← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
The Captain Of Security Operations At MCC And His OIG Deposition (Part 11) (6/4/26)
00:12:35
The document is a sworn OIG interview transcript from June 15, 2021, involving the Bureau of Prisons captain who oversaw security operations at MCC New York during the period surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s death. The captain described the command...
Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:01]
A
Here at the Zebra, research shows the average person would rather endure a root canal than search for auto and home insurance. Just try to relax. Or be trapped in a car for eight hours with toddlers on a sugar high. Or remove a nest of irate hornets. That's why the Zebra search is for you. Comparing over 100 insurance companies to find savings no one else can Compare. Today@thezebra.com we do the searching, you do the saving. I think I'll wait inside.
- [00:32]
B
Boss. What's the most dreaded question that you can get when you tell people you host a podcast called the Lapsed Fan? Ugh. It's what is it about? And why is that, do you think? Because to like pro wrestling is to lose the respect of others. Now what if we told you there's a podcast that explains exactly why that is and why it's kind of deserved? For over a decade we've taken fact finding missions through the thicket of half truths that is wrestling history. We watch old matches, call out carnies, laugh at our own jokes, and have so much fun doing it that some people actually can't handle it. Think wrestling is an escape from real life? Think again. Same power games, same office politics, same people lying to your face. Just with entrance music and absolutely no company health insurance under any circumstances. All I offer is opportunity, not benefits. As do we, Vince. The Lapsed Fan Podcast. Come for the wrestling history. Stay for the uncomfortable truth about why it used to be better and why you still care.
- [01:31]
C
What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right Back to the Captain slash Co and their interview with the OIG inspectors. Question On Saturday, August 10, 2019, redacted received a phone call from Lt. Redacted around 7:00am no, that's not accurate. I received the phone call from Lieutenant redacted. I believe it was between the hours approximately 6:35. Between 6:35 and 6:45. 6:50. Somewhere in there Question and was told that Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell. But it was redacted. Who called? Yes, it was. Question. Okay. Redacted. Inquired about Epstein's cellmate and was surprised to hear redacted respond that Epstein did not have a cellmate. Answer. That is correct. Question. So you immediately said where's the cellmate? Answer yes. Okay. Yeah. Now this is again where I'm getting confused because in the report they again say redacted worked at 4pm to 10pm on August 9, 2019. And you're saying that's not right. Answer no, he would have worked 2 to 10. Question and did he work on August 9th? 2 to 10 August 9th on right here. I thought we said on August 9th he didn't work. He wasn't there on August 9th he wasn't there. Question so from 4pm to 10pm who was there? Redacted Answer yeah but like this thing like when redacted saying he's non custody but because you can see the roster he's cut off by the inspector so was redacted. So the two and the activities lieutenant was redacted. Correct. So let me. Can I school you on something? Absolutely. Please let me just school you on something. Question please. That's why we're here. These rosters. You see when you printed this roster you printed this roster here that says 6 2, 21 that's this year. I can guarantee you the roster don't look like this back on the day the roster was printed initially inputted Question so someone would have changed it. Somebody went in there and changed it. But does that mean that this is inaccurate or the other is inaccurate? This is inaccurate. I can tell you why because redacted one this is how Because I was like redacted non custody why would he make sure that said non custody now redacted I temporarily promoted him to 11. I temporarily promoted him to 11 question can you circle that Answer because he couldn't have been in there or in the institution by himself Question so you think that he went in there and put in that indiscernible Answer I'm not going to say that Question but that's not what he gets cut off by the guard but what I will say he gets cut off by the investigator Question what is normally what you would say Answer because he become non custody until I think it was when he got out of non custody and became a counselor. I believe that wasn't until 2020. Not 2020. I think it was the last part of 19 come going into 20 or something like that. He was still on correctional service. But the thing about this roster, all these pages right here, anytime you make a change it tells you the date and time of the change. So let's go here time change activities lieutenant are redacted that's done on 89 CP. Who? You've got to find out who CP was. Question but eight nine that was prior to the incident. Answer 890-90-809 that was done at 9:09am the ops lieutenant it was redacted. So redacted took sick leave on that day and he gets cut off by the investigator. So redacted was on sick leave. Answer Redacted Changed them on the roster on 89 at 8:58am on Friday August 9th. Redacted was relieving an officer on 8909. But as you see where you see and see at question what are we looking for? Answer and see non custody it's right there. Question O it would have so somebody went in at some point and put and if he put non custody was that somebody trying to cover up like hey I had nothing to do with it Answer I wasn't in custody in that time he put me in there because you know why would I do that? He a lieutenant Question so it's somebody trying to say like hey I got to go through it but that's something that we should address with redacted Answer that's something you've got to do from the time you printed one. Look when you printed one of these rosters. Right. I can guarantee you if you go back to 583 packet and print out the roster for 809 and 810 of 2010 or 2019 excuse me. It's not going to mirror the same. It's going to be changed. It's not going to be the same. Question and do we have the ability to do that? Answer sure. Question to go back into it. Answer to go the 583 incident. Yep. Question and that'll have the roster in there. Answer for Jeffrey. Question Yep. Answer for Epstein's incident. Yeah. Those two copies of that roster should be in there. Okay, good point. We'll go back and we'll look at that. But you printed that a couple of weeks ago. It's not going to say the it should question. So up until just to clarify up to 89 that morning at 8:58am before that time it was redacted on the schedule. Yeah. Question that means he called IN and redacted CP redacted at 8:58 on August 9th changed it over to redacted. Correct. So I wonder why. Okay. Alright. So that is inaccurate. One more question. Sorry. That cp can anyone enter CP or is that what it was in the system? Can anyone enter cp? No. Because when you log in the roster program it's done by your PIV card number. Question okay, no problem. That's it. Back to the questions from the other investigator now. Question all right. And it says that Lieutenant redacted is the one who did the 10:00pm to 6:00am shift. Answer. Correct. Question it says redacted. Did not personally tell REDACTED that Epstein required a cellmate at all times. He believed she was aware because he had informed his lieutenants repeatedly and instructed them to pass this message along and convey the information among themselves. Is that correct? Answer yes. Redacted. Did not hold a formal all lieutenants meeting regarding Epstein or send an all staff email with the warden's directive. However, you did send emails with regard to the way that they were supposed to act and their duties and responsibilities. Correct. Question. And you'll send me that answer? Yeah. Question okay. He verbally instructed his lieutenants on an informal and individual basis, as many as possible, with whom he had the opportunity. On Saturday morning, August 10, 2019. Redacted was relieved early by redacted. Now, as far as redacted goes, her claiming she didn't. If she's claiming she didn't know, and if you didn't specifically tell her, who should have told her or how should she have known? Answer. How she would have known is, is that when she did rounds, she would have had those cards. Question. No. No. Okay, so he gets cut off by the guard. Again, she would have known that these inmates are high visibility and the guidance was already out, so it was disseminating throughout the unit. So the staff was aware. So of course, probably. And you know, with her we didn't have a good relationship, but regardless of the fact that is that I made the lieutenants aware of my expectations. So even though I might not have told her because she worked the morning watch shift and by six she would have been gone, I wouldn't see her. Question. Now, was that abnormal for her to leave before 6, before the shift was done? Answer. They was working 10 to 6, so by the time I walked in the door, she would be gone. Question. But what I'm saying is if she's leaving before six, now, before six, that would be a problem. Question. So even like 10 minutes before, is that a problem? Not really. Okay. Not really. Because if the relieving person gets there, because knowing the lieutenant, some lieutenants come an hour early, some lieutenants come 10, 15 minutes early. It's just whatever happens, sometimes the lieutenant has to work late because they have an incident or, or they have administrative duties, they have to finish before or after their shift, which is fine, but they are compensated for that. Question. Right. Okay. In the shoe, 30 minute rounds need to be completed consistently at non uniform intervals within the 40 minute time frame. The purpose of the round is to ensure that good order is being maintained. There is no suspicious Activity and all inmates are accounted for and responsive. 30 minute rounds are documenting in Truscope, which serves as an electronic logbook. After a round is physically done, the correctional officer can log into Truscope and press a button certifying that the round was completed. Unfortunately, sometimes officers do not complete a 30 minute round or exceed the 40 minute threshold. TruScope also documents from what location terminal the rounds were logged. That's right. Question redacted is aware of that at least two terminals located in the shoe. The only way to determine if a 30 minute round was physically completed is to check the video surveillance footage. That is correct. There are two correctional officers assigned to the SHU on morning watch at midnight. SHU 1 and SHU 2. SHU 2 is responsible for completing rounds. They are both technically responsible. Correct. Answer Right. Question and so is shoe two, usually the officer in charge. Answer Right. So basically what would have happened is they're supposed to, you know, because one has the key. So I do a round, I come back, then you do a round. Same thing when they do a count. Question now, is it the same thing with counts and rounds? Like he gets cut off by the guard? No, no, I'm sorry. With the count, the, the investigator picks back up. So with the round, if rounds aren't being conducted, does that also mean that everybody in the unit is to blame? Answer yes, because. Because it in essence, after hours, the lieutenant should go up there and observe the count. No, but what I'm saying is like if a round is signed off on by one person, but everybody in the unit, nobody in the unit did it. And not just the person who signed the round, but also everyone else is also responsible for the falsified round. Answer Right Question okay, everybody. Yeah, it don't matter if you're on the roster and you're assigned that unit, the guard responds and the falsified document goes up. And you said like me and you count. I know we didn't count, but I signed that. And you sign that, he gets cut off by the investigator. No, what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is if you sign it, I don't sign it. But we're both responsible. Answer Right. No, you're going to be responsible because you didn't sign it. But if I said I didn't sign it, then I'm going to tell you why I said we didn't do the count. I'm going to put a memo on it. Question so what I'm saying, that's going to be a big situation. I guess what I'm saying is like, all right, so in these count slips, specifically, there's two signatures, but there's four people working. Answer Right. Question So are the other two people that are working, if they didn't report it, they're also responsible? Answer yes. All right, 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.