30.04.2014 Views

Cobble Hill letter to klein - Special Commissioner of Investigation

Cobble Hill letter to klein - Special Commissioner of Investigation

Cobble Hill letter to klein - Special Commissioner of Investigation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Hon. J. I. Klein -27- June 26, 2007<br />

Hyland was shown the communication dated May 17, 2004, sent by Nobile <strong>to</strong><br />

Hyland, and asked <strong>to</strong> compare the wording on page 3 <strong>of</strong> the document <strong>to</strong> the wording on<br />

page 21 <strong>of</strong> Scarcella’s closing report. He acknowledged that they were exactly the same.<br />

Hyland confirmed that he would not have condoned a practice by which a complainant<br />

assisted in writing the closing report <strong>of</strong> the investigation.<br />

Hyland was not aware <strong>of</strong> an OSI case in which a complainant had given an<br />

investiga<strong>to</strong>r questions <strong>to</strong> be asked <strong>of</strong> the witnesses. Hyland said that, if he learned that a<br />

complainant were running an OSI investigation, then he “would s<strong>to</strong>p it immediately.” He<br />

added that if the investigation had been completed when he learned about the<br />

complainant’s role, then “the investiga<strong>to</strong>r would have a problem with [him].”<br />

Specifically, Hyland said that, if “Nobile ran Scarcella and ran that investigation <strong>to</strong> his<br />

own betterment and <strong>to</strong> his own purposes,” then the results would be “tainted, they’re<br />

tainted without a doubt.”<br />

Chad Vignola, August 2006<br />

In a telephone conversation in August 2006, which occurred after Hyland had<br />

been interviewed, Chad Vignola denied having the conversation described by Hyland.<br />

According <strong>to</strong> Vignola, following the chain <strong>of</strong> command at that time, he would not have<br />

and did not have direct contact with Hyland. Vignola said that he spoke <strong>to</strong> Hyland under<br />

“rare circumstances” and, in any event, “would not skip” Europe. Moreover, although he<br />

did not recall the specific case that raised the issue, Vignola confirmed that immunity was<br />

a “rare” occurrence and “blanket” immunity was not authorized by him.<br />

Edward Rodriguez, August 2006<br />

In an interview conducted under oath at the SCI <strong>of</strong>fice, Edward Rodriguez, an<br />

at<strong>to</strong>rney assigned <strong>to</strong> the OLS Administrative Trials Unit, explained that, in late March<br />

2006, he was handed the file <strong>to</strong> represent the DOE at the Lennel George disciplinary<br />

proceeding, “literally when the case was about <strong>to</strong> start <strong>to</strong> try.” 91 During testimony at the<br />

George proceeding, Rodriguez learned that Nobile had provided questions which were<br />

used by Scarcella and that Nobile had assisted Scarcella in writing the closing report.<br />

Kathy Pelles, February 2007<br />

In an interview conducted under oath at the SCI <strong>of</strong>fice, Region 8 LIS Kathy Pelles<br />

did not request and did not receive criminal or administrative immunity. She appeared<br />

without an at<strong>to</strong>rney. She answered all questions posed <strong>to</strong> her by SCI investiga<strong>to</strong>rs.<br />

91 Rodriguez originally was hired in the fall <strong>of</strong> 2005 as an independent contrac<strong>to</strong>r and then received a<br />

position at OLS as a DOE employee beginning in April 2006.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!