CSI - Springfield

“Well, that’s odd ... I’ve just robbed a man of his livelihood, and yet I feel strangely empty. Tell you what, Smithers - have him beaten to a pulp.”

“I could crush him like an ant. But it would be too easy. No, revenge is a dish best served cold. I’ll bide my time until ... Oh, what the hell. I’ll just crush him like an ant.”

“What good is position if you can’t inspire terror in your fellow man ?”

“I thought I had everything - Money, good looks, strong, sharp teeth........But what’s it all worth when nobody likes you ?”

Mr. Burns	:	You’re fired.
Marge	:	You can’t fire me just because I’m married. I’m gonna sue the pants off of you.
Mr. Burns	:	You don’t have to sue me to get my pants off.

---

Springfield Nuclear Power Plant
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Disciplinary Rules - CMB/WS/003/08
The designated NRC henchman investigating officer is Mr. Waylon Smithers, Jr. assisted by Messrs. Carl Carlson and Lenford Leonard and the executioner presiding judge advocate is Mr. Charles Montgomery Burns, CEO.

SNPP Investigative Guidelines

The overriding consideration in the production of this report is that it will become subject to scrutiny by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the report must clearly and factually prove guilt. Any unsubstantiated content in this report might result in counter litigation and penalties imposed on Springfield Nuclear Power Plant.

1. No consideration must be made of character and previous behaviour / performance; the report should identify failings and destroy credibility of the accused.
   
   
2. All witnesses must be interviewed and statements prepared on their behalf. Witnesses must be encouraged to make supportive comments and these can be enhanced during the final production of the investigative report. If necessary, witnesses can be coerced into changing their account.
   
   
3. Any hostile witness who attempts to support the case for the accused should be reported to the CEO and their statement be excluded from the report.
   
   
4. No witness statement should be signed - it is important to preserve the freedom to ‘refine’ statements if necessary.
   
   
5. Facts or evidence that contradict the allegation should be omitted. If it is not possible to omit such contradictions then it might be possible to ‘amend’ the facts - other options might include ‘reviewing’ the evidence or its accidental destruction.

These guidelines might, at first sight, appear draconian and unfair. They are not; it is far kinder to appreciate that, once the allegation was made, there could have been only one outcome - actual guilt or innocence has no relevance nor import.