Draft: efta00127808

1¶

2¶

3¶

4 DIGITALLY RECORDED¶

5 SWORN STATEMENT¶

6 OF¶

7¶

8¶

9 OIG CASE #:¶

10 2019-010614¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE¶

19 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL¶

20 OCTOBER 27, 2021¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

RESOLUTE DOCUMENTATION SERVICES 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 285 Agoura Hills, CA 91301¶

1 APPEARANCES:¶

3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL¶

4 BY:¶

5 BY:¶

8 WITNESS:¶

12 OTHER APPEARANCES:¶

1¶

2 name is : The recorder is on. My¶

, and I am a Senior¶

3 Special Agent with the U.S. Department of¶

4 Justice, Office of the Inspector General, New¶

5 York Field Office, and these are my¶

6 credentials.¶

7 : Okay. Mm-hmm.¶

8 : This interview with¶

9 Federal Bureau of Prisons employee - is it¶

10¶

11 -:¶

12 : Is being conducted as¶

13 part of an official U.S. Department of Justice,¶

14 Office of the Inspector General investigation.¶

15 Today's date is October 27th, 2021, and the¶

16 time is 1:53 p.m. This interview is being¶

17 conducted - what is the -? Is it 1515?¶

18 MR.-: 515.¶

19 : 515?¶

20 : Yes.¶

21 UNKNOWN MALE: Madison Avenue. 31st¶

22 floor.¶

23 : Okay. 515 Madison¶

24 Avenue, 31st floor. New York, New York. Also¶

25 present is DOJ/OIG Special Agent¶

1 As well as --¶

2 UNKNOWN MALE:¶

3¶

4 attorney. I'm sorry. What is it?¶

5 . H-A-Y-E-S.¶

6 First name E-D-W-A-R-D.¶

7 : Thank you, sir. Who is¶

8 representing . This interview will¶

9 be recorded by me, Senior Special Agent¶

10 . could everyone please identify¶

11 themselves for the record, and spell your last¶

12 name? To start, again, I am DOJ/OIG Senior¶

13 Special Agent,¶

15 MR. : This is DOJ Special Agent¶

16 . And these are my¶

17 credentials.¶

18 : Okay. And I am --¶

19 : I can't --¶

20¶

21 : I can't show you any¶

22 credentials.¶

23 . First name --¶

24 : Okay.¶

25 . And¶

1 last name¶

3 : Thank you, sir. Do you¶

4 happen to one --¶

5 : I still don't know how he¶

6 pronounces his name. Is it -? Yeah. And I'm¶

7 so arrogant that I don't carry identification.¶

8 You know what I mean?¶

9 : No. That's fine.¶

10 : Yeah. But you are sitting¶

11 down here, you are willing to pay the fee.¶

12 : Yeah.¶

13 : You know who I am.¶

14 : So, I am looking at Mr.¶

15 law enforcement officer credentials.¶

16 And it has a picture. And a signature of the¶

17 gentleman sitting in front of me. Thank you,¶

18 sir. And his attorney, do you mind - and¶

19 again, it's¶

20¶

21¶

22 . And I'm sorry, I¶

23 don't have -. I really --¶

24 : No. That's quite all¶

25 right.¶

1 : -- as I say --¶

2 : But you are --¶

3 . I'm his¶

4 lawyer.¶

5 : -- perfect, and we're in¶

6 your office.¶

7 : Right.¶

8 : This is an official¶

9 DOJ/OIG investigation into the death of inmate¶

10 Jeffrey Epstein and the circumstances¶

11 surrounding it, and you are being asked to¶

12 voluntarily provide answers to our questions.¶

13 Will you agree to a voluntary interview with¶

14 the DOJ/OIG?¶

15 : Yes, I will.¶

16 : Thank you, sir. This is¶

17 the form that we have to do all interviews,¶

18 interviewees.¶

19 : Is that form B?¶

20 : This is the OIG form III-¶

21 226/2.¶

22 : Yeah.¶

23 : Okay.¶

24 : But it says is - I'm¶

25 going to read it for you - United States¶

1 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector¶

2 General, Warnings and Assurances to Employee¶

3 Requested to Provide Information on a Voluntary¶

4 Basis. It says, "You are being asked to¶

5 provide information as part of an investigation¶

6 being conducted by the Office of the Inspector¶

7 General. This investigation is being conducted¶

8 pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978,¶

9 as amended. This investigation pertains to job¶

10 performance failure, and security failure."¶

11 And this is what we are writing for everyone¶

12 that we speak to, just because we're looking at¶

13 it as a --¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : -- whole of what¶

16 happened. "This is a voluntary interview.¶

17 Accordingly, you do not have to answer¶

18 questions. No disciplinary action will be¶

19 taken against you if you chose not to answer¶

20 questions. Any statements you furnish may be¶

21 used as evidence in any future criminal¶

22 proceedings, or agency disciplinary¶

23 proceedings, or both." And there is a waiver¶

24 section. It says, "I understand the Warnings¶

25 and Assurances stated above, and I am willing¶

1 to make a statement and answer questions. No¶

2 promises or threats have been made to me, and¶

3 no pressure or coercion of any kind has been¶

4 used against me." If you would like to take a¶

5 look at it, you may. If you agree to it, if¶

6 you want your attorney to look at it, he may,¶

7 as well.¶

8 : Okay.¶

9 : You can sign where it¶

10 says "Employee Signature." And then, also¶

11 write your name. I did read it verbatim.¶

12 : I'm sure you did. Okay.¶

13 There is no place that said attorneys --¶

14 : No, no, no.¶

15 : -- signatures.¶

16 : It's not for you to sign.¶

17 It's for him, myself, and the witness. It's¶

18 just if you wanted to review it, or ask any --¶

19 : No, that's all right.¶

20 : -- questions about it.¶

21 : That's all right. I do have a¶

22 question.¶

23 : Where do you want me to¶

24 sign?¶

25 : In other words, if you say to¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

him --¶

MR.¶

: Oh, so, where it says --¶

: Right side.¶

: -- "Employee Signature."¶

: Do you have sex with ducks?¶

6 And so, I'm not going to answer that question.¶

7 That's the - he can't get in trouble for that?¶

8 : I won't be asking that¶

9 question.¶

10 : I mean, (Indiscernible¶

11 *00:04:18).¶

12 MR. : (Indiscernible *00:04:20).¶

13 : (Indiscernible *00:04:22).¶

14 : (Indiscernible *00:04:21).¶

15 Okay.¶

16 : Under the interview that¶

17 we are doing right now, for voluntary¶

18 interviews, he doesn't have to answer our¶

19 questions.¶

20 : Okay. Great.¶

21 : All right. So, thank you¶

22 for signing that, sir. Did you have any¶

23 questions on the form?¶

24 : No, I don't.¶

25 : All right. So, I'm¶

1 signing as the signature of the Office of the¶

2 Inspector General, Special Agent. I'm printing¶

3 my name.¶

4 : Oh, one thing. So,¶

5 ordinarily, I would take notes. I've been at¶

6 Jim Rad (Phonetic Sp. *00:04:49) for 50 years,¶

7 as you saw, to which my body is falling apart.¶

8 I had severe arthritis in my neck, and it's¶

9 radiated down to my hands. I can't really¶

10 basically write. So, that's why --¶

11 : Sure.¶

12 : I'm not taking notes. But¶

13 I have a pretty good memory, so, yeah.¶

14 : All right. Great.¶

15 , can you just sign as the witness?¶

16 MR. : Oh.¶

17 : Put your name and take¶

18 care of the rest of the form.¶

19 MR. : This is Special Agent¶

20 I'm signing as the witness, and dating¶

21 it.¶

22 : All right. Before¶

23 starting the interview, I would like to place¶

24 you under oath. can you please¶

25 raise your right hand?¶

1¶

2¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

: Do you swear to tell the¶

3 truth and nothing but the truth during this¶

4 interview?¶

5 : I do.¶

6 : Thank you, sir. What is¶

7 your current home address?¶

8 -:¶

10 : And what is your date of¶

11 birth?¶

12 -:¶

13 : And what --¶

14 : Jesus Christ.¶

15 : -- what is the¶

16 : I'm old.¶

17 : -- what are the last four¶

18 of your social security number?¶

19 -•¶

20 : Is it correct that you¶

21 were interviewed regarding the Epstein matter¶

22 on August 19th, 2019?¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : Or in August of 2019.¶

25 : I know it was some time in¶

1 August.¶

2 : Correct. Okay. How long¶

3 have you worked for the BOP?¶

4 : 30 years. And August,¶

5 September, October, November. 30 years and¶

6 three months.¶

7 : All right. And what is¶

8 your current position with the BOP?¶

9 : I'm the Warden at FCI Fort¶

10 Dix.¶

11 : Okay. And what are your¶

12 You are the warden, you said?¶

13 : Yes.¶

14 : Were you previously ^a¶

15 regional director?¶

16 : I was the deputy regional¶

17 director in Philadelphia.¶

18 : And how long have you¶

19 been the warden at FCI Fort Dix?¶

20 : About two or three weeks.¶

21 Two weeks.¶

22 : Oh, so --¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : -- it's a brand --¶

25 : Yeah.¶

1 -- new position?¶

2 : It just got there. Yeah.¶

3 : Okay. How long were you¶

4 the deputy regional director?¶

5 : I got it in February.¶

6 : Okay.¶

7 : Of 2021.¶

8 : Okay. And as the deputy¶

9 regional director, what were your duties and¶

10 responsivities?¶

11 : Monitoring he activities of¶

12 the 20 institutions in the region, and, you¶

13 know, managing the administratives within the¶

14 northeast region, and, you know, showing that¶

15 institutions were running in an orderly¶

16 fashion.¶

17 : Now, did you supervise¶

18 the various wardens at those institutions?¶

19 : Yes. I was over there. I¶

20 was the rating official on some of the¶

21 evaluations.¶

22 : And were you a warden¶

23 prior to that position?¶

24 : Yes, I was.¶

25 : Where were you a warden?¶

1 : In New York. MCC. The¶

2 Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York.¶

3 : And how long were you a¶

4 warden there?¶

5 : I came from May of - '17,¶

6 '18 - May of '18 until, I forget the date, in¶

7 2020. I forget what it was.¶

8 : Okay. So, May 2018 to¶

9 some time in 2020 --¶

10 : Yeah.¶

11 : -- when you became the¶

12 regional director?¶

13 : No. The position¶

14 : Yeah.¶

15 : -- prior to that, I was¶

16 given --¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 : -- was a liaison to the¶

19 regional director. And then, I went into the¶

20 deputy position.¶

21 : Okay. Sounds good. Ana¶

22 August of 2019, though, were you a warden at¶

23 the MCC New York?¶

24 : Yes, I was.¶

25 : Thank you, sir. And are¶

1 you familiar with inmate Jeffrey Epstein, who¶

2 was housed within the MCC in July and August of¶

3 2019?¶

4 : Yes.¶

5 : Yes. Okay. Great. What¶

6 I have here is an after-action report that was¶

7 written by the BOP.¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : Have you seen this?¶

10 : I have not seen that.¶

11 : All right. So, this is¶

12 not something that you are actually familiar¶

13 with?¶

14 : No, I am not.¶

15 : No one discussed any¶

16 findings or anything like that with you?¶

17 : No one.¶

18 : All right. I'm going to¶

19 set this aside just in case we need to, you¶

20 know, reference it. So, no role in the after-¶

21 action report?¶

22 : Nothing. I wasn't¶

23 interviewed. I wasn't spoken to.¶

24 : All right. Do you know¶

25 of anybody interviewed, or I mean, talked to¶

1 and at least about, like, providing the¶

2 information that they utilized to this report?¶

3 : No.¶

4 : No. Okay. Fair enough.¶

5 After the incident occurred, what was your role¶

6 with determining what happened and what didn't¶

7 happen after Epstein was found on August 10th,¶

8 2019?¶

9 : Well, I responded to the¶

10 institution. At the time, when I got there, he¶

11 was at the hospital. So, I didn't go up to the¶

12 unit, as far as - because it was a crime scene,¶

13 and I've always been trained, if it was a crime¶

14 scene, if you weren't particularly there, the¶

15 least amount of people that, you know, that go¶

16 through that crime scene, just don't go into¶

17 it. So, I didn't go into it, but you know,¶

18 basically gathering information on what¶

19 happened, notifying the region, notifying the¶

20 FBI. The IG.¶

21 : (Indiscernible *00:09:28).¶

22 He's already got that phone call.¶

23 : Oh.¶

24 : Oh, yeah, you know what I¶

25 mean? Jeffrey Epstein --¶

1¶

2¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

: -- like, fuck it, I'm going to¶

3 sell. Oh, okay.¶

4 : Yeah.¶

5 : That's why we do it for the¶

6 next six months.¶

7 : So, there was a lot of¶

8 notification on what happened. Trying to find¶

9 out the status of inmate Epstein. And things¶

10 more along those lines.¶

11 : Now, did you help with¶

12 gathering information, up until a certain¶

13 point, and then, were you told not to anymore,¶

14 or did you continue to gather -?¶

15 : No, like, my boss was¶

16 calling me the regional director. They needed¶

17 information. You know, starting a timeline on¶

18 what happened. So, I had my executive¶

19 assistant there, and, you know, we would just¶

20 gather any information, and just, you know,¶

21 making sure that, you know, things that were¶

22 requested were being provided to them, any¶

23 information.¶

24 : And who was the regional¶

25 director at the time?¶

1 : It was, at the¶

2 time.¶

3 : Okay. And then, who was¶

4 your executive assistant?¶

5 -: (Phonetic Sp.¶

6 *00:10:21).¶

7 : Okay.¶

8 MR. -:¶

9 -:¶

10 : Now, as part of our¶

11 investigation, we have to review everyone's¶

12 emails, with regard to the incident.¶

13 : Right.¶

14 : So, you mentioned that¶

15 you provided with timelines --¶

16 : Yeah.¶

17 : -- and things like that.¶

18 So, these are just some timelines from - again,¶

19 Mr. Epstein, I believe, was found around 6:33¶

20 a.m.¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : In the Special Housing¶

23 Unit. This is a timeline starting with, it¶

24 looks like, August 10th, 2019, at 11:04 a.m.¶

25 So, a few hours after the fact. It just says,¶

1 it says, "See below. Just to ensure you know¶

2 what is being relayed to DOJ." Now, is this -.¶

3 And then, what I have behind it is, these are¶

4 different timelines that are all updated¶

5 throughout the day.¶

6 : Mm-hmm.¶

7 : Here is one that was at¶

8 2:21 p.m. Same date. And then, the next one¶

9 was 3:42 p.m. And the next one was August¶

10 12th. And then, the final one that we have is¶

11 the August 13th. So, do these look like the¶

12 timelines that you would have been gathering¶

13 information and providing to¶

14 : Okay. It looks like it.¶

15 : Now, where were you¶

16 actually obtaining this information from? You¶

17 said was obtaining it for you?¶

18 : He was the exec, we recall,¶

19 and in that, I'm not too familiar on the¶

20 specifics on how we get it, because there was¶

21 so much going on.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : That, you know, I don't¶

24 recall if it was from the logbooks, or, you¶

25 know, calling around and trying to find out.¶

So, I don't really recall the specifics. : All right. Well, rather¶

than get into each one of these, because it¶

will take too long, I'll just do the very first¶

one. It says, it just says, "7/23/2019, at¶

1:27 a.m., Epstein found in fetal position in¶

cell, breathing, but would not acknowledge¶

staff initially." So, that is referring to the¶

first initial attempt that Epstein may have had¶

on his life?¶

: Let me see which one. Are¶

we talking the day of, or -?¶

: No. This is¶

: This is July.¶

: -- yeah, July,¶

(Indiscernible *00:12:40) 27.¶

: Oh, no. This is July.¶

: Yeah.¶

: This is the --¶

: So, this is the --¶

: -- no, the --¶

: -- timeline.¶

: -- this would -. We would¶

have probably got this from the SIS¶

investigation.¶

1¶

2¶

: Okay.¶

: From that. I thought you¶

3 were referring to the actual suicide. This is¶

4¶

5 : No. What I meant was --¶

6 : -- this is -.¶

7 : -- just the information¶

8 that was all put in there, as far as --¶

9 : This was his first attempt.¶

10 : -- well, it's everything.¶

11 So, so, it starts July 23rd. The next one is¶

12 July 29th. And it goes 8/9/2019. And then,¶

13 and then, until -. So, it's only - there is¶

14 only a few. That's why I was going to read it,¶

15 just because there is only, like, three¶

16 paragraphs, four or five, four or five¶

17 paragraphs.¶

18 : So, this looks to me like we¶

19 send the information to the regional director -¶

20¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : -- and what he did was,¶

23 compile this information to send to DOJ.¶

24 : Okay. Oh, you're right.¶

25 : Yeah.¶

1¶

2¶

: Ray --¶

: This is not --¶

3 : -- sent this to you. So,¶

4 he is saying --¶

5 : -- yeah, this thing.¶

6 : -- "see below --¶

7 : Right.¶

8 : -- just ensure you know."¶

9 : so, this is compiled off of¶

10 several different documents --¶

11 : Okay.¶

12 : -- which he condensed.¶

13 : So --¶

14 : From -.¶

15 : -- he sent it to you.¶

16 I'm sorry. I read that incorrectly. So,¶

17 looking at this, then, let's just review it and¶

18 make each point, just make sure that it's what¶

19 you understand. It says, "On July 23rd, 2019,¶

20 Epstein was found in a fetal position in cell,¶

21 breathing, but would not acknowledge staff¶

22 initially."¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : "After removed, he¶

25 interacted with staff and speaking to staff.¶

1 Neck was red. Placed on suicide watch, and¶

2 medical evaluation. Epstein receive daily¶

3 psychological evaluations while on suicide¶

4 watch." Was that your recollection, too?¶

5 : Yeah. That is what is in¶

6 the report. But I want to --¶

7 : Sure.¶

8 clarify what we went¶

9 You know, when I, when you first read it to me¶

10¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : I thought you meant the¶

13 day of.¶

14 : Yup, yup.¶

15 : So --¶

16 : Well, we have that, too.¶

17 That's --¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : -- that one is here. And¶

20 this one is from you, and this is what I¶

21 thought it was starting with, as well.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : Because it said timeline¶

24 on it. From you to This initial¶

25 one actually talks about Friday, August 9th,¶

1 2019. It starts with, "8:00 a.m., inmate Reyes¶

2 Efrain, departs for¶

3 court. WAB-USMS-SDNY. Reyes is Epstein's¶

4 cellmate."¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : So, just starting with¶

7 that, then, I do have, we're going to get into¶

8 that later, but what does that tell you, if it¶

9 says inmate Reyes is departing for court, but¶

10 it also says WAB-USMS-SDNY?¶

11 : So, that would mean With All¶

12 Belongings.¶

13 : So, that means he's not¶

14 returning. Correct?¶

15 : Yes.¶

16 : All right. So, at 8:00¶

17 a.m., Efrain Reyes is actually leaving, not¶

18 coming back to the MCC.¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : All right. Great. And¶

21 then, it just goes on from there, what happens¶

22 throughout that day. And we're going to get¶

23 into these things more in detail, so I don't¶

24 want to go through each thing, because we're¶

25 going to have to get into it later. But so,¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

this information is stuff that you guys were¶

compiling, and you were providing to Mr.¶

• : That would probably be¶

5 information that we sent up to him.¶

6 : Okay. Great. And then,¶

7 this is all the updates that occurred¶

8 afterwards. Let's see. Why is that¶

9 highlighted? So, here is something. Do you¶

10 know why in this one, it would be updated?¶

11 This one is 7:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m., and then,¶

12 "7:32 a.m., PIO notified of incident by the¶

13 warden." Is that just, put that in the wrong¶

14 place or something, and it says, "Inmate Reyes¶

15 released from court."¶

16 : (Indiscernible *00:16:27).¶

17 : (Indiscernible *00:16:30)¶

18 just in the wrong spot. It was made for August¶

19 10th.¶

20 : Mm-hmm. (Indiscernible¶

21 *00:16:34).¶

22 : Yeah. Okay. So, the¶

23 next one, that is the big discrepancy here. It¶

24 just shows the next update, you have that under¶

25 August - or Saturday - August 10th.¶

1 : This can't be -. This¶

2 doesn't make -. I don't know. Because it¶

3 says, "PIO notified of incident by the warden."¶

4 I was off that day, on Friday. I wasn't at¶

5 work.¶

6 : Yeah. So, that's why I¶

7 think that they -. So, the next one I'm¶

8 looking at shows that that point is now under¶

9 Saturday, August 10th.¶

10 : Yeah. I don't know why it¶

11 would be --¶

12 : So --¶

13 : -- under Friday, because I¶

14 wasn't --¶

15 : -- yeah. Okay.¶

16 I wasn't working.¶

17 : So, you were actually off¶

18¶

19 : I was off --¶

20 : -- off on August 9th?¶

21 : -- on Friday. Yes.¶

22 : All right. You and¶

23 everyone else.¶

24 : Huh?¶

25 : Everybody was off that¶

1 day.¶

2 : Yeah. I didn't come back to¶

3 work until, when I got called, there was a¶

4 suicide at the (Indiscernible *00:17:28).¶

5 : Okay. So, all of this.¶

6 So, if I can have that back, if you don't mind.¶

7 So, all of this. All right. Is it safe to¶

8 assume that, as this went on, and specifically,¶

9 the last one that we have is Tuesday, August¶

10 13th, 2019. The Tuesday 13th, August 13th,¶

11 would be the most accurate timeline?¶

12 : It should be, but I don't¶

13 want to attest to it. I mean --¶

14 : Yeah, yeah.¶

15 yeah.¶

16 : I'm just saying, based -¶

17 is there any reason for you to believe that the¶

18 timelines that were provided, or in any way, it¶

19 was determined that, you know, we should add a¶

20 point that actually didn't occur? Or is it¶

21 safe to assume that, the last one that was sent¶

22 would be the most accurate one?¶

23 : That's how it typically¶

24 works. At, you know, but I can't, I can't¶

25 attest to it --¶

1 : And yeah.¶

2 -- of whether it was¶

3 accurate, but typically, the last one that you¶

4 send usually, you know, if you have to make¶

5 corrections, you make the corrections. And¶

6 information, if you have to.¶

7 : Sure. Okay. Great.¶

8 When I show you things, it's not attesting to¶

9 it, but --¶

10 : Mm-hmm.¶

11 : I'm going to ask you¶

12 just to initial and date, and that's just to¶

13 say, specifically, that this is the document we¶

14 looked at, and when we spoke. It is absolutely¶

15 not attesting to it.¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : It's not saying that this¶

18 stuff is accurate.¶

19 : And so, I write the date --¶

20 : If you could --¶

21 and put reviewed on it,¶

22 or -?¶

23 : nope. Just your¶

24 initial and date. I'm just going to do this¶

25 last one, just the top of it. I'm not going to¶

1 have you do every single one. And I'm going to¶

2 put this in a pile, back in a paper clip, and¶

3 I'm going to hand it to my friend over here.¶

4 : What's the date? The 18th?¶

5 MR. : 27th.¶

6 : 27th.¶

7 MR. : 10/27/21.¶

8 : Thank you, sir, for¶

9 initialing and dating that. All right.¶

10 going to just actually, because it's the¶

11 timeline, I'm going to keep it in front of me¶

12 because we might have to reference it.¶

13 : I can tell --¶

14 : All right.¶

15 : -- this is going to be a long-¶

16 ass interview.¶

17 : It's going to be pretty¶

18 long. That's where I was trying to --¶

19 : Yeah. Just -.¶

20 : -- you know? All right.¶

21 So, July 23rd incident. That was, what do you¶

22 recall what happened on July 23rd with inmate¶

23 Tartaglione and Mr. Epstein? Do you recall?¶

24 : I recall the investigation¶

25 that couldn't determine if they had an¶

1 altercation, or I believe if it was an attempt¶

2 at suicide.¶

3 : All right. So --¶

4 : Yeah.¶

5 : -- so, something happened¶

6 on the July 23rd --¶

7 : Something happened --¶

8 where Mr.¶

9 in his cell.¶

10 : -- Epstein was found¶

11 with, like, a - was it a noose around his neck?¶

12 : It wasn't determined. It¶

13 was, you know, that he was laying in his cell,¶

14 but I don't recall the specifics of the report.¶

15 But I know it went back and forth where there¶

16 was a suicide attempt, or an issue with inmate¶

17¶

18 MR. : Tartaglione.¶

19 : -- with - yeah -¶

20 Tartaglione. Yeah.¶

21 : All right. So, these are¶

22 emails that we reviewed with regard --¶

23 : Mm-hmm.¶

24 : -- to that incident.¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : So, this one is¶

2 specifically from, it says¶

3 . Was that --¶

4 : Yeah.¶

5 : -- your AW?¶

6 : That is the AW.¶

7 : Send it to you?¶

8 : Right.¶

9 : And this is a memo from,¶

10 it says Mr. is the¶

11 operations lieutenant.¶

12 : Yeah. Lieutenant. She's a¶

13 female.¶

14 : Right. This is where I¶

15 wanted to ask you if you knew¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : -- about this. It¶

18 specifically says, so, it was originally, I¶

19 guess, sent from Captain to¶

20¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : -- from to¶

23 you.¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : And her note to you says,¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

"From the memo attached, the information I¶

received is not what I was told happened." : Right.¶

So, what I wanted to know¶

is, and I guess, would you like me just to¶

refresh your memory, to really quickly read¶

what she said happened, so we can figure out¶

what it is that didn't happen? : Okay. Yeah.¶

All right. So, this is¶

subject, "Possible suicide attempt." Again,¶

July 23rd, 2019. It says, "On July -". Let me¶

just sit back so you can just kind of read¶

along with me. Would you mind if I sit next to¶

you? : No. No problem.¶

I'm vaccinated, just so¶

you know. It says, "On July 23rd, 2019, at¶

approximately 1:27 a.m., a call for assistance¶

on the Special Housing Unit was announced by¶

the control center. Upon my arrival, I was¶

informed that an inmate had attempted suicide¶

and proceeded to cell Z05-124LAD. I observed¶

inmate Epstein, Jeffrey, number 76318-054,¶

lying in the fetal position on the floor of his¶

1 cell, wearing a t-shirt and boxers.¶

2 He was breathing heavily, and was snoring.¶

3 I called out to inmate Epstein and observed him¶

4 flicker his eyes, and continued snoring. His¶

5 neck was red with no abrasions. I observed no¶

6 further injuries to his person. An attempt was¶

7 made to get the inmate to stand on his own,¶

8 with negative results. The inmate was placed¶

9 in hand restraints, and staff was directed to¶

10 retrieve the stretcher.¶

11 As inmate Epstein was being placed on the¶

12 stretcher by responding staff, he would open¶

13 his eyes and observe staff. When staff made¶

14 eye contact with him, he would hurriedly shut¶

15 his eyes. The inmate was taken to HA-Unit."¶

16 Was it that? The health care?¶

17 : Health. Health Services.¶

18 "Dressed in a suicide¶

19 smock, and placed on suicide watch. While¶

20 awaiting the arrival of an inmate companion,¶

21 inmate Epstein sat on the of the bed and¶

22 began moving forward, as if was attempting to¶

23 fall over, head first. When I looked away, he¶

24 straightened up. As I turned to look at him¶

25 again, he attempted the same act. I laid him¶

1 down on the bed, and directed him to cease his¶

2 action or he would be placed in restraints for¶

3 his safety.¶

4 At that moment, he stated, `Okay. I won't¶

5 do it again.' And gave the thumbs up. Because¶

6 of his unpredictable behavior, the decision was¶

7 made to have the staff member observe inmate¶

8 Epstein. I had left HA-Unit in order to make¶

9 staff notifications. Moments later, I spoke¶

10 with who stated that Inmate¶

11 Epstein was alert and had indicated that his¶

12 cellmate, Tartaglione, Nicholas,¶

had attempted to kill him, and had been¶

14 harassing him.¶

15 He stated that the inmate had indicated¶

16 that he had informed his attorney of this¶

17 matter. I photographed and spoke with inmate¶

18 Tartaglione, Nicholas, who stated that he was¶

19 asleep with his headphones on when he felt¶

20 something hit his legs, and said, `Jeff. What¶

21 are you doing?' He didn't answer. So, he got¶

22 up, turned on the light," or - so, yeah - "He¶

23 got up, turned on the light, and saw him with a¶

24 string around his neck.¶

25 He stated that he then called the guards,¶

1 and they ran down. Upon further questioning,¶

2 inmate Tartaglione stated that he sleeps on the¶

3 bottom bunk, but gave it to inmate Epstein¶

4 because he's old. He stated that he sleeps on¶

5 the floor, on a mattress. He stated that, when¶

6 he got up, he couldn't remember if he sat up or¶

7 stood up to check on Epstein. He stated that¶

8 Epstein was sitting on the floor, leaning to¶

9 the side, with his eyes opened, but wasn't¶

10 responding.¶

11 He stated that the last time he saw him,¶

12 he was snoring really loud. Inmate Epstein¶

13 stated that he comes in from a legal visit at¶

14 approximately 8:00 p.m., and staff handed him a¶

15 copy of the daily news. Nick was on the floor¶

16 reading the daily news. He stated that he had¶

17 given it to him. He stated that Tartaglione¶

18 mentioned that he had been in court all day, in¶

19 Westchester (Phonetic Sp. *00:25:00), and was¶

20 carrying on.¶

21 At that point, inmate Tartaglione paused,¶

22 as if he was making the story up, as he went¶

23 along, and stated that Tartaglione stated,¶

24 `These fucking N-I-G-G-E-R-S. This place is¶

25 inhumane. I wish I could report it.¶

1 Officer, that N-I-G-G-E-R, hobbit¶

2 motherfucker.' He then turned to a page in the¶

3 daily news that had his picture on it, and¶

4 stated that Epstein was worth 77 million¶

5 dollars.¶

6 Epstein then stated that he took his¶

7 picture, balled it up, and threw it in the¶

8 garbage. I asked inmate Epstein what happened¶

9 prior to staffs arrival. He stated that at¶

10 approximately 1:00 a.m., he had gotten up to¶

11 get a drink of water, as he gets up every 30¶

12 minutes. He remembered walking back to his¶

13 bunk, and waking up with staff there, in his¶

14 cell. I asked if he had waken up and seen¶

15 staff, why didn't he respond when we were¶

16 calling out to him.¶

17 He stated that he only remembered hearing¶

18 himself making a noise like snoring. When¶

19 asked about the allegations against his¶

20 cellmate, he stated that he was told if he hurt¶

21 him, staff wouldn't care. Duty medical doctor¶

22 -" how do you pronounce that name?¶

23 : Beaudouin.¶

24 : B-E-A-U-D-O-U-I-N. "Was¶

25 notified and briefed. It was determined that¶

1 no further medical attention was needed. A¶

2 medical assessment was not conducted at the¶

3 time of this incident, due to the fact there¶

4 was no medical staff available after 10:00 p.m.¶

5 Upon their arrival of medical staff, inmate¶

6 Epstein was examined and treated by M-L-P-Y."¶

7 : Joaquin.¶

8 : Joaquin. J-O-A-Q-U-I-N.¶

9 "For a circular line of arrythmia, at the base¶

10 of his neck. One section on the front, with¶

11 marks of friction, and a small arrythmia on his¶

12 left knee." So, sorry that that was so¶

13 lengthy. But so, again, the question would be,¶

14 is this, does anything in here strike you as¶

15 inaccurate?¶

16 : No.¶

17 : So, when¶

18 says that in the attached memo, "The¶

19 information I received is not what I was told¶

20 happened." Do you know what she is referring¶

21 to?¶

22 : I think she - if I recall¶

23 that she told, that said that it was an¶

24 attempted suicide, but then she got any¶

25 additional information that it might have been¶

1 Epstein and Tartaglione having an issue in his¶

2 cell.¶

3 : And what, and my¶

4 understanding is that SIS came up with¶

5 inconclusive findings.¶

6 : In the investigation.¶

7 : What is your belief that¶

8 happened?¶

9 : I can't speculate.¶

10 : You don't¶

11 : I don't want I mean, I¶

12 don't know, you know, with the injuries on the¶

13 neck, I don't know if it was a suicide, and I¶

14 don't know, based on Epstein's statement, that¶

15 was something done to him. So, couldn't prove¶

16 what it was.¶

17 : Okay. And is it, is¶

18 there any reason for us to know or believe that¶

19 it was one or the other, though? I know you¶

20 are trying not to speculate, but -.¶

21 : I mean, I would, you know,¶

22 you have there be the medical department, who¶

23 did an assessment, and, you know, typically,¶

24 you could say you come to a conclusion from¶

25 injuries, from physical injuries, but we¶

1 weren't even able to do that.¶

2 : So, according to the¶

3 medical assessment, your understanding is that¶

4 they weren't able to tell if someone -?¶

5 : That, from what I - if I can¶

6 - and I don't know - I read it - but I don't¶

7 know -. I remember on the report, they were¶

8 unable to conclude what would, you know, what,¶

9 what -. Did he attempt suicide, or was he¶

10 assaulted?¶

11 : And were you satisfied¶

12 with that response, or did you think that they¶

13 missed something?¶

14 : I think they looked into it.¶

15 And I think it was, you know, you couldn't look¶

16 into it any further. I mean, either¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 it was a suicide, or¶

19 was assault. So, we separated them.¶

20 : Okay. But there is¶

21 So, it didn't say, like, keep digging, or yo-¶

22 weren't, you know -?¶

23 : I mean, they interviewed¶

24 them. They asked the questions. You had the¶

25 medical assessment. So, I don't know what¶

1 other --¶

2 : Sure.¶

3 : -- conclusions could have¶

4 been drawn from it.¶

5 : And what happened with¶

6 inmate Epstein after July 23rd? Or on July¶

7 23rd.¶

8 : I don't specifically¶

9 remember what happened. I know we separated¶

10 the both of them. He wasn't - and then, I know¶

11 he was on suicide watch. They placed him on a¶

12 watch. And then had psychology talk to him.¶

13 : Okay. So, just so, that¶

14 is just so you know, if you don't mind just¶

15 initialing and dating that one, that we just¶

16 read. Okay. So, this next one is from¶

17 Charisma to a Carrie Schleschinger.¶

18 (Phonetic Sp. *00:30:05).¶

19 : She's a psychologist.¶

20 : Okay. And then, with¶

21 UCC.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : It says, "SW,¶

24 chronological log, re: Epstein." It says,¶

25 "C.O. was assigned to staff watch.¶

1 However, the wrong book was used. I am¶

2 companion log, in lieu of staff suicide watch¶

3 log."¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : Was that something¶

6 normal? Was that an easy mistake?¶

7 : yeah, I could see it¶

8 happening because we have a log that the¶

9 inmate, you have an inmate companions that¶

10 watch inmates. So, they use the log. And¶

11 then, you have, if staff are going to sit on¶

12 someone, then they use a certain log. But the¶

13 fact that, you know, the documentation took¶

14 place, it was just, you know, it was just an¶

15 error.¶

16 : Okay.¶

17 : But they did document, so.¶

18 : Now, C.O. . Is¶

19 this that you, are you aware?¶

20 : I had two . I don't¶

21 know which one it was.¶

22 : Okay. So, if I tell you¶

23 it was --¶

24 : No, no, no. It had to be¶

25 Officer, because if it was C.O.¶

1 he would have been - his title is material¶

2 handler.¶

3 : Okay. So, you don't¶

4 believe it was actually¶

5 : No. I think it was the¶

6 officer.¶

7 : It was Mr.¶

8 Just from our records and from¶

9 speaking --¶

10 : Okay.¶

11 : -- with Mr.¶

12 : Can I see the log --¶

13 : Sure.¶

14 how he opened the log?¶

15 : That is correct, right,¶

16¶

17 : Where does it show that he¶

18 started his shift? Because usually, when you¶

19 come on shift, you write --¶

20 : This is what --¶

21 : -- the name.¶

22 : -- was attached to that¶

23 email.¶

24 : Yeah. Typically, when you¶

25 start your shift, your start off, you know,¶

1 you're putting your name, if you are relieved,¶

2 or you assume suicide watch.¶

3 : So, here is the next¶

4 email, so you might be able to show me an¶

5 example of what you are referring to. It's¶

6 this email, is it the same thing you were CC'd,¶

7 and this is, like, maybe this is the real log¶

8 that maybe he should have been using. But¶

9 here, it shows all the other logs.¶

10 : So, this is¶

11 : Hmm.¶

12 : See, this is what I mean by¶

13 when someone comes on duty, but this is what¶

14 they leave --¶

15 : This is the -.¶

16 : -- they mix the book up.¶

17 But they must have wrote it in the suicide log.¶

18 But typically, when you come on, let's say the¶

19 shift starts at 8:00, you will state your full¶

20 name, as assuming the duties.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : And you typically say who¶

23 you relieved on there.¶

24 : All right. So, it looks¶

25 like they maybe didn't fill it out correctly.¶

1 : They didn't fill it out¶

2 correctly.¶

3 : And so, our investigation¶

4 shows that it was¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : -- that was on him on the¶

7 23rd.¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : And that wasn't an "I¶

10 gotcha," whatsoever. My question was actually,¶

11 is the one that actually found¶

12 him on August 10th. Correct?¶

13 : Yes.¶

14 : And is that suspicious at¶

15 all to you, that he was the one that was¶

16 watching him on suicide watch, and then that he¶

17 is the one that found him on the 10th?¶

18 : No. I mean, typically, we¶

19 had so much overtime in the institution, that¶

20 and we go by when you sign up for it. So,¶

21 there is a program that you sign up for, and¶

22 don't know how the lieutenant did. They might¶

23 have called them, then he signed up for it.¶

24 So, I don't know. I can't say if it was¶

25 suspicious or not.¶

1 : Sure. And then, all¶

2 these documents that we're reviewing right¶

3 here, on these two emails, what are they?¶

4 : Which one?¶

5 : Both of them.¶

6 : The suicide watch log?¶

7 : Yeah. So, is this¶

8 suicide watch log, as well as this?¶

9 : Yeah. The suicide¶

10 observation log, and this is appears to be the¶

11 cover of a logbook, for suicide watch.¶

12 : Perfect.¶

13 : Okay.¶

14 : All right. Do you mind¶

15 just initial and dating this? And again, these¶

16 aren't trick questions --¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 • -- I just don't want to,¶

19 like, put answers in your -. If I think it is¶

20 something, but maybe it's not, you might be¶

21 able to tell me what it actually is.¶

22 : This one, too?¶

23 : Yes, please. Thank you,¶

24 sir. And this is, this says psych ops. So,¶

25 this is another one of those emails. This one¶

1 is from to you. Also dated August 10th,¶

2 2019. It says, "Psych ops is discontinued on¶

3 7/30/2018." I think she means 2019. Correct?¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

At 8:15 a.m. : Mm-hmm.¶

So, is this also part of¶

the suicide watch log? : That is a log you would also¶

10 use.¶

11 : Okay. Great. And does¶

12 it say in there, I guess right here, "8:15¶

13 a.m., psych observation is being¶

14 discontinued."?¶

15 : Yes.¶

16 : Okay. Awesome. Do you¶

17 mind just initial and dating this? And¶

18 as I am giving these to you, can you try to¶

19 keep these in order with regard to --¶

20 MR. : I've just been stacking them.¶

21 : -- making a note. Don't¶

22 stack them on tip, though, keep them, like,¶

23 bundled together, so we know this is psych.¶

24 This is, like, the psych observation logbook.¶

25 MR. : Okay.¶

1 : So, if you can keep them,¶

2 and then write a note on them.¶

3 MR. : Okay.¶

4 : So that when we are -.¶

5 After this thing is transcribed, we can keep¶

6 things in order. This one is regarding the¶

7 first attempt, and the one we read from¶

8 . And can you tell me, sir, what¶

9 this is? This is July 30th. So, it is that¶

10 same date that he came off of What am i¶

11 looking at here?¶

12 : So, this is -. Date, name,¶

13 signature. Inmate name. Reg number. This is¶

14 -. Is this a entrance log to the Special¶

15 Housing Unit?¶

16 : I'm not sure. That's¶

17 what I'm saying.¶

18 : I'm just, I don't know. It¶

19 might be an entrance log. This is 7/30.¶

20 : These are all dates, but¶

21 at least up until 7/30, that he was in the¶

22 Special Housing Unit, but this says J. Epstein.¶

23 So, I don't know if he would sign himself in.¶

24 : No, no.¶

25 : So -.¶

1 : I don't know. It might be¶

2 an entrance --¶

3 : Or is it to the attorney¶

4 visits or something?¶

5 -- it might be attorney¶

6 visits. Let me see. 7/30. G tall (Phonetic¶

7 Sp. *00:36:57). Signature. Inmate name.¶

8 Name. This might be an attorney log. Name.¶

9 Fall. Signature. Yeah. This might. This is¶

10 probably an attorney --¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 the log into the attorney¶

13 room. I think that's probably it.¶

14 : Here is Epstein again.¶

15 It shows 7/30, 7/30, 7/30.¶

16 : The different attorneys.¶

17 He, you know, he could have had one attorney¶

18 that comes in early in the morning --¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : -- and then, any time a new¶

21 one comes in, they have to sign in, saying who¶

22 you came to see.¶

23 : Okay.¶

24 : So, he had multiple¶

25 : So, this is --¶

1 : -- (Indiscernible¶

2 *00:37:46).¶

3 : -- an attorney log.¶

4 : This is an attorney log. He¶

5 usually had multiple attorneys.¶

6 : So, it wasn't Epstein¶

7 signing his name. They are¶

8 : No, no.¶

9 : -- saying they were¶

10 visiting this person.¶

11 : Whoever comes and visits has¶

12 to put who --¶

13 : Okay.¶

14 : -- they are visiting.¶

15 : So, the visitor logs were¶

16 for attorneys.¶

17 : Attorneys. Yeah.¶

18 : All right. You mind just¶

19 initial and dating that? And again, ^f¶

20 you want to write on here, just --¶

21 MR. : Okay.¶

22 : -- attorney logbook¶

23 visit. So, again, so that we can keep track of¶

24 what it is these things are. Now, is this the¶

25 same thing we just looked at? This looks like,¶

1 again, it says, "Inmate companion assumed¶

2 duties from staff on 7/23/19, at 7:00 until¶

3 7/24/19, at 8:45 a.m. Epstein was transferred¶

4 to psych observation on 7/24/2019, at 8:45 a.m.¶

5 until 7/30/2019 at 8:15 a.m. Inmate companion¶

6 was utilized."¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : So, this one says July¶

9 23rd, 24th. And this one, again, suicide watch¶

10 chronological log.¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : Inmate companion logs.¶

13 Does this tell you anything more about¶

14 , or anything different? What is this?¶

15 This one is the PP-37. What does that tell us?¶

16 That's just he's on it?¶

17 : Yeah. It just says, you¶

18 know, (Indiscernible *00:39:01), let me see.¶

19 You got category. I don't know what the MDS¶

20 is, but typically, it's an assignment. Like,¶

21 could put in and do a PP-37 and say where he¶

22 was housed at. So, I could put quarters. So,¶

23 this must be a medical term. Concerning his¶

24 medical status.¶

25 : Okay. Great. And then,¶

1 this is the first page, it looks like, of the¶

2 logbook. Does this tell you¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : -- anything different¶

5 than what we looked at before, or is this the¶

6 same thing?¶

7 : It's the same. It's an¶

8 inmate suicide watch --¶

9 : Okay.¶

10 log.¶

11 : So, it doesn't say¶

12 on it, it just --¶

13 : No. It says inmate¶

14 companion was watching him.¶

15 : Okay. You said inmate¶

16 Oh, so, this is an inmate companion instead of¶

17¶

18 : Yeah, yeah.¶

19 • -- the actual. Okay.¶

20 : You have --¶

21 : I got you. So, whatever,¶

22 does it tell us which, who the inmate was, that¶

23 was his companion?¶

24 : Inmate companion Estebon¶

25 (Phonetic Sp. *00:39:51), and it has his number¶

1 right there.¶

2 : Okay. Great.¶

3 : Assumed responsibility for¶

4 inmate Epstein on -.¶

5 : Perfect.¶

6 : So, that's why I was telling¶

7 you, the staff one should read just like that,¶

8 too.¶

9 : All right. So, this one¶

10 is 7/23 is the actual inmate that was --¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 -- Epstein's companion on¶

13 7/23 until 7/24. Do you mind just initial and¶

14 dating that?¶

15 MR. : And this is right after the¶

16 incident. The first incident, right?¶

17 : This is - so, July 23rd¶

18 or the 24th - yes, this is when he was on¶

19 suicide watch, not on observation.¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 : And this is that, it¶

22 looks like this one is, again, it's from you to¶

23¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : It says psych ops/suicide¶

1 watch. And it looks like it's the difference¶

2 between the two.¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : In laymen's terms, what¶

5 is the difference between suicide watch and¶

6 psychological observation at the MCC, during¶

7 this time period when Epstein was on it?¶

8 : So, suicide watch is when we¶

9 have determined, or there is a possibility,¶

10 through what an individual is saying, that they¶

11 might cause self-harm to themselves. Psych ops¶

12 is, that person might not admit it, and we¶

13 might not have anything to say to put them on¶

14 suicide watch, so we just put them on what we¶

15 call psychological observation.¶

16 : And now, it was my¶

17 understanding --¶

18 : (Indiscernible *00:41:11).¶

19 : -- it's basically the¶

20 same thing, aside from what the inmate is¶

21 allowed to have, such as clothes.¶

22 : That, too.¶

23 : Okay. So, is it same¶

24 unit, same room, same --¶

25 : Same.¶

1 : -- same procedures?¶

2 : Yes.¶

3 : Okay. The one thing that¶

4 I've learned more recently is, though, during¶

5 psychological observation, or I guess I should¶

6 ask for them. During suicide watch, as well as¶

7 psychological observation, is the inmate¶

8 allowed to have attorney visits?¶

9 : If they are on that watch,¶

10 no.¶

11 : What about during¶

12 psychological observation?¶

13 : I think it would be the same¶

14 thing, that they are not allowed to have. And¶

15 I'm not sure. Don't quote me to it. Because¶

16 typically, when they are on that, we don't have¶

17 it.¶

18 : Okay. Do you recall if¶

19 either yourself or anyone at the institution¶

20 was contacted by anyone, such as a judge or¶

21 Epstein's attorneys, asking that he be removed¶

22 from either psychological observation or¶

23 suicide watch, so that he, for any reason?¶

24 : They will always call. I¶

25 mean, they would. There was always a number¶

1 subject, whether it was to place him in general¶

2 population. So, I don't, you know, recall -.¶

3 : Do you remember ever¶

4 being called by a judge?¶

5 : No, I don't. I don't¶

6 recall.¶

7 : Okay.¶

8 : Speaking with a judge.¶

9 : All right. Because that¶

10 was the rumor we heard, was that a judge¶

11 contacted you and said they wanted him removed¶

12 from one or the other.¶

13 : No. Judges wouldn't¶

14 typically call for that.¶

15 : But the attorneys¶

16 frequently would?¶

17 : Yeah, frequently, they¶

18 would, you know, call our legal department,¶

19 saying, you know, why can't he go to general¶

20 population. Why is he, you know, being housed¶

21 here? And just not him, if there was any type¶

22 of equipment that was requested. Those are the¶

23 type of requests you get from the attorney.¶

24 : Okay. And do you know if¶

25 those attorneys were made, though, when he was¶

1 on either suicide watch or psychological¶

2 observations?¶

3 : I don't recall that.¶

4 : You don't recall.¶

5 : No.¶

6 : Sure. That's fine.¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : Do you know - I know you¶

9 said that, and you didn't think that inmates¶

10 typically could - but do you know if Mr.¶

11 Epstein visited with his attorneys during that¶

12 time, between the 23rd and the 30th of --¶

13 : I don't know --¶

14 : -- (Indiscernible¶

15 *00:43:28)?¶

16 : -- if he was on that status,¶

17 then he would not have been --¶

18 : You don't believe so?¶

19 : I don't believe so.¶

20 : Okay.¶

21 : No. I don't believe so.¶

22 : No problem. All right.¶

23 So, this, this one again. Oh, do you mind¶

24 initial and dating that?¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : Okay, , you can¶

2 file that accordingly. This one just goes back¶

3 to that first initial timeline, that looked¶

4 like it may have been a little messed up. The¶

5 initial email from you, it looks like it's a¶

6 psych ops. "The logbook shows he was released¶

7 on July 30th. He had an attorney visit,¶

8 starting at 8:20 a.m.¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : He was there all day. I¶

11 will send the attorney log next." And then,¶

12 response was, "The timeline we¶

13 sent DOJ says 7/29. Where did we get that¶

14 date?" So, are we confident that he stayed¶

15 until the 30th?¶

16 : He stayed until the 30th.¶

17 : Okay. So, was this just¶

18 an incorrect --¶

19 : I think that was a typo.¶

20 : -- okay. Oh, sorry. Do¶

21 you mind initial and dating?¶

22 : Well, this answers your¶

23 previous question.¶

24 : What's that?¶

25 : About being on psych ops and¶

1 seeing an attorney. He didn't go until after¶

2 he got off.¶

3 : Well, it says that he had¶

4 an attorney visit --¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : -- starting at 8:20 a.m.,¶

7 but it doesn't say if he had any prior to that¶

8 time.¶

9 : Right. Oh, because he was¶

10 released on July 30th.¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : Okay.¶

13 : So, just saying, like,¶

14 yeah, he was released and --¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : -- he was visiting with¶

17 his attorneys.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : And that's something¶

20 we've had a little bit of a conflicting¶

21 information.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : We've heard that he¶

24 actually did have attorney visits during that¶

25 time. And we've heard that he didn't. So,¶

1 that's why I was wondering if you would be able¶

2 to clear that up at all, but you're not --¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : -- to your recollection -¶

5¶

6 : No.¶

7 : -- he wouldn't have?¶

8 : Yeah. Typically, if you are¶

9 on that, you're not going to have an attorney¶

10 visit.¶

11 : And just talking to¶

12 psychology, they would, they said that, no, we¶

13 always try to afford an inmate - they have a¶

14 right to attorney visits - so, we try to afford¶

15 that right. But do you think that maybe they¶

16 were mistaken?¶

17 : I'm just going from my¶

18 experience, like any other of the inmates that¶

19 we've had on suicide watch have not gone to an¶

20 attorney visit.¶

21 : Okay. Now, this,¶

22 speaking of psychology, that's the next point.¶

23 Let me just make sure that all the information¶

24 is on that incident. So, as far as¶

25 Tartaglione, or Tartaglione, however it is¶

1 How do you think it's -?¶

2 : Tartaglione.¶

3 : Okay.¶

4 : Yeah.¶

5 : Okay. So, did you have¶

6 any involvement with selecting Tartaglione as¶

7 Epstein's cellmate?¶

8 : We did.¶

9 : Okay. And how was that¶

10 selection made?¶

11 : So, we weren't able to get a¶

12 whole lot of people, you know, think that how¶

13 we could house him to be safe. Tartaglione was¶

14 a white male. Another high-profile case. So,¶

15 and he is not, you know, there is this¶

16 misconception that he was a big hulking¶

17 bodyguard, but he lost over 100 something¶

18 pounds. So, he was smaller in stature and¶

19 frame. So, we said that would have been an¶

20 appropriate cellmate for him.¶

21 : And who made the¶

22 decision?¶

23 : To put them together?¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : I did.¶

1 : Okay. Was it in¶

2 coordination with both the captain, as well as¶

3¶

4 : Everyone - yeah - would¶

5 discuss it, like, you know, I, obviously,¶

6 sent it up the chain, to say, look who we're¶

7 going to make him his cellmate, and what was¶

8 the reasoning.¶

9 : So¶

10 : Yeah.¶

11 : -- in talking with the¶

12 captain, his recollection was that he brought¶

13 the three names, you discussed it with Mr.¶

14 , he was present for that discussion, and¶

15 is the only one who said, I want¶

16 Tartaglione, put him with Tartaglione. Do you¶

17 recall it to be that way, or do you recall it¶

18 to be -?¶

19 : Which -? Well, are we¶

20 talking about Tartaglione?¶

21 : Oh, did that happen with¶

22 Reyes?¶

23 : Well, Reyes and - what do¶

24 you call it? - Reyes and, there were two names.¶

25 So, I talked to my boss about it. They wanted¶

1 to see the names. So, I don't know who they¶

2 talked to at Main Justice. So, I sent the¶

3 email, and stuff, with all the break down of¶

4 the two inmates to the director's office.¶

5 (Phonetic Sp. *00:47:45). And¶

6 because he was the chief of staff at the time.¶

7 And I sent it up, you know, I put my input in,¶

8 about as far as if we had to choose between who¶

9 was going to get it, was the - what was it? -¶

10 the Spanish, the older gentleman who left, like¶

11¶

12 : Efrain Reyes?¶

13 : -- Reyes, that Reyes would¶

14 be the most appropriate because we couldn't¶

15 find anybody.¶

16 : Okay. So --¶

17 : And then, they went up, and¶

18 then, I got word back that, to go with Reyes.¶

19 : Okay. So, Reyes was when¶

20 the -. So, your superiors actually made the¶

21 selection, but for --¶

22 : Tartaglione.¶

23 : Tartaglione, that was¶

24 you?¶

25 : I mean, it was in¶

1 conjunction. I sent it up and told, you know,¶

2 the powers that be that this is who we're going¶

3 to be, and it came back and said, you know,¶

4 we're good for that.¶

5 : Okay. Do you know what¶

6 Tartaglione was in for?¶

7 : He had - I know it was a big¶

8 drug case involving drug dealers, and stuff¶

9 like that. So, and - so, yeah, (Indiscernible¶

10 *00:48:45) --¶

11 : Some kind of narcotics.¶

12 : -- huh?¶

13 : Some kind of narcotics.¶

14 : Some kind of narcotics. So,¶

15 he - and then, I don't - and I recall there was¶

16 murder involved, too.¶

17 : Yeah.¶

18 : But he was a high-profile¶

19 case. So, I could -. I had gentlemen in there¶

20 that were trying to get in there, but you know,¶

21 they would have probably harmed him. I had¶

22 another pedophile in there, and everybody in¶

23 the unit, they know who's in the unit, I'm not¶

24 taking him as a cellmate. You know? So, we¶

25 can't just arbitrarily force another inmate¶

1 into the cell upon them. So, Tartaglione was,¶

2 you know, the best --¶

3 : The other inmates --¶

4 : -- inmates -.¶

5 : -- would not accept Epstein,¶

6 nor would not accept a pedophile.¶

7 : They weren't going to -.¶

8 They just weren't going to stab Epstein¶

9 *00:49:29). I don't know the reasons. But I¶

10 mean, I can't make the decisions and say, all¶

11 right, I'm going to force you to take this, and¶

12 then something happens to him, and then -.¶

13 : So, someone actually¶

14 spoke with Tartaglione and he said he was¶

15 willing to do it?¶

16 : And I'm not sure on there¶

17 who spoke to him, but I don't know.¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : It might have been. But I¶

20 know we said we were going to put him in, and¶

21 this is, this is what -. And he didn't have¶

22 any issues.¶

23 : Okay. And if someone did¶

24 speak with him, who would that have been?¶

25 Would that have been captain?¶

1 : It might have been the¶

2 captain. Shoot, (Indiscernible *00:50:02).¶

3 But it probably would have been the captain,¶

4 but -¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : -- you know, typically, you¶

7 know, we're going to make a move, and we're¶

8 putting somebody in there, we're not going to,¶

9 you know, sit down and consult with an inmate,¶

10 if that's okay with you. I mean¶

11 : Sure.¶

12 : -- we just have a feel of¶

13 the unit --¶

14 : No.¶

15 -- that, who is appropriate¶

16 to go in there, okay, I'm not going to put a¶

17 drug dealer in there with him. So, you know,¶

18 typically, another high-profile inmate would be¶

19 appropriate.¶

20 : Okay. Now, do you have¶

21 any reason to believe that Tartaglione did, in¶

22 fact, try to harm Epstein on July 23rd?¶

23 : Again=, I can't speculate on¶

24 that.¶

25 : Sure. Just because -¶

1 : I mean -.¶

2 : -- it would be pure¶

3 speculation, if you did?¶

4 : Yeah. It would be. I would¶

5 be speculating on that.¶

6 : Okay.¶

7 : I can't -.¶

8 : Okay.¶

9 : Yeah.¶

10 : And you just prefer not¶

11 to do that?¶

12 : Yeah. I don't want to¶

13 speculate.¶

14 : Okay. Now, so, our¶

15 assessment from other people has been that¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : Tartaglione was trying¶

18 to beat his case --¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : -- and that he had every¶

21 reason in the world not to harm Epstein. And¶

22 that Tartaglione was actually the person who¶

23 notified the guards that Epstein was in need of¶

24 help. Is that what you -? Is that a correct¶

25 assessment?¶

1¶

2 at the time.¶

3 : So --¶

4 : On July 23rd, he was.¶

5 : -- he was. So, he --¶

6 : He was. Oh, I --¶

7 : -- yeah.¶

8 : -- yeah, right.¶

9 : Yeah. So, here's how I'm¶

10 going to put this. As far as Tartaglione, we¶

11 and his behavior in the institution, he wasn't¶

12 a model prisoner. I mean, we caught him, you¶

13 know, with a cellphone. You know, making¶

14 calls, you know, and circumventing his case,¶

15 and whatever. But so, I don't, I can't¶

16 speculate on, you know, whether he would do¶

17 something, or he wouldn't do something. So,¶

18 that was, you know, my dealings with¶

19 Tartaglione, when I was aware of him. Plus,¶

20 you know, his case.¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : And the request from his¶

23 attorneys.¶

24 : Okay. So, following¶

25 Epstein's time on suicide watch and : Tartaglione wasn't in the cell¶

1 psychological observation, was he placed back¶

2 in the SHU?¶

3 : Yes.¶

4 : Okay. So, and I¶

5 apologize to read all these, but this is just¶

6 again - we're not going to through them one by¶

7 one, but just to show what it is that we have¶

8 here. So, this one says it's from an¶

9 to Did I get this from you?¶

10 I think this is something that forwarded on.¶

11 : She say even gave your own¶

12 drinking --¶

13 : This one says, "Can you¶

14 send me notes on Epstein? On his suicide¶

15 attempt. Thanks." That was from¶

16 it looks like, sent it up. So,¶

17 said, "I need this ASAP." And it¶

18 says, "Here are his notes."¶

19 : So, he said Niro (Phonetic¶

20 Sp. *00:52:59). I guess the regional is¶

21 requesting it.¶

22 : Okay. So, the region¶

23 wanted this?¶

24 : Yeah.¶

25 : So, this, is this what¶

1 this is? Is this the psychology file of¶

2 Epstein?¶

3 : Those are clinical notes.¶

4 : So, these are all¶

5 clinical notes --¶

6 : Yeah.¶

7 here?¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : Would this have been,¶

10 like, okay, it starts with, it looks like July¶

11 31st, and then goes back, July 30th. So, it¶

12 looks like these are clinical notes from the¶

13 day he got there --¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : -- up until July 31st.¶

16 : Right.¶

17 : I wonder why. Why would¶

18 they only send until July 31st? Do you know?¶

19 : You said --¶

20 : Not August.¶

21 : -- they sent from where?¶

22 : Well, it --¶

23 : From -?¶

24 : -- started from the day¶

25 that he arrived, it looks like, on, it's July¶

1 8th, 2019.¶

2 : Right.¶

3 : To July 31st, 2019.¶

4 : It's any encounter you have¶

5 with him. Any medical --¶

6 : So, did they not --¶

7 : -- (Indiscernible¶

8 *00:53:53).¶

9 : -- have any encounters¶

10 after July 31st, 2019?¶

11 : Do you know?¶

12 : No. I am not aware of that¶

13 because it would only - they would only¶

14 annotate if they had encounters with him.¶

15 : Okay. So, you are¶

16 unaware of, after July 31st, if anyone had any¶

17 kind of, any psychology had any interactions¶

18 with him?¶

19 : No. If it's not in the BEMR¶

20 notes, and that, I guess they didn't have any.¶

21 : So, you would assume that¶

22¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : -- there wouldn't be?¶

25 Okay. Do you mind initialing? And do you know¶

1 why that would be?¶

2 : Hold on. If an inmate is¶

3 cleared off of - so, and you have to talk them¶

4 about it - but most inmates didn't, once you¶

5 are cleared off of suicide watch, they have¶

6 other things that they do. You can come down¶

7 and they give you some (Indiscernible¶

8 *00:54:42) courses to take. So, they have¶

9 other types of therapy, but it doesn't¶

10 necessarily have to be entered in as a medical¶

11 encounter.¶

12 : Okay. So, this is, so,¶

13 psychology could have been still meeting with¶

14 them, just not noted as a medical encounter?¶

15 : Yeah. You - I mean - you¶

16 see them, and you can just, like, if you have¶

17 patients, you will go, how is everything going?¶

18 You doing all right? Yeah. I'm fine. I'm¶

19 okay. So, it doesn't have to be noted as a¶

20 medical encounter.¶

21 : Okay. So, your¶

22 involvement with this, being that he came off¶

23 of psychological observation on July 30th,¶

24 should psychology had interacted with him more¶

25 in that type of setting, where they would have¶

1 been writing clinical notes? Or do you¶

2 : No. I think they --¶

3 : -- or -?¶

4 : -- did everything. Because¶

5 they cleared him at the time. I mean, based on¶

6 the SIS investigation, it was inconclusive¶

7 whether he committed, you know, tried to --¶

8 : Sure.¶

9 : -- attempted to commit¶

10 suicide, and I didn't read all the reports, but¶

11 if he's sitting in the report, saying, no, I¶

12 wasn't trying to kill myself, and I didn't do¶

13 it, that's their assessment of it.¶

14 : Right. No. I guess what¶

15 I'm saying is that, I know you're not a¶

16 psychologist, but if the 30th was the day that¶

17 they cleared him to go back to the SHU --¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : -- do you think that they¶

20 should have continued at least checking with¶

21 him, or no?¶

22 : Well, they probably did.¶

23 mean, when --¶

24 : Okay.¶

25 : -- you make your SHU rounds.¶

1 You know, seeing him in other parts of the¶

2 institution. So, and you would have to ask¶

3 them. But there were probably encounters with¶

4 him.¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : But that didn't require¶

7 : A report.¶

8 : -- a report, and a medical¶

9 annotation in there.¶

10 : Okay. So, this next¶

11 email, it talks about, it says, "Warden¶

12 ," and this is from, and¶

13 again --¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : -- is he the coordinator?¶

16 Or, who is he?¶

17 : Oh.¶

18 : Oh, here it is. National¶

19 suicide prevention coordinator for the BOP.¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : It says, "Thank you for¶

22 supporting our scheduling of the psychological¶

23 reconstructive for inmate Epstein. I will be¶

24 joined by, (Phonetic Sp.¶

25 *00:56:44) Correction Service Administration of¶

1 the Northeast Region. So, do you know if that¶

2 was ever completed? The actual suicide¶

3 reconstruction.¶

4 : They might have, but nobody¶

5 talked to me.¶

6 : Okay. They didn't talk¶

7 to you?¶

8 : Nah.¶

9 : Okay. Fair enough. And¶

10 then, behind it, it looks like, just, it looks¶

11 like a template is attached here.¶

12 "(Indiscernible *00:57:00 national suicide¶

13 prevention program, suicide reconstruction¶

14 materials."¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : Would have you been the¶

17 one that would have gathered these things for¶

18 him?¶

19 : No. You probably -.¶

20 Typically, when this happens, this comes from,¶

21 when I used to do them, I would make contact¶

22 with someone in the institution, to get it.¶

23 So, you might --¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : -- have the executive¶

1 assistant --¶

2 : Yeah.¶

3 get the information.¶

4 : So, it says, "I am¶

5 attaching a list of materials we use to¶

6 complete the reconstruction. We routinely take¶

7 these documents with us, so please ensure that¶

8 a copy of any documents you also need."¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : It says, "Your assistance¶

11 in gathering these documents, appreciate it,¶

12 will be helpful." So, you would just, you¶

13 would provide that to, like, or¶

14 someone?¶

15 : Yeah. We tell the exec,¶

16 hey, I need you to gather this information, and¶

17 it might not be It could be the¶

18 chief psychologist. Whoever is assigned to do¶

19 it.¶

20 : Okay. But as far as you¶

21 know, was that completed? Did he show up and¶

22 do that?¶

23 : I wasn't at the institution.¶

24 : Oh, okay.¶

25 : I --¶

1 : So, you --¶

2 : I was removed from the¶

3 institution.¶

4 : -- when were you removed¶

5 from the institution?¶

6 : Monday.¶

7 : Monday, August 12th?¶

8 : Yes.¶

9 : Okay. That's what I was¶

10 kind of asking you before. Maybe I wasn't¶

11 clear with my question. I was wondering if¶

12 something happened to you after this, that you¶

13 were removed and no longer --¶

14 : No. They just told me, go¶

15 report to the region.¶

16 : -- all right. So, as of¶

17 Monday, August 12th, 2019, you were no longer¶

18 at the MCC?¶

19 : I was no longer at the MCC.¶

20 : And did you ever go back¶

21 afte that?¶

22 : No, I didn't.¶

23 : Okay. So, that was¶

24 Okay.¶

25 : Well, I did today, to go¶

1 park.¶

2 : Okay. But after this¶

3 instance, and you were not really involved¶

4 after that, then?¶

5 : That was it. I didn't have¶

6 any -.¶

7 : Yeah. You check in today.¶

8 Did you just say?¶

9 : No, I had to park a vehicle,¶

10 because I had to -. I had the government¶

11 vehicle, so parking them, I had the prop, so I¶

12 parked there, and took the train out,¶

13 (Indiscernible *00:58:46).¶

14 MR. : I think when we started, and¶

15 asked when you started at the regional¶

16 office, I think you mentioned 2020.¶

17 : So, the problem is, and he¶

18 was talking about job title. My job title¶

19 still remained the same.¶

20 MR. : As warden?¶

21 : As the warden in New York,¶

22 and it wasn't removed until 2020.¶

23 MR. : Okay. Well, now, but as of¶

24 August 12th, 2019, you started reporting to the¶

25 region?¶

1 : Yeah. DRD (Phonetic Sp.¶

2 *00:59:14) came. I did my - when was it? - I¶

3 had an interview at the U.S. Attorney's Office.¶

4 And then, my boss came and said, hey, I'm, you¶

5 know, we're signing you up to the regional¶

6 office. So, I went up, you know, no reason why¶

7 I was being removed. And I was just told to go¶

8 up there. So, that's what transpired.¶

9 MR. : Was there another warden in¶

10 place?¶

11 : They brought another one in.¶

12 MR. : So, there was two people with¶

13 the title of warden, at that point?¶

14 : Well, they had¶

15 (Phonetic Sp. *00:59:52), and Lacome Vitale¶

16 (Phonetic Sp. *01:00:01). She is.¶

17 MR. : Okay.¶

18 : All right So, if you¶

19 don't mind, just initialing and dating that.¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 : We'll get that out of¶

22 your way. So, this looks like this answers our¶

23 question.¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : So, this is an email from¶

1 AW to yourself.¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : And it just says, "FYI,¶

4 from Dr. , regarding her last interaction¶

5 with Epstein, prior to her departure on¶

6 Thursday."¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : Dr. was the¶

9 psychologist at MCC?¶

10 : Yes.¶

11 : Correct?¶

12 : She was the chief¶

13 psychologist.¶

14 : Okay. Great. And it¶

15 says that, "I visited inmate Epstein in SHU on¶

16 Thursday." Thursday, meaning August 8th --¶

17 : Right.¶

18 : -- 2019. "He was getting¶

19 ready to meet with his attorneys for the day,¶

20 so I had gone to visit him, right after the SHU¶

21 meeting.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : He had a cellmate at the¶

24 time, with whom I saw him interact with. He¶

25 did not report any medical, or any mental¶

1 health concerns, and he denied any suicidal¶

2 thoughts or intention. He was asking the¶

3 writer to go to general population and was¶

4 making requests for various leads he had at the¶

5 time. He wanted social calls without them¶

6 being on a speaker phone. He wanted a book he¶

7 had left in the suicide watch area.¶

8 His mood was not depressed or anxious.¶

9 There were no signs of stress. He had planned¶

10 on meeting with his attorneys to work on his¶

11 legal situation." So, there is that. And¶

12 then, there is also, I don't know if this was¶

13 attached. , I don't know how this was¶

14 printed, but it also looks like all the¶

15 contacts. It says, "15 contacts in one month.¶

16 Starting on July 6, 2019, when Epstein arrived.¶

17 And after the -". It does say that there was a¶

18 contact that looks like, on the 31st.¶

19 : What does he mean by¶

20 "contact"?¶

21 : A psychology contact.¶

22 : Okay.¶

23 : And then, here's one,¶

24 8/1/2019, Dr. Imeri, SRA, was¶

25 : Yeah.¶

1 : -- being conducted. What¶

2 is SRA? Do you know?¶

3 : It's a seg group.¶

4 Segregation review.¶

5 : Oh.¶

6 : So, it says --¶

7 : Yeah.¶

8 it says, "Court sent a¶

9 form. Suicidal tendencies."¶

10 : No. That must be a¶

11 psychological thing. I thought it said SRO.¶

12 If it says SRA, that must be for SHU.¶

13 : Okay. And it says, "On¶

14 August 1st, 2019, he denied any suicide ally,¶

15 friends (Indiscernible *01:02:07) supportive¶

16 Jewish against his religion, still denied¶

17 knowing what happened to him on 7/23/2019, when¶

18 he was discovered with a string loosely tied¶

19 around his neck. Said his incident report for¶

20 self-mutilation was expunged. His cellmate is¶

21 talkative, but will give it a chance. Noisy in¶

22 SHU, he lives for fighting this case and going¶

23 back to his normal life." And again, it say¶

24 that the 2019 was with Dr. what I just¶

25¶

1 : Right.¶

2 -- read. And on¶

3 8/10/2019. So, I guess they did (Indiscernible¶

4 *01:02:40), just not in this (Indiscernible¶

5 *01:02:40).¶

6 : Yeah. You don't have to¶

7 always.¶

8 : So, yeah, then maybe¶

9 those weren't required.¶

10 : No.¶

11 : Yeah, do you mind, maybe¶

12 the bottom on this one?¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 MR. : That wasn't attached to the¶

15 email. That was just a separate document.¶

16 : Oh, that's a separate¶

17 document? Okay. There you go. Can you go to¶

18 psychology? All right. And this is the last¶

19 one to cover what psychology. This was an¶

20 email that was sent out by a Imeri.¶

21 To, it says, "Suicide watch/psych observation¶

22 update." On 7/30/2019, at 12:30 p.m., and it¶

23 says, "Inmate Epstein is being taken off of¶

24 psych observation and needs to housed with an¶

25 appropriate cellmate."¶

1¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

• • , and it just¶

3 says everyone who is attached to this sent,¶

4 this was sent to.¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : Is this something that¶

7 they normally do, after someone comes off of¶

8 psych observation or suicide watch? Do they¶

9 send this out to everyone? Or was it a special¶

10 case for this?¶

11 : No. It's typical.¶

12 : That's typical?¶

13 : Typical. Because you have¶

14 to let the lieutenants, the shift lieutenants,¶

15 everyone know, you know, the person is coming¶

16 off. And where to house them. Some go back to¶

17 their units. In his case, he was going back to¶

18 the Special Housing Unit.¶

19 : Okay. Great. Do you¶

20 mind just initial and dating that? And that¶

21 was - is it their job to determine if a¶

22 cellmate has to be housed with another¶

23 cellmate? I mean, an inmate has to be housed¶

24 with another inmate.¶

25 : Well, typically, I mean,¶

1 it's just - if there's nothing in policy that¶

2 sounds, you know, you know, in the correctional¶

3 setting, if somebody has been on, you know,¶

4 attempted suicide, or attempted to self-¶

5 mutilation, you usually put them in with¶

6 someone.¶

7 : Okay. So, were you or¶

8 your staff involved with the decision to have¶

9 Epstein removed from suicide watch or¶

10 psychological observation?¶

11 : Psychology makes the¶

12 determination that the individual is, you know,¶

13 no longer suicide. This is for any inmate.¶

14 : Sure.¶

15 : Is no longer suicidal. And¶

16 there is no reason for him to be on suicide¶

17 watch. So, they either get released wherever¶

18 they came from, whether it was the general¶

19 population unit, or the Special Housing Unit.¶

20 : So, on background on¶

21 that So, one of the individuals in psychology¶

22 department --¶

23 : Mm-hmm.¶

24 : -- who would meet with¶

25 Mr. Epstein, she said that she discussed this,¶

1 one of the steps down with Dr. , as well¶

2 as¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : And I was informed that¶

5 that is kind of pretty routine, that that is¶

6 conducted in coordination with executive staff¶

7 members. Is that --¶

8 : Right. That is.¶

9 : -- so, that's where¶

10 want to make sure that I'm understanding --¶

11 : We do.¶

12 : -- what you are saying.¶

13 : But we also do, we have what¶

14 we call a - and if it is an inmate that is in¶

15 our Special Housing Unit, we have a weekly¶

16 meeting, and if there are any issues, that's¶

17 brought up in the meeting.¶

18 : Okay. So, is it solely,¶

19 though, up to psychology, if the inmate goes¶

20 from, say, suicide watch to psych observation,¶

21 and again, psych observation back to a housing¶

22 unit? Is that their call, or does the¶

23 executive staff, or anyone in the BOP, outside¶

24 of psychology, have an influence on that?¶

25 : Psychology are the subject¶

1 matter experts. They are the doctors. They¶

2 release someone off of suicide watch. I can't¶

3 - if an individual is on suicide watch - I¶

4 can't turn around and come in there, and say,¶

5 take him off.¶

6 : Sure.¶

7 : I'm not a trained¶

8 psychologist. Now, I can put somebody on¶

9 there. But then, you know, after hours, or if¶

10 it is an emergency, or he attempted suicide,¶

11 any staff member could put him on there.¶

12 : Okay.¶

13 : But as far as taking him¶

14 off, you have to have a medical reason, as far¶

15 as them coming off.¶

16 : So, in that interview¶

17 with that individual, they said the decision¶

18 was discussed with and that¶

19 individual concurred with that decision. If¶

20 they didn't concur, though, would that matter¶

21 to them?¶

22 : What do you mean, if the AW¶

23 didn't concur with it?¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : I mean, I don't want to use¶

1 the word "courtesy" as a telling, but they're¶

2 keeping us informed, saying, okay, we need to¶

3 take him off of suicide watch. Now, let's say¶

4 I come in and interject and say, no, I want him¶

5 on there. What is my reasoning for putting him¶

6 on there?¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : What medical degree do I¶

9 have to justify keeping an individual on¶

10 suicide watch? Because now, it could go the¶

11 other way. I decide to turn around and do¶

12 something like that, I would be having a¶

13 conversation with you about something else.¶

14 : Sure.¶

15 : So.¶

16 : Okay.¶

17 : Yeah.¶

18 : So, is it more to keep¶

19 you apprise --¶

20 : To keep us apprised --¶

21 : -- if anything else?¶

22 you know, and saying,¶

23 hey, this is the way we're removing an¶

24 individual, and we move forward. I mean,¶

25 obviously, we will have questions. You know,¶

1 if we had questions.¶

2 : Guys, I want to go for a¶

3 second. All right?¶

4 : Okay.¶

5 : I got to go pee.¶

6 : Do you want us to¶

7 continue or wait?¶

8 : No, just stay by me. Oh,¶

9 don't continue. I'll be right back.¶

10 : Absolutely. I'm going to¶

11 pause this recording then. It is currently¶

12 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 27th, 2021.¶

13 This is Special Agent, and I¶

14 am pausing the recording.¶

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went¶

16 off the record and back on the record).¶

17 : All right. The recorder¶

18 is back on. It is 3:04 p.m. after a quick,¶

19 short break. , just reminding you¶

20 that you are under oath.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : All right. Sorry.¶

23 Address these.¶

24 : Oh.¶

25 : All right. So, the last¶

1 that we discussed was that psychology said that¶

2 Mr. Epstein needed to have a cellmate, and this¶

3 is where we talked a little bit about it. It¶

4 sounded like the decision to have Efrain Reyes¶

5 placed as Epstein's cellmate was actually made¶

6 at a higher level than yourself?¶

7 : Yes.¶

8 : Okay. And who made that¶

9 decision?¶

10 : I don't know. Listen.¶

11 know, I sent it to my supervisor. Actually,¶

12 the two inmates that would kind of figured out¶

13 there might be a cellmate, we sent those names¶

14 to the director's office.¶

15 : Okay.¶

16 : And it was was¶

17 the chief of staff. And because, see, my boss¶

18 told me that they had to run it up to the¶

19 department. So, I don't know who was spoken to¶

20 in the department. And it got back, and my¶

21 boss said that, too, you know, that's a good¶

22 choice.¶

23 : Okay.¶

24 : Yeah.¶

25 : And that's¶

1 again?¶

2 : Yes.¶

3 : Okay. Great. But it was¶

4 based upon a list that you provided?¶

5 : Yeah. There were some¶

6 names. Because I - fast forward - I got a¶

7 call, and we were gearing towards getting him¶

8 out to general population.¶

9 : Oh, so, you wanted¶

10 Epstein to actually be in general pop?¶

11 : I didn't want -. That's¶

12 what typically happens. You know¶

13 : Sure.¶

14 : -- you don't want an inmate¶

15 in segregation. Most of them, we've had a lot¶

16 of high-profile individuals that come in the¶

17 institution. You know, we do our intelligence¶

18 gathering, to see, okay, what would be an¶

19 appropriate unit for them to be in? And we¶

20 place them. And then, we monitor them. If,¶

21 you know, and that is how we move them into¶

22 general population. I get a call saying, hold¶

23 up on that. He needs to stay where he's at.¶

24 : And who called you?¶

25 : Did he qualify as a pedophile?¶

1 : I don't I didn't¶

2 : Okay.¶

3 : Read. But that's -. We¶

4 didn't --¶

5 : Yeah.¶

6 : -- you know, so that's not¶

7 feasible, why we were able to keep him in. So,¶

8 get a call, and they said hold up on that. He¶

9 needs to stay where he's at.¶

10 : Okay.¶

11 : So.¶

12 : And I'm sorry. Who was¶

13 it that called you to say stay?¶

14 -: . And then,¶

15 that's when I had to send up the names. I¶

16 guess he had gotten some from the department.¶

17 I don't know who he talked to in the¶

18 department.¶

19 : Oh, so, coming out of¶

20 psych observation, you were looking to send him¶

21 back to general pop.¶

22 : No.¶

23 : Or not back to. Into.¶

24 : When he first came in, the¶

25 whole process was --¶

1 : Oh, I see.¶

2 : -- to get him out to general¶

3 population.¶

4 : I gotcha. So, back, you¶

5 are talking about July 6th through the 8th --¶

6 : Yeah, we're talking about --¶

7 : -- that timeframe.¶

8 the whole thing, and¶

9 then, even, you know, coming out of psych¶

10 observations when he got in, the plan was still¶

11 to get him into general population.¶

12 : Mm-hmm.¶

13 : I mean, we had the attorneys¶

14 contacting our legal, why can't he be in¶

15 general population?¶

16 : Sure.¶

17 : So, and then, that is when I¶

18 got the call from my boss, saying - and I don't¶

19 know who he talked to in the department - but¶

20 it was, like, hold on.¶

21 : And on that note, I guess¶

22 this would be a good time to talk about this.¶

23 Being that it was ultimately decided that he go¶

24 into Nine South, or the Special Housing Unit,¶

25 was it discussed at all that he be placed on¶

1 Ten South, for the high, you know, the SAMs¶

2 inmates?¶

3 : So, here's the problems with¶

4 Ten South. It's the terrorist unit, and¶

5 there's SAMS things in there. The amount of¶

6 attorneys he had coming in there, we couldn't¶

7 have those attorneys coming up to that unit¶

8 every day, and, you know, breaching the¶

9 security of it, and then, tying up the movement¶

10 in there, because when an attorney comes in¶

11 there. Now, those guys get attorneys, but it's¶

12 planned, and they are in there. Epstein's¶

13 attorneys were coming in early in the morning,¶

14 and weren't leaving until late at night. And¶

15 it was about four or five of them. So --¶

16 : And guess who's paying his¶

17 bill?¶

18 : -- right. That's not an¶

19 appropriate unit, and that's not what that unit¶

20 is for.¶

21 : Now, what about, like,¶

22 if, you know, an El Chapo (Phonetic Sp.¶

23 *01:11:55), or some of the other high levels¶

24 that weren't terrorists, how did they deal with¶

25 that, or did they have attorneys visiting them¶

1 or no?¶

2 : They did, but it wasn't to¶

3 that extent. Like, he, El Chapo would have his¶

4 attorneys come in, but they came in for a¶

5 couple hours, they left. As it got close to¶

6 trial, then they would - you would see them¶

7 more frequently. But Mr. Epstein, day one at¶

8 attorneys, they were in there from the¶

9 beginning to end. We even had complaints from¶

10 the local attorneys, that they were taking up¶

11 the rooms.¶

12 : Mm-hmm. So --¶

13 : So.¶

14 : -- the primary reason why¶

15 he was placed in Nine South was because of the¶

16 attorney visits?¶

17 : Well, not the attorney¶

18 visits, but that is the SAMS unit.¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : And he's not a SAMs inmate.¶

21 And then -.¶

22 : What's a SAMs unit?¶

23 : Special Administrative¶

24 Measures. That means, you know, strict¶

25 communication. And there's a lot that goes on¶

1 with that unit. So, he wasn't appropriate to¶

2 be up there.¶

3 : Now, were some of those¶

4 other high-profile inmates, though, such as El¶

5 Chapo, and who were some of the people that¶

6 were in there?¶

7 : Yeah. The terrorists up¶

8 there.¶

9 : But the non-terrorists.¶

10 Meaning, the people that -. There was a few¶

11 : Well, you had Sholty¶

12 (Phonetic Sp. *01:13:05), but he was in for¶

13 espionage, and had a SAMs on him. So, he --¶

14 : Now, did El Chapo have a¶

15 SAMs on him?¶

16 : -- he had -. No. His¶

17 status was based on, and I know there was¶

18 (Indiscernible *01:13:18), his escape status¶

19 : Sure.¶

20 and stuff. So, he was a¶

21 high profile person that had escaped from¶

22 another prison before --¶

23 : Mm-hmm.¶

24 so, that was an¶

25 appropriate place to place him.¶

1¶

2¶

: I see.¶

: Sholty was in general¶

3 population, and a SAMs was placed on him by his¶

4 attorney --¶

5 : What was the other name again?¶

6 : Sholty. And he was¶

7 placed up there.¶

8 : Can I ask you --¶

9 : Yeah.¶

10 : -- a totally irrelevant¶

11 question?¶

12 : Mm-hmm.¶

13 : What was El Chapo like?¶

14 : Just like any other inmate.¶

15 : Is that right?¶

16 : Yeah. Just like any other¶

17 inmate.¶

18 : Polite?¶

19 : Polite. You know, no¶

20 problems. But that wasn't the appropriate unit¶

21 to be housing inmate Epstein.¶

22 : Now, did you even have¶

23 the authority to place him in Ten South, if you¶

24 wanted to?¶

25 : I mean, I could have, but I¶

1 would have had to have, you know, some¶

2 justification as to why I'm putting him up¶

3 there. And there would have been push back¶

4 from his attorneys.¶

5 : Okay. Because some¶

6 people had mentioned that, saying the warden¶

7 doesn't even have the ability to do that. That¶

8 comes from a higher level.¶

9 : I mean --¶

10 : Is that --¶

11 : -- in essence --¶

12 accurate, or -?¶

13 in essence, it does¶

14 because I would have had to explain and justify¶

15 why, you know, certain inmates with certain¶

16 crimes are placed up there. Why am I placing¶

17 him?¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : And then, the fact that, you¶

20 know, he is a pre-trial individual, and needs¶

21 access to his attorneys, that unit is just too¶

22 restrictive for that.¶

23 : Now - and this is a total¶

24 Monday morning quarterback --¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : -- do you stand by the¶

2 decision that he would be in Nine South, or do¶

3 you think he should have been in Ten South, or¶

4 what are your thoughts on that?¶

5 : I think he was appropriately¶

6 placed.¶

7 : Okay. So, Nine South --¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : -- was the --¶

10 : That was the appropriate --¶

11 : -- appropriate place for¶

12 him?¶

13 : -- place for him.¶

14 : Okay.¶

15 MR. : Quick question.¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 MR. : Do you recall if there were¶

18 inmates in Ten South during that time?¶

19 : Where?¶

20 MR. : In --¶

21 : Yes, there were.¶

22 MR. : -- yeah. Do you know who¶

23 those inmates were?¶

24 : El Chapo had left. I got¶

25 the one that ran the call with people in¶

1 Brooklyn. He was there.¶

2 : What was his name?¶

3 : I forget.¶

4 : What did he do? What was he¶

5 in there for?¶

6 : That's the one that killed¶

7 the pedestrians in lower Manhattan and ran --¶

8 : Oh, yeah.¶

9 : -- the vehicle into them.¶

10 : Yeah, and then the guy kicked¶

11 the gun out of his hand. Right? Some guy --¶

12 : Yeah.¶

13 : -- (Indiscernible *01:15:28).¶

14 : He was there. I remember¶

15 Sholty. There was another guy that was, it had¶

16 something to do with Osama Bin Laden.¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : Who else? We had a younger¶

19 terrorist that was in there. So, we had, it¶

20 was -. They were all terrorists in, on¶

21 espionage charges.¶

22 : All right. So, this is¶

23 along what we were just discussing. It says¶

24 that, this is from an, who's just¶

25 a supervisory staff attorney.¶

1 : Right.¶

2 : What does this CLC stand¶

3 for?¶

4 : It's the Combined -. He's¶

5 the supervisory attorney for Brooklyn and New¶

6 York.¶

7 : Okay.¶

8 : At the time.¶

9 : So, he's kind of, like,¶

10 the general counsel for Brooklyn and New York?¶

11 : Yeah. He was the¶

12 supervisory attorney. So --¶

13 : Okay.¶

14 he was in charge.¶

15 : All right. So, this was¶

16 to you, and it was on Saturday, August 10th,¶

17 2019. It says, "Warden, per our conversation,¶

18 I spoke to two of his attorneys yesterday,¶

19 August 9th, 2019, primarily in relation to his¶

20 request for access to water in attorney¶

21 conference."¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : "Attorney Mariel Colon,"¶

24 so, M-A-R-I-E-L. Next word, C-O-L-O-N. "With¶

25 whom I spoke in person in the late morning, had¶

1 asked, as an aside, whether we would consider¶

2 housing him in the cadre." What is the cadre?¶

3 : Cadre is the camp.¶

4 : Is that low level?¶

5 : It's like our lower security¶

6 inmates. Yeah.¶

7 : So, you have an actual¶

8 camp at the MCC?¶

9 : It's low security inmates.¶

10 But remember, they are designated. So, we¶

11 couldn't put him in that unit because he's pre-¶

12 trial. We can't mix designated and pre-trial¶

13 inmates together.¶

14 : Okay. It says, "I¶

15 advised we could not," since he was a pre-¶

16 inmate.¶

17 : Right.¶

18 "Later that day, but¶

19 prior to 1:00, close out meeting, I spoke to¶

20 attorney on the phone. He had¶

21 asked whether we could house Mr. Epstein alone¶

22 in the SHU, to which I replied that we could¶

23 not, based on his prior suicide¶

24 attempt/gesture."¶

25 : It's just, I've never heard of¶

1 his lawyers. You would think that his lawyers¶

2 would be somebody that I was familiar with.¶

3 : Yeah.¶

4 : Since they're probably¶

5 charging him $2,000 an hour.¶

6 : "He acknowledged that he¶

7 understood. To my recollection, neither¶

8 attorney referenced consideration for suicide¶

9 watch or psychological observation during¶

10 yesterday's conversation. Please let me know¶

11 if you need any further information." Now, was¶

12 this just a request to any contact that he had¶

13 with his attorneys?¶

14 : He was just keeping me¶

15 informed because the attorneys were calling¶

16 every day, with different types of requests.¶

17 : But this was the day,¶

18 obviously, of when he was found. So, this¶

19 would --¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : -- he's talking about¶

22 context, just literally the previous day --¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : -- that he was looking¶

25 for different housing type arrangements.¶

1 : Mm-hmm.¶

2 : But all right. If -.¶

3 : That was $1,000 a phone call.¶

4 : Excuse me?¶

5 : That was $1,000 a phone call.¶

6 (Indiscernible *01:18:25) charging.¶

7 : Oh. Now, this answers¶

8 our question from before. So, this actually¶

9 says, it's from you to, it says¶

10 attorney logs. This is that same thing that we¶

11 were looking at.¶

12 : Okay.¶

13 : So, it looks like July¶

14 30th is highlighted, and Mr. Epstein. And¶

15 again, all these --¶

16 : These are the attorney¶

17 assignment.¶

18 : -- (Indiscernible¶

19 *01:18:43).¶

20 : Yeah.¶

21 : Yeah. So, that does now¶

22 clarify what it is, because, previously, there¶

23 was nothing that was in the subject liner.¶

24 : Okay.¶

25 : Or the body. Okay.¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18 was off.¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

10th, 2019?¶

Saturday. : Yeah. I'm looking at the¶

stack, and I'm sitting here, just Jesus Christ.¶

We're coming to - hey -¶

we're almost halfway through.¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

: Well, that's the way you're¶

looking at it. (Indiscernible *01:19:04). A¶

little bit different, fellas. I'm thinking¶

about, I'm going to miss today's workout and¶

tomorrows. : Well.¶

Now, you've already¶

answered this, but did you work at the MCC on¶

August 9th?¶

: For that -- : 2019.¶

was Friday. Friday, I¶

: What about on August¶

: 10th was a Saturday --¶

: Correct.¶

-- I was, I worked on¶

: All right. But did you¶

1 work in response to this?¶

2 : No. I had to respond, if¶

3 the day of the suicide was August 10th --¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : -- yeah, I had to respond if¶

6 I came in.¶

7 : Okay. So, but you¶

8 weren't scheduled to work?¶

9 : No. I wasn't scheduled to¶

10 work.¶

11 : All right. This is just¶

12 for - and this is going to be put in here, in¶

13 case you need to reference it - these are¶

14 emails that were from you to, with¶

15 the staff roster.¶

16 : Right.¶

17 : And the reason I'm using¶

18 these is because these were literally sent on¶

19 Sunday, August 11th. So, I know that we can¶

20 rely on these --¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 -- based upon being so¶

23 close. So, this one is for Friday, August 9th.¶

24 It's showing who was working that day. And¶

25 this one is from Saturday, August 10th. Again,¶

1 showing who was¶

2 MR. : This is a correctional¶

3 roster.¶

4 : -- correct.¶

5 MR. : Okay.¶

6 : Correct. This is a¶

7 correctional roster. Right.¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : So, who was, basically I¶

10 think, involved with Epstein during that date?¶

11 So, yes. How many rosters would there be,¶

12 aside from correctional?¶

13 : Well, the correctional¶

14 officers are the only ones that keep a daily¶

15 roster.¶

16 : Like, R&D wouldn't do¶

17 anything like that?¶

18 : No. Because their staff are¶

19 already assigned to where they are working at.¶

20 : Okay.¶

21 : Yeah. And they have rosters¶

22 that show where everyone is working at. But¶

23 not, like, the correctional officer roster.¶

24 : Okay. So, I'm going to¶

25 have you just initial and date. I'm going to¶

1 place this, again, here, just in case we need¶

2 to reference it, and again, it's just if we¶

3 need to look at who was working, and what¶

4 position --¶

5 : There's two on there.¶

6 : -- and what. Yes,¶

7 please. So, this one would be for the August¶

8 9th, that one is for August 10th. This¶

9 actually was not - the August 10th one - was¶

10 not attached to your email. Right?¶

11 MR. : Yeah. You are right.¶

12 : So, the August 9th one¶

13 was attached, but the August 10th wasn't.¶

14 MR. : Yeah.¶

15 : Yeah. So, we had to pull¶

16 that from --¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 : -- just for full¶

19 disclosure, but just so that we have both. The¶

20 August 9th one was something that you had sent.¶

21 All right. Since Epstein was required to have¶

22 a cellmate, who was ultimately responsible to¶

23 make sure that all the SHU staff were aware of¶

24 this requirement?¶

25 : That they were notified?¶

1 : So, how -. So, Dr. Imeri¶

2 or Mrs. Imeri sent out that email, saying --¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : -- Epstein is required to¶

5 have a cellmate. The one that we reviewed.¶

6 : Right.¶

7 : Who was required to make¶

8 sure that staff that is working in the SHU is¶

9 aware of that requirement?¶

10 : Well, the captain passes it¶

11 on to the lieutenants, and the officers are¶

12 then made aware that he, you know, any inmate,¶

13 if they are required a cellmate --¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : -- that, you know, that he -¶

16 they are to require cellmate, if somebody¶

17 leaves or goes out.¶

18 : Now, someone such as an¶

19 Epstein, who was just coming off of suicide¶

20 watch, you know, a week, a week and a half¶

21 prior, should all staff know that that person¶

22 is supposed to be housed with a cellmate?¶

23 : In the Special Housing Unit,¶

24 anybody working in there would know that he was¶

25 supposed to have a cellmate.¶

1 : Do you believe that there¶

2 was any anybody - especially anybody that's got¶

3 a quarterly bit of post there --¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : -- but anybody that's¶

6 working in the SHU on August 9th or 10th, do¶

7 you believe that there could be a reason why¶

8 they would say, we didn't know he was supposed¶

9 to have a cellmate? Do you think that would be¶

10 an acceptable excuse?¶

11 : Because you had the staff¶

12 that usually work up there, were up there. It¶

13 should be, it should have been annotated on his¶

14 - what do you call it? - it's called a 292.¶

15 : The hot list, you are¶

16 referring to, or --¶

17 : No. Not the hot list.¶

18 : -- or what? Oh, you¶

19 mean, oh, the 292. You're talking about the¶

20 SHU --¶

21 : Yeah.¶

22 : -- file.¶

23 : The SHU file. It should be¶

24 annotated on the SHU file because, when you¶

25 come in, you have to annotate on there his¶

1 meals, did he eat, the medical rounds. So, it¶

2 would have been on there, it would have been on¶

3 there, too. So.¶

4 : Would it have also been¶

5 on the hot list, though?¶

6 : Guys. I need an interpreter.¶

7 : Yeah.¶

8 : What does the hot list mean?¶

9 : It's just --¶

10 : That's --¶

11 : -- sorry.¶

12 : -- yeah. I guess the high¶

13 risk suicide inmates. Yeah. So.¶

14 : Whether it's suicide, or high¶

15 risk for some other kind of problem?¶

16 : It could be -. It's mainly¶

17 for, like, suicide, just to --¶

18 : Medical.¶

19 : -- to watch out for. Yeah.¶

20 Medical. Okay.¶

21 : Seizures. You know, stuff¶

22 like that?¶

23 : Yeah. So.¶

24 : So, point being is, do¶

25 you think that, if any staff that is working in¶

1 that, you know, as we know, Mr. Reyes left - -¶

2 : Right.¶

3 : -- in the morning of¶

4 August 9th, Mr. Epstein was found the --¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : -- the morning of August¶

7 10th.¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : SHU staff that is working¶

10 in there at that time, he's 24 hours basically¶

11 gone, you know, with no, without a cellmate.¶

12 Do you think that this is a reasonable excuse¶

13 for them to say that we didn't know he was¶

14 required to have a cellmate?¶

15 : No, because they did know,¶

16 because I - from what I understand - someone¶

17 wrote a memorandum, and had it that day, that¶

18 they knew.¶

19 : Okay. Well, yeah, we can¶

20 get into that. Now then, so these are -.¶

21 : One other question. I want to¶

22 open a box.¶

23 : Absolutely.¶

24 : That means I'm going to have¶

25 to bring a sharp object in here. Is that going¶

1 to bother anybody?¶

2 : No. No.¶

3 : No. No.¶

4 : No, no, no, no.¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : I'm sorry, I thought you¶

7 were talking about, like, this hypothetical¶

8 situation of if we were in the MCC or¶

9 something.¶

10 : Yeah.¶

11 : Oh, no. No. This is just a¶

12¶

13 : You're just wanting to¶

14 know if you can use scissors. Yeah. That's¶

15 fine.¶

16 : Yeah.¶

17 : I guess we should wait¶

18 until he gets --¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 • -- back again. If we¶

21 speak loudly, will you be able to hear our¶

22 questions?¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : All right. We're going¶

25 to continue, then. The answer was yes.¶

1 : I don't know if that was¶

2 somebody.¶

3 MR. : There might be clients in the¶

4 office.¶

5 : Oh.¶

6 : Huh?¶

7 : Okay.¶

8 MR. : That's why.¶

9 : Then we will wait.¶

10 MR. : He wasn't kidding about the¶

11 knife.¶

12 : Oh.¶

13 : You know why I got this? This¶

14 movie called Gangs of New York.¶

15 : That's a great movie.¶

16 : And he - and a good movie -¶

17 and the lead actress was a woman named Cameron¶

18 Diaz.¶

19 : Sure.¶

20 : And I had a wild eyed crush on¶

21 Cameron Diaz, and this is the shiv, the knife -¶

22 seriously - I found the guy who made the knife¶

23 that she carried in the show, and I said, I¶

24 want you to make me an exact duplicate. How¶

25 sick is that? Of that knife. And so, this is¶

1 it.¶

2 : That's super cool.¶

3 : So.¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : Sorry. I'll ask a few¶

6 more questions before we get into these¶

7 documents. Were any plans made on how to¶

8 address this situation for if Reyes was removed¶

9 as Epstein's cellmate? Like, if he -. Because¶

10 I know at MCC, inmates certainly leave.¶

11 (Indiscernible *01:26:13).¶

12 : No. I mean, the plan would¶

13 have been, you know, we would have assessed it,¶

14 because usually, you get ahead of time, we¶

15 would have just said, okay, when is -? When¶

16 Reyes leaves, or you know, when he was leaving,¶

17 then before he was placed back in that cell, an¶

18 assessment would have been made.¶

19 : Okay. Now, what is your¶

20 understanding of what happened with inmate¶

21 Reyes on August 9th, 2019?¶

22 : When I got back after the¶

23 fact, I guess the Marshals came and removed him¶

24 from the institution.¶

25 : Okay. So, there is a lot¶

1 of people we've talked to thought he went to¶

2 court, and that at court, it was determined he¶

3 wasn't coming back. Had you heard that?¶

4 : That's what I heard, too. I¶

5 had heard he was going to court. And then, I¶

6 guess word got back that he wasn't coming back.¶

7 That's what I heard. So, I never got¶

8 (Indiscernible *01:27:00).¶

9 : It's either a good day in¶

10 court, or a bad day in court.¶

11 : Yeah. I never got the¶

12 actual story because I was, I was removed. So.¶

13 : Okay. And again, what¶

14 does WAB mean?¶

15 : It means With All¶

16 Belongings.¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 : But I don't know, and I¶

19 don't know if people will say that he left, and¶

20 then they went and got him from the office.¶

21 So, I am not sure.¶

22 : Okay. So, this is --¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : -- one of those documents¶

25 that says --¶

1¶

2¶

3 you.¶

4¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

: -- from Charisma¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

5 : With inmate Epstein as¶

6 the subject.¶

7¶

8¶

: Right.¶

: And it says, "So far,¶

9 this is the documentation I have in my¶

10 possession."¶

11 : Wow.¶

12 : Mm-hmm.¶

13 : And if you see, you know,¶

14 here, it talks about all the documentation¶

15 pertaining to him. These look like all the BOP¶

16 database --¶

17 : Right.¶

18 : -- things. Then down¶

19 here, it says, "Documentation re: Reyes, Efrain¶

20¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 •¶

23 Cellmate."¶

24 : Right.¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : It says, "Court¶

2 documentation regarding WAB 8/09 --¶

3 : '19.¶

4 : -- '19.¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : And then, also SHU file.¶

7 So, "Showing court documentation regarding WAB¶

8 8/09/19." What documentation is she referring¶

9 to there?¶

10 : I guess whatever came¶

11 through R&D.¶

12 : Mm-hmm.¶

13 : Our Receiving and Discharge.¶

14 They might have gotten -. They must have¶

15 gotten information to release him, and that he¶

16 was being transferred.¶

17 : So, would it be at all-¶

18 know R&D creates something called, like, a¶

19 court production list, or --¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : -- would that be what¶

22 she's talking about, the court production list,¶

23 or would she be, do you think --¶

24 : So --¶

25 : -- or, like, a PP-38, or¶

1 something, or whatever -?¶

2 : I think, and I'm speculating¶

3 now, it was probably the court list, and it¶

4 probably said, we're sending him off to court.¶

5 And it was a possibility that he might be¶

6 getting released.¶

7 : Because the document that¶

8 has been alluding me --¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : -- is that court¶

11 production list. Do you know if that was ever¶

12 obtained? Do you know, the thing that, that¶

13 R&D creates this list, they provide it to the -¶

14¶

15 : Oh, the court --¶

16 : -- different housing¶

17 units.¶

18 : -- list. I don't. I don't¶

19 know what they do with it.¶

20 : They just, they all say¶

21 they --¶

22 : Now --¶

23 : -- destroy it after that¶

24 time.¶

25 : Yeah, they do, but --¶

1 : But --¶

2 : -- with him --¶

3 : -- but that's what would¶

4 have been used by the SHU staff, in order to¶

5 produce Reyes to the R&D.¶

6 : No. Not necessarily. What¶

7 typically happens is, the R&D staff will call¶

8 up to SHU, and say, hey, I need Reyes down. He¶

9 has court. Or he's being released. So, there¶

10 wouldn't have been a document sent up.¶

11 : So, everyone that we¶

12 talked to said R&D said, yes, we created this¶

13 document.¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : And the SHU staff,¶

16 including the OIC, said, yes, we had¶

17 documentation showing that he was WAB. So¶

18 then, and they all said it was because it was¶

19 this court production list that you sent out¶

20 emails to -.¶

21 : Unless it's sent in the¶

22 early morning.¶

23 : And it's not something¶

24 that's sent electronically. It's something¶

25 they said that they generate, print out --¶

1¶

2¶

: Right.¶

: -- and hand to¶

3 different, the ops lieutenant has one, every¶

4 housing unit has one. Internal goes around and¶

5 collects people, based upon it or something. I¶

6 think. And then --¶

7 : So --¶

8 : -- then they basically¶

9 destroy it at the end of the day, and nothing¶

10 is maintained in the system. They just use a¶

11 template, and create a new one for every day.¶

12 : So, that must have been the¶

13 early court movement. So, I was under the¶

14 impression that he was, he left in the¶

15 afternoon. So, when typically in the¶

16 afternoon, they will just call up and say, hey,¶

17 we got one that's leaving. So, I assumed he¶

18 had left that afternoon.¶

19 : Okay. So, is it, then,¶

20 are you not - then to answer that question¶

21 are you not sure exactly what she's referring¶

22 to when she says "court documentation regarding¶

23 WAB"?¶

24 : Like, the way you explained¶

25 it, then that means they were talking about¶

1 morning courts.¶

2 : Well, that's what they¶

3 were --¶

4 : Yeah.¶

5 : I'm just talking about¶

6¶

7 : Yeah.¶

8 : -- specifically, what¶

9 she's talking about in this email to you. Do¶

10 you -?¶

11 : But when you say WAB, With¶

12 All Belongings, it depends on the time of day¶

13 they left.¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : You know? You could have¶

16 afternoon court, and you don't have that list¶

17 generated, and they say --¶

18 : But if --¶

19 : -- we need all his¶

20 belongings.¶

21 : -- this might help --¶

22 : Yeah.¶

23 : -- and then, we will keep¶

24 this in front of you --¶

25 : Okay.¶

1 : -- this might help¶

2 explain this. So, this is an email that was¶

3 sent from the U.S. Marshal Service, someone¶

4 named (Phonetic Sp. *01:30:50).¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : On Thursday, August 8th,¶

7 2019, at 10:33 a.m. It says, "Transfer of¶

8 prisoners from NYM --¶

9 : To GEO.¶

10 : -- to GEO.¶

11 : Okay.¶

12 : The following prisoners¶

13 are to be transferred." The second person¶

14 listed out of the two is, "Reyes, Efrain."¶

15 : Right.¶

16 ."¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : "Please schedule the¶

19 transfer for Friday, 8/09/2019. Please include¶

20 seven days medication with the medical summary.¶

21 Thank you."¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : So, this obviously was¶

24 sent to R&D. Correct?¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : Do we know what kind of¶

2 medication he was taking?¶

3 : Well, that's Efrain¶

4 Reyes. We're not talking about -.¶

5 : That's Reyes.¶

6 : We're not -.¶

7 : I know. I just am curious.¶

8 : It's not --¶

9 : We don't know?¶

10 : Yeah.¶

11 : -- relevant.¶

12 : Yeah.¶

13 : Okay.¶

14 : I don't think it's¶

15 relevant. Here is another email that the U.S.¶

16 Marshal Service sent. This time, it was at¶

17 Georgios. G-E-O-R --¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 • --¶

. It says, "Prisoner production." It¶

21 looks like it was sent to custody.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : On Thursday, August 8th,¶

24 2019, at 3:36 p.m. And then, this, this¶

25 document, prisoner schedule report is attached.¶

1 And --¶

2 MR. : You're looking at the second¶

3 one.¶

4 : -- so, for the MCC --¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : -- it shows right here,¶

7 the second person listed as Efrain Reyes.¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : And it just says, "TF,¶

10 transfer within. MCC New York." And right¶

11 here, it says, Judge MCC Tot, T-O-T. GEO.¶

12 : Mm-hmm.¶

13 : What I was told, that¶

14 means that he's transferring from the MCC to¶

15 GEO. Is that --¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : -- your understanding?¶

18 : Yes.¶

19 : And then, on this one,¶

20 this is the PP-38. On the third - for¶

21 8/09/2019 - on the third page, it shows Reyes,¶

22 from ZO6-22. And that means the SHU. Correct?¶

23 : Yes. SHU.¶

24 : To pre-remove.¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1¶

2¶

: At 8:38 a.m.¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

3 : So, this was 8:38 a.m.¶

4 He's keyed out of our system. We got these two¶

5 emails from the U.S. Marshal Service, saying¶

6 he's being transferred.¶

7 : So, wait. Let me get this¶

8 clear. He's being transferred to what place to¶

9 what place?¶

10 : From the MCC to GEO.¶

11 : And what is GEO?¶

12 : A contract facility.¶

13 : And what is a contract¶

14 facility?¶

15 : A private prison.¶

16 : Okay. And you had nothing to¶

17 do with -? In other words, somebody else¶

18 decides to go from one place to another --¶

19 : Yes.¶

20 : -- you (Indiscernible¶

21 *01:33:11). Okay.¶

22 : The Marshals -.¶

23 : And would that be the judge or¶

24 the Marshals?¶

25 : The Marshals, I guess. The¶

1 judge. I don't know how the Marshals work, but¶

2 they --¶

3 : Prosecutors. Marshals.¶

4 : Yeah.¶

5 : Judge.¶

6 : Okay.¶

7 : All in coordination, make¶

8 those determinations. But, and then, here is¶

9 an email from you to¶

10 : Mm-hmm.¶

11 : With what you are talking¶

12 about, that memo.¶

13 : Right.¶

14 : It says, "On Friday,¶

15 August 9th, 2019," but before we even get into¶

16 that, now that you have seen this, you have¶

17 seen these two emails.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : From the Marshal Service¶

20 on August 8th. On August 9th, at 8:38, R&D¶

21 actually keys him out.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : All of them say pre-¶

24 removed or transferred.¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : Does that now tell you¶

2 anything about this, court documentation¶

3 regarding WAS?¶

4 : Yeah. Now, it explains that¶

5 they had gotten a court order to have him go¶

6 out.¶

7 : So, what do you think is¶

8 referred to that court documentation?¶

9 : I guess it must be all of¶

10 these documents right here.¶

11 : This?¶

12 : Yes.¶

13 : So, what we're actually¶

14 looking at, you think she's referring to?¶

15 : That's, I think, that's what¶

16 she was referring to.¶

17 : All right.¶

18 : Yeah.¶

19 : So, court documentation¶

20 meaning, documentation from the Marshal¶

21 Service, saying that he was going to be¶

22 transferred?¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : All right. Now, based¶

25 upon what you are looking at here, specifically¶

1 from the Marshal Service¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : -- and the fact that¶

4 Efrain Reyes, whom -. Is it -? I've been told¶

5 that everyone at the MCC knew who Reyes was¶

6 because they knew he was Epstein's cellmate.¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : But at the very least,¶

9 everyone in the SHU should have known who¶

10 Efrain Reyes was.¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : Because he was Epstein's¶

13 cellmate. What should have happened once, on¶

14 August 8th, as early as 10:33 a.m., and as late¶

15 as 3:33 p.m., the day before Reyes is¶

16 transferred, what should have happened?¶

17 : As far as Epstein getting a¶

18 cellmate?¶

19 : Correct.¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : The notification is being¶

22 made that this person is being transferred,¶

23 everyone gathers him up. And so, what this,¶

24 I'm going to read this just to give you more¶

25 information --¶

1 : Right.¶

2 -- on his backtrack.¶

3 This is a memorandum, dated August the 12th,¶

4 2019, to the warden - yourself.¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : From, who, my¶

7 understanding is he was the OIC of the SHU at¶

8 the time.¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : It says, "Subject passed¶

11 information from Special Housing Unit." So,¶

12 "On a Friday, August 9th, 2019, at¶

13 approximately 1:50 p.m., I, SOS¶

14 passed onto oncoming staff member, Officer¶

15 , and present shift staff, SOS and¶

16 Officer, that inmate Reyes was going¶

17 WAB, and possibly may not return.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : Also, that inmate Epstein¶

20 will be needing a cellmate upon arrival from¶

21 his attorney visit." Now, what this doesn't¶

22 state is that Officer, or SOS¶

23 walked, I mean, both Epstein¶

24 : I'll go get that.¶

25 : -- as well as Reyes, down¶

1 to R&D --¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : -- with all belongings.¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : Spoke with both Epstein¶

6 and Mr. Reyes, and stated to Mr. - I think¶

7 Reyes stated to - make sure you get¶

8 him a cellmate.¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : I'm not coming back. And¶

11 responding to Mr. Epstein, saying,¶

12 "Don't worry. We're going to get you a new¶

13 cellmate."¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : Now, with all that¶

16 information, being that he is the OIC, he's¶

17 working in the SHU, he knows that he's WAB.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : We've got all this stuff¶

20 going on.¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : This is the real big¶

23 reason why I want to talk to you --¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : -- as the warden.¶

1 : Mm-hmm.¶

2 : This is kind of our¶

3 primary purpose --¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : -- for us being here.¶

6 So, I apologize if you're going into that, but¶

7 I want you to have all the information --¶

8 : Right.¶

9 : -- before I answer. What¶

10 should have happened here? So, R&D is¶

11 contacted the day before, or two days before¶

12 Epstein, or Epstein is found. One day before¶

13 Reyes is, you know, gone. They contacted both¶

14 custody, as well as R&D.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : R&D pre-removes him at¶

17 8:38 on 8/09.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : The SHU OIC walks him¶

20 down, to R&D --¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : -- and actually has this¶

23 conversation with Epstein and Reyes, saying,¶

24 know you are WAB, we're going to get you a new¶

25 staff, we're going to get you a new cellmate.¶

1 : Which means - WAB means what?¶

2 : With All Belongings,¶

3 neans they're not coming back.¶

4 : But Epstein is not coming¶

5 back?¶

6 : No.¶

7 MR. : His cellmate.¶

8 : Reyes.¶

9 : Reyes.¶

10 : His cellmate.¶

11 : So, the theory is, if you are¶

12 investigating, somebody says that you're not¶

13 going to have a cellmate anymore, and in that¶

14 conversation, or present during that¶

15 conversation, is Epstein?¶

16 : Epstein is present. Yes.¶

17 : Okay. So, Epstein knows that¶

18 he's not going to have a cellmate for the¶

19 immediate future?¶

20 : No. Epstein is going to¶

21 attorney conference. So, he's going to be --¶

22 : No, no, but I'm saying --¶

23 : -- in attorney conference¶

24 until about 7:00 p.m..¶

25 : -- that Epstein knows that,¶

1 over the next, say, 24 hours, he's not going to¶

2 have a cellee.¶

3 : No. , the OIC,¶

4 tells Epstein, as well as Reyes, that they are¶

5 going to get him a cellmate. Before he comes¶

6 back from attorney/client, his attorney visit.¶

7 : Okay. So, Epstein would know¶

8 that he hasn't - going to have a cellmate.¶

9 : Yeah, yeah. So, this¶

10 isn't part of the theory. What my question to¶

11 your client is, what should have happened based¶

12 upon the knowledge that he was WAB? The¶

13 contact with the Marshal Service, telling him¶

14 that he's being transferred. The fact that¶

15 R&D, you know, the OIC walked him down to R&D,¶

16 and R&D actually logged him out of our system.¶

17 What should have happened?¶

18 : So, what should have¶

19 happened was, this information should have been¶

20 passed up to the supervisors.¶

21 : At what point?¶

22 : See, with the, this¶

23 information coming in, as far as, you know,¶

24 when R&D --¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : -- typically, it would come¶

2 up to the Special Housing Unit. Once it got up¶

3 to that, to the Special Housing Unit, the¶

4 lieutenants should have been notified.¶

5 : Okay. And which¶

6 lieutenant?¶

7 : Whoever was the SHU¶

8 lieutenant, whoever was the operations¶

9 lieutenant.¶

10 : Now, on this case¶

11 : If the -.¶

12 : -- the SHU lieutenant is¶

13 also on leave.¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : So, we've got the chief¶

16 psychologist on leave, the warden on leave, the¶

17 SHU lieutenant on leave. But we do have an ops¶

18 lieutenant, we do have an activities¶

19 lieutenant. And we do have a captain.¶

20 : So, you should have let the¶

21 operations lieutenant know, if you didn't have¶

22 a SHU lieutenant. They, in turn, would let the¶

23 captain know, and the captain would push it up¶

24 to the execs then. Then, we would have to come¶

25 to a determination on who we were going to¶

1 house with Epstein.¶

2 : Now, if the operations¶

3 lieutenant, his name is¶

4 : Right.¶

5¶

6 : Right.¶

7¶

8 : Right.¶

9 : If he says, yes, I know¶

10 Epstein was gone, but I believe that he was at¶

11 court --¶

12 : No. You mean --¶

13 : -- and he might be¶

14 returning back.¶

15 : -- Reyes is gone.¶

16 MR. : Yes.¶

17 : So, knows¶

18 that Sorry, did I say Epstein?¶

19 : Yeah. You said Epstein.¶

20 : Yes. knows¶

21 that Reyes is gone.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : But I think he's at¶

24 court, and then, he might not be coming back.¶

25 I didn't pass this information onto my relief,¶

1 who was (Phonetic Sp. *01:39:59).¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : However, as our¶

4 investigation has revealed, the ops lieutenant¶

5 also has one of these court production lists,¶

6 that lists Reyes --¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : -- as WAB.¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : With that knowledge, is¶

11 that a reason that he thinks that he went to¶

12 court, and might be coming back?¶

13 : I can't interpret what his¶

14 thought process was, but if it said, you know,¶

15 he was leaving, and I don't know what he was¶

16 reading at the time.¶

17 : Right.¶

18 : He could have been reading,¶

19 because sometimes the inmates do go out to¶

20 court and come back. So, I don't know. I¶

21 can't speak to what he read. Or why he made¶

22 that determination.¶

23 : So, listen, wouldn't have most¶

24 inmates, when they go to court, come back?¶

25 : The point being here --¶

1 : What I'm saying --¶

2 : -- he didn't go to court.¶

3 : Yeah.¶

4 : He was transferred.¶

5 : He was transferred.¶

6 MR. : And I know you might have¶

7 covered this, in your understanding, in your¶

8 experience at the MCC, if an inmate is listed¶

9 as WAB --¶

10 : Mm-hmm.¶

11 MR. -- With All Belongings --¶

12 : Yeah.¶

13 MR. : -- what is your¶

14 understanding? Are they coming back or are¶

15 they gone?¶

16 : That means he's¶

17 transferring.¶

18 MR. : Has there been situations¶

19 where they come back?¶

20 : There have been¶

21 MR. : After WAB?¶

22 : -- situations that, you¶

23 know, they go out and they have to have them¶

24 sending them back, if there was an issue.¶

25 MR. : Is that a unique situation,¶

1 or it happens quite often?¶

2 : No. I wouldn't say. I¶

3 would say that it's probably unique. But¶

4 usually, WAB, they're gone.¶

5 MR. : So, as the operations¶

6 lieutenant, if you see somebody listed as WAB,¶

7 should he have understood that that person is¶

8 gone, and not coming back?¶

9 : Should have. But then,¶

10 you're talking off the document. I don't know¶

11 what document they read. So, I don't want to¶

12 speculate what, you know, was it, you know,¶

13 send them to R&D, whether he saw that. I don't¶

14 know what document. But I'm saying, if it is¶

15 this document, that clearly stated WAB.¶

16 : Okay. But as far as your¶

17 concern, it doesn't sound like what you were¶

18 saying is, , who was the OIC at the¶

19 time, should have he notified the ops¶

20 lieutenant?¶

21 : Yes. Whoever is - yeah¶

22 there should have notified the operations¶

23 lieutenant, hey, Reyes left, and --¶

24 : He needs a cellmate.¶

25 : -- he needs a cellmate,¶

1 : Okay. So, would it fall¶

2 solely on the shoulders of¶

3 : No. I mean, okay, so,¶

4 here's the other checks and balance. So, what¶

5 about the other people on the other shift?¶

6 : That's my question.¶

7 : Yeah.¶

8 : So, or --¶

9 : I mean --¶

10 : -- or the people that are¶

11 working on his same shift.¶

12 : -- yeah. On his own same,¶

13 shift --¶

14 : So, who --¶

15 : -- if it was the¶

16 notification should have been made to the¶

17 operations lieutenant. Or the captain. And¶

18 said, hey, cellmate left. He needs a cellmate.¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : And that cellmate would now,¶

21 at some point, he goes back to the cell, but¶

22 that's at the end of the day.¶

23 : At the end of the day.¶

24 : Okay. So, nobody is in a¶

25 position to say, hey, he's in a cell by¶

1 himself. Until the end of the day.¶

2 : Right. But the information¶

3 is passed onto each other. You know, when you¶

4¶

5 : And they are supposed to¶

6 be doing 30-minute rounds, where they would¶

7 notice that one cell had zero inmates in it.¶

8 : Had zero inmates in it.¶

9 : Yeah.¶

10 : So, I mean¶

11 : And that's what brings us all¶

12 to --¶

13 : Right.¶

14 -- here today.¶

15 : So --¶

16 : Uh-huh.¶

17 : I mean, that's how it¶

18 would have made, and when that got pushed up,¶

19 we would have said, okay, we would have to¶

20 formulate, okay, who can we get a cellmate for,¶

21 for Epstein?¶

22 : And I apologize to ask¶

23 this because, but, like, so, on each shift¶

24 would be the OIC, that would be responsible for¶

25 that. So, for instance, would be on¶

1 the day watch shift up until 2:00 p.m., he¶

2 would be the one to responsible to provide the¶

3 ops lieutenant, but then, the following shift,¶

4 would it be --¶

5 : Whoever is the --¶

6 : -- the next OIC --¶

7 : -- right.¶

8 : -- or would also the¶

9 people that are working in that unit, the other¶

10 SHU staff, would they be responsible? Or is¶

11 that a chain of command thing? Like, no, the¶

12 OIC is really the person making that¶

13 notification.¶

14 : Everybody has a¶

15 responsibility for their safety. Everybody.¶

16 mean --¶

17 : Sure.¶

18 : I might be the OIC, but I¶

19 have some responsibilities. If I know, okay,¶

20 you know what? They might need a cellmate,¶

21 because I, in essence, I can have an individual¶

22 assigned to that post, and they're just filling¶

23 in for somebody that, the regular person that's¶

24 up there. And then, I have the regular people¶

25 working up there, who are familiar with what's¶

1 going on. So, it's kind of everyone's¶

2 responsibility. You know?¶

3 : So, is everyone kind of¶

4 equally responsible, then, for this? That was¶

5 working there and didn't pass the information¶

6 on.¶

7 : Can you say? Don't guess.¶

8 : You know what?¶

9 : No, as the warden, he¶

10 would be able to say.¶

11 : I mean, it should have been,¶

12 it should have been passed on. So, I don't¶

13 know the dynamics to, as far as what was going¶

14 on that day, who was working up there. What¶

15 rounds were being made --¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : -- up there. You know, was¶

18 the lieutenant coming around? Was the captain?¶

19 How busy they were.¶

20 : So, the lieutenant was¶

21 not on - the lieutenant of the SHU - was not¶

22 on. However, we do have records that the¶

23 activities lieutenant at least visited --¶

24 : Yeah.¶

25 : -- the SHU¶

1 : You have --¶

2 : -- at that point.¶

3 : -- you have two other¶

4 lieutenants. Now, I don't know if you are¶

5 familiar with the Special Housing Unit, but it¶

6 is a very busy unit.¶

7 : Yeah.¶

8 : You know, you're giving out¶

9 showers. You're giving out recreation. You're¶

10 doing a whole lot of stuff. You, you know,¶

11 running around all day, and, you know,¶

12 sometimes things happen.¶

13 : Understood. But in this¶

14 case, wasn't Epstein at your most high-profile¶

15 inmate? At that time.¶

16 : I mean, besides my terrorist¶

17 inmates that I had up there on Ten South.¶

18 : Well, I guess, at least¶

19 the Nine South.¶

20 : I would say he was a high-¶

21 profile. Yeah. He was a high-profile inmate.¶

22 : Is it, I mean, on that¶

23 note, don't you think that they would have, you¶

24 know, found it pretty important to notify?¶

25 Especially they - and I don't know that we¶

1 brought this today - but there was even signs¶

2 up that they created, saying, "Mandatory 30-¶

3 minute rounds on Epstein, signed by God." Or¶

4 something, you know, along the lines. Not, you¶

5 know, meaning, like, do this. You know? Like¶

6¶

7 : No, that was me.¶

8 : Is that right?¶

9 : That was me. No. I mean, I¶

10 mean, but it was emphasized to them. I mean,¶

11 so, no one could say that they didn't know.¶

12 : So, point being, there¶

13 was, like, signs specific to even Epstein,¶

14 check on this guy every 30 minutes.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : You know, orange signs¶

17 that are posted up there.¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : So, point being, with¶

20 this --¶

21 : It should have been passed¶

22 up.¶

23 : -- and that is where -.¶

24 So, for us, I guess --¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : -- again, and I know that¶

2 you are probably trying to, you know, hesitate¶

3 on maybe saying, like, this person did¶

4 something wrong, but really, who dropped the¶

5 ball here? Knowing, though, that you could¶

6 take a look, the day before, all these people¶

7 are the ones who received the email --¶

8 : Right.¶

9 in custody. And so, I¶

10 know we see Lieutenant . I'm sure - I'm¶

11 assuming would be on there.¶

12 MR. : I think is on there.¶

13 : Who?¶

14 : Is on there?¶

15 MR. : It's just --¶

16 : I didn't see¶

17 MR. maybe.¶

18 : But again, this one, that¶

19 one is not even as clear. This one¶

20 specifically spells out --¶

21 MR. : Yeah.¶

22 : -- this one, you would¶

23 actually have to go in and look at this¶

24 prisoner's schedule report.¶

25 : Okay. Let me just take a¶

1 look, just so I have, my mind is clear. There¶

2 is a prisoner's schedule. The prisoner's¶

3 schedule literally means prisoner's schedule.¶

4 : Well, yeah. So, the¶

5 prisoner's schedule report is something like¶

6 this, but it will tell you that they are either¶

7 going to, like, transfer, or they are going to¶

8 go to court. Whereas this other document that¶

9 was sent to R&D was just specifically about the¶

10 transfer.¶

11 : Okay. But there is nothing¶

12 that says recreation, personnel care. It's¶

13 mostly going to and from court, or leaving the¶

14 institution.¶

15 : Yeah. Because it's a¶

16 prisoner's schedule.¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 : Report.¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : So, it's, like, what they¶

21 are scheduled to do. Sorry. Yeah. No. It's¶

22 not, like, what their daily schedule is. Like,¶

23 in the institution.¶

24 : Right.¶

25 : It's a U.S. Marshal¶

1 Service report that they just provided to the¶

2 BOP, so that they know which inmates¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : -- they need to produce,¶

5 and for what reason.¶

6 : Okay. Got it.¶

7 : Now, is that correct?¶

8 : Yes.¶

9 : So, yeah. Based upon¶

10 what you are looking at here, on the 8th, and¶

11 then again, what we know about at the¶

12 very least producing, at 8:00, knowing he was¶

13 WAB, and R&D knowing he was WAB.¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : What should have happened¶

16 there? Like, who, in your opinion here,¶

17 dropped the ball?¶

18 : I think at all levels, it¶

19 was the checks and balance. If it went to the¶

20 lieutenant's office, somebody should have¶

21 picked it up. Working in the unit. It should¶

22 have been passed up to the lieutenant's office.¶

23 So, there were a couple of safety nets that¶

24 could have caught it.¶

25 : So, pretty much everybody¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

dropped the ball? : I mean, if we're looking at¶

it like this, if you're saying going by an¶

email being sent around.¶

Well, not only the email,¶

but I mean, the email, I can understand if¶

7 people are busy and they don't always, you¶

8 know, this one --¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : -- it would be hard to -¶

11 that one would be hard to --¶

12 : Right.¶

13 : -- you know, say that you¶

14 didn't know. This one, I could see maybe, you¶

15 know, the prisoner's schedule¶

16 : Well, this one, I don't¶

17 : -- (Indiscernible¶

18 *01:48:52).¶

19 : I mean, I don't know what¶

20 gets sent out. I know, if this whole thing, I¶

21 don't know if it gets sent out to the staff.¶

22 think more¶

23 : Well, this is --¶

24 : -- of a condensed version.¶

25 : -- this is with this.¶

1¶

2¶

: Right.¶

: So, this was what was¶

3 sent with this. This was sent specifically,¶

4 just that. It's not a document. That's the¶

5 body.¶

6 : Right. That was sent.¶

7 : But that is, again, R&D.¶

8 : Right.¶

9 : But, which again, R&D -¶

10 we didn't cover this - R&D is outside of¶

11 custody. Correct?¶

12 : Right.¶

13 : But speaking with R&D,¶

14 they said they would have produced this list,¶

15 which SHU would have had, as well as ops¶

16 lieutenant --¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : -- the lieutenant's¶

19 office, all the housing units, which it listed¶

20 Reyes as WAB.¶

21 : Right.¶

22 : Do you know if they are¶

23 actually looking - like, the lieutenant's¶

24 office, people in the lieutenant's office, or¶

25 the ops lieutenant, activities lieutenant - are¶

1 they actually look at that list and saying, or¶

2 that's just based upon the busyness of their¶

3 day?¶

4 : Yeah. I wouldn't speculate.¶

5 I mean, I don't know. I can't say what --¶

6 : Okay.¶

7 : -- lieutenant is looking at¶

8 stuff. I mean, it's, like, the documents.¶

9 : No. I mean, but should¶

10 have they, I guess is the question?¶

11 : As far as what? Emails that¶

12 are coming through, on who's leaving?¶

13 : No, no, no. This would¶

14 be a physical paper that they were provided.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : Internal would go around¶

17 and provide everybody with this physical paper¶

18 that they create, and then, they apparently¶

19 destroy it at the end of the day.¶

20 : Right. So, I don't know if¶

21 the, you know, when internal gets the forms to¶

22 go, they are dropping it off at different¶

23 units. So, I don't know if one was passed off¶

24 to the lieutenant. The lieutenant would - I¶

25 guess this probably be the only document --¶

1 : No, no, no.¶

2 : -- they tear up.¶

3 : We are being told, by the¶

4 lieutenants, as well as --¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : -- by R&D, they all have¶

7 it, and they all, and it would all - and it¶

8 would have said WAS. Unfortunately, I haven't¶

9 found that document to show you this is what¶

10 I'm referring to. But it's a document they¶

11 apparently create, which they call the court¶

12 production list. Are you --¶

13 : The court list.¶

14 : -- yeah.¶

15 : I've heard of the court¶

16 list.¶

17 : But it's like a¶

18 : And it -.¶

19 : -- from my understanding,¶

20 it is an informal document that they are just¶

21 providing so that, you know, these are the¶

22 people that we need to produce today.¶

23 : For internal, yeah. The¶

24 internal officer goes around and drops them off¶

25 at every, you know, every unit, like hey, I¶

1 need this guy, I need that guy. It's a court¶

2 list.¶

3 : Yeah.¶

4 : In the morning.¶

5 : Exactly.¶

6 : So, yeah, that's not¶

7 anything that's kept on record.¶

8 : Right. So, I guess the¶

9 question, though, being that they had these¶

10 court lists, is another one of these checks and¶

11 balances? Or is that really just for the¶

12 Special Housing Unit?¶

13 : I think they You mean as¶

14 far as the court list, I don't understand your¶

15 question, but --¶

16 : Yeah. It's just getting¶

17 back to the point of, like, Reyes left. We¶

18 were notified on the 8th. He left on the¶

19 morning of the 9th.¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : Epstein was found on the¶

22 10th. Didn't have a cellmate for 24 hours, and¶

23 we knew for almost 48 hours. What should have¶

24 happened, and who didn't do their job? Is¶

25 really the question.¶

1 : And like I said before, when¶

2 the notification, whoever was on the unit, knew¶

3 that he was leaving, it should have been passed¶

4 up to his supervisor.¶

5 : All right.¶

6 : This guy is leaving. But¶

7 then, okay, let's say the supe, or whoever is¶

8 working in there, doesn't do it, and somebody¶

9 should have stepped up and said, hey, this guy¶

10 needs a cellmate. And notified the lieutenant¶

11 that he needs a cellmate.¶

12 : And that goes back to my,¶

13 anyone that was working in the SHU, should have¶

14 made that notification.¶

15 : Should have said it. It¶

16 doesn't just -. Just because you are not OIC,¶

17 doesn't mean all the responsibilities falls on¶

18 you. It's everybody's job up there to say,¶

19 hey, okay, we need to, you know, this is what¶

20 we need to do.¶

21 : And would that be the¶

22 case for, when he left during the day shift¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : -- the next shift is the¶

25 night shift, when he would have - I believe¶

1 during the night shift - he would have come¶

2 back --¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : -- and again, if they¶

5 were doing rounds, they would have noticed that¶

6 Reyes wasn't there in the first place. But¶

7 also, certainly, when they brought¶

8 : Epstein back.¶

9 : -- Epstein back to his¶

10 cell. There would have been no cellmate in¶

11 there.¶

12 : You should have known he was¶

13 a cellmate.¶

14 : And would it be the same¶

15 thing for the morning shift? That they would¶

16 know that Epstein was in there alone?¶

17 : Because if the morning shift¶

18 is doing their 30-minute checks, you would have¶

19 realized he was in there by himself.¶

20 : So, should have every¶

21 single shift reported it to the ops lieutenant,¶

22 that there is no one -?¶

23 : Whoever caught it should¶

24 have, you know, let's say one shift missed it,¶

25 the next shift should have picked up and said,¶

1 you know, called and said, lieutenant, we got a¶

2 - this guy needs a --¶

3 : A cellmate.¶

4 : -- a cellmate.¶

5 : And again, I know we're¶

6 Monday morning quarterback because of the¶

7 result here, but what is your - as the warden¶

8 of the institution, on these days - how do you¶

9 interpret this? Is this a really significant¶

10 failure on their part, the not have caught this¶

11 and passed that information up?¶

12 : It's not following the¶

13 directive. I mean, and then, look at result.¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : So, I mean, the result is¶

16 what, you know, caused it to be a serious¶

17 matter.¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : Yeah.¶

20 : Now, as far as going back¶

21 to this memo, do you know why Mr.¶

22 wrote this memo/¶

23 : I forgot. I might have¶

24 called -. I might have called Lieutenant¶

25 , and said - and I don't know if he was¶

1 working - said, what happened up there?¶

2 : Now, when you say¶

3 because he was the ops lieutenant, or are you¶

4 talking about who was the SHU lieutenant?¶

5 -: , who was the¶

6 operations -. Because first, I know when I got¶

7 back, somebody told me wasn't at work,¶

8 because that was my first question. Who was¶

9 the SHU lieutenant? Where they are at. And¶

10 then, I think I did reach out to and¶

11 said, what happened up there?¶

12 : Okay.¶

13 : And that's when I found that¶

14 out.¶

15 : And did you ever speak¶

16 with either or about this?¶

17 : No.¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : Because by the time I had¶

20 gotten it, was the day -. That, I got that the¶

21 day of, when I had to go up to, I think the¶

22 U.S. Attorney's Office.¶

23 : Okay. To speak with them¶

24 about this?¶

25 : When I speak up to them, and¶

1 them the agent had the memorandum.¶

2 : He already had it on him?¶

3 : He had it on him. Because¶

4 he was during the interrogation, he presented¶

5 it to the U.S. Attorney that was there.¶

6 : And was that the first¶

7 time you had seen it?¶

8 : No. I think I -. I don't¶

9 recall when I first saw it, but I know I had¶

10 gotten it. And I don't know if I had gotten¶

11 it, and then sent it up to my boss. And then,¶

12 given it to the IG. I forgot. I forget his¶

13 name, and who was handling the case.¶

14 : For the IG?¶

15 : Yeah.¶

16 MR. -:¶

17 : If you weren't giving it¶

18 to (Indiscernible *01:55:18), it would have¶

19 been Dave¶

20 : Because he sat in there with¶

21 us.¶

22 : David¶

23 : So, he - I remember - he had¶

24 a copy of it.¶

25 : Okay.¶

1 : Because we had told him that¶

2 they knew that they were supposed to -.¶

3 : So, not including when¶

4 you were speaking with the OIG and the FBI, did¶

5 you discuss this at all with anyone from the¶

6 BOP, such as or¶

7 : No. I just got the¶

8 memorandum, and that was it. Because I was,¶

9 like, wanting to know, like, what happened.¶

10 The, you know, the directives were given. What¶

11 happened?¶

12 : And when you asked what¶

13 happened, was there a verbal response?¶

14 : It was a verbal response.¶

15 : And what did you -? What¶

16 were you told?¶

17 : That they knew he was¶

18 supposed to -. That had passed it on¶

19 to other individuals about it.¶

20 : Now, do you think that¶

21 that -. What is your thought process of¶

22 who is the one who actually presented¶

23 - excuse me - Reyes to R&D and WAB, what is¶

24 your thought of him now saying, you know, prior¶

25 to the end of my shift at 2:00 p.m., I passed¶

1 it on to the next guy, saying that you guys got¶

2 to do it.¶

3 : Now --¶

4 : Do you think he should¶

5 have done it, passed the infraction on during¶

6 his shift?¶

7 : Yeah. Absolutely. It¶

8 should have been letting the lieutenant know.¶

9 : Uh-huh.¶

10 : That, hey, this is - we got¶

11 a guy that needs to be --¶

12 : A cellmate.¶

13 : -- that needs a cellmate.¶

14 MR. : I should clarify that.¶

15 : What?¶

16 MR. : I think on the elevator was¶

17 Monge.¶

18 : Right.¶

19 MR. Monge was escorting Reyes¶

20 down to R&D. And was escorting¶

21 Epstein over to attorney conference. They just¶

22 happened to cross paths, I think --¶

23 : Yeah, they were together,¶

24 though. Right?¶

25 MR. : -- yeah, but I think Monge is¶

1 the one that brought him down to the - Reyes¶

2 down to R&D.¶

3 : Then that would make sense.¶

4 Because if Monge is internal, internal takes¶

5 him to court.¶

6 : Okay.¶

7 : And then, if somebody is¶

8 going to R&D, I mean, to attorney visit, then¶

9 it would be SHU staff taking him.¶

10 : All right. So, if Monge¶

11 is the one who is actually providing him to¶

12 R&D, did he have a responsibility, that if he¶

13 was WAB, to make any notifications?¶

14 : I don't know if internal -.¶

15 You know, Monge was internal, and I don't know¶

16 if he knew, you know, the situation.¶

17 : And typically, would it¶

18 be internals job - if they come and collect¶

19 somebody as WAB - would it be their job to tell¶

20 control, or the ops lieutenant, to say this guy¶

21 is off our books, or anything, or -?¶

22 : No. Because we have a lot¶

23 of inmates that move in and out.¶

24 : Sure.¶

25 : So, he wouldn't be able to¶

1 keep track of every particular inmate that is¶

2 going and coming.¶

3 : Okay. Basically,¶

4 everyone had a share of responsibility?¶

5 : (Indiscernible *01:57:54).¶

6 : All right. Before we¶

7 belabor this thing anymore, we want to just¶

8 initial and date these both documents. We can¶

9 get them out of your way and move on.¶

10 : All of them?¶

11 : Oh, yeah. Top of this,¶

12 top of this.¶

13 : Okay.¶

14 : This guy. You know, this¶

15 one. All right.¶

16 MR. : Let me take this.¶

17 : Thank you, sir. Now,¶

18 prior to this meeting, did you know that Reyes¶

19 was actually transferred at MCC, and didn't go¶

20 to court?¶

21 : Wait, prior to when?¶

22 : This meeting.¶

23 : Oh, no. I knew he -.¶

24 heard that. You know? After his death, that¶

25 he was --¶

1 : Transferred.¶

2 -- removed. That he was¶

3 transferred.¶

4 : Okay.¶

5 : When I came in on Saturday.¶

6 : Were you required - or I¶

7 mean - were you aware that the Marshal Service¶

8 had sent those emails on August 8th, 2019?¶

9 : I was not aware.¶

10 : No? Well, did anyone¶

11 ever, prior to August 10th, did anyone ever¶

12 make you aware that Reyes was transferred from¶

13 the institution?¶

14 : Prior to October 10th?¶

15 : August 10th. 2019.¶

16 : I found out when I came in¶

17 that morning, because I --¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : -- was, like, where is¶

20 cellmate?¶

21 : Okay. So, you didn't¶

22 know that he didn't have a cellmate on August¶

23 9th?¶

24 : No, I did not.¶

25 : Now, who was ultimately¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

responsible to make sure that Epstein has¶

celimate? : I mean, if it's the¶

directive that is given out, I mean, whoever is¶

working decide - passes it up, and then, that¶

ensures, you know, to make sure he has a¶

celimate. So -.¶

: So, SHU staff.¶

: Whoever was working up¶

there.¶

Okay. When you say¶

working up there, does that include, like,¶

lieutenants doing lieutenant rounds and things¶

like that? Or -? : Well, yeah, from what¶

transpired, it is obvious the lieutenants¶

didn't know. I mean, they knew he was, based¶

on the email that, you know, they knew he was¶

leaving, but as far as when the finality of it¶

was, when you realize, okay, Reyes is gone.¶

You take Epstein, you bring him back up in his¶

cell, and he doesn't have a cellmate. I mean,¶

something should have went off on somebody to¶

make some notifications.¶

Okay. I know we're going¶

1 to talk about counts.¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 MR. : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : Wait, wait. The notification.¶

5 Would that go up as high as you? If someone¶

6 would say?¶

7 : They would send it up to the¶

8 lieutenants, then they would tell the captain.¶

9 And the captain would let the associate warden¶

10 know, and then it would get up to me.¶

11 : Especially an instance¶

12 since you have a say in who --¶

13 : Right.¶

14 • gotcha.¶

15 : We would have to sit down¶

16 and say, okay, of all the available individuals¶

17 that are on the unit now, who can we house¶

18 Epstein with?¶

19 : Now, what about in the¶

20 this case, where as you actually weren't¶

21 working that day, would that --¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : -- should have they¶

24 called you --¶

25 : Yeah. Whoever is --¶

1 : -- on the -?¶

2 -- whoever was the acting¶

3 warden.¶

4 : That would make the¶

5 determination?¶

6 : She would have made the¶

7 determination to.¶

8 : Who was the acting warden¶

9 that day, do you know?¶

10 : I don't know if I left¶

11 or in --¶

12 : Okay.¶

13 -- as the acting.¶

14 : One of those two.¶

15 : It would be one of those¶

16 two.¶

17 : And it wouldn't be the¶

18¶

19 : No. He's the executive¶

20 assistance.¶

21 : Now, what is the¶

22 difference between, like, an executive¶

23 assistance and an AW?¶

24 : The associate warden is a¶

25 GS-14, and the executive assistant is a 13.¶

1 : Okay. So, they are not -¶

2¶

3 : No.¶

4 : -- but what, is that¶

5 executive assistant just mainly to assist you¶

6 in your functions?¶

7 : He assists in the functions.¶

8 I had also given him some other departments to¶

9 monitor.¶

10 : Mm-hmm.¶

11 : So, they manage, also, those¶

12 other departments.¶

13 : Okay.¶

14 MR. : I just got a question. I¶

15 don't know if you may be asked him about the¶

16 backup list. Was there a backup list of names?¶

17 : For?¶

18 : I think, I think we did¶

19 talk about it, but if Reyes - we did¶

20 MR. : Okay.¶

21 : -- but --¶

22 MR. : Sorry.¶

23 : -- when we talked about¶

24 if Reyes was removed because the institution¶

25 always has people coming and going --¶

1¶

2¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

: -- so frequently, was¶

3 there, like, a list that was set in place, that¶

4 we would now consider these people, or would it¶

5 be just the whole new -?¶

6 : No. Because we would have¶

7 to base it on who was there.¶

8 : Okay.¶

9 : Because of the turnover in¶

10 the unit.¶

11 MR. : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : All right. Now, we're¶

13 going to get into counts.¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : So, this is an email sent¶

16 from you to . It's the count slips¶

17 for --¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : -- it was sent on¶

20 Saturday, August 10th, 2019, at 5:11 p.m.¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : This shows, ZA is the¶

23 SHU. Correct?¶

24 : Right.¶

25 : So, this says, at 8:10,¶

1 it shows that the count for ZA was 73. Signed¶

2 by M. and Ms.¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : And it says, that count¶

5 was done, it looks like, at --¶

6 : 12:01 a.m.¶

7 : -- 12:01 a.m. And then,¶

8 we get the next one is at 3:00 a.m.¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : It goes down to 72.¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : At 5:00 a.m., there is¶

13 72. And here is the count, the institutional¶

14 count, it shows 72 at - what time? - 12:00 a.m.¶

15 Or no. This one is 3:00 a.m.¶

16 : 3:00 a.m.¶

17 : I don't know why this is¶

18 all out of order. 5:00 a.m. So, at 12:00¶

19 a.m., this says 72. 72.¶

20 MR. : I think that was just an --¶

21 : 72.¶

22 MR. : -- attachment to that email¶

23 that you sent.¶

24 : So, but as you know, as¶

25 you notice, one of them said -. So, the count¶

1 slip said 73 for 12:00 a.m., over the¶

2 institutional count. And as you see here, for¶

3 12:00 a.m., it said 72.¶

4 : By the institution, you mean¶

5 the SHU?¶

6 : No. The institution.¶

7 : It means the whole.¶

8 : MCC does a count --¶

9 : Yeah.¶

10 : -- and --¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : -- its' what the official¶

13¶

14 : The count.¶

15 : -- number show¶

16 : Yeah. Okay.¶

17 : -- the SHU, these count¶

18 slips are supposed to be the -. Actually, let¶

19 you, you can answer my question. What is¶

20 supposed to be the difference between what¶

21 happens with the count slip, and what happens¶

22 with the institutional count? So, I'm not¶

23 answering your question.¶

24 : So, what happens is, on the¶

25 shift, you call the count, and the different¶

1 units call in the count to control center.¶

2 : And how do they get that¶

3 count number?¶

4 : From counting. They have to¶

5 go around and count.¶

6 : Physically counting an¶

7 inmate?¶

8 : You have to --¶

9 : Correct?¶

10 : -- physically count the¶

11 bodies.¶

12 : And then, they take that¶

13 total amount of inmates, and they call that¶

14 into the control center?¶

15 : They call that into the¶

16 control.¶

17 : And where does the¶

18 control center get their numbers from?¶

19 : This is what is called an¶

20 El. Which is a print out of the number of¶

21 inmates in each unit.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : So, if an instance, for¶

24 example, we look at BA unit. So, there is¶

25 supposed to be 26 in there. If somebody calls¶

1 it in there, they say, it says 25, they tell me¶

2 it's a bad count.¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : So, they have to go back and¶

5 count again.¶

6 : So, the El is created¶

7 based upon what inmates are listed within your¶

8 system.¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : The count slips are based¶

11 upon how many inmates they actually count.¶

12 : What they count.¶

13 : And the purpose of that¶

14 is what? Why are the inmates counting inmates,¶

15 and why are they providing that number to¶

16 control?¶

17 : So, we make sure every¶

18 inmate is in the institution.¶

19 : The countability of the¶

20 inmates. Correct?¶

21 : Yes.¶

22 : Great. So, the - so,¶

23 does that answer your question?¶

24 MR. : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : So, the next email is¶

1 sent about one hour later, at 6:13 p.m., or¶

2 August 10th. It says, "Why did the count¶

3 change from 73 to 72 between 12:00 a.m. and¶

4 3:00 a.m.?"¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : Do you remember what your¶

7 response was to that?¶

8 : I don't.¶

9 : And then, this one is¶

10 another one from Ray to yourself.¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : It says, "The 12:00 a.m.¶

13 count slip reads 73, and the 12:00 a.m.¶

14 : El.¶

15 : -- El says 72."¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : So, those kind of go¶

18 together. Do you remember what your findings¶

19 were there?¶

20 : I don't remember. Because¶

21 typically what happens on the count, you are¶

22 supposed to - the lieutenant is supposed to¶

23 take one count at night, and then review¶

24 documentation. So, I don't know what happened¶

25 with the discrepancy.¶

1 : I mean, this isn't really that¶

2 relevant, because we noted Epstein was there.¶

3 : No. It's relevant for¶

4 our investigation.¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : All right. So, if you¶

7 don't mind, just initialing and dating that,¶

8 and then, we can explain to you why that is¶

9 relevant. So, you don't, though, recall? You¶

10 didn't find out what actually happened?¶

11 : I don't recall what the¶

12 response is I gave.¶

13 : No? And do you remember¶

14 looking into it at all?¶

15 : When was that sent?¶

16 : That was the day --¶

17 : When did he send it?¶

18 : -- that was the day of.¶

19 : The day of.¶

20 : The day Epstein was¶

21 found.¶

22 : I don't because it was just¶

23 so much going on.¶

24 : Yeah.¶

25 : That I can't really remember¶

1 what, how I responded to them on that day.¶

2 : Do you remember learning¶

3 anything about the accuracy or inaccuracy of¶

4 the counts, on the 9th and 10th?¶

5 : What do you mean the¶

6 accuracy and inaccuracy?¶

7 : Like, if the counts were¶

8 actually accurate or not.¶

9 : I don't recall that.¶

10 : You don't recall --¶

11 : No. I can't think of that.¶

12 : -- finding out about¶

13 that?¶

14 : No.¶

15 : Did you recall, did you¶

16 find out if the SHU counts and rounds were not¶

17 conducted by the SHU on August 9th or 10th,¶

18 2019? By the SHU staff.¶

19 : If they did rounds or not?¶

20 : Correct. Did you find¶

21 out if the SHU staff had conducted both 30-¶

22 minutes rounds, as well as the institution¶

23 counts on August 9th and 10th?¶

24 : I don't know if it was after¶

25 the fact that I was told that the Officer did¶

1 make their rounds. And I don't recall if it¶

2 was, they put it in the logbook, that they made¶

3 rounds, but that in all actuality, it wasn't¶

4 done.¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : So, that might have been¶

7 something that came up afterwards.¶

8 : But you are not super -.¶

9 You know, this, you don't really know what¶

10 happened or didn't happen?¶

11 : That day. Because I mean,¶

12 it happened that weekend, everything was¶

13 moving, and then, by Monday --¶

14 : Right. So¶

15 everything lese just¶

16 changed. So --¶

17 : -- but on the 10th or¶

18 11th, you didn't hear --¶

19 : I didn't --¶

20 : -- find out?¶

21 : -- hear anything about,¶

22 recall anything about that.¶

23 : But had you heard that¶

24 they didn't at least conduct some of their¶

25 rounds and counts?¶

1¶

2¶

: That they didn't?¶

: That they did not.¶

3 : It was - and I don't want to¶

4 use the word that it was just, you know, an¶

5 assumption, you know, like, because one of¶

6 them, I had asked to come up and speak with,¶

7 but it was, and he wouldn't come up.¶

8 : And this was on the 10th¶

9 in the morning?¶

10 : This was on the 10th, when¶

11 we got him up, because I wanted to speak with¶

12 him because people were telling me he was¶

13 distraught.¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : So, I wanted to make sure he¶

16 was all right. You know? And he just, he¶

17 didn't want to come up and talk.¶

18 : What are your thoughts of¶

19 as an employee?¶

20 : I've known a couple¶

21 years. I never had any issues with him. You¶

22 know, it was any, you know, like any other¶

23 employee, you do something, I correct you on¶

24 the spot, and that's it. But I have never¶

25 encountered him to do anything, known him not¶

1 to count, do his job, you know?¶

2 : What about Ms.¶

3 : She was new. So, she had¶

4 just gotten there. You know, she got the same¶

5 spiel from me that everybody else does. You¶

6 know? You are new. You can't do the things¶

7 that somebody at 20, that has 20 years in it.¶

8 They're not doing their job, you shouldn't be¶

9 following it.¶

10 : And did you --¶

11 : So -.¶

12 : -- actually speak with¶

13 her about that?¶

14 : Oh, I do that in my¶

15 (Indiscernible *02:09:22) class, when they¶

16 first come in.¶

17 : Okay. So, that is¶

18 something --¶

19 : And I had -.¶

20 : -- you would have said to¶

21 everyone?¶

22 : Oh, I said it clear as day.¶

23 And same thing I would say in my ART class.¶

24 Annual Refresher Training.¶

25 : Because this is --¶

1 : (Indiscernible *02:09:34).¶

2 -- one of her excuses,¶

3 saying that 20 year guys, I'm following them,¶

4 they are not doing it, so I'm not doing it. Is¶

5 that something you clearly entrust --¶

6 : So, here's my speech¶

7 : -- to her?¶

8 : -- my spiel I used to tell¶

9 people. I said, go ahead and follow that 20¶

10 year guy, and you are on probation, guess what¶

11 happens? He might get some time in the street.¶

12 You're getting fired.¶

13 : And are you confident¶

14 that Ms. would have heard that speech from¶

15 you?¶

16 : She heard the speech from¶

17 me.¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : Yeah. I'm confident.¶

20 That's the speech I gave everybody. Same thing¶

21 in the ART.¶

22 : Okay.¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : Good enough.¶

25 : So.¶

1 : All right. So, this is¶

2 going to go back. This is just my little list¶

3 that I wrote of exactly what happened, and then¶

4 I'll read to you, but --¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : I just want just for¶

7 our purposes, I'm going to just show you, and¶

8 you can refer to them. On this one, at first,¶

9 going to be the count on the 9th, that was¶

10 conducted at --¶

11 MR. : 4:00 p.m.¶

12 : -- is this 4:00 p.m. Is¶

13 this the 4:00 p.m. or the 5:00 p.m. here?¶

14 : No. This?¶

15 MR. : 4:00 p.m.¶

16 : 4:00 p.m. count. There's¶

17 just signed off --¶

18 : No. There's no 4:00 p.m.¶

19 count.¶

20 : -- yeah, it's the 5:00.¶

21 MR. : 5:00. Sorry.¶

22 : Yeah. It's --¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : -- 12:00. 12:00. 3:00.¶

25 And 5:00.¶

1 MR.¶

2¶

3 Friday.¶

4¶

:¶

:¶

No, no. This is afternoon. : Yeah. So, this is¶

I'd say (Indiscernible¶

5 *02:10:40)--¶

6 : All right. Friday. Is¶

7 that a --¶

8 : -- (Indiscernible *02:10:41)¶

9 : -- 4:00 p.m. --¶

10 MR. : You told him about overnight.¶

11 : -- count?¶

12 : Oh, it's a 4:00 p.m. count.¶

13 MR. : It's a 4:00 p.m.¶

14 : Yeah.¶

15 : Okay.¶

16 : Then 4:00 p.m. Then¶

17 there is the 8:00 p.m.¶

18 MR. : No, no. 4:00 p.m. 10:00.¶

19 : 4:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.¶

20 Sorry.¶

21 MR. : And midnight.¶

22 : 4:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.¶

23 Midnight.¶

24 MR. : 3:00 and 5:00.¶

25 : 3:00. And 5:00. So,¶

1 these are basically the time period in¶

2 question. Everywhere from 4:00 p.m. through¶

3 the 5:00 a.m. count the next day, on August 9th¶

4 and 10th.¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : Here are the lieutenant¶

7 logs. And these are the emails that, again,¶

8 I'm going, just going over these just because,¶

9 so I'm not blowing things out of thin air.¶

10 These are the --¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : -- yeah, emails that we¶

13 were able to obtain. So, this was from a¶

14 . Who was the ops¶

15 lieutenant at that time.¶

16 : Right.¶

17 : Fairly regularly.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : And during the morning¶

20 watch. So, this one was sent, from her, on¶

21 Saturday, August 10th, 2019, at 9:26 a.m. It¶

22 says, these are the August 10th, 2019. Daily¶

23 activity report. And then, we got the daily¶

24 lieutenant's log here.¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : So, where would this -?¶

2 This is just out of order. This should have¶

3 been first. So, Friday, August 9th, 2019, she¶

4 sends one at -. So, first, I want to ask this¶

5 question. So, on Friday, August 9th, 2019, she¶

6 sends one at 5:11 a.m.¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : And Saturday, she sends¶

9 it at August 10th, 2019, at 9:26 a.m.¶

10 : Mm-hmm.¶

11 : And on Sunday, August¶

12 11th, 2019, she sends it at 6:15 a.m.¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : Now, reviewing all of the¶

15 lieutenant logs that came out prior to that¶

16 time, they are all sent out pretty much between¶

17 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. --¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : -- by all the various --¶

20 : Right.¶

21 ops lieutenants. Do¶

22 you find it odd that she didn't send this one¶

23 out until 9:26 a.m., being that, I know Epstein¶

24 was found at 6:33 a.m., but typically, they¶

25 were sent out much earlier than that.¶

1¶

2¶

: Mrn-hmm.¶

: Is that -? I know she¶

3 sent it out after the incident, and after, you¶

4 know, everything happened, but do you think it¶

5 was weird that she sent that one out at 9:26¶

6 a.m. versus prior to that 6:33 a.m., when her¶

7 shift ends at 6:00 a.m.?¶

8 : I mean¶

9 MR. : She was relieved at 5:30 a.m.¶

10 by Lieutenant¶

11 : That's what I'm saying. She¶

12 wasn't at the -. When I got there, Lieutenant¶

13 was the lieutenant --¶

14 : Correct.¶

15 : -- who contacted me¶

16 regarding -.¶

17 : She was supposed to be¶

18 gone by 5:30 a.m.¶

19 : So, yeah. I don't know. If¶

20 she left at 5:30 or whatever, and I don't know¶

21 how they (Indiscernible *02:13:07).¶

22 : Well, that's when she was¶

23 relieved. She didn't leave until after this¶

24 was sent out at 9:26 a.m.¶

25 : I don't recall her being in¶

1 the institution around then.¶

2 : She - after Epstein was¶

3 found - she actually went into the SHU. She¶

4 helped with feeding. And then, she went back,¶

5 and she did some things on the computer.¶

6 : I thought --¶

7 : And she sent it.¶

8 : I thought relieved¶

9 her, and she left.¶

10 : At 5:30 a.m., she was¶

11 relieved. She stuck around because she said¶

12 she had work to do. After Epstein was found,¶

13 she came to the SHU, and assisted¶

14 , who also wasn't working in the SHU, but¶

15 was there because he was the Comtech guy. And,¶

16 at the time, was gone. was there.¶

17 But at some point, left.¶

18 : And I'm looking at this, but¶

19 I was under the impression, when had told¶

20 me he had relieved her, and she left.¶

21 : So, do you find that odd,¶

22 then, that she was still there until --¶

23 : Until 9:30.¶

24 at least 9:30 a.m.?¶

25 : Yeah. I didn't, I didn't¶

1 Yeah.¶

2 : This is the first you're¶

3 hearing of this?¶

4 : Yeah. Because when I was¶

5 told she was gone. So, unless --¶

6 : Because you wanted to¶

7 talk with her?¶

8 : -- no. I mean, he relieved¶

9 her. So, I guess, technically, when you¶

10 relieve somebody, then it becomes your issue.¶

11 So, I was talking to Lieutenant . But I¶

12 didn't want, you know, I assumed she was the¶

13 one that -. But I heard she had left. I¶

14 didn't know she had come back.¶

15 : She allegedly did not¶

16 come back. She allegedly was there¶

17 : There.¶

18 : -- the entire time.¶

19 : So then, that is kind of¶

20 odd, because usually, your log is completed¶

21 before you leave.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : On your log, you will write¶

24 on there, relieved by such and such.¶

25 : So, is that suspicious to¶

1 you at all?¶

2 : Kind of. Yeah. But I'm¶

3 curious as to why you didn't log it down¶

4 something.¶

5 : Now, why -? What kind of¶

6 employee is¶

7 : Had some issues with her. I¶

8 mean, I don't want to -. You know, everything¶

9 that is going on is an allegation. So, I don't¶

10 want to go speaking on allegations that I have¶

11 sent up.¶

12 : Was she a problem¶

13 employee, then?¶

14 : I had some issues. Yeah.¶

15 : Any reason why she¶

16 believed that she might be involved with¶

17 Epstein and his death?¶

18 : Oh, no. I wouldn't put it¶

19 as far as that. I mean, but it is just, I¶

20 wouldn't. And I don't know --¶

21 : She's (Indiscernible¶

22 *02:15:29) to tell. I mean --¶

23 : I mean --¶

24 : -- (Indiscernible *02:15:29).¶

25 : -- that's why I went over -.¶

1 Can you rephrase your question, like, what are¶

2 we saying?¶

3 : Yeah. I mean, I'm going¶

4 all the way to -. I just ramped it up to 100¶

5 miles an hour. I'm just saying all the way to¶

6¶

7 : I can't --¶

8 : -- to probably, could you¶

9 -. Was there any reason to believe that she¶

10 could be potentially involved with this?¶

11 : As far as doing harm to him?¶

12 : Keeping his cell door¶

13 open. And letting another cell door open for¶

14 someone else. You know --¶

15 : I wouldn't --¶

16 : -- anything like that.¶

17 : I wouldn't see that.¶

18 : No?¶

19 : I couldn't see that. No.¶

20 : No reason to believe it¶

21 would go that far, just maybe insubordination¶

22 is the highest that she goes?¶

23 : Yeah. I would, you know,¶

24¶

25 : She --¶

1 : -- she has the allegations¶

2 up. I know you guys were seeing the¶

3 allegations. So, I, yeah, but I wouldn't go¶

4 that far. But I can't -.¶

5 : Well, is she in a position to¶

6 do something like that?¶

7 : What?¶

8 : To leave the door open, or¶

9 something that's egregious?¶

10 : She does lieutenant¶

11 rounds.¶

12 : Yeah.¶

13 : She's the ops lieutenant.¶

14 : She is in position to do that.¶

15 : But remember, when you are¶

16 going down range and the range door keys, you¶

17 can't have both. Somebody would have to let¶

18 her down there.¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : And those keys. Those keys¶

21 go down.¶

22 : Do you know if she was¶

23 particularly friendly with either or¶

24¶

25 : I don't know what their¶

1 relationship was. She was the shift¶

2 lieutenant. So, I don't know what¶

3 relationships. Who she's had (Indiscernible¶

4 *02:16:48).¶

5 MR. : For the 8th, I just realized¶

6 we might not have the daily log for it.¶

7 : Fortunately, I brought¶

8 backups of different things. So, I think I got¶

9¶

10 : Jesus Christ.¶

11 MR. : The 9th and the 10th is in¶

12 there.¶

13 : I keep looking at this pile.¶

14 I think those eff'ing sons a bitches are¶

15 working hard.¶

16 : I don't think the 9th is¶

17 in there.¶

18 : Yeah.¶

19 : Just the 10th.¶

20 : Yeah.¶

21 MR. : No, no. It's the second set.¶

22 : No, that's the 10th.¶

23 MR. : No, the dates are¶

24 : Can I say -?¶

25 MR. : -- the following dates.¶

1 Sorry.¶

2 : Can I see the time¶

3 (Indiscernible *02:17:14)?¶

4 MR. : Just, I just want to confirm¶

5 with that.¶

6 : Of course. Yeah, yeah.¶

7 Okay. That's the August 9th.¶

8 MR. : Yeah.¶

9 : Okay. Great.¶

10 MR. : So, those two.¶

11 : Yeah.¶

12 MR. : That's the previous date we¶

13 don't have.¶

14 : All right.¶

15 (Indiscernible *02:17:25) right now. All¶

16 right. So, what did you want to see?¶

17 : I wanted to see that 9:26¶

18 one.¶

19 : Yeah. So, that is --¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 : -- and this is what we¶

22 were going to show you, is the count numbers,¶

23 that's what we are getting at next.¶

24 : Wait. Which is the one -?¶

25 : So, this is from Friday,¶

1 August 9th.¶

2 : Okay. This is at what time?¶

3 MR. : This just, that says morning¶

4 watch.¶

5 : Ish.¶

6 : Yeah, but why is it saying¶

7 the 10th?¶

8 MR. : So, it was, the email was¶

9 sent out on the 10th morning. Right? But when¶

10¶

11 : So, she was -. Her --¶

12 MR. : -- she included everything -¶

13¶

14 : -- shift --¶

15 MR. : -- everything from the¶

16 previous day.¶

17 : Yeah, but this is August¶

18 9th.¶

19 : They sent it out the day¶

20 after.¶

21 : Epstein is back.¶

22 : So, see this one? This¶

23 one is sent out on Sunday, August 11th, for the¶

24 day prior, starting --¶

25 : Right. So --¶

1 : -- Saturday, August 10th.¶

2 no, I get that. So, she¶

3 started. Her shift was morning watch on¶

4 Friday. Okay? So, she goes to 12:00. So, she¶

5 is relieved by Lieutenant¶

6 MR. : So, no, no.¶

7 : No, this is This should¶

8 be Thursday into Friday.¶

9 MR. : Yes.¶

10 : Okay. No. I --¶

11 MR. : So then, it goes¶

12 : -- yeah. See. I thought¶

13 this was --¶

14 MR. -- into day watch.¶

15 : -- the day of. Then you go¶

16 to day watch, and it goes to evening watch.¶

17 Now, what is the -? Which log is it for the¶

18 day of?¶

19 : So, this is the day of.¶

20 MR. : Mm-hmm.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : And this is, we are going¶

23 to get into. So, this one is the day before,¶

24 August 9th, when Reyes left, and we can look to¶

25 see on here, as well, where it says -. So, if¶

1 we go to this 8:38 on the lieutenant's log, it¶

2 says that Reyes is pre-removed. Right here.¶

3 "Reyes to pre-remove at 8:38 a.m."¶

4 : Okay. So --¶

5 : That is August 9th, 2019.¶

6 So, we're going to go all the way down to¶

7 The one thing, I guess --¶

8 MR. : So, the count --¶

9 : -- we want to look at is,¶

10 here, we got this individual, lam Fernandez¶

11 (Phonetic Sp. *02:19:31). Who is on dry cell¶

12 with staff in R&D watch.¶

13 : Right.¶

14 : From the SHU. So, if you¶

15 look at the count -. Where the heck is the -?¶

16 : Okay. So, I just want to go¶

17 back to clarify something with --¶

18 : Yup.¶

19 : -- with Lieutenant¶

20 So, we are saying this is at 9:23, she did it.¶

21 Right?¶

22 : 9:26.¶

23 : So - 9:26 --¶

24 : She did it.¶

25 : -- this was on¶

1 MR. : The 10th morning. Saturday¶

2 morning.¶

3 : -- this is when she sent it¶

4 out.¶

5 : Correct. Like, three¶

6 hours after Epstein was found.¶

7 : And this is¶

8 : (Indiscernible¶

9 *02:20:03).¶

10 : -- Friday's log.¶

11 : Correct.¶

12 : That that's -.¶

13 : But they - the same¶

14 thing, though - they all seem to sending it out¶

15 the day before.¶

16 : The day before. And then,¶

17 she sent the day before logs out on Saturday.¶

18 Yeah.¶

19 MR. : She combined it. If you look¶

20 through it, it has everything combined.¶

21 : Right.¶

22 MR. : It goes from morning watch,¶

23 day watch, evening watch, into¶

24 : Right. But I'm just -.¶

25 That should have been done the day before.¶

1 Okay.¶

2 : I don't think you're¶

3 right, bud. I think she's just doing the 9th.¶

4 The next day does the 10th.¶

5 : Yeah. That's right.¶

6 MR. : Yeah. Okay.¶

7 : (Indiscernible *02:20:41)¶

8 combined.¶

9 : Yeah. That's what --¶

10 MR. : Okay.¶

11 : -- that's why I'm a little¶

12 confused about.¶

13 : Yeah. No. She's not --¶

14 MR. : Because when she came¶

15 : -- she does the day¶

16 before.¶

17 MR. : -- she came on shift at 10:00¶

18 p.m.¶

19 : She started her shift at¶

20 10:00 --¶

21 MR. : 10:00 p.m.¶

22 : -- p.m.¶

23 MR. : Of the 9th --¶

24 : And worked until --¶

25 MR. : -- evening.¶

1 : -- 6:00 a.m., but got¶

2 relieved at 5:30. So --¶

3 : That's right.¶

4 : -- yeah.¶

5 : The lieutenants were working¶

6 from 10:00. 10:00 to 6:00.¶

7 : Correct. Because the, we¶

8 were told because of traffic issues --¶

9 : Yeah.¶

10 : -- or something else.¶

11 : And short -. Yeah.¶

12 : So, what we want to, and¶

13 I want to kind of reference here is, Iam¶

14 Fernandez on dry cell, with SHU staff and R&D.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : And the end of this shows¶

17 72.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : So, on August 9th, 2019,¶

20 at 11:59 a.m. - or August 10th, 2019, at 12:00¶

21 a.m. - there is supposed to be 72 inmates,¶

22 according to this log that sent¶

23 out.¶

24 : Right.¶

25 : There is supposed to only¶

1 be 72 inmates there.¶

2 : Right.¶

3 : Now, look at the shift¶

4 for August 10th, when this person started their¶

5 shift, there was 73.¶

6 : So --¶

7 : And the institutional¶

8 logs --¶

9 right.¶

10 : -- show at 12:00 a.m.,¶

11 there were - or so, that looks like - so, there¶

12 is -. Let's go. So, for ZA, there shows 75 at¶

13 the 4:00 p.m. count. The 10:00 p.m. count,¶

14 there shows 73. And then, at the midnight¶

15 count, there it says 72. However, the count¶

16 slips, if you recall¶

17 MR. : 73.¶

18 : -- where are the count¶

19 slips? So, it is --¶

20 MR. : The counts.¶

21 : -- it says the SHU¶

22 submitted a count slip for 73 at 12:00 a.m.¶

23 Here you go. So, that is not the count. Oh,¶

24 yeah. There. So, see? 12:00 a.m., they¶

25 submit it. submitted 73.¶

1 Although, the institutional count says 72.¶

2 Now, not, but the next one¶

3 shows that, the next ops lieutenant shows that¶

4 73 is what is written in this. She went back¶

5 and changed 72, the day before, with the 9:30,¶

6 because it was determined --¶

7 : That he was on the outcount,¶

8 and on --¶

9 : -- oh, yeah.¶

10 -- (Indiscernible¶

11 *02:22:57).¶

12 : And so, Fernandez was¶

13 never removed -. So, look at -. It shows it¶

14 on this. "One SHU correction. Fernandez dry¶

15 cell." So, at 12:35 a.m., and we do have¶

16 Fernandez right here.¶

17 MR. : Looking back.¶

18 : Okay. So, this just¶

19 says, this is what happened with him. He was¶

20 found to have contraband, that he was providing¶

21 to a visitor in the SHU, at approximately,¶

22 like, I think 1:00 p.m. on August 9th. He was¶

23 moved from the SHU to dry cell. And he was¶

24 never --¶

25 : Keyed in.¶

1 : -- keyed out.¶

2 : What - yeah - what they¶

3 should --¶

4 : Keyed out of the SHU.¶

5 So, the institutional counts were reflecting --¶

6 : 73.¶

7 : -- 73. That is what the¶

8 SHU continued reporting. 73. Because that is¶

9 what - that's what, according to the system,¶

10 was supposed to be in there. But if they had¶

11 physically --¶

12 : Counted.¶

13 : -- counted --¶

14 : They would have known --¶

15 : -- it would have¶

16 : -- he wasn't there.¶

17 : -- been 72. Correct?¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : So, with this¶

20 information, and I guess as the warden, would¶

21 that suggest to you that they were not actually¶

22 conducting their counts?¶

23 : They weren't counting. And¶

24 then, there is no count slip here for the¶

25 inmate that was on dry cell in R&D.¶

1¶

2¶

: Right.¶

: There should have been a¶

3 count slip for him over there. So, what should¶

4 have happened was, the inmate - him - he should¶

5 have been outcounted in R&D. And then, the¶

6 R&D, you would have seen one. So, there was a¶

7 count slip. Whoever is sitting and watching¶

8 him should have did a count slip on him. And¶

9 then, whoever his back up was should have done¶

10 a count slip.¶

11 : And this is, from my¶

12 review of everything --¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : -- this is what I found.¶

15 I don't want to put my words into¶

16 mouth, but let me know if this makes sense to¶

17 you. It says, "Count discrepancy on the August¶

18 9th, 2019. Per the daily activity report dated¶

19 August 10th, 2019, and the attachment¶

20 lieutenant log from August 9th, 2019." So,¶

21 that's what we are looking at here.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : "The day began with 77¶

24 inmates assigned to ZA." Or the SHU. "The¶

25 5:00 a.m. El institution count, respective ZA¶

1 SHU count slips, eyes on count shows 77. At¶

2 8:38 a.m., inmate Reyes is pre-removed from ZA¶

3 for count, and taken off the lieutenant log.¶

4 The accurate ZA SHU count moves down to 76.¶

5 Reyes was removed from the institution and does¶

6 not - and should not - appear on any counts at¶

7 this time.¶

8 At 3:15 p.m., inmate Fernandez was placed¶

9 on RA dry cell from ZA, which moves the¶

10 accurate ZA count down to 75 on the lieutenant¶

11 log. The 4:00 p.m. El shows a total of 76¶

12 inmates assigned to ZA." With one in attorney¶

13 conference, which was Epstein. "This indicates¶

14 that Fernandez was not keyed out of the SHU,¶

15 and keyed into RA. The ZA eyes on count slip¶

16 shows 75. Inaccurate.¶

17 It should have reflected 74 because,¶

18 although there were 75 inmates assigned to the¶

19 SHU, Epstein was in attorney conference. There¶

20 were no inmates assigned to RA on the El¶

21 institutional count, and there was no count¶

22 slip for RA, eyes on count." This is where the¶

23 problem begins.¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : "At 6:34 p.m., inmate¶

1 Hemingway is moved to ZA, and brings it down to¶

2 74. 6:47 p.m., inmate (Phonetic Sp.¶

3 *02:26:10) is moved from ZA to ES, bringing it¶

4 down to 73. At 8:21 p.m., Felix (Phonetic Sp.¶

5 *02:26:15) and William is moved to ZA, to¶

6 suicide watch, bringing the accurate count down¶

7 to 71. At 8:28 p.m., inmate Garcia Pina¶

8 (Phonetic Sp. *02:26:23) is moved from K into¶

9 ZA, bringing the accurate count up to 72.¶

10 The 10:00 p.m. El shows a total of 73¶

11 inmates assigned to the ZA, but zero inmates¶

12 assigned to RA. The ZA eyes on count slip¶

13 shows 73." Oh, this is another one. I don't¶

14 think we brought this. "One of the counts¶

15 actually shows 73 plus one." Do we have that¶

16 in there?¶

17 MR. : The 10:00 p.m.¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : I admire your guys'¶

20 (Indiscernible *02:26:48).¶

21 : Yeah. You would also¶

22 This is all probably --¶

23 MR. : 73 (Indiscernible *02:26:52).¶

24 • -- all Chinese to you.¶

25 : That's how our count slips -¶

1¶

2 : -- now, I did foreign¶

3 language --¶

4 : I don't understand --¶

5 : -- should be done.¶

6 : -- the fuck are you talking¶

7 about.¶

8 : Yeah, yeah, yeah.¶

9 : Huh.¶

10 : This is¶

11 : All these initials, and this,¶

12 and that.¶

13 : -- but the count --¶

14 : So, which is interesting¶

15 is all of these are, as you notice, crossed¶

16 off.¶

17 right.¶

18 : These two are not crossed¶

19 off. This one says 9S + 1. This one says 73 +¶

20 1. The question had been, when did this¶

21 happen?¶

22 : Yeah.¶

23 : When did they put these¶

24 plus ones, or why weren't they crossed out?¶

25 : But you can't do a -. This¶

1 is an inaccurate count slip. Because you are¶

2 supposed to have the accurate count. You can't¶

3 do -. If this is 73 + 1, then you should have¶

4 74 on there.¶

5 : Or, in this case, it¶

6 should be 73 minus one because the accurate¶

7 count was actually 72.¶

8 : No, but you wouldn't write¶

9 minus one on there. You would write the actual¶

10 count on there.¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : So --¶

13 : Okay.¶

14 : -- either it was 72 or 74.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : But there is no --¶

17 : All right. Guys, I'm going to¶

18¶

19 : -- such thing as --¶

20 : -- splash water on my face¶

21 again.¶

22 : -- okay. There is no such¶

23 thing --¶

24 : You guys are getting ready to¶

25 kill me.¶

1 : -- there is no such thing as¶

2 plus one on the --¶

3 : Right.¶

4 on that.¶

5 : You're not allowed to¶

6 ghost count. Correct?¶

7 : No. No. There should have¶

8 been an outcount done. So, and this should¶

9 have been caught, whoever the shift lieutenant¶

10 was, because they have to, you know, on each¶

11 shift, conduct a count, and review the count¶

12 slips.¶

13 : Does this tell you¶

14 anything, though, that these were crossed off,¶

15 and these weren't?¶

16 : Yeah. Unless, I don't know¶

17 why --¶

18 : Do you think that they¶

19 were replaced at a later date, or -?¶

20 : I mean, it gives the¶

21 appearance. Because at first, I would want to¶

22 know, why you cross out. Why these --¶

23 : They cross out because,¶

24 as things come in --¶

25 : No.¶

: -- you check it off.¶

: So, that's what I want to¶

know. Like, whose habit is this? Like, okay,¶

I'm looking at -.¶

MR. : So, basically, I think it's¶

standard practice, as a control officer? : No. I mean, I've worked¶

control, and what I would do is, I would do the¶

check off, if I'm doing this. I've never -.¶

And that's people's style.¶

: Okay.¶

: That might be their style.¶

So, I just want to know -.¶

: This one is¶

(Phonetic Sp. *02:28:46), I believe.¶

: Huh?¶

MR.¶

_:¶

: So then --¶

: This one.¶

: -- then that's how does¶

it. So, my question is then, why isn't this¶

done --¶

: Right.¶

: -- like that. I mean,¶

this, if does it like that, then that's¶

1 his consistent way of checking it out. But if¶

2 this is all on that shift -.¶

3 : But point being, you will¶

4 agree, this indicates that, from 4:00 p.m. on,¶

5 the counts were not conducted. Correct?¶

6 : No. They weren't done¶

7 right.¶

8 : The SHU counts?¶

9 : Yeah.¶

10 : Okay. Then we don't need¶

11 to really go into too much --¶

12 : Mm-hmm.¶

13 : -- detail with that. Is¶

14 this the first that you are seeing this?¶

15 : Yeah. I haven't seen that¶

16 before.¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 : This was still on the counts?¶

19 : No.¶

20 : Now, we're going to move¶

21 on because the warden agrees that there is not¶

22 really reason to really dig further, because he¶

23 agrees this clearly shows that the counts were¶

24 not conducted in the SHU, from a certain time¶

25 on.¶

1 MR. : Do you want to ask about the¶

2 Fernandez key?¶

3 : What about it?¶

4 MR. : Who's responsible?¶

5 : So, Fernandez -. Oh, can¶

6 you just - sorry - would you mind signing,¶

7 initialing and just dating? If Fernandez was¶

8 actually removed from the SHU --¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : -- and placed onto R, you¶

11 know, RA dry cell, or R&D dry cell, oh, RA and¶

12 R&D are interchangeable. Correct?¶

13 : RA --¶

14 : Because RA for - RA, I¶

15 believe, is what it shows in the count slip,¶

16 but it stands for the R&D --¶

17 : That's the R&D --¶

18 : -- right?¶

19 area. I believe. Yeah.¶

20 : So, if he's actually¶

21 moved there around the 3:00 p.m., on August¶

22 9th, 2019, who would have been responsible for¶

23 keying him out of the SHU, and placing him into¶

24 the RA, so that the count would be accurately¶

25 reflected?¶

1 : SHU would have notified¶

2 control center, that we are moving one over to¶

3 R&D.¶

4 : And by that notification,¶

5 do they also say, can you please key him out,¶

6 and into? Or is that just automatically done¶

7 by control?¶

8 : Well, the notification is¶

9 made to control that inmate such and such is¶

10 being placed on dry cell in R&D. And then, you¶

11 key the inmate to that area.¶

12 : Sure.¶

13 MR. : So, I'll give you a quick¶

14 background. It looks like¶

15 : Who is that?¶

16 : Right.¶

17 MR. witnessed this.¶

18 : (Indiscernible¶

19 *02:31:02).¶

20 : Uh-huh.¶

21 MR. : And he wrote up the shot.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 MR. : And he called the lieutenant.¶

24 He requested the lieutenant.¶

25 : Right.¶

1 MR. : And it looks like he¶

2 requested the lieutenant, but he never notified¶

3 control --¶

4 : Okay.¶

5 MR. : -- that an inmate was being¶

6 moved. Right? If - and I'm (Indiscernible¶

7 *02:31:20).¶

8 : Well, no, no, no, no. I¶

9 wouldn't (Indiscernible *02:31:21) --¶

10 MR. : He doesn't recall --¶

11 : I wouldn't -.¶

12 : But then, while the counts¶

13 are going on, there is somebody in R&D. So,¶

14 whoever is sitting in R&D should know that I¶

15 need to do a count slip because I have an¶

16 inmate down there.¶

17 : Is this where somebody¶

18 disappears, that we're looking for?¶

19 : Right.¶

20 : Again, I told you, this¶

21 was more of an administrative thing. Just to¶

22 say what does the warden, you know, and the¶

23 boss of this place, what is his take on these¶

24 matters? Because as you have gathered, a lot¶

25 of things went wrong this day. So, we need to¶

1 figure out why these things went wrong. So,¶

2 this is -. Let me just make sure, before we¶

3 move on, that I got everything. All right?¶

4 So, first, before we get into rounds, when a¶

5 lieutenant conducts a round in the SHU --¶

6 : Mm-hmm.¶

7 : -- are they required to¶

8 conduct a round of the inmates going up and¶

9 down the different tiers, or does the round¶

10 consist of just checking in with the officers¶

11 to make sure everything is okay?¶

12 : Well, you check the officer¶

13 to make sure they are all right, and you check¶

14 the documentation. So, you check, you know,¶

15 you edit, you would have to review the post¶

16 orders also. To state what their duties are.¶

17 I mean, all of us had different, you know, I¶

18 was a lieutenant, so it was different things¶

19 you did, but I always checked the 292s, to make¶

20 sure, you know, the officers checked off, you¶

21 know, if the person ate or not. Any medical.¶

22 I would check to see if medical came up. So,¶

23 it would factor and depend on what shift you¶

24 went on. You know, the day shift, the inmates¶

25 are up, so you're going, you know, you can go¶

1 around. Evening shift, you can see what's¶

2 going on. The midnight shift, they're¶

3 sleeping. But you are definitely checking a¶

4 30-minute log, to see if the inmates are doing¶

5 their 30-minute checks. And, you know, just¶

6 documentation.¶

7 : Now, as the warden, did¶

8 you expect your lieutenants, though, to go down¶

9 range when they were doing their lieutenant¶

10 visits in the SHU? Their rounds. And this is¶

11 specifically when they are, like, signing off¶

12 on the different, like, on, as you can see,¶

13 this is what I'm going to be showing you.¶

14 These are round sheets that --¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : -- you sent to Mr.¶

17 , where it shows the different¶

18 lieutenants signed on/off that they did their¶

19 round.¶

20 : But what does --¶

21 : So, what does that -?¶

22 : -- what the lieutenants are¶

23 checking for is accuracy of the officer's¶

24 rounds.¶

25 : Okay. This is -.¶

1 : So, what they are checking¶

2 is, okay, were the 30-minute infrequent checks¶

3 done? Now, if there is an easy, that they are¶

4 not being done, you know, so, you know, then it¶

5 needs to be annotated and said, okay, this is¶

6 what the issue was. But if they are signing¶

7 it, they are kind of acknowledging that, you¶

8 know, that the time that the round will put¶

9 down, that they were down.¶

10 : Now, what would be -?¶

11 This is the round, it looks lie for 8/8. Can¶

12 you think of a reason why these wouldn't be¶

13 done? But they would be signed off on right¶

14 here?¶

15 : Let me see. So, if a¶

16 lieutenant made rounds and saw this thing was¶

17 empty like this, then it is a problem.¶

18 : Because you have this¶

19 8/8. And then, there is zero rounds showing¶

20 that they were conducted, but this lieutenant¶

21 signed it.¶

22 : That's a problem.¶

23 : The same thing. We go,¶

24 this whole thing. So, this whole shift looks¶

25 like they didn't even sign it until here. On¶

1 8/8.¶

2 : Wait. Did you print these¶

3 off the logbook, or -?¶

4 : This is what you sent to¶

5¶

6 : Right.¶

7 : On Saturday, August 10th,¶

8 at 6:21 p.m.¶

9 : Now, the only other thing I¶

10 can think of, and when I had gathered¶

11 something, I might have said, because the¶

12 checks are done at, like -. No, these are 30-¶

13 minute checks, so they --¶

14 : This is also --¶

15 : -- you know, these are --¶

16 : -- this is the day, this¶

17 is two days before Epstein was found.¶

18 no, this is No.¶

19 was thinking of the log. The log did it¶

20 electronic. But this, no. This --¶

21 : We have the electronic¶

22 version.¶

23 : -- yeah. This is¶

24 : Which one?¶

25 no, this is -. That¶

1 means --¶

2 : So, this is just wrong?¶

3 yeah. This is wrong.¶

4 : Should have this¶

5 lieutenant signed that?¶

6 : No. He should have signed¶

7 it. They should have put something --¶

8 : Okay.¶

9 listed as some¶

10 discrepancy, why the checks weren't done.¶

11 : And on these, whereas it¶

12 looks like, this lieutenant is signing, it¶

13 looks like probably because these are done. Do¶

14 you think that is the reason why this¶

15 individual hadn't signed these? Because these¶

16 weren't correct?¶

17 : Probably. I can't speculate¶

18 on that.¶

19 : Because it says --¶

20 : I can't.¶

21 : -- reviewed by morning¶

22 watch lieutenant. Where they do that, well,¶

23 that lieutenant does start signing it here,¶

24 where they are now filled out.¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : For the same date.¶

2 : So, this looks - hey, I¶

3 don't know who it was - but this looks¶

4 (Indiscernible *02:36:10) worked it.¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : Let me see how those 30-¶

7 minute. That's the same one. I don't know who¶

8 it was. Who it was.¶

9 : Okay. So, that was¶

10 (Indiscernible *02:36:19). Certainly go look,¶

11 but whomever it was during those shift. And¶

12 then, we get into, it looks like,¶

13 (Indiscernible *02:36:30) still. And these.¶

14 Here is the 8/9. Where --¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : -- it's signed off,¶

17 signed off, until 2:00 p.m.¶

18 : That's a problem.¶

19 : After that, no sign off.¶

20 Same thing.¶

21 : Yeah.¶

22 : That's just when I think¶

23 left his shift, or somewhere around¶

24 that time. So -.¶

25 : The point of this, if I may¶

1 ask, is we got a miscount, right?¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : We're not --¶

4 : This is --¶

5 : -- we've moved on from¶

6 counts. Now we're on rounds.¶

7 : Okay. Now, counts. The¶

8 significance of the counts is, at some point,¶

9 Reyes disappears?¶

10 : No. The significance of¶

11 the counts is that, if inmates - or if the¶

12 staff members aren't conducting counts and -¶

13 counts are to the accountability of the¶

14 inmates, to make sure everybody is there.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : Rounds --¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : -- are basically to make¶

19 sure everyone is alive and breathing. Is that¶

20 correct, sir?¶

21 : You are right. Counts are¶

22 accountability, and then, the 30-minute checks¶

23 are basically safety checks.¶

24 : So, the point of these¶

25 questioning is, it looks like at - what we just¶

1 finished was counts - we have shown that the¶

2 staff members were not conducting their counts.¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : Right. Because that is why¶

5 you have 72 when it should be --¶

6 : Now we are doing rounds.¶

7 : -- (Indiscernible *02:37:41).¶

8 : To find out were the¶

9 staff members conducting their rounds.¶

10 : Got it.¶

11 : And again, we have, in¶

12 this case, a very high-profile inmate that was¶

13 deceased. Became deceased at some point.¶

14 : And they think --¶

15 : And --¶

16 : -- plus it's whether they¶

17 : -- yeah, it --¶

18 : -- noticed on their rounds¶

19 that the guy was deceased.¶

20 : -- if they were¶

21 conducting --¶

22 : Or -.¶

23 : -- rounds at all. And if¶

24 they were conducting rounds, would that be -¶

25 and this is a question to you, like, we'll ask¶

1 you now, since I'm making that explanation -¶

2 they were conducting their rounds, would that¶

3 be a way to at least try to help ensure that¶

4 inmates such as Epstein were alive and well? I¶

5 know it's not going to prevent it in every¶

6 case, but is that part of the reason, to make¶

7 sure that, if they are conducting a round, you¶

8 are checking to see if they are alive, and they¶

9 are breathing.¶

10 : It is true, but I mean, and¶

11 because I mean, an inmate can, you know, you¶

12 can do your 30-minute rounds, and if they want¶

13 to do their harm to themselves, they are going¶

14 to do it.¶

15 : Right. And that goes¶

16 into play with why --¶

17 : They just¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : -- they just look, they do¶

20 rounds by looking in their cell.¶

21 : Right.¶

22 : So, if you want to --¶

23 : To check.¶

24 : -- do harm, you just wait¶

25 until they go passed your cell.¶

1 : Right. And then, you kind¶

2 of figure out the timing of the route. But the¶

3 fact remains, if you are not showing on the¶

4 form that you did your rounds, then that's a¶

5 problem.¶

6 : So, when you are looking¶

7 at these rounds that you sent, are¶

8 you finding problems because they are not¶

9 completed correctly? You know, what we just¶

10 looked through. In fact, you know, these are¶

11 August 10th. (Indiscernible *02:39:09),¶

12 they're not signed off. There's blocks that¶

13 are not filled in.¶

14 : Yeah. Looking at them now?¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : What is the question?¶

17 : Well, does it show you¶

18 that, at least this paperwork doesn't appear to¶

19 be filled out correctly?¶

20 : Yes.¶

21 : And that is for the 8th,¶

22 as well?¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : Okay. So, that was --¶

25 : And that is something, it was¶

1 your job to pass that on to¶

2 : No. He requested --¶

3 : No, no, no, no.¶

4 : -- the information.¶

5 : This is just to show that¶

6¶

7 : Yeah.¶

8 : -- what the round sheets¶

9 that the warden sent to the regional director¶

10 were these rounds. So, it's just a matter of,¶

11 hey, do you know if these rounds were -? It¶

12 has nothing to do with his, you know, if he did¶

13 it right or not. It's, what his staff members¶

14¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : -- doing it right.¶

17 : Right.¶

18 : And who was responsible¶

19 to make sure the round sheets are done¶

20 correctly?¶

21 : Well, the staff working up¶

22 there are responsible. And then, the¶

23 supervisor is supposed to ensure that they are¶

24 doing it.¶

25 : And what is this? This¶

1 was also attached. What is that right there,¶

2 that we are looking at?¶

3 : Hmm.¶

4 : TruScope logs?¶

5 : Yeah. This looks like¶

6 TruScope. This looks like the log. And so,¶

7 like, if they are doing what areas they search.¶

8 : And these are searches?¶

9 : Yeah. These looks like¶

10 searches.¶

11 : Okay.¶

12 : Let me see that. Search.¶

13 Did the areas. Visiting. Strip room.¶

14 Recreation area. Yeah. These are¶

15 : Okay.¶

16 : -- these are search areas.¶

17 : Does it show anywhere in¶

18 there that there was any cells that were¶

19 searched, or are they just all, like, common¶

20 areas?¶

21 : No. They searched it. Look¶

22 how -. What is this? Nine South. SHU.¶

23 Completed all. These are, these looks like¶

24 everything they have done in there. The fire¶

25 and safety checks. This is - it looks like the¶

1 log.¶

2 : Okay. So, this goes with¶

3 you.¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : So, all to this. This is¶

6 something else that we asked for the BOP to¶

7 print out for us, and this one specifically one¶

8 we asked. When you send us the cell searches¶

9 that were conducted on 8/9/2019 --¶

10 : Mm-hmm.¶

11 : -- we got back one. By¶

12 Mr.¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : It say that it was¶

15 conducted at 12:36 p.m.¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : On 8/9/2019.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : Is that a problem? That¶

20 only one cell search was conducted in the SHU?¶

21 According to, at least according to TruScope.¶

22 : Because I believe the post¶

23 orders state it is supposed to be - and don't¶

24 quote me on it --¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : -- you have to look at the¶

2 post orders - but they state, I think five a¶

3 shift. A minimum of five.¶

4 : It's five, I believe --¶

5 : Yeah.¶

6 : -- for the night watch.¶

7 The day watch, I believe, is more. And the¶

8 morning¶

9 : They're supposed to do five --¶

10 : -- watch is just¶

11 (Indiscernible *02:41:59).¶

12 : -- cell searches?¶

13 : No, no. Each shift is¶

14 minimum of five.¶

15 : I don't think --¶

16 : And then --¶

17 : -- that includes that¶

18 morning watch, though¶

19 the morning watch is¶

20 : -- because there's --¶

21 : -- area.¶

22 : -- right.¶

23 : Yeah. You are --¶

24 : Common areas.¶

25 : -- picking the common area.¶

1 : So, let me get this clear.¶

2 : Yeah.¶

3 : You are supposed to do five¶

4 cell shifts, five cell searches per shift?¶

5 : Yes. That is -.¶

6 : All right. And in this case,¶

7 there is only an indication that they did one?¶

8 : One. Right?¶

9 : One the whole day.¶

10 : One the day whole.¶

11 : Not per shift. The whole¶

12 day.¶

13 : Okay. Now, whose job is it --¶

14 : No.¶

15 : -- to say why aren't you doing¶

16 those? I was going to use the F word. Why¶

17 aren't you doing all the cell shifts?¶

18 : Well, this is, this is my¶

19 question to the warden is, is that a problem,¶

20 that there was only one logged into TruScope?¶

21 : Mm-hmm. It is a problem.¶

22 : Does that indicate that¶

23 the cells were not being searched, to you? Or¶

24 that they just weren't logging them in?¶

25 : And again, whoever was¶

1 working that day, you're going to have to ask¶

2 them. I mean --¶

3 : And we have.¶

4 : -- looking at --¶

5 : And it was just --¶

6 : -- looking on paper, I mean,¶

7 it shows you didn't, you didn't conduct your¶

8 searches.¶

9 : Okay.¶

10 : I mean, now, there might¶

11 have been a reason where the person said, okay,¶

12 the computers were down or whatever, but it is¶

13 highly unlikely for -.¶

14 : So, but you are literally¶

15 going into a cell and search it? Does that¶

16 mean --¶

17 : Yeah, yeah.¶

18 : -- you throw over the¶

19 mattresses, the whole thing?¶

20 : No. You pull them out. You¶

21 look at --¶

22 : Okay.¶

23 : -- look and check the¶

24 lockers. You check under their stuff. You¶

25 know, and you typically do it, like on certain¶

1 days when the guys are going out to take a¶

2 shower, you might go out and do that.¶

3 : So, with your suggestion¶

4 that computers could be down and things like¶

5 that, as you can see from the email attachment¶

6 that you said, there are certainly plenty of¶

7 searches that were entered in there¶

8 : Oh.¶

9 : -- but there is only one¶

10 cell search.¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : And so, I would assume,¶

13 would that indicate that the computers are¶

14 actually up and running?¶

15 : Yes. So, this one, this is¶

16 the same day?¶

17 : What are you looking --¶

18 : That could be (Indiscernible¶

19 *02:43:42).¶

20 : -- yeah, this should be¶

21 8/10, and 8/9 and 8/10.¶

22 : 8/9 --¶

23 : I would think.¶

24 reg number. Reg number.¶

25 : It shows the dates here.¶

1 I just can't see them.¶

2 : Yeah. Change base. Yeah.¶

3 This is a search one. This is the log.¶

4 : Okay. So, problematic,¶

5 in your opinion?¶

6 : Yes. It is.¶

7 : All right. So, not only¶

8 searching them, but is it equally as important¶

9 to actually log it in, as well, so that we know¶

10 whether things are being searched?¶

11 : Yes. You should log it.¶

12 : All right. Now, this,¶

13 this comes to the kind of question on this.¶

14 When Epstein was found, are you aware that he¶

15 was in a cell that didn't coincide with what¶

16 his inmate history quarters, and what the BOP¶

17 database said, where he should have been? He¶

18 was in the wrong cell.¶

19 : I did hear, afterwards, that¶

20 there were some issues with Sentry and the way¶

21 they keyed into the cells.¶

22 : All right. And what did¶

23 you hear?¶

24 : I think, just that the cell,¶

25 the way the inmates were being keyed in was¶

1 off, it didn't match this cell.¶

2 : Right.¶

3 : That.¶

4 : So, yeah, his assigned¶

5 cell within the BOP database was not where he¶

6 was located --¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : -- in person. At least¶

9 when he was found on August 10th, 2019.¶

10 : Right.¶

11 : Now, is that something that is¶

12 - I should shut up, right?¶

13 : No, no. I'm good.¶

14 : Go ahead.¶

15 : Now, is that something that¶

16 goes on up to you? Is that your responsibility¶

17 to see where guys are being celled?¶

18 : No. But I mean --¶

19 : Yeah. Most of my¶

20 questions to him isn't that --¶

21 : Right.¶

22 : -- it's his¶

23 responsibility, it's whose responsibility was¶

24 it?¶

25 : Okay. Got it.¶

1¶

2¶

: And then -.¶

: So, who should have made¶

3 sure that Epstein's cell, in the BOP database,¶

4 matched where he was physically located?¶

5 Because obviously, people get a hold of the¶

6 information that he wasn't in his assigned¶

7 cell. You know, that is just more reason to¶

8 people not trusting the government. So, we are¶

9 just trying to figure out -.¶

10 : Well, and this is not a¶

11 problem limited to one person. It is a problem¶

12 - and I think it is a Bureau-wide problem, as¶

13 far as specific keying in cells. I don't think¶

14 this was done in a malicious -.¶

15 : So, what happened here,¶

16 our investigation shows is that when he came¶

17 back from --¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : -- from suicide, or¶

20 psychological observation, he was placed into¶

21 the cell that it shows on July 30th, on this¶

22 form. However, because his - is it CPAP¶

23 (Phonetic Sp. *02:46:24)?¶

24 MR. : CPAP.¶

25 : His CPAP machine, the¶

1 cord didn't reach the plug.¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : So, they had to move him¶

4 to a different cell.¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : So, from July 30th to¶

7 August 10th, he was in the incorrectly assigned¶

8 cell. No one ever caught that. No one ever,¶

9 you know, and my thought being is, well, if¶

10 they are doing their cell searches --¶

11 : Oh, I thought you meant --¶

12 : -- wouldn't -.¶

13 : -- the cell didn't match up¶

14 with --¶

15 : No, no, they --¶

16 : -- (Indiscernible¶

17 *02:46:52).¶

18 : -- they logged him into¶

19 the cell that he was placed in, coming out of¶

20 psychological observation.¶

21 : Right.¶

22 : On the 30th. Then, they¶

23 physically moved him to a different cell.¶

24 : Right.¶

25 : On the 30th. Because his¶

1 CPAP machine wasn't, the cord didn't reach.¶

2 : What is a CPAP machine?¶

3 : It's the snore -. It's¶

4 to help you breathe when you are sleeping.¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : And he needed a CPAP machine?¶

7 : Yes, sir.¶

8 : For the snoring.¶

9 : So --¶

10 : Don't call me sir. Please.¶

11 I'm old. All right? You're reminding me.¶

12 : And so, no one ever went¶

13 back into the system from, all the way from the¶

14 30th up to August 10th, and made that¶

15 correction.¶

16 : Right.¶

17 : Who was responsible for¶

18 that?¶

19 : So, whoever made the cell¶

20 change should have contacted control center.¶

21 : And is the control center¶

22 that actually made the change, not the¶

23 individuals in SHU, or the SHU lieutenant?¶

24 : No. The --¶

25 : Because my understanding¶

1 it would have been the SHU lieutenant or the¶

2 OIC.¶

3 : Bed changes?¶

4 : To verify their cellmates¶

5 where were the Wherever the BOP databases¶

6 said they are.¶

7 : So, you have to, you would¶

8 have to call control center to make that¶

9 change.¶

10 : Okay. So, who should¶

11 have called the control center?¶

12 : Whoever made the change in¶

13 Sentry. Because I - and then, don't quote me¶

14 if I'm wrong - because I don't believe SHU¶

15 staff have control over keying where an inmate¶

16 is in.¶

17 : Yeah. No. I thought the¶

18 OIC might, or the that the SHU --¶

19 : No, because¶

20 lieutenant would.¶

21 in that case, beds would¶

22 be really messed up.¶

23 : Right, right, right.¶

24 : So, the control center is a¶

25 centralized area.¶

1¶

2¶

: Okay.¶

: So, a call should have been¶

3 made down to control, saying, hey, this is¶

4 where he's being keyed to, and this is what -.¶

5 : And who should have made¶

6 that call?¶

7 : Whoever made the change.¶

8 Whoever switched him.¶

9 : And my understanding is¶

10 that the OIC and the SHU lieutenant were¶

11 supposed to review cell assignments, to make¶

12 sure inmates were in their assigned cells, at¶

13 least on a periodical basis. Is that correct?¶

14 : Yeah. You do a, what we¶

15 call a bed book check, to make sure. Because¶

16 your board, you know, when you are in the unit,¶

17 you have a board up there, and you just match¶

18 where everyone is at.¶

19 : And how often should that¶

20 happen?¶

21 : There is no set policy, but¶

22 as a good practice, you know, you kind of want¶

23 to check what your open cells are, where, you¶

24 know, where individuals are. And should it¶

25 also be checked if they were doing cell¶

1 searches? Would that be caught, if they were¶

2 doing searches?¶

3 : Well, if you are doing 7,¶

4 cell search, all you are going to do is put¶

5 down the cell number, and the individual in it.¶

6 It wouldn't -. You wouldn't necessarily be¶

7 able to find out if it is the correct room.¶

8 : Okay.¶

9 : And the correct bed in¶

10 Sentry.¶

11 : All right.¶

12 : But, you know -.¶

13 : So, in this instance,¶

14 then, and I'll shut up so I can actually let¶

15 you answer, who --¶

16 : I have the same problem.¶

17 : -- who is it that should¶

18 have notified control center to make this¶

19 change? It sounds like you said whoever¶

20 physically moved him, at the time?¶

21 : So, what happens is, whoever¶

22 physically moved him should have said, okay,¶

23 this is where, you know, you are, this is where¶

24 we are moving him. And then, you let the -¶

25 typically - the OIC know, and then, they will¶

1 call down to control center.¶

2 : And if that didn't -.¶

3 : Can I speak to my client for a¶

4 second?¶

5 : Yeah.¶

6 : Sure.¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : Do you want me --¶

9 : Yeah.¶

10 : do you want me to push¶

11 pause?¶

12 : No.¶

13 : Yeah, no. I'll take him to¶

14 the other -.¶

15 MR. : Okay.¶

16 : Sure. Okay. It's 4:46¶

17 p.m., and this is Senior Special Agent¶

18 , and I'm pushing pause.¶

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went¶

20 off the record and back on the record).¶

21 : The recorder is back on.¶

22 It is 4:53 p.m., after a short break. And I¶

23 remind you, sir, you are still under oath.¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : All right. So, we¶

1 stopped with the, we were talking about who was¶

2 responsible for making sure Mr. Epstein was¶

3 logged into the correct cell within the¶

4 : Question.¶

5 : -- BOP database system.¶

6 : Were there other cells that¶

7 were wrong?¶

8 : Do you know that,¶

9 MR. : Not We don't know if -.¶

10 This, we know only because we checked this.¶

11 : Okay. So, I mean,¶

12 everything else could have been right, and that¶

13 could have been a --¶

14 : No. Well, we found out,¶

15 this is the reason was because, again, he was¶

16 placed into that cell, and then moved because¶

17 of the CPAP machine.¶

18 : No. I was --¶

19 : Well, our question was --¶

20 : -- you know, wondering if it¶

21 is a systematic, or an individual problem.¶

22 : Correct.¶

23 : That's why I was just¶

24 curious.¶

25 : Yeah. And that's¶

1 something that we should probably -.¶

2 : Well, and my question is, does¶

3 that have any effect on count? I mean, they¶

4 still should be able to look in the cells if¶

5 there was a (Indiscernible *02:51:28).¶

6 : Well, when --¶

7 : Well, the problem comes¶

8 in, again, I think is the credibility of, hey,¶

9 now we have Epstein, who was found in a cell,¶

10 and it's not his assigned cell. So, that just,¶

11 you know --¶

12 : But I'm saying --¶

13 : -- the media says all of¶

14 these things that went wrong.¶

15 : -- yeah.¶

16 : One being --¶

17 : I've had that.¶

18 : -- wait, he's not even in¶

19 the right cell. Well, how did that happen, and¶

20 who was responsible?¶

21 : Okay. Now, so, my question¶

22 is, does it make any difference? I mean, if¶

23 they are supposed to do the count, the count is¶

24 you look in the cell, and see --¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : -- whether there's a guy in¶

2 there. Well, whatever number he's in, or he's¶

3 not in, he's still in his cell.¶

4 : No. Correct.¶

5 : You know?¶

6 : But because we are doing¶

7 this deep dive review --¶

8 : Okay. I gotcha.¶

9 : -- it's showing these¶

10 different, you know --¶

11 : Got it. Okay.¶

12 : -- and again, this is,¶

13 this is one of those things --¶

14 : You're just being extra¶

15 careful. Yeah. It's (Indiscernible¶

16 *02:52:14).¶

17 : -- and not like¶

18 (Indiscernible *02:52:15). Yeah. We just have¶

19 to, we have to address the fact that --¶

20 : He wasn't in the right cell.¶

21 : -- Mr. Epstein wasn't in¶

22 the cell that he was assigned to.¶

23 : Okay. I mean, it's not just¶

24 that. Someone (Indiscernible *02:52:22) that¶

25 he said, oh, he doesn't have a roommate, and,¶

1 you know, by the way, we also counted the wrong¶

2 number of prisoners.¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : That's a lot of mistakes.¶

5 : Right. And we haven't¶

6 even gotten involved.¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : As I'm sure you know.¶

9 But --¶

10 : Right.¶

11 : -- so, after the person¶

12 who moved him didn't contact and have this¶

13 changed, how would have, then, how would we,¶

14 then, how would have anyone found out that he¶

15 was in the wrong cell? What processes are in¶

16 place to ensure that where they are matches up¶

17 with the actual database?¶

18 : Well, I guess if they were¶

19 doing --¶

20 : You said bed book counts?¶

21 : -- yeah. Usually, you could¶

22 do, you do your bed book counts, to ensure, you¶

23 know, that every inmate is in the cell that¶

24 they are supposed to be. When you are updating¶

25 your accountability board, you would look and¶

1 see, okay, you got him here, where is he at?¶

2 And then, match it up with, you know, with¶

3 Sentry.¶

4 : And who would be doing¶

5 those things?¶

6 : The staff working up there¶

7 in SHU.¶

8 : Is the lieutenant, the¶

9 SHU lieutenant, at all involved, as far as you¶

10 know, in making sure that this is all accurate?¶

11 : Well, he was spearheading it¶

12 to make sure everything was¶

13 : He was the supervisor.¶

14 : -- was right. Yeah. He was¶

15 the supervisor. But going in and saying, okay,¶

16 let's, did this happen? Have we done this?¶

17 And have we done that?¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : And -. Okay. Just to make me¶

20 clear, somebody dropped the ball as to whether¶

21 or not he should have a, he had a roommate.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : Okay. And somebody dropped¶

24 the ball as to whether he was in the right¶

25 cell.¶

1¶

2¶

: Right.¶

: Okay. And then, somebody¶

3 would have dropped the ball as to either,¶

4 dropped the ball or they maliciously didn't¶

5 find out that he wasn't on the count. They had¶

6 said we did a count, but they didn't notice¶

7 that, or didn't - that he wasn't breathing, you¶

8 know what I mean?¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : Okay. That starts to be a¶

11 problem.¶

12 : So, just pointed¶

13 out to me. On the after-action review --¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : -- they did review this.¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : And it says that,¶

18 according to their review --¶

19 : Right.¶

20 : -- this is not my review.¶

21 : Right.¶

22 : Or review.¶

23 "Significant discrepancies exist within Sentry¶

24 regarding cell quarters assignments." QRT.¶

25 QTR. "Although it is well documented, inmate¶

1 Epstein was housed with two other inmates¶

2 during his assignment in SHU. Sentry does not¶

3 reflect this information accurately. Inmate¶

4 Epstein was found within cell 220, that Sentry¶

5 never reflects him being housed within that¶

6 cell at any time." But to answer your¶

7 question, the first sentence says that there is¶

8 significant --¶

9 : Okay.¶

10 : -- discrepancies.¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : The way that I read that¶

13 is, overall, whether they are referring to¶

14 specifically Epstein --¶

15 : Epstein.¶

16 : -- that, I am not able to¶

17 determine --¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : -- based upon that¶

20 sentence, but it does sound like, overall, that¶

21 they had some discrepancies. So, Lieutenant¶

22 would have supervised it, but it's really¶

23 the staff that would be responsible for doing¶

24 these bed book counts, and making sure¶

25 assignments are --¶

1 : Yeah. He did it right there¶

2¶

3 : -- the inmates are in¶

4 their assigned -?¶

5 : -- and then, whoever is¶

6 moving an inmate from a cell to a cell, you¶

7 make the notification.¶

8 : And is it surprising to¶

9 you that almost two weeks later, that wasn't¶

10 caught?¶

11 : At two weeks later from¶

12 where?¶

13 : From -. He was placed¶

14 into the cell on July 30th, 2019. He's found¶

15 August 10th, 2019. That entire time, it was¶

16 never caught that he was not --¶

17 : In the right cell.¶

18 : -- locked in the right¶

19 cell.¶

20 : Yeah.¶

21 : Is that a significant¶

22 amount of time that went by without catching¶

23 that?¶

24 : Without catching it. It is.¶

25 : Now, is that, you know,¶

1 all staff that was in there, or is it, like,¶

2 really -?¶

3 : And again, and you probably¶

4 have to speak to the captain who was¶

5 responsible for doing the checks, and doing the¶

6 count.¶

7 : So, would the captain¶

8 have some responsibility on this, too?¶

9 : Well, did the captain is in¶

10 charge of correctional services. So, that is¶

11 the unit he is over.¶

12 : Okay.¶

13 : So, he has overall¶

14 responsibility to make sure, you know, in¶

15 conjunction with the lieutenant, that the unit¶

16 is running the way it is supposed to run.¶

17 : And what should have the¶

18 captain done in order to make sure that that¶

19 was accurate?¶

20 : Well, now, there is¶

21 different ways of finding out if stuff is¶

22 accurate. Like, you have the perpetual audit¶

23 system. Where they are responsible - the¶

24 lieutenants - are responsible to conduct¶

25 perpetual audits. So, you can find out through¶

1 those, when you do it. And they are usually¶

2 quarterly. But if there is discrepancies and¶

3 things are going on in that department of¶

4 correctional services, we have what we call¶

5 perpetual audits, which he maintained the¶

6 records of, and that is another checks and¶

7 balance where you would find out if something¶

8 is wrong.¶

9 : And how often are those¶

10 done?¶

11 : Those are done quarterly.¶

12 : Quarterly?¶

13 : Yeah.¶

14 : All right. So, the fact¶

15 that this is, we are talking about, like, ten¶

16 or 11 days, there is a good chance that they¶

17 weren't done during that time period? Or do¶

18 you know when they would be done? Are they¶

19 done, like, on a certain date?¶

20 : What, the quarterly?¶

21 : Yeah.¶

22 : It's - and I don't know when¶

23 the dates of the quarter starts - but that is¶

24 to your checks and balance. You know --¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : -- you do your perpetual¶

2 audits, and then you catch it, and say, oh,¶

3 wow. We did an audit. And this is wrong. And¶

4 then, you come up with the corrective action to¶

5 fix it.¶

6 : So, that's how the¶

7 captain could have determined, I guess --¶

8 : Yeah.¶

9 : -- but how, in those --¶

10 : The captain would find out.¶

11 : -- ten or 11 days, how¶

12 would have that been caught?¶

13 : Again, you would have to see¶

14 your inmate accountability board.¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : You know, are you matching¶

17 Sentry, if you are pulling off Sentry and¶

18 matching it with what is on the board.¶

19 : But - and I apologize¶

20 that I'm beating --¶

21 : Right.¶

22 : -- a dead horse here,¶

23 but, like, who does that?¶

24 : Again, I don't know who, you¶

25 know, who the lieutenant assigned it to, who¶

1 the OIC. You know, everybody has different¶

2 duties, and --¶

3 : So, it is not like --¶

4 : -- different ways that work.¶

5 : -- not like morning watch¶

6 does this, or it's just based upon what passed¶

7 down from lieutenant to the OIC --¶

8 : Right. Like, what¶

9 : -- to whoever.¶

10 : -- no, but basically, when¶

11 you decide to do it. You know, I mean, I can't¶

12 see, on the midnight shift, you are doing an¶

13 accountability check like that, because the¶

14 guys are sleeping, and, you know, you are¶

15 looking for a living, breathing body, but you¶

16 can't physically see them.¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : You know, so, what shift was¶

19 picked to check and say, okay, let's make sure¶

20 our cell, the accountability in the cell. So,¶

21 I can't --¶

22 : You can't really answer¶

23 the question.¶

24 : I can't really speak -.¶

25 : Sure. That's fine.¶

1 : Mm-hmm.¶

2 : All right. Let's get¶

3 this stuff out of your way. If you don't mind,¶

4 this¶

5 : Am I right that we are getting¶

6 close to the bottom of the pile?¶

7 : We are. We are getting¶

8 close.¶

9 : Because Jesus Christ, I can't¶

10 take this. L-O-L. (Indiscernible *02:58:29).¶

11 : We are -. (Indiscernible¶

12 *02:58:31) with this.¶

13 : Yeah.¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : So, this is the email¶

16 with all the rounds, and the SHU assignment.¶

17 And these were separate.¶

18 : Now, let me ask the question¶

19 (Indiscernible *02:58:48) the supervisors.¶

20 Your job is the prison. It's your job to look¶

21 down into the prison, as far as these counts¶

22 and, you know, accountability boards, and so¶

23 forth.¶

24 : No. I mean, that is what¶

25 you have a captain for and a lieutenant for.¶

1 (Indiscernible *02:59:06). You know?¶

2 : Okay.¶

3 : And then, we touched on¶

4 this before, but this is an email that the¶

5 captain sent to you.¶

6 : Right.¶

7 : Regarding the lieutenant¶

8 rounds on 8/9 to 8/10. He sent them, he sent¶

9 this email on August 11th, 2019. He said,¶

10 "Warden, here are the lieutenant rounds for 8/9¶

11 to 8/10. Below are the workstations logged on¶

12 to complete rounds."¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : But again, for you, a¶

15 lieutenant round, and I don't know if we ever¶

16 came to that conclusion, or that we may have¶

17 got off topic on that. But a lieutenant round¶

18 is used primarily to check in, and it's not¶

19 necessarily to go down the different ranges?¶

20 : On the midnight shift. So,¶

21 they typically not, you know, unless they have¶

22 an issue, but like you said, you as a¶

23 lieutenant can walk - should walk - around and¶

24 see. Now, the midnight shift is hard, but the¶

25 other shifts, you, you know, walk around, see¶

1 what's going on.¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : All right. So, should¶

4 they, though, be walking down the ranges on¶

5 both the morning, or the day watch and the¶

6 night watch? Evening watch.¶

7 : This is what I will say.¶

8 You probably got to look at the post orders and¶

9 see --¶

10 : Yeah. The post orders --¶

11 : -- the post orders.¶

12 : -- aren't clear with¶

13 that.¶

14 : Yeah.¶

15 : We haven't --¶

16 : So, it's not -.¶

17 : -- we haven't been able¶

18 to --¶

19 : It's not --¶

20 : -- specifically¶

21 determine.¶

22 : -- that's what I mean, it's¶

23 not a requirement.¶

24 : Okay.¶

25 : You know, for the¶

1 (Indiscernible *03:00:26), they are in there,¶

2 making rounds, checking the books, to see if¶

3 you got a problem on the range. You would call¶

4 that. But most lieutenants do, you know, just¶

5 walk the ranges. Just to see what is going on.¶

6 : Because most lieutenants¶

7 that we talked to --¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : -- said that they were¶

10 absolutely required to do --¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : -- a round, just like a¶

13 SHU staff member --¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : -- was to do a round.¶

16 Some lieutenants --¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : -- specifically,¶

19 lieutenants that worked that day --¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : -- said, nope, there's no¶

22 requirement to do that.¶

23 : But --¶

24 : So, that's where I'm, as¶

25 the warden --¶

1 : Well --¶

2 : -- who is right?¶

3 : No. The expectation is,¶

4 like you hit any unit, you make your rounds¶

5 within the unit. The SHU unit is no different.¶

6 That you say, hey, I'm going to go in there,¶

7 make sure everything is, you know, check on the¶

8 inmates. And make sure they are fine. But if¶

9 we are talking about the post orders, were they¶

10 required to? The post, you know, the post¶

11 orders, I don't believe had the requirement¶

12 that they have to, you know --¶

13 : Okay.¶

14 : -- physically go in the¶

15 (Indiscernible *03:01:24).¶

16 : So, does that - if I¶

17 understand you correctly - the expectation was¶

18 that they conduct a round, just like a SHU¶

19 staff member, but there is no requirement to do¶

20 so?¶

21 : Yeah. You should be walking¶

22 around.¶

23 : All right.¶

24 : To see if everything -.¶

25 : But it's not like you¶

1 told them, you gave them a directive, make sure¶

2 you are doing this.¶

3 : No.¶

4 : So, there is no¶

5 : No.¶

6 : -- so, if someone wasn't¶

7 doing it, it's not like something they would be¶

8 disciplined for?¶

9 : See, that's hard. I mean,¶

10 to say you would discipline. There is a¶

11 difference between what is written down, and¶

12 what you need to be doing. I mean, if you are¶

13 coming in, and I enter there as a supervisor,¶

14 want to see what's going around the unit. I¶

15 might ask the officer, all right, do we have¶

16 any problems. The inmates, when you come on,¶

17 hey, they know the lieutenants on, hey,¶

18 lieutenant, I need to talk to you. So, you are¶

19 going down the ranges. You know, so, when you¶

20 are going down the range, you are seeing¶

21 something. You get to another range. The¶

22 inmate said, hey, I need to talk to you. So,¶

23 it is something you should be doing as part of¶

24 your rounds, and going up into SHU. Just¶

25 walking around, to make sure everything is -.¶

1 : But if you were still the¶

2 warden of the MCC, and found out that your¶

3 lieutenants, when they were signing off on¶

4 doing rounds --¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : -- and you found out that¶

7 they were only checking in with the staff¶

8 members, and they were not actually walking¶

9 down the ranges, is that something that you¶

10 would find problematic?¶

11 : I would correct it.¶

12 : And when you say correct¶

13 it, what do you mean by that?¶

14 : I would tell, you know, get¶

15 with the captain, and I would tell the captain¶

16 they need to be, you know, in inmate grounds,¶

17 they need to walk the ranges.¶

18 : So, they should be¶

19 walking the ranges, then?¶

20 : Off of the post orders, it's¶

21 not in there, you know --¶

22 : I know. I --¶

23 : -- any place saying that you¶

24 have to do it. But as a supervisor, that like¶

25 any unit you walk on, you want to see what is¶

1 going on in the unit. So, do I want to use the¶

2 word "sound correctional judgement"? You know,¶

3 just to see, as a supervisor, what is going on.¶

4 I mean, you have some people that go above and¶

5 beyond. And then, do their job, and you have¶

6 some people that want to do the bear minimum.¶

7 But that is something¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : -- from a rounds point of¶

10 view, I would say you need to make those¶

11 rounds.¶

12 : Okay. Let me ask you a¶

13 question.¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : You do the rounds. Does that¶

16 mean literally walk up and down this, what we,¶

17 what I would call the cell block?¶

18 : Yeah. You walk around the¶

19 unit. You know, you are interacting with¶

20 inmates. You are talking to inmates. Same¶

21 thing with the inmates in SHU. You know, you¶

22 are walking around. Hey, what's going on?¶

23 : So, what you are not¶

24 familiar with is the way the SHU is set up.¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : There is different¶

2 levels, and there is different --¶

3 : Yeah, I've been to the SHU.¶

4 : -- hallways.¶

5 : Know what I remember about the¶

6 SHU, it's fucking cold.¶

7 : Right.¶

8 : Yeah. So, like, if you¶

9 are just, you can simply go in and go to the¶

10 officer's station, and check in with the staff¶

11 and say --¶

12 : Right.¶

13 : -- everything good? You¶

14 got all your paperwork in order? All your¶

15 paperwork is actually right here on the desk.¶

16 Did you find it problematic that they are¶

17 keeping all of their round sheets on the desk¶

18 versus on the ranges themselves?¶

19 : Different places do it¶

20 different ways.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : Some --¶

23 : So -.¶

24 : -- some places have it, they¶

25 keep it at the end of the range, and you sign¶

1 it. Some have it right there, the log, you¶

2 know, take the logbook and they just sign it.¶

3 So -.¶

4 : So, the individuals, the¶

5 ops lieutenants and activities lieutenant that¶

6 we spoke to, that worked on August 9th and¶

7 August 10th --¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : -- a majority of them¶

10 said, if not all of them, no, no, no, all i¶

11 needed to do was go to that officer's station,¶

12 check in with my officers, make sure their¶

13 paperwork is done, and then I left. Every¶

14 other lieutenant that we talked to said, no.¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : When you sign that paper,¶

17 you are signing it just like you conducted a¶

18 round, as if the SHU staff conducted a round.¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : You had to go down every¶

21 range --¶

22 : Right.¶

23 -- make sure everything¶

24 was good to go. You are not just checking on.¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : So, what we are trying to¶

2 say is, which one is right?¶

3 : Well, now, for the ones that¶

4 are saying that I don't have to go down and¶

5 check every range, they are going off the post¶

6 office.¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : The ones that are doing¶

9 their job, they are going around and checking¶

10 every time.¶

11 : Okay.¶

12 : Making sure the wellbeing of¶

13 the inmates, and you are checking on the¶

14 wellbeing of your staff.¶

15 : All right. So, it kind¶

16 of sounds like nobody is right, and nobody is¶

17 wrong? They need to change the post orders?¶

18 : Well, they would, they would¶

19 have - should put in --¶

20 : Yeah.¶

21 : -- their post orders, but¶

22 they should be going around, and¶

23 : So, they should have a rule¶

24 : -- the wellness check.¶

25 : -- that says, you got to go¶

1 around?¶

2 : Yeah.¶

3 : Okay.¶

4 : So.¶

5 : So, no one technically¶

6 did anything wrong. They should just really do¶

7 it?¶

8 : They should. They should¶

9 just do it.¶

10 : Okay. Fair enough.¶

11 MR. : The term used was "sound¶

12 correctional judgment.¶

13 : Yes.¶

14 : All right. So, that -¶

15 again - was that email from to you, with¶

16 the lieutenant rounds.¶

17 : Damn. That pile is a lot¶

18 lower.¶

19 MR. : Unless you want to go right¶

20 back on it.¶

21 : Now, this says --¶

22 : Wait a minute. Wait a minute.¶

23 I'm fucking out of here. If you bring that¶

24 pile back, I'm out of here. Now, I'm going to¶

25 give you some of that money back, but I can't¶

1 take this shit no more.¶

2 : So, this one says it's¶

3 from¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : To you.¶

6 : Mm-hmm.¶

7 : Who is¶

8 : He aws a unit manager there¶

9 for the PCU Unit (Phonetic Sp. *03:06:23).¶

10 : Okay. At the MCC?¶

11 : Yeah.¶

12 : It says, subject, "Weekly¶

13 rounds --¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : -- as requested."¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : So, these are weekly¶

18 rounds from August 4th, 10, 2019. What is that¶

19 for?¶

20 : That was for our Wood sec¶

21 unit (Phonetic Sp. *03:06:34).¶

22 : Oh, okay.¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : So, you actually had your¶

25 own separate wood sec unit?¶

1 : Yeah.¶

2 : So, that is not in SHU?¶

3 Or is it?¶

4 : Huh? No. That's not in¶

5 SHU. That is a separate unit all together.¶

6 : So, why was this¶

7 provided? For any reason?¶

8 : Because I like to -. I used¶

9 to like to track who was making their rounds¶

10 and not making their rounds.¶

11 : All right.¶

12 : So, they had to send it to¶

13 me every week.¶

14 : So, was this just¶

15 coincidental? Nothing to do with Epstein?¶

16 : Yeah. This had nothing to¶

17 do with him.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : This was probably what he¶

20 had to send up that week.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : It was the end of the week.¶

23 : Okay.¶

24 : So, that's what he sent.¶

25 So, that had nothing to do with him.¶

1¶

2 do with Epstein.¶

3¶

4¶

5 going to -- : So, this has nothing to¶

No. : All right. I'm not even¶

6 MR. : Yeah.¶

7 : -- you can keep that over¶

8 here, so we don't get that confused.¶

9 MR. : Yeah.¶

10 : All right. So, this one.¶

11 As far as this one, it says, from you to Mr.¶

12 It says SHU rounds.¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : What SHU rounds are we¶

15 looking at here? This is a new document here.¶

16 : Okay. This is on -. This¶

17 is eight, for the --¶

18 : This is for executive¶

19 staff --¶

20 : -- the week starting at¶

21 eight --¶

22 • or-?¶

23 this is starting for 8/4¶

24 rounds. So, this is, these are my rounds that¶

25 I'm doing.¶

1 : Now, is there some kind¶

2 of a requirement that you conduct rounds?¶

3 : Yeah. The warden is¶

4 supposed to go up and go -.¶

5 : So, you are supposed to¶

6 conduct rounds in the SHU?¶

7 : Yeah. About once¶

8 : Or is this --¶

9 : -- a week. Like, you can go¶

10 up as many times, but, you know, the warden is¶

11 supposed to be going.¶

12 : All right.¶

13 : Now, that means you are¶

14 supposed to conduct rounds in the SHU?¶

15 : Yeah. I go in the SHU. I¶

16 walk around and do rounds in every area of the¶

17 institution. So.¶

18 : And is everyone on here¶

19 supposed to do a round weekly? Because I have¶

20 never seen this round sheet until reviewing¶

21 your emails.¶

22 : No. This is every Bureau¶

23 institution has this. This is where you sign¶

24 into the Special Housing Unit. This is the¶

25 log. And this is showing that they made their¶

1 rounds. So, these are the lieutenants right¶

2 here, showing that they made their rounds. So,¶

3 at the end of the week, when they send me the¶

4 round sheet, and let's say it looked like this,¶

5 my question would be, okay, did they make¶

6 rounds, or did they forget to make rounds?¶

7 : Is this and this the same¶

8 thing?¶

9 : For the lieutenants, it¶

10 would be.¶

11 : Just the lieutenants?¶

12 And no one else?¶

13 : Yeah. No one else. This is¶

14 computer services. The duty officer has to go¶

15 up there.¶

16 : Now, so --¶

17 : Right there.¶

18 : -- this shows that you¶

19 did two rounds.¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : And you are only required¶

22 to do one. Correct?¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : AW programs.¶

25 : That, she did it on Friday.¶

1 : So, the fact that AW¶

2 operations has nothing in there, is that¶

3 problematic?¶

4 : And here is the other thing¶

5 could have happened. A lot of times, they make¶

6 the rounds, sometimes they forget to initial¶

7 and sign it.¶

8 : All right.¶

9 : So, what I would do is, I¶

10 would look at it and say, okay, when I got at¶

11 the end of the week, what happened? How come¶

12 you didn't make rounds?¶

13 : So, all of these blank¶

14 spaces, were these people supposed to be doing¶

15 rounds in SHU?¶

16 : Not everybody is required.¶

17 They should have been up there, but they are¶

18 not required. Like, the finance facility --¶

19 : The correctional judgement --¶

20 : -- food services.¶

21 : -- would be they could go up¶

22 to that.¶

23 : But health services has to¶

24 make rounds.¶

25 : You're getting it.¶

1 : The PA's.¶

2 : By the end of the day, man,¶

3 I'll be ready to go to MCC myself. I hated¶

4 going to prison.¶

5 : Psychology. You know?¶

6 : So, which ones on here¶

7 that are actually required to conduct rounds?¶

8 : You have the unit team¶

9 that's supposed to go up. The lieutenants.¶

10 : Well, SIS, it doesn't¶

11 appear that they did any rounds.¶

12 : That's -.¶

13 : But I'm assuming they¶

14 certainly should have. Correct?¶

15 : SIS should have been up¶

16 there, to go around. So, and again, I would¶

17 look at it and see who was on leave. Somebody¶

18 might have been on leave, not on leave.¶

19 : And what are - so, when¶

20 these type of individuals, it looks like more¶

21 high level such as, I mean, obviously, you are¶

22 the highest level, what is a warden round look¶

23 like? Do you all have to walk down the range,¶

24 or --¶

25 : So, what I --¶

1 : -- is that what you do?¶

2 -- what I do is, I walk¶

3 around and I go to every cell, and I talk to¶

4 the guy, got any issues, any problems?¶

5 They're, like, no, I'm good. You might have¶

6 some that say, hey, I'm up here for an¶

7 investigation. Why am I here? Why am I up¶

8 here? So, I take my little notes. Okay.¶

9 Fine. Some of it I can address right there,¶

10 some of it I can't. But I would typically walk¶

11 around what we call is the SHU roster. Which,¶

12 that is the reason why you are up there. Why¶

13 am I up here? And, you know, a lot of times,¶

14 you go by it, it says¶

15 : It's because you are a fucking¶

16 mass murderer, that's why you're up here.¶

17 and, like, you know why¶

18 you are locked up. And then, they would say,¶

19 well, how come the investigation is taking so¶

20 long? And it would depend. If the FBI had it,¶

21 if it was an OIG investigation. It would¶

22 depend. So, you know, I would usually tell¶

23 them, like, you know, it's an outside agency¶

24 handling. We are in contact with them. And¶

25 somebody will come see.¶

1¶

2¶

: Okay.¶

: Some could be up for¶

3 administrative, like an incident report.¶

4 : So, you went through and¶

5 talked to everybody, but were you required to¶

6 do that, or is it just because you just were a¶

7 good employee?¶

8 : I mean, that's what you¶

9 should be doing.¶

10 : That's what you should¶

11 do. But I mean, like you talked about before,¶

12 well, the post orders don't say that.¶

13 : Well, I don't have post¶

14 orders.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : Yeah. So, I mean¶

17 : But you are -. But¶

18 something does say that you are required to do¶

19 it once a week?¶

20 : There's nothing in writing¶

21 to tell me you have to do it. But just like¶

22 visit every area, I have to, I visit every area¶

23 of the institution. You know, make sure I see¶

24 every employee going there on the off shifts.¶

25 I would go on the off shifts, you know, to see¶

1 the staff, but it's --¶

2 : It's a surprise. In other¶

3 words, you are not telling them you are coming,¶

4 you are just going.¶

5 : Yeah. I'm coming up. I'm¶

6 making my rounds. I'm sitting, talking to¶

7 staff. What's your issues? I mean, it's more¶

8 the issue of them just work. I mean¶

9 : So, when you say there's¶

10 nothing in writing, saying that you should do¶

11 it, or is there something in writing saying¶

12 these people that didn't do it, that they¶

13 should have done it?¶

14 : No. And there could be¶

15 reasons. Now, they - and this is what I would¶

16 get the report and look into - like, there are¶

17 people that make the rounds, they come up to¶

18 SHU but they forget to sign in.¶

19 : Right.¶

20 : So, when I get the report,¶

21 would, you know, talk to the captain, that this¶

22 the entrance log, and say, hey, why didn't such¶

23 and such make a round? Now, that AW might have¶

24 been out that week, and I had this one covering¶

25 both. So, they came up with the AW.¶

1 : Now, is there any way to¶

2 determine, like, these people that, for¶

3 instance, visited on Friday, what time they¶

4 visited? Because this is the day that Reyes¶

5 was gone. So, it says the captain was in there¶

6 on Friday.¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : Should have he noticed¶

9 that Reyes wasn't there?¶

10 : Not necessarily. If he¶

11 didn't go down range. And he could have come¶

12 up, and remember, we have Ten South that's¶

13 connected. So, I don't know if he came up¶

14 there, you know, for an issue for Ten South.¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : So, I don't know. And then,¶

17 him making his rounds, even if he's making his¶

18 rounds, you are going to have empty cells on¶

19 the range.¶

20 : Oh, you will?¶

21 : Yeah. Well, somebody --¶

22 : Even if -¶

23 : -- somebody could be at¶

24 medical. Somebody could be on an attorney¶

25 visit.¶

1 : So, it wouldn't --¶

2 : So -.¶

3 : -- it wouldn't caused a¶

4 red flag, you don't think, if he saw, like,¶

5 Epstein's cell empty?¶

6 : Well, if empty cell is¶

7 empty, the first thing you're saying, he's down¶

8 on attorney visit. Because the rounds are made¶

9 during the daytime.¶

10 : And in that note, would¶

11 they say, though, because it says¶

12 , and it looks like was there, too¶

13 : Right.¶

14 : -- should have those two¶

15 people, if they actually did a round, say¶

16 Epstein is down there, but where is Reyes?¶

17 : I mean, they could have.¶

18 mean, but Reyes could have been in the shower.¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : You know? I mean --¶

21 : But it wouldn't be¶

22 something that would be normally asked?¶

23 : No.¶

24 : It was, like, oh --¶

25 : Hmm-mm.¶

1 Epstein, high-profile¶

2 guy, where is his cellmate? That wouldn't be -¶

3¶

4 : No. I mean --¶

5 : No.¶

6 : -- you're just saying, okay,¶

7 Epstein is downstairs, his, you know, or maybe¶

8 his cellmate was in attorney visit, it could¶

9 have been on a shower day. He could have been¶

10 in rec.¶

11 : Okay.¶

12 : I mean -.¶

13 : So, you are more¶

14 concerned about the people that are there, as¶

15 opposed to who weren't there, it sounds like¶

16 that? To check in with them.¶

17 : That, I mean, you want to¶

18 see, making sure you are around, making rounds,¶

19 talking to everyone. So, I don't know what,¶

20 you know, what the thought process is, or, you¶

21 know, if somebody was in the shower or not.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : So.¶

24 : Sure. No. And I'm not¶

25 trying --¶

1¶

2¶

3 that.¶

4¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

: -- to get you to say¶

: How many days a week can you¶

5 take a shower when you're in -?¶

6 : The entire of three times.¶

7 Monday. Typically, it's Monday, Wednesday, and¶

8 Friday.¶

9 : And what about this one?¶

10 This one is from to you. Weekly¶

11 rounds on August 12th, 2019. Is this¶

12 : The PCU.¶

13 : -- is this -? So, this¶

14 is the same thing?¶

15 : That's the PCU unit. Wood¶

16 sec unit.¶

17 : The wood sec unit.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : All right. So, this¶

20 might be the exact same thing as -. Oh, this¶

21 is what I did (Indiscernible *03:14:50).¶

22 Sorry. All right. That sounds good. Do you¶

23 mind just initialing and dating that?¶

24 : Now, we are getting close to¶

25 the end.¶

1¶

2 : Hmm.¶

you had two¶

3 follow up questions before we move on. Why¶

4 don't you ask those?¶

5 MR. : If the counts and the rounds¶

6 were done --¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 MR. as they were supposed to¶

9 be done, let's say in the afternoon, by the SHU¶

10 C.O.s, would they have caught the fact that¶

11 Epstein's cell was empty, and inmate Reyes was¶

12 actually not where he was supposed to be? In¶

13 terms of that, if he was assigned, if Epstein¶

14 was required to have a cellmate, and Reyes was¶

15 transferred, would they have caught onto the¶

16 fact that Epstein needed a cellmate?¶

17 : I don't understand what -.¶

18 MR. : Let's say Reyes was¶

19 transferred, right?¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 MR. : If the counts and the rounds¶

22 were done, in the afternoon, the 4:00 p.m.¶

23 count, the rounds in between, if they were¶

24 done, would the SHU C.O.s have caught on to the¶

25 fact that Reyes was missing from the cell?¶

1 : But they already knew that.¶

2 MR. : If the word of mouth -.¶

3 : So, the claim is --¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 made up that¶

6 stuff in the memo. And says¶

7 never told me that.¶

8 : Right.¶

9 : That they say that's¶

10 bullshit, and he's lying.¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : The people that he said¶

13 were present say the same thing.¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : He didn't say that.¶

16 : Right.¶

17 : So, point being is, well,¶

18 if didn't pass that information on, if¶

19 they were actually conducting their rounds,¶

20 should they have noticed that he wasn't there?¶

21 : Yeah. If they knew that he¶

22 didn't If they knew, they knew that -¶

23 what's his name? - Epstein wasn't supposed to¶

24 have a cellmate. So, if you see his cell on¶

25 there, that I guess, and on the outside of the¶

1 cell, they would have his name and the other¶

2 person. Then you should be saying, okay, where¶

3 is the cellmate? We know he's not in the¶

4 attorney room.¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : So.¶

7 : I got it.¶

8 : So, you know he's down in¶

9 the attorney room. So, you would have said,¶

10 okay, somebody's got to be in that cell.¶

11 : Hmm. Ace bastard. That's a¶

12 way to fuck with the other guys.¶

13 MR. : Meaning, if they actually did¶

14 the rounds and the counts like they were¶

15 supposed to, there was more than enough time¶

16 for them to turn around and assign another¶

17 cellmate, if needed.¶

18 : Or to say, of course, to¶

19 your point, where they are saying that nobody¶

20 ever told them, if you were making your rounds,¶

21 you would have saw that there was nobody in¶

22 that cell, and then ask you a question, where¶

23 he's at.¶

24 : And the person whose job it is¶

25 to make sure they are doing their rounds is the¶

1 lieutenant or the captain?¶

2 : On the shift, it is the¶

3 lieutenant would check. But now, in fairness¶

4 to the lieutenant, if you are going off of a¶

5 sheet, and the sheet says, hey, you made your¶

6 rounds, and then, something like this happens,¶

7 then you find out people didn't make their¶

8 rounds.¶

9 : And I think what¶

10 question to you was, does this suggest to you¶

11 that they were not actually conducting their¶

12 rounds? The fact that Reyes was gone for 24¶

13 hours, and the notifications weren't made?¶

14 : It would appear that that is¶

15 the appearance.¶

16 : (Indiscernible *03:18:07).¶

17 : Yeah. I mean.¶

18 MR. : I just have one other¶

19 question.¶

20 : When I do cross examinations,¶

21 and it says, it would appear that, yeah,¶

22 that's, yeah, somebody found.¶

23 MR. : Have you ever heard of C.O.s¶

24 pre-filling round sheets?¶

25 : When he says pre-filling,¶

1 what he is saying is that, the beginning of¶

2 their shift, they are going in and they are¶

3 just writing, they are initialing and putting¶

4 in the time. At the very beginning, for the¶

5 rest of their shift.¶

6 : So, let me put it to you¶

7 this way. If I --¶

8 MR. : I saw you smile --¶

9 : -- no, no.¶

10 MR. : -- when he asked that.¶

11 : Because if I become aware¶

12 and know that somebody is doing something like¶

13 that, that is reportable misconduct. I'm going¶

14 to report that. So, if somebody came to me and¶

15 said, well, this person is pre-filling out¶

16 count slips, that would be something that¶

17 would say, okay, you know, I have to do a¶

18 referral, or if I don't have enough evidence¶

19 for it, I would have a supervisor, you know,¶

20 put it out, said, hey, you cannot do pre-count¶

21 slips.¶

22 : So, if we have people¶

23 confessing, admitting that they are not only¶

24 pre-filling out their count slips, but also¶

25 doing it with their round sheets --¶

1¶

2¶

: Right.¶

: -- what is your response¶

3 to that? How bad of a -? How bad is that?¶

4 : Well, that is a referral. I¶

5 would have to do a referral for you guys to¶

6 look into it.¶

7 : And then, if they are¶

8 actually pre-filling those out, does that also¶

9 suggest to you that they didn't do their counts¶

10 or their rounds?¶

11 : Well, I mean, if they're¶

12 telling you that we pre-filled it out, it's¶

13 obvious that they did not, they are not¶

14 counting.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : Because if somebody is pre-¶

17 filling out a sheet, that means¶

18 : They're not counting.¶

19 : -- they have no intention of¶

20 counting.¶

21 : And does that indicate to¶

22 you, as the warden, that they are falsely¶

23 certifying rounds and counts that they did not¶

24 conduct?¶

25 : If they come to you, and¶

1 they say, hey, we didn't fill out, we haven't¶

2 done our count slip, that is an admission of¶

3 misconduct.¶

4 : Right. But a false¶

5 certification, as well. Correct?¶

6 : Yeah. That is falsifying the¶

7 document. I mean, but they have admitted that¶

8 to you. But as far as --¶

9 : Now, what if you --¶

10 : -- me -.¶

11 : -- what if they are¶

12 saying - they are a newer employer - and they¶

13 are saying, well, we are doing it because we¶

14 watched a 20-year guy do it. That's how I¶

15 learned. He didn't tell me to do it. But I¶

16 watched him do it.¶

17 : So --¶

18 : So, I did that.¶

19 : I would -. So, I would¶

20 say to you, when did that person come in?¶

21 Because anybody that came in under me, you get¶

22 the spiel that, hey, I was new, I was an¶

23 officer. I know what it is to be new. But I¶

24 always, always tell people, you got to know¶

25 what's near and dear to you.¶

1 : And that is why I asked¶

2 you specifically --¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : -- with . Are¶

5 you confident that you gave her that spiel?¶

6 : Talk to whoever was in her¶

7 class, and you talk to any, any new class that¶

8 came through, and they will tell you my spiel.¶

9 : Okay.¶

10 : Okay? You can go into our¶

11 annual training, when we have it, talk to¶

12 people, and they will tell you about my spiel.¶

13 : Do you say that always at¶

14 annual training?¶

15 : I cover everything. Because¶

16 I have --¶

17 : Yeah, but do you always say¶

18 is, you have to do what you have to do. Don't¶

19 do it just because the 20-year-old guy did¶

20 that.¶

21 : I do. I tell people about¶

22 doing their job. The same thing when it comes¶

23 to use of force. I tell staff all the time.¶

24 Use enough force necessary to control the¶

25 situation.¶

1 : But specifically about¶

2 not watching the 20-year guy. What is it that¶

3 you tell them?¶

4 : So, what I tell them is, I¶

5 come in --¶

6 : Because it sounds like it¶

7 is the same thing you tell them every time.¶

8 : -- right. So, what I¶

9 basically tell them, I said, you got some good¶

10 people that work in the institution. And then,¶

11 I had, you got some people with time, that just¶

12 want to do what they want to do. And I tell¶

13 them, don't follow them around. I said, you've¶

14 got one. If you are on probation coming in,¶

15 you need to be doing your job. I said, if¶

16 someone comes in, and they're not doing their¶

17 job, or they're telling you not to do¶

18 something, you make sure you let your¶

19 supervisor know. I said, I make rounds, you¶

20 can talk to me.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : You know? So, the¶

23 expectation was clear. But with any other¶

24 agency - and I'm not just saying our agency -¶

25 there are people that come in and they become¶

1 followers.¶

2 : Now, we're going to move¶

3 on.¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : We talked about the phone¶

6 call.¶

7 : Right.¶

8 : On August 9th. What is¶

9 your understanding of what transpired with¶

10 Epstein being provided a phone call on the¶

11 night of August 9th, 2019?¶

12 : So, from what I understand,¶

13 when you come in, you have to be able to do,¶

14 for the monitored calls, the voice analysis and¶

15 all that. So, from what I understand¶

16 afterwards, Epstein was never available for¶

17 that to be done. Because he went down to the¶

18 attorney room, and he would come up at night.¶

19 So, from what I understand, he was given an¶

20 unmonitored call.¶

21 : And what do you mean by¶

22 an "unmonitored call"?¶

23 : An unmonitored call is a¶

24 call that is not recorded with the inmate phone¶

25 system.¶

1¶

2¶

: Is it your --¶

: In other words, they don't¶

3 listen to what you say?¶

4 : Right. They don't.¶

5 is it your¶

6 understanding that anyone physically monitored¶

7 the call, or did you -?¶

8 : From what I understand, the¶

9 individual was standing right there when he¶

10 made the call.¶

11 : All right. So, it is our¶

12 understanding that, "On August 9th, 2019,¶

13 Epstein made a request to MCC unit manager,¶

14 , to provide him with a phone¶

15 call, so that he - Epstein - could call his¶

16 mother.¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 checked Epstein's¶

19 pack and PIN, and found out it was not yet set¶

20 up.¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : Therefore, toe<¶

23 Epstein to a shower area in the SHU, and¶

24 plugged a phone into a legal line.¶

25 dialed the number. A man answered. He handed¶

1 the phone to Epstein. And then, left¶

2 for the day. stayed -". Oh, sorry.¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : "Then we found out that¶

5 the SHU C.O.s were around.¶

6 : Mm-hmm.¶

7 : And did not¶

8 specifically instruct any one of them to¶

9 monitor their phone call. Instead, he called¶

10 the SHU after he departed from the MCC, to make¶

11 sure that the phone was taken away from Epstein¶

12 after his allotted time." Had you heard that¶

13 before?¶

14 : I have -. What I heard was¶

15 he was there and did the monitoring.¶

16 : So, your understanding¶

17 was that, was there the entire time of¶

18 his call?¶

19 : That, at the entire time of¶

20 his call.¶

21 : So, a number of questions¶

22 off of that. The fact that dialed the¶

23 number that he gave him, and a man called. A¶

24 man answered. Who, he said he was calling his¶

25 mother. A man answered and he gave him the¶

1 phone. Is that problematic to you?¶

2 : I didn't hear that it was a¶

3 -. Who did I -? They said it was his -.¶

4 MR. : So, that information might¶

5 have come out after.¶

6 : It came out after. I didn't¶

7 - I heard that after the fact - so, I didn't¶

8 hear any specifics, but I heard it was -. _¶

9 forgot who they said it was that called, but¶

10 then afterwards, they said, whoever they said¶

11 it was, was deceased. That he didn't have that¶

12 talk.¶

13 : I think it was his¶

14 mother.¶

15 : Yeah. I think it might -.¶

16 So, and that, that is what I heard.¶

17 : His --¶

18 : Yeah.¶

19 : -- his mother died during the¶

20 time of this investigation.¶

21 : Hmm.¶

22 MR. : She was previously deceased.¶

23 : Deceased.¶

24 : So, wait, wait, wait, wait,¶

25 wait.¶

1 : Yeah.¶

2 : So, he calls, looking for his¶

3 mother.¶

4 : He said he wanted to talk¶

5 to his mother.¶

6 : But his mother was already¶

7 dead.¶

8 : Right.¶

9 : And the person who¶

10 answered the phone was a male. But he still¶

11 gave the phone to Mr. Epstein. Is that¶

12 problematic? That he says he wants to talk to¶

13 his mother. A man answers. And then gives the¶

14 phone to Mr. Epstein.¶

15 : Well, remember, I am hearing¶

16 this, that it was a call that all along said¶

17 I'm calling the mother. I don't know anything¶

18 about a man answering the phone.¶

19 : No, no, no, no, no. I'm¶

20 providing this information as in, like, you are¶

21 the warden, what is your take on this? Did he¶

22 do something wrong there?¶

23 : Well, as far as, you know,¶

24 you are saying you want to talk to your mother,¶

25 and the¶

1 : And a man answers the¶

2 phone.¶

3 : -- and then, a man answers¶

4 the phone. Yeah. It might have been some¶

5 questions he should have been asking.¶

6 : Should have he verified¶

7 who it was he was providing -? If he is giving¶

8 him an unmonitored call, on an unmonitored¶

9 line, should have he verified who it was that¶

10 was on that other line?¶

11 : Right. If a male picked up¶

12 the phone.¶

13 : Why do you know it's an¶

14 unmonitored line?¶

15 : Because the legal line¶

16 isn't recorded?¶

17 : Right.¶

18 : So, that means unmonitored,¶

19 that it's --¶

20 : Yeah. That you can't -.¶

21 : -- it's not recorded.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 : Correct.¶

24 : Okay.¶

25 : On that note, were there¶

1 any lines that Mr. could have plugged¶

2 the phone into, that were monitored, versus if¶

3 they didn't have a pack and PIN?¶

4 : Not on the ranges, I¶

5 believe. I'm not sure.¶

6 : No?¶

7 : I don't think there was¶

8 anything on there.¶

9 : Because, yeah, we had¶

10 been told by someone that many, if not most,¶

11 BOP facilities have the ability, if a pack and¶

12 PIN such as that wasn't set up. There are¶

13 lines that you could plug it into, that are¶

14 monitored, but at MCC, that wasn't the case¶

15 : No.¶

16 : -- in SHU?¶

17 : Not on the ranges.¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : No.¶

20 MR. : You said not on the ranges?¶

21 : Yeah.¶

22 MR. : Where would it be?¶

23 : I'm not sure. I think¶

24 religious services might have a line. The¶

25 Chaplin.¶

1¶

2¶

: But not in the SHU?¶

: Not in the SHU.¶

3 : Okay. So, not only did¶

4 he do that, but he then left the SHU for the¶

5 day. Obviously, he was supposed to sit there¶

6 and listen to the call. Correct?¶

7 : Right.¶

8 : Should have he put it on¶

9 speaker phone?¶

10 : Either listen to the call,¶

11 or if he had somebody else take over the call.¶

12 : Okay.¶

13 : You know, so, somebody¶

14 should have been monitoring the call.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : Just to stand there and¶

17 listen.¶

18 : All right. Now, the fact¶

19 that, you know, obviously, dropped the¶

20 ball there. He gave him a call, he just wanted¶

21 to talk to his mom, his mom is deceased, and a¶

22 male answered.¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : Second, he didn't stay to¶

25 listen to the call. Third, he didn't tell¶

1 anybody else to listen to the call. Now, the¶

2 fact that the other - he leaves the unit - the¶

3 fact that the other people are in the unit,¶

4 should have they then, at some point, also¶

5 said, like, hey, this guy is on a phone call,¶

6 let's go monitor it, or should have that been¶

7 something that¶

8 : Yeah, you couldn't --¶

9 : -- would have directed?¶

10 : -- you couldn't -. But¶

11 that's what I'm saying. I don't know the¶

12 conversation that took place between them. If¶

13 the call was made, and somebody was told to go¶

14 monitor it. Did they go over it? Did they not¶

15 go over it?¶

16 : No.¶

17 : So, I don't -.¶

18 : So, Mr. told the¶

19 people --¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : -- he's on a phone call.¶

22 Get it back after - whenever it was - 15¶

23 minutes.¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : They were giving him an¶

1 unmonitored call.¶

2 : The significance of this is¶

3 that, if somebody had monitored the phone call,¶

4 they might have found out that he was very¶

5 depressed, or he was -?¶

6 : Well, there is Can¶

7 you tell us, why is it important for us to know¶

8 that what inmates are talking about on their¶

9 phone calls?¶

10 : I mean, just for the safety¶

11 and the security of the institution.¶

12 : Is it true that they¶

13 could potentially operate their businesses,¶

14 their illegal businesses, from there?¶

15 : You could.¶

16 : Or they call a hit on¶

17 someone. Or they could, they could do a lot of¶

18 different illegal activities, if we are not¶

19 monitoring those calls --¶

20 : Right. That's --¶

21 : -- that we wouldn't know¶

22¶

23 : -- why we monitor them.¶

24 : All right. I have one more¶

25 story.¶

1 : Yeah. Right.¶

2 : I'm a young lawyer. And I¶

3 know it's hard to believe I was ever young.¶

4 But I go - I'm supposed to interview a prison -¶

5 and I go to the interview, and he says, this¶

6 person is the main rat against, and I said, no,¶

7 he's not. I said, that person has got no -¶

8 fucking nothing to do with it. He don't say¶

9 nothing about you. Guy looks at me and says,¶

10 oh, man, I better make a phone call.¶

11 : So, is it standard¶

12 practice to allow inmates to make personal¶

13 calls, as had done?¶

14 : You do I, sometimes if they¶

15 come in, they don't have a pack number. Like,¶

16 you could have a family member that has passed¶

17 away, and, you know, you allow them to make a¶

18 call under that circumstance. You know, I have¶

19 a pack number set up. You know, so, sometimes,¶

20 but you should be monitoring that. Sometimes,¶

21 you make a call to another agency. And the¶

22 inmates, you know, you verify, hey, this is¶

23 such and such. But you stay and you listen to¶

24 the conversation.¶

25 : Was there ever an¶

1 instance that you wouldn't listen to the¶

2 conversation?¶

3 : On an unmonitored line?¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : No. Somebody should be¶

6 standing there.¶

7 : All right. And what are¶

8 your thoughts on this specific matter from what¶

9 we just, from what I just told you?¶

10 : Like I said, if it's¶

11 problematic, if you said, if it's the way you¶

12 said it, yeah.¶

13 : And is it a serious¶

14 concern and safety violation?¶

15 : Well, yeah. I mean, it's a¶

16 breach.¶

17 : And why?¶

18 : Because we don't know what¶

19 the conversation was.¶

20 : Okay. You said -. Okay.¶

21 You answered that. These are just on this¶

22 note, there is just a couple of these. There¶

23 is a phone call. This one says it's from an¶

24 Do you know who that is?¶

25 : Yeah. He's the supervisory¶

1 attorney.¶

2 : So, he is an attorney?¶

3 Oh, okay. That's the same guy.¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : Supervisory staff¶

6 attorney. It says, "For client Jeffrey¶

7 Epstein. Good afternoon. Below, please find¶

8 complaints from Epstein's attorneys. Can you¶

9 check to see if he has toilet paper, and that¶

10 his CPAP is plugged in? I am less concerned¶

11 regarding his complaint of having had two¶

12 calls, but they were on unmonitored lines. So,¶

13 there is no recording of them. His phone¶

14 account is set up, so we could get a call on¶

15 the ITS, when 30 days has --¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : -- elapsed."¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : So, it looks like this¶

20 was actually discussed, and this again, was on¶

21 August 6, 2019. Do you know if this was -? It¶

22 looks like this was the whole, to the whole¶

23 executive staff --¶

24 : Right.¶

25 : -- team. Was this talked¶

1 about at all?¶

2 : It was sent out, and that's¶

3 when, and I don't recall the timeline, I said¶

4 he needs to get his stuff set up. Anything --¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 that he needs, needs to¶

7 get it set up. So, I believe that was the day¶

8 when I sent everybody up there, in the attorney¶

9 room area, and said, get his stuff set up.¶

10 : Now, did you - the¶

11 captain, I believe, informed that he¶

12 would give him this call, just make sure it's¶

13 monitored.¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : Prior to that, did the¶

16 captain talk to you about this at all?¶

17 : About what?¶

18 : Well, affording this un,¶

19 you know, this call on an unmonitored line, but¶

20 just making sure it was monitored?¶

21 : No.¶

22 : No?¶

23 : Hmm-mm.¶

24 : But what you had said,¶

25 make sure his pack and PIN is set up?¶

1 : Yeah. I had to. Because¶

2 there was some other things to get set up, and¶

3 I said, hey, we got to make sure that we can¶

4 get his stuff going. If that's the date, if I¶

5 remember, where everyone went up and talked to¶

6 him at the, where he was in the attorney room.¶

7 : Okay. Now, this is one¶

8 that's going to be -. Now, did you -. Were¶

9 you able to print out that attachment?¶

10 MR. : No. That's just our screen.¶

11 It's not what they would see.¶

12 : I was just hoping¶

13 Okay. So, this is one we got. It's something¶

14 from¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : And who is that?¶

17 : That's the communication¶

18 guy.¶

19 : Correct. And he is in¶

20 charge of, like, the phones¶

21 : The phones.¶

22 : -- the cameras.¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : Correct?¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : And he's to you, and it¶

2 says, "Phone record 104."¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : Sent on Saturday, August¶

5 10th, 2019, at 3:04 p.m. Now, it has an¶

6 attachment here, titled 8.19.19.cap.¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : That we are unable to¶

9 open. Do you know what that would have been?¶

10 It appears that it is related to the phone call¶

11 that Mr. Epstein made. Do you remember if you¶

12 ever received a recording of that phone call?¶

13 : No. I didn't get any¶

14 recordings.¶

15 : Would it have¶

16 : Nuh-uh.¶

17 : -- been, maybe, then, the¶

18 number that he dialed?¶

19 : I think it might -. And it¶

20 might have been the number. I'm not sure. I¶

21 can't -. I don't recall.¶

22 : Okay.¶

23 : What that is.¶

24 : Do you remember asking¶

25 Mr. to provide you with any specific¶

1 information with regards to the call?¶

2 : We might have called him¶

3 about the line, and what was the number that¶

4 was called.¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : And could they have pulled¶

7 it up. So, we might have asked him that.¶

8 : But it definitely wasn't¶

9 an actual recording on the phone?¶

10 : No. It was --¶

11 : Okay.¶

12 I think it might have¶

13 been the number that, you know, I think wanting¶

14 to pass on to the FBI.¶

15 : Great.¶

16 : Uh-huh.¶

17 : Do you mind just¶

18 initialing --¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : -- and dating that?¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : I just didn't know what¶

23 that .cap was.¶

24 : Right.¶

25 : So, we didn't know, oh my¶

1 gosh, do we have a recording of this thing?¶

2 MR. : The second one, too.¶

3 : Okay.¶

4 : All right. Now, we are¶

5 going to get into the actual incident.¶

6 : Oh my God. Now,¶

7 (Indiscernible *03:34:06) getting ready to get¶

8 into.¶

9 : We don't have much more.¶

10 I promise. I mean, we are way passed the --¶

11 : Yeah.¶

12 : -- yeah. What is your¶

13 understanding of what occurred in Epstein's¶

14 cell on August 10th, 2019?¶

15 : I don't know.¶

16 : You don't know?¶

17 : I didn't go up there¶

18 : Do you -.¶

19 : I never saw the cell.¶

20 : Do you believe if -. Do¶

21 you know if Epstein took his own life?¶

22 : That's what I've been told.¶

23 : Is that your¶

24 understanding of what happened?¶

25 : That was what was conveyed¶

1 to me.¶

2 : Do you have any¶

3 information, with regard to anyone else taking¶

4 Epstein's life?¶

5 : No.¶

6 : No. Have you heard that¶

7 Epstein's cell door was left opened on the¶

8 night of August 9th, 2019, and/or the morning¶

9 of August 10th, 2019?¶

10 : I didn't hear that.¶

11 : You have never heard¶

12 that?¶

13 : No.¶

14 : Have you heard that any¶

15 cellmate's in the SHU - any cells within the¶

16 SHU, any of their doors were left opened on the¶

17 night of August 9th, 2019 in the morning?¶

18 : I did not hear that.¶

19 : On August 9th. No?¶

20 : Hmm-mm.¶

21 : Do you know if anyone¶

22 harmed Epstein?¶

23 : No. I would have reported¶

24 it.¶

25 : All right. So, these are¶

1 the - let's see - this is the Bureau of Prisons¶

2 Health Services Clinical Encounter.¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : Did you get to review¶

5 this one at all?¶

6 : No.¶

7 : It talks about responding¶

8 to a body alarm at 6:35 for medical emergency.¶

9 : I think I might have saw the¶

10 memorandums, but I don't I don't recall¶

11 seeing this.¶

12 : All right. So, let me¶

13 just read this, for the record --¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : -- because it is a very¶

16 quick one. It says, "Responded to a body alarm¶

17 at 6:35 for a medical emergency on Nine South.¶

18 Upon arrival, inmate was received on the floor¶

19 of his cell, unresponsive, with CPR in progress¶

20 by correctional officers. The inmate was cold¶

21 with circumferential bruising around the neck¶

22 and posterior mottling. Pupils fixed and¶

23 dilated. No palpus (Phonetic Sp. *03:35:59)¶

24 pulses, call place for EMS, CPR continued.¶

25 ED placed. No shock advised. CPR¶

1 continued. Inmate transported to HSU treatment¶

2 room, with CPR in progress. 18G, heplock¶

3 (Phonetic Sp. *03:36:12)." No. I'm not going¶

4 to read the rest of this. It just talks about¶

5 continued CPR in progress. Are you aware,¶

6 after Epstein was found on August 10th, 2019,¶

7 at approximately 6:33 a.m., did he ever show¶

8 any signs of life?¶

9 : I never -. I wasn't up¶

10 there.¶

11 : Yeah. I just didn't know¶

12 if you had heard --¶

13 : No. When I --¶

14 : -- (Indiscernible¶

15 *03:36:34).¶

16 : -- when I got there, he was¶

17 already out.¶

18 : Because they said that,¶

19 you know, he was declared deceased at the¶

20 hospital. So, my question is, it sounds like,¶

21 from this person's report --¶

22 : Yeah.¶

23 : -- he was --¶

24 : Right.¶

25 : -- there was no signs of¶

1 life.¶

2 : And that's --¶

3 : And I was just wondering,¶

4 had you heard anything from staff? Was there¶

5 ever any signs of life, that you are aware of,¶

6 while after - from the point he was found, on.¶

7 : Well, the impression that I¶

8 was given was, he was alive when he left the¶

9 institution.¶

10 : So, you believed he was¶

11 actually alive?¶

12 : That's what was conveyed.¶

13 : It was conveyed to you¶

14 that -?¶

15 : I think he was still alive,¶

16 if I remember right. I think he was -. They¶

17 did the CPR. And then, they got him out.¶

18 : And who -. So, according¶

19 to this, again, this person arrived at 6:35 --¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 : -- they're saying the¶

22 inmate was cold. You know, "Pupils fixed and¶

23 dilated. No palpus pulses." Meaning, I'm¶

24 assuming, that means no pulse. You know?¶

25 : So, you would probably have¶

1 to look at the response, the staff responding¶

2 memorandums on what -.¶

3 : So, up until this date,¶

4 did you think that he was alive when he had¶

5 left the institution?¶

6 : That's what I believed.¶

7 That was the impression I had.¶

8 : Can I ask a question? Right.¶

9 If he was dead when they came, and somebody¶

10 found him, or even if he was close to death,¶

11 how long would it have been that he tried to¶

12 kill himself, and the time that they found him?¶

13 In other words, does that mean he tried to kill¶

14 himself 45 minutes before? Does that mean he¶

15 tried to kill himself 30 minutes before? You¶

16 understand the question I'm asking?¶

17 : Sure. I mean, that is¶

18 something that the medical examiner, you know,¶

19 makes that determination.¶

20 : Because obviously, if he was,¶

21 had done whatever he did, during the time that¶

22 there was supposed to be a round, and somebody¶

23 fucked up, you know what I mean? If you are¶

24 there, with a towel around your throat, that's¶

25 a hint that you are not exactly in the best of¶

1 moods.¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : But the other thing is, you¶

4 know, I don't know, like you just said, the¶

5 medical examiner determines, you know, if he's¶

6 alive or -.¶

7 : Well, and that was going¶

8 to become my follow up. First of all, who -¶

9 this person. It says provider, Joseph Columbo,¶

10 RN. Is that someone who worked at -?¶

11 : He was one of the nurses¶

12 that worked.¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : All right. And is it¶

15 your understanding, by saying provider, this is¶

16 the person who wrote this report?¶

17 : Yeah. Typically, who has¶

18 the encounter fills it, writes it in the¶

19 system.¶

20 : Okay. So, up until me¶

21 reading these out, you actually were under the¶

22 assumption that he was alive?¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : When he left.¶

25 : I thought he was alive.¶

1 Yeah. That was my assumption.¶

2 : Okay. Does that have¶

3 anything to do with the fact that the medical¶

4 examiner is the only one who can declare him¶

5 dead?¶

6 : It does, too.¶

7 : All right. And also --¶

8 : Yeah.¶

9 : I have heard that¶

10 inmates don't die at prisons.¶

11 : Well, I mean, people say¶

12 that, but again, in reality, we - no one in the¶

13 prison can declare an inmate dead.¶

14 : Right, right, right.¶

15 : Even if -.¶

16 : But is that what you mean¶

17 by that statement, though? Did you -. I mean,¶

18 had you heard that he showed signs from life?¶

19 : From what --¶

20 : Because we have heard¶

21 this --¶

22 : -- from --¶

23 : -- type of thing --¶

24 yeah, from what I¶

25 : -- before.¶

1 : -- hear, they were still¶

2 performing life-saving measures on him, even¶

3 when, from - what do you call it? - EMS coming¶

4 in there. So, when you say to me that we are¶

5 performing life-saving measures, I'm assuming¶

6 that he is still alive.¶

7 : Right. Like, there is --¶

8 : so -.¶

9 always a chance you¶

10 could bring him back.¶

11 : That, you know¶

12 : Or you are hoping that¶

13 you are going to resuscitate him. But do you¶

14 know of any indication of --¶

15 : That he was successful --¶

16 : -- signs of life?¶

17 : -- yeah.¶

18 : I didn't. Again, I'm going¶

19 off of, assuming that he was still alive¶

20 because they were still working on him.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : So, and if somebody start,¶

23 now, I've been in situations where the¶

24 paramedics come in, and, you know, they work on¶

25 them, and they say, you know what? There is¶

1 nothing else we can do. He still hasn't been¶

2 declared dead.¶

3 : Sure.¶

4 : But they still -.¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : But from what I gather, they¶

7 were still working on them.¶

8 : When you say nobody dies in¶

9 prison, you are being facetious?¶

10 : It's just one of those¶

11 things that --¶

12 : Yeah. It doesn't -.¶

13 : -- it happens at the --¶

14 : Yeah.¶

15 : -- at the hospital.¶

16 : Yeah.¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : That's where they ar=¶

19 declared dead.¶

20 : Yeah.¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : Right. Okay.¶

23 : And that's not, you know,¶

24 necessarily true. I mean, it's where you are¶

25 like, sometimes --¶

1 : It's sort of a joke.¶

2 : -- yeah.¶

3 : To (Indiscernible *03:40:46).¶

4 : It's a joke. Because¶

5 sometimes, the bodies are still there, and --¶

6 : Right.¶

7 and we know he is¶

8 deceased. But then, the doctor and the medical¶

9 examiner --¶

10 : Yeah.¶

11 : -- declares --¶

12 : At the hospital --¶

13 : -- (Indiscernible¶

14 *03:40:57).¶

15 : -- (Indiscernible *03:40:57)¶

16 : Right.¶

17 : The guy's got a big¶

18 (Indiscernible *03:41:00), you know --¶

19 : Uh-huh.¶

20 : -- whatever they call them,¶

21 knives in his chest.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : You know, you can tell he's¶

24 not coming back, but I mean, you know what I'm¶

25 saying, (Indiscernible *03:41:04).¶

1¶

2¶

: Uh -huh.¶

: But just, I just want to¶

3 be clear, because with that statement, without¶

4 me getting a little more clarification, people¶

5 are going to read, wait a second, the warden¶

6 said that he was still, he thought he was still¶

7 alive. Now, I want to make sure I'm clear.¶

8 Are you saying that there was a chance for them¶

9 to bring him back, or based upon the¶

10 conversation with someone - and my follow would¶

11 be that, who? - did you believe that he was¶

12 still alive?¶

13 : My assumption, from when I¶

14 was called, was they were working on him, and¶

15 he was - they were being taken to the hospital.¶

16 : Okay.¶

17 : That's --¶

18 : That was --¶

19 : -- that's the term.¶

20 : -- that -. Wait. You were¶

21 called at a certain time.¶

22 : Yeah. When the lieutenant¶

23 called.¶

24 : Okay. Now, the lieutenant¶

25 says -.¶

1 : So, when you came back¶

2 and found out, did you ever find out that he¶

3 wasn't showing signs of life, when you came in¶

4 and talked to people?¶

5 : No. Because I - first of¶

6 all, when it happened, I wasn't going around¶

7 questioning people about --¶

8 : Okay.¶

9 : -- okay, what's going on¶

10 with this, because then, I knew that it was a¶

11 criminal case. But not criminal, but there was¶

12 going to be an investigation into it. And so,¶

13 I didn't want to give the appearance of¶

14 anything, that I was interfering with any¶

15 investigation. But when I did call, they said¶

16 they were working on him, and that, you know,¶

17 he was being transported to the outside¶

18 hospital.¶

19 : And who was it that¶

20 provided you with that information?¶

21 : The lieutenant. Lieutenant¶

22¶

23 : So, you drew the inference¶

24 that that --¶

25 : Uh-huh.¶

1 -- meant he was still alive?¶

2 : Right. I assumed that, you¶

3 know, they were still working on him, and he¶

4 was still alive.¶

5 : And after that¶

6 conversation, though, and speaking with other¶

7 people, you never gathered that, oh, he was,¶

8 they were working on him, attempting to bring¶

9 him back, but he was not alive?¶

10 : I didn't -.¶

11 : From -.¶

12 : The assumption, my¶

13 assumption, was that he was deceased at the¶

14 hospital.¶

15 : Okay.¶

16 : Yeah. So.¶

17 : All right. Do you want¶

18 to follow up on that at all, anymore?¶

19 MR. : No.¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 MR. : That kind of covers it.¶

23 : Are we through now?¶

24 : No.¶

25 : No.¶

1 : Oh, god.¶

2 : We only have, really,¶

3 very brief conversations left. All right. So,¶

4 this was an email sent from you, to¶

5 It just says, subject, "Names."¶

6 : Mm-hmm.¶

7 : It says¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 and¶

10¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : Who were -? Why were¶

13 those people listed?¶

14 : Because he wanted to know¶

15 who was working up there that night.¶

16 : Okay.¶

17 : Who was the staff working¶

18 there that night.¶

19 : So, why did you write¶

20 versus, like, , or who else was¶

21 up there? Was Shack (Phonetic Sp. *03:43:25)¶

22 still there?¶

23 MR. : No.¶

24 : At least and¶

25 . Was left off for any reason?¶

1 Because I think worked --¶

2 : I think this --¶

3 : -- until midnight, and¶

4 only worked until 10:00.¶

5 : No. For - and I don't -¶

6 correct me if I'm wrong - I don't know if he¶

7 wanted to know who was on the midnight shift.¶

8 And then, I included who was on Ten South. I'm¶

9 not sure.¶

10 : I think was¶

11 the OIC of the shift previous. And then, just¶

12¶

13 -: would have¶

14 : -- and were the ones¶

15 from --¶

16 : -- been two up there.¶

17 : -- midnight afterwards.¶

18 : Yeah.¶

19 : And then -.¶

20 MR. : I think that Ten South was¶

21¶

22 : Yeah. So, I don't know,¶

23 remember it. But I know it had to do with the¶

24 question about who was working.¶

25 : Okay.¶

1 : So, I don't know the¶

2 specifics and why it listed those three.¶

3 : And you don't know if,¶

4 like, because these were, who we considered the¶

5 subjects.¶

6 : No. I mean, these two would¶

7 have been obvious because they were working up¶

8 there on the midnight shift. But I don't know¶

9 why got thrown in there.¶

10 : Okay.¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : Mind just initial and¶

13 dating that? Okay. And this one is an email¶

14 from Captain to you, dated Sunday,¶

15 August 11, 2019. And it says, subject, "A¶

16 memorandum, Epstein."¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : And it says that this was¶

19 dated August 10th, 2019.¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 : It's from Captain¶

22 It says, subject is, "Security expectations¶

23 involving inmate Epstein, Jeffrey."¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 : Are you familiar with¶

1 this? Did you ever see this, that he sent?¶

2 : I did.¶

3 : Do you know what the¶

4 purpose of this was?¶

5 : Let me read it again.¶

6 "(Indiscernible *03:44:56), and while this¶

7 could be conducted, I did, I informed staff¶

8 (Indiscernible *03:44:59) be dealing with¶

9 inmate Epstein, and others were notified.¶

10 explained that lieutenants were to conduct¶

11 (Indiscernible *03:45:08), and at that point,¶

12 (Indiscernible *03:45:09). I explained I¶

13 could, and they would not (Indiscernible¶

14 *03:45:15)." Oh, no. I just was asking him¶

15 when the thing happened, what is the guidance¶

16 he provided?¶

17 : So, what did he provide¶

18 to, like, the SHU staff and the lieutenant?¶

19 Because --¶

20 : Yeah.¶

21 : -- at least the last¶

22 little point on this first page --¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : -- so, it says, "In¶

25 detailed conversations with the SHU lieutenant,¶

1 he was informed of my expectations regarding¶

2 the supervision of inmate Epstein,¶

3 specifically, he was reminded on several¶

4 occasions that inmate Epstein was to be housed¶

5 with a cellmate."¶

6 : Right.¶

7 : So, is this all, like,¶

8 the expectations surrounding --¶

9 : The expectations.¶

10 : -- Epstein?¶

11 : Right. Mm-hmm.¶

12 : And when he says, "Durin'¶

13 the week of July 31st, 2019, in order to¶

14 address management concerns with inmate¶

15 Epstein," do you know what he is talking about¶

16 there? With management concerns.¶

17 : The housing of them. And in¶

18 the Special Housing Unit.¶

19 : Okay. And do you know¶

20 if, according to this, it looks like he is¶

21 saying that he did perform an informal training¶

22 sessions with staff. Do you know if he, in¶

23 fact, did that, or is it just based upon¶

24 : Just based upon --¶

25 : -- what he wrote here?¶

1¶

2¶

: -- on what he sent out.¶

: Okay. So, there is no¶

3 other information, aside from what he's telling¶

4 you?¶

5 : Right. Yeah. He told me¶

6 that.¶

7 : So, this one is - I want¶

8 to get your take on this matter - so, this is¶

9 back to, who was relieved¶

10 at 5:30, but she stayed at the institution at¶

11 least until 9:30, and sent out that email,¶

12 detailing, you know, what day, and the¶

13 lieutenant's log, and the daily activity log.¶

14 So, Captain sent her an email on¶

15 8/12/2019, stating, "Lieutenant¶

16 reminding you to submit your supervisory¶

17 memorandum for the inmate Epstein incident that¶

18 occurred on 8/10/2019.¶

19 Please have it complete and ready for¶

20 submission on 8/13/2019." She responded with¶

21 no, addressing nothing, just saying, just¶

22 responded simply, "In your email, you state,¶

23 quote, `I am reminding you.' End quote. I¶

24 haven't spoken to you or anyone else regarding¶

25 the incident involving inmate Epstein or¶

1 anything else pertaining to August 10th, 2019.¶

2 So, how is it possible for you to be reminding¶

3 me? Second, I have been properly relieved,¶

4 prior to the incident involving inmate¶

5 Epstein." What is your take on that email?¶

6 : First of all, any major¶

7 incident that takes place in the institution,¶

8 we have to do what is called a report of¶

9 incident.¶

10 : Sure.¶

11 : He is well within the scope¶

12 of his employment, asking, okay, where is your,¶

13 where is And I don't know if he was asking¶

14 her the overall memorandum. Like, you are the¶

15 shift lieutenant. You know, when this incident¶

16 took place. So, technically, you should have¶

17 been doing the packet. So, he is probably¶

18 contacting her for that.¶

19 : Well, she was relieved at¶

20 5:30 a.m., but she was still there, and the¶

21 incident happened at 6:30. And again, she aws¶

22 there at least until 9:30. And she did respond¶

23 to the SHU afterwards, helping with the¶

24 feeding. Should have she written a memorandum?¶

25 : Yes.¶

1 : Yes?¶

2 : I mean, she said she¶

3 responded to the incident?¶

4 : She didn't respond to the¶

5 incident. She responded after the incident, to¶

6 help in the SHU with feeding and dealing with¶

7 the inmates.¶

8 : So, she -. Well -.¶

9 : So, somebody told her that the¶

10 fucking guy hung himself, should she have¶

11 Right?¶

12 : Again, from what I gather, I¶

13 am under the impression, when the lieutenant¶

14 relieved her, she was gone. Because, and, you¶

15 know, and I can't speculate on what was there.¶

16 So, if we -.¶

17 : She said she stuck¶

18 around, working on matters that she needed to¶

19 catch up on.¶

20 : Okay. So --¶

21 : But it sounds like¶

22 manipulating those numbers on the counts and¶

23 stuff.¶

24 : Okay.¶

25 : Right?¶

1 : So, let me ask you this¶

2 question. I have, I have a medical emergency.¶

3 A suicide, right? That is an emergency¶

4 everyone in the institution has to respond to.¶

5 Why didn't you respond to it?¶

6 : So, you think that she¶

7 maybe came back after?¶

8 : It doesn't make sense to say¶

9¶

10 : Well, she never sent out¶

11 her required logs, though.¶

12 : Right. So, that, but --¶

13 : So, you reviewed her¶

14 emails. And I would think that she would have¶

15 sent that out, if she had left, I would think¶

16 she would have sent that out before she left.¶

17 Right? As required.¶

18 : Right. So, did you leave¶

19 and come back? I mean, because if you are¶

20 saying that you were there, you would have been¶

21 one of the first responders up to the unit.¶

22 : Yeah,¶

23 : For the emergency.¶

24 : That's a really good¶

25 point.¶

1 : You know?¶

2 : In other words --¶

3 : I wish we had --¶

4 : -- they're saying it sounds¶

5 fishy.¶

6 : I wish we had thought¶

7 of that.¶

8 : I mean, so, and then, if you¶

9¶

10 : And if she didn't, why?¶

11 : -- and if you didn't¶

12 respond, why didn't you respond?¶

13 : If she Is it a claim¶

14 at all, I had been relieved, I wasn't¶

15 technically working?¶

16 : If you are in the building,¶

17 you have to respond.¶

18 : Is that right?¶

19 : It's an emergency.¶

20 : Okay.¶

21 : I mean, as a lieutenant --¶

22 : Okay.¶

23 : I would want to respond,¶

24 and say --¶

25 : And so, the fact that she¶

1 states that she was there, and she was working¶

2 on her administrative responsibilities¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : -- so, is that a problem,¶

5 then, as the warden? What do you mean you are¶

6 working on the administrative? You should have¶

7 responded to that emergency.¶

8 : No. But - and I don't want¶

9 to speculate on when you are there - but I¶

10 just, there is just some questions --¶

11 : Wait, and I think --¶

12 : -- they just don't --¶

13 : -- that is a yes or a no¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : -- you know, question.¶

16 : Yeah. I mean, it's a¶

17 problem. If you are saying I am working on it,¶

18 okay. Now, at what point did you say, okay, I¶

19 need to, because once they had said, hey, I¶

20 have a suicide or something going on, which is¶

21 probably over, you know, a real medical¶

22 emergency, and you hear the transmission on the¶

23 radio, you are going to go up there. So then,¶

24 you say, oh, I went up there later, to help¶

25 with the feeding. Either way, you were in the¶

1 building. The captain is asking you, it¶

2 happened on your shift, you are responsible for¶

3 conducting the report of incident.¶

4 : So, that answer is yes,¶

5 she should have written a memorandum?¶

6 : She should have written one.¶

7 I don't understand why she didn't, you know?¶

8 : And is that at all -¶

9 reading how she responded - is that¶

10 insubordination at all, to you?¶

11 : Listen. I will put it this¶

12 way. I can't speak on other supervisors or how¶

13 they tolerate, but if you had given me a¶

14 memorandum like this, we would be having a¶

15 conversation. You know?¶

16 : Is that, at the very¶

17 least, inappropriate --¶

18 : I think --¶

19 : I think it's¶

20 inappropriate. I mean, that's the way --¶

21 : I mean, I read it. I¶

22 thought it was inappropriate.¶

23 : -- yeah.¶

24 : I just didn't know how¶

25 : I would have gone to have a¶

1 conversation, like, you know, first, are you¶

2 all right? And then, secondly, what is this?¶

3 But yeah.¶

4 : Fair enough.¶

5 : Okay, listen, one last¶

6 question.¶

7 : Sure.¶

8 : Does that give the implication¶

9 that she is covering up for somebody, or she¶

10 just didn't do her job?¶

11 : I don't know.¶

12 : We don't know. That's -.¶

13 Had you heard anything about her covering up¶

14 for someone? Because -.¶

15 : I haven't heard anything,¶

16 but, you know --¶

17 : Did you hear about¶

18 inmates saying that she was making statements¶

19 that she was going to cover for other people?¶

20 : Again, I don't want to make¶

21 any statements --¶

22 : No, no, I'm asking you¶

23 : -- that are not factual.¶

24 : (Indiscernible *03:51:56).¶

25 : -- did you ever hear -¶

1 : No, I didn't hear anything.¶

2 : I would hate to --¶

3 : You never heard it.¶

4 : Right.¶

5 : I would hate to give my own¶

6 client a hard time.¶

7 : Right.¶

8 : But, but it sounds to me like¶

9 she's got three hours where she knows this guy¶

10 is dead.¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : You know? And she don't say¶

13 much. I mean, you know, if I was him, I would¶

14 be drawing an inference, saying, what the fuck¶

15 is going on? Excuse my language, by the way.¶

16 I have a filthy mouth.¶

17 : No. I mean, I understand¶

18 what you are saying, but you know, I'm just, my¶

19 point of view is - and my concern - is¶

20 : Yup.¶

21 : -- if you were there --¶

22 : Your concern is, you would¶

23 have asked, unlike myself, you would have asked¶

24 her a question first --¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : -- rather than jumping into,¶

2 which is --¶

3 : Because I was --¶

4 : -- which is what I did.¶

5 : -- under the impression,¶

6 because when Lieutenant called me, he was¶

7 the operations lieutenant, and he had relieved¶

8 her.¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : She had gone home already.¶

11 : Well, he had certainly¶

12 relieved her, but --¶

13 : Yeah.¶

14 : -- according to her, she¶

15 hadn't gone home.¶

16 : Yeah.¶

17 : Do you mind just¶

18 initialing and dating that?¶

19 : Yeah.¶

20 MR. : Maybe you asked this¶

21 question. And I just want to clarify. Being¶

22 that she started this shift 10:00 p.m. the¶

23 night before, right?¶

24 : Mm-hmm.¶

25 MR. : Let's say this incident did¶

1 happen. We're not saying she did. We don't¶

2 know. If she went in and she altered the¶

3 lieutenant logs, for the previous shift, did¶

4 she do something wrong?¶

5 : Well, and again, we are¶

6 knowing, though, that she started at 10:00 p.m.¶

7 So, that is still her shift.¶

8 MR. : Yeah. But --¶

9 : We've had this¶

10 conversation --¶

11 MR. : -- no, no, but --¶

12 : -- before.¶

13 MR. : -- let's just say, you know,¶

14 the fact that the inmate wasn't moved until¶

15 midnight, and then the clarification, and the¶

16 count, the count numbers being changed in¶

17 there. Now, so, the lieutenant log count¶

18 numbers are accurate, except the count, the¶

19 actual count slips, were completely off. So,¶

20 somewhere along the way, someone altered those¶

21 numbers to --¶

22 : Well --¶

23 MR. : -- correct it.¶

24 : -- the lieutenant is¶

25 required to take a count on each shift. So --¶

1¶

2¶

: So, see, wait.¶

: -- you got the --¶

3 the lieutenant is supposed¶

4 to take in a count. Right?¶

5 : Right. Just to take one¶

6 count --¶

7 : He's supposed to --¶

8 on shift.¶

9 : An institutional count.¶

10 : Institutional count.¶

11 : Okay.¶

12 : Not a physical, in the¶

13 SHU count.¶

14 : Okay. So, now --¶

15 : But now, if you¶

16 (Indiscernible *03:53:53).¶

17 : I got to shut up.¶

18 : Yeah. Go ahead.¶

19 : He's supposed to take a count.¶

20 : Right.¶

21 : Right? And he's supposed to¶

22 enter the count.¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : Right? Okay. And there was a¶

25 count entered, right? And there is no question¶

1 that, at some point, the count was altered?¶

2 MR. : The count was wrong.¶

3 : The count was wrong.¶

4 : Okay. Okay.¶

5 : Well, no¶

6 : Yeah. (Indiscernible¶

7 *03:54:14) --¶

8 : -- what he's saying is it¶

9 was altered.¶

10 : -- (Indiscernible *03:54:15).¶

11 MR. : I'm talking about the numbers¶

12¶

13 : So, if you recall¶

14 MR. on the paperwork.¶

15 : -- on August 9th, 2019,¶

16 the lieutenant's log says, at midnight, there¶

17 was 72 in the SHU. The count slip says 73.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : And the lieutenant's log¶

20 for the next day at midnight says there was 73.¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : So, what Agent is¶

23 asking is, well, that obviously goes to show¶

24 that she went back and changed those numbers to¶

25 72, because --¶

1 : But what is her motive --¶

2 : -- that midnight --¶

3 : -- to do that?¶

4 : -- she says she was just¶

5 trying to make things accurate.¶

6 : But what would be an ulterior¶

7 motive that would create the idea that she was¶

8 doing something wrong?¶

9 : It goes back to when you¶

10 asked --¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : -- is there something to¶

13 do with a cover up?¶

14 : So, if - and granted,¶

15 mistakes are made in the log - but you also¶

16 annotate that in the log. Like, you will put,¶

17 okay, late entry. Because typically, if you¶

18 say the log is done already, when you go back¶

19 and make changes, you make changes for this¶

20 reason alone. An investigator comes in, looks¶

21 at it, and says, well, wait a minute, it looks¶

22 like you've been playing, you went back and¶

23 just changed the numbers. So, you can put in¶

24 there, and you say, okay, late entry, explain¶

25 what your change was, and what the mistake was.¶

1 : So, really, with this¶

2 : You know?¶

3 -- to show a malicious intent¶

4 in her part, there's got to be something that¶

5 influences her to protect one of the people¶

6 that were - no question - were fucking around.¶

7 Right? The two guys that were fucking around¶

8 ended up getting pinched. Right? So, if one¶

9 of them is her friend, then she's got a¶

10 malicious motive to go try and cover for that¶

11 guy. Like, did $8,000 (Indiscernible¶

12 *03:55:58) police officer, he says, well, I¶

13 thought he drew a gun on me.¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : And I shot him.¶

16 : Yeah.¶

17 : Oh, okay. Nobody else saw¶

18 that.¶

19 : Yeah.¶

20 : But you are not aware of¶

21 her involvement at all, you said, or¶

22 : As far as what?¶

23 : -- covering up for them,¶

24 or involvement in Epstein's death?¶

25 : No. She wouldn't have had¶

1 that conversation with them.¶

2 : And you weren't - until¶

3 now, it sounds like - even aware that she was¶

4 at the institution after 5:30 a.m.?¶

5 : I was told she left.¶

6 : Okay.¶

7 : Yeah.¶

8 : And again, who told you¶

9 that?¶

10 : The operations lieutenant.¶

11 Because he called me and he says, hey, I¶

12 relieved --¶

13 : So,¶

14¶

15 : Sorry.¶

16 : Yeah.¶

17 : Okay. And did you have -¶

18 before we move on to the next subject - do you¶

19 have any more on that?¶

20 MR. : No.¶

21 : So now, we are going to¶

22 talk about the cameras.¶

23 : Mm-hmm.¶

24 : Were the SHU cameras¶

25 recording on August 9th and 10th of 2019?¶

1 : I didn't physically go check¶

2 to see if they were, were recording or not.¶

3 : Did you learn that they¶

4 were not recording?¶

5 : Yeah. We found out¶

6 afterwards, that they weren't recording.¶

7 : Wait. Wait. We had this¶

8 conversation.¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : The cameras don't work in a¶

11 lot of these institutions. Right?¶

12 : Yeah. Yeah.¶

13 : All right. And that's because¶

14 they didn't spend the fucking money to make¶

15 sure the cameras work.¶

16 : Well, it's --¶

17 : And I got to stop saying¶

18 "fuck."¶

19 : -- that's the issue, too,¶

20 funding, and, you know, so, since that¶

21 incident, I guess there was some audits done by¶

22 the agency, and they realized that it was kind¶

23 of a system (Indiscernible *03:57:15).¶

24 : But you see, the issue is,¶

25 should you have checked why weren't the cameras¶

1 working?¶

2 : Well, that's my question¶

3 is, do you know why they were not working?¶

4 : I don't know the specific¶

5 language that was used, and what was wrong with¶

6 it, because I guess, after I left, they kind of¶

7 made a determination on what was why -. What¶

8 was the reason. I know we were going through¶

9 the process of auditing and fixing some¶

10 cameras. But those specific SHU cameras, I¶

11 wasn't aware of the extent.¶

12 : Okay. Let's just really¶

13 quickly review --¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : -- the SHU camera¶

16 documentation. Were you ever provided any¶

17 documents of a camera that actually was working¶

18 in the SHU?¶

19 : You mean, the day of the¶

20 Epstein thing?¶

21 : Right, right. At any¶

22 time.¶

23 : I don't recall.¶

24 : So, were you provided¶

25 with this? This is right outside of --¶

1 : This was a --¶

2 : -- Ten South.¶

3 : -- that says camera angle¶

4 out of Ten South.¶

5 : Right. Were you ever¶

6 provided with that, as far as¶

7 : It looks --¶

8 : I think from --¶

9 : -- it looks familiar, but I¶

10 don't --¶

11 : -- from¶

12 : -- he might have.¶

13 : Okay. But you don't¶

14 remember specifically?¶

15 : Yeah. I don't specific.¶

16 : Okay. And then, just¶

17 while we are here, I guess, what are these¶

18 doors right to the right of this picture?¶

19 : This door goes into Ten¶

20 South.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : And then, this one, I think¶

23 is a utility room door. I'm not sure.¶

24 : Okay. So, the door that¶

25 says "46" goes into Ten South?¶

1 : That looks like the Ten¶

2 South door. Oh, wait, wait. Yeah. The phone¶

3 is -. Yeah. That is Ten South. It looks like¶

4 Ten South.¶

5 : And what are we looking¶

6 at down here?¶

7 : So, this is the, right here¶

8 is the officer's station area.¶

9 : And do you - based upon¶

10 that - do you know what tier that would be¶

11 right there?¶

12 : Oh, man. You got¶

13 (Indiscernible *03:59:02) stopped. Let me see.¶

14 Is that G and H tier, I think, if I remember.¶

15 : And what would be right¶

16 to the right of the officer's station?¶

17 : Oh. Wait. G. H. I. J.¶

18 A. I don't remember if that was I and J. That¶

19¶

20 : Would this be L tier up¶

21 here?¶

22 : Yeah. L and M tier. That's¶

23 what -.¶

24 : So, right up, right to¶

25 the right of the officer's station, looking at¶

1 this picture --¶

2 : Right.¶

3 : -- would be L. And ]¶

4 that where Epstein was housed?¶

5 : I believe he was on the L¶

6 tier.¶

7 : Okay. Do you mind just¶

8 initialing and dating that?¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : So, here is a map that we¶

11 were previously provided. Does this look like,¶

12 then -? So, this is where we were that this¶

13 camera angle is focusing down here on the¶

14 officer's station. This is L tier.¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : On the second level.¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : And this is where Epstein¶

19 would have been housed.¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 : Does that look right?¶

22 : That looks right.¶

23 : Okay. Is this L tier¶

24 here?¶

25 : That's L tier.¶

1 : Does this look like what¶

2 would have been Epstein's door? I know you¶

3 can't really see because of the police¶

4 crossings --¶

5 : Yeah.¶

6 : -- on it.¶

7 : I noticed it. The crime¶

8 scene tape.¶

9 : Okay. Do you have any¶

10 reason to believe that that wouldn't be¶

11 Epstein's door?¶

12 : What do you mean?¶

13 : As far as, I know we¶

14 can't see the number --¶

15 : Yeah. I don't know the¶

16 number, but I'm taking your word for it, that¶

17 that is.¶

18 : Okay. Now, if you see,¶

19 this is L tier range. And at the very end, you¶

20 see this camera.¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : Should that camera have¶

23 been recording?¶

24 : Yes.¶

25 : Okay. And is that a¶

1 camera that I'm actually looking at right¶

2 there?¶

3 : That is a camera.¶

4 : Was that camera recording?¶

5 : Sir, do you know if the¶

6 camera was recording?¶

7 : I didn't see. After I left,¶

8 I guess they said there were camera issues, but¶

9 I don't know what, I wasn't provided¶

10 information on what specific cameras were¶

11 working or not.¶

12 : So, they didn't tell you¶

13 if they were working or not?¶

14 : Well, remember, I was¶

15 removed.¶

16 : I just didn't know if you¶

17 found out on the 10th or 11th.¶

18 : No. I was removed on the,¶

19 you know, they said there were some camera¶

20 issues, and then, what they were doing, they¶

21 had the FBI came in, and took hard drives, and¶

22 I guess they were working to see what was¶

23 working and what wasn't working?¶

24 MR. : Can you initial and date¶

25 that?¶

1 : I'm not going to get into¶

2 this since he wasn't aware that they weren't¶

3 recording.¶

4 MR. : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : Boy, I'm impressed by your¶

6 thoroughness, I'll tell you that much.¶

7 : That's why they put me on¶

8 it. I'm --¶

9 : Yeah.¶

10 : You're very thorough?¶

11 : -- yes.¶

12 : You know, if you, if you are a¶

13 good trial lawyer, you know, allegedly a good¶

14 trial lawyer, a lot of times, you are not¶

15 supposed to be thorough. You are supposed to¶

16 put an idea in the jury's head, right? Where¶

17 you can see they're invulnerable, stay on that¶

18 fucking idea, because if you are going to be¶

19 thorough, you have to bring out something that¶

20 you don't want to bring out. You know, so you¶

21 to speak to the things, but you know you got¶

22 them.¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : So, this is an email that¶

25 was received. Who's¶

1¶

2¶

: He's the facilities manager.¶

: Okay. So, is this what I¶

3 wanted to show you? Hold on. Now, did you¶

4 print out the one that I sent you this morning?¶

5 MR. : Is that -. That should be¶

6 the last thing on the -.¶

7 : Okay. I'm not going to¶

8 get into those. So, you weren't aware that the¶

9 cameras were not - or you are not aware if the¶

10 cameras were or were not recording --¶

11 : We had camera --¶

12 : -- in the SHU?¶

13 : -- no. We had camera issues¶

14 throughout the institution.¶

15 : Okay.¶

16 : So, I don't know which¶

17 specific one, because we had Mr. working¶

18 on a project, to get some money for it.¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : But when it came to that¶

21 specific night, I didn't know if they were¶

22 working or not.¶

23 : Were you ever told that,¶

24 either on August 8th or August 9th, that the¶

25 cameras were not recording in the SHU?¶

1 : I heard - yes - I was told¶

2 that there were some issues with the cameras --¶

3 : On either the 8th or the¶

4 9th, prior to Epstein?¶

5 : -- no. I'm talking about¶

6 afterwards --¶

7 : Yeah, yeah, no --¶

8 : -- when it happened.¶

9 : I'm saying -. So¶

10 : Yeah.¶

11 : -- August 10th is the day¶

12 he is found.¶

13 : Right.¶

14 : On August 9th or August¶

15 8th, even, leading up to Epstein being found,¶

16 were you ever informed that cameras were not¶

17 recording?¶

18 : No. I wasn't told about¶

19 cameras.¶

20 : All right. So, based on¶

21 our investigation, we learned that MCC, SIS¶

22 Lieutenant Doctor --¶

23 : Mm-hmm.¶

24 : -- and that AW¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 : -- became aware on August¶

2 8th, 2019, that at least some of the MCC¶

3 cameras were not recording. They contacted¶

4 comtech, and may have also¶

5 notified Captain . Did you ever¶

6 hear anything about that?¶

7 : I knew prior that there was¶

8 some cameras in the institution that needed to¶

9 be fixed, but not specifically the SHU, no.¶

10 : Okay.¶

11 : Yeah.¶

12 : And would have that been¶

13 based upon what they found? The AW and¶

14 SIS Lieutenant Doctor?¶

15 : No. Because we had had some¶

16 issues with cameras, and we were trying to seek¶

17 funding. So, and we were trying to see, okay,¶

18 what was working and what to get fixed. But¶

19 specifically, in SHU, no.¶

20 : All right. So, only¶

21 because, you said that you were trying to get¶

22 funded. Did you know that there were already¶

23 cameras at the institution, and that's what¶

24 they were able to replace when the FBI took the¶

25 cameras on the 10th, they were able to¶

1 immediately replace them with the cameras that¶

2 were onsite?¶

3 : So, cameras all -.¶

4 Institutions always have, like, backup cameras¶

5 to fix what is there. But I was talking about¶

6 funding to replace the whole system.¶

7 : So, this was from fiscal¶

8 year 2018 --¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : -- back in September.¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : This is a memorandum for¶

13 you, from a Jeff Colton, acting facilities¶

14 manager.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : And these are all the¶

17 different documents that go with it, regarding¶

18 a new camera system that was purchased.¶

19 : Right.¶

20 : It was, it looks like¶

21 there was $800,000.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : For this total. These¶

24 are all the documents that - here you go - this¶

25 is an approval of your September 11th, 2018¶

1 request. So, this is a memorandum for --¶

2 : Right.¶

3 from, it¶

4 looks like a (Phonetic Sp.¶

5 *04:05:31).¶

6 : Mm-hmm.¶

7 : The assistant director¶

8 for administration.¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : It says, request to¶

11 exceed the spending limit of $50,000 on a work¶

12 request number 8158, replace camera system at¶

13 MCC New York. This work request is to replace¶

14 the current degraded camera system. The total¶

15 cost of this work is not to exceed $800,000."¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : Then, at the bottom, it¶

18 says, "If you have any questions, please call¶

19 me or have your staff contact," and how do you¶

20 say that name? Do you know? Ponchiano¶

21 (Phonetic Sp. *04:05:57)?¶

22 : Ponchiano.¶

23 : Rangle the Third¶

24 (Phonetic Sp. *04:06:00). Chief facility¶

25 manager branch."¶

1¶

2¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

: And it says, "At the¶

3 phone number." And then, here are the, you¶

4 know, the work orders for that. So, we have¶

5 spoken with SigNet, who was the camera provider¶

6¶

7 : Mm-hmm.¶

8 : -- they said that on or¶

9 around October or November of 2018, they were¶

10 delivered.¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : And then, talking with¶

13 the (Indiscernible¶

14 *04:06:22) --¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : -- city manager, he said¶

17 that they started working on the infrastructure¶

18 of the camera project on or around March 2019.¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : To get everything ready¶

21 for the new camera system that was onsite to be¶

22 installed, and said that -.¶

23 : They had to run wires. But¶

24 the old system was there. So, they had to run¶

25 wires. And they had to get a contract done.¶

1 : Uh-huh.¶

2 : In order, because you needed¶

3 the comtechs, and I forget the wording that¶

4 they used, is to run the cables, to get the new¶

5 camera system in. So.¶

6 : And do you know how long¶

7 that typically takes to run the new wires and¶

8 all that?¶

9 : You would have to have the¶

10 staff (Indiscernible *04:06:58). We didn't¶

11 have the staffing.¶

12 : So, were there two people¶

13 TDY'd, though, in order to do that?¶

14 : They started TDY'ing people¶

15 in, to come in.¶

16 : Wait a minute. Can the staff¶

17 run the new wires, or you have to get an¶

18 electrician to run the wires?¶

19 : No. We have staff that are¶

20 qualified to do it, but then, some of them were¶

21 new and really didn't know how to do it. So --¶

22 : Okay.¶

23 you know, it was¶

24 : So, according to Mr.¶

25 , it says, "The camera system was¶

1 scheduled to start March 17th, 2019, and it¶

2 started on schedule. When I arrived TDY¶

3 February 2019, we only had one communication¶

4 technician --¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : -- therefore, after¶

7 talking to the regional office, they started a¶

8 project to assist in funding and labor. So, we¶

9 were able to start the week of March 17th, 2019¶

10 for the camera system, and all other¶

11 infrastructure throughout the institution.¶

12 : St. Patrick's Day.¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : Below is the email sent¶

15 to all the institution from Bond¶

16 (Phonetic Sp. *04:07:49), the northeast¶

17 regional --¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : -- facilities¶

20 administrator." But point being, it looks like¶

21 that project had started. Correct?¶

22 : It has started, but --¶

23 : And I only say that¶

24 because I wanted to make sure you weren't¶

25 confused, because you were saying we were¶

1 looking for funding.¶

2 : No. No. I misspoke. What¶

3 I'm saying is, I meant that the project¶

4 started, but the cameras hadn't been replaced.¶

5 Because they were still running wires for the,¶

6 to get the new system started.¶

7 : Okay.¶

8 : So, that unit still had the¶

9 old cameras.¶

10 : Right. But then, the¶

11 camera system was actually onsite, and they¶

12 were working on it?¶

13 : Well, yeah, but they weren't¶

14 - you didn't have enough staff to install, to,¶

15 you know, to rewire the whole place, because we¶

16 had, we wanted to put one, some on the ranges¶

17 that never had cameras.¶

18 : Mm-hmm.¶

19 : So, it was a tedious¶

20 project.¶

21 : I see.¶

22 : That required us to TIDY¶

23 staff from other institutions. And then, you¶

24 know -.¶

25 : Yeah. And were you kept¶

1 apprise of where they were on that? On the¶

2 camera project.¶

3 : I would acquire about it,¶

4 like, where we were with it. But we were to¶

5 the point where we were bringing people in from¶

6 other institutions. To get it done.¶

7 : Okay. And do you know¶

8 when the camera system was scheduled to¶

9 actually be installed, or was it ever¶

10 scheduled?¶

11 : From - and if I remember¶

12 right - it was a matter of before you even¶

13 installed it, you had to run the wiring for it.¶

14 : Right. And that's what -¶

15¶

16 : (Indiscernible *04:09:13).¶

17 : I think was --¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : -- what they were saying¶

20 in March of 2019.¶

21 : But that had --¶

22 : That -.¶

23 been completed. Because¶

24 you had to TDY people there. And to get it¶

25 done.¶

1 : And they never provided¶

2 you with an update as far as, like, when it¶

3 would actually be completed?¶

4 : It was still ongoing.¶

5 : Okay.¶

6 : Now --¶

7 : (Indiscernible *04:09:27).¶

8 : -- but after I left, they¶

9 got people in there and completed it.¶

10 : Yeah. Yeah. Because I¶

11 think, I think that whole week, they were able¶

12 to complete the whole thing. Correct?¶

13 : I don't know when.¶

14 : You don't know?¶

15 : You know, because they had¶

16 people come in from different institutions.¶

17 : Now, is that, did they¶

18 ever, did the facilities manager, Captain¶

19 Whomever, ever explain to you how bad the¶

20 system was, and that it kept on shutting down,¶

21 and stopping, you know, cameras weren't¶

22 recording?¶

23 : I mean, we would have¶

24 incidents where, you know, something would¶

25 happen, and we tried to go back and find the¶

1 tape, and we couldn't. So, and it would break¶

2 down, they would fix it. So, I mean, we did¶

3 have issues like that before. But it was the¶

4 age of the cameras. The --¶

5 : Yeah.¶

6 : -- you know, we had¶

7 infrastructure issues. So.¶

8 : Because, yeah, the¶

9 comtech claims that, you know, like, he had¶

10 been, I mean, he's a very soft-spoken person,¶

11 but like, basically, screaming at the top of¶

12 his lungs as much as a very soft-spoken person¶

13 can, we need to fix these things, this is a¶

14 continual problem.¶

15 : So, here is what it is. We¶

16 don't have money readily available at an¶

17 institution to fix it. That money comes from¶

18 what we call buildings and funds.¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : Which is funded by Congress.¶

21 So, you would have to talk to somebody in the¶

22 region about what the regional budget is, but¶

23 other institutions have issues going on.¶

24 : But being that --¶

25 : Yeah.¶

1 : -- we have all these¶

2 cameras already onsite, and they had already¶

3 done the wiring for, you know, at least six¶

4 months prior to this --¶

5 : Well, not all the wiring¶

6 they -.¶

7 was done.¶

8 : Yeah. He just, he didn't say¶

9 the wiring was done.¶

10 : Yeah.¶

11 : No, no, no. I'm just¶

12 saying, like, is that, I'm just trying to get a¶

13 feel for what was the plan here, and who was¶

14 responsible.¶

15 : Well, the plan was to get¶

16 the manpower to get it installed, but at the¶

17 time, we only had one person. Which was¶

18¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : So, one person can't¶

21 : Well, and the TDY staff.¶

22 : -- right, but even the TDY¶

23 staff came, they did help. You know, but then,¶

24 we also had other TDY staff that were coming in¶

25 for, because of our staffing issues.¶

1 : Mm-hmm.¶

2 : But -.¶

3 : Well, that's what¶

4 told us. That the TDY staff that was assigned¶

5 for him sometimes were getting put on the¶

6 custody posts. Do you know if that is accurate¶

7 or not?¶

8 : We might have had to do it a¶

9 time or two because we wanted to staff.¶

10 : Okay.¶

11 : Yeah. Yeah.¶

12 : And whose responsibility¶

13 were the cameras? To make sure that those¶

14 things were going to be operational and working¶

15 properly.¶

16 : Well, it's not a matter of¶

17 who was responsible. It's, like, working on¶

18 getting it installed.¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : So, there was no deadline as¶

21 far as, you know, okay, when they had to be up.¶

22 You know, they just had to be installed.¶

23 : Okay. Because we were¶

24 told the cameras are the captain's baby. Is¶

25 that accurate?¶

1 : No. No. It's not.¶

2 : Yeah. That --¶

3 : It's not.¶

4 : -- that can't be true.¶

5 Captains don't know how to install it.¶

6 : Yeah. He doesn't --¶

7 : (Indiscernible *04:12:11).¶

8 : No, no, no. Not to¶

9 install them. But to make sure that they are¶

10 operational, and get the right people to¶

11 actually get it done.¶

12 : Well, I --¶

13 : That can't be right, either.¶

14 : -- well, I --¶

15 : Because how the fuck would you¶

16 know what --¶

17 right. I --¶

18 : Well, because¶

19 : -- who the right people is.¶

20 : -- because what we were¶

21 told is that this was constantly happening,¶

22 whereas the cameras would stop working. And¶

23 then, nothing would be recorded.¶

24 : So -.¶

25 : The only way you find out¶

1 that that is happening is to physically check¶

2 the DVR recording to see if there has a light¶

3 on it, or if you try to attempt to rewind, and¶

4 you are unable to.¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : Because everything is¶

7 still live monitored feed, showing, so you¶

8 can't tell just by looking at the cameras.¶

9 It's only when you try to rewind them, that you¶

10 can say, oh my gosh, they are not recording.¶

11 : Right. But that, it wasn't¶

12 just as simple as that. I mean, there were¶

13 technical aspects of it that you had to check¶

14 to see if the cameras are working or not.¶

15 : Oh. Absolutely.¶

16 : Right. And the captain¶

17 basically looking to see if, okay, is the¶

18 screen up? And then, is it recording? But¶

19 there was some instances where the hard drives¶

20 weren't working, and you don't know that until¶

21 you get deep into it, into the system. So, I¶

22 wouldn't, you know --¶

23 MR. : That's --¶

24 : -- put that -.¶

25 MR. : -- that's what he just¶

1 stated.¶

2 : Yeah.¶

3 MR. : Like, the fact that the only¶

4 way we would know if the hard drives were not¶

5 working is by going in¶

6 : Right.¶

7 MR. : -- to check the video. And¶

8 the video, there is no videos that they can¶

9 pull back.¶

10 : Right.¶

11 MR. : That's when they know the¶

12 hard drives stopped recording.¶

13 : Stopped recording. And¶

14 then, and look at them. But then, this is, you¶

15 know, there was other technical aspects of it¶

16 that, you know --¶

17 : I can't imagine that¶

18 : -- yeah --¶

19 : -- the captain would know.¶

20 sure as hell wouldn't.¶

21 right.¶

22 : So, I guess, knowing,¶

23 though, that this was, like, a reoccurring¶

24 problem, and the fact that, well, what we¶

25 didn't say is, it seems, it appears that the¶

1 cameras actually stopped recording all the back¶

2 in July, and for half of the institution.¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : Who should have made sure¶

5 that that camera system was replaced, and that¶

6 we had an operational camera system in there?¶

7 : Well, the centralized area,¶

8 and I don't know where the break down was. So,¶

9 if it's a centralized area, then it would be,¶

10 you know, within our facility department has¶

11 access to --¶

12 : Well, the camera --¶

13 : -- the comm --¶

14 : -- you are asking where¶

15 the cameras are?¶

16 : -- no, the comm room.¶

17 : Yeah. The comm room.¶

18 Where these recorders were, were all in the SIS¶

19 secured area.¶

20 : Right. The actual cameras.¶

21 But where - if you go out - where -? And I¶

22 don't know the word, what's the word? Where¶

23 your centralized main area is for the whole¶

24 system. Yeah. That SIS areas has the cameras.¶

25 But that's fine.¶

1 : Not the control room.¶

2 But it's back around where, it's a locked door¶

3 within the SIS locked room, where the actual¶

4 DVR recording and rack is, and everything.¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's¶

7¶

8 : But --¶

9 : -- is that what you are¶

10 talking about?¶

11 : -- that, but there is also¶

12 another, should be another area in the¶

13 institution, just for the communications.¶

14 Where everything comes into. So, I don't know¶

15 if it was back there or whatever, but our¶

16 facilities department, you know, their¶

17 communication guys check that, too, if there is¶

18 something intricate with it.¶

19 : Now, so, was either Mr.¶

20 , or, how do you pronounce his¶

21 name?¶

22 -:¶

23 : Was, or Captain¶

24 , were either of them expressing the need¶

25 to you at all, to, hey, we need to get these¶

1 things fixed?¶

2 : I mean, the request had been¶

3 sent up.¶

4 : Yeah, yeah. No.¶

5 : So, yeah.¶

6 : And these were all¶

7 onsite.¶

8 : Right. So, yeah. IU mean,¶

9 we were going through --¶

10 : And again --¶

11 : -- the process of getting¶

12 the system up and running.¶

13 : But there was no set¶

14 schedule for when it was actually going to be¶

15 completed?¶

16 : No. Because we had to TDY¶

17 people. Sometimes we got them in, sometimes we¶

18 couldn't get them. And then, towards the end,¶

19 you know, boil down to money, with getting¶

20 people in to come fix them.¶

21 : And when people are TDY,¶

22 do you - when you say boil down to money - does¶

23 that come out of --¶

24 : It comes out of our --¶

25 : -- MCC's pocket?¶

1 -- it comes out of our¶

2 budget. It comes out of budget. It comes out¶

3 of the region sometimes gives it. Plus, on top¶

4 of that, we were for TDY to come to our¶

5 correctional post, because we were so short.¶

6 : All right. So, what¶

7 would you say is the main reason, then, that¶

8 the cameras were onsite, but not installed?¶

9 Lack of manpower and funding?¶

10 : Well, manpower to get it in.¶

11 And then, it kind of boiled down to funding.¶

12 You know, to keep TDY people, to get it done.¶

13 : But do you have money, you can¶

14 really keep the TDY people. You don't have¶

15 money --¶

16 : Yeah.¶

17 : -- you can't keep them. Yo::¶

18 know?¶

19 : But again, there is no,¶

20 there was no actual set schedule of it will be¶

21 operational by the end of this calendar year --¶

22 : No.¶

23 : -- or anything like that?¶

24 : No.¶

25 : That wasn't discussed?¶

1 : That wasn't discussed. We¶

2 were trying, you know, doing the best we can¶

3 with the hand we were dealt.¶

4 : Okay. And Monday morning¶

5 quarterbacking that. Should it have been¶

6 discussed, or planned ahead, that these cameras¶

7 be installed?¶

8 : Would -? I don't understand¶

9 the question.¶

10 : Well, being that there¶

11 is, it seems that there was potentially around¶

12 two weeks of no cameras, and in the SHU, no¶

13 cameras. Aside from that one outside of Ten¶

14 South.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : That were recording.¶

17 : But that wasn't known --¶

18 : But it was, according to¶

19 the, you know, according to the facilities, as¶

20 well as the comtech, they said it was very well¶

21 known that this continually happened, and that¶

22 the comtech guy continually had to rebuild hard¶

23 drives because they kept on crapping out and¶

24 not recording.¶

25 : I mean, it is an antiquated¶

1 system.¶

2 : Right, right, right.¶

3 : So, when you go down, yeah,¶

4 obviously, you go fix it. But nobody knew¶

5 until after the fact that you, you know, that¶

6 you had a system that was out for two weeks.¶

7 You know, I mean, you go to any other, any¶

8 institution, the cameras go down.¶

9 : Sure, sure.¶

10 : And when the system breaks,¶

11 somebody discovers it, and they fix it. But as¶

12 far as getting the new system up, we were¶

13 working on it.¶

14 : Okay. You want to follow¶

15 up with any of that?¶

16 MR. : You mentioned no one knew.¶

17 But the problem was, according to the comtech,¶

18 the system failed, the motherboard had to be¶

19 replaced on the 29th --¶

20 : Mm-hmm.¶

21 MR. : -- they had a failure.¶

22 : Right.¶

23 MR. : And then, of course, no one¶

24 checked it until the 8th.¶

25 : Mm-hmm.¶

1 MR. : August 8th. When the AW and¶

2 the Lieutenant Doctor went in and they tried to¶

3¶

4 : Right.¶

5 : -- review video. Now, being¶

6 that they identified the system wasn't working¶

7 that day --¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 MR. : -- how soon should it have¶

10 been fixed?¶

11 : What do you mean? When they¶

12 -?¶

13 MR. : On the 8th.¶

14 : Right.¶

15 MR. : This is two days before that¶

16 Epstein was found. If they identified on the¶

17 8th that, hey, listen, the camera is not¶

18 working. It's technically not recording. How¶

19 much of a priority is it to make sure that¶

20 those cameras are up and running immediately?¶

21 : It's a priority. So, what¶

22 happens is, and we have run into this before,¶

23 the parts. Sometimes the parts weren't readily¶

24 available. So, you have to go somewhere and¶

25 call for the parts, and depending on where it¶

1 is at, it could be in California, or whatever.¶

2 So, you got to see how long it takes to get¶

3 that part.¶

4 : Yeah.¶

5 : Over to repair.¶

6 : And the key part for my¶

7 heating system --¶

8 : Yeah.¶

9 : -- is in fucking Belarus.¶

10 : Right.¶

11 MR. : My understanding is they, it¶

12 was the hard drive that they needed. Right?¶

13 And the hard drive was sitting with the¶

14 computer services.¶

15 : Yeah. On the 8th. They¶

16 weren't able to get it.¶

17 : I don't know.¶

18 MR. : Yeah.¶

19 : And on the 9th, they got¶

20 it. But then, he claims that he wasn't able to¶

21 gain access to the room because it was an SIS¶

22 shop, and he needed to go until later in the¶

23 day, and they were gone.¶

24 : I mean¶

25 : And on the 10th -.¶

1 we have an emergency keys¶

2 to get into any area of the institution. So,¶

3 if he is saying he couldn't get in to the SIS¶

4 office --¶

5 : Mm-hmm.¶

6 : -- you got the captain, you¶

7 know, we got the techs that work in there.¶

8 We've got their glass is behind - what we call¶

9 in control center - behind a box. You know, we¶

10 can get that box open.¶

11 : So, he said that the only¶

12 way to be able to get into it is if he broke¶

13 the glass --¶

14 : He can break the glass.¶

15 : mm-hmm. It's okay¶

16 that he would have done that? And then, should¶

17 have he?¶

18 : Yeah. If you couldn't¶

19 reach, you could just -. Well, he should have¶

20 gone to the captain or somebody and said, hey,¶

21 captain, I need to get into your SIS office.¶

22 : Do you think it's at all¶

23 acceptable, if knew on August 8th that these¶

24 cameras were down, and he didn't actually start¶

25 working on it, or at least, I guess he was¶

1 working on getting the parts, but then got the¶

2 parts again on the, some time on the 9th,¶

3 claims he didn't work on it because he couldn't¶

4 get into it, into the SIS office. So, he was¶

5 going to work on it on the 10th, on that¶

6 Saturday.¶

7 : So, the question --¶

8 : -- and what is your -?¶

9 : -- the question I would pose¶

10 to you is, did he notify anybody that he¶

11 couldn't get in there? Did he make any attempt¶

12 to contact the captain, or anybody to say, hey,¶

13 I need to get into that office to get a part to¶

14 do it, because if he had told the captain that,¶

15 the captain would have got that office open for¶

16 him.¶

17 : Yeah. I agree with you.¶

18 It's a he says that the MCC was a different¶

19 So, at any other BOP institution, in the¶

20 country, that would have happened with, his¶

21 experience taught him that, at the MCC,¶

22 basically it could wait until tomorrow.¶

23 : They wait until tomorrow.¶

24 : So, that's his opinion. But¶

25 again, I'm going to pose a question. Who did¶

1 he bring up the issue to? Because my thing is,¶

2 if you know it's an emergency, and it's a¶

3 situation to say this is the MCC, is a cop-out.¶

4 : And is it, would that be¶

5 classified as an emergency?¶

6 : If the cameras are down,¶

7 yeah.¶

8 : That is an emergency. So¶

9¶

10 : Let's get them back.¶

11 : -- he should have¶

12 absolutely gotten into that room --¶

13 : He should have gotten --¶

14 one way or another?¶

15 in there, and he knows he¶

16 could have gotten into the room, because you¶

17 can, we can break - if he said that stuff was¶

18 sitting in there, whatever room he said it in¶

19 there, guess what? You can break glass. You¶

20 can break glass after hours, if you need to,¶

21 and it's an emergency to get in, into an area.¶

22 : So, his claim is that, he¶

23 has rebuilt these things so many times. And¶

24 every knew that these cameras needed to be¶

25 reinstalled, and he had been saying that they¶

1 needed to be reinstalled. And now he's being¶

2 looked at as the fall guy.¶

3 : You know, it sounds like he¶

4 could, you know -.¶

5 : I don't -. This is not an¶

6 issue of being the fall guy.¶

7 : Right.¶

8 : So, let's take every issue¶

9 we just talked about. We talked about the¶

10 camera project that we were working on.¶

11 : Mm-hmm.¶

12 : We were getting the people¶

13 in there to working. So now, let's talk about¶

14 the specific issue that you were talking about.¶

15 He did not notify anybody to get into that¶

16 room, to get to that part. That part was to¶

17 fix the current system. It had nothing to do¶

18 with the new system coming in. This is, he is¶

19 saying that this was a part that we needed to¶

20 fix, get put in, to deal with the current¶

21 system .¶

22 : Now, what about the fact¶

23 that Lieutenant Doctor is saying both she and¶

24 the AW knew that the cameras were down on¶

25 August 8th. They told to fix them. And¶

1 they also notified Lieutenant Doctor, so that¶

2 she not only notified the captain, but wrote a¶

3 memo and provided it to him about the cameras¶

4 being down on the 8th.¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : So, at that point, what¶

7 are the responsibility of the captain and the¶

8 AW?¶

9 : So, what the captain does is¶

10 he notifies facilities where works for,¶

11 and says, hey, the cameras are broken, you need¶

12 to fix them.¶

13 : So, should the captain¶

14 have, on the 9th, ensured that those things¶

15 were fixed?¶

16 : Well, I don't know what¶

17 conversation he had with facilities to say we¶

18 are getting, you know, was it being fixed or¶

19 not.¶

20 : Well, do you know¶

21 (Indiscernible *04:23:25). If he knows to tell¶

22 somebody on the 9th, is it possible to fix it¶

23 on the 9th?¶

24 : Well, the 9th is a¶

25 Friday. So, the 8th is when we are told that¶

1 he was told, informed, learned.¶

2 : Right.¶

3 : So, we have all Friday on¶

4 the 9th to make sure it's done.¶

5 : Right.¶

6 : On the 10th,¶

7 unfortunately, is when --¶

8 : But --¶

9 : -- we know the severity¶

10 of the issue.¶

11 : -- but that's my point. You¶

12 knew that, okay, you were made aware that the¶

13 cameras needed to be fixed. Okay. So, your¶

14 answers, what you are saying is, I couldn't get¶

15 into a certain area, so --¶

16 : Well, that's what¶

17 is saying. Yeah.¶

18 : -- but that, okay, but --¶

19 : But my question is,¶

20 should the AW or the captain have followed up¶

21 with that, to make sure that it was actually¶

22 being done.¶

23 : And to them, I don't, you¶

24 know, I don't want to make the assumption¶

25 because I don't know. There could have been¶

1 some follow up. I don't want to speak on it,¶

2 but you know, if he had told him something on¶

3 the 8th, you know, I don't know the¶

4 conversations that were taking place between¶

5 them. Like, where is that, and what is he¶

6 saying? Right now, I'm responding to what he¶

7 is saying, and it makes no sense.¶

8 : Yeah. No. I would just¶

9 think that, you know, being a captain or an AW¶

10 would be --¶

11 : Right.¶

12 : -- whoa. The cameras are¶

13 down in the institution?¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : Well, let's make sure¶

16 that those things are back up --¶

17 : So, and --¶

18 : -- so they would at least¶

19 check back in on the 9th, and say --¶

20 : -- and then --¶

21 : -- where are we at on¶

22 this thing?¶

23 : -- but then, I don't know,¶

24 you know, what that conversation was. I don't¶

25 know if, on the 9th, even came to work.¶

1 : Right.¶

2 : I don't know. He could have¶

3 said --¶

4 : Well, we do --¶

5 : -- oh, well, I'm not going¶

6¶

7 : -- we know. But yeah.¶

8 : -- huh?¶

9 : And we know.¶

10 : Right.¶

11 : Yeah.¶

12 : So, I don't know. I don't¶

13 want to speculate on that part.¶

14 : Yeah, yeah, no. That's¶

15 what we are trying to tell you. Is, like¶

16 : Right.¶

17 : -- we know he was there.¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : On the 8th, he couldn't¶

20 get the parts. On the 9th, he got the parts.¶

21 But then, he said, he tried to get into the SIS¶

22 office. He was told by the - it wasn't an SIS¶

23 tech, because there were only two people there.¶

24 It was somebody that --¶

25 MR. : Monitored.¶

1 : -- monitored the¶

2 telephones. I think he's now retired. Tay?¶

3 : Tay. Yeah.¶

4 : Was there. And he said,¶

5 I'm getting ready to leave, and he can't come¶

6 in here without me. And then, he said, I¶

7 didn't have access to the room after that. So,¶

8 my plan was to come in on the 10th, the¶

9 Saturday, because I was coming in anyway. And¶

10 that's what I was going to work on.¶

11 : He's the com shop. He can¶

12 go anywhere, where there are computers.¶

13 : So, that is not an¶

14 acceptable answer that he provided?¶

15 : I don't understand that¶

16 answer.¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 : It's because that room is¶

19 not in where the SIS shop is. That's the phone¶

20 monitor room. That's the camera room.¶

21 MR. : And the key for the camera¶

22 room is how, I think it's only the SIS¶

23 lieutenant, and the SIA that has the keys for¶

24 it.¶

25 : That's what the SIS¶

1 office said --¶

2 : So, the --¶

3 : -- they said that -.¶

4 : -- the phone monitor is,¶

5 he's in the SIS, but he draws keys to get into¶

6 that room. So, that room is all -. And you¶

7 can draw keys to get into that room.¶

8 : Yeah.¶

9 MR. : When you saw draw keys, what¶

10 do you mean?¶

11 : Well, you get them from¶

12 control center.¶

13 MR. : Okay.¶

14 : Yeah.¶

15 : You know?¶

16 : Well, we were told by¶

17 Lieutenant Doctor, the only way he could have¶

18 gotten them is to break the glass, which he¶

19 could have done. But -.¶

20 : You could have broken the¶

21 glass. And that time of time it was 8:00. The¶

22 captain is there. The security officer who¶

23 controls all the keys in the institution is¶

24 there.¶

25 : Right.¶

1 : You can go to them and say,¶

2 hey, I need --¶

3 : The key.¶

4 : Now --¶

5 -- I need the key.¶

6 : -- now, did either the¶

7 captain or the AW inform you of this issue?¶

8 : No. I don't --¶

9 : So, you didn't know --¶

10 I don't¶

11 : -- anything about this?¶

12 recall anything about¶

13 that issue.¶

14 : Should have they?¶

15 : So, if --¶

16 : If it was a Thursday,¶

17 they found out, and it was all -. You weren't¶

18 there for that.¶

19 : I weren't there on Friday.¶

20 : Okay.¶

21 : I wasn't there on Friday.¶

22 : You weren't even --¶

23 : Yeah.¶

24 : -- there on Friday.¶

25 : So, you know -.¶

1 : And who - I'm sorry - can¶

2 you remind me, who was acting in your stead on¶

3 Friday?¶

4 : I believe it was¶

5 , I think.¶

6 : Okay.¶

7 : So.¶

8 MR. : Now --¶

9 : Okay.¶

10 : Yeah.¶

11 : So, you weren't even¶

12 there.¶

13 : Yeah.¶

14 MR. : Our understanding is, I think¶

15 Captain was in the institution, too,¶

16 about 8:00 p.m.¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : On the 9th.¶

19 MR. : On the 9th.¶

20 : Right.¶

21 MR. : So --¶

22 : On Friday.¶

23 MR. -- could have been to¶

24 any time during that period?¶

25 : He could have seen him. I¶

1 mean, just, you can't -. If it's an emergency¶

2 to get something for, I don't understand. That¶

3 is not -.¶

4 : No. That's great to¶

5 know.¶

6 : Yeah.¶

7 : About this. So, you say¶

8 that's not acceptable.¶

9 : No. You can, you can get in¶

10 there. So, I don't know -.¶

11 : Well, one of the things is, is¶

12 in prison, you need a camera. Yeah.¶

13 : Right. Especially in the¶

14 SHU.¶

15 : Right. Especially in the SHU.¶

16 : Now, who was responsible¶

17 to have the new camera system installed?¶

18 : What do you mean as far as¶

19 responsible?¶

20 : Like, who had overall¶

21 oversight on that?¶

22 : The facilities manager.¶

23 : Mr.¶

24 : Mr. . Yeah. So, he -¶

25¶

1 : All right.¶

2 -- gets the people in there,¶

3 but we're allocating things. But again, I want¶

4 to say, that was, you know, with manpower.¶

5 : Okay. Now, you've pretty¶

6 much answered this, and you can say it's the¶

7 same answer, but I just want to read you the¶

8 question. What are your thoughts on the fact¶

9 that the new camera system was there since¶

10 October 2018, but it wasn't installed after the¶

11 Epstein incident that occurred on August 10th,¶

12 2019?¶

13 : It's the manpower.¶

14 : Manpower.¶

15 : Yeah. You know, getting¶

16 people, qualified people in there to do it. I¶

17 mean, one person couldn't do that. It was, and¶

18 we were putting in new cameras in new areas.¶

19 So, he needed more people. One person couldn't¶

20 do it.¶

21 : Okay. Do you mind just¶

22 initialing? And don't have to go through this,¶

23 just the top is fine. Anything more on the¶

24 camera issue?¶

25 : Oh, Christ. You got more¶

1 issues?¶

2 : No. I think the -. We¶

3 have one more issue, and then just a couple of¶

4 questions based upon the BOP's findings. It¶

5 does say that there's leaks information. Where¶

6 are those emails?¶

7 MR. : It was in -. Did we mix that¶

8 up?¶

9 : Here it is. So, here is¶

10 two emails that were sent both from¶

11 One to you, and one to (Phonetic¶

12 Sp. *04:29:13).¶

13 : Yeah. He was the acting¶

14 director at the time.¶

15 : Director of the BOP?¶

16 : Yeah.¶

17 : Okay. So, the first one¶

18 was on August 10th, 2019, at 6:14 p.m. to you.¶

19 And the subject is, "Urgent request. Potential¶

20 leak in hospital regarding Epstein's death."¶

21 : Mm-hmm.¶

22 : It looks like --¶

23 : You mean --¶

24 : -- where is the --¶

25 : -- media leak?¶

1 : -- yeah. It says,¶

2 "Please ensure this information is given to the¶

3 OIG FBI. Thanks."¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : And then, this next one,¶

6 like you said, is from Ormand to the director.¶

7 Subject, "Prison guards skip mandatory checks¶

8 before Epstein's death." This, the body says,¶

9 "Couldn't see the entire article on my phone,¶

10 but I wouldn't be surprised there are staff¶

11 that are paid contacts for local media outlets.¶

12 This has also been discussed at the department¶

13 level, all the way to the White House. And who¶

14 knows who may have overheard those¶

15 discussions."¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : Do you know anything¶

18 about leaks in the media from the MCC?¶

19 : So, what happened was, when¶

20 (Phonetic Sp. *04:30:17) came to see me,¶

21 the issue we had was - and I told him about it¶

22 - was there was a article in the Post that took¶

23 a picture of our staff, and our staff rode with¶

24 Epstein on it. So, I told about it, and¶

25 I guess they said one of the paramedics had¶

1 leaked the information.¶

2 : Like, took a picture of¶

3 them, like --¶

4 : Took a picture --¶

5 : -- posing with him?¶

6 : -- took a picture of them¶

7 coming in the room, when they got to the¶

8 emergency room. Took a picture of Epstein¶

9 being rolled in. And our - what do you call¶

10 it? - and our staff. So, I talked to¶

11 about that, and then, I had also told him that,¶

12 you know, there might be some staff, you know,¶

13 because, and I didn't know where it was coming¶

14 from, because the information was just coming¶

15 out, you know, so quickly, and it was, like,¶

16 where is this, you know, coming from? So, I¶

17 called and made him aware, you know, told him¶

18 about it when he came on Sunday. But the main¶

19 one was because of the picture in the Post.¶

20 : Now, who is it that you¶

21 suspect would have been leaking information to¶

22 him?¶

23 : I couldn't, I couldn't even¶

24 tell. But I just was, you know, with this¶

25 whole thing. You know, stuff would leak, had¶

1 been leaked out to the media, and you are,¶

2 like, where is this coming from?¶

3 : Do you have any¶

4 suspicions, though?¶

5 : I can't speculate. I mean -¶

6¶

7 : That's my boy. I mean, I¶

8 don't know nothing.¶

9 : (Indiscernible *04:31:48).¶

10 : You're talking like an¶

11 attorney.¶

12 : No, I mean --¶

13 : But like that, I don't know¶

14 nothing, but what I do know, I don't know.¶

15 : I mean, I can't speculate.¶

16 I mean, the half of it was towards me. I mean,¶

17 so -.¶

18 : Did you leak the¶

19 information, you mean?¶

20 : No. I said it was towards¶

21 me.¶

22 : Oh, you mean the¶

23 information --¶

24 : Like, the negative press --¶

25 : -- and the negative to¶

1 you?¶

2 : -- yeah. It reverted back¶

3 to me.¶

4 : Uh-huh.¶

5 : So, I mean, that's, you¶

6 know, and it was just, it was fast and furious.¶

7 : So, like, negative things¶

8 to people, you believe someone in the BOP was¶

9 leaking negative information about you?¶

10 : I don't -. I mean, I, you¶

11 know --¶

12 : Can you give me, like, an¶

13 example of what was leaked about you?¶

14 : Well, I mean, you know,¶

15 stuff that happened, you know --¶

16 : Listen, the --¶

17 and I'm not saying¶

18 : -- (Indiscernible *04:32:26)¶

19 investigation was going on.¶

20 : -- specifically --¶

21 : I mean, you know --¶

22 : -- specifically --¶

23 : -- whose fault is it?¶

24 right. Towards me. But¶

25 it was just automatically the blame was, you¶

1 know, put on me.¶

2 : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : And then, you know, the¶

4 other part of it was, I don't know if it came¶

5 from the department. I don't know if it came¶

6 from the institution.¶

7 : Okay.¶

8 : Because all that information¶

9 was going, you know --¶

10 : But did anybody --¶

11 up on different levels.¶

12 : -- did anyone tell you¶

13 that they believed that a certain person was¶

14 leaking information?¶

15 : No. I didn't hear if it was¶

16 a certain person. I didn't, you know?¶

17 : Okay. And did you leak¶

18 any information to the media?¶

19 : Absolutely not.¶

20 : Okay. Do you mind just¶

21 initialing and dating that? Do you believe,¶

22 though, somebody in the BOP was leaking¶

23 information?¶

24 : And I'm not --¶

25 : And I don't mean that¶

1 personally. I just mean¶

2 : -- no. But --¶

3 : -- you know, you could¶

4 always get --¶

5 : - I don't --¶

6 : -- the second one under¶

7 there.¶

8 : -- it could have been up to¶

9 the department, because the information was¶

10 going up to them. I mean --¶

11 : But I just mean, like,¶

12 based upon what information was being leaked,¶

13 do you believe that someone in the BOP - not¶

14 necessarily the MCC, I just mean BOP - was¶

15 leaking the information?¶

16 : I will put it this way. The¶

17 Department of Justice might --¶

18 : Yeah.¶

19 because all the¶

20 information --¶

21 : Because it could be --¶

22 was -. Yeah.¶

23 : OIG. FBI.¶

24 MR. : Initial.¶

25 : Anybody.¶

1 : It could have been anybody.¶

2 So, I don't want to --¶

3 : Gotcha.¶

4 : -- kind of put it¶

5 : Sure.¶

6 : -- on one person.¶

7 : All right. The last¶

8 actual topic, before we ask a couple about the,¶

9 a couple about the findings. Epstein's will.¶

10 : Mm-hmm.¶

11 : Do you know anything¶

12 about Epstein changing his will just prior to¶

13 his death?¶

14 : Mo.¶

15 : Had you ever heard that?¶

16 : After the fact.¶

17 : Right. And when you say¶

18 after the fact, how did you learn about it¶

19 after the fact?¶

20 : I don't know. Reading it.¶

21 Or hearing it on the news.¶

22 : Did you ever hear about¶

23 it in an official capacity?¶

24 : No.¶

25 : All right. Do you know¶

1 if it's true?¶

2 : Don't know.¶

3 : Okay.¶

4 : He left this all to his¶

5 brother. Right?¶

6 : I --¶

7 : Is that true?¶

8 : I can't comment on¶

9 that kind of stuff. But what actions should¶

10 have been taken, or you don't know if it was.¶

11 If it was learned that Epstein's will had been¶

12 changed just prior to his death, do you believe¶

13 any specific actions should have been taken?¶

14 : I don't know anything.¶

15 mean, I can't comment on that.¶

16 : Okay. So, that's the¶

17 last of the topics. Now, we have -¶

18 (Indiscernible *04:34:38) refer to it - I don't¶

19 think we have to refer to anything other than¶

20 the - where is that?¶

21 MR. : The after action?¶

22 : Yeah. Do you have it?¶

23 And I don't know what we actually need to cite¶

24 (Indiscernible *04:34:53) initial them. This¶

25 is the after action report. Is that -? That¶

1 the BOP created in response. So, just a few¶

2 quick questions on it. It says, "On August¶

3 1st, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., psychology documented¶

4 they were notified by correctional systems of a¶

5 form received from the United States Marshal¶

6 Service, the previous day, stating inmate¶

7 Epstein had reported suicidal tendencies."¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : Do you know anything¶

10 about that, and what transpired?¶

11 : Wait. Read that again.¶

12 : So, "On August." So,¶

13 just to refresh your memory of a time,¶

14 timeline. On July 30th, he comes off of¶

15 psychological --¶

16 : Psychological observation.¶

17 : -- observation.¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : And goes to the SHU.¶

20 "Two days later" - so, there's July 31st and¶

21 August 1st - "8:30 a.m., psychology documented¶

22 they were notified by correctional systems of a¶

23 form received from the United States Marshal¶

24 Service, the previous day." So, I guess on¶

25 July 30th.¶

1¶

2¶

: Mrn-hmm.¶

: The 31st, I mean.¶

3 "Stating inmate Epstein had reported suicidal¶

4 tendencies." This was the BOP's finding. Do¶

5 you know anything about that?¶

6 : I don't know anything about¶

7 that. And that's before, when he first came in¶

8 the system, or -?¶

9 : No. That was after he¶

10 came off of psychological observation. So,¶

11 after his actual first attempt at suicide.¶

12 : Right.¶

13 : Or potential harm from¶

14 Tartaglione.¶

15 : No. I didn't.¶

16 : You don't know anything¶

17 about that?¶

18 : Nuh-uh.¶

19 : Okay. And do you know¶

20 anything about the suicidal tendencies that he¶

21 was showing?¶

22 : No.¶

23 : No. All right. And¶

24 then, on the same date, August 1st, 2019,¶

25 again, this is after the Tartaglione incident.¶

1¶

2¶

: Mm-hmm.¶

: And after coming off of¶

3 psychological observation. "1:00 p.m.¶

4 Psychology conducts a suicide risk assessment¶

5 noting watch is not indicated, with a¶

6 recommendation for follow up in one week. The¶

7 delay in conducting this assessment is not¶

8 justified in the report." Did you learn¶

9 anything about that?¶

10 : No. I don't.¶

11 : Yeah, yeah.¶

12 : I --¶

13 : And again --¶

14 : -- it's psychological.¶

15 : -- this is just some of¶

16 the --¶

17 : Yeah.¶

18 : -- the negative findings.¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : We just want to know your¶

21 take on it. I don't expect you to know any,¶

22 all of this, or anything.¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : It's just asking because¶

25 there's some negative findings. Okay. The¶

1 next one. It says, "Significant --¶

2 : Don't bring this guy in on¶

3 another case. All right? If the next time¶

4 this comes up, and he says, I'm going to bring¶

5 this guy, don't fucking do it.¶

6 : It says, "Significant¶

7 discrepancies exist within Sentry, regarding¶

8 admission/release status, ARS."¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : Sentry does not reflect¶

11 inmate Epstein being escorted from the¶

12 institution by the U.S. Marshal Service on July¶

13 31st, 2019. Although a signed prisoner remand¶

14 form is on file, documenting --¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : having received him¶

17 from the U.S. Marshal Service. Additional¶

18 review revealed inmate Epstein departed the¶

19 institution for a total of four court¶

20 appearances, and only one of these occasions¶

21 was an ARS change made within Sentry. It¶

22 appears there is a culture of foregoing this¶

23 vital function, due to the likelihood of the¶

24 inmate returning from court. This lapse in¶

25 procedure is a severe inmate accountability¶

1 deficiency."¶

2 : Well, that statement is¶

3 incorrect. I know the regional office looked¶

4 into it and said that a pre-trial institution¶

5 can outcount an inmate to go into court. So,¶

6 he doesn't have to be keyed out on the ARS.¶

7 : Okay.¶

8 : So, the way they were doing¶

9 it, they looked at it after the fact, and said¶

10 there was nothing wrong with that.¶

11 : So, they did re-review¶

12 this matter, and --¶

13 : Yes.¶

14 : -- said that there was --¶

15 : They were fine¶

16 : -- they were doing it¶

17 with it.¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 : Yeah. Because they kept¶

20 thinking, when they were looking out, same¶

21 thing like you said, he was going out to court,¶

22 but they can outcount him in that area.¶

23 : All right. And what are¶

24 they talking about, like, pre-removing him or¶

25 something like that, when he goes to court?¶

1 : No. Going to court.¶

2 : Yeah, yeah.¶

3 : And if anyone is going to¶

4 court, because you have so much court movement¶

5 that you can outcount them. And then, when the¶

Marshals say, hey, he's not going out, then you¶

7 release him out of --¶

8 MR. : So, this is --¶

9 : Okay.¶

10 MR. : -- this means, on the El, he¶

11 would be listed on the outcount?¶

12 : As court.¶

13 MR. : As court.¶

14 : Yeah.¶

15 MR. : Okay.¶

16 : And that's what they were¶

17 actually doing?¶

18 : That's what they were doing.¶

19 : Okay.¶

20 : They had him on the El.¶

21 : So --¶

22 : Yeah.¶

23 : -- so, this is no longer¶

24¶

25 : That's not --¶

1 : -- an issue.¶

2 : -- an issue.¶

3 : All right. The next one,¶

4 it says, "No notations concerning a requirement¶

5 for a cellmate were entered into the SHU¶

6 program, and subsequently available for SHU¶

7 officers to reference." Who would have been¶

8 responsible for noting that in the SHU program?¶

9 : So -.¶

10 : First of all, what is the¶

11 SHU program?¶

12 : The SHU program is --¶

13 : Is that the 292?¶

14 with the 292s. So,¶

15 don't know, from what I understand, and was¶

16 told after the fact, that they couldn't find¶

17 the information on Epstein in the SHU program.¶

18 So, I don't know how you came to that¶

19 conclusion.¶

20 : By the way, let the record¶

21 indicate that he is not sweating under his¶

22 armpits. A good sign.¶

23 : We didn't. BOP came to¶

24 these conclusions.¶

25 : Right. So, I don't know¶

1 where that conclusion came from because from¶

2 what I gather, they couldn't get - they¶

3 couldn't find the -. Because usually --¶

4 : Well, they found the¶

5 292s, but they were just very limited.¶

6 : Right. The 292s usually had¶

7 to have everything indicated on it. So¶

8 : And on that note, we were¶

9 told the 292, his file, was extremely small,¶

10 and it should have been larger. Had you heard¶

11 anything about people removing documents from¶

12 files?¶

13 : From what I understand, and¶

14 was told, that there was no file. They¶

15 couldn't -. They had every other inmates file,¶

16 but not his.¶

17 : They couldn't even find¶

18 it. You didn't think they could find his file¶

19 at all?¶

20 : No. That's what was told to¶

21 me.¶

22 : And who told you that?¶

23 : I think I heard that after¶

24 the fact. I don't know if the regional¶

25 director told me after they came in and did the¶

1 check, that they couldn't find it. So, I don't¶

2 know.¶

3 : That's after they found out¶

4 the Hilary Clinton --¶

5 : Yeah.¶

6 : -- came down and had them¶

7 (Indiscernible *04:40:44) a certain¶

8 (Indiscernible *04:40:45).¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : But back to the original¶

11 question, whether it was there or not.¶

12 : Right.¶

13 : If it, the cellmate¶

14 requirement was not entered in the SHU program,¶

15 who should have made sure that it was?¶

16 : On the, in the 292? And I¶

17 don't know who was doing it. It should have¶

18 been the lieutenant, to ensuring that it's all¶

19 in there.¶

20 : So, the SHU lieutenant?¶

21 : When they - yeah - when they¶

22 deny it, or the OIC. So, if the captain¶

23 conveyed the information to him, that should¶

24 have been put on the 292.¶

25 : So, either¶

1 : By the lieutenant.¶

2 : -- the SHU lieutenant or¶

3 the OIC.¶

4 : Yeah.¶

5 : Now, when you say the¶

6 OIC, does one OIC of one shift take more¶

7 responsibility than another?¶

8 : No. They are all on the¶

9 same shift. So, it would depend on --¶

10 : So, like, for instance,¶

11 was the OIC on the day watch, but --¶

12 : Mm-hmm.¶

13 : I think was the¶

14 OIC on the night watch.¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : So, would one of them had¶

17 more of a responsibility to do this than¶

18 another?¶

19 : No. But that should have¶

20 been done on the initial, when the directive¶

21 was put out.¶

22 : So, from Doctor, or Ms.¶

23 Imeri saying that here's coming off of¶

24 psychological observation, he needs to be¶

25 housed with a cellmate¶

1 : Right. That would have been¶

2¶

3 : -- on July 30th.¶

4 : -- put out, and then, when -¶

5¶

6 : So, who, at that time,¶

7 should have noted that in his file?¶

8 : Well, you would probably¶

9 have to find out from the captain who he¶

10 directed to --¶

11 : Well, the captain¶

12 -- to doing that.¶

13 : -- according to his, you¶

14 know, his memo that he sent to you --¶

15 : Mm-hmm.¶

16 : -- it says that he¶

17 specifically had these conversations on¶

18 multiple occasions, with --¶

19 : The SHU --¶

20 : -- Lieutenant¶

21 : -- right. So, it would have¶

22 been the SHU lieutenant. Whichever one he had.¶

23 If was the one, then would have been¶

24 the one. But --¶

25 : Okay. "August 9th, 2019.¶

1 8:00 a.m. Inmate Reyes, the cellmate, departs¶

2 for court."¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : Again, this claims court,¶

5 but if they are seeing WAB. Actually, you know¶

6 what? I heard WAB was specific to MCC. Is¶

7 that correct?¶

8 : Other institutions will tell¶

9 you pack up your inmates with all belongings.¶

10 That's, you know¶

11 : Because even --¶

12 : -- what it is.¶

13 : -- on their findings,¶

14 they are showing that he departed for court.¶

15 : Yeah.¶

16 : Although, all the¶

17 documentation we showed says WAB.¶

18 : WAB.¶

19 : And transferred.¶

20 : Yeah. And it says --¶

21 : So, even on here, they¶

22 are getting this wrong?¶

23 : And that's what the whole¶

24 confusion is, is the assumption that he was¶

25 going to court --¶

1 : Because then it says --¶

2 -- when you look at the¶

3 document --¶

4 : -- so --¶

5 : -- go ahead.¶

6 : -- yeah, and then, it¶

7 says, "Inmate Reyes does not return to the¶

8 institution."¶

9 : Right.¶

10 : So, and this was when a¶

11 lot of things, when we were first starting this¶

12 investigation, we heard was court, court,¶

13 didn't return from court.¶

14 : Right.¶

15 : And then, when we¶

16 actually looked through the record, we were,¶

17 like --¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : -- court. It's -.¶

20 : I think people thought,¶

21 without looking at the documentation, that he¶

22 went to court and got released from court.¶

23 : Okay.¶

24 : So.¶

25 : So then, I'm just going¶

1 to read the question. If the documents list¶

2 Reyes as being WAB, and if they had the¶

3 transfer list, why did they say he went to¶

4 court and did not return?¶

5 : I can't answer that.¶

6 : Okay. "7:00 p.m.¶

7 Epstein was provided a social call by the¶

8 institutional duty officer." Does that mean¶

9¶

10 : Yeah. He was the duty¶

11 officer at that time, I believe.¶

12 : And what does the¶

13 institutional duty officer mean?¶

14 : So, what the duty officer¶

15 is, is after hours, they walk around and, you¶

16 know, report emergencies, you know -.¶

17 : Is that, like, the¶

18 highest ranking official there?¶

19 : That comes on at night. You¶

20 know, there with the lieutenants. But they¶

21 just make sure that if we had any issues, you¶

22 know, addressing inmate issues, stuff like¶

23 that.¶

24 : So, they are kind of,¶

25 like, the, basically the OIC for the¶

1 institution?¶

2 : Kind of. I wouldn't say the¶

3 OIC, but you know, senior staff around.¶

4 : Okay. "This call was¶

5 done on an unmonitored line. It is extremely¶

6 concerning why this call would have been¶

7 placed, and why it would be done on an¶

8 unmonitored line. Without further interviews,¶

9 it is not possible to determine the reason for¶

10 this call." Just, why does it say, "extremely¶

11 concerning"?¶

12 : I don't know. Both are¶

13 report --¶

14 : But I mean, do you also¶

15 find it extremely concerning? Would you¶

16 classify it as extremely concerning?¶

17 : I mean, it would be -.¶

18 mean, that the choice of words that they use.¶

19 So, I wouldn't, you know, necessarily say, use¶

20 the word extremely concerning. But I would¶

21 think, I would --¶

22 : It's certainly wrong.¶

23 -- it would be --¶

24 : But -.¶

25 : -- it was an issue. But¶

1 extremely concerning.¶

2 : Okay. "On August 9th,¶

3 2019, during a shift change in SHU, the SHU¶

4 number three, 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., officer¶

5 briefed his 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 relief, and the¶

6 other two, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. officers,¶

7 with the likelihood inmate Reyes would not be¶

8 returning, and inmate Epstein would require a¶

9 cellmate upon return from an attorney visit.¶

10 Inmate Epstein was not placed with a cellmate¶

11 upon his return to SHU." My question to you¶

12 is, just, how did they know this information?¶

13 How would they have obtained that information?¶

14 Do you know?¶

15 : I don't know. Like I said,¶

16 I don't know who they spoke to during this¶

17 after action.¶

18 : Were they doing¶

19 interviews, though?¶

20 : I wasn't there.¶

21 : Okay.¶

22 : Yeah.¶

23 : Were they authorized,¶

24 though, if OIG and FBI are doing an¶

25 investigation, is the after action team¶

1 authorized to come in and interview people?¶

2 : So, I've done after actions.¶

3 And there is a point where you come to it,¶

4 where you, if it's an OIG or FBI investigation,¶

5 that I can't. I mean, I can't question certain¶

6 people because it might impede an¶

7 investigation. Like, if you are going to look¶

8 at video and all that stuff, or look at it, you¶

9 can't because most of the time, it's been¶

10 taken. So, I don't know -.¶

11 : So, possibly from that¶

12 memo, though, that was created? If they are¶

13 not really supposed to be doing. I mean, I'm¶

14 assuming they are not really supposed to be¶

15 doing interviews.¶

16 : I mean, I don't know who¶

17 authorized them to come in and do the¶

18 investigation. I don't know. It was, you¶

19 know, who set the parameters on it. I can't¶

20 speak on that.¶

21 : And is it a normal for¶

22 them to do something like this, when there is¶

23 an actual FBI and OIG investigation?¶

24 : We do after actions. So, I¶

25 don't know -.¶

1 : But I mean, do they do¶

2 after actions typically, when there is an open,¶

3 criminal investigation, though?¶

4 : Not typically.¶

5 : No?¶

6 : So, I don't know. And¶

7 again, I don't want to speculate. I don't know¶

8 who authorized it. I don't know if they got¶

9 permission from the department to come down and¶

10 do it. I don't want to -.¶

11 : Sure. "August 10th,¶

12 2019." So, this is the day of.¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : "6:33 a.m. A body alarm¶

15 is activated in the Special Housing Unit. SHU¶

16 staff report inmate Epstein was unresponsive in¶

17 cell 206-220LAD. Sentry does not reflect this¶

18 accurately. Staff entered the cell and¶

19 attempted to wake Epstein. Control center¶

20 announced a medical emergency, and¶

21 cardiopulmonary resuscitation," or CPR, "was¶

22 initiated." So, the question here is, I guess¶

23 I'll start with. Well, the information that we¶

24 have is and were there.¶

25 immediately went into the cell.¶

1 : Mm-hmm.¶

2 : Upon finding Epstein.¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : Was it appropriate for¶

5 him to immediately go into the cell? Or should¶

6 have he waited for staff to arrive on site?¶

7 : You should be --¶

8 : What?¶

9 : -- you're trained --¶

10 : To go into the cell, I would¶

11 think.¶

12 : -- no, you wait for enough¶

13 staff to get there, and a lieutenant, before¶

14 you open that door.¶

15 : Is that right?¶

16 : Mm-hmm.¶

17 : In other words, suppose the¶

18 fucking guy is in seizure.¶

19 : Well, the flip side of it¶

20 is, he could be trying --¶

21 : Remember --¶

22 he could be feigning it.¶

23 we're in a prison.¶

24 : Yeah. He could be feigning¶

25 the suicide, and then come on and attack you.¶

1 And guess what? You're the only person there.¶

2 Now, he has the keys for every range door on¶

3 that door.¶

4 : Okay.¶

5 : And you can lose¶

6 : Mm-hmm.¶

7 : -- you can lose the unit.¶

8 : Okay. Okay.¶

9 : So --¶

10 : Yeah. Okay. I made a¶

11 mistake.¶

12 : -- that wasn't --¶

13 : That's the first time --¶

14 : So, he did not.¶

15 : -- you make a notation,¶

16 (Indiscernible *04:48:23).¶

17 : So, he didn't¶

18 appropriately (Indiscernible *04:48:25)?¶

19 : Yeah. He didn't¶

20 appropriately.¶

21 : And should have he known¶

22 that from his training experience?¶

23 : Yeah. Yeah.¶

24 "7:36 a.m., inmate¶

25 Epstein pronounced dead by the emergency room¶

1 physician. And we've already addressed this.¶

2 My question was, was Epstein alive, or did he¶

3 show signs of -? But we dug into that plenty.¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : "On August 10th, 2019,¶

6 the two assigned morning watch SHU officers¶

7 failed to make their designated rounds, or¶

8 count the SHU inmates for two counts. At 6:33¶

9 a.m., upon finding inmate Epstein unresponsive¶

10 in his cell, with a torn bedsheet around his¶

11 neck, staff utilized the body alarm to initiate¶

12 a call for assistance. The medical response to¶

13 the incident was timely, efficient, and¶

14 exhaustive. Staff utilized an AED, as well as¶

15 a continuous CPR unit care was assumed by EMS¶

16 personnel." Are you aware of how - what¶

17 information they obtained to say that the SHU¶

18 officers failed to make their designated rounds¶

19 or counts?¶

20 : I don't know.¶

21 : No? And I just say this¶

22 because I know, in reviewing the emails, a lot¶

23 of this information was provided from you to¶

24 Ray, and Ray was providing it to whomever, that¶

25 were --¶

1 : Right.¶

2 : -- was doing this,¶

3 though.¶

4 : Right.¶

5 : So, I was assuming, in¶

6 drafting these questions, that a lot of this¶

7 information came from you.¶

8 : But I wasn't here when this¶

9 was.¶

10 : Yeah, yeah, yeah. I¶

11 think a lot of this stuff, though, was¶

12 provided, you know --¶

13 : Right.¶

14 : -- during the email¶

15 review, those first couple of days.¶

16 : Okay.¶

17 : So, that's why I'm asking¶

18 these questions, is, like, do you know where¶

19 this information came from?¶

20 : No, I don't.¶

21 : No?¶

22 : Hmm-mm.¶

23 : Okay. "Institution duty¶

24 officers do not routinely visit SHU each day,¶

25 as required by the institution supplement.¶

1 Additionally, the IDO reports consistently¶

2 document the condition of SHU as satisfactory,¶

3 when observations have shown the SHU to be less¶

4 than satisfactory." Do you have any comment on¶

5 that? Do you agree with that assessment?¶

6 : Oh, I don't know what day¶

7 they went in there. Again, when these¶

8 observations were done, I wasn't the warden in¶

9 the institution.¶

10 : Okay. But prior to, when¶

11 you were the warden, do you know about the¶

12 institution duty officers not routinely¶

13 visiting the SHU each day as required?¶

14 : No. I didn't know about¶

15 that.¶

16 : You didn't know about¶

17 that.¶

18 : I didn't. I ensured¶

19 sanitation. You know? I made sure they made,¶

20 made sure the areas were clean. So.¶

21 : Okay. And what was their¶

22 ultimate responsibility when they would visit¶

23 the SHU?¶

24 : I guess same thing, to make¶

25 rounds in the unit. Check on the inmates.¶

1 Make sure there are no issues.¶

2 : And is that, like you¶

3 said, the idea was the guy that's on at night?¶

4 : That's the duty officer.¶

5 The institution duty officer.¶

6 : Always at night, though?¶

7 : They use - they typically¶

8 work from, like, 1:00 to 9:00, 12:00 to 9:00.¶

9 They cover the evening shift.¶

10 : Because I thought it was¶

11 explained to me, it was kind of, like, the¶

12 person in charge when you are not here.¶

13 : Well, yeah. But then, the¶

14 other flip side of it go to the other shifts,¶

15 you know, the operations lieutenant is the CEO¶

16 in the absence of a warden. So --¶

17 : Okay.¶

18 : -- the duty officer is just¶

19 the bridge to the executive staff.¶

20 : But they were actually¶

21 supposed to be conducting those SHU rounds¶

22 every day?¶

23 : And then, again, I don't¶

24 know if they were or were not. I don't know¶

25 what they were, you know, what he was looking¶

1 at.¶

2 : Now, why would, was¶

3 a reoccurring --¶

4 : What?¶

5¶

6 Was he a reoccurring -?¶

7 : No. The duty officers.¶

8 Like, sometimes, you can get it twice a year.¶

9 : Oh, okay.¶

10 : So, I don't -.¶

11 : But is it, like, a¶

12 quarterly --¶

13 : Well, remember --¶

14 : -- submitted post type of¶

15 thing?¶

16 : remember, he is also, he¶

17 is the duty officer, but he is also his unit¶

18 manager.¶

19 : But was he --¶

20 : So -.¶

21 : -- the consistent duty¶

22 officer?¶

23 : No, no, no, no. They¶

24 rotate.¶

25 : Every day?¶

1¶

2¶

: No. Every week.¶

: Every week.¶

3 : Yeah. You have other ones,¶

4 every week. So -.¶

5 MR. : So, it goes between other¶

6 unit managers?¶

7 : Other unit managers. Other¶

8 department heads. So, it kind of goes, you¶

9 know?¶

10 : What is the grade --¶

11 MR. : And do they -.¶

12 : -- level requirement?¶

13 : The department heads. It's¶

14 usually 12 or higher.¶

15 : 12 or higher.¶

16 : And some, like, maybe some¶

17 GS-11s. Our trust fund supervisors.¶

18 : What grade level are you?¶

19 : Huh?¶

20 : What level are you?¶

21 : SES.¶

22 : Which means?¶

23 : It's like a general.¶

24 : No. A staff.¶

25 : No. It's what it's¶

1 equivalent to.¶

2 MR. : Mm-hmm.¶

3 : Right.¶

4 : So, if you're looking at¶

5 the military equivalent --¶

6 : Mm-hmm.¶

7 : Hey, man.¶

8 : -- it would be --¶

9 : I can't be too --¶

10 : -- the general.¶

11 : -- cheap.¶

12 : No. No. No. I can't¶

13 afford that. I got kids.¶

14 : Well, fuck. Why didn't --¶

15 : Yeah.¶

16 : -- why didn't somebody tell me¶

17 that before?¶

18 : No, no, no. I got --¶

19 : (Indiscernible *04:52:52).¶

20 : -- yeah.¶

21 : Yeah.¶

22 : So, the highest level you¶

23 can go to in the GS level is 15. And that is¶

24 basically a full (Indiscernible *04:53:00)¶

25 colonel in the military. SES is the general¶

1 level. So, don't -. He's being modest.¶

2 : No. Yeah.¶

3 : I always liked him anyway.¶

4 : I did not know. I¶

5 thought, I assumed you were 15 since your AWs¶

6 are 14s, though.¶

7 : No. But certain¶

8 institutions, you are SESs.¶

9 : And MCC was one of those¶

10 institutions?¶

11 : MCC is one. Your pre-trials¶

12 are 15s. Your penitentiaries. Your big lows.¶

13 Like, Fort Dix. Certain mediums.¶

14 : And have you maintained?¶

15 Are you still an SES now?¶

16 : Yes.¶

17 : Okay. Since this time,¶

18 have you ever been demoted or anything like¶

19 that?¶

20 : No.¶

21 : No.¶

22 : You know, man, I really --¶

23 : No. Just got --¶

24 : I really got (Indiscernible¶

25 *04:53:45) for this guy.¶

1 : -- no.¶

2 (Indiscernible *04:53:45).¶

3 You know how, I always give law enforcement¶

4 guys a big, you know, a discount. But I¶

5 didn't, he's fuck - he's a fucking¶

6 (Indiscernible *04:53:52) --¶

7 : I'm (Indiscernible¶

8 *04:53:52) a discount.¶

9 : -- (Indiscernible *04:53:54)¶

10 couldn't afford him to pay.¶

11 : Remember, I'm a federal¶

12 employee.¶

13 : Federal boys. It doesn't¶

14 matter if you're a general or not.¶

15 : We don't make any money.¶

16 : You're not making a lot¶

17 of money.¶

18 : Yeah.¶

19 : But -.¶

20 : Remember, I think the¶

21 president makes, what?¶

22 : Yeah.¶

23 : 250, and he's the¶

24 : 400.¶

25 : -- 400.¶

1¶

2¶

: Yeah.¶

: Is it 400 now?¶

3 : And the Vice President makes¶

4 two something.¶

5 : Yeah, yeah. No. That's¶

6¶

7 : And never disciplined. When¶

8 I was moved, never given a reason why I was¶

9 moved. I was just moved.¶

10 : Okay. So, is the report¶

11 also says that, "Psychology intake screening of¶

12 Epstein contained errors in identifying¶

13 details, including that Epstein was referred to¶

14 as a black inmate, and by different inmate¶

15 names."¶

16 : Oh, no. You're kidding me.¶

17 They said he was black? Hell, that was a¶

18 mistake.¶

19 : Do you know anything¶

20 about that?¶

21 : I don't know anything about¶

22 that.¶

23 : Would that be a¶

24 psychology issue?¶

25 : That is a psychology,¶

1 whoever was doing that review.¶

2 : All right. "SHU has¶

3 multiple cells equipped with video recording¶

4 capability. Inmate Epstein was not housed in¶

5 one of these cells. And there appears to be no¶

6 set guidance on when to utilize these cells."¶

7 So, you already said you didn't believe, like,¶

8 he should have been.¶

9 : So --¶

10 : Is that correct?¶

11 : -- let me correct that.¶

12 None of the cells, none of the cells that we¶

13 had in SHU had cameras in the cells that were¶

14 being, working and being used. The only ones¶

15 up in SHU that had cameras in the cell is Ten¶

16 South.¶

17 : Okay. So, no¶

18 : So, they --¶

19 : -- where else in the¶

20 institution --¶

21 : -- nowhere else in there 2.ad¶

22 cameras in the cell.¶

23 : Hmm.¶

24 : Ten South, we have it in the¶

25 cells where you can see --¶

1 MR. : That --¶

2 : How about, like, Nine¶

3 South lower, or something like that? Would¶

4 they? Isn't that, like, the mini Ten South?¶

5 : That's the - yeah - that's¶

6 the --¶

7 : Or G tier.¶

8 : G tier.¶

9 : That's not --¶

10 : Right.¶

11 : -- what this is.¶

12 : So, that --¶

13 : Did they have cameras?¶

14 : -- that did have recording¶

15 cameras in --¶

16 : Just live cameras?¶

17 in South, yeah. Just¶

18 Nope. But then, we had no cameras on there¶

19 that had live cameras in the South.¶

20 : Okay. So, only¶

21 : Ten South.¶

22 : -- Ten South.¶

23 : Only Ten South.¶

24 MR. : So --¶

25 : So -.¶

1 MR. : -- this statement might¶

2 actually associate Ten South as part of the¶

3 SHU.¶

4 : Right. Because a lot of¶

5 people that come in, when they first come in,¶

6 Ten South is part of there, actually part of¶

7 Nine South. We call it -. It's part of an¶

8 annex. So, when most people come in, and they¶

9 have never been there, they don't¶

10 differentiate.¶

11 : So, being that these are¶

12 BOP individuals that did this report, what is¶

13 your response to them saying that there appears¶

14 to be set guidance on when to utilize these¶

15 cells? If they are referring to Ten South.¶

16 Was there guidance on that?¶

17 : Yeah. Ten South, like 1¶

18 said, was specifically for the SAMs inmates.¶

19 : So, do you --¶

20 : Yeah.¶

21 : -- also believe that tnat¶

22 is an incorrect statement, then?¶

23 : If that's what they are¶

24 referring to, I do believe it is.¶

25 : And you believe there was¶

1 no other working cameras, outside of Ten South?¶

2 : Ten South is --¶

3 : For a single cell.¶

4 : -- is the one where we had¶

5 our cameras.¶

6 : Okay.¶

7 MR. : Okay.¶

8 : Because we had also been¶

9 informed that there were cells outside of Ten¶

10 South that had cameras in them, specifically I¶

11 think G tier. That's inaccurate?¶

12 : G tier. There is no¶

13 recording of inmates in those cells.¶

14 : Just live?¶

15 : And I don't even believe¶

16 live. I know the only ones we had was Ten¶

17 South.¶

18 : Okay.¶

19 MR. : We also heard that Ten South¶

20 wasn't supped to be utilized anymore. It was¶

21 actually supposed to be phased out.¶

22 : It was supposed to be what:¶

23 MR. : Phased out.¶

24 : What do you mean phased out?¶

25 MR. : He was actually brought up,¶

1 brought out during the time, after 9/11, to¶

2 house terrorists inmates.¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 MR. : Have you ever heard anything¶

5 about the fact that no one was supposed to be¶

6 housed up there anymore (Indiscernible¶

7 *04:57:12)?¶

8 : No. It's not -. It's not¶

9 to house terrorists' inmates. It's to house¶

10 inmates that have a SAMs on them. So, mostly,¶

11 the most of the inmates that have SAMs on them¶

12 are terrorist inmates or, you know, maybe an¶

13 inmate housed for espionage. You know? And¶

14 then --¶

15 MR. : Was it supposed to have been¶

16 phased out due to PREA concerns?¶

17 : I didn't -. I don't know¶

18 anything about that.¶

19 MR. : Okay.¶

20 : No.¶

21 : Okay. The next one is,¶

22 the report also shows that, "A review was done¶

23 regarding the overtime conducted by the C.O.s¶

24 at the MCC, and the shortage of staff." It¶

25 doesn't say much about it. Do you know what¶

1 the overall team's finding was? Do you agree¶

2 that there was a shortage of staff?¶

3 : Yeah, there was. I mean¶

4 : Mm-hmm.¶

5 : I'll give you an example.¶

6 We were short staffed. I was relieving¶

7 officers on their posts, and on some weekends,¶

8 I would come in and work a post. I mean --¶

9 : You, as the warden?¶

10 : -- as the warden. I mean,¶

11 we had -. We were short. I mean -.¶

12 : Now, is there a Was¶

13 there a way to rectify that issue?¶

14 : We could. I mean, hiring.¶

15 We had, I mean, 40 or 50 staff on OWCP¶

16 (Phonetic Sp. *04:58:23).¶

17 : And can you explain what¶

18 that is?¶

19 : Workers compensation.¶

20 : Oh. And what was the¶

21 percentage there, you said?¶

22 : About 40 or 50 staff on it.¶

23 : 40 or 50 staff.¶

24 : Yeah. On there -.¶

25 : Did they seem to abuse¶

1 that?¶

2 : We all knew it was an abuse.¶

3 I mean, we -. We had even had conversations¶

4 with the IG about, you know, you're going to¶

5 the same doctor. But I mean, I understand. So¶

6¶

7 : So --¶

8 : -- every -.¶

9 : -- they were all using the¶

10 same doctor?¶

11 : The same doctor. But again,¶

12 I understand, every agency is short.¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : I mean, so, we just had that¶

15 constant problem.¶

16 : That's, like --¶

17 : You know?¶

18 : -- they use some of these -.¶

19 Some things, they use the same expert witnesses¶

20 all the time.¶

21 : Right. The hiring. We haa¶

22 a lot of department heads that we would use to¶

23 cover. Some of my associate wardens, you know,¶

24 would cover. So, it was just, you know, had to¶

25 make do with what we had.¶

1 : Now, was there, like, a¶

2 plan in place to try to get you guys up to¶

3 proper staffing levels?¶

4 : I mean, we were working on¶

5 hiring. You know, and getting people in. But¶

6 it's a process. You know? To get somebody¶

7 hired, it takes between six and eight months.¶

8 : And were there a number¶

9 of people in the pipeline?¶

10 : Not really. I mean, we went¶

11 out and did recruiting, because we were¶

12 competing with other agencies.¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : You know? Other agencies¶

15 are hiring, you know, and we had incentives.¶

16 You know? To get people on. So, it was just a¶

17 matter of, you know, getting people on board.¶

18 : And do you think it could¶

19 have been handled better by some, in some way,¶

20 by the BOP, in order to rectify that issue?¶

21 : There's certain things we¶

22 don't control. Staffing. You know, the¶

23 budget. We don't -. I don't -. We don't¶

24 control that. I mean, we can turn around and¶

25 say, I want this, but once the law is passed,¶

1 and it said, this is what you are getting, you¶

2 don't -. We need to work with what we've got.¶

3 : No, and I understand¶

4 that, that as, like, as far as the BOP goes.¶

5 But I mean, the MCC, especially, you know,¶

6 covering Epstein in a lie *05:00:18), and¶

7 having such high-profile inmates. Was there -¶

8 do you think that there could have been¶

9 anything done better, though, by the BOP, to¶

10 make sure that your institution, specifically¶

11 MCC, was better staffed?¶

12 : You could - so, let's go TDY¶

13 - we couldn't really, couldn't TDY to a point,¶

14 but then, there are other institutions around¶

15 the agency that were, you know, the staffing¶

16 was an issue. So, they can't send somebody out¶

17 to help, you know? And then, it just brought¶

18 down the finding. I mean, and getting people¶

19 to clear your background. Not everybody can¶

20 clear a background to work. I mean, yeah, we¶

21 can go out in the street and say, hey, we got a¶

22 job for you, but can you pass the guidelines?¶

23 : Mm-hmm.¶

24 : And a lot of time, do we¶

25 know.¶

1 : All right. So, we're¶

2 literally less than half of a page left.¶

3 : Mm-hmm.¶

4 : But this next one is just¶

5 going to be, I'm going to have you just kind of¶

6 read it --¶

7 : Okay.¶

8 : -- along with me because¶

9 it's so long. "He was also an inmate who had¶

10 risk factors for assault by other inmates, and¶

11 did require careful selection for appropriate¶

12 cellmates. Although these issues were noted,¶

13 well documented, and communicated, a failure¶

14 still occurred by allowing inmate Epstein to be¶

15 placed in the cell alone. Although feasible¶

16 for an inmate to effectuate suicide while¶

17 housed with a cellmate, the odds of this¶

18 occurring are significantly lowered when housed¶

19 with another inmate."¶

20 The report continues. "It is apparent¶

21 various staff at the institution made a point¶

22 of ensuring inmate Epstein had an assigned¶

23 cellmate. The captain personally instructed¶

24 the lieutenants, individually. A mass email¶

25 was distributed by psychology, and it is¶

1 apparent some SHU officers were aware.¶

2 Although many people acknowledge this is an¶

3 important fact, ultimately, the final staff¶

4 responsible for not - or did not ensure the¶

5 requirement was met, including vital¶

6 directives, such as a cellmate requirement, and¶

7 a mass email does not ensure -." (Indiscernible¶

8 *05:02:20) --¶

9 : Mm-hmm.¶

10 : -- including vital¶

11 directives, such as a cellmate requirement, and¶

12 a mass email does not ensure those who truly¶

13 need that information do, in fact, receive it¶

14 timely. In this case, inmate Epstein was¶

15 actually placed with a cellmate when removed¶

16 from psychological --¶

17 : Mm-hmm.¶

18 : -- observation. After¶

19 that moment, it is clear there was no¶

20 additional written directive, or a fail safe¶

21 system established, to ensure inmate Epstein¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : -- would have had a¶

24 cellmate going forward." So, I guess, first¶

25 and foremost, do you believe, probably the¶

1 primary reason why Epstein was able to take his¶

2 own life was because he didn't have a cellmate?¶

3 On top of the fact that they weren't conducting¶

4 rounds in SHU? And counts.¶

5 : I can't speak to the¶

6 mindset. Only I can speak to is, he killed¶

7 himself.¶

8 : But what I'm asking is,¶

9 would it have certainly helped prevent his¶

10 death by one) having an inmate; and two) having¶

11 rounds and counts conducted?¶

12 : Oh, if people did their job.¶

13 : Right.¶

14 : You know? And -.¶

15 : Like, obviously, if he¶

16 killed himself, he did it.¶

17 : Right.¶

18 : But the way that the¶

19 government can better ensure that that doesn't¶

20 happen is by ensuring that, when it is mandated¶

21 that someone has a cellmate, they have a¶

22 cellmate.¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : And when they do their¶

25 job, like you just said, they conduct rounds¶

1 and counts, that -. Is that what you believe¶

2 would have helped keep him alive today, if, you¶

3 know, from the government perspective?¶

4 : I mean, again, I'm going to¶

5 just say, I can't say what would have kept him¶

6 alive, but I will say, you know, if people made¶

7 their rounds, did their job, followed¶

8 instructions that they were given, then it¶

9 might have -. Could have minimized what, you¶

10 know --¶

11 : The risk.¶

12 : -- you know, what happened.¶

13 The risk. But I can't talk to, you know, if he¶

14 would have done it or not done it. If that¶

15 would have stopped him.¶

16 : Now, as far as this last¶

17 sentence, what they wrote, "After that moment,¶

18 it is clear there was no additional written¶

19 directive, or fail safe system established to¶

20 ensure inmate Epstein would have a cellmate¶

21 going forward." What do you think could have¶

22 been done, and who should have done it?¶

23 : So, directives and the¶

24 information was conveyed to people verbally,¶

25 documented on forms, on what you are supposed¶

1¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

to do. There was signs up. : Now, what signs do you¶

know that were up? : No, I mean, the one you read¶

5 to me, about the sign about doing the 30-minute¶

6 checks.¶

7 : Oh, I think this is --¶

8 : So -.¶

9 : -- specifically talking¶

10 about the cellmate requirement.¶

11 : No. I mean, (Indiscernible¶

12 *05:05:02) cellmate requirement. It was put¶

13 out by the captain. Directives were given.¶

14 Staff was spoken to. You know, it's kind of¶

15 boiled down to people not doing their job. I¶

16 mean, if I tell you, you have to do something,¶

17 it's given to you in writing, what more do we¶

18 have to do?¶

19 : Well, that's kind of my¶

20 question, because the BOP is the one who wrote¶

21 that finding. So, I'm curious myself --¶

22 : I mean, that's¶

23 : -- what you think --¶

24 : I mean --¶

25 : -- that could have been¶

1 done.¶

2 : -- that's somebody's¶

3 opinion.¶

4 : Right.¶

5 : You know? That's a Monday¶

6 morning quarterback that came in and make an¶

7 opinion. I don't know what their ulterior¶

8 motive is¶

9 : Can you think of any --¶

10 for making it.¶

11 : -- anything that wasn't¶

12 done? Can you think of anything, like, oh, if¶

13 this could have helped, or maybe he should have¶

14 done that? As far as the cellmate requirement.¶

15 : I can't think of anything¶

16 they should have done.¶

17 : No. Okay.¶

18 MR. : Can I ask?¶

19 : Yeah.¶

20 MR. : I know it's bound to - based¶

21 on once everything comes up, these are¶

22 questions that they're going to have. So, I¶

23 got to ask. I know you mentioned that you¶

24 couldn't have secondary selection. Like,¶

25 another replacement for Reyes, because inmates¶

1 keep moving. But is it possible that a list¶

2 should have been created? That, you know,¶

3 should have told the SHU officers, hey, listen,¶

4 if Reyes ever gets removed, here is a list of¶

5 maybe possible five inmates that you could¶

6 choose from?¶

7 : But I mean, under, you know,¶

8 different inmates, we can do that, but he was a¶

9 high-profile inmate that¶

10 MR. : Mm-hmm.¶

11 : I would have had to get¶

12 that name and run it up to the department, to¶

13 see if it was okay. it wasn't just him. I was¶

14 going to arbitrarily say, listen, I need you¶

15 to, you know, we're going to put this guy -. I¶

16 was, just like with the other ones, sent up to¶

17 the department. So, again, it would have been¶

18 based on who was there.¶

19 : And because --¶

20 : If that.¶

21 : -- because of that¶

22 extreme detail that had to go into selection,¶

23 think what is asking you is, should have¶

24 there been a list of names that the higher ups¶

25 signed off on, in case someone was removed,¶

they went to court, they didn't come back, they¶

were transferred, things like this.¶

MR. : Like, that's what they list¶

as afail safe. Like -- : Right. ^Imean --¶

MR. : -- as aprecautionary¶

measure. : -- it could have been, but¶

then it would have still been based on who was¶

there that day, at the time. : And that's why I think¶

he's saying, like, a list of five people versus¶

one or two. So, if this person is not --¶

: I don't --¶

: -- there, what about this¶

one? That one is not there, either. But maybe¶

this guy. You know, that type of thing. Or¶

did you --¶

: I just --¶

: -- just stand by ahunch?¶

: -- yeah. I just, I just¶

feel, like, you know --¶

: Don't know.¶

: -- it was, I can't, no. ^I¶

mean --¶

1 : Mm-hmm.¶

2 -- again, I'm operating in¶

3 hindsight. I mean, at the time --¶

4 : Okay.¶

5 : -- you know, that's what was¶

6 done.¶

7 MR. : Yeah, we know you do.¶

8 : Yeah. And we are¶

9 absolutely asking you to operate in hindsight.¶

10 : Right.¶

11 : Saying, like¶

12 : Yeah.¶

13 : -- Monday morning¶

14 quarterbacking --¶

15 : Right.¶

16 : -- yourself and your own¶

17 institution, I get it. But, like, Monday¶

18 morning quarterbacking this situation¶

19 : Mm-hmm.¶

20 : -- what do you think¶

21 they, you know, they are referring to this as¶

22 the BOP, and we are not the experts.¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : We're coming in. But BOP¶

25 is saying this. I'm just saying, what do they¶

1 mean by this?¶

2 : Right. But¶

3 : And what are some things¶

4 that could have been done?¶

5 : -- but those are individuals¶

6 that are coming in, looking at a situation,¶

7 that weren't deeply involved in it.¶

8 : Mm-hmm.¶

9 : You know, they weren't the¶

10 ones that were told, hey, okay, I'm talking to¶

11 my boss, and it's going all the way up to the¶

12 department. That wasn't That wasn't privy¶

13 to them.¶

14 : Mm-hmm.¶

15 : That was a need to know¶

16 basis.¶

17 MR. : But unfortunately, everyone¶

18 is who going to eventually look at this case --¶

19 : Right.¶

20 MR. -- is going to be doing the¶

21 same exact thing as they are.¶

22 : No. But what I'm saying is,¶

23 if we're looking at assessing the situation on¶

24 what happened in real time, that's what I'm¶

25 talking about. So, in real time, now, if they¶

1 had known that, hey, you know what? These¶

2 names had to go up and be, you know, vetted at¶

3 the same time, maybe it would have been a¶

4 different thought process.¶

5 MR. : And was it possible - and¶

6 maybe you discussed this - was it possible¶

7 that, hey, listen, the SHU officers could have¶

8 replaced -? Did they have the ability to¶

9 replace Reyes, if they wanted to, or did they¶

10 have to come up the chain of command, for the¶

11 chain of command to tell them who the new¶

12 inmate -?¶

13 : They were instructed, hey,¶

14 let us know when - where he's to have a¶

15 cellmate at all time - and to notify, let¶

16 someone know. Because again, due to the¶

17 individual that he was, you just don't want to¶

18 throw anybody.¶

19 MR. : Okay. But doesn't that kind¶

20 of hinder them from taking action? Let's say,¶

21 at that point on that day, you are not in the¶

22 institution, Captain was there, I¶

23 understand.¶

24 : There was an acting warden¶

25 there. You had the executive staff there.¶

1 Just because the warden is not there doesn't¶

2 mean the institution doesn't run. That's why¶

3 you have, you know, people acting on your¶

4 behalf. You know? That could make --¶

5 : So, maybe --¶

6 those decisions.¶

7 : -- maybe, what¶

8 you are trying to ask is, would somebody, since¶

9 it sounds like you would have to go over your¶

10 head to even make that decision, has to go to¶

11 the regional director level, would the¶

12 associate warden have the ability to go to the¶

13 regional director, or would have they known to¶

14 go to the regional director?¶

15 : So, let's say that did¶

16 happen, right? They would have --¶

17 : Well, it did happen.¶

18 no, I'm saying, as far as¶

19 finding out that, hey, he needed a cellmate.¶

20 So, even though I'm off that day, I'm still¶

21 working.¶

22 : Mm-hmm.¶

23 : Because I got the government¶

24 phone. And they're going to call me and tell¶

25 me, hey, this is what we got going on. He¶

1 needs a cellmate. And then, I would be, like,¶

2 okay, let's see what we have, so we can send it¶

3 up.¶

4 MR. : So, basically, you were¶

5 always available. Someone was always¶

6 available, that if the proper notification was¶

7 being made, up the chain of command --¶

8 : Right.¶

9 MR. : -- a newer inmate could have¶

10 been assigned.¶

11 : That's why I carried it.¶

12 That's why I had (Indiscernible *05:10:23).¶

13 So, to, I get calls all hours of the night,¶

14 even if I'm off, I'm not off. If there is an¶

15 issue, an emergency, I'm called. Yeah.¶

16 MR. : Okay. And if someone does¶

17 ask, should the SHU officers have been given¶

18 the ability? Your answer to that would have¶

19 been, you have that phone with you, someone¶

20 should have made that notification. So --¶

21 : Right.¶

22 MR. : -- someone in the higher --¶

23 : And they --¶

24 MR. : -- of command.¶

25 : -- and they would contact¶

1 me.¶

2 MR. : Okay.¶

3 : So, it was not, like, I'm¶

4 off on paper. Because I am using my leave.¶

5 But I'm still on duty because you can call me¶

6 on my phone.¶

7 MR. : Okay.¶

8 : Yeah.¶

9 : My last two questions.¶

10 Based on your conversation, and after this --¶

11 : Thank God.¶

12 : -- based on your¶

13 conversations, and this after-action report¶

14 that we just reviewed those topics, what are¶

15 the failures of the BOP that allowed Epstein to¶

16 die?¶

17 : I'm not -. I mean, that's -¶

18 . I think -. I can't -. That's -. You know,¶

19 like, I - again - I'm speculating, and I'm¶

20 giving personal opinions. I'm not --¶

21 : Again, and I'm not asking¶

22 you to say why he killed himself.¶

23 : Right.¶

24 : Or if he could have.¶

25 What I'm saying is, what are the failures of¶

1 the BOP?¶

2 : He killed himself because he¶

3 ain't stupid. He said to himself, holy shit,¶

4 I'm going to spend the rest of my life in¶

5 prison.¶

6 : Yeah, yeah, and I'm not -¶

7¶

8 : Yeah.¶

9 : -- and I'm not,¶

10 absolutely not asking --¶

11 : No.¶

12 : -- as far as what is his¶

13 mental state, and could have he had the ability¶

14¶

15 : But I can't --¶

16 : -- but are the failures,¶

17 as you see them, after we reviewed all this,¶

18 that you believe -. What did the BOP do wrong,¶

19 in this instance? Unless you don't think that¶

20 they did anything wrong.¶

21 : No. I'm not saying they did¶

22 anything wrong. But again, these are things¶

23 that you are going to find. I mean, right now,¶

24 I can look at it and say, we're looking at¶

25 people not making rounds and all that. But¶

1 there's still an investigation going on. So, I¶

2 don't want to sit here and speculate¶

3 : No, but we are the ones¶

4¶

5 and say --¶

6 : -- doing the¶

7 investigation, and --¶

8 : -- right.¶

9 : -- you are the leader of¶

10 the organization that, you know, of the place.¶

11 That's why this is a very relevant question for¶

12 you to answer because --¶

13 : Mm-hmm.¶

14 : -- you know, this was the¶

15 facility that you oversaw.¶

16 : Right. So --¶

17 : So, we're just All¶

18 I'm simply asking is, what do you think the¶

19 problems are, as you see them? After you just¶

20 heard everything we just talked about for, it¶

21 seems like the last five hours.¶

22 : No. I mean, if we would¶

23 talk - I mean, you're not counting. You didn't¶

24 make your rounds in that unit, to check on an¶

25 inmate. I mean, that is, that is the basics¶

1 right there.¶

2 : Okay.¶

3 : You know, we can talk about¶

4 all the other stuff, but the basic is, you did¶

5 not go and make those rounds.¶

6 : And would you also,¶

7 though, add to that the fact that they didn't¶

8 replace Reyes --¶

9 : Oh.¶

10 : -- like they wer supposed¶

11 to?¶

12 : Yes.¶

13 : Okay. What actions could¶

14 the BOP have taken to possibly prevent¶

15 Epstein's death?¶

16 : It doesn't sound like --¶

17 : Right.¶

18 : -- still, you were nervous.¶

19 : Totally.¶

20 : That's all. I mean, you could¶

21 have --¶

22 : It just, it sounds like¶

23 they quote, the answer would be, conduct your¶

24 rounds, conduct your counts. Get a¶

25 : Do your job.¶

1 : -- do your job. Get¶

2 Reyes -.¶

3 : 99 times out of a 100, it¶

4 wouldn't have happened.¶

5 : Right. So¶

6 : You know, it's -.¶

7 : -- but in this case, it¶

8 does seem, like, a lot of this was a result of¶

9 - like you keep on saying - people not doing¶

10 their jobs.¶

11 : Jobs.¶

12 : But I mean --¶

13 : Yeah.¶

14 : -- but in all fairness,¶

15 we've had, since Epstein died, and before,¶

16 we've had almost 60 suicides. So, it's the¶

17 same reoccurring theme.¶

18 : Right.¶

19 : You know, people not making¶

20 their rounds and doing what they're supposed to¶

21 do.¶

22 : And is that the same¶

23 thing that's happening with them, they're not¶

24 doing their rounds or counts?¶

25 : I mean, and nine times out¶

1 of ten, every time you look into something, it¶

2 is a matter of them doing checks, you know, not¶

3 counting, you know? So, it's the normal¶

4 things.¶

5 : Are these other¶

6 instances, where we find out that they didn't¶

7 have cellmates?¶

8 : Single cell. You know, I¶

9 mean, you have access to the data. I mean, you¶

10 look at it, and you look at the numbers of¶

11 single cell inmates. But there is instances¶

12 where, you know, sometimes you do have to put¶

13 somebody in a cell single.¶

14 : Sure.¶

15 : But, you know, there is¶

16 other suicides, and they don't stop. You know?¶

17 Some of it is, you know, staff had no control¶

18 over it, and some staff had control over it.¶

19 : And I do apologize. I¶

20 said that was the last question, but I guess¶

21 should ask. In Monday morning quarterbacking¶

22 yourself, is there anything that you should¶

23 have done differently?¶

24 : Hmm.¶

25 : As the MCC warden?¶

1 : As far as what? This¶

2 situation?¶

3 : Yeah. Just anything that¶

4 you feel, like, oh, you know, like, I should¶

5 have done this better, or I could have done¶

6 this better. That type of thing.¶

7 : I can't.¶

8 : Just for the record, let¶

9 me just --¶

10 : I can't think of anything¶

11 for that.¶

12 : -- okay. Anything else¶

13 you have?¶

14 MR. : No.¶

15 : That's it?¶

16 : Anything that --¶

17 : Jesus Christ.¶

18 : -- you wanted to add to¶

19 anything, Warden, anything that --¶

20 : I didn't know if you said¶

21 : -- we missed, or you want¶

22 to -?¶

23 : -- generally.¶

24 : No. No. That's it.¶

25 MR. : Is there anything you think¶

1 we missed asking about?¶

2 : Don't ask him that.¶

3 : Not that I can think of.¶

4 : You have a right to remain¶

5 silent. (Indiscernible *05:15:06). Guys,¶

6 listen, you know?¶

7 : Yeah. No. We got you.¶

8 : Like, I was impressed that you¶

9 did that. He couldn't go through this. I¶

10 would have been to the bathroom, like, I got to¶

11 do this, I got to do this. I mean, I got to¶

12 make a phone call. I want to take a nap. He¶

13 just sat there and answered all the questions.¶

14 I mean, he's not --¶

15 : Yeah.¶

16 : -- even sweating under his¶

17 armpits.¶

18 : And thank you very much -¶

19¶

20 : Yeah.¶

21 : -- for your cooperation -¶

22¶

23 : No. I appreciate --¶

24 : Especially --¶

25 : -- you guys.¶

1 : -- the recording is¶

2 showing that this is five hours and 15 minutes.¶

So, this was an epic, epic interview. It is¶

currently 7:18 p.m. on Wednesday, October 27th,¶

2021. This is Senior Special Agent

, and I am turning off the recorder.¶

1 CERTIFICATE¶

2 I hereby certify that the foregoing pages¶

represent an accurate transcript of the¶

electronic sound recording of the proceedings¶

before the Department of Justice, Office of the¶

Inspector General in the matter of:¶

Interview of¶

Brianna Rose Burton, Transcriber¶