Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Inside The OIG Interview: The Warden's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 18) (4/21/26)

Transcript

Inside The OIG Interview: The Warden's Statement Detailing The Death Of Jeffrey Epstein (Part 18) (4/21/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  where we left off with the interview of the warden
• 0:09
  from MCC with the OIG investigators. Question Okay, and do
• 0:14
  you know if according to this it looks like he's
• 0:17
  saying that he did perform an informal training session with
• 0:20
  the staff. Do you know if he in fact did
• 0:22
  that or is it just based upon what he wrote here? Answer?
• 0:28
  Just based upon what he sent out. Question Okay, so
• 0:31
  there is no other information aside from what he's telling you.
• 0:34
  Answer right, yeah, he told me that question. So this
• 0:37
  one I want to get your take on this matter.
• 0:39
  So this is back to Redacted, who was relieved at
• 0:42
  five point thirty, but she stayed at the institution at
• 0:46
  least until nine thirty and sent out that email detailing
• 0:49
  you know what day and the lieutenant's log and the
• 0:52
  daily activity log. So Captain Redacted sent her an email
• 0:56
  on eight twelve, twenty nineteen, stating, Lieutenant Redacted, I'm reminding
• 1:00
  you to submit your supervisory memorandum for the inmate Epstein
• 1:04
  incident that occurred eight ten, twenty nineteen. Please have a
• 1:08
  complete and ready for submission On eight thirteen, twenty nineteen.
• 1:13
  She responded with no addressing, nothing, just saying just responded
• 1:17
  simply in your email, you stay quote, I'm reminding you
• 1:20
  end quote. I haven't spoken to you or anyone else
• 1:24
  regarding the incident involving inmate Epstein or anything else pertaining
• 1:28
  to August tenth, twenty nineteen. So how is it possible
• 1:31
  for you to be reminding me. Second, i'd have properly
• 1:35
  relieved prior to the incident involving in made Epstein. What's
• 1:39
  your take on that email? The worden. First of all,
• 1:42
  any major incident that takes place in the institution, we
• 1:46
  have to do what's called a report of incident. He
• 1:49
  is well within the scope of his employment asking okay,
• 1:52
  where is your where is? And I don't know if
• 1:55
  he was asking her for the overall memorandum like you
• 1:58
  are the shift lieutenant. You know, is when the incident
• 2:02
  took place, so technically you should have been doing the packet.
• 2:05
  So he's probably contacting her for that question. Well, she
• 2:10
  was relieved at five thirty am, but she's still there,
• 2:13
  and the incident happened at six thirty and again she
• 2:18
  was there at least until nine thirty, and she did
• 2:20
  respond to the shoe afterwards, helping with the feeding. Should
• 2:23
  she have written a memorandum? Answer yes, question yes? Answer yes,
• 2:30
  I mean she said she responded to the incident. Question
• 2:34
  she didn't respond to the incident. She responded after the
• 2:37
  incident to help in the shoe with feeding and dealing
• 2:40
  with inmates. Mister Hayes jumps in. So somebody told her
• 2:44
  that the fucking guy hung himself? Should she have right?
• 2:48
  The warden pipes in again? From what I gather, I
• 2:51
  am under the impression when the lieutenant relieved her, she
• 2:54
  was gone because and you know, and I can't speculate
• 2:58
  on what was there? Question? She said she stuck around
• 3:02
  working on matters that needed to catch up on. But
• 3:06
  it sounds like manipulating those numbers on the counts and stuff. Answer, okay,
• 3:11
  question right answer. So let me ask you this question.
• 3:14
  I have I have a medical emergency, a suicide. Right,
• 3:18
  That is an emergency everyone in the institution has to
• 3:21
  respond to. Why didn't you respond to it? So you
• 3:25
  think that she may have come back after answer? It
• 3:28
  doesn't make sense to say he gets cut off again
• 3:30
  by the questioner. Well, she never sent out her required
• 3:34
  logs though, answer right, so that he gets cut off again?
• 3:39
  So you reviewed her emails, and I would think that
• 3:41
  she would have sent that out if she had left.
• 3:44
  I would think she would have sent that out before
• 3:46
  she left, right as required answer? Right? So did you
• 3:52
  leave and come back? I mean because if you were
• 3:53
  saying that you were there, you would have been one
• 3:56
  of the first responders up to the unit question. Yeah,
• 4:00
  answer for the emergency question. That's a really good point.
• 4:04
  I wish I would have thought of that, warden. I mean, so,
• 4:09
  and then if you if you didn't respond, why didn't
• 4:12
  you respond? Answer? If she? Is it the claim at all?
• 4:16
  I had been relieved. I wasn't technically working the warden.
• 4:20
  If you're in the building, you have to respond question
• 4:25
  is that right? Answer? It's an emergency question? Okay? Answer?
• 4:29
  I mean as a lieutenant, I would want to respond
• 4:32
  and say, he gets cut off by the investigator. And
• 4:35
  so the fact that she states that she was there
• 4:37
  and she was working on her administrative responsibilities, so is
• 4:41
  that a problem? Then as the warden, what do you
• 4:43
  mean you're working on the administrative you should have responded
• 4:46
  to that emergency answer? No, But and I don't want
• 4:50
  to speculate on when you were there, but I just
• 4:53
  there is just some questions. Heyz Wade, I think he
• 4:58
  gets cut off and the warden picks up. Yeah. I
• 5:02
  mean it's a problem if you say you're working on it. Okay.
• 5:05
  Now at what point did you say okay, I need
• 5:08
  to because once they said that, hey, I have a
• 5:10
  suicide or something going on, which is probably over, you know,
• 5:13
  a real medical emergency, and you hear the transmission on
• 5:17
  the radio you're going to go up there, So then
• 5:19
  you say, oh, I went up there later to help
• 5:22
  with the feeding. Either way, you were in the building.
• 5:25
  The captain's asking you, it happens on your shift. You're
• 5:28
  responsible for conducting the report of the incident. Question, So
• 5:34
  that answer is yes, she should have written a memorandum. Answer.
• 5:38
  She should have written one. I don't understand why she didn't,
• 5:41
  you know, question and is that at all reading how
• 5:45
  she responded? Is that insubordination at all to you? Answer? Listen,
• 5:51
  I'll put it this way. I can't speak on our
• 5:53
  other supervisors or how they tolerate, but if you had
• 5:57
  given me a memorandum like this, we would have been
• 5:59
  having a converse. You know. Question is that at the
• 6:04
  very least inappropriate? I think it's inappropriate. I mean that's
• 6:08
  the way I read it. I thought it was inappropriate.
• 6:12
  Answer I would have gone to have a conversation like,
• 6:15
  you know, first are you all right? And then secondly
• 6:18
  what is this? But yeah? Question fair enough Hayes, Okay, listen.
• 6:25
  One last question? Does this give the implication that she's
• 6:28
  covering up for somebody or she just didn't know her job?
• 6:32
  The warden I don't know. Question we don't know. Had
• 6:36
  you heard anything about her covering up for someone? Answer?
• 6:39
  I haven't heard anything, but you know, he gets cut
• 6:42
  off by the investigator. Did you hear about inmates saying
• 6:45
  that she was making statements that she was going to
• 6:47
  cover for other people? Answer again, I don't want to
• 6:51
  make any statements. Question no, no, I'm asking you. The
• 6:55
  warden picks back up that are not factual. Question did
• 6:59
  you ever hear? Answer no, I didn't hear anything. Question
• 7:03
  you never heard it? Answer right, Hayes, you know, and
• 7:09
  she don't say much. I mean, you know, if I
• 7:11
  was him, I would be drawing an inference saying what
• 7:13
  the fuck's going on? Excuse my language, by the way,
• 7:16
  I have a filthy mouth. The word no, I mean,
• 7:18
  I understand what you're saying, but you know, I'm just
• 7:21
  my point of view is and my concern is if
• 7:25
  you were there, he gets cut off by Hayes. Your
• 7:28
  concern is you would have asked unlike myself, you would
• 7:30
  have asked her a question first, rather than just jumping
• 7:34
  into which is what I did. The word and answer
• 7:39
  is right because under the impression because when Lieutenant redacted
• 7:43
  called me, he was the operations lieutenant and he had
• 7:46
  relieved her. She had gone home already. Question. Well, he
• 7:50
  had certainly relieved her, but according to her, she hadn't
• 7:53
  gone home. Do you mind just initially and dating that answer? Yeah, question,
• 7:59
  maybe you you asked this question, and I just want
• 8:01
  to clarify, being that she started the shift at ten
• 8:04
  pm the night before, right warden Uh huh. Question. Let's
• 8:09
  say that the incident did happen. We're not saying she did.
• 8:12
  We don't know if she went in and she altered
• 8:14
  the lieutenant logs for the previous shift. Did she do
• 8:17
  something wrong? The other investigator pipes in, Well, and again
• 8:21
  we're knowing though, that she started at ten pm, so
• 8:24
  that's still her shift. Back to the other investigator. Let's
• 8:27
  just say, you know the fact that the inmate wasn't
• 8:29
  moved until midnight, and then the clarification and the count,
• 8:33
  the count number is being changed in there. So now
• 8:36
  the lieutenant log count numbers are accurate, except the count
• 8:39
  and the actual count slips were completely off. So somewhere
• 8:42
  along the way someone altered those numbers to correct it.
• 8:47
  The lieutenant is required to take the count on each
• 8:50
  shift right, answer by the warden, right, just to take
• 8:53
  one count? An institutional count question, not a physical in
• 8:59
  the shoe count, Hayes, Right, Okay, And there was account
• 9:02
  entered right, and there is no question that at some
• 9:04
  point the count was altered. Answer by the warden the
• 9:08
  count was wrong. Question. So what agent redacted is asking, Well,
• 9:12
  that obviously goes to show that she went back and
• 9:15
  changed those numbers to seventy two Hayes. But what was
• 9:18
  her motive to do that? Answer? She says, she was
• 9:22
  just trying to make things accurate, Hayes. But what would
• 9:25
  be an ulterior motive that would create the idea that
• 9:28
  she was doing something wrong? Question? It goes back to
• 9:31
  when you asked, is there something to do with a
• 9:33
  cover up answer. So if and granted, mistakes are made
• 9:37
  in the log, but you also annotate that in the
• 9:39
  log like you will put okay late entry, because typically
• 9:43
  if you say the log is done already, when you
• 9:45
  go back and make changes, you make changes for that
• 9:48
  reason alone. An investigator comes in, looks at it and says, well,
• 9:52
  wait a minute, it looks like you've been playing. You
• 9:55
  went back and just change the numbers, so you can
• 9:57
  put in there, and you say okayate entry. Explained what
• 10:01
  your change was and what the mistake was, you know, Hayes.
• 10:05
  So really with this to show malicious intent in her part,
• 10:09
  there's got to be something that influences her to protect
• 10:12
  one of the people that were, no question, were fucking around, right.
• 10:15
  The two guys that were fucking around ended up getting pinched, right,
• 10:19
  So if one of them is her friend, and she's
• 10:21
  got a malicious motive to go try and cover for
• 10:23
  that guy, like did eight thousand indiscernible police officer, he says, well,
• 10:29
  I thought she drew a gun on me and I
• 10:32
  shot her. Oh okay, nobody else saw that. Question, But
• 10:37
  are you not aware of her involvement at all? You said,
• 10:41
  or covering up for them or involvement in Epstein's death. Answer, No,
• 10:47
  she wouldn't have had that conversation with them. Question and
• 10:50
  you weren't until now? It sounds like even aware she
• 10:53
  was at the institution after five thirty am. Answer, I
• 10:57
  was told that she left. Question Okay, and again, who
• 11:01
  told you that? Answer? The operations lieutenant, because he called
• 11:05
  me and he says, hey, I relieved redacted. Question okay,
• 11:12
  and did you have before we move on to the
• 11:14
  next subject? Do you have any more on that? Answer? No?
• 11:18
  All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and
• 11:20
  then the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna
• 11:22
  pick up where we left off. All the information that
• 11:25
  goes with this episode can be found in the description box.