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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Hon. J. I. Klein -62- June 26, 2007<br />
The New Principal<br />
In an interview with investiga<strong>to</strong>rs conducted under oath at the SCI <strong>of</strong>fice,<br />
Principal Kenneth Cuthbert, George’s successor at <strong>Cobble</strong> <strong>Hill</strong>, testified that Nobile had<br />
repeatedly asked <strong>to</strong> be removed from Thomas’s supervision. Cuthbert acquiesced and<br />
Nobile is no longer observed by and does not report <strong>to</strong> Thomas.<br />
Conclusions<br />
The SCI review has concluded that the OSI investigation was flawed from its<br />
inception. The investiga<strong>to</strong>r was unsupervised and acted as an agent <strong>of</strong> a complainant. In<br />
reality, no witness provided credible evidence <strong>to</strong> support the accusations concerning<br />
Capra and George.<br />
The SCI investigation found no evidence <strong>of</strong> a cover-up by Region 8 <strong>of</strong>ficials,<br />
specifically Lyles and Farina.<br />
The SCI investigation also found that the OLS prosecution <strong>of</strong> George<br />
detrimentally relied upon the faulty findings <strong>of</strong> the Scarcella investigation and report.<br />
Based on our extensive review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Cobble</strong> <strong>Hill</strong> matter, we drew a number <strong>of</strong><br />
specific conclusions.<br />
The OSI <strong>Investigation</strong><br />
Scarcella<br />
In his <strong>Cobble</strong> <strong>Hill</strong> investigation, Scarcella made a number <strong>of</strong> investigative<br />
missteps. Scarcella did not question Nobile’s credibility and was biased from the onset.<br />
In the end, Scarcella based his findings on Nobile’s predetermined conclusions rather<br />
than the evidence.<br />
• When Scarcella first met Nobile at <strong>Cobble</strong> <strong>Hill</strong> on May 5, 2004, Nobile<br />
claimed that he had been “rated satisfac<strong>to</strong>ry until” he made a complaint <strong>of</strong><br />
Regents tampering against Capra. Although this assertion was easily<br />
verifiable, Scarcella either failed <strong>to</strong> do so or ignored the fact that Nobile<br />
previously had received unsatisfac<strong>to</strong>ry observations.<br />
• Scarcella allowed Nobile <strong>to</strong> direct the investigation.