a member of the LANL security force? Of course even if you answer anonymously, you could be lying again. You simply have no credibility with what you are saying.
I have never read or heard Hook say anything about a FBI or SFPD conspiracy. Neither have you!
As others have said these comments are facts.

Anonymous said...

To Pinky,

The SFPD and FBI knew about the first attack the first time they talked to Mr Hook. This is not a new issue just brought to light, it is an issue that neither Hook, the FBI or SFPD made public. Mr Hook has stayed away from the news types for almost 2 years, while waiting for the wheels of justice to slowly move along.
Besides the Police and FBI, everyone close to Mr. Hook knew about the first attacker since day one.
It is a fact that the FBI and SFPD did not accept Hook's offer to work with a sketch artist to identify the first attacker. Why didn't the
law enforcement involved pursue this option. We may never know.
Was it cover up? Or was it the rush to close the lid on a beating that was receiving enormous amount of press through the country and even overseas?
The police and FBI were well aware that the 2 men later charged and who plead guilty to the beating to Hook, didn't either one meet the description Mr. Hook gave them of his first attacker, who was described as muscular 6'2" 240lbs., in a sports jersey. The police also argued when Mr. Hook told them where he parked at the bar, and was initially attacked. Mr Hook drew the officers a map of where he parked, which did not match where the 2nd attackers said they beat Mr. Hook. In investigatory terms these inconsistentcy's are described as red-flags. These red flags were never pursued by law enforcement personnel. It is documented that others at the bar that night identified someone similar to Hook's description. One person who made the identification is a Santa Fe attorney. I understand this was turned over to law enforcement, who failed to investigate this lead.
Mr Hook provided a written statement to the SFPD describing the initial attack and attacker.
Again the SFPD didn't follow up on it. Mr Hook told the grand Jury about the initial attack. Mr Hook told the DA's office about the initial attack, at their first meeting. Most of this is documented.
I'm just trying to get through to you and others, the fact that the initial attack was well documented over 2 years ago.
This compaint was brought to light 2 years ago not last week. The DA was the first in the Criminal Justice sys
tem to make it public information.

Pinky and The Brain said...

6/8/07 10:47 AM,
I have no reason to doubt you. My questions were based on what was in the news story.

"FBI spokesman Bill Elwell said Wednesday that he didn't know if agents found evidence of the car hitting Sandoval. He also said he hadn't heard of an attack preceding the beating from Sandoval and Nevarez."

Perhaps because the spokesman wasn't familiar with the case he hadn't heard of the first attack? Maybe he was misquoted by the reporter?

Another quote raises further questions.

"The FBI is not investigating the report of the alleged first attack, he said."

So he hadn't heard about the first attack but he was sure it wasn't being investigated? Doesn't that seem a little odd?

Anonymous said...

To the "Not Lazy or a Newby".
First you haven't performed any investigation based on the information you provided thus far. If I'm wrong tell us what you have read other than press articles.
Mr Lazy not a Newbee(Hide my name because they will pursue me) you are clearly not an accident investigator or a professional investigator of any type. There is a ton of documentation to be found on vehicles striking pedestrians, there are law enforcement training courses and seminars related to the tools to be used and the methods that can employed. The FBI and others were performing their tests of Mr. Hook's bumbper in attempts to find tissue samples, hair or any other evidence normally found in like accidents. Strange that they only found Sandoval's shoe print, which matched the shoe print on Mr Hook's face.
Clearly you are one not to be confused with the facts, when laid in front of you to see, you claim some non existent expertise in auto/pedestrian accidents. You have zero credibility in your statement.
As for your attempt to downplay the fact that no charges were brought to before the Grand Jury involving Mr Hook. This wasn't a case of the Grand Jury deciding the one person got the worst of it. The DA determined there was insufficient evidence base on "facts" to pursue any charges against Hook. Again you apparently don't want to be confused with facts in the matter.
Do you have any facts to support your statement about it not being unusual for Grand Juries not indicting the person beat the worst? Or did you make that up also?

Your statement that there is no facts to support Mr Hook's claim of a phone call, again is so one-sided your credability is again brought into question. If you read the posts, it is stated succinctly by several posts that the phone call can neither by verified or not verfied. Your one sided biased statement appears to be meant to color and mislead other readers. Well you are burned again, and have no support for you biased one sided comment.
While the first attack has not been proven to date doesn't mean it didn't happen. The facts are Mr Hook immediately, while under significant pain and painkillers told about the first attacker in a whispered voice in the emergency room. You will never be confused for someone who would give Mr Hook the benefit of a doubt, but it is a fact that these comments were made that night and several different people heard them. You can claim he made this all up while riding in the ambulance to the hospital. I don't believe, my opinion, that Mr Hook had the mental capability to
cook up such a story after the beating, the beating was one of the worst I have seen without the patient dying.
Your sarcastic statements realted to the DA compared to the FBI and SFPD don't carry much weight and really doesn't affect the issue at hand. But your smarty pants attitude makes it more easily able to discern your type of character.
I will continue to take you to task
on this blog each time you make misleading statements.
I would bet you are scared to death
that Mr Hook's attorneys will find out who you are.

Anonymous said...

Pinky and the Brain.

You have a very inquisitive mind. I question the same things that you do.
The FBI spokesman didn't say much did he.

Pinky and The Brain said...

Inquiring mice want to know!

Anonymous said...

I have just a personal opinion to offer....just years of being aware of his actions. I will only say, I have zero respect for that man and would not even hire him to pick up dog shit in the county parks

Anonymous said...

Let us get this straight, you have no respect for this man (Hook) because of his actions. Funny, you fail to mention any of those actions, sorry but throwing trash against someone only makes you look like trash. Have some balls stand up tall, state facts or go hide in your anonymous "pick up the dog shit corner."
Cowards abound in anonymous postings, it gives lesser human beings the ability to make mean -spirited comments without being held accountable.
Name the actions that Mr. Hook made, or go quiver in your corner.

Anonymous said...

One last post and I'm moving on to more relevant matters. A few "unexpert" observations:

"Your statement that there is no facts to support Mr Hook's claim of a phone call, again is so one-sided your credability is again brought into question. If you read the posts, it is stated succinctly by several posts that the phone call can neither by verified or not verfied." How nice to see you agree with me.

"While the first attack has not been proven to date doesn't mean it didn't happen." Conversely, doesn't mean it did.

"The fact here is that those witnesses either did not remember correctly or lied to law enforcement." Let's see, other witnesses are liars, SFPD are liars, FBI are liars, only Mr. Hook is truthful, hmmmmm . . . .

Once the "I would suppose," the "according to some experts", the "I don't believe" and the "my opinion," are removed, there appears to be a definitive lack of objective evidence in your "factual" response.

As to "I will continue to take you to task on this blog each time you make misleading statements." I defer to your greater abilty to mislead.

And finally, "I would bet you are scared to death that Mr Hook's attorneys will find out who you are." To seek truth, is not to fear, but to become enlightened. My only guilt here is to suggest that Mr. Hook's visit to a bar does not constitute a conspiracy. A suggestion that "in my opinion" still fits the circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Well I will also put a final word in about Hook. I think he would only be vindicated if it was proven in a court of law that the he was severely beaten because of his whistleblower status. This is not the case. Also I do not see a single "fact" that points to his beating being due to him being a whistleblower. We only have his word about the phone call. As for the first attack again we only have his word. So
no facts. Also I do not know anyone who considers Hook a national hero and every single person I have talked with thinks the most lickly scenario is that Hook simply lied.

Pinky and The Brain said...

If anyone is claiming the beating (the second attack) is related to whistleblowing, then I missed that.

Anonymous said...

I don't remember anyone,including Mr. Hook claiming a conspiracy. You are simply clouding the picture.
One has to have an open mind to consider facts, you don't have one. Numerous have been laid out. You don't believe and find every excuse not to.
What goes around comes around in this world. Hope your never on the side being accused, you'll never survive.

Anonymous said...

Pinky and the Brain

Sorry but now I am confused.

The impression given over and over again with the pictures of Mr Hook
in the hospital is that the severe
beating was due to LANL and UC sending out some thugs to nearly beat to death a whistleblower.

So I am confused now. Is Mr
Hook saying that the brutal beating
he received in fact had nothing to do with his being a whistleblower? If this is the case than
the FBI is correct in saying that
his brutal beating had nothing to
do with him being a whistleblower.
So he is only claiming that some other attack happened a few minutes before and he was just pushed down but not severely hurt? Than why are all these photos shown? Maybe Mr Hook could go public and make a clear
statment about what happened as
it would help clear LANL of being
involved in severely beating him.

Also to the 8:21 poster. I have never heard Hook say the FBI and SFPD are in on a conspiracy. However, some of the posters on this topic have claimed that some kind of conspiracy may have occured. Look at the 6:26 post for example.

Pinky and The Brain said...

Again, I'm only going by what was in the story I posted. The picture of Hook in the hospital could leave the impression that his injuries were from the whistleblower connection if you don't read the story.

Until I read this story I thought that was what he was claiming too. This story says the first attack was a blow to the back of the head, which would not be visible in the now famous photo.

"An unknown man hit him in the back of the head outside the bar, knocked him to the ground and said, ``You ought to keep your mouth shut,'' Campbell said."

I'd like to hear Hook's account of what happened too. If he hasn't spoken yet perhaps there is a civil case coming up? I'm just guessing. I'm also guessing there is still more to this story that we haven't seen in news accounts yet.

Anonymous said...

Pinky,

I don't believe Hook has ever publicly claimed that there was a conspiracy in the beating. From what I have read, newspapers said it, alleged spokesman for Hook said it, TV and multiple blogs said it. But not Hook. I know for a fact that Hook suspects the first attacker the night of his beatings. He also has stated numerous times since the beating that the first attacker was never investigated by the SFPD or the FBI. He doesn't know why, we all have our own idea on the matter.
Mr Hook does not know whether the first attacker had any LANL connection or not. What he does know that no one in law enforcement
investigated that possibility. Which makes a lot of us ask why not?

Pinky makes an interesting assumption as to why Hook as remained quiet for so long. Maybe a "future civil case." If I were the SFPD or Cheeks I would be banking my money in case he does exercise his legal right to file civil charges against both. I personally hope he does, but I don't know what he will do.