Inside The OIG Interview: The Testimony Of An Unnamed CO/Lieutenant (Part 6) (5/23/26)

Summary

---

The Epstein Chronicles

Episode: Inside The OIG Interview: The Testimony Of An Unnamed CO/Lieutenant (Part 6)

Host: Bobby Capucci
Date: May 23, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, host Bobby Capucci continues his examination of the OIG (Office of the Inspector General) interview involving an unnamed Corrections Officer (CO) / Lieutenant. The episode focuses on failure in communication, responsibility, and protocol breakdowns surrounding the decision-making process regarding Jeffrey Epstein's cellmate status on the night of his death. Through direct excerpts and host commentary, the episode probes systemic failures and accountability issues within the Bureau of Prisons.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Chain of Communication: Who Knew Epstein Needed a Cellmate?

• Host Capucci opens by summarizing that the episode will delve into the confusion and ambiguity of responsibility regarding who should have known about Epstein’s required cellmate.
• The OIG interviewer’s questioning highlights gaps in information relayed among staff during shift changes and pinpoints opportunities where staff should have communicated about Epstein’s status, but failed to do so.

Breakdown of Protocol Responsibility

• Multiple staff (line staff, lieutenants, OICs) are referenced as potential responsible parties, but there is confusion and a lack of clarity about who should officially be responsible for notifying about cellmate assignments.
• The unnamed lieutenant repeatedly states that, in practice, staff do not talk about specific inmates unless there is something out of the ordinary – suggesting that such matters are not a priority.
  • "No one is home thinking about inmates and if they need a cellie or not... Like, it's not that deep." (02:00)

Sticky Note and Pertinent Information

• A key point of discussion is about a “sticky note” which should have indicated Epstein’s need for a cellmate.
  • The interviewed Lieutenant clarifies, “I said the sticky notes say conduct rounds on Epstein.” (03:40)
• The interviewer asks whether officers in the SHU (Special Housing Unit) should have notified supervisors about the lack of a cellmate if they were aware.
  • After back and forth, the Lieutenant agrees: “That’s considered pertinent information and you always pass it on. You should be always passing on pertinent information.” (07:00)

The Culture of Passivity and Deflection of Responsibility

• Bobby Capucci expresses skepticism regarding the idea that no one could have known—pointing out that even with systemic problems, responsibility was passed along rather than owned.
  • "If you folks want to believe what these people are saying, and you want to believe that it was just a perfect storm of fuckups, that's perfectly acceptable because there was a perfect storm of screw ups. I just don't believe that it was organic, that's all." (04:15)
• Capucci questions why, if these failures were purely systemic, there were no firings or significant disciplinary actions—only transfers.

Who Should Have Notified Whom?

• There is a recurring pattern in the interview: the responsibility keeps being pushed to the next person up (or down) the chain.
  • The OIG questioner repeatedly seeks to clarify: if Redacted (OIC) knew about the cellmate requirement, was it his/her job to inform the next shift, especially the incoming lieutenant? The answer is yes, if they knew, they should have.
  • When there are multiple officers, “We always go with the more experienced. He’s senior staff. He still should be making the decision.” (11:30)

Procedures in the Event of Cellmate Removal

• The removal of Epstein’s original cellmate (Efren Reyes) and communication protocols are discussed.
  • It’s supposed to be normal practice for the Operations Lieutenant—upon confirmation an inmate (like Reyes) is not returning—to inform SHU staff so proper actions can be taken.
  • Again, actual practice seems murky and dependent on individual initiative.

The Host’s Running Commentary: Skepticism and Observations

• Capucci is consistently skeptical.
  • He challenges the idea that all of these failures can be chalked up to coincidence, commenting on the lack of meaningful consequences for staff.
  • "If it was this big systemic thing, how come nobody got fired? Why did people only get transferred? Another question that should be asked." (04:20)

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

On the informality of high-profile inmate protocols:

• “No one comes in saying, okay, what's going on with El Chapo today? What's going on with Epstein? Like, it's not that deep.” (02:10) — Unnamed Lieutenant

Host’s blunt skepticism:

• “If you folks want to believe what these people are saying...I just don't believe it was organic, that's all.” (04:15) — Bobby Capucci

On passing along 'pertinent information':

• “You should be always passing on pertinent information.” (07:00) — Unnamed Lieutenant

Experience-based expectations:

• “They always say senior staff… should be making the decision…because I’m more experienced.” (11:30) — Unnamed Lieutenant

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:30] — Start of discussion on protocols and breakdown of communication about Epstein’s cellmate status
• [02:00–03:40] — The culture of passivity and informality in handling high-profile inmates
• [04:15–04:20] — Host Capucci’s commentary on the “perfect storm” argument and lack of consequences for staff
• [07:00] — Clarification that ‘pertinent information’ (like cellmate status) should have been shared
• [11:10–12:00] — Seniority among staff and expectation that experienced officers take initiative
• [12:10–13:00] — Discussion of protocol when a cellmate is removed and expectations for timely notification

---

Episode Flow & Tone

The episode maintains Capucci’s hallmark of investigative skepticism and direct language. It’s a detailed, sometimes circular exploration of the communications breakdown around Epstein’s prison conditions, marked by back-and-forth between official narratives and host challenges. The tone is probing, insistent, and at times exasperated at the lack of clear accountability.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode is a deep dive into the bureaucratic confusion and lapses at the heart of Epstein’s incarceration and alleged suicide. Capucci leaves listeners with questions about intentional neglect versus systemic failure—with an undercurrent of suspicion about the nature of the “perfect storm” that enabled Epstein to die in custody.

---

All supporting documentation and further reading can be found in the episode’s description box.

Transcript

[A]

If you're into tech, you'll love this. TikTok is a live lab where users post instant reviews of the latest trends. Download TikTok and check it out. The fight for our future starts with belief in our nation and its promise in our future and its potential. Together, we answer America's call to win. We are Marines. We were made for this.

[B]

What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick back up with the unnamed CO and her interview with the OIG investigators. Question. Now, if redacted sits on the information and doesn't do anything with it, he doesn't tell redacted. He doesn't tell the captain, he doesn't tell psychology. Is there any way that the information could have gotten back up to Redacted? So should have the people in the shoe? And for the next people that are in the shoe, Epstein, they know that there's a sticky note on the computer. Epstein needs a cellmate. Should have they notified you? Should have they said, hey, Epstein is in there. He doesn't have a cellmate. And then you would have therefore notified Redacted. Should that have happened? Answer. No. No. Because if Redacted's coming on late, and no disrespect, but no one is home thinking about inmates and if they need a cellie or not. So when people come in, we have had many high profile inmates. No one comes in saying, okay, what's going on with El Chapo today? What's going on with Epstein? Like, it's not that deep. So if you're coming in and you're speaking with operations, you know, you're just listening to pertinent information. And just to add here, yeah, it's not that deep. Because this kind of thing doesn't happen. The high profile inmates. It just so happens that Epstein's the one who ends up killing himself. Okay, you know, you're just listening to pertinent information. You're asking questions. Was it quiet today? Any fights, any use of force? And if you say no, is the lieutenant going to say, oh, is Epstein okay? Yeah, he should. That's what he should be doing. Again, no disrespect to anybody, but no one's inquiring about a specific inmate with. You're starting your shift, maybe you should be. Maybe that's part of the problem. Question. No. And I'm not asking if redacted would be inquiring. I'm saying at this point, is the people in the shoe, if they have a sticky Note saying Epstein supposed to have a cellmate. Answer no, no, I didn't say that. I said the sticky notes say conduct rounds on Epstein. Question. Okay, but if they're aware that Epstein's supposed to have a cellmate, should they have. Each time somebody else comes on, should they try to still make the notification? Answer no, because that's not their responsibility. So because the fry chef only cooks fries, he shouldn't tell the hamburger guy that the hamburgers are burning. None of it makes sense. And again, look, if you folks want to believe what these people are saying, and you want to believe that it was just a perfect storm of fuckups, that's perfectly acceptable because there was a perfect storm of screw ups. I just don't believe that it was organic, that's all. And if it was this big systemic thing, how come nobody got fired? Why did people only get transferred? Another question that should be asked. Question. So if the information dies with Redacted, it just dies. What happens? Answer. It's not the line staff's responsibility to know who needs a cellmate or. Or who doesn't. Answer. So in this case, specifically, if Redacted has the information and he didn't do anything with it, he gets cut off by the guard. Uh huh. Is there anything. He gets cut off again by the guard. There's no way for line staff to know. She answers Question. So in this specific instance, basically we'd have to wait until the next day. If operations don't tell line staff, then they just don't know. Question what if all the lieutenants already knew though? So I guess the difference in this case is that you're an acting lieutenant. You would have only been the only lieutenant on the next shift that would have known. And if you didn't know, then there would be no way for you to gets cut off by the guard. So if I knew that during the day. Question. No, so what I'm saying is Redacted knows the information, he doesn't do anything with it. Now who would be the next person, as you said, Redacted wouldn't have asked him about it because gets cut off by the guard. Yeah, you don't come in just asking about inmates. Question. Exactly. So my point is being is, were there any other lieutenants after Redacted left that could have found that out or was it just you? It was just me, okay? It was just me. And you didn't actually even know he was supposed to have a cellmate? That is correct. And you're saying that the COs, the officers that Are in the shoe. They didn't tell you. That is correct. And it wouldn't be their responsibility to tell you if they knew he was required to have one. That is correct. Ok, so that's the confusing part to me is why wouldn't they be required to tell you that if they knew he had a cellmate, why wouldn't they say, hey, Lieutenant, hey, Lt, Epstein's supposed to have a cellmate. Answer, but that's specific. In my opinion, that's pertinent information. So if Epstein is in attorney conference, right, and shifts are overlapping and he's there during the count and I'm making a round and let's say it's five o' clock and they're going, oh, Epstein needs a cellie. That would be coming from the higher ups. So coming on gets cut off by the investigator. But if redacted, kept the information and redacted has no idea that Epstein doesn't have a celi, how can that information get back to redacted that Epstein doesn't have a celi. But they would have to have been notified by any supervisor. Even if the captain felt like calling them straight in the shoe and saying, hey, Epstein needs a celi. Like, even if he wanted to jump the chain of command, like, they still need to know. That's my point. If they knew the people in the shoe, if they knew, let's say, hey, they knew Epstein's supposed to have a cellmate. He hasn't had a cellmate filled, you know, now the new lieutenant's on, so maybe they told the old lieutenant, the other lieutenant told, but never ended up doing anything with it. He still doesn't have a cellmate. Should have the officers in the shoe. Then you are now the new lieutenant. Hey, just so you know, we told the other lieutenant, but now you're the acting lieutenant. Just know that Epstein's supposed to have a cellmate. Should have they told you that? If they knew. Yeah, sure. Okay, so if they knew, they should have told you. They should have told me because that's considered pertinent information and you always pass it on. You should be always passing on pertinent information. Question. So looking at that roster, who was it that should have told you? Answer the OIC question. And who's that answer? Shoe number one. So shoe oic shoe number one is the officer in charge of the Special Housing Unit. Answer no, I'm saying who on the list is it who should have informed you? Answer redacted question. And what time did redacted work until? Answer eight to four. Question eight to four. Okay. Answer Let me see if he didn't go to lunch. Question so let's say after four, though. I'm saying because redacted was. I mean redacted was there until 4. Who after 4, if nothing after he gets cut off by the guard. Redacted. He was the OIC relief. Question okay, and that's redacted. Answer huh. Question okay, so he's the last person who should have informed you. Answer if he knew, he should be telling me all pertinent information

[A]

during Memorial Day at Lowe's shop household must haves for less. Save $80 on a Char Broil Performance Series 4 Burner Grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45% off. Select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Lowe's we we help you save valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location.

[B]

Seelowes.com for details visit your nearby Lowe's. Question so he's the person on the shift that should have informed you? Answer yes. Question okay, now let's say now you're gone. Who are you relieved by? Answer no relief. Question because you were activities lieutenant. Answer yeah. Question who then relieves. So there's no activity as lieutenant, but there's an ops lieutenant, right? Answer yeah. Question so who is the ops lieutenant? Answer I'm not sure who relieved? Redacted. Because I leave two hours before. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, redacted. She was morning watch lieutenant. Answer okay, Questioned. So redacted is until midnight. So at some point he should have told somebody. If he knew, he should have told somebody. Answer yes. Question all right, now he leaves. And now it's just Noel and Thomas in the shoe. Should they have notified anybody? Answer if they knew. Question if they knew? Answer yes. Question who? Answer operations. Question so they should have left a notified or note with that person. Answer Redacted. Question all right, so he gets cut off by the guard. They knew. They should have. Question okay, so if redacted knew and didn't do anything, the next person in line redacted. Then should have notified you. He didn't. Next shift comes in, either Noel or Thomas should have notified. Redacted. And that's assuming the people in the shoe knew. Answer yeah. Question and either Noel and Thomas were either one of them like were you identified? Redacted. Were either one of them like the person who should have done it versus the other or both of them just as responsible? Answer I mean, they always say when we have newer staff and then senior staff. They always say senior staff. It's just the norm for him to take initiative and just lead the way. Question. Is there one of those two that ha. That were seniors? Yeah. Thomas has way more time than she has. Okay. So even though if for instance, Noelle's the person that's her quarterly assignment and Thomas isn't normally working in the shoe, it would still. He's senior staff. He still should be making the decision. That's practice. Yes. Okay, so he should've because he's senior staff. Question. Perfect. Question. I just wanted to make sure. Answer. Yeah, Answer. So like say for instance, if I have 10 years in and I'm working with someone who has two years in, but they're number one and I'm number two, I'm the one that still should be like, hey, we're doing X, Y and Z because I'm more experienced. Question. 100% answer. So we always go with the more experienced. Question. Okay, now. Okay, Answer. I just have a question. Question. Huh? Answer. If Efren Reyes was removed from like, what was in the shoe? He went out. Answer. Who's Reyes? Question. Epstein's former roommate. Answer. Okay. Question. If he was removed at, let's just say 8am he would have to go to court or whatever it was. And then MCC was notified by, let's say, 1 or 2pm that he's not coming back. Would that have that information have come down to the shu? Would the shoe have known that he's not coming back? So they don't know that automatically? No. But someone would have to inform them. That is correct. Is it normal practice to inform them? Yes. Who would have made that decision? Operations Lieutenant. He would have been told by the RD and the Captain. Question. And the ops lieutenant. Who was the ops lieutenant? Answer. Question. And redacted. Also should have notified the shu. Absolutely. And who in the SHU would have notified at that point? When we call shoe, we don't always say, hey, I need to speak to oic. If I'm on, I want the senior staff because they just know more. So like if I pick up the phone and I know it's somebody with a year in, oh, let me get Smith. I want the person with the most time and experience because they're more experienced. So if I'm calling Chu, hey, I'm saying clear instructions. Make sure EP Skene has a selly in the next hour or the next half hour or whatever. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode, dealing with the topic. We're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[A]

During Memorial Day at Lowe's Shop Household must haves for less save $80 on a Char Broil Performance Series 4 Burner Grill to chef up something special, plus get up to 45% off. Select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's Lowe's we help you Save valid through 527, while supplies last selection varies by location. See Lowes.com for deal details.

[B]

Visit your nearby Lowe's.