Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The Captain Of Security Operations At MCC And His OIG Deposition (Part 12) (6/5/26)

Transcript

The Captain Of Security Operations At MCC And His OIG Deposition (Part 12) (6/5/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to
• 0:07
  the unnamed CEO slash captain and his interview with the
• 0:11
  olig investigators. Question all right, okay, answer and then on
• 0:18
  the morning watch there is only two people in the unit.
• 0:21
  Question right, answer, so they're both complicit. Answer And I
• 0:25
  know I said bad count officers should come down? How
• 0:28
  often should I mean a lieutenant should come down? How
• 0:31
  often should lieutenants be observing the counts? And we're talking
• 0:34
  about in the shoe? Answer well, in the shoe. In
• 0:38
  the shoe, a lieutenant would have been monitoring what I
• 0:41
  believe that ten South count? Question ten South? What about
• 0:45
  like where Epstein was in regular shoe? Answer well, no,
• 0:49
  but we didn't implement that until after Epstein's incident. Question
• 0:53
  all right, so up to August tenth, lieutenants were not
• 0:56
  observing counts. Answer, no question, They were simply taking the
• 1:00
  count in the control room. Answer that is control That
• 1:04
  is correct. Question Okay? Redacted was aware that the camera
• 1:07
  system in the shoe was down. He left early on Thursday,
• 1:11
  when the discussion about the camera system would have occurred.
• 1:14
  Mister redacted what is mister redacted's first name? Answer? I
• 1:18
  can't remember his first name. Question now, is he like
• 1:21
  a CEO though, or like he gets cut off by
• 1:24
  the guard. No, he would be. He's a com tech
• 1:26
  employee question contech, but a BOP employee. Answer yeah, Question
• 1:33
  the camera technician notified or redacted that he was working
• 1:37
  on the system earlier that week, but redacted did not
• 1:39
  know specifics and was not informed that the cameras were
• 1:42
  not functioning. Since the Since you don't know or didn't
• 1:46
  know that any of the true cameras may have been out?
• 1:50
  Answer no, question okay, since the and who would have
• 1:54
  been responsible? Was he the one responsible for that? Answer? Yeah?
• 1:59
  Question So if he's notified that the camera's now out,
• 2:02
  how soon they're after should he get that up and running? Answer? No?
• 2:06
  If he was aware that the camera system was down
• 2:08
  and was not working, he should have contacted me and
• 2:11
  then I immediately contact the aw and the warden because
• 2:14
  that's a security situation. Question and in this instance, so
• 2:19
  in this instance, he didn't do that? Answer no, question
• 2:22
  all right? And would anyone else have known that a
• 2:25
  shoe camera was down? Answer? I don't know? Question no, okay,
• 2:31
  answer I can't remember. I don't even that's I don't remember.
• 2:35
  Question do you know if a camera in the shoe
• 2:36
  was ever down? Answer? Yeah, question okay, well camera answer.
• 2:40
  I know that there were issues with the cameras because
• 2:43
  we had done a program review before then, and there
• 2:46
  was cameras down in ten South, so we had got
• 2:49
  those fixed, you know, in the individual cells, and then
• 2:53
  there was a camera system that was down because I
• 2:55
  believe they was doing some type of maintenance on the
• 2:57
  ranges or something like that. Everyone was aware of. That's
• 3:01
  all I can remember. Question okay, answer, And I don't
• 3:05
  remember specifics and timeframes. Question all right, But you don't
• 3:10
  know specifically if, like, for instance, the range that Epstein
• 3:13
  was on, that camera was out or not. Answer that
• 3:19
  I don't know for sure. Question you're not sure? Answer yeah,
• 3:23
  no question okay, but again, if it was, it would
• 3:26
  have been redacted. And what did you say the last
• 3:29
  name was redacted? Answer Christopher redacted? Question and how do
• 3:33
  you spell the last name? Redacted? Question? Can you say
• 3:38
  that one more time? Answer? Redacted? Question perfect? The other
• 3:45
  investigator jumps in now just had a quick question, who
• 3:49
  was that conversation about the discussion You mentioned that there
• 3:52
  was a discussion. He gets cut off by the guard
• 3:55
  mister redacted. He gets cut off now by the other investigator. No,
• 4:02
  when you said that the discussion would have happened answer, Oh,
• 4:07
  question right, I think that's the date of indiscernible question. Well, no,
• 4:12
  it says mister redacted. The camera technician notified redacted that
• 4:15
  he was working on the system earlier the week. He's
• 4:18
  saying that he left early on Thursday when the discussion
• 4:21
  about the camera system would have occurred. Answer would have
• 4:25
  so he should have known. Question if there was a conversation,
• 4:28
  But you don't know that there was. Answer No, because
• 4:32
  like in closeout or if there was something with the
• 4:35
  warden that day. Normally on Thursdays at times, you know,
• 4:38
  it was for my I have a disease, so I
• 4:40
  would go for blood work on Thursdays when I could
• 4:43
  if an institution emergency, you know, But normally on Thursday,
• 4:46
  I would leave early on Thursday. I would take a
• 4:49
  half a day to go to my medical appointments. So
• 4:52
  if there was a meeting that was convened about the
• 4:54
  camera systems, I wasn't present at that meeting. However, I
• 4:58
  know that a camera project was going on during that time,
• 5:00
  which mister redacted was responsible for installing the new I
• 5:04
  don't know what I can't remember what you call it,
• 5:06
  but it's a system because our system was an antique.
• 5:10
  So they was doing camera repairs. There were certain cameras
• 5:13
  down in certain areas of the institution. But he was
• 5:16
  actively working on that question. So if there was a
• 5:20
  meeting that you were not aware of on Thursday, who
• 5:22
  would have been present for it? Answer for a meeting
• 5:25
  with the warden question, it would have been with the
• 5:28
  warden answer, Yeah, it would have been. I mean the
• 5:31
  warden would have known if someone had a meeting about
• 5:34
  the camera system being down, and then probably the facilities manager,
• 5:38
  which is redacted. It would have been the aw a
• 5:40
  custody at that time, which would have been misredacted. And
• 5:44
  of course it would have been the warden question. Didn't
• 5:47
  you say it was actually somebody else? Redacted was no
• 5:50
  longer the custody answer misredacted. Misredacted was there, but she
• 5:55
  had just got there. She was over another discipline. So
• 5:58
  that would have been the meeting with the executive staff question. Okay,
• 6:02
  so was the executive staff meeting? Would that meeting also
• 6:05
  have taken place? If the cameras are still down on Friday,
• 6:08
  would it have taken place on Friday as well? Answer?
• 6:11
  That would have been Friday as well. Question but you
• 6:15
  weren't involved with a meeting like that. Answer no question.
• 6:18
  And you don't know of a meeting taking place? Answer
• 6:21
  no question. Okay. Would it have just taken place every
• 6:24
  day that the camera was down or just the first day? Answer?
• 6:29
  There would have been an update because the person that
• 6:31
  falls under that the contact is redacted, So the aw
• 6:35
  over facilities would have wanted an update weekly report, as
• 6:39
  well as the captain because that's a security issue. So
• 6:43
  we would have wanted But the camera system was down
• 6:46
  because I think it was down for some routine maintenance
• 6:48
  that they was doing. Anyway, Question now, would any lieutenant
• 6:52
  or shoe staff have known that the camera was down?
• 6:55
  Answer some, I mean they don't have the ability to monitor.
• 6:58
  But you know, of course the ones in ten in
• 7:00
  South you know he gets cut off by the guard. Yeah,
• 7:04
  they were live monitoring. Answer yeah, the live monitoring, so
• 7:09
  of course. Question and do you know and you don't
• 7:12
  know though even to this date, if a camera was
• 7:15
  in fact down? Answer I can't remember. Question in fact?
• 7:21
  Answer I don't know. Question. Okay, that's fine. I was
• 7:24
  just going to ask, even if it wasn't recording, do
• 7:26
  you know if it was like being a live monitor
• 7:29
  or anything like that, or it could have been answer,
• 7:34
  I'm unaware question okay, okay. So, after receiving a phone
• 7:38
  call from redacted on the morning of Saturday, August tenth,
• 7:41
  twenty nineteen, Redacted notified associate Warden redacted, who informed the warden.
• 7:47
  Redacted also attempted to call institution duty officer Nathaniel redacted
• 7:53
  to chaplain and in the building to get more information.
• 7:56
  What does that mean by the building? Do you know?
• 7:59
  And so basically, you know, it was just it was
• 8:03
  just a bunch of you know, people that we tried
• 8:04
  to notify. I tried to notify, so I think I
• 8:07
  notified misredacted. Of course, she notifies the warden. I notified
• 8:11
  the IDEO. I said, hey, because in May death they
• 8:15
  needed me coming into the institution because that's one of
• 8:17
  their off times, so they needed to be making ay
• 8:21
  because they're going to be responsible for making certain calls
• 8:24
  to the region. I notified the chaplain because Chaplin made
• 8:27
  sure indiscernible. Also, I believe I informed them to call
• 8:31
  redacted phonetic which was executive assistant. I think redacted, or
• 8:36
  I may have called mister Johnson, the attorney for MCC.
• 8:40
  I'm trying to think who else. Question. No, that's fine.
• 8:44
  And it says that he went to the MCC arriving
• 8:47
  before eight am approximately upon arrival of redacted, screened in
• 8:52
  and retrieved his gear from the third floor. He went
• 8:55
  to the shoe and signed the logbook. He gathered any
• 8:59
  records pertaining Epstein, including the thirty minute round logbook, the
• 9:03
  attorney conference logbook, count slips, and e On's what are
• 9:06
  you ones? Answer? So all this stuff right here, so
• 9:11
  you basically I walked through the building. I know the
• 9:13
  protocol because what happens is these things will come up
• 9:17
  missing then you have no evidence. So I secured count slips,
• 9:21
  the e ones. I went to the shoe. I got
• 9:23
  all the logbooks that I knew where Epstein had been.
• 9:26
  I grabbed those log books. I went to the shoe.
• 9:29
  I took his inmate shoe file from the special housing,
• 9:32
  plus all the round sheets. Indiscernible question. This actually says
• 9:37
  he could not locate in Epstein's inmate file. Do you
• 9:40
  remember that answer? It was a file, but it had
• 9:43
  limited stuff in there. Question Okay, answer so his actual file, yeah,
• 9:47
  had his picture, had a couple of things on there,
• 9:49
  but it wasn't anything in it. Question So when it
• 9:53
  says not locate a file, you located the file it
• 9:56
  was just answer it was empty. Question it was empty?
• 10:01
  And is that abnormal? Answer? No, it's not abnormal. Question, Oh,
• 10:05
  it's not normal. Answer it's normal. No question and do
• 10:10
  you think that somebody removed things from it? Answer? No,
• 10:13
  I'm not going to make that accusation. I don't know.
• 10:16
  I would just say that that's not a normal instance.
• 10:19
  That's being working as a former OIC, being a correctional officer,
• 10:22
  and all of that stuff. That's not normal. Question what
• 10:26
  stuff's usually in there? Answer? I can tell you it
• 10:29
  would be all of his the inmate screening stuff that
• 10:31
  we do on the inmates, the expectation, sell assignment things
• 10:35
  that the inmates supposed to sign, the clothing issue forms.
• 10:38
  It would be two ninety twos in there. It would
• 10:40
  be the SRO. It would also be the psychology where
• 10:43
  psychology comes down to see these guys that notes should
• 10:47
  have been placed in there. Question and none of that
• 10:49
  was in there? Answer? None of that was in there?
• 10:53
  Question and where's that file located? Answer? It's supposed to
• 10:56
  be located in the OIC. Question and when you say
• 11:00
  the OIC, is that the shoe where the OIC sits? Answer? Yeah?
• 11:04
  Question and so anyone could have had access to that?
• 11:07
  Answer yes. Question And had you ever seen that file
• 11:11
  before that time? Answer no, question? Did you ever locate
• 11:14
  it after that time? Answer? No question. So it's likely
• 11:19
  that someone took documents out if they should have been
• 11:22
  there and they're not there? Is that answer? Correct? Question?
• 11:26
  So someone likely I'm not saying who did it, but
• 11:30
  someone likely did it? Answer in my belief, Yes, those
• 11:34
  documents were purposefully taken. Question and can you think of
• 11:38
  a reason why they would have been taken? Answer? I
• 11:42
  don't know, sir. Question all right, but you had never
• 11:46
  seen them before? Answer no, sir, that was that wouldn't
• 11:50
  be my purview to go through to audit those files.
• 11:54
  Question Who would be the person to ask about that? Answer?
• 11:57
  That would have been the lieutenant question So lieutenant redacted?
• 12:00
  Answer Lieutenant redacted or the lieutenant he would have been
• 12:05
  the one that are did those files? Question? Okay? Answer
• 12:10
  because they do? SROs. Question and did you ask them
• 12:14
  where the file was? Answer? Of course I called them.
• 12:18
  Question and what did he say? Answer? He didn't know,
• 12:20
  he had no knowledge? Question all right, so he claimed
• 12:24
  he didn't know anything about it. Did he ever say
• 12:28
  you looked at the files before? Answered no, I don't
• 12:32
  remember him saying that. But when I called him that Saturday,
• 12:35
  because I had conversations with Lieutenant redacted on that Saturday
• 12:39
  and that Sunday because he was supposed to come to
• 12:41
  work on that Sunday. So once he found out about
• 12:43
  the situation with Epstein, because I had called him and
• 12:47
  I said, hey, man, where is this inmate file? What
• 12:50
  are you talking about? I said, his shoe files not
• 12:52
  up there? X y Z. So I informed them of
• 12:55
  what happened Sunday, I get the call that he broke
• 12:58
  his leg and then Lieutenant redacted was out for like
• 13:00
  six months. Question and did he really break his leg? Answer?
• 13:04
  I wouldn't know. Question is there any reason to believe
• 13:08
  or had you heard that he actually he gets cut
• 13:10
  off by the guard again, he was supposed to be
• 13:12
  in that training, Like I said, right, what would you
• 13:15
  call it? When you go for reserve training? You do
• 13:19
  it every month? Question? Yeah, he's in the military right
• 13:23
  because of his military training. So he tells me that
• 13:26
  they're doing the pt The next day, which was Sunday,
• 13:29
  he broke his leg. Question did he ever provide any
• 13:32
  kind of proof of an injured leg? Answer? He did
• 13:36
  provide something, but it was from a doctor, I mean,
• 13:39
  and that was sent through he provided documentation. I can't.
• 13:42
  I don't. I'm not a doctor, so I can't tell
• 13:44
  you what it is, and I'm not going to call
• 13:46
  the doctor to verify if that was the situation. But
• 13:49
  basically it said that he had a substantial leg injury
• 13:52
  that prevented him from coming to work. Question, so have
• 13:56
  you had any conversations with him since? Answer? Oh, we can't.
• 13:59
  Back So then so redacted went out in August and September, October, November, December.
• 14:05
  I think he came back either December or January of
• 14:08
  twenty nineteen. So he came back and he went up
• 14:11
  to the shoe as Oh, I see question and ever
• 14:15
  any conversations about this matter? Answer? I had discussed it
• 14:19
  with him on the phone twice. Question and tell me
• 14:22
  about those discussions. Answer those discussions. So basically I asked
• 14:27
  him about the inmate file. I had talked to him
• 14:29
  about it. That Sunday he alerted me that he was injured.
• 14:33
  When he came back. We had discussions that the staff
• 14:35
  when he told me and redacted were I go. I
• 14:38
  would say, out of all the lieutenants, me and redacted,
• 14:42
  we spoke a lot. I thought very highly of him,
• 14:44
  and he would talk and he was saying that he
• 14:47
  was having difficulties with the staff and his other peers
• 14:49
  because he, you know, the appearance was that he faked
• 14:52
  the injury and not to be part of what everybody
• 14:54
  else was going through during that Epstein situation. So he
• 14:57
  was getting it from the lieutenants. He was also getting
• 15:00
  from the line staff. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
• 15:02
  up right here, and in the next episode dealing with
• 15:04
  the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
• 15:06
  All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 15:09
  found in the description box.