Epstein Data Wiki

Lamine N'Diaye

Properties2
tagsperson, bureau-of-prisons, mcc-new-york, warden, 2019, oig, epstein-death
aliasesLamine N'Diaye, Lamine NDiaye, N'Diaye, Lamine, L. N'Diaye, Warden N'Diaye

35 min read

Named on the documents asLamine N'Diaye; L. N'Diaye, Warden on institutional forms; Warden Lamine N'Diaye in a court filing. ⚠ The extraction mangles the forename constantly as amine, Laraine, Laminc and Latrine, and the surname as Diayc1
What he wasWarden of the Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, from May 2018 until a date in 2020 he could not recall. He confirmed under oath that he was the warden in August 20192
Where he went afterwardsOn his own sworn account, liaison to the regional director, then into the deputy regional director’s post in February 20212
⚠ He was never chargedNo charging document naming him was found for this page. He says he was never disciplined either: “And never disciplined. When I was moved, never given a reason why I was moved. I was just moved.”3
The plan, and the call that stopped itMoving Epstein into general population was the institution’s plan, in his words “the plan was still to get him into general population”, and a telephone call from his supervisor stopped it: “I get a call saying, hold up on that. He needs to stay where he’s at.” ⛔ He was asked whether he personally wanted the move and declined the framing. This page does not say he wanted it.4
What he said about the signsHe told the Inspector General that the Epstein-specific thirty-minute-rounds signs posted in the unit were his: “No, that was me”, glossed “but it was emphasized to them”. ⚠ His sworn account. It is not a documented fact about who issued the underlying requirement5
What he would not attest toThe Bureau sent the Department more than one timeline of the death. Asked whether the last was the most accurate: “It should be, but I don’t want to attest to it.”6
What he refused a federal judgeAsked by Judge Berman what the Bureau had concluded about the 23 July incident, he confirmed an internal investigation had been completed and declined to say anything about it7
What the Bureau did not doIt reviewed the death of a prisoner in his institution and, on his sworn account, never spoke to him: “Nothing. I wasn’t interviewed. I wasn’t spoken to.”8
And the sentence his employer wrote about him”While I prefer not to state the warden’s name in this release, if you decide it needs to be added, his name is Lamine N’Diaye.”9
Covered elsewhere on this wikiDeath of Jeffrey Epstein · Michael Thomas · Prosecution of the MCC officers

Lamine N’Diaye was the Warden of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York when Jeffrey Epstein died there on 10 August 2019. He had held the post since May 2018. The day after the death the Bureau of Prisons drafted the announcement of his reassignment, and the official drafting it wrote that he would rather not put the warden’s name in it. In October 2021 the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General took a sworn statement from him that runs to 114 sheets.10

⚠ HE WAS NEVER ACCUSED OF A CRIME AND THIS PAGE IS WRITTEN WITH THAT IN FRONT OF IT. Two officers were indicted over that night; he was not. Nothing read for this page alleges that he harmed anyone, or that he knew what would happen.

⚠ MOST OF WHAT HE SAYS HERE IS HIS OWN ACCOUNT, GIVEN UNDER OATH TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT, AND THIS PAGE MARKS EVERY PLACE WHERE THAT IS ALL IT IS. Where a contemporaneous document says the same thing, the page says so and cites it separately.

The plan to move Epstein into general population, and the call that stopped it

The institution was working towards moving Epstein out of the Special Housing Unit and into general population. That is his own account, and it is also in a Bureau document written three weeks before he died. His account first, the document below it.

Yeah. There were some names. Because I - fast forward - I got a call, and we were gearing towards getting him out to[…]4

Asked in terms whether that meant he had wanted Epstein in general population, he declined the framing:

I didn’t want -. That’s what typically happens. You know —

[…]

— you don’t want an inmate in segregation. Most of them, we’ve had a lot of high-profile individuals that come in the institution. You know, we do our intelligence gathering, to see, okay, what would be an appropriate unit for them to be in? And we place them. And then, we monitor them.4

⛔ This page does not say he wanted Epstein moved. He was asked precisely that and refused it. What the sheet supports is an institutional plan, described in the first person plural, and a general account of how the institution placed high-profile prisoners.

He put the plan twice more, and the second time he dated it to Epstein’s arrival. Told that coming out of psychological observation he had been looking to send Epstein back to general population, he answered No.; the interviewer corrected himself to Or not back to. Into.; and he continued:

When he first came in, the whole process was —

[…]

— to get him out to general population.4

— the whole thing, and then, even, you know, coming out of psych observations when he got in, the plan was still to get him into general population.4

⚠⚠ The No. on that sheet is not a denial of the plan. It denies the word back, and the interviewer corrected himself to Into in the next line. Read on its own it would support the opposite of what it means.

He gives a reason for the plan that is not his own preference at all:

I mean, we had the attorneys contacting our legal, why can’t he be in general population?4

And the plan was stopped by a telephone call. He says it three times on the one sheet:

I get a call saying, hold up on that. He needs to stay where he’s at.4

— you know, so that’s not feasible, why we were able to keep him in. So, get a call, and they said hold up on that. He needs to stay where he’s at.4

So, and then, that is when I got the call from my boss, saying - and I don’t know who he talked to in the department - but it was, like, hold on.4

⚠ The call came from his own supervisor. Who in the Department his supervisor had spoken to is not established, and he says so himself: I don't know who he talked to in the department. This page does not supply it.

⚠ On the August cellmate the same sheet has him say the decision was taken above him. Asked whether it was made at a higher level than his own he answered Yes., and then:

I don’t know. Listen. I know, I sent it to my supervisor. Actually, the two inmates that would kind of figured out there might be a cellmate, we sent those names to the director’s office.4

And because, see, my boss told me that they had to run it up to the department. So, I don’t know who was spoken to in the department. And it got back, and my boss said that, too, you know, that’s a good choice.4

⚠ The other man is not named on that sheet and this page does not name him. ⚠ On the July pairing he says the decision was his own: asked whether he had any involvement in the selection he said We did., and asked who made the decision to put the two men together, I did. The reasons he gave are on the same sheet and are deliberately not reproduced here, because they would identify a man the producer chose not to name.11

And the plan is in a Bureau document written three weeks before the death, not only in his testimony. On 23 July 2019, at 11.46 a.m., a Bureau official wrote to him by name:

Lamine - The memo is very confusing. Please draft an email of his actions and current status. Also include what plans were in motion to move him to a GP unit. It will nee[…]12

⚠ The instruction to set out what plans were in motion to move him to a GP unit is complete on the sheet, with its own stop; the cut marked after it is the right edge of the sheet and not a producer’s. ⛔ This is the only contemporaneous document read for this page that records the plan. It does not say whose plan it was, and this page does not say either.

The signs in the unit

He told the Inspector General that the Epstein-specific thirty-minute-rounds signs posted in the Special Housing Unit were his. The question he was answering was about the signs. The interviewer put it to him:

brought this today - but there was even signs up that they created, saying, “Mandatory 30-minute rounds on Epstein, signed by God.” Or something, you know, along the lines. Not, you know, meaning, like, do this. You know? Like —5

His answer, with an interjection between the two halves:

No, that was me.

[…]

That was me. No. I mean, I mean, but it was emphasized to them. I mean, so, no one could say that they didn’t know.5

The interviewer then restated what he took the answer to mean, and N’Diaye agreed:

So, point being, there was, like, signs specific to even Epstein, check on this guy every 30 minutes.

[…]

You know, orange signs that are posted up there.5

⚠⚠ What is settled here is narrower than it looks, and the page says only what the sheet says. The question and the answer are about signage. His own gloss, but it was emphasized to them, is the language of emphasising a requirement that already existed, not of creating one. No document read for this page records the issuing of a thirty-minute-rounds requirement for Epstein, and thirty-minute rounds in the Special Housing Unit were a standing requirement rather than an Epstein-specific one (see Death of Jeffrey Epstein for the Inspector General’s account of the required measures). ⛔ This page does not connect him to the criminal case arising from the falsified round slips, and nothing read for it does. That case is at Prosecution of the MCC officers.

On the same sheets he is pressed about whose responsibility the unit was. Asked whether the staff who were working and did not pass information on were equally responsible:

Everybody has a responsibility for their safety. Everybody. I mean —

[…]

— I might be the OIC, but I have some responsibilities.5

And at the end of the exchange:

It should have been passed up.5

⚠ The subject of that exchange is a failure by unit staff to pass information up the chain, not the rounds. The sheet does not date the failure it is discussing.

Nine days before

On 1 August 2019 a disciplinary charge against Epstein was disposed of on a docket that carries his name as the reviewing Warden. The Epstein row of the MCC Discipline Hearing Docket for 08-01-2019 reads EPSTEIN [register number withheld], report number 3282555, code 228, and against it:

Insufficient evidence to support prohibited act.13

⚠ The docket’s Reviewed by: line is EMPTY, with L. N'Diaye, Warden printed beneath it. He is named as the reviewing official; the sheet carries no signature.13 ⚠ Two other people in custody appear on that docket and nothing about them is reproduced here.

Friday off, Saturday called in

He was off duty on Friday 9 August 2019 and did not come back to work until he was called about the death. Shown a Bureau of Prisons timeline that recorded the Public Information Officer being notified of an incident by the warden, he stopped on it:

This can’t be -. This doesn’t make -. I don’t know. Because it says, “PIO notified of incident by the warden.” I was off that day, on Friday. I wasn’t at work.14

The interviewer had already called that entry the problem. Comparing two versions of the same timeline he said So, the next one, that is the big discrepancy here. It just shows the next update, you have that under August - or Saturday - August 10th.14 Pressed again a few lines later, across two interjections from the interviewer, N’Diaye said Yeah. I don't know why it would be --, then -- under Friday, because I wasn't --, then -- I wasn't working.14 Asked directly whether he was off on 9 August: -- on Friday. Yes.14 And then:

Yeah. I didn’t come back to work until, when I got called, there was a suicide at the (Indiscernible *00:17:28).14

Asked the same pair of questions again later in the day, he said he worked on the Saturday:

— was Friday. Friday, I was off.

[…]

10th was a Saturday —

[…]

— I was, I worked on Saturday.15

What he did when he got there, in his own words:

Well, I responded to the institution. At the time, when I got there, he was at the hospital. So, I didn’t go up to the unit, as far as - because it was a crime scene, and I’ve always been trained, if it was a crime scene, if you weren’t particularly there, the least amount of people that, you know, that go through that crime scene, just don’t go into it. So, I didn’t go into it, but you know, basically gathering information on what happened, notifying the region, notifying the FBI. The IG.16

The timelines the Bureau sent the Department, and what he would not attest to

On the evening of the death he went through the psychology log himself and reported what it said. At 6.46 p.m.:

Psych Ops log book shows he was released on July 30. He had an Attorney visit starting at 8:20am. He was in there all day. I will send the attorney log next.17

Five minutes later the reply to him read, in full:

The time line we sent DOJ says 7/29? Where did we get that date?17

⚠ No document read for this page answers that question. Two years later the Inspector General read him the exchange and asked whether Epstein had stayed until the 30th. He said He stayed until the 30th. and, asked whether the other date was incorrect, I think that was a typo.18 That is his answer, and it is the only one there is.

The Bureau sent the Department more than one timeline of the death, revised across the days that followed. Asked whether the last of them was the most accurate, he would not attest to it. Told that the last version the Inspector General held was dated Tuesday 13 August 2019, and asked whether that one would be the most accurate:

It should be, but I don’t want to attest to it. I mean —

[…]

That’s how it typically works. At, you know, but I can’t, I can’t attest to it —

[…]

— of whether it was accurate, but typically, the last one that you send usually, you know, if you have to make corrections, you make the corrections. And information, if you have to.6

⚠ This is the only occasion read for this page on which he declined something to an investigator; the refusal he made to a federal judge is below. The other, made to a federal judge two years earlier, is below. The Inspector General then asked him to initial and date the documents, saying It is absolutely not attesting to it.6

What he told the judges, and what he would not tell them

He wrote to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon and Judge Richard M. Berman on the day of the death, on Office of the Warden letterhead:

I am writing to notify the Court of the death of Jeffrey Epstein, who passed away Saturday, August 10, 2019, at around 7:37 a.m.19

Mr. Epstein had been found unresponsive in his cell in the Special Housing Unit at around 6:30 am from an apparent suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York, New York. Responding staff immediately initiated life-saving measures and requested emergency medical services (EMS), by whom Mr. Epstein was transported to a local hospital for treatment of life-threatening injuries.19

The letter records that no preliminary report identified the cause of death, that an autopsy was pending, that the FBI was investigating, and that the Attorney General had asked the Inspector General to look into the matter as well. It closes over his handwritten signature above the typed block Lamine N'Diaye / Warden / MCC New York, and its cc line runs to the U.S. Marshal, the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal, the Chief U.S. Probation Officer, three Assistant U.S. Attorneys and two of Epstein’s counsel.19

Two days later Judge Berman wrote back with one question:

One open question, among others, is whether the investigations referenced in your letter will include the incident at MCC involving Mr. Epstein on or about July 23, 2019. To my knowledge, it has never been definitively explained what the BOP concluded about that incident.20

N’Diaye answered the same day, over his signature:

I can confirm that, although an internal investigation was completed regarding the July 23, 2019 incident, the current investigations by the FBI and OIG will include this incident as well. Accordingly, I cannot divulge any information about the prior investigation at this time.7

⚠ That is the only document read for this page in which he refuses something to a court. It confirms that an internal investigation into the 23 July incident existed and had been completed. No document read for this page states what it concluded. All three letters were docketed in 19-cr-00490-RMB on 14 August 2019 as Documents 44, 45 and 46.19207

The announcement, the conditional paragraph about him, and the hour it was timed to

The Bureau’s public announcement was drafted internally on the night of Sunday 11 August 2019, the day after the death, and the draft survives. Before setting out the options its author wrote this:

Also note that the Warden just called Ray and told him the US Attorney is meeting with him at 10 am tomorrow. So this probably should be some time after that interview.9

⚠ The announcement was to be timed to follow the warden’s interview with the United States Attorney. Ray is Ray Ormond, the Bureau official who had instructed him on 23 July and to whom he reported the press had left.1221

The preferred option named two staff and did not mention him:

Preferred: Today, the Bureau of Prisons placed two staff who work in MCC NY on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation into the apparent suicide of Jeffrey Epstein. Additional actions may be taken as the circumstances of the investigations warrant.9

He appears only as a conditional:

If the warden is added, the following is proposed: The Bureau of Prisons also temporarily reassigned the MCC NY Warden to the Northeast Regional Office pending the outcome of the investigation. FCI Otisville Warden James Petrucci has been named Acting Warden of the MCC NY.

While I prefer not to state the warden’s name in this release, if you decide it needs to be added, his name is Lamine N’Diaye.9

⚠ No reason for that preference is given on the sheet and this page does not supply one. ⛔ No order effecting the reassignment was found for this page, and this page does not state when the reassignment took effect. What was found is the proposed language above, and his own account of the move:

And never disciplined. When I was moved, never given a reason why I was moved. I was just moved.3

⚠ That quotation opens with And and continues a thread running back onto the preceding sheet, which was not opened for this page.3

The Bureau reviewed the death, and on his account never spoke to him

The Inspector General showed him an after-action report written by the Bureau of Prisons. He was asked five questions about it and gave five answers. Asked whether he had seen it:

I have not seen that.8

Asked whether it was something he was familiar with:

No, I am not.8

Asked whether anyone had discussed any findings with him:

No one.8

Asked what role he had in the after-action report:

Nothing. I wasn’t interviewed. I wasn’t spoken to.8

And asked whether he knew of anybody who had been interviewed or who had provided the information used in it:

No.8

⚠ Five answers to five different questions, not one continuous answer. ⚠ This is his sworn account of what the Bureau did. No document read for this page corroborates or contradicts it.

Shown one of the report’s findings, he said the report was wrong. The report’s own words, read to him:

SHU has multiple cells equipped with video recording capability. Inmate Epstein was not housed in one of these cells. And there appears to be no set guidance on when to utilize these cells.22

His answer:

— let me correct that. None of the cells, none of the cells that we had in SHU had cameras in the cells that were being, working and being used. The only ones up in SHU that had cameras in the cell is Ten South.

[…]

— nowhere else in there had cameras in the cell.22

And asked whether he believed the report’s statement was incorrect:

If that’s what they are referring to, I do believe it is.22

⚠ This page does not decide which of them is right.

What the Bureau would not release

A FOIA requester sued the Bureau of Prisons in 2020 for the MCC’s Epstein records, and the warden’s mailbox was one of thirteen searched. A declaration filed on 5 August 2020 in 1:20-cv-00833-PAE lists the custodians, with Warden Lamine N'Diaye sixth, and gives the search terms and a date range of 7/6/2019 (Date Epstein went into custody at MCC) through 1/9/2020. Then:

The email search produced 1911 records, which totaled 18,062 pages. After review of the records, it was determined that 3176 pages of these records were responsive and non-duplicative.23

I and other FOIA staff reviewed and continue to review the records located in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests to determine whether or not there is any non-exempt information in the records that could be reasonably segregated and released. We have already determind that 584 pages contain such information, and those pages were released, with appropriate redactions, to Plaintiff on June 22, July 7, and July 10.23

⚠ 3,176 pages responsive; 584 released. ⚠ The declaration says the review was continuing, so 584 is a figure as at 5 August 2020 and not a final total, and the sentence after the last one quoted runs onto the next sheet, which was not opened. ⚠ The sheet’s own spelling determind is reproduced. ⚠ The requester is not named on this sheet and is not named here.

Identification

⚠ HIS OWN FULL NAME REACHES A MINORITY OF HIS FILE, AND THE SURNAME IS MOSTLY SOMEBODY ELSE. The exact phrase "Lamine N'Diaye" reaches 57 documents. The union of eight name forms reaches 224. But of those 224, 103 are three other individuals with no connection to the Bureau of Prisons, and the desk puts his own firm floor at 70. Any count of this surname in the release that is not partitioned is wrong by roughly a factor of two.1 ⚠ The axis of failure is NDiaye run together as one token, not the apostrophe, and the forename is the unreliable half.1

⚠ One of those extraction corruptions has already misled a reader of this corpus. The court filing that lists him among thirteen MCC custodians prints Warden Lamine N'Diaye on the sheet; the machine text of the same sheet reads Laraine.23

Footnotes

  1. Counts on pages_fts, exact phrase, count(distinct efta_number), measured 2026-09-30 on the desk corpus and reproduced to the unit on full_text_corpus_v52.db, a separately built copy of a different vintage that no desk script reads. ⚠ The two files are not identical — they disagree on control counts — so the agreement on every figure below is a real agreement and not one file read twice. "Lamine N'Diaye" 57 · "N'Diaye" 134 · "NDiaye" 88 · "Diaye" 135 · "Lamine" 79 · "L. N'Diaye" 18 · "N'Diaye, Lamine" 10 · "Lamine NDiaye" 11 · union of the eight 224. ⚠ The extraction error "Diayc" reaches 12 documents but adds only ONE that the union does not already hold; the union floor is 225, not 231. ⚠ "NDiaye" and "Diaye" intersect in only 14 documents and neither contains the other; "N'Diaye" is a strict subset of "Diaye" because the tokeniser splits on the apostrophe. ⚠ Of the 224, 103 are three other individuals, in blocks of 67, 31 and 5. NONE of the three has any Bureau of Prisons, MCC or warden context anywhere in the release. None is named on this page, none is named anywhere in the desk’s files, and none will be. The editorial point is the contamination of the name pool, and the counts and the absence of Bureau context make it in full. ⚠ His own floor of 70 is a floor and not a census: three separate derivations on three vocabularies return 61, 70 and 76, and 26 further documents carry Bureau context with no recoverable forename. Controls: "Michael Thomas" returned 314, the figure published at Michael Thomas; "Lamine Smith", "Zqxjvbn Qwrtplk", "Qzdiaye" and "Zqxjvbn Edge" all returned 0. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 4 of 114, carrying transcript pages 13 to 16; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064314. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. He gives his time at MCC New York as I came from May of - '17, '18 - May of '18 until, I forget the date, in 2020. I forget what it was., and answers Yes, I was. to whether he was the warden at MCC New York in August 2019. On the same sheet he says he got the deputy regional director post in February Of 2021, and that before it he was a liaison to the regional director. ↩ ↩2

  3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 106 of 114, carrying transcript pages 421 to 424; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064416. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⚠ The text layer of this sheet destroys the final clause, rendering I was just moved as an unreadable run of characters; the wording above is the wording on the sheet. ⚠ The quotation opens with And and what precedes it on this sheet is unrelated banter, so the thread it continues runs back onto sheet 105, which was not opened. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 23 of 114, carrying transcript pages 89 to 92; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064333. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. All of the quotations in this section are on that one sheet. ⚠ Sworn testimony given in October 2021 about telephone calls in July 2019. No document read for this page records any of the calls. ⚠ A prior desk draft of this page asserted that he wanted Epstein moved to general population. The sheet records him refusing that characterisation and the assertion has been removed. ⚠ The No. at transcript page 91 answers the word back, not the plan: the interviewer corrects himself to Into. in the following line. ⚠ The interviewer is not named on the sheet. ⚠ The second cellmate quotation is trimmed at the front under the desk’s standing bar, and the trim loses nothing the page needs. ⚠⚠ **CORRECTED 2026-10-04: his first answer was printed here as ending getting him out to general population. It does not. On this sheet his answer breaks off at out to at transcript page 91 line 8, line 9 is blank, and the words general pop are the INTERVIEWER’s in the next line — which is why he is asking them. The completion and its full stop have been removed and the break is marked. The two places where he does say general population in his own voice are on this same sheet and both are quoted: at transcript page 91 line 22 (that is how we move them into general population) and at page 92 line 11, whose text layer renders to get him into general population as to get hiiiiiiiiiiieral population. The page’s claim never rested on the broken-off sentence. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11

  5. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 36 of 114, carrying transcript pages 141 to 144; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064346. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. Every quotation in that section is on this one sheet. The words about the signs are the interviewer’s, read from signs he says were posted in the unit; N’Diaye’s answers are quoted as printed and do not continue past their stops. ⚠ A prior desk draft of this page said he issued the order that Epstein be checked every thirty minutes. The question on this sheet is about signage, and the claim has been narrowed to what the sheet supports. ⚠ The interviewer is not named on the sheet. ⚠ One further exchange on this sheet is not reproduced, under the desk’s standing bar. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 7 of 114, carrying transcript pages 25 to 28; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064317. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. This sheet had not been opened by any prior pass. The question put to him was whether the last one that we have is Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 would be the most accurate timeline. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000626 p. 1 of 1, Document 46 in 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed 14 August 2019, dated 12 August 2019, over his handwritten signature above Lamine N'Diaye / Warden / MCC New York. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi; no redactions. The cc line names Chief Judge Colleen McMahon, Edward Friedland, District Executive, Michael Greco, U.S. Marshal, Alison Moe, Assistant U.S. Attorneys and Martin Weinberg, Counsel for Mr. Epstein. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 4 of 114, carrying transcript pages 13 to 16, at transcript page 15 and continuing onto transcript page 16; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064314. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⚠ The five answers are responses to five separate questions and are NOT consecutive lines. An earlier desk draft printed three of them as one continuous answer with the fourth dropped, and a footnote certifying them as consecutive; they are not. The document shown to him is described on the sheet only as an after-action report that was written by the BOP and is not otherwise identified. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01687705 p. 77 of 82; the Bates printed on that sheet is EFTA01687781, and the sheet also carries SDNY_00016573. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The message is headed Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 9:53 PM, Subject: Draft language, and every sentence quoted on this page is on that one sheet. The author is not disclosed on the sheet and is not identified here. ⚠ This page cites a single sheet for this message, and the authority to quote travels with that sheet. The desk has a standing ruling behind that choice; it is recorded in the desk file for this pass and not on the page. ⚠ The tail of the reply to this message stands above it on the same sheet and reads Thanks. This is helpful. We can talk tomorrow about the timing., and asks for some information about staffing at MCC because of press reports trying to link the staffing shortages, overtime and this incident. The reply’s own header, including its time, is not on this sheet and is not given here. ⚠ The sheet also carries a more detailed variant of the preferred option and a sentence providing for a third staff member; neither is quoted on this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 1 of 114, DIGITALLY RECORDED SWORN STATEMENT OF LAMINE N'DIAYE, OIG CASE #: 2019-010614, Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, 27 October 2021, taken with an attorney present for him. ⚠⚠ THIS RUN IS PRINTED FOUR TRANSCRIPT PAGES TO A SHEET. Every pin on this document in these footnotes is the printed sheet, which is what the run pin means and what the renderer takes; the transcript pages each sheet carries are given in words, as 4 x (sheet - 1) + 1 to + 4. ⚠ There is exactly ONE copy of this transcript in the release, so nothing quoted from it can be settled against a second copy. ⚠ Of its 114 sheets, ten have been opened at the image across three desk passes. Everything on the other 104 is unverified. ↩

  11. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 15 of 114, carrying transcript pages 57 to 60; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064325. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. Asked did you have any involvement with selecting the July cellmate, he answers We did.; asked And who made the decision? and then To put them together?, he answers I did. ⛔ The reasons he gave for that pairing are printed on this sheet, in his own voice, and are NOT reproduced on this page or in any desk file, because the other man is unnamed on the sheet and the desk’s standing bar covers them. His name was not looked up and must not be: a completed redaction may not be supplied from any source, including another document in the same release. ↩

  12. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00024495 p. 162 of 1000; the Bates printed on that sheet is DOJ-OGR-00024656. ⚠ CORRECTED 2026-10-04: this footnote read p. 161, and that number and the Bates could not both be right. The sheet carrying DOJ-OGR-00024656 is the 162nd; wiki p.161 carries the page stamp DOJ-OGR-00024655 and does not carry the quoted line. The error is the 0-based page_number written as a 1-indexed pin, and the Bates recorded in this footnote is what made it checkable. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. From: Ray Ormond, Date: 7/23/19 11:46 AM (GMT-05:00), To: Lamine N'Diaye, Subject: Re: Epstein. ⚠ The quoted line is clipped by the right edge of the rendered sheet, not by a producer and not by the desk, and the cut is marked. The clause Also include what plans were in motion to move him to a GP unit. is complete on this sheet. ⚠ A copy of the same message on another sheet, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01687991 p. 7 of 76, stops earlier still, at to move him to a; an earlier desk pass recorded that stop as a property of the message, and it is a property of that copy. ⚠ The Bates printed on a sheet is NOT a document identifier: the page stamp EFTA01687997 has no row in documents and no page rows, and neither has the page stamp EFTA00064346. A Bates read off a sheet must never be turned into a URL. This sheet also carries his own message of 07/23/2019 11:12 in the thread beneath, and one further name in the clear, Shirley V. Skipper-Scott, who is listed as an Associate Warden of MCC New York in the court filing cited below. ↩ ↩2

  13. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00034228 p. 1 of 1, the MCC Discipline Hearing Docket dated 08-01-2019, a single sheet also carrying SDNY_00010565 and marked CONFIDENTIAL. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⚠ Reviewed by: stands over an EMPTY line with L. N'Diaye, Warden printed beneath it. The sheet carries no signature and this page does not say he signed it. ⚠ Two other people in custody appear on this docket. Nothing about them, including the words printed against their entries, is reproduced on this page. ↩ ↩2

  14. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 7 of 114, carrying transcript pages 25 to 28; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064317. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. This sheet had not been opened by any prior pass. The Inspector General is walking him through successive versions of a Bureau timeline; the words that is the big discrepancy here are the interviewer’s. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  15. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 26 of 114, carrying transcript pages 101 to 104; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064336. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. This sheet had not been opened by any prior pass. ⚠ The image settles his answer about 10 August: -- I was, I worked on Saturday. The text layer of this sheet carries the same words and is NOT truncated; an earlier pass reported a break-off that does not exist. A prior desk draft asserted he was not scheduled to work that day; the sheet refutes it. ↩

  16. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 4 of 114, carrying transcript pages 13 to 16, at transcript page 16; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064314. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ↩

  17. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01687643 p. 5 of 62; the Bates printed on that sheet is EFTA01687647, and the sheet also carries SDNY_00015132. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. Both messages are on the one sheet: his, timed 08/10/2019 18:46 and repeated in a nested header as From: Lamine N'Diaye / Date: 8/10/19 6:46 PM (GMT-05:00); and the reply to him timed 2019/08/10 18:51, whose quoted sentence is the whole of its body. The sender of the reply is not disclosed on the sheet and is not identified here. ↩ ↩2

  18. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 15 of 114, carrying transcript pages 57 to 60; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064325. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The Inspector General reads him the 10 August exchange and asks so, are we confident that he stayed until the 30th?; he answers He stayed until the 30th. and, asked So, was this just an incorrect --, I think that was a typo. ⚠ The Inspector General’s reading-aloud of the 10 August message is not word for word identical to the message itself; the wording quoted on this page from that message is taken from the message’s own sheet, not from the transcript. ↩

  19. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000623 pp. 1 and 2 of 2, Document 44 in United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed 14 August 2019, on Office of the Warden letterhead and dated 10 August 2019. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi; no redactions on either sheet. Sheet 2 carries the Bates DOJ-OGR-00000624 and his handwritten signature above Lamine N'Diaye / Warden / MCC New York. Its cc line names Michael Greco, U.S. Marshal, and John Csakany, Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Maurene Comey, Alexander Rossmiller, and Alison Moe, Assistant U.S. Attorneys and Martin Weinberg and Reid Weingarten, Counsel for Mr. Epstein. ⚠ An earlier desk draft quoted the autopsy sentence with a supplied ellipsis that cut it mid-sentence; the full sentence reads An autopsy is pending, and we expect to have more information as to the cause of death from the medical examiner in the near future. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  20. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000625 p. 1 of 1, Document 45 in 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed 14 August 2019, dated 12 August 2019, on the chambers letterhead of Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge, over his handwritten signature, addressed Lamine N'Diaye, Warden. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi; no redactions. The paragraph before the one quoted reads Thank you for your letter of August 10, 2019 regarding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Epstein's death is a tragedy to everyone involved in his case. ↩ ↩2

  21. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00143039 p. 1 of 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. From: "Lamine N'Diaye", To: "Ray Ormond", Subject: Media, Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 23:30:57 +0000. The body of the document is one line, All media have departed the institution, with no terminal punctuation on the sheet. ⚠ This is one of a small number of sheets on which the desk has confirmed at the image that he is the author. Across three passes, of fifteen sheets on which the machine text placed him in a sending position, nine were refuted at the image by three distinct mechanisms. No document is attributed to him on this page on the strength of the sending position alone. ↩

  22. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00064311 p. 106 of 114, carrying transcript pages 421 to 424; Bates read off the sheet EFTA00064416. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The report’s own words are read aloud on the sheet by the interviewer; the final answer quoted is on transcript page 424, three transcript pages after the first, and the elisions are marked. Ten South and Nine South are unit designations used throughout the sheet; the interviewer asks whether the report’s statement might actually associate Ten South as part of the SHU. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  23. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00015361 p. 20 of 67; the Bates printed on that sheet is EFTA00015380. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi; no redactions on the sheet. Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE, Document 24, Filed 08/05/20, a declaration on the adequacy of the Bureau’s FOIA search. The custodian list runs from (4) to (13) on this sheet and names, besides him, a Deputy Regional Counsel, a Correctional Programs Administrator, three Associate Wardens, an Executive Assistant, a Supervisory Attorney, a Captain and a Chief of Psychology. ⚠⚠ THE SHEET PRINTS Warden Lamine N'Diaye. THE MACHINE TEXT OF THE SAME SHEET READS Laraine, AND THAT CORRUPTION HAS BEEN REPORTED ELSEWHERE AS THOUGH IT WERE ON THE SHEET. It is not. ⚠ The sheet also settles at the image that Charisma Edge is a person and an Associate Warden of MCC New York, which is the attribution the case page already carries. ⚠ Paragraph 47 continues onto the next sheet, which was not opened. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

Backlinks