Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The Captain Of Security Operations At MCC And His OIG Deposition (Part 11) (6/4/26)

Transcript

The Captain Of Security Operations At MCC And His OIG Deposition (Part 11) (6/4/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 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 get right
• 0:06
  back to the Captain slash Co and their interview with
• 0:11
  the OIG Inspectors. Question. On Saturday, August tenth, twenty nineteen,
• 0:19
  Redacted received a phone call from Lieutenant redacted around seven am. Answer, No,
• 0:25
  that's not accurate. I received the phone call from Lieutenant redacted.
• 0:28
  I believe it was between the hours approximately six thirty five,
• 0:32
  between six thirty five and six forty five, six fifty
• 0:36
  somewhere in there. Question and was told that Epstein was
• 0:40
  found on responsive in his cell but it was Redacted
• 0:45
  who called. Answer, Yes, it was question okay. Redacted inquired
• 0:50
  about Epstein's cellmate and was surprised to hear Redacted respond
• 0:53
  that Epstein did not have a cell mate. Answer that
• 0:56
  is correct. Question, So you immediately said, where's the cell mate? Answer? Yes,
• 1:00
  question okay. Yeah. Now this is again where I'm getting confused,
• 1:05
  because in the report they again say Redacted worked at
• 1:08
  four pm two ten pm on August ninth, twenty nineteen,
• 1:12
  and you're saying that's not right. Answer, No, he would
• 1:15
  have worked two to ten. Question and did he work
• 1:18
  on August ninth, two to ten. Answer August ninth on
• 1:24
  right here. Question I thought we said on August ninth
• 1:28
  he didn't work. Answer, he wasn't there on August ninth,
• 1:31
  he wasn't there. Question so from four pm to ten pm?
• 1:35
  Who was there? Redacted? Answer? Yeah, but like this thing
• 1:39
  like when redacted saying he's non custody because you can
• 1:42
  see the roster, he's cut off by the inspector. So
• 1:46
  was redacted. So the two and the activities lieutenant was redacted?
• 1:51
  Correct answer? So let me can I school you on something? Question? Absolutely?
• 1:56
  Please answer. Let me just school you on something. Question please,
• 2:01
  That's why we're here. Answer these rosters. Do you see
• 2:04
  when you printed this roster? You printed this roster here
• 2:08
  that says six two twenty one, that's this year. I
• 2:11
  can guarantee you the roster don't look like this back
• 2:14
  on the day the roster was printed initially inputed question
• 2:19
  so someone would have changed it. Answer? Somebody went in
• 2:22
  there and changed it. Question But does that mean that
• 2:26
  this is inaccurate or the other is innaccurate? Answer? This
• 2:31
  is inaccurate. I can tell you why because redacted one.
• 2:35
  This is how Because I was like redacted, non custody?
• 2:39
  Why would he make sure that said non custody now redacted?
• 2:42
  I temporarily promoted him to eleven. I temporarily promoted him
• 2:46
  to eleven. Question can you circle that answer? Because he
• 2:51
  couldn't have been in there or in the institution by himself. Question,
• 2:55
  So you think that he went in there and put
• 2:57
  in that indiscernible answer. I'm not going to say that question.
• 3:01
  But that's not what he gets cut off by the guard.
• 3:04
  But what I will say, he gets cut off by
• 3:07
  the investigator. Question, what is normally what you would say? Answer?
• 3:13
  Because he become non custody until I think it was
• 3:16
  when he got out of non custody and became a counselor.
• 3:20
  I believe that wasn't until twenty twenty, Not twenty twenty.
• 3:25
  I think it was the last part of nineteen going
• 3:27
  into twenty or something like that. He was still on
• 3:29
  correctional service. But the thing about this roster, all these
• 3:33
  pages right here, anytime you make a change, it tells
• 3:36
  you the date and time of the change. So let's
• 3:39
  go here time change activities Lieutenant are redacted. That's done
• 3:43
  on eight nine CP. Who You've got to find out
• 3:46
  who CP was? Question? But eight nine that was prior
• 3:51
  to the incident. Answer eight nine O nine eighth nine.
• 3:56
  That was done at nine o nine am the obsolute tenant.
• 4:00
  It was redacted. So redacted took sick leave on that
• 4:03
  day and he gets cut off by the investigator. So
• 4:07
  redacted was on sick leave. Answer redacted changed them on
• 4:11
  the roster on eight nine at eight fifty eight am
• 4:14
  on Friday, August ninth, redacted was relieving an officer on
• 4:17
  eight nine oh nine. But as you see where you
• 4:20
  see and see at question what are we looking for?
• 4:24
  Answer and see non custody, it's right there. Question. Oh,
• 4:28
  it would have. So somebody went in at some point
• 4:31
  and put and if he put non custody, was that
• 4:34
  somebody trying to cover up like, hey, I had nothing
• 4:37
  to do with it. Answer, I wasn't in custody in
• 4:40
  that time he put me in there, because you know,
• 4:43
  why would I do that? You're a lieutenant. Question. So
• 4:46
  it's somebody trying to say, like, hey, I got to
• 4:49
  go through it. But that's something that we should address
• 4:52
  with redacted. Answer. That's something you've got to do from
• 4:56
  the time you printed one. Look when you printed one
• 4:59
  of these rosters, right, I can guarantee you if you
• 5:02
  go back to five eighty three packet and print out
• 5:04
  the roster for eighth nine and eight ten of twenty
• 5:07
  ten or twenty nineteen. Excuse me, it's not going to
• 5:10
  mirror the same. It's going to be changed. It's not
• 5:13
  going to be the same. Question. And do we have
• 5:16
  the ability to do that? Answer? Sure? Question to go
• 5:21
  back into it. Answer to go the five to eighty
• 5:26
  three incident, YEP question, and that'll have the roster in there.
• 5:31
  Answer for Jeffrey question, YEP, answer for Epstein's incident. Yeah,
• 5:38
  those two copies of that roster should be in there. Question. Okay,
• 5:42
  good point. We'll go back and we'll look at that answer.
• 5:45
  But you printed that a couple of weeks ago. It's
• 5:47
  not going to say the it should question. So up
• 5:52
  until just to clarify, up to eight nine that morning,
• 5:54
  at eight fifty eight a m. Before that time, it
• 5:57
  was redacted on the schedule. Answer. Yeah, That means he
• 6:00
  called in and redacted CP redacted at eight fifty eight
• 6:04
  on August ninth, changed it over to redacted. Answer correct question,
• 6:09
  So I wonder why? Okay, all right, so that is inaccurate.
• 6:14
  One more question, sorry that CP. Can anyone enter CP?
• 6:19
  Or is that what it was in the system? Can
• 6:22
  anyone enter CP? Answer no, because when you log in
• 6:26
  the roster program, it's done by your PIV card number.
• 6:32
  Question Okay, no problem, that's it. Back to the questions
• 6:36
  from the other investigator. Now question all right, and it
• 6:39
  says that Lieutenant Redacted is the one who did the
• 6:42
  ten PM to six am shift. Answer correct question. It
• 6:46
  says Redacted did not personally tell Redacted that Epstein required
• 6:49
  a cellmate at all times. He believed she was aware
• 6:53
  because he had informed his lieutenants repeatedly and instructed them
• 6:56
  to pass his message along and convey the information among themselves.
• 7:00
  Is that correct answer? Yes? Question Redacted did not hold
• 7:05
  the formal all lieutenants meeting regarding Epstein or send an
• 7:08
  all staff email with the wardens directive. However, you did
• 7:12
  send emails with regard to the way that they were
• 7:15
  supposed to act and their duties and responsibilities. Answer correct question,
• 7:20
  and you'll send me that answer. Yeah. Question okay. He
• 7:24
  verbally instructed his lieutenants on an informal and individual basis
• 7:28
  as many as possible, with whom he had the opportunity
• 7:31
  on Saturday morning, August tenth, twenty nineteen. Redacted was relieved
• 7:36
  early by redacted. Now, as far as redacted goes her
• 7:40
  claiming she didn't If she's claiming she didn't know, and
• 7:43
  if you didn't specifically tell her, who should have told
• 7:46
  her or how should she have known? Answer? How she
• 7:50
  would have known is is that when she did rounds
• 7:53
  she would have had those cards. Question No, no, okay,
• 7:57
  so he gets cut off by the guard again. She
• 8:00
  would have known that these inmates are high visibility and
• 8:03
  the guidance was already out so it was disseminating throughout
• 8:06
  the unit, so the staff was aware. So of course
• 8:09
  probably in you know, with her, we didn't have a
• 8:12
  good relationship. But regardless of the fact, is that I
• 8:15
  made the lieutenants aware of my expectations. So even though
• 8:19
  I might not have told her, because she worked the
• 8:21
  morning watch shift and by six she would have been gone,
• 8:24
  I wouldn't see her. Question Now, was that abnormal for
• 8:29
  her to leave before six before the shift was done. Answer?
• 8:33
  There was working ten to six, so by the time
• 8:36
  I walked in the door, she would be gone. Question.
• 8:39
  But what I'm saying is if she is leaving before six. Answer, now,
• 8:44
  before six, that would be a problem. Question. So even
• 8:47
  like ten minutes before, is that a problem? Answer? Not
• 8:50
  really question? Okay, answer not really because if the relieving
• 8:54
  person gets there. Because knowing the lieutenants, some lieutenants come
• 8:57
  an hour early. Some lieutenants come ten fifteen minutes early.
• 9:01
  It's just whatever happens. Sometimes the lieutenant has to work
• 9:04
  late because they have an incident or they have administrative
• 9:08
  duties they have to finish before or after their shift,
• 9:11
  which is fine, but they are compensated for that question, right, okay.
• 9:16
  In the shoe, thirty minute rounds need to be completed
• 9:19
  consistently at non uniform intervals within the forty minute timeframe.
• 9:24
  The purpose of the round is to ensure that good
• 9:26
  order is being maintained, there is no suspicious activity, and
• 9:30
  all inmates are accounted for and responsive. Thirty minute rounds
• 9:34
  are documenting in true Scope, which serves as an electronic logbook.
• 9:38
  After a round is physically done, the correctional officer can
• 9:41
  log into true scope and press a button certifying that
• 9:45
  the round was completed. Unfortunately, sometimes officers do not complete
• 9:49
  a thirty minute round or exceed the forty minute threshold.
• 9:53
  True scope. Also documents from what location terminal the rounds
• 9:57
  were logged. Answer that's right. Redacted is aware of that
• 10:01
  at least two terminals located in the shoe. The only
• 10:05
  way to determine if a thirty minute round was physically
• 10:07
  completed is to check the video surveillance footage. Answer that
• 10:11
  is correct question. There are two correctional officers assigned to
• 10:15
  the shoe on morning watch at midnight, Shoe one and
• 10:19
  Shoe two. Shoe two is responsible for completing rounds. They're
• 10:23
  both technically responsible. Correct answer right question, and so is
• 10:28
  shoe too. Usually the officer in charge answer right. So
• 10:32
  basically what would have happened is they're supposed to, you know,
• 10:35
  because one has the key. So I do a round,
• 10:38
  I come back, then you do a round, same thing
• 10:41
  when they do. Account question Now, is it the same
• 10:44
  thing with counts and rounds? Like he gets cut off
• 10:47
  by the guard. No, no, I'm sorry. With the count,
• 10:50
  the investigator picks back up, So with the round. If
• 10:53
  rounds aren't being conducted, does that also mean that everybody
• 10:56
  in the unit is to blame? Answer yes, because because
• 11:02
  it in essence after hours, the lieutenant should go up
• 11:05
  there and observe the count. Question. No, But what I'm
• 11:08
  saying is like, if a round is signed off on
• 11:11
  by one person, but everybody in the unit, nobody in
• 11:14
  the unit did it, and not just the person who
• 11:16
  signed the round, but also everyone else is also responsible
• 11:20
  for the falsified round. Answer right, question, Okay everybody? Yeah,
• 11:25
  it don't matter if you're on the roster and you're
• 11:28
  assigned that unit. The guard responds and the falsified document
• 11:32
  goes up and you said, like me and you count.
• 11:35
  I know we didn't count, but I sign that and
• 11:38
  you sign that. He gets caught off by the investigator. No,
• 11:43
  what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is if you
• 11:45
  sign it, I don't sign it, but we're both responsible.
• 11:49
  Answer right, No, you're going to be responsible because you
• 11:52
  didn't sign it. But if I said I didn't sign it,
• 11:55
  then I'm going to tell you why I said we
• 11:57
  didn't do the count. I'm going to put a memo
• 11:59
  on it. Question. So what I'm saying that's going to
• 12:05
  be a big situation. I guess what I'm saying is like,
• 12:08
  all right, so in these count slips, specifically there's two signatures,
• 12:11
  but there's four people working. Answer right question, So are
• 12:16
  the other two people that are working If they didn't
• 12:18
  report it, they're also responsible answer yes. All right, folks,
• 12:24
  we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
• 12:26
  episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
• 12:28
  we left off. All the information that goes with this
• 12:31
  episode can be found in the description box.