HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010754
txt
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/9bq6uj0p ... tracking=1
11/5/2015
Yitzhak Rabin's Moral Answer to the Israeli Dilemma of Peace and Survival - US News
il.4:110MMA
News
Opinion
1 National Issues Special Reports
Cartoons Photos The Report
411. 411W 41111b 41110
By Mortimer B.
Zuckerman
Mortimer
Zuckerman is the
chairman and
editor-in-chief of
U.S. News & World
Report and the
publisher of the
New York Daily
News.
OPINION
A Light of a Fierce Fire
Yitzhak Rabin's bravery in office helped create peace between Palestine and Israel.
By MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN I November 4, 2015
Editor's note: This editorial originally appeared in the November 20, 1995 issue of U.S. News & World
Report.
The poet was once asked, "If your house was burning and you could save only one thing, what would you
save?" The poet answered, "I would save the fire, for without the fire we are nothing."
It was Yitzhak Rabin's destiny not to be saved from the frenzy of a madman. But bullets cannot so easily
extinguish what Rabin's bravery and vision ignited, the fire of Israel's commitment to peace. He might so
easily have died in the din of battle, this man who made war when he had to. But he died instead amid the
clamor of peace, with the acclaim of a mass peace rally of Israelis still in the air and still in his mind. It would
be his last wish that the flame of peace, for which he gave his life, should not be dimmed by anger and
despair. His state funeral, for all its sadness, was inspiring as an occasion for the vindication of his hopes,
for a new dedication to Israel's security from America and for a demonstration of goodwill by some former
Arab enemies.
[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the Middle East]
President Clinton led a bipartisan delegation that included the congressional Republican leadership, former
President Bush and former Secretary of State George Shultz. It was more than a respectful gesture of
protocol. This was a statement of emotional and psychological support from the most powerful nation in the
world to a small, isolated country, living in a perilous neighborhood and in a time of great national trauma:
We do more than share your grief, we understand your fears; we will not desert you as you have so many
http://www.usnews.cominews/the-report/a ... d-survival
1/4
11/5/2015 Yitzhak Rabin's Moral Answer to the Israeli Dilemma of Peace and Survival - US News
times in your history been deserted. All Americans could take pride in President Clinton's splendid eulogy;
in the uniqueness of America's compassion and friendship that extended beyond a calculation of narrow
national interest; in the honor of the hand outstretched at a time of need to an ally and friend. The president
rose to the moment. The hundreds of thousands of people who lined the roadside and saw the American
delegation were clearly moved.
Of equal significance was the roll call of certain
Arab countries (excluding Saudi Arabia) and
especially the emotional speech of King Hussein
of Jordan. His words referring to Yitzhak and
Leah Rabin as "my brother" and "my sister,"
which Muslims usually reserve for one another,
and the tears shed by both the king and his
queen, made a deep impression on the Israelis
for their humanity and ability to overcome the
past. Here, clearly, were keepers of Rabin's flame
of peace, continuing a line that began with Egypt's
late president Anwar Sadat.
It is hard for outsiders to appreciate the effect on
Israelis of the worldwide outpouring of sympathy
and condolence, with some 80 nations
represented at the funeral. The Israelis are a traumatized people. They have for so long been alone, so
long believed they could not rely on anyone but themselves, so long expected the world to stay silent in
their times of trouble. The extensive response resonates for a people who remember how the world closed
its doors to millions of Jews in the 1930s. Their deaths in the Holocaust were but an obscene multiple of the
deaths endured in the crusades and pogroms of earlier centuries when the Jews were betrayed by those
who had the power to save them.
He alone, at the time,
had the capacity to
persuade the divided
and wary Israelis to
accept a compromise.
Israel was to be the end of that vulnerable status of perpetual minority, an end to exile and alienation, and a
beginning of a normal and natural form of national existence. Israel was home, the new home in the old
country, proclaiming that the Jews had formed a self-reliant community and did not need others to fight
their battles for them. Now they had their future defined by their own family; the farmer, the kibbutznik, the
jet pilot, the shopkeeper, the schoolteacher could coalesce with a traditional language, with their own bible,
their own culture. This self-reliance is a matter of great pride. Jews could look after their own family. When
the Jews were kidnapped in Entebbe, Uganda, it was the Israelis who took care of it. A Jewish majority
could eliminate Jewish vulnerability, and with their own state, the Israelis could, they thought, be like all
other nations and like everyone else. The passion for wanting to be normal extended to the notion that to
be accepted, Jews did not have to justify themselves by winning the Moral Man of the Year Award every
year — at the cost of their own survival. To be 10 percent more moral than other nations would make them
a light unto the world; if they were expected to be 50 percent more moral, they would be dead.
[READ: One State Over the Status Quo]
And yet Israel cannot be just another secular country. This very land forces the Jews into a dialogue with
their religious past. The land was defined through religion, through the divine promise to Abraham, the
covenant with the Father and the covenant with the people of Israel. For many religious Zionists, the victory
of the Six-Day War, and the subsequent opening to resettlement of the greater land of Israel, were clear
signs that God was guiding the secular Zionist revolution toward the ultimate realization of the prophetic
vision of history. That is why, for some religious Jews, admitting the existence of a Palestinian nation whose
homeland is the Holy Land is tantamount to violating the integrity of the Jewish people's covenantal identity.
But the Jews faced a dilemma. They had come home to find peace and safety, only to find that their
neighbors also claimed this tiny piece of land as their home. Even worse, how do you share a home with
someone who says: "You have no right to be here"?
It is the great contribution of Yitzhak Rabin that has brought a moral answer to this dilemma. There are
those Israelis who emphasize self-reliance and remember Rabbi Hillel's saying, "If I am not for myself, who
is for me?" Rabin understood Rabbi Hillel had a second part: "When I am for myself, what am l'?" He saw
that the Jews could not control 2 million Arabs without frequent resort to a violence that would erode the
moral and Jewish character of the state and, with that, its support in the world. He sought a new definition
of Israeli strength and normalcy that incorporated not just military power but also moral and economic
fortitude. He decided to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and any pretense that Israel could become a
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a ... d-survival
2/4
11/5/2015 Yitzhak Rabin's Moral Answer to the Israeli Dilemma of Peace and Survival - US News
binational state in which one people ruled another.
He was uniquely qualified for this adventure. Those to his political right had the strength but not the will to
take a calculated risk for peace. Those to his political left had the will but not the strength. He alone, at the
time, had the capacity to persuade the divided and wary Israelis to accept a compromise arrangement with
the Palestine Liberation Organization that held great promise for peace but also great risk. But the risk was
seen as a risk from the Arabs, not the risk of Jew killing Jew. What the right-wing fanatics were blind to is
that their murderous intransigence threatened the state that gave them succor and its necessary
acceptance by the world. Without the flame of peace, they would have nothing but bloodshed threatening
every Israeli's personal security.
[ZUCKERMAN: The Palestinians' Lies Are Fueling the Violence]
The debate over security in Israel is different from the quarrel with the extremists. Many moderate people
all across Israel are concerned about giving up land, because for years their leaders told them this land
was essential to their national security. In Israel, security decisions are made in the context of the terrible
reality that a single Israeli strategic blunder may mean not only military defeat but a genocidal threat to the
very existence of the state — one that the world could not forestall, even if it were willing to. Many Israelis
ask: Will the peace process be the beginning of a new future or the beginning of the end?
The Israelis are determined to avoid another genocide, this time in Israel. The decision to exchange lawfully
captured territory for the promise of peace from those who have constantly threatened violence is fraught
with unprecedented risk. Israel will not survive in this neighborhood by superior morality in the absence of
superior real strength. Arab moderation is in direct proportion to Israeli strength. If the Arabs could defeat
Israel, who could doubt that sooner or later they would try?
Can Shimon Peres, a durable politician less trusted by Israelis, lead the people in pursuit of Rabin's twin
goals of peace and security? He is a consummate international diplomat and served with great distinction
as prime minister a decade ago. His ardent desire for peace may be part of his problem, for many people
believe he is too eager to cut a deal, too dovish and not skeptical enough about security issues, too
wrapped up in his own ambitions. So his challenge is to relieve the worries of Israelis as well as meet the
needs of the Palestinians.
In this effort, American support is crucial. Rabin said he was elected to take risks for peace. President
Clinton said, "If that is your goal, I will do my best to minimize the risks you must take." That is the fire of
friendship and support that will enable Israel to fulfill what Rabin so bravely began.
'Rabin, The Last Day': Venice Review
Inform
TAGS: Israel, Palestine, Middle East, Judaism
+ More
News Rankings & Consumer Advice
inform
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a ... tzhak-rabi ns-m oral-answer-to-the-israeli-di lem ma-of- peace-and-survival 3/4
Epstein emails
50 posts
• Page 3 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 12:58 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:00 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/9bq6uj0p ... tracking=1
Filing # 34801581 E-Filed 11/23/2015 05:53:31 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL,
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT EDWARDS AND
CASSELL'S RESPONSE TO DERSHOWITZ'S MOTION TO DETERMINE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, by and
through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this response to Dershowitz's Motion to
Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The records at issue are not confidential, and so the
Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety.
The court records at issue are three court filings by attorneys Edwards and Cassell
in which they recite their client's (Mr. Virginia Giuffre's) allegations that she was sexually
abused by Dershowitz. These records are hardly "confidential" in this defamation case,
where the parties have claims and counterclaims about these sexual abuse
Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only
support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. Giuffre, but also indisputably establish
Edwards and Cassell's strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover,
contrary to assertions made in Dershowitz's motion, these documents have never been
found to be "confidential" by any other court. And Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 2 of 20
these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadcast worldwide, but also in his
pleadings before this Court and in recent depositions. Indeed, Dershowitz said in his
media interviews that he wants "everything to be made public" and implied that Edwards
and Cassell had something to hide. Accordingly, Dershowitz has failed to carry his heavy
burden to justify sealing these presumptively-public documents.
I. DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT JUSTIFIED SEALING ALLEGED
DEFAMATORY RECORDS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS
DEFAMATION CASE.
In his motion, Dershowitz never recounts the heavy burden that he must carry to seal the
records at issue. To be sure, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 allows for the sealing
of "confidential" materials. But the Rule begins by recounting the overarching principle that
"[t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as
provided below." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). This rule is a codification of the Florida
Supreme Court's admonition that a "a strong presumption of openness exists for all court
proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public
records available for public examination." Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531
So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added). In light of this presumption of openness, "[t]he
burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall always be on the party seeking closure." Id. To
obtain a sealing order, the party seeking sealing must carry a "heavy burden." Id.
Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to acknowledge these well-settled principles. More
important, he even fails to cite (much less discuss) the limited substantive exceptions to this
general principle of access — and which specific exception he believes applies to this
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 3 of 20
case. Accordingly, it is impossible for Edwards and Cassell to respond with precision to his
motion.
The exceptions that might arguably be in play in this case permit records to be maintained
as confidential in order to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly
administration of justice;
Protect trade secrets;
Protect a compelling governmental interest;
Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case;
Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties;
Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a
common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of
proceeding sought to be closed;
Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United
States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law ....
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9) (codifying the holding in Barron v. Florida Freedom
Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably
apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate
only where disclosure is "not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be
closed" (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action — involving
a defamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and a defamation counterclaim by
Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at
the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is "inherent" in the case itself.
The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized
in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and
counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 4 of 20
the materials in the records would be harmful to his professional
reputation. Carnegie recited subsection vi's restriction on release of materials involving a
privacy right, but noted that "statements Tedder alleged were defamatory and damaging were
allegations in Carnegie's counterclaim for which she seeks damages.
These matters were not peripheral to the lawsuit; they were inherent to it." Id. at 1312. Of
course, exactly the same principle applies here: sexual abuse allegations filed by attorneys
Edwards and Cassell for their client Ms. Virginia Giuffre are not peripheral to this lawsuit — they
are inherent to it.
To see how "inherent" the sexual abuse allegations are to this lawsuit, the Court need
look no further than Dershowitz's counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz's
Counterclaim (styled as "False Allegations in the Joinder Motion) contends that Edwards and
Cassell should pay him damages because they "filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled 'Jane
Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action' . . . ." Dershowitz
Counterclaim at 11 14. Dershowitz's Counterclaim then goes on to quote at length from the
Joinder Motion. His counterclaim contains, for example, this paragraph recounting the
allegations:
The Joinder Motion then goes on to allege — without any supporting evidence — as
follows:
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to
have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan
Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known criminal defense
attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with
Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida
but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 5 of 20
Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other
minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other
minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's coconspirators. Dershowitz would
later play a significant role in negotiating the [Non-Prosecution Agreement] on
Epstein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that
provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida
not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential coconspirators of Epstein." Thus,
Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided
protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually
abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity wouldhave been
controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein's
defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret
from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy
violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Dershowitz Counterclaim at 1115 (quoting Joinder Motion at 4).
Remarkably, having quoted at length from the Joinder Motion in his Counterclaim in this
case, Dershowitz now seeks to have that very same language from the Joinder Motion deemed
"confidential" and sealed. Compare Counterclaim at ¶15 (block quotation above) with Motion to
Determine Confidentiality, Exhibit A at 4 (composite exhibit with proposed "confidential"
document that includes paragraph beginning "[o]ne such powerful individual that Epstein forced
then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan
Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's . . . ."). Dershowitz cannot come before this Court and
file a counterclaim seeking damages from Edwards and Cassell for alleged defamatory
statements and then ask to have those very same statements placed under seal as
"confidential." See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So.2d at 119 ("although
generally protected by one's privacy right, medical reports and history are no longer protected
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 6 of 20
when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when
the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure" (emphasis added)).
H. JUDGE MARRA'S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT
THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE.
Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra's order striking some of the
materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept
confidential in this case. Dershowitz's argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge
Marra's order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading --
description of the events surrounding Judge Marra's ruling striking certain documents. A more
complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are
somehow "confidential" even in the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act case — much less in this
separate state defamation action.
Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who
were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz's close personal friend — Jeffrey
Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of "Jane Doe No. 1"
and "Jane Doe No. 2" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging
that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was
pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736
(S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests
with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz,
Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 7 of 20
followed (see generally Docket Entry or "DE" 225-1 at 4-5), ultimately leading to a further
Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The
Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE
225-1 at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the
Court. The Government claimed that these pages were "privileged" for various reasons,
attaching an abbreviated privilege log.
While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell,
contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the
case, including Ms. Virginia Giuffre (who was identified in court pleadings as "Jane Doe No.
3"). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have
avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the
Government — as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim — did not
respond to counsel's request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having
had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was
seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims' counsel might need
to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a
motion immediately, victims' counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a
stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 — more than four months after the initial
request for a stipulated joinder into the case — the Government tersely indicated its objection,
without indicating any reason: "Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this
stage of the litigation." See DE 291 at 5.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 8 of 20
Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, Edwards and
Cassell prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the
motion. One week after receiving the Government's objection, on December 30, 2014, Ms.
Giuffre (i.e., Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion)
seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280. (Note: DE 280 is the first of the three documents
Dershowitz seeks to have declared "confidential" in this case.) Uncertain as to the basis for the
Government's objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances that would qualify
the two women as "victims" eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e)
(defining "crime victim" protected under the Act). With regard to Ms. Giuffre, the motion
indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince
Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to
prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 ("If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove
the following .... "). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3's
participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding
Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new
victims was relevant to existing issues).
After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about
it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane
Doe No. 3 "a serial liar" who "has lied through her teeth about many world
leaders." http ://vvww cnn . co m/2015/01/06/us/dershowi tz-sex -all e gati on/. Dershowitz also
repeatedly called Edwards and Cassell "two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers." Id. On
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 9 of 20
January 5, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to intervene to argue to have the allegations
stricken. DE 282. Dershowitz also argued that Ms. Giuffre had not provided a sworn affidavit
attesting to the truth of her allegations. On January 21, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a
response for Ms. Giuffre and Jane Doe No. 4. DE 291. (Note: This is the second of the three
documents Dershowitz seeks to have kept under seal here.) The response enumerated nine
specific reasons why Ms. Giuffre's specific allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to the
case, including the fact that Ms. Giuffre needed to establish that she was a "victim" in the case,
that pending discovery requests concerning Dershowitz-specific documents were pending, and
that Dershowitz's role as a defense attorney in the case was highly relevant to the motive for the
Government and defense counsel to conceal the plea deal from the victims. DE 291 at 17-26 &
n.17. The response included a detailed affidavit from Ms. Giuffre about the sexual abuse she had
suffered from Epstein, Dershowitz, and other powerful persons. DE 291-1. On February 6,
2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a further pleading (and affidavit from Ms. Giuffre, see DE 291-
1) in support of her motion to intervene. (Note: this affidavit is the third of the three documents
Dershowitz seeks to have declared confidential.)
On April 7, 2015, Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffi-e's motion to join the case. Judge
Marra concluded that "at this juncture in the proceedings" details about the sexual abuse she had
suffered was unnecessary to making a determination "of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4
should be permitted to join [the other victims'] claim that the Government violated their rights
under the CVRA. The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in
sexual activities are impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 10 of 20
Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that the details
involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government." DE 324 at 5 (emphasis
in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that "Jane Doe 3 is free
to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims]
demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented
for the Court's consideration. Judge Marra then denied Ms. Giuffre's motion to join the case,
but allowed her to participate as trial witness: "The necessary 'participation' of [Ms. Giuffre] ...
in this case can be satisfied by offering ... properly supported — and relevant, admissible, and
non-cumulative — testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial ... or affidavits
supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests." DE 324 at 8 (emphasis
deleted). In a supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims "may re-refile these
documents omitting the stricken portions." DE 325. The victims have recently refiled the
documents.
In light of this history, Dershowitz is flatly incorrect when he asserts that "Judge Marra's
Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed in this case on the
public docket." Confidentiality Motion at 3. To the contrary, the Order specifically permits
factual details about Dershowitz's sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre to be presented in regard to
pertinent matters in the federal CVRA case. And certainly nothing in Judge Marra's Order could
render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl
around Edwards and Cassell's good faith basis for filing the allegations. Indeed, the order is not
binding in any way in this case, because it is res judicata only as to Ms. Giuffre (the moving
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 11 of 20
party in that case), not as to her attorneys Edwards and Cassell. See Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v.
Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703 (4th DCA 2002) ("In order for res judicata to apply four
identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action;
(3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or
against whom the claim is made.").
III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THEY ARE
BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE
DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM
WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT.
Dershowitz is also incorrect when he asserts that no prejudice will befall Edwards and
Cassell if the records are placed under seal. To the contrary, placing the documents under seal
would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those
records while preventing Edwards and Cassell from correcting those misrepresentations.
Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to details in the records when he has found it convenient to
do so — treating the records as not confidential in any away. One clear example comes from
Dershowitz's recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a
portion of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit about him watching Ms. Giuffre perform oral sex on
Epstein. And then, having injected that gratuitous reference into the record, he proceeded to try
to rebut the reference with confidential settlement discussions — but did so by mispresenting what
another attorney (David Boies) had said during the settlement discussions. So that the Court may
have the full flavor of the exchange, the narrow question to Dershowitz (by attorney Jack
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 12 of 20
Scarola) and Dershowitz's extended answer are quoted in full — including Dershowitz's
reference to the oral sex allegation that he now argues this Court should treat as "confidential":
Q. [Y]ou [are] aware that years before December of 2014, when the
CVRA pleading was filed, that your name had come up repeatedly in
connection with Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? . . .
A. Let me answer that question. I am aware that never before 2014,
end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any
way inappropriately with regard to Virginia [Giuffre], that I ever
touched her, that I ever met her, that Ihad ever been with her. I was
completely aware of that. There had never been any
allegation. She claims under oath that she told you that secretly in
2011, but you have produced no notes of any such conversation.
You, of course, are a witness to this allegation and will be deposed
as a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an entirely false
allegation that she told you in 2011 that she had had any sexual
contact with me. I think she's lying through her teeth when she
says that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any such
information.
But if she did tell you that, she would be absolutely, categorically
lying. So I am completely aware that never, until the lies were put
in a legal pleading at the end of December 2014, it was
never alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts.
I know that it was alleged that I was a witness to Jeffrey Epstein's
alleged abuse and that was false. I was never a witness to any of
Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, something
that you have falsely denied. And I stand on the record. The record
is clear that I have categorically denied I was ever a witness to
any abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing anybody.
And -- and the very idea that I would stand and talk to Jeffrey
Epstein while he was receiving oral sex from Virginia Roberts,
which she swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so preposterous,
that even David Boies said he couldn't believe it was true.
MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm not going to allow you to reveal
any conversations that happened in the context of a settlement discussion.
THE WITNESS: Does she have standing?
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 13 of 20
MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection and, I'm objecting again. I'm
not going to
THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have standing in this deposition?
MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a minute, okay?
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has standing.
MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the speech?
MR. SCOTT: No. If he --
MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the speech so that we can get to my
question
and then we can take a break.
A. So the question -- the answer to your question is --
MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Please don't
disclose something that she has a right to raise that objection if she wants to.
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 15, 2015) at 93-95 (attached as Exhibit 1); see
also Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 16, 2016) (attached as Exhibit 2) (also containing
discussion of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit).
The Court should be aware that within approximately two hours of this exchange, Ms.
McCawley (David Boies' law partner) released a statement on his behalf, which stated that
Dershowitz was misrepresenting what happened: "Because the discussions that Mr. Boies had
with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at
least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boies does state that Mr.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 14 of 20
Dershowitz description of what was said is not true." Statement of Ms. McCawley on Behalf of
David Boies (Oct. 15, 2015).
More broadly, the Court can readily see from this passage how Dershowitz is willing to
inject into the record a part of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit whenever it serves his purpose — and,
indeed, to characterize the part of the affidavit as "preposterous." But then he asks this Court to
place the underlying affidavit under seal, so that the Edwards and Cassell stand accused having
filed a "preposterous" affidavit without anyone being able to assess the validity of Dershowitz's
attack.
Dershowitz has referred to the court records that he now wishes to have the Court declare
confidential not only in his deposition, but also in his widely-broadcast media attacks on
Edwards and Cassell. For example, Dershowitz appeared on the British Broadcasting
Corporation (the BBC) and was asked about the allegations:
Well, first of all they were made in court papers that they don't even ask for a hearing
to try to prove them. They put them in court papers in order to immunize themselves
from any consequences from a defamation suit. The story is totally made
up, completely out of whole cloth.
I don't know this woman. I was not at the places at the times. It is part of a pattern of
made up stories against prominent people and world leaders. And the lawyers in
recent statement challenged me to deny the allegations under oath. I am doing that. I
am denying them under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution were I not
telling the truth. I am now challenging them to have their client put these charges
under oath and for them to put them under oath. I am also challenging them to repeat
them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation. . . .
And I will prove beyond any doubt not only that the story is totally false, but it was
knowingly false: that the lawyers and the client conspired together to create a false
story. That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to
the disciplinary committee.
BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc).
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 15 of 20
Similarly, Dershowitz appeared on NBC's Today Show the morning after Edwards and
Cassell made a filing for Ms. Giuffre, to say that the Edwards and Cassell — and Ms. Giuffre —
were all "lying" in the court documents:
Question from Savannah Guthrie: In legal papers from the lawyers, they say you've
had, in fact, the opportunity to be deposed.
Answer from Alan Dershowitz: They're lying. They're lying.
Question: They show letters in which they offered to depose you.
Answer: And they didn't show my letters in response saying, (a), if you ask me about
my legal relationship with Epstein and I'll be happy to answer. . . . And I responded
that I would be happy to be deposed if you could give me any indication that I would
be a relevant witness . . . . They will be proved — all of them [i.e., Cassell, Edwards,
and Ms. Giuffre] — to be categorically lying and making up this story. And it will be a
terrible thing for rape victims. . . . We [Epstein and Dershowitz] had an academic
relationship. I was never in the presence of a single, young, underaged
woman. When I was with him, it was with prominent scientists, prominent
academics. And they're just — again — lying about this. I never saw him doing
anything improper. I was not a participant. I was not a witness.
Today Show, Jan. 22, 2015 (emphases added).
As another example, in Miami Herald, Dershowitz called the Joinder Motion that he
seeks to have sealed the sleaziest legal document I have ever seen. They [Edwards and
Cassell] manipulated a young, suggestible woman who was interested in money. This is a
disbarrable offense, and they will be disbarred. They will rue the day they ever made this false
charge against me" — i.e., Edwards and Cassell will "rue the day" they ever filed the Joinder
Motion. Miami Herald (Jan. 3, 2015).
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 16 of 20
Most remarkably, Dershowitz took the public airwaves to represent that he wanted all of
the information surrounding the allegations to "be made public," while implying that Edwards
and Cassell had something to hide. For example, on the BBC he claimed that he
wanted"everything to be made public":
Q: Would you encourage that it now be made public?
A: Of course, of course. I want everything to be made public. I want
every bit of evidence in this case to be made public. I want every
allegation to be made public. I want to know who else she's accused of
these horrible crimes. We know that she accused Bill Clinton of being on
Jeffrey Epstein's island and participating in sex orgy with underage
girls. The records of the Secret Service will prove that President Clinton
never set foot on that island. So that she lied. Now it's possible to have a
case of mistaken identification with somebody like me. It's impossible to
have a case of mistaken identification with Bill Clinton.
My only feeling is that if she has lied about me, which I know to an
absolute certainty she has, she should not be believed about anyone
else. She's lied clearly about me, she's lied clearly about Bill
Clinton. We know that. We know that she's lied about other public
figures, including a former prime minister and others who she claims to
have participated in sexual activities with. So I think it must be presumed
that all of her allegations against Prince Andrew are false as well.
I think he [Prince Andrew] should clear the air as well.
If you're squeaky clean and if you have never done anything like this, you
must fight back with all the resources available to you. And that's what I
will do. I will not rest or stop until the world understands no only that I
had nothing to do with any of this, but that she deliberately, with the
connivance of her lawyer, lawyers, made up this story willfully and
knowingly.
BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc).
In another widely-broadcast interview on CNN, Dershowitz implied that there is no
evidence supporting the allegations against him:
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 17 of 20
Ask them [Edwards and Cassell] if they have any evidence . . . . They're doing it for
money. She's getting money for having sold her story. She wants to sell the book.
They're trying to get into this lawsuit. They see a pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow. They're [Edwards and Cassell] prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These are
unethical lawyers. This is Professor Cassell who shouldn't be allowed near a
student. This is Professor Cassell, who is a former federal judge, thank God he no
longer wears a robe. He is essentially a crook. He is essentially somebody who's
distorted the legal profession. . . . Why would he charge a person with a
sterling reputation for 50 years on the basis of the word alone of a woman who is
serial liar, who has lied about former Prime Ministers, former Presidents, has lied
demonstrably.
CNN Live (with Hala Gorani) (January 5, 2015). Of course, by placing "the evidence" in this
case under seal, Dershowitz will be free to continue to try and insinuate that Edward and Cassell
— and their client, Ms. Giuffre — had no evidence supporting the allegations against him, even
though a mountain evidence strongly support Ms. Giuffre 's allegations. See Deposition of Paul
Cassell (Oct. 16, 2015) at 61-117 (Exhibit 3); see also Depo of Pual Cassell (Oct. 17, 2015)
(Exhibit 4).
CONCLUSION
The Court should deny Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz's motion to
place documents regarding Ms. Giuffre's allegations against him under seal.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve
to all Counsel on the attached list, this 25f-‘' day of November, 2015.
/s/ Jack Scarola
Jack Scarola
Florida Bar No.: 169440
Attorney E-Mail(s): jsxasearcylaw.com and
[email protected]
Primary E-Mail: scarolateamasearcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone:(561) 686-6300
Fax:(561) 383-9451
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 18 of 20
SEAN D. REYES
Utah Attorney General
By: JONI J. JONES
JOEL A. FERRE
Assistant Utah Attorneys General
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
E-mail: bradapathtojustice.com
And
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
383 S. University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone:801-585-5202
Facsimile:801-585-6833
E-Mail:[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell
COUNSEL LIST
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire
Thomas. [email protected]; Steven.safraacsklegal.com
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 19 of 20
Phone: (305)-350-5329
Fax: (305)-373-2294
Attorneys for Defendant
Richard A. Simpson (pro hac vice)
rsimpsongwileyrein.com
Mary E. Borja (pro hac vice)
mborjawileyrein.com
Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice)
[email protected]
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 719-7000
Fax: (202) 719-7049
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 20 of 20
COUNSEL LIST
Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esquire
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP
401 E Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-356-0011
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire
Thomas. [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305)-350-5329/Fax: (305)-373-2294
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos &
Lehrman, P.L.
425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-524-2820/Fax: (954)-524-2822
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Ashley Eiler, Esquire
[email protected]
Mary E. Borja, Esquire
[email protected]
Richard A. Simpson, Esquire
[email protected]
Wiley Rein, LLP
1776 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202)-719-4252/Fax: (202)-719-7049
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Joni J. Jones, Esquire
[email protected]
Assistant Utah Attorney General
160 E 300 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Phone: (801)-366-0100/Fax: (801)-366-0101
Attorneys for Paul Cassell
Kenneth A. Sweder, Esquire
[email protected]
Sweder & Ross, LLP
131 Oliver Street
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617)-646-4466/Fax: (617)-646-4470
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
txt
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/9bq6uj0p ... tracking=1
Filing # 34801581 E-Filed 11/23/2015 05:53:31 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL,
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT EDWARDS AND
CASSELL'S RESPONSE TO DERSHOWITZ'S MOTION TO DETERMINE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, by and
through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this response to Dershowitz's Motion to
Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The records at issue are not confidential, and so the
Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety.
The court records at issue are three court filings by attorneys Edwards and Cassell
in which they recite their client's (Mr. Virginia Giuffre's) allegations that she was sexually
abused by Dershowitz. These records are hardly "confidential" in this defamation case,
where the parties have claims and counterclaims about these sexual abuse
Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only
support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. Giuffre, but also indisputably establish
Edwards and Cassell's strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover,
contrary to assertions made in Dershowitz's motion, these documents have never been
found to be "confidential" by any other court. And Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 2 of 20
these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadcast worldwide, but also in his
pleadings before this Court and in recent depositions. Indeed, Dershowitz said in his
media interviews that he wants "everything to be made public" and implied that Edwards
and Cassell had something to hide. Accordingly, Dershowitz has failed to carry his heavy
burden to justify sealing these presumptively-public documents.
I. DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT JUSTIFIED SEALING ALLEGED
DEFAMATORY RECORDS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS
DEFAMATION CASE.
In his motion, Dershowitz never recounts the heavy burden that he must carry to seal the
records at issue. To be sure, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 allows for the sealing
of "confidential" materials. But the Rule begins by recounting the overarching principle that
"[t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as
provided below." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). This rule is a codification of the Florida
Supreme Court's admonition that a "a strong presumption of openness exists for all court
proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public
records available for public examination." Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531
So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added). In light of this presumption of openness, "[t]he
burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall always be on the party seeking closure." Id. To
obtain a sealing order, the party seeking sealing must carry a "heavy burden." Id.
Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to acknowledge these well-settled principles. More
important, he even fails to cite (much less discuss) the limited substantive exceptions to this
general principle of access — and which specific exception he believes applies to this
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 3 of 20
case. Accordingly, it is impossible for Edwards and Cassell to respond with precision to his
motion.
The exceptions that might arguably be in play in this case permit records to be maintained
as confidential in order to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly
administration of justice;
Protect trade secrets;
Protect a compelling governmental interest;
Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case;
Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties;
Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a
common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of
proceeding sought to be closed;
Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United
States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law ....
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9) (codifying the holding in Barron v. Florida Freedom
Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably
apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate
only where disclosure is "not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be
closed" (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action — involving
a defamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and a defamation counterclaim by
Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at
the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is "inherent" in the case itself.
The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized
in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and
counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 4 of 20
the materials in the records would be harmful to his professional
reputation. Carnegie recited subsection vi's restriction on release of materials involving a
privacy right, but noted that "statements Tedder alleged were defamatory and damaging were
allegations in Carnegie's counterclaim for which she seeks damages.
These matters were not peripheral to the lawsuit; they were inherent to it." Id. at 1312. Of
course, exactly the same principle applies here: sexual abuse allegations filed by attorneys
Edwards and Cassell for their client Ms. Virginia Giuffre are not peripheral to this lawsuit — they
are inherent to it.
To see how "inherent" the sexual abuse allegations are to this lawsuit, the Court need
look no further than Dershowitz's counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz's
Counterclaim (styled as "False Allegations in the Joinder Motion) contends that Edwards and
Cassell should pay him damages because they "filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled 'Jane
Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action' . . . ." Dershowitz
Counterclaim at 11 14. Dershowitz's Counterclaim then goes on to quote at length from the
Joinder Motion. His counterclaim contains, for example, this paragraph recounting the
allegations:
The Joinder Motion then goes on to allege — without any supporting evidence — as
follows:
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to
have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan
Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known criminal defense
attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with
Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida
but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 5 of 20
Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other
minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other
minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's coconspirators. Dershowitz would
later play a significant role in negotiating the [Non-Prosecution Agreement] on
Epstein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that
provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida
not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential coconspirators of Epstein." Thus,
Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided
protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually
abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity wouldhave been
controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein's
defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret
from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy
violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Dershowitz Counterclaim at 1115 (quoting Joinder Motion at 4).
Remarkably, having quoted at length from the Joinder Motion in his Counterclaim in this
case, Dershowitz now seeks to have that very same language from the Joinder Motion deemed
"confidential" and sealed. Compare Counterclaim at ¶15 (block quotation above) with Motion to
Determine Confidentiality, Exhibit A at 4 (composite exhibit with proposed "confidential"
document that includes paragraph beginning "[o]ne such powerful individual that Epstein forced
then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan
Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's . . . ."). Dershowitz cannot come before this Court and
file a counterclaim seeking damages from Edwards and Cassell for alleged defamatory
statements and then ask to have those very same statements placed under seal as
"confidential." See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So.2d at 119 ("although
generally protected by one's privacy right, medical reports and history are no longer protected
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 6 of 20
when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when
the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure" (emphasis added)).
H. JUDGE MARRA'S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT
THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE.
Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra's order striking some of the
materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept
confidential in this case. Dershowitz's argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge
Marra's order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading --
description of the events surrounding Judge Marra's ruling striking certain documents. A more
complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are
somehow "confidential" even in the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act case — much less in this
separate state defamation action.
Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who
were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz's close personal friend — Jeffrey
Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of "Jane Doe No. 1"
and "Jane Doe No. 2" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging
that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was
pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736
(S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests
with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz,
Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 7 of 20
followed (see generally Docket Entry or "DE" 225-1 at 4-5), ultimately leading to a further
Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The
Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE
225-1 at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the
Court. The Government claimed that these pages were "privileged" for various reasons,
attaching an abbreviated privilege log.
While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell,
contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the
case, including Ms. Virginia Giuffre (who was identified in court pleadings as "Jane Doe No.
3"). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have
avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the
Government — as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim — did not
respond to counsel's request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having
had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was
seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims' counsel might need
to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a
motion immediately, victims' counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a
stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 — more than four months after the initial
request for a stipulated joinder into the case — the Government tersely indicated its objection,
without indicating any reason: "Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this
stage of the litigation." See DE 291 at 5.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 8 of 20
Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, Edwards and
Cassell prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the
motion. One week after receiving the Government's objection, on December 30, 2014, Ms.
Giuffre (i.e., Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion)
seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280. (Note: DE 280 is the first of the three documents
Dershowitz seeks to have declared "confidential" in this case.) Uncertain as to the basis for the
Government's objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances that would qualify
the two women as "victims" eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e)
(defining "crime victim" protected under the Act). With regard to Ms. Giuffre, the motion
indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince
Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to
prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 ("If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove
the following .... "). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3's
participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding
Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new
victims was relevant to existing issues).
After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about
it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane
Doe No. 3 "a serial liar" who "has lied through her teeth about many world
leaders." http ://vvww cnn . co m/2015/01/06/us/dershowi tz-sex -all e gati on/. Dershowitz also
repeatedly called Edwards and Cassell "two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers." Id. On
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 9 of 20
January 5, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to intervene to argue to have the allegations
stricken. DE 282. Dershowitz also argued that Ms. Giuffre had not provided a sworn affidavit
attesting to the truth of her allegations. On January 21, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a
response for Ms. Giuffre and Jane Doe No. 4. DE 291. (Note: This is the second of the three
documents Dershowitz seeks to have kept under seal here.) The response enumerated nine
specific reasons why Ms. Giuffre's specific allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to the
case, including the fact that Ms. Giuffre needed to establish that she was a "victim" in the case,
that pending discovery requests concerning Dershowitz-specific documents were pending, and
that Dershowitz's role as a defense attorney in the case was highly relevant to the motive for the
Government and defense counsel to conceal the plea deal from the victims. DE 291 at 17-26 &
n.17. The response included a detailed affidavit from Ms. Giuffre about the sexual abuse she had
suffered from Epstein, Dershowitz, and other powerful persons. DE 291-1. On February 6,
2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a further pleading (and affidavit from Ms. Giuffre, see DE 291-
1) in support of her motion to intervene. (Note: this affidavit is the third of the three documents
Dershowitz seeks to have declared confidential.)
On April 7, 2015, Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffi-e's motion to join the case. Judge
Marra concluded that "at this juncture in the proceedings" details about the sexual abuse she had
suffered was unnecessary to making a determination "of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4
should be permitted to join [the other victims'] claim that the Government violated their rights
under the CVRA. The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in
sexual activities are impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 10 of 20
Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that the details
involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government." DE 324 at 5 (emphasis
in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that "Jane Doe 3 is free
to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims]
demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented
for the Court's consideration. Judge Marra then denied Ms. Giuffre's motion to join the case,
but allowed her to participate as trial witness: "The necessary 'participation' of [Ms. Giuffre] ...
in this case can be satisfied by offering ... properly supported — and relevant, admissible, and
non-cumulative — testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial ... or affidavits
supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests." DE 324 at 8 (emphasis
deleted). In a supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims "may re-refile these
documents omitting the stricken portions." DE 325. The victims have recently refiled the
documents.
In light of this history, Dershowitz is flatly incorrect when he asserts that "Judge Marra's
Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed in this case on the
public docket." Confidentiality Motion at 3. To the contrary, the Order specifically permits
factual details about Dershowitz's sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre to be presented in regard to
pertinent matters in the federal CVRA case. And certainly nothing in Judge Marra's Order could
render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl
around Edwards and Cassell's good faith basis for filing the allegations. Indeed, the order is not
binding in any way in this case, because it is res judicata only as to Ms. Giuffre (the moving
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 11 of 20
party in that case), not as to her attorneys Edwards and Cassell. See Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v.
Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703 (4th DCA 2002) ("In order for res judicata to apply four
identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action;
(3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or
against whom the claim is made.").
III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THEY ARE
BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE
DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM
WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT.
Dershowitz is also incorrect when he asserts that no prejudice will befall Edwards and
Cassell if the records are placed under seal. To the contrary, placing the documents under seal
would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those
records while preventing Edwards and Cassell from correcting those misrepresentations.
Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to details in the records when he has found it convenient to
do so — treating the records as not confidential in any away. One clear example comes from
Dershowitz's recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a
portion of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit about him watching Ms. Giuffre perform oral sex on
Epstein. And then, having injected that gratuitous reference into the record, he proceeded to try
to rebut the reference with confidential settlement discussions — but did so by mispresenting what
another attorney (David Boies) had said during the settlement discussions. So that the Court may
have the full flavor of the exchange, the narrow question to Dershowitz (by attorney Jack
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 12 of 20
Scarola) and Dershowitz's extended answer are quoted in full — including Dershowitz's
reference to the oral sex allegation that he now argues this Court should treat as "confidential":
Q. [Y]ou [are] aware that years before December of 2014, when the
CVRA pleading was filed, that your name had come up repeatedly in
connection with Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? . . .
A. Let me answer that question. I am aware that never before 2014,
end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any
way inappropriately with regard to Virginia [Giuffre], that I ever
touched her, that I ever met her, that Ihad ever been with her. I was
completely aware of that. There had never been any
allegation. She claims under oath that she told you that secretly in
2011, but you have produced no notes of any such conversation.
You, of course, are a witness to this allegation and will be deposed
as a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an entirely false
allegation that she told you in 2011 that she had had any sexual
contact with me. I think she's lying through her teeth when she
says that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any such
information.
But if she did tell you that, she would be absolutely, categorically
lying. So I am completely aware that never, until the lies were put
in a legal pleading at the end of December 2014, it was
never alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts.
I know that it was alleged that I was a witness to Jeffrey Epstein's
alleged abuse and that was false. I was never a witness to any of
Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, something
that you have falsely denied. And I stand on the record. The record
is clear that I have categorically denied I was ever a witness to
any abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing anybody.
And -- and the very idea that I would stand and talk to Jeffrey
Epstein while he was receiving oral sex from Virginia Roberts,
which she swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so preposterous,
that even David Boies said he couldn't believe it was true.
MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm not going to allow you to reveal
any conversations that happened in the context of a settlement discussion.
THE WITNESS: Does she have standing?
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 13 of 20
MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection and, I'm objecting again. I'm
not going to
THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have standing in this deposition?
MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a minute, okay?
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has standing.
MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the speech?
MR. SCOTT: No. If he --
MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the speech so that we can get to my
question
and then we can take a break.
A. So the question -- the answer to your question is --
MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Please don't
disclose something that she has a right to raise that objection if she wants to.
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 15, 2015) at 93-95 (attached as Exhibit 1); see
also Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 16, 2016) (attached as Exhibit 2) (also containing
discussion of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit).
The Court should be aware that within approximately two hours of this exchange, Ms.
McCawley (David Boies' law partner) released a statement on his behalf, which stated that
Dershowitz was misrepresenting what happened: "Because the discussions that Mr. Boies had
with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at
least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boies does state that Mr.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 14 of 20
Dershowitz description of what was said is not true." Statement of Ms. McCawley on Behalf of
David Boies (Oct. 15, 2015).
More broadly, the Court can readily see from this passage how Dershowitz is willing to
inject into the record a part of Ms. Giuffre's affidavit whenever it serves his purpose — and,
indeed, to characterize the part of the affidavit as "preposterous." But then he asks this Court to
place the underlying affidavit under seal, so that the Edwards and Cassell stand accused having
filed a "preposterous" affidavit without anyone being able to assess the validity of Dershowitz's
attack.
Dershowitz has referred to the court records that he now wishes to have the Court declare
confidential not only in his deposition, but also in his widely-broadcast media attacks on
Edwards and Cassell. For example, Dershowitz appeared on the British Broadcasting
Corporation (the BBC) and was asked about the allegations:
Well, first of all they were made in court papers that they don't even ask for a hearing
to try to prove them. They put them in court papers in order to immunize themselves
from any consequences from a defamation suit. The story is totally made
up, completely out of whole cloth.
I don't know this woman. I was not at the places at the times. It is part of a pattern of
made up stories against prominent people and world leaders. And the lawyers in
recent statement challenged me to deny the allegations under oath. I am doing that. I
am denying them under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution were I not
telling the truth. I am now challenging them to have their client put these charges
under oath and for them to put them under oath. I am also challenging them to repeat
them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation. . . .
And I will prove beyond any doubt not only that the story is totally false, but it was
knowingly false: that the lawyers and the client conspired together to create a false
story. That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to
the disciplinary committee.
BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc).
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 15 of 20
Similarly, Dershowitz appeared on NBC's Today Show the morning after Edwards and
Cassell made a filing for Ms. Giuffre, to say that the Edwards and Cassell — and Ms. Giuffre —
were all "lying" in the court documents:
Question from Savannah Guthrie: In legal papers from the lawyers, they say you've
had, in fact, the opportunity to be deposed.
Answer from Alan Dershowitz: They're lying. They're lying.
Question: They show letters in which they offered to depose you.
Answer: And they didn't show my letters in response saying, (a), if you ask me about
my legal relationship with Epstein and I'll be happy to answer. . . . And I responded
that I would be happy to be deposed if you could give me any indication that I would
be a relevant witness . . . . They will be proved — all of them [i.e., Cassell, Edwards,
and Ms. Giuffre] — to be categorically lying and making up this story. And it will be a
terrible thing for rape victims. . . . We [Epstein and Dershowitz] had an academic
relationship. I was never in the presence of a single, young, underaged
woman. When I was with him, it was with prominent scientists, prominent
academics. And they're just — again — lying about this. I never saw him doing
anything improper. I was not a participant. I was not a witness.
Today Show, Jan. 22, 2015 (emphases added).
As another example, in Miami Herald, Dershowitz called the Joinder Motion that he
seeks to have sealed the sleaziest legal document I have ever seen. They [Edwards and
Cassell] manipulated a young, suggestible woman who was interested in money. This is a
disbarrable offense, and they will be disbarred. They will rue the day they ever made this false
charge against me" — i.e., Edwards and Cassell will "rue the day" they ever filed the Joinder
Motion. Miami Herald (Jan. 3, 2015).
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 16 of 20
Most remarkably, Dershowitz took the public airwaves to represent that he wanted all of
the information surrounding the allegations to "be made public," while implying that Edwards
and Cassell had something to hide. For example, on the BBC he claimed that he
wanted"everything to be made public":
Q: Would you encourage that it now be made public?
A: Of course, of course. I want everything to be made public. I want
every bit of evidence in this case to be made public. I want every
allegation to be made public. I want to know who else she's accused of
these horrible crimes. We know that she accused Bill Clinton of being on
Jeffrey Epstein's island and participating in sex orgy with underage
girls. The records of the Secret Service will prove that President Clinton
never set foot on that island. So that she lied. Now it's possible to have a
case of mistaken identification with somebody like me. It's impossible to
have a case of mistaken identification with Bill Clinton.
My only feeling is that if she has lied about me, which I know to an
absolute certainty she has, she should not be believed about anyone
else. She's lied clearly about me, she's lied clearly about Bill
Clinton. We know that. We know that she's lied about other public
figures, including a former prime minister and others who she claims to
have participated in sexual activities with. So I think it must be presumed
that all of her allegations against Prince Andrew are false as well.
I think he [Prince Andrew] should clear the air as well.
If you're squeaky clean and if you have never done anything like this, you
must fight back with all the resources available to you. And that's what I
will do. I will not rest or stop until the world understands no only that I
had nothing to do with any of this, but that she deliberately, with the
connivance of her lawyer, lawyers, made up this story willfully and
knowingly.
BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7qbc).
In another widely-broadcast interview on CNN, Dershowitz implied that there is no
evidence supporting the allegations against him:
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 17 of 20
Ask them [Edwards and Cassell] if they have any evidence . . . . They're doing it for
money. She's getting money for having sold her story. She wants to sell the book.
They're trying to get into this lawsuit. They see a pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow. They're [Edwards and Cassell] prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These are
unethical lawyers. This is Professor Cassell who shouldn't be allowed near a
student. This is Professor Cassell, who is a former federal judge, thank God he no
longer wears a robe. He is essentially a crook. He is essentially somebody who's
distorted the legal profession. . . . Why would he charge a person with a
sterling reputation for 50 years on the basis of the word alone of a woman who is
serial liar, who has lied about former Prime Ministers, former Presidents, has lied
demonstrably.
CNN Live (with Hala Gorani) (January 5, 2015). Of course, by placing "the evidence" in this
case under seal, Dershowitz will be free to continue to try and insinuate that Edward and Cassell
— and their client, Ms. Giuffre — had no evidence supporting the allegations against him, even
though a mountain evidence strongly support Ms. Giuffre 's allegations. See Deposition of Paul
Cassell (Oct. 16, 2015) at 61-117 (Exhibit 3); see also Depo of Pual Cassell (Oct. 17, 2015)
(Exhibit 4).
CONCLUSION
The Court should deny Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz's motion to
place documents regarding Ms. Giuffre's allegations against him under seal.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve
to all Counsel on the attached list, this 25f-‘' day of November, 2015.
/s/ Jack Scarola
Jack Scarola
Florida Bar No.: 169440
Attorney E-Mail(s): jsxasearcylaw.com and
[email protected]
Primary E-Mail: scarolateamasearcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone:(561) 686-6300
Fax:(561) 383-9451
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 18 of 20
SEAN D. REYES
Utah Attorney General
By: JONI J. JONES
JOEL A. FERRE
Assistant Utah Attorneys General
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
E-mail: bradapathtojustice.com
And
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
383 S. University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone:801-585-5202
Facsimile:801-585-6833
E-Mail:[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell
COUNSEL LIST
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire
Thomas. [email protected]; Steven.safraacsklegal.com
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 19 of 20
Phone: (305)-350-5329
Fax: (305)-373-2294
Attorneys for Defendant
Richard A. Simpson (pro hac vice)
rsimpsongwileyrein.com
Mary E. Borja (pro hac vice)
mborjawileyrein.com
Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice)
[email protected]
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 719-7000
Fax: (202) 719-7049
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 20 of 20
COUNSEL LIST
Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esquire
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP
401 E Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-356-0011
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire
Thomas. [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305)-350-5329/Fax: (305)-373-2294
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos &
Lehrman, P.L.
425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-524-2820/Fax: (954)-524-2822
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Ashley Eiler, Esquire
[email protected]
Mary E. Borja, Esquire
[email protected]
Richard A. Simpson, Esquire
[email protected]
Wiley Rein, LLP
1776 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202)-719-4252/Fax: (202)-719-7049
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
Joni J. Jones, Esquire
[email protected]
Assistant Utah Attorney General
160 E 300 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Phone: (801)-366-0100/Fax: (801)-366-0101
Attorneys for Paul Cassell
Kenneth A. Sweder, Esquire
[email protected]
Sweder & Ross, LLP
131 Oliver Street
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617)-646-4466/Fax: (617)-646-4470
Attorneys for Alan M.Dershowitz, Esquire
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:02 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
Cont'd.
Exhibit 1
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL„
vs.
Plaintiffs,
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 1
Pages 1 through 179
Thursday, October 15, 2015
9:31 a.m. - 4:13 p.m.
Cole Scott & Kissane
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
93
1 people that abused Virginia?
2 A. I told you I never asked her the question. 11:36:21
3 Q. Are you aware that years before December 11:36:48
4 of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your
5 name had come up repeatedly in connection with
6 Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct?
7 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 11:37:16
8 A. Let me answer that question. I am aware 11:37:17
9 that never before 2014, end of December, was it
10 ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way
11 inappropriately with regard to Virginia Roberts,
12 that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that I
13 had ever been with her. I was completely aware of
14 that. There had never been any allegation.
15 She claims under oath that she told you 11:37:48
16 that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no
17 notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are
18 a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as
19 a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an
20 entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011
21 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I
22 think she's lying through her teeth when she says
23 that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any
24 such information.
25 But if she did tell you that, she would be 11:38:24
94
1 absolutely, categorically lying. So I am completely
2 aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal
3 pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never
4 alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia
5 Roberts.
6 I know that it was alleged that I was a 11:38:46
7 witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that
8 was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey
9 Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you,
10 something that you have falsely denied. And I stand
11 on the record. The record is clear that I have
12 categorically denied I was ever a witness to any
13 abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing
14 anybody.
15 And -- and the very idea that I would 11:39:18
16 stand and talk to Jeffrey Epstein while he was
17 receiving oral sex from Virginia Roberts, which she
18 swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so
19 preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn't
20 believe it was true.
21 MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm 11:39:40
22 not going to allow you to reveal any
23 conversations that happened in the context of a
24 settlement discussion.
25 THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? 11:39:46
95
1
2
3
4
MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection
and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to
THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have
standing in this deposition?
11:39:47
11:39:49
5 MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a 11:39:51
6 minute, okay?
7 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has 11:39:54
8 standing.
9 MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the 11:39:57
10 speech?
11 MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- 11:39:58
12 MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the 11:39:59
13 speech so that we can get to my question and
14 then we can take a break.
15 A. So the question -- the answer to your 11:40:02
16 question is --
17 MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a 11:40:04
18 minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose
19 something that she has a right to raise that
20 objection if she wants to.
21 MR. SCOTT: Exactly. 11:40:13
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11:40:14
23 MR. SCOTT: Ask your question. 11:40:17
24 MR. SWEDER: Maybe you want to read back 11:40:20
25 the last couple of sentences.
Exhibit 2
180
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL„
vs.
Plaintiffs,
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
CONTINUED VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 2
Pages 180 through 333
Friday, October 16, 2015
9:18 a.m. - 12:26 p.m.
Cole Scott & Kissane
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
181 183
1
2
APPEARANCES: 1
2
INDEX
3
4
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA
BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
3
4
Examination Page
VOLUME 2 (Pages 180 - 333)
5
6
7
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626
BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ.
[email protected]
5 Direct By Mr. Scarola 184
6 Certificate of Oath 330
Certificate of Reporter 331
7 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 332
8
9
10
i 1
On behalf of Defendant:
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ.
8
9
10
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 333
PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS
No. Page
[email protected]
1 Television Interview Transcript 193
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone)
[email protected]
—and--
SWEDER & ROSS, LLP
131 Oliver Street
Boston, MA 02110
BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ.
[email protected]
--and--
WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
2 Except from Deposition of Alan M. 193
Dershowitz
3 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 194
4 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 197
5 Flight Log Information Sheet 198
6 Composite - Flight logs 240
7 Composite - Flight manuals 240
8 Photograph - 8x 10 - Color 305
19
20
21
22
Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
[email protected]
BY: NICOLE A. RICIIARDSON, ESQ.
[email protected]
19
2 0
21
22
23
9 Composite - Calendar entries
10 Composite ,- Calendar entries
11 Composite - Calendar entries
12 Composite - Calendar entries
306
307
307
307
23 24
24
25
25
182 184
1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record. This
2 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 2 is day two of Alan Dershowitz's deposition.
3 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 3 The date is October 16, 2015, and the time is
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
4 approximately 9:18 a.m.
4 New York, New York
5 MR. SCAROLA: Would you please reswear the
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
5 6 witness.
6 On behalf of Virginia Roberts: 7 THE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your
7 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 8 right hand, please?
8
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
9
1.0
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony
you are about to give will be the truth, the
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
[email protected]
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
9
10
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 ALSO PRESENT: 13 Thereupon:
12 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office 14 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
13
14
Travis Gallagher, Videographer 15
16
having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
15
16
17
17
18
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 19 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, what is rhetorical
19 20 hyperbole?
2 0
21
21 A. Rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole
22
23
22
23
means exaggeration.
Q. Something other than the truth, correct?
24 24 A. Truth --
2 5 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, relevancy.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
2 (Pages 181 to 184)
185 187
1 A. Truth has many, many meanings and is a 1 transcript of the interview? wed like to see
2 continuum. The Supreme Court has held that 2 it.
3 rhetorical hyperbole cannot be the basis, for 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what I gave
4 example, of perjury prosecutions or generally of a 4 you, the photocopy.
5 defamation prosecution. 5 MR. SCOTT: Were doing it right now.
6 So it depends on the context. You might 6 Maybe we can move on and come back then.
7 just look at the dictionary and probably get a 7 MR. SCAROLA: No, I would like to proceed.
8 variety of definitions for it. 8 MR. SCOTT: Then let's stop until I get a
9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 copy of it. Because he -- I want --
10 Q. Well, what I'm concerned about, 10 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that's
11 Mr. Dershowitz, is not a dictionary definition. I 11 necessary because your client has told us that
12 want to know what your understanding of rhetorical 12 he has a superb memory and one of the things I
13 hyperbole is. 13 would like to know is what he's able to recall.
14 And do you agree that pursuant to your 14 If he needs to refresh his memory, the
1.5 understanding of rhetorical hyperbole, it is an 15 transcripts will be here in just a moment, but
16 exaggeration beyond the facts? 16 1 don't want to delay going forward.
17 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative and 17 MR. SCOTT: Do you need the transcript to
18 compound, three questions. 18 refresh your memory?
19 A. No -- 19 THE WITNESS: Well, I have no memory of
20 MR. SCOTT: You can answer. 2 0 what specifically I said on a particular day in
21 A. -- I would not agree with that definition. 21 a particular interview.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 MR. SCOTT: Since you have a copy in front
23 Q. Okay. Then define it for us, if you 23 of him, why don't you just show him your copy
24 would, please. 24 then? Read the -- ask your question and let
25 A. I think 1 have already. 25 him read it.
186 188
1 Q. I'm sorry, I missed the definition. Could 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 you tell us what rhetorical hyperbole is? 2 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection, repetitious. He's 3 CNN Tonight by Don Lemon?
4 done it. 4 A. Yes, I do.
5 A. Why don't we just read back my answer. 5 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 CNN Tonight by Don Lemon in early January of 2015,
7 Q. Because I didn't understand it, so I would 7 where you spoke about matters that have become the
8 like you to try to give us a direct response to that 8 subject of this litigation?
9 question if you're able to. 9 A. Yes, I do.
10 A. I will repeat exactly what I said. A 10 Q. Did you make the following statement
11 rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole means some 11 during the course of that interview: "As to the
12 exaggeration of the facts for political or other 12 airplanes, there are manifests that will prove
13 reasons, but generally it is truthful in a literal 13 beyond any doubt that I was never on a private
14 sense but perhaps -- it all depends on context. 14 airplane with this woman or any other underage
15 And if you tell me the context in which I 15 OW?
16 used it, I will be happy to describe what I meant in 16 MR. SCOTT: You need to see the
17 that context. But I don't think you can really 17 transcript?
18 answer a question about what two words put together 18 THE WITNESS: No. No.
19 mean without understanding the context. 19 A. That is a truthful statement. I would
20 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to talk about 20 repeat it right now. I've reviewed the manifests.
21 some context. 21 First, I know I was never on the airplane
22 Do you recall having been interviewed on 22 with any underage woman. I know that for a fact. I
23 CNN Tonight on January 5, 2015? 23 have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. And
24 A. I have no current recollection of -- 24 the records that I have reviewed confirm that.
25 MR. SCOTT: Do you have a copy of the 25 They have Virginia Roberts on a number of
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
3 (Pages 185 to 188)
1 airplane flights with Jeffrey Epstein. They have me
2 on a number of flights, none -- let me emphasize,
3 none within the relevant time period, none within
4 the relevant time period. That is, there are no
5 manifests that have me on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane
6 during the time that Virginia Roberts claims to
7 have -- falsely claims to have had sex with me.
8 So, yes, not only recall making that
9 statement, but I repeat it here today. And it is
10 absolutely true. And it just confirms what I know,
11 and that is that Virginia Roberts made up the entire
12 story.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Q. Your statement --
15 MR. SCOTT: What page are you reading
16 from?
17 MR. SCAROLA: Page 5.
189
18 Q. Your statement was that you were never on
19 a private airplane with this woman, which I assume
20 was a reference to Virginia Roberts, correct?
21 A. It is, yes.
22 Q. Or any other underage girl?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. All right. How many times --
25 A. Well, let me be very clear. I have no
191
1 to the transcription, the official transcription of
2 that testimony, was that, quote:
3 "Let me emphasize that the manifests that
4 do exculpate me do not show me flying with Virginia
5 Roberts, they do not show me flying with any young
6 women."
7 That was the testimony you gave under
8 oath. Do you stand by that testimony today?
9 A. The manifests that I saw corroborate my
10 own memory -- my own memory is as clear as could
11 be -- that I never saw any inappropriately aged,
12 underaged women on any airplane to my knowledge that
13 were visible to me at any time that l flew. That is
14 my testimony, yes.
15 Q. Well, that's not a response to the
16 question that I asked. Is it your testimony today
17 that you never flew on a private airplane with,
18 quote, "any young women"?
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
20 A. By young women, I obviously meant in that
21 context underage women. And underage women in the
22 context of sexuality. And, yes, I -- I stand by
23 that statement.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. All right. So your -- your clarification
190
192
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
idea who was in the front cabin of the airplane with
the pilots. Obviously what I intended to say and
what I say here now is l never saw an underaged
person on an airplane.
Now, when l -- when l flew with Jeffrey
Epstein to the launch, my recollection is that there
may have been a couple on the plane with their child
who was going to see the launch. But that was
certainly not the context in which I made the
statement.
I never saw any underage, young person who
would be the subject or object of any improper
sexual activities. Had l seen Jeffrey Epstein ever
in the presence of an underage woman in a context
that suggested sexuality, l would have, A, left the
scene; B, reported it; and, C, never had any further
contact with Jeffrey Epstein.
Q. You have also made the statement that you
were never on a private airplane with any underage
women or any young women, correct?
A. The context was underage women in a sexual
context. If it was a -- you know, a four-year-old
child being carried by her mother, that would not be
included in what I intended to say.
Q. Your sworn testimony yesterday, according
1 of your earlier testimony is that you never saw any
2 young women in a sexual context?
3 A. That's not clarification. I think that's
4 what I initially said. That's what 1 initially
5 intended. And that's the way any reasonable — any
6 reasonable person would interpret what my original
7 testimony was. So I don't believe my original
8 testimony required any clarification.
9 Q. So what you meant to convey by the
10 statement that you made when you said you never flew
11 with any underage girl or any young women was you
12 never flew with any underage girl or young women in
13 a sexual context?
14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 Q. Is that correct?
17 A. Let me simply repeat the fact and that is,
18 to my knowledge, I never flew on an airplane or was
19 ever in the presence on an airplane with any
20 underage woman who would be somebody who might be in
21 a sexual context. l say that only to eliminate the
22 possibility that some four-year-old was on the lap
23 of a mother or somebody was on the airplane with
24 family members.
25 But, no, l do not recall -- and I'm very
4 (Pages 189 to 192)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
193 195
1 firm about this -- being on an airplane with anybody 1 A. I don't remember that I flew with her or
2 who I believed could be the subject of Jeffrey 2 not. I may have. But I don't recall necessarily.
3 Epstein or anyone else's improper sexual activities. 3 But I did meet -- I remember meeting a woman named
4 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Let's mark the 4 Tatiana. This does not look like Tatiana, like the
5 transcript that we've been referring to as 5 woman I met.
6 Exhibit Number 1, please. That's the 6 Q. Okay. So that's a — that's a different
7 transcript of the television interviews that 7 Tatiana?
8 well be discussing. 8 A. No, I don't know.
9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form,
10 1.) 10 argumentative.
11 MR. SCOTT: This is actually 2, right? We 11 A. I have no idea. I do not recognize this
12 had one yesterday, an article from the British 12 woman. She's not familiar to me at all.
13 newspaper? 13 I can tell you this: Without any doubt, 1
14 MR. SCAROLA: No. It was not marked as an 14 never met anybody dressed like this on any airplane
15 exhibit. This is the first exhibit that's been 15 or in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein or in any
16 marked. 16 context --
17 MR. SCOTT: No, I know that, but I thought 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 we were going to mark that one. Maybe 1 was -- 18 Q. Did she have —
19 I asked for that. Okay. 19 A. -- related to this case.
20 It was an answer and counterclaim about 20 Q. -- more clothes on or less clothes on when
21 the allegation shown to the witness. 21 you met her?
22 MR. SCAROLA: And Exhibit Number 2 will be 22 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. He said he
23 the transcript from yesterday's proceedings 23 never met her. Misrepresent --
24 that I have just referenced. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 25 Q. When you met the woman that you're
194 196
1 Exhibit 2.) 1 referencing, did she have more clothes on or less
2 MR. SCOTT: You don't have a copy of that, 2 clothes on than that woman?
3 do you, of the transcript? 3 A. Every woman that I met in the presence of
4 MR. SCAROLA: No. Got sent to you. I 4 Jeffrey Epstein was properly dressed, usually in
5 assume you have it. 5 suits and dresses and -- and appropriately covered
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 up. I never met any women in the context of Jeffrey
7 Q. I'm going to hand you what we'll now mark 7 Epstein who were dressed anything like this.
8 as Exhibit Number 3. 8 Q. Would you agree that that is a young woman
9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 9 in that photograph?
10 Exhibit 3.) 10 A. I have no idea what her age is.
11 MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 11 Q. So you don't know whether she was underage
12 MR. SWEDER: Yes. 12 or overage or a young woman or not a young woman?
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 A. I don't --
14 Q. Do you recognize that young woman, 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
15 Mr. Dershowitz? 15 A. -- know this woman, so I have no idea how
16 A. No. 16 old a woman in a picture is. She could be -- she
17 Q. Never saw her? 17 could be 30. She could be 25. I have no idea.
18 A. Not that I know of. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. Never flew on an private airplane with 19 Q. Or she could be 15 or 16?
20 her? 20 A. I don't think so.
21 A. Not that I know of. 21 Q. But you don't know?
22 Q. Do you recognize the name Tatiana? 22 A. This doesn't -- well, I don't know how old
23 A. I do recall that Jeffrey Epstein had a 23 you are. This does not strike the --
24 friend named Tatiana. 24 Q. Old enough to know that —
25 Q. That you flew with? 25 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
5 (Pages 193 to 196)
197 199
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 photographs. The photographs identify the woman as
2 Q. -- that's a young woman. 2 Tatiana Kovylina, correct?
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. You're cutting the 3 A. Yes, but --
4 witness off. You're not letting him finish. 4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Dershowitz, take your
5 A. This looks like a picture out of a Playboy 5 time --
6 or Penthouse magazine. It does not look to me like 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
7 a person who is under the age of 16 or 17 or 18. 7 MR. SCOTT: -- review the exhibits. Don't
8 But I don't think you can tell anything from the 8 be rushed by Mr. Scarola.
9 picture. I think you can tell much more from 9 A. Yes, it's a different -- different
10 meeting somebody and being with them and having a 10 spelling of the name. The Tatiana on the manifest
11 conversation with them. 3.1 is spelled T-A-1-T-A-N-N-A.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this photograph, 12 The Tatiana in the photograph is
13 if we could, as Exhibit Number 4. 13 T-A-T-I-N -- I-A-N-A. I have no idea whether --
14 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 Exhibit 4.) 15 Q. The last name —
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 A. -- they are the same person.
17 Q. Does Exhibit Number 4 help you at all to 17 Q. — is the same, Kovylina, right?
18 recognize this young woman? 18 A. There's no last name.
19 A. I've never -- I have no -- no recollection 19 Q. Well, read down a little bit further, if
20 of this young woman at all. 20 you would, Mr. Dershowitz.
21 Q. All right. Would you describe for us, 21 A. You mean as to a different flight?
22 please, the Tatiana that you flew with Jeffrey 22 Q. Yes, sir. Identifying the return flight
23 Epstein on November 17, 2005? 23 for the same Tatiana.
24 A. First, I want to emphasize that that's 24 A. I have no idea that it's a retum flight.
25 three years later than any of the issues involved in 25 I have nothing on the record that suggests that it's
198 200
1 this case. I have no recollection of flying with 1 a return flight. And it has different people on it.
2 this woman. I saw the name Tatiana on a manifest. 2 So I have no reason to believe its a return flight.
3 And my recollection of Tatiana -- 1 have 3 Q. Is the last -- the question that I asked
4 no recollection of flying with her, but my 4 you, Mr. Dershowitz, is: Is the last name spelled
5 recollection of Tatiana is that she was a serious, 5 exactly the same as the last name is spelled in the
6 mid 20s woman friend ofJeffrey Epstein, who 1 may 6 two photographs I have shown you?
7 have met on one or two or three occasions when he 7 A. Let me look. So, on the 20th of
8 was with her in -- perhaps at Harvard University 8 November --
9 where he was meeting with academics and scholars, or 9 Q. Is the last name --
10 perhaps -- I think that's probably the context 10 MR. SCOTT: Whoa, whoa --
11 where -- where she might have been. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA:
12 Q. But you never flew with her? 12 Q. -- spelled the same way on both the flight
13 A. I have no recollection of flying with her. 13 log and the two photographs I have shown you?
14 Q. Okay. Well, let me see if this helps to 14 A. On -- you mean on a flight log that I was
15 refresh your recollection, Mr. Dershowitz. 15 not on the flight? Is that right? You're talking
16 MR. SCAROLA: Lees mark this as Exhibit 16 about a flight log that I was not on the flight,
17 Number 5, please. 17 right?
18 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, yes. 18 Q. That flight log shows you on multiple
19 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 19 flights, does it not?
20 Exhibit 5.) 20 A. It shows me not on that flight. It shows
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 me on a number of flights, but not on that flight.
22 Q. Do you see that the name of the woman in 22 MR. SCOTT: What's the date of the
23 the photographs I have handed you is Tatiana 23 flights?
24 Kovylina, K-O-V-Y-L-I-N-A, a Victoria Secrets model? 24 THE WITNESS: The date of that flight
25 The photographs, sir, look at the 25 is -- looks like November 20th, 2005, more
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
6 (Pages 197 to 200)
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
201
than three years after Virginia Roberts left
for --
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. Mr. Dershowitz --
MR. SCOTT: You're cutting the witness
off.
MR. SCAROLA: He's not answering my
question, Tom.
MR. SCOTT: Well --
MR. SCAROLA: I want to know whether the
last name is spelled the same or it isn't
spelled the same on the flight log marked as an
exhibit and on the photographs. That's a very
direct question. It calls for a very direct
yes or no response.
And this witness has demonstrated a clear
refusal to respond directly to direct
questions, which will result, when we resume
this deposition, in our requesting that the
Court appoint a special master so that this
deposition doesn't take two weeks to complete.
MR. SCOTT: You know, Mr. Scarola, that's
a nice speech and I appreciate it.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: I don't agree with your
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
203
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Is the last name on the photograph spelled
3 exactly the same way as the last name on the flight
4 log?
5 A. If you're talking about a flight log that
6 I was not on that flight, the answer is yes.
7 Q. All right. Thank you very much, sir.
8 Now, that flight log also shows you flying
9 repeatedly in the company of a woman named Tatiana,
correct?
A. I've only seen one reference to Tatiana on
November 17. If you want to show me any other
references, I'd be happy to look at them.
Q. All right, si•. Thank you.
Let's go back to the —
MR. SCOTT: Are we done with this exhibit?
MR. SCAROLA: We are done with the
exhibit.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. Then let's collect the
exhibits so that we don't have a big -- then
we'll turn them over to the court reporter to
keep safekeeping.
There you go, young lady, don't lose
those, don't get them wet. And we'll proceed.
202
204
1 characterization. And if you recall, months
2 ago I suggested a special master for this
3 deposition, for your clients' depositions and
4 for Virginia Roberts' and your response to me
5 was: I'll consider it, I won't pay for it. If
6 your client wants to pay for it -- so basically
7 you blew me off.
8 So, I appreciate you finally come around.
9 And your clients.
10 MR. SCAROLA: Your client's misconduct has
11 clearly convinced me, having now considered it,
12 that it is absolutely necessary.
13 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now --
14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 Q. So now could 1 get an answer to my
16 question --
17 MR. SCOTT: Now that we have --
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. -- whether the last name on the flight log
20 is spelled exactly the same way as the last name in
21 the photographs?
22 MR. SCOTT: Now that all the lawyers'
23 speeches arc done, read the question back and
24 the witness will answcr it.
25 MR. SCAROLA: I will repeat the question.
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Did you state during the same interview,
3 the CNN Don Lemon interview: "She has said that
4 Bill Clinton was with tier at an orgy on Jeffrey's
5 island"?
6 A. I did state that, yes.
7 Q. Was that statement intended as fact,
8 opinion, or was it intended as rhetorical hyperbole?
9 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand the
10 question?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
12 A. It was a statement based on what I
13 believed were the facts at the time I said them.
14 Various newspapers and blogs had placed
15 Bill Clinton on, quote, "orgy island" on -- in the
16 presence of Jeffrey Epstein when there were orgies.
17 And at the time I made that statement, I had a
18 belief that she had accused Bill Clinton of
19 participating or being -- as being a part of or an
20 observer or -- or a witness or a participant in
21 orgies on what was called Jeffrey Epstein's orgy
22 island. That was my state of belief, honest belief
23 at the time I made that statement.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. Yes, sir. And what I want to know is what
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
7 (Pages 201 to 204)
205 207
1 the source of that honest belief was? Identify any 1 Clinton on orgy island, things of that kind. I
2 source that attributed to Virginia Roberts the 2 would be happy to provide them for you. I don't
3 statement that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy 3 have them on the top of my head.
4 on Jeffrey's island. 4 Q. There's a big difference between saying
5 A. We can provide you about, I think, 20 5 that Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey's island and saying
6 newspaper articles and blogs which certainly raise 6 that Bill Clinton was at an orgy on Jeffrey's
7 the implication that Bill Clinton had improperly 7 island, isn't there?
8 participated in sexual activities on the island 8 MR. SCOTT: Objection --
9 either as an observer or as a participant. The 9 BY MR. SCAROLA:
10 issue was raised on Sean Hannity's program. The 10 Q. Do you recognize a distinction between
11 headlines in various British media had suggested 11 those statements?
12 that. 12 MR. SCOTT: Form.
13 Its my belief that Virginia Roberts 13 A. I don't think that distinction was clearly
14 intended to convey that impression when she was 14 drawn by the media.
15 trying to sell her story to various media, which she 15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 successfully sold her story to in Britain, that she 16 Q. I'm asking whether you recognize the
17 wanted to keep that open as a possibility. 17 distinction?
18 And then when I firmly declared, based on 18 A. Oh, I -- I certainly recognize a
19 my research, that Bill Clinton had almost certainly 19 distinction.
20 never been on that island, she then made a firm 20 Q. Oh, so --
21 statement that she -- which was a -- which was a 21 A. Let me finish. I certainly recognize a
22 perjurious statement, a firm perjurious statement 22 distinction between Bill Clinton being on the
23 saying that although Bill Clinton had been with her 23 island, which I believe she perjuriously put in her
24 on the island and had had dinner with her, the 24 affidavit, and Bill Clinton participating actively
25 perjurious statement was that Bill Clinton had been 25 in an orgy. I also think its a continuum.
206 208
1 on the island with her. 1 And there is the possibility, which I
2 The lie was that she described in great 2 don't personally believe to be true, that he was on
3 detail a dinner with Bill Clinton and two underaged 3 the island. There was the possibility, which I
4 Russian women who were offered to Bill Clinton for 4 don't believe to be true, that he was on the island
5 sex but that Bill Clinton turned down. 5 when orgies were taking place. There was the
6 So she then put in her affidavit that 6 possibility that he was on the island and observed
7 although -- perjuriously, although she had seen Bill 7 an orgy, and there was the possibility that he was
8 Clinton on that island, she then stated that she had 8 on the island and participated in an orgy.
9 not had sex with Bill Clinton. To my knowledge, 9 Newspapers picked up those stories. I'll
10 that was -- to my knowledge at least, that was the 10 give you an example of a newspaper that actually
11 first time she stated that -- that she not had sex 11 said that that she had placed or that I was on the
12 with Bill Clinton. She had certainly implied, or at 12 island and -- that I participated in an orgy along
13 least some of the media had inferred from her 13 with Stephen Hawkings [sic], the famous physicist
14 statements that she may very well have observed Bill 14 from Cambridge University, that was a newspaper
15 Clinton in a sexually compromising position. 15 published in the Virgin Islands, which falsely
16 So, when 1 made that statement to Don 16 claimed that I was at an orgy with Stephen Hawkings.
17 Lemon, I had a firm belief, based on reading 17 So, many newspapers were suggesting,
18 newspaper accounts and blogs, that it was true. 18 implying, and I inferred from reading those
19 Q. Can you identify a single newspaper that 19 newspapers that that's what she had said to the
20 attributed to Virginia Roberts the statement that 20 media.
21 Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's 21 If I was wrong about that based on
22 island? 22 subsequent information, I apologize. But I
23 A. I think there -- I don't have them in my 23 certainly, at the time I said it, believed it and
24 head right now. But I do recall reading headlines 24 made the statement in good faith in the belief that
25 that talked about things like, sex slave places 25 it was an honest statement.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888) 811-3408
8 (Pages 205 to 208)
209 211
1 Q. Okay. So you now are withdrawing the 1 Your client is doing everything he can to avoid
2 statement that you made that Virginia Roberts said 2 giving direct answers to these questions.
3 that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on 3 I would appreciate it if you would take a
4 Jeffrey's island; that was wrong? 4 break, counsel your client that the speeches
5 A. I don't know whether she ever said that. 5 are not helpful to anyone, and especially not
6 I would not repeat that statement and have not 6 helpful to him.
7 repeated that statement based on her denial. As 7 MR. SCOTT: If you want to take a break,
8 soon as she denied it, I never again made that 8 I'll take a break and I will advise my client
9 statement and would not again make that statement. 9 whatever I feel is appropriate, not what you
10 Q. You —
10 instruct me to do.
11 A. But I did reiterate the fact that she 11 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, if you think it
12 committed perjury when she said she was on the 12 might help at all in the progress of this
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
island with Bill Clinton.
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
nonresponsive --
A. That was the perjurious statement.
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
nonresponsive portions of the answer.
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. You have made a reference during that same
CNN interview to this woman, referring to Virginia
Roberts, having a criminal record?
A. That's right .
Q. Okay. What -- what is a criminal record?
A. Well, the way I used the term is that she
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deposition, then I do want to take a break. If
you don't think taking a break would be
helpful, Idon't want to take a break.
MR. SCOTT: Do you want to take a break or
not?
THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave it to
your judgment. I'm happy to proceed --
MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'll be glad to take a
break.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: I can't say --
MR. SCAROLA: Five minutes.
MR. SCOTT: -- it will help you or
210 212
1 committed a crime and legal -- some kind of 1 anything but --
2 proceedings resulted from her committing a crime. 2 MR. SCAROLA: 1 can understand that you
3 The crime she committed was stealing money from a 3 don't -- you don't have that control, but if
4 restaurant that she worked at while she was also 4 there's any reasonable --
5 working for Jeffrey Epstein. And it was my 5 MR. SCOTT: You know, Counsel --
6 information that there was a criminal record of her 6 MR. SCAROLA: -- prospect that it might
7 theft. 7 help, let's give it a try.
8 Q. How old was she at the time this alleged 8 MR. SCOTT: You know, I really don't
9 offense occurred? 9 appreciate the comments about my abilities as
10 A. I don't know. But old enough to be held 10 an attorney, like I don't have that control and
11 criminally responsible in the State of Florida, to 11 things of nature. It really is --
12 my knowledge. To my knowledge, 1-- I recall a case 12 MR. SCAROLA: 1 don't have the control
13 where a 14-year-old boy was sentenced as an adult 13 either.
14 for -- 14 MR. SCOTT: It's not --
15 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Scott -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: I'm not trying to disparage
16 A. -- a serious -- 16 you at all in any respect. I'm just suggesting
17 MR. SCAROLA: -- did my question ask 17 that --
18 anything about a 14-year-old boy? 18 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
19 A. You asked if -- 19 MR. SCAROLA: -- there is reason to doubt
20 MR. SCAROLA: Do we really need to listen 20 that it will do any good. But I want to give
21 to this? 21 it a try.
22 MR. SCOTT: You're asking questions, my 22 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
23 client is providing his response. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
24 MR. SCAROLA: No, your client is not 24 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
25 responding. Your client is filibustering. 25 time is approximately 9:49 a.m.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
9 (Pages 209 to 212)
213 215
1 (Recess was held from 9:49 a.m. until 10:01 a.m.) 1 Q. That would certainly have been prior to
2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 2 February 23rd of 2015, correct?
3 The time is approximately 10:01 a.m. 3 A. Yes.
4 MR. SCOTT: If you've finished your bagel, 4 MR. SCOTT: Are you going back to the
5 were ready to proceed, I think. 5 exhibit now with the newspapers and --
6 MR. SCAROLA: I think we are. I was 6 MR. SCAROLA: Not yet.
7 actually ready to proceed a little bit earlier, 7 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
8 but we'll proceed now. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. Having reviewed the available airplane
10 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, do you agree with the 10 flight logs, you are aware that Bill Clinton flew on
11 basic concept that one is presumed to be innocent 11 at least 15 occasions with Jeffrey Epstein on his
12 until proven guilty? 12 private plane, correct?
13 A. Yes. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Has Virginia Roberts ever been proven to 14 Q. Have you ever attempted to get flight log
15 be guilty of any crime at any time, anywhere, at any 15 information with regard to Former President
16 age? 16 Clinton's other private airplane travel?
17 A. I don't know the answer to that question, 17 A. No.
18 but I do know that she was brought into the legal 18 Q. Never made a public records request —
19 system for stealing money from her employer and I 19 A. Yes.
20 think it's fair to characterize that as her having a 20 Q. — under the Freedom of Information Act
21 criminal record, yeah. 21 with regard to those records?
22 Q. To the extent that anyone might interpret 22 A. Well, we have made a Freedom of
23 your comment that Virginia Roberts was ever 23 Information request. My -- my attomey in New York,
24 convicted of a crime, they would be drawing a false 24 Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, has made a
25 conclusion as far as you know, correct? 25 FOIA request for all information that would
214 216
1 A. As far as I know, I don't know of her 1 conclusively prove that Bill Clinton was never on
2 having convicted of any crime. But I do know that 2 Jeffrey Epstein's island, yes.
3 she was proceeded against for having stolen money. 3 Q. And you were denied those records,
4 And I don't think she contested that. I don't think 4 correct?
5 there's any dispute about the fact that she stole 5 A. No, no, no.
6 money and engaged in other crimes as well. 6 Q. Oh, you got them?
7 Q. When did you find out about this alleged 7 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let's
8 crime? 8 take it slow. Ask a question.
9 A. As soon as the false allegation against me 9 A. As any lawyer knows, FOIA requests take a
10 was made public, I got call after call after call 10 long, long period of time. So they were neither
11 from people telling me about Virginia Roberts, about 11 denied nor were they given to us. They are very
12 your 22 clients. The calls just kept coming in 12 much in process.
13 because there was such outrage at this false 3.3 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 allegation being directed against me. 14 Q. When was --
15 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 15 A. While we're talking about -- may I
16 unresponsive portion of the answer. 16 complete -- I want to amend one answer I gave
17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 previously.
18 Q. You found out as soon as the CVRA 18 While were talking about the plane logs,
19 complaint was -- the CVRA allegations referencing 19 I must say that during the recess, my wife Googled
20 you were filed; is that correct? 20 Tatiana and found out that she was, in fact, 24
21 A. I didn't say that. I said as soon as they 21 years old in 1995, at the time she flew on that
22 were made public and as soon as the newspapers 22 airplane. So that my characterization of her as
23 carried these false stories, I received phone calls 23 about 25 years old is absolutely correct.
24 and I teamed about -- I learned about her encounter 24 And the implication that you sought to
25 with the criminal justice system. 25 draw by showing me those pictures was not only
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
10 (Pages 213 to 216)
217 219
1 demonstrably false, but you could have easily 1 she has a history of lying, knowing that she is
2 discovered that the implication you were drawing was 2 easily suggestible, and they basically pressured
3 demonstrably false by simply taking one second and 3 her, according to my sources, into including me when
4 Googling her name as my wife did. 4 she didn't want to include me, because by including
5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 me, they could make a claim, false as it was, could
6 Q. And so at 25 years old, she wasn't a young 6 make a false claim that a person who negotiated the
7 woman? 7 NPA was also criminally involved with her.
8 A. She was not the kind of woman that I was 8 They also lied -- lied unethically and
9 describing as underage. She was a mature, serious, 9 unprofessionally by saying that I negotiated that
10 I think I said in my public statements a model. I 10 provision of the NPA, which gave me, myself, any
11 wasn't aware at the time that see was working for 11 kind of immunity from prosecution had I had improper
12 Victoria's Secrets, but Google demonstrates that. 12 sex with Virginia Roberts, which, of course, I did
13 And I described her exactly, in exactly the right 13 not. And that was one of the bases on which I was
14 terms, a serious person. 14 certain that they had engaged in unprofessional,
15 I always saw her dressed when I saw her -- 15 disbarrable and unethical conduct by including that
16 I saw her maybe on two or three occasions, dressed 16 provision, as well as including a provision that
17 appropriately. She was a serious adult worker and I 17 Prince Andrew was included because he, Prince
18 think you insult and demean her when you suggest 18 Andrew, pressured a United States attorney to try to
19 that anything other than that she was a serious 19 get a good deal for Jeffrey Epstein.
20 adult when she flew on that airplane. 20 That is so laughable. How any lawyer
21 Q. You were asked on the occasion of that 21 could put that in a pleading, it doesn't pass even
22 same Don Lemon CNN interview what possible motive 22 the minimal giggle test. And I'm embarrassed for
23 the attorneys, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, could 23 Professor Cassell that he would have signed his name
24 have had to have identified you in the pleading that 24 to a pleading that alleges that Prince Andrew would
25 was filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case. 25 pressure the United States attorney for the Southern
218 220
1 Do you remember that? 1 District of Florida into giving Jeffrey Epstein a
2 A. That's right, yes. 2 good deal.
3 Q. And your response was, quote -- 3 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
4 MR. SCOTT: Here's your transcript if you 4 unresponsive portions of the answer. And
5 need to refer to it. 5 obviously the break didn't do any good.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 MR. SCOTT: Let's proceed.
7 Q. — "They want to be able to challenge the 7 MR. SCAROLA: We're going to.
8 plea agreement and I was one of the lawyers who 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 organized the plea agreement. I got the very good 9 Q. You stated, quote: "If they," referring
10 deal for Jeffrey Epstein." 10 to Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, "could find a
11 Did you make that response? 11 lawyer who helped draft the agreement" --
12 A. Yes. 12 A. Right.
13 Q. So, you recognized as of January 5, 2015, 13 Q. -- "who also was a criminal having sex,
14 that the reason why the statements were filed in the 14 wow, that could help them blow up the agreement."
15 Crime Victim's Rights Act case was because the Crime 15 Did you make that statement on --
16 Victim's Rights Act case had, as an objective, 16 A. Yes. I just repeated it now, yes, under
17 setting aside the plea agreement that you had 17 oath, yes.
18 negotiated for Jeffrey Epstein, correct? 18 Q. Did you state the following in that same
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead if 19 interview: "So they," referring to Bradley Edwards,
20 you can answer it. 20 Paul Cassell and Virginia Roberts, "sat (town
21 A. There were multiple motives. One of the 21 together, the three of them, these two sleazy,
22 motives was crassly financial. They were trying to 22 unprofessional disbarrable lawyers" --
23 line their pockets with money. But as I also said, 23 A. Uh-huh, uh-huh.
24 and I said this over and over again, they profiled 24 Q. -- "they said" --
25 me. They sat down with their client, knowing that 25 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
11 (Pages 217 to 220)
221 223
1 1 who made transcripts of them.
2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Did you turn them over to opposing
3 Q. -- "who would fit into this description? 3 counsel --
4 They and the woman got together and contrived and 4 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts --
5 made this up." 5 BY MR. SCAROLA:
6 Did you make that statement on national 6 Q. -- in the course of discovery?
7 television? 7 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts we consider to
8 A. Yes, and I just repeated it under oath. I 8 be work product. If you make a request to
9 believe that to be the case. 1 think that's exactly 9 produce, we'll provide them.
10 what happened. And I think that my source has 10 MR. SIMPSON: Just for completeness, they
3.1 corroborated that. 11 were also after your discovery request.
12 By the way, can I add at this point -- I 12 MR. SCOTT: Request to produce, we'll
13 don't mean to distract you, but I think the record 13 consider providing them.
14 would be more complete if I indicated that I did get 14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 a phone call last night from Michael, who told me 15 Q. Is there an entry in any privilege log
16 that he had received numerous phone calls and texts 16 that identifies these allegedly privileged work
17 from Virginia Roberts trying to persuade her not to 17 product documents?
18 talk to me or cooperate with me and offering the
18 MR. SIMPSON: We will -- the lawyers will
19 help of a lawyer.
19 address the document production issues. But
20 And I also -- although you didn't ask the 20 two things, Mr. Scarola, first, they postdate
21 question, Mr. Scarola, I think for completeness and 21 your request and you have said several times
22 fullness, I do want to say that you asked me whether
22 there's no duty to supplement. And second,
23
24
25
or not I knew about what could be taped and what
couldn't be taped. I did tape record some of what
Virginia Roberts [ sic.] told me, with her
23
24
25
they're work product.
MR. SCAROLA: Well, sir, if they postdated
a full and complete production, which we are
222 224
1 permission, and I have those tape recordings. 1 now told they do not, then you wouldn't be
2 Q. Well, you're getting a little bit 2 obliged to supplement the production that had
3 overexcited, Mr. Dershowitz, because you never tape 3 already been completed. But it is not the date
4 recorded anything that Virginia Roberts told you. 4 of the request that matters, it is the date of
5 A. Did I say Virginia Roberts? 5 the production that matters.
6 Q. You misspoke. 6 And what we're now being told is there are
7 A. I misspoke. You wouldn't know that. But, 7 allegedly highly relevant transcripts of a
8 in fact, let me be clear. 8 telephone conversation that occurred months ago
9 I tape recorded, with her permission, 9 when the last production that we received,
10 Rebecca's statements to me about what Virginia 10 which we are told still is not complete,
11 Roberts had told her. And I just want to make sure 11 occurred approximately two weeks ago.
12 that for completeness, even though you didn't ask 12 So, there's no privilege log entry.
13 the question yesterday, that's part of the record. 13 There's no production of these documents. And
14 Q. Well, I actually did ask the question and 14 there is clearly a very significant discovery
15 my recollection is that you said you didn't even 15 violation if, in fact, such documents exist.
16 think about tape recording anything -- 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate it
17 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not accurate. You 17 here, Mr. Scarola, but your assertions are not
18 never asked that. 18 accurate.
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 MR. SCAROLA: All right. There also was a
20 Q. But can you tell us, please, did you turn 20 subpoena duces tecum that was responded to
21 over those tape recordings in the discovery that you 21 tomorrow -- I'm sorry, yesterday. Can you tell
22 were required to make in this case? 22 us whether the documents that are now being
23 A. The discovery -- these events occurred 23 described are included in response to the
24 after April of 2015. And I certainly tamed over 24 subpoena duces tecum on the flash drive that
25 the recordings and the -- recordings to my lawyers, 25 you provided to us?
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
txt
Cont'd.
Exhibit 1
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL„
vs.
Plaintiffs,
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
/
VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 1
Pages 1 through 179
Thursday, October 15, 2015
9:31 a.m. - 4:13 p.m.
Cole Scott & Kissane
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
93
1 people that abused Virginia?
2 A. I told you I never asked her the question. 11:36:21
3 Q. Are you aware that years before December 11:36:48
4 of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your
5 name had come up repeatedly in connection with
6 Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct?
7 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 11:37:16
8 A. Let me answer that question. I am aware 11:37:17
9 that never before 2014, end of December, was it
10 ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way
11 inappropriately with regard to Virginia Roberts,
12 that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that I
13 had ever been with her. I was completely aware of
14 that. There had never been any allegation.
15 She claims under oath that she told you 11:37:48
16 that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no
17 notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are
18 a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as
19 a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an
20 entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011
21 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I
22 think she's lying through her teeth when she says
23 that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any
24 such information.
25 But if she did tell you that, she would be 11:38:24
94
1 absolutely, categorically lying. So I am completely
2 aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal
3 pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never
4 alleged that I had any sexual contact with Virginia
5 Roberts.
6 I know that it was alleged that I was a 11:38:46
7 witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that
8 was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey
9 Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you,
10 something that you have falsely denied. And I stand
11 on the record. The record is clear that I have
12 categorically denied I was ever a witness to any
13 abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing
14 anybody.
15 And -- and the very idea that I would 11:39:18
16 stand and talk to Jeffrey Epstein while he was
17 receiving oral sex from Virginia Roberts, which she
18 swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so
19 preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn't
20 believe it was true.
21 MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm 11:39:40
22 not going to allow you to reveal any
23 conversations that happened in the context of a
24 settlement discussion.
25 THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? 11:39:46
95
1
2
3
4
MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection
and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to
THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have
standing in this deposition?
11:39:47
11:39:49
5 MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a 11:39:51
6 minute, okay?
7 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has 11:39:54
8 standing.
9 MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the 11:39:57
10 speech?
11 MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- 11:39:58
12 MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the 11:39:59
13 speech so that we can get to my question and
14 then we can take a break.
15 A. So the question -- the answer to your 11:40:02
16 question is --
17 MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a 11:40:04
18 minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose
19 something that she has a right to raise that
20 objection if she wants to.
21 MR. SCOTT: Exactly. 11:40:13
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11:40:14
23 MR. SCOTT: Ask your question. 11:40:17
24 MR. SWEDER: Maybe you want to read back 11:40:20
25 the last couple of sentences.
Exhibit 2
180
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G.
CASSELL„
vs.
Plaintiffs,
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant.
CONTINUED VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
VOLUME 2
Pages 180 through 333
Friday, October 16, 2015
9:18 a.m. - 12:26 p.m.
Cole Scott & Kissane
110 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Stenographically Reported By:
Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR
Realtime Systems Administrator
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
181 183
1
2
APPEARANCES: 1
2
INDEX
3
4
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA
BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
3
4
Examination Page
VOLUME 2 (Pages 180 - 333)
5
6
7
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626
BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ.
[email protected]
5 Direct By Mr. Scarola 184
6 Certificate of Oath 330
Certificate of Reporter 331
7 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 332
8
9
10
i 1
On behalf of Defendant:
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ.
8
9
10
Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 333
PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS
No. Page
[email protected]
1 Television Interview Transcript 193
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
BY: STEVEN SAFRA, ESQ. (Via phone)
[email protected]
—and--
SWEDER & ROSS, LLP
131 Oliver Street
Boston, MA 02110
BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ.
[email protected]
--and--
WILEY, REIN
17769 K Street NW
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
2 Except from Deposition of Alan M. 193
Dershowitz
3 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 194
4 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 197
5 Flight Log Information Sheet 198
6 Composite - Flight logs 240
7 Composite - Flight manuals 240
8 Photograph - 8x 10 - Color 305
19
20
21
22
Washington, DC 20006
BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ.
[email protected]
BY: NICOLE A. RICIIARDSON, ESQ.
[email protected]
19
2 0
21
22
23
9 Composite - Calendar entries
10 Composite ,- Calendar entries
11 Composite - Calendar entries
12 Composite - Calendar entries
306
307
307
307
23 24
24
25
25
182 184
1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record. This
2 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 2 is day two of Alan Dershowitz's deposition.
3 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 3 The date is October 16, 2015, and the time is
575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl.
4 approximately 9:18 a.m.
4 New York, New York
5 MR. SCAROLA: Would you please reswear the
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone)
5 6 witness.
6 On behalf of Virginia Roberts: 7 THE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your
7 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 8 right hand, please?
8
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
9
1.0
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony
you are about to give will be the truth, the
BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
[email protected]
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
9
10
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 ALSO PRESENT: 13 Thereupon:
12 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office 14 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
13
14
Travis Gallagher, Videographer 15
16
having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
15
16
17
17
18
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 19 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, what is rhetorical
19 20 hyperbole?
2 0
21
21 A. Rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole
22
23
22
23
means exaggeration.
Q. Something other than the truth, correct?
24 24 A. Truth --
2 5 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, relevancy.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
2 (Pages 181 to 184)
185 187
1 A. Truth has many, many meanings and is a 1 transcript of the interview? wed like to see
2 continuum. The Supreme Court has held that 2 it.
3 rhetorical hyperbole cannot be the basis, for 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what I gave
4 example, of perjury prosecutions or generally of a 4 you, the photocopy.
5 defamation prosecution. 5 MR. SCOTT: Were doing it right now.
6 So it depends on the context. You might 6 Maybe we can move on and come back then.
7 just look at the dictionary and probably get a 7 MR. SCAROLA: No, I would like to proceed.
8 variety of definitions for it. 8 MR. SCOTT: Then let's stop until I get a
9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 copy of it. Because he -- I want --
10 Q. Well, what I'm concerned about, 10 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that's
11 Mr. Dershowitz, is not a dictionary definition. I 11 necessary because your client has told us that
12 want to know what your understanding of rhetorical 12 he has a superb memory and one of the things I
13 hyperbole is. 13 would like to know is what he's able to recall.
14 And do you agree that pursuant to your 14 If he needs to refresh his memory, the
1.5 understanding of rhetorical hyperbole, it is an 15 transcripts will be here in just a moment, but
16 exaggeration beyond the facts? 16 1 don't want to delay going forward.
17 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative and 17 MR. SCOTT: Do you need the transcript to
18 compound, three questions. 18 refresh your memory?
19 A. No -- 19 THE WITNESS: Well, I have no memory of
20 MR. SCOTT: You can answer. 2 0 what specifically I said on a particular day in
21 A. -- I would not agree with that definition. 21 a particular interview.
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 MR. SCOTT: Since you have a copy in front
23 Q. Okay. Then define it for us, if you 23 of him, why don't you just show him your copy
24 would, please. 24 then? Read the -- ask your question and let
25 A. I think 1 have already. 25 him read it.
186 188
1 Q. I'm sorry, I missed the definition. Could 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 you tell us what rhetorical hyperbole is? 2 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection, repetitious. He's 3 CNN Tonight by Don Lemon?
4 done it. 4 A. Yes, I do.
5 A. Why don't we just read back my answer. 5 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 CNN Tonight by Don Lemon in early January of 2015,
7 Q. Because I didn't understand it, so I would 7 where you spoke about matters that have become the
8 like you to try to give us a direct response to that 8 subject of this litigation?
9 question if you're able to. 9 A. Yes, I do.
10 A. I will repeat exactly what I said. A 10 Q. Did you make the following statement
11 rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole means some 11 during the course of that interview: "As to the
12 exaggeration of the facts for political or other 12 airplanes, there are manifests that will prove
13 reasons, but generally it is truthful in a literal 13 beyond any doubt that I was never on a private
14 sense but perhaps -- it all depends on context. 14 airplane with this woman or any other underage
15 And if you tell me the context in which I 15 OW?
16 used it, I will be happy to describe what I meant in 16 MR. SCOTT: You need to see the
17 that context. But I don't think you can really 17 transcript?
18 answer a question about what two words put together 18 THE WITNESS: No. No.
19 mean without understanding the context. 19 A. That is a truthful statement. I would
20 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to talk about 20 repeat it right now. I've reviewed the manifests.
21 some context. 21 First, I know I was never on the airplane
22 Do you recall having been interviewed on 22 with any underage woman. I know that for a fact. I
23 CNN Tonight on January 5, 2015? 23 have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. And
24 A. I have no current recollection of -- 24 the records that I have reviewed confirm that.
25 MR. SCOTT: Do you have a copy of the 25 They have Virginia Roberts on a number of
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
3 (Pages 185 to 188)
1 airplane flights with Jeffrey Epstein. They have me
2 on a number of flights, none -- let me emphasize,
3 none within the relevant time period, none within
4 the relevant time period. That is, there are no
5 manifests that have me on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane
6 during the time that Virginia Roberts claims to
7 have -- falsely claims to have had sex with me.
8 So, yes, not only recall making that
9 statement, but I repeat it here today. And it is
10 absolutely true. And it just confirms what I know,
11 and that is that Virginia Roberts made up the entire
12 story.
13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Q. Your statement --
15 MR. SCOTT: What page are you reading
16 from?
17 MR. SCAROLA: Page 5.
189
18 Q. Your statement was that you were never on
19 a private airplane with this woman, which I assume
20 was a reference to Virginia Roberts, correct?
21 A. It is, yes.
22 Q. Or any other underage girl?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. All right. How many times --
25 A. Well, let me be very clear. I have no
191
1 to the transcription, the official transcription of
2 that testimony, was that, quote:
3 "Let me emphasize that the manifests that
4 do exculpate me do not show me flying with Virginia
5 Roberts, they do not show me flying with any young
6 women."
7 That was the testimony you gave under
8 oath. Do you stand by that testimony today?
9 A. The manifests that I saw corroborate my
10 own memory -- my own memory is as clear as could
11 be -- that I never saw any inappropriately aged,
12 underaged women on any airplane to my knowledge that
13 were visible to me at any time that l flew. That is
14 my testimony, yes.
15 Q. Well, that's not a response to the
16 question that I asked. Is it your testimony today
17 that you never flew on a private airplane with,
18 quote, "any young women"?
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
20 A. By young women, I obviously meant in that
21 context underage women. And underage women in the
22 context of sexuality. And, yes, I -- I stand by
23 that statement.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. All right. So your -- your clarification
190
192
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
idea who was in the front cabin of the airplane with
the pilots. Obviously what I intended to say and
what I say here now is l never saw an underaged
person on an airplane.
Now, when l -- when l flew with Jeffrey
Epstein to the launch, my recollection is that there
may have been a couple on the plane with their child
who was going to see the launch. But that was
certainly not the context in which I made the
statement.
I never saw any underage, young person who
would be the subject or object of any improper
sexual activities. Had l seen Jeffrey Epstein ever
in the presence of an underage woman in a context
that suggested sexuality, l would have, A, left the
scene; B, reported it; and, C, never had any further
contact with Jeffrey Epstein.
Q. You have also made the statement that you
were never on a private airplane with any underage
women or any young women, correct?
A. The context was underage women in a sexual
context. If it was a -- you know, a four-year-old
child being carried by her mother, that would not be
included in what I intended to say.
Q. Your sworn testimony yesterday, according
1 of your earlier testimony is that you never saw any
2 young women in a sexual context?
3 A. That's not clarification. I think that's
4 what I initially said. That's what 1 initially
5 intended. And that's the way any reasonable — any
6 reasonable person would interpret what my original
7 testimony was. So I don't believe my original
8 testimony required any clarification.
9 Q. So what you meant to convey by the
10 statement that you made when you said you never flew
11 with any underage girl or any young women was you
12 never flew with any underage girl or young women in
13 a sexual context?
14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 Q. Is that correct?
17 A. Let me simply repeat the fact and that is,
18 to my knowledge, I never flew on an airplane or was
19 ever in the presence on an airplane with any
20 underage woman who would be somebody who might be in
21 a sexual context. l say that only to eliminate the
22 possibility that some four-year-old was on the lap
23 of a mother or somebody was on the airplane with
24 family members.
25 But, no, l do not recall -- and I'm very
4 (Pages 189 to 192)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
193 195
1 firm about this -- being on an airplane with anybody 1 A. I don't remember that I flew with her or
2 who I believed could be the subject of Jeffrey 2 not. I may have. But I don't recall necessarily.
3 Epstein or anyone else's improper sexual activities. 3 But I did meet -- I remember meeting a woman named
4 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Let's mark the 4 Tatiana. This does not look like Tatiana, like the
5 transcript that we've been referring to as 5 woman I met.
6 Exhibit Number 1, please. That's the 6 Q. Okay. So that's a — that's a different
7 transcript of the television interviews that 7 Tatiana?
8 well be discussing. 8 A. No, I don't know.
9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form,
10 1.) 10 argumentative.
11 MR. SCOTT: This is actually 2, right? We 11 A. I have no idea. I do not recognize this
12 had one yesterday, an article from the British 12 woman. She's not familiar to me at all.
13 newspaper? 13 I can tell you this: Without any doubt, 1
14 MR. SCAROLA: No. It was not marked as an 14 never met anybody dressed like this on any airplane
15 exhibit. This is the first exhibit that's been 15 or in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein or in any
16 marked. 16 context --
17 MR. SCOTT: No, I know that, but I thought 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 we were going to mark that one. Maybe 1 was -- 18 Q. Did she have —
19 I asked for that. Okay. 19 A. -- related to this case.
20 It was an answer and counterclaim about 20 Q. -- more clothes on or less clothes on when
21 the allegation shown to the witness. 21 you met her?
22 MR. SCAROLA: And Exhibit Number 2 will be 22 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. He said he
23 the transcript from yesterday's proceedings 23 never met her. Misrepresent --
24 that I have just referenced. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 25 Q. When you met the woman that you're
194 196
1 Exhibit 2.) 1 referencing, did she have more clothes on or less
2 MR. SCOTT: You don't have a copy of that, 2 clothes on than that woman?
3 do you, of the transcript? 3 A. Every woman that I met in the presence of
4 MR. SCAROLA: No. Got sent to you. I 4 Jeffrey Epstein was properly dressed, usually in
5 assume you have it. 5 suits and dresses and -- and appropriately covered
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 up. I never met any women in the context of Jeffrey
7 Q. I'm going to hand you what we'll now mark 7 Epstein who were dressed anything like this.
8 as Exhibit Number 3. 8 Q. Would you agree that that is a young woman
9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 9 in that photograph?
10 Exhibit 3.) 10 A. I have no idea what her age is.
11 MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 11 Q. So you don't know whether she was underage
12 MR. SWEDER: Yes. 12 or overage or a young woman or not a young woman?
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 A. I don't --
14 Q. Do you recognize that young woman, 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form.
15 Mr. Dershowitz? 15 A. -- know this woman, so I have no idea how
16 A. No. 16 old a woman in a picture is. She could be -- she
17 Q. Never saw her? 17 could be 30. She could be 25. I have no idea.
18 A. Not that I know of. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. Never flew on an private airplane with 19 Q. Or she could be 15 or 16?
20 her? 20 A. I don't think so.
21 A. Not that I know of. 21 Q. But you don't know?
22 Q. Do you recognize the name Tatiana? 22 A. This doesn't -- well, I don't know how old
23 A. I do recall that Jeffrey Epstein had a 23 you are. This does not strike the --
24 friend named Tatiana. 24 Q. Old enough to know that —
25 Q. That you flew with? 25 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
5 (Pages 193 to 196)
197 199
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 photographs. The photographs identify the woman as
2 Q. -- that's a young woman. 2 Tatiana Kovylina, correct?
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. You're cutting the 3 A. Yes, but --
4 witness off. You're not letting him finish. 4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Dershowitz, take your
5 A. This looks like a picture out of a Playboy 5 time --
6 or Penthouse magazine. It does not look to me like 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
7 a person who is under the age of 16 or 17 or 18. 7 MR. SCOTT: -- review the exhibits. Don't
8 But I don't think you can tell anything from the 8 be rushed by Mr. Scarola.
9 picture. I think you can tell much more from 9 A. Yes, it's a different -- different
10 meeting somebody and being with them and having a 10 spelling of the name. The Tatiana on the manifest
11 conversation with them. 3.1 is spelled T-A-1-T-A-N-N-A.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this photograph, 12 The Tatiana in the photograph is
13 if we could, as Exhibit Number 4. 13 T-A-T-I-N -- I-A-N-A. I have no idea whether --
14 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 Exhibit 4.) 15 Q. The last name —
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 A. -- they are the same person.
17 Q. Does Exhibit Number 4 help you at all to 17 Q. — is the same, Kovylina, right?
18 recognize this young woman? 18 A. There's no last name.
19 A. I've never -- I have no -- no recollection 19 Q. Well, read down a little bit further, if
20 of this young woman at all. 20 you would, Mr. Dershowitz.
21 Q. All right. Would you describe for us, 21 A. You mean as to a different flight?
22 please, the Tatiana that you flew with Jeffrey 22 Q. Yes, sir. Identifying the return flight
23 Epstein on November 17, 2005? 23 for the same Tatiana.
24 A. First, I want to emphasize that that's 24 A. I have no idea that it's a retum flight.
25 three years later than any of the issues involved in 25 I have nothing on the record that suggests that it's
198 200
1 this case. I have no recollection of flying with 1 a return flight. And it has different people on it.
2 this woman. I saw the name Tatiana on a manifest. 2 So I have no reason to believe its a return flight.
3 And my recollection of Tatiana -- 1 have 3 Q. Is the last -- the question that I asked
4 no recollection of flying with her, but my 4 you, Mr. Dershowitz, is: Is the last name spelled
5 recollection of Tatiana is that she was a serious, 5 exactly the same as the last name is spelled in the
6 mid 20s woman friend ofJeffrey Epstein, who 1 may 6 two photographs I have shown you?
7 have met on one or two or three occasions when he 7 A. Let me look. So, on the 20th of
8 was with her in -- perhaps at Harvard University 8 November --
9 where he was meeting with academics and scholars, or 9 Q. Is the last name --
10 perhaps -- I think that's probably the context 10 MR. SCOTT: Whoa, whoa --
11 where -- where she might have been. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA:
12 Q. But you never flew with her? 12 Q. -- spelled the same way on both the flight
13 A. I have no recollection of flying with her. 13 log and the two photographs I have shown you?
14 Q. Okay. Well, let me see if this helps to 14 A. On -- you mean on a flight log that I was
15 refresh your recollection, Mr. Dershowitz. 15 not on the flight? Is that right? You're talking
16 MR. SCAROLA: Lees mark this as Exhibit 16 about a flight log that I was not on the flight,
17 Number 5, please. 17 right?
18 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, yes. 18 Q. That flight log shows you on multiple
19 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 19 flights, does it not?
20 Exhibit 5.) 20 A. It shows me not on that flight. It shows
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 me on a number of flights, but not on that flight.
22 Q. Do you see that the name of the woman in 22 MR. SCOTT: What's the date of the
23 the photographs I have handed you is Tatiana 23 flights?
24 Kovylina, K-O-V-Y-L-I-N-A, a Victoria Secrets model? 24 THE WITNESS: The date of that flight
25 The photographs, sir, look at the 25 is -- looks like November 20th, 2005, more
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
6 (Pages 197 to 200)
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
201
than three years after Virginia Roberts left
for --
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. Mr. Dershowitz --
MR. SCOTT: You're cutting the witness
off.
MR. SCAROLA: He's not answering my
question, Tom.
MR. SCOTT: Well --
MR. SCAROLA: I want to know whether the
last name is spelled the same or it isn't
spelled the same on the flight log marked as an
exhibit and on the photographs. That's a very
direct question. It calls for a very direct
yes or no response.
And this witness has demonstrated a clear
refusal to respond directly to direct
questions, which will result, when we resume
this deposition, in our requesting that the
Court appoint a special master so that this
deposition doesn't take two weeks to complete.
MR. SCOTT: You know, Mr. Scarola, that's
a nice speech and I appreciate it.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: I don't agree with your
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
203
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Is the last name on the photograph spelled
3 exactly the same way as the last name on the flight
4 log?
5 A. If you're talking about a flight log that
6 I was not on that flight, the answer is yes.
7 Q. All right. Thank you very much, sir.
8 Now, that flight log also shows you flying
9 repeatedly in the company of a woman named Tatiana,
correct?
A. I've only seen one reference to Tatiana on
November 17. If you want to show me any other
references, I'd be happy to look at them.
Q. All right, si•. Thank you.
Let's go back to the —
MR. SCOTT: Are we done with this exhibit?
MR. SCAROLA: We are done with the
exhibit.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. Then let's collect the
exhibits so that we don't have a big -- then
we'll turn them over to the court reporter to
keep safekeeping.
There you go, young lady, don't lose
those, don't get them wet. And we'll proceed.
202
204
1 characterization. And if you recall, months
2 ago I suggested a special master for this
3 deposition, for your clients' depositions and
4 for Virginia Roberts' and your response to me
5 was: I'll consider it, I won't pay for it. If
6 your client wants to pay for it -- so basically
7 you blew me off.
8 So, I appreciate you finally come around.
9 And your clients.
10 MR. SCAROLA: Your client's misconduct has
11 clearly convinced me, having now considered it,
12 that it is absolutely necessary.
13 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now --
14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 Q. So now could 1 get an answer to my
16 question --
17 MR. SCOTT: Now that we have --
18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 Q. -- whether the last name on the flight log
20 is spelled exactly the same way as the last name in
21 the photographs?
22 MR. SCOTT: Now that all the lawyers'
23 speeches arc done, read the question back and
24 the witness will answcr it.
25 MR. SCAROLA: I will repeat the question.
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Did you state during the same interview,
3 the CNN Don Lemon interview: "She has said that
4 Bill Clinton was with tier at an orgy on Jeffrey's
5 island"?
6 A. I did state that, yes.
7 Q. Was that statement intended as fact,
8 opinion, or was it intended as rhetorical hyperbole?
9 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand the
10 question?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
12 A. It was a statement based on what I
13 believed were the facts at the time I said them.
14 Various newspapers and blogs had placed
15 Bill Clinton on, quote, "orgy island" on -- in the
16 presence of Jeffrey Epstein when there were orgies.
17 And at the time I made that statement, I had a
18 belief that she had accused Bill Clinton of
19 participating or being -- as being a part of or an
20 observer or -- or a witness or a participant in
21 orgies on what was called Jeffrey Epstein's orgy
22 island. That was my state of belief, honest belief
23 at the time I made that statement.
24 BY MR. SCAROLA:
25 Q. Yes, sir. And what I want to know is what
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
7 (Pages 201 to 204)
205 207
1 the source of that honest belief was? Identify any 1 Clinton on orgy island, things of that kind. I
2 source that attributed to Virginia Roberts the 2 would be happy to provide them for you. I don't
3 statement that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy 3 have them on the top of my head.
4 on Jeffrey's island. 4 Q. There's a big difference between saying
5 A. We can provide you about, I think, 20 5 that Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey's island and saying
6 newspaper articles and blogs which certainly raise 6 that Bill Clinton was at an orgy on Jeffrey's
7 the implication that Bill Clinton had improperly 7 island, isn't there?
8 participated in sexual activities on the island 8 MR. SCOTT: Objection --
9 either as an observer or as a participant. The 9 BY MR. SCAROLA:
10 issue was raised on Sean Hannity's program. The 10 Q. Do you recognize a distinction between
11 headlines in various British media had suggested 11 those statements?
12 that. 12 MR. SCOTT: Form.
13 Its my belief that Virginia Roberts 13 A. I don't think that distinction was clearly
14 intended to convey that impression when she was 14 drawn by the media.
15 trying to sell her story to various media, which she 15 BY MR. SCAROLA:
16 successfully sold her story to in Britain, that she 16 Q. I'm asking whether you recognize the
17 wanted to keep that open as a possibility. 17 distinction?
18 And then when I firmly declared, based on 18 A. Oh, I -- I certainly recognize a
19 my research, that Bill Clinton had almost certainly 19 distinction.
20 never been on that island, she then made a firm 20 Q. Oh, so --
21 statement that she -- which was a -- which was a 21 A. Let me finish. I certainly recognize a
22 perjurious statement, a firm perjurious statement 22 distinction between Bill Clinton being on the
23 saying that although Bill Clinton had been with her 23 island, which I believe she perjuriously put in her
24 on the island and had had dinner with her, the 24 affidavit, and Bill Clinton participating actively
25 perjurious statement was that Bill Clinton had been 25 in an orgy. I also think its a continuum.
206 208
1 on the island with her. 1 And there is the possibility, which I
2 The lie was that she described in great 2 don't personally believe to be true, that he was on
3 detail a dinner with Bill Clinton and two underaged 3 the island. There was the possibility, which I
4 Russian women who were offered to Bill Clinton for 4 don't believe to be true, that he was on the island
5 sex but that Bill Clinton turned down. 5 when orgies were taking place. There was the
6 So she then put in her affidavit that 6 possibility that he was on the island and observed
7 although -- perjuriously, although she had seen Bill 7 an orgy, and there was the possibility that he was
8 Clinton on that island, she then stated that she had 8 on the island and participated in an orgy.
9 not had sex with Bill Clinton. To my knowledge, 9 Newspapers picked up those stories. I'll
10 that was -- to my knowledge at least, that was the 10 give you an example of a newspaper that actually
11 first time she stated that -- that she not had sex 11 said that that she had placed or that I was on the
12 with Bill Clinton. She had certainly implied, or at 12 island and -- that I participated in an orgy along
13 least some of the media had inferred from her 13 with Stephen Hawkings [sic], the famous physicist
14 statements that she may very well have observed Bill 14 from Cambridge University, that was a newspaper
15 Clinton in a sexually compromising position. 15 published in the Virgin Islands, which falsely
16 So, when 1 made that statement to Don 16 claimed that I was at an orgy with Stephen Hawkings.
17 Lemon, I had a firm belief, based on reading 17 So, many newspapers were suggesting,
18 newspaper accounts and blogs, that it was true. 18 implying, and I inferred from reading those
19 Q. Can you identify a single newspaper that 19 newspapers that that's what she had said to the
20 attributed to Virginia Roberts the statement that 20 media.
21 Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's 21 If I was wrong about that based on
22 island? 22 subsequent information, I apologize. But I
23 A. I think there -- I don't have them in my 23 certainly, at the time I said it, believed it and
24 head right now. But I do recall reading headlines 24 made the statement in good faith in the belief that
25 that talked about things like, sex slave places 25 it was an honest statement.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888) 811-3408
8 (Pages 205 to 208)
209 211
1 Q. Okay. So you now are withdrawing the 1 Your client is doing everything he can to avoid
2 statement that you made that Virginia Roberts said 2 giving direct answers to these questions.
3 that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on 3 I would appreciate it if you would take a
4 Jeffrey's island; that was wrong? 4 break, counsel your client that the speeches
5 A. I don't know whether she ever said that. 5 are not helpful to anyone, and especially not
6 I would not repeat that statement and have not 6 helpful to him.
7 repeated that statement based on her denial. As 7 MR. SCOTT: If you want to take a break,
8 soon as she denied it, I never again made that 8 I'll take a break and I will advise my client
9 statement and would not again make that statement. 9 whatever I feel is appropriate, not what you
10 Q. You —
10 instruct me to do.
11 A. But I did reiterate the fact that she 11 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, if you think it
12 committed perjury when she said she was on the 12 might help at all in the progress of this
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
island with Bill Clinton.
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
nonresponsive --
A. That was the perjurious statement.
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
nonresponsive portions of the answer.
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. You have made a reference during that same
CNN interview to this woman, referring to Virginia
Roberts, having a criminal record?
A. That's right .
Q. Okay. What -- what is a criminal record?
A. Well, the way I used the term is that she
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deposition, then I do want to take a break. If
you don't think taking a break would be
helpful, Idon't want to take a break.
MR. SCOTT: Do you want to take a break or
not?
THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave it to
your judgment. I'm happy to proceed --
MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'll be glad to take a
break.
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: I can't say --
MR. SCAROLA: Five minutes.
MR. SCOTT: -- it will help you or
210 212
1 committed a crime and legal -- some kind of 1 anything but --
2 proceedings resulted from her committing a crime. 2 MR. SCAROLA: 1 can understand that you
3 The crime she committed was stealing money from a 3 don't -- you don't have that control, but if
4 restaurant that she worked at while she was also 4 there's any reasonable --
5 working for Jeffrey Epstein. And it was my 5 MR. SCOTT: You know, Counsel --
6 information that there was a criminal record of her 6 MR. SCAROLA: -- prospect that it might
7 theft. 7 help, let's give it a try.
8 Q. How old was she at the time this alleged 8 MR. SCOTT: You know, I really don't
9 offense occurred? 9 appreciate the comments about my abilities as
10 A. I don't know. But old enough to be held 10 an attorney, like I don't have that control and
11 criminally responsible in the State of Florida, to 11 things of nature. It really is --
12 my knowledge. To my knowledge, 1-- I recall a case 12 MR. SCAROLA: 1 don't have the control
13 where a 14-year-old boy was sentenced as an adult 13 either.
14 for -- 14 MR. SCOTT: It's not --
15 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Scott -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: I'm not trying to disparage
16 A. -- a serious -- 16 you at all in any respect. I'm just suggesting
17 MR. SCAROLA: -- did my question ask 17 that --
18 anything about a 14-year-old boy? 18 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
19 A. You asked if -- 19 MR. SCAROLA: -- there is reason to doubt
20 MR. SCAROLA: Do we really need to listen 20 that it will do any good. But I want to give
21 to this? 21 it a try.
22 MR. SCOTT: You're asking questions, my 22 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
23 client is providing his response. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
24 MR. SCAROLA: No, your client is not 24 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
25 responding. Your client is filibustering. 25 time is approximately 9:49 a.m.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
9 (Pages 209 to 212)
213 215
1 (Recess was held from 9:49 a.m. until 10:01 a.m.) 1 Q. That would certainly have been prior to
2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 2 February 23rd of 2015, correct?
3 The time is approximately 10:01 a.m. 3 A. Yes.
4 MR. SCOTT: If you've finished your bagel, 4 MR. SCOTT: Are you going back to the
5 were ready to proceed, I think. 5 exhibit now with the newspapers and --
6 MR. SCAROLA: I think we are. I was 6 MR. SCAROLA: Not yet.
7 actually ready to proceed a little bit earlier, 7 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
8 but we'll proceed now. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. Having reviewed the available airplane
10 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, do you agree with the 10 flight logs, you are aware that Bill Clinton flew on
11 basic concept that one is presumed to be innocent 11 at least 15 occasions with Jeffrey Epstein on his
12 until proven guilty? 12 private plane, correct?
13 A. Yes. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Has Virginia Roberts ever been proven to 14 Q. Have you ever attempted to get flight log
15 be guilty of any crime at any time, anywhere, at any 15 information with regard to Former President
16 age? 16 Clinton's other private airplane travel?
17 A. I don't know the answer to that question, 17 A. No.
18 but I do know that she was brought into the legal 18 Q. Never made a public records request —
19 system for stealing money from her employer and I 19 A. Yes.
20 think it's fair to characterize that as her having a 20 Q. — under the Freedom of Information Act
21 criminal record, yeah. 21 with regard to those records?
22 Q. To the extent that anyone might interpret 22 A. Well, we have made a Freedom of
23 your comment that Virginia Roberts was ever 23 Information request. My -- my attomey in New York,
24 convicted of a crime, they would be drawing a false 24 Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, has made a
25 conclusion as far as you know, correct? 25 FOIA request for all information that would
214 216
1 A. As far as I know, I don't know of her 1 conclusively prove that Bill Clinton was never on
2 having convicted of any crime. But I do know that 2 Jeffrey Epstein's island, yes.
3 she was proceeded against for having stolen money. 3 Q. And you were denied those records,
4 And I don't think she contested that. I don't think 4 correct?
5 there's any dispute about the fact that she stole 5 A. No, no, no.
6 money and engaged in other crimes as well. 6 Q. Oh, you got them?
7 Q. When did you find out about this alleged 7 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let's
8 crime? 8 take it slow. Ask a question.
9 A. As soon as the false allegation against me 9 A. As any lawyer knows, FOIA requests take a
10 was made public, I got call after call after call 10 long, long period of time. So they were neither
11 from people telling me about Virginia Roberts, about 11 denied nor were they given to us. They are very
12 your 22 clients. The calls just kept coming in 12 much in process.
13 because there was such outrage at this false 3.3 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 allegation being directed against me. 14 Q. When was --
15 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 15 A. While we're talking about -- may I
16 unresponsive portion of the answer. 16 complete -- I want to amend one answer I gave
17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 previously.
18 Q. You found out as soon as the CVRA 18 While were talking about the plane logs,
19 complaint was -- the CVRA allegations referencing 19 I must say that during the recess, my wife Googled
20 you were filed; is that correct? 20 Tatiana and found out that she was, in fact, 24
21 A. I didn't say that. I said as soon as they 21 years old in 1995, at the time she flew on that
22 were made public and as soon as the newspapers 22 airplane. So that my characterization of her as
23 carried these false stories, I received phone calls 23 about 25 years old is absolutely correct.
24 and I teamed about -- I learned about her encounter 24 And the implication that you sought to
25 with the criminal justice system. 25 draw by showing me those pictures was not only
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
10 (Pages 213 to 216)
217 219
1 demonstrably false, but you could have easily 1 she has a history of lying, knowing that she is
2 discovered that the implication you were drawing was 2 easily suggestible, and they basically pressured
3 demonstrably false by simply taking one second and 3 her, according to my sources, into including me when
4 Googling her name as my wife did. 4 she didn't want to include me, because by including
5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 me, they could make a claim, false as it was, could
6 Q. And so at 25 years old, she wasn't a young 6 make a false claim that a person who negotiated the
7 woman? 7 NPA was also criminally involved with her.
8 A. She was not the kind of woman that I was 8 They also lied -- lied unethically and
9 describing as underage. She was a mature, serious, 9 unprofessionally by saying that I negotiated that
10 I think I said in my public statements a model. I 10 provision of the NPA, which gave me, myself, any
11 wasn't aware at the time that see was working for 11 kind of immunity from prosecution had I had improper
12 Victoria's Secrets, but Google demonstrates that. 12 sex with Virginia Roberts, which, of course, I did
13 And I described her exactly, in exactly the right 13 not. And that was one of the bases on which I was
14 terms, a serious person. 14 certain that they had engaged in unprofessional,
15 I always saw her dressed when I saw her -- 15 disbarrable and unethical conduct by including that
16 I saw her maybe on two or three occasions, dressed 16 provision, as well as including a provision that
17 appropriately. She was a serious adult worker and I 17 Prince Andrew was included because he, Prince
18 think you insult and demean her when you suggest 18 Andrew, pressured a United States attorney to try to
19 that anything other than that she was a serious 19 get a good deal for Jeffrey Epstein.
20 adult when she flew on that airplane. 20 That is so laughable. How any lawyer
21 Q. You were asked on the occasion of that 21 could put that in a pleading, it doesn't pass even
22 same Don Lemon CNN interview what possible motive 22 the minimal giggle test. And I'm embarrassed for
23 the attorneys, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, could 23 Professor Cassell that he would have signed his name
24 have had to have identified you in the pleading that 24 to a pleading that alleges that Prince Andrew would
25 was filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case. 25 pressure the United States attorney for the Southern
218 220
1 Do you remember that? 1 District of Florida into giving Jeffrey Epstein a
2 A. That's right, yes. 2 good deal.
3 Q. And your response was, quote -- 3 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
4 MR. SCOTT: Here's your transcript if you 4 unresponsive portions of the answer. And
5 need to refer to it. 5 obviously the break didn't do any good.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 MR. SCOTT: Let's proceed.
7 Q. — "They want to be able to challenge the 7 MR. SCAROLA: We're going to.
8 plea agreement and I was one of the lawyers who 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 organized the plea agreement. I got the very good 9 Q. You stated, quote: "If they," referring
10 deal for Jeffrey Epstein." 10 to Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, "could find a
11 Did you make that response? 11 lawyer who helped draft the agreement" --
12 A. Yes. 12 A. Right.
13 Q. So, you recognized as of January 5, 2015, 13 Q. -- "who also was a criminal having sex,
14 that the reason why the statements were filed in the 14 wow, that could help them blow up the agreement."
15 Crime Victim's Rights Act case was because the Crime 15 Did you make that statement on --
16 Victim's Rights Act case had, as an objective, 16 A. Yes. I just repeated it now, yes, under
17 setting aside the plea agreement that you had 17 oath, yes.
18 negotiated for Jeffrey Epstein, correct? 18 Q. Did you state the following in that same
19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead if 19 interview: "So they," referring to Bradley Edwards,
20 you can answer it. 20 Paul Cassell and Virginia Roberts, "sat (town
21 A. There were multiple motives. One of the 21 together, the three of them, these two sleazy,
22 motives was crassly financial. They were trying to 22 unprofessional disbarrable lawyers" --
23 line their pockets with money. But as I also said, 23 A. Uh-huh, uh-huh.
24 and I said this over and over again, they profiled 24 Q. -- "they said" --
25 me. They sat down with their client, knowing that 25 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
11 (Pages 217 to 220)
221 223
1 1 who made transcripts of them.
2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Did you turn them over to opposing
3 Q. -- "who would fit into this description? 3 counsel --
4 They and the woman got together and contrived and 4 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts --
5 made this up." 5 BY MR. SCAROLA:
6 Did you make that statement on national 6 Q. -- in the course of discovery?
7 television? 7 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts we consider to
8 A. Yes, and I just repeated it under oath. I 8 be work product. If you make a request to
9 believe that to be the case. 1 think that's exactly 9 produce, we'll provide them.
10 what happened. And I think that my source has 10 MR. SIMPSON: Just for completeness, they
3.1 corroborated that. 11 were also after your discovery request.
12 By the way, can I add at this point -- I 12 MR. SCOTT: Request to produce, we'll
13 don't mean to distract you, but I think the record 13 consider providing them.
14 would be more complete if I indicated that I did get 14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 a phone call last night from Michael, who told me 15 Q. Is there an entry in any privilege log
16 that he had received numerous phone calls and texts 16 that identifies these allegedly privileged work
17 from Virginia Roberts trying to persuade her not to 17 product documents?
18 talk to me or cooperate with me and offering the
18 MR. SIMPSON: We will -- the lawyers will
19 help of a lawyer.
19 address the document production issues. But
20 And I also -- although you didn't ask the 20 two things, Mr. Scarola, first, they postdate
21 question, Mr. Scarola, I think for completeness and 21 your request and you have said several times
22 fullness, I do want to say that you asked me whether
22 there's no duty to supplement. And second,
23
24
25
or not I knew about what could be taped and what
couldn't be taped. I did tape record some of what
Virginia Roberts [ sic.] told me, with her
23
24
25
they're work product.
MR. SCAROLA: Well, sir, if they postdated
a full and complete production, which we are
222 224
1 permission, and I have those tape recordings. 1 now told they do not, then you wouldn't be
2 Q. Well, you're getting a little bit 2 obliged to supplement the production that had
3 overexcited, Mr. Dershowitz, because you never tape 3 already been completed. But it is not the date
4 recorded anything that Virginia Roberts told you. 4 of the request that matters, it is the date of
5 A. Did I say Virginia Roberts? 5 the production that matters.
6 Q. You misspoke. 6 And what we're now being told is there are
7 A. I misspoke. You wouldn't know that. But, 7 allegedly highly relevant transcripts of a
8 in fact, let me be clear. 8 telephone conversation that occurred months ago
9 I tape recorded, with her permission, 9 when the last production that we received,
10 Rebecca's statements to me about what Virginia 10 which we are told still is not complete,
11 Roberts had told her. And I just want to make sure 11 occurred approximately two weeks ago.
12 that for completeness, even though you didn't ask 12 So, there's no privilege log entry.
13 the question yesterday, that's part of the record. 13 There's no production of these documents. And
14 Q. Well, I actually did ask the question and 14 there is clearly a very significant discovery
15 my recollection is that you said you didn't even 15 violation if, in fact, such documents exist.
16 think about tape recording anything -- 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate it
17 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not accurate. You 17 here, Mr. Scarola, but your assertions are not
18 never asked that. 18 accurate.
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 MR. SCAROLA: All right. There also was a
20 Q. But can you tell us, please, did you turn 20 subpoena duces tecum that was responded to
21 over those tape recordings in the discovery that you 21 tomorrow -- I'm sorry, yesterday. Can you tell
22 were required to make in this case? 22 us whether the documents that are now being
23 A. The discovery -- these events occurred 23 described are included in response to the
24 after April of 2015. And I certainly tamed over 24 subpoena duces tecum on the flash drive that
25 the recordings and the -- recordings to my lawyers, 25 you provided to us?
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:04 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
Cont'd.
12 (Pages 221 to 224)
225 227
1 MR. SIMPSON: The flash drive is the same 1 A. I know what you know because I'm a logical
2 as the document production. 2 person and I know that Virginia -- I know that
3 MR. SCAROLA: So the answer is no, they're 3 Virginia Roberts repeatedly called this -- this
4 not there; is that correct? 4 woman and her husband, repeatedly text her, and
5 MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 5 knows her name. And you and Virginia Roberts'
6 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. And what's the 6 lawyers are operating in privity here. You're
7 explanation for that? 7 whispering to each other, you're passing notes. You
8 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate this 8 are part of a joint legal team.
9 on the record with you, Mr. Scarola. 9 And if you want to know her name, all you
10 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Thank you. 10 have to do is ask Sigrid McCawley and she'll tell
11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 you her name. Pm sure you know her name. And if
12 Q. Which conversation with Rebecca did you 12 you don't know her name, it's because you haven't
13 tape record? 13 asked.
1.4 A. I tape recorded a conversation with her 14 Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking you —
15 permission where she told me that she was pressured, 15 A. Pm not going to tell you --
16 she didn't -- where Rebecca told me that Virginia 16 Q. -- and I'm telling you I don't know her
17 was pressured and that she didn't want to name me 17 name.
18 but she was pressured to name me, that she had never 18 A. Okay.
19 previously named me. 19 Q. Okay? As an officer of the court, I am
20 By the way, I told this to Virginia 20 telling you I don't know her name. And you are
21. Roberts' lawyer. 21 under oath and obliged to answer material and
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. To the extent 22 relevant questions, and I want to know what her name
23 you're going to reveal anything that was said 23 is.
24 during settlement discussions, I'm moving for 24 MR. SCOTT: I will provide you the name
25 sanctions, period. We're not doing this today. 25 off the record, but Pm not -- if he feels its
226 228
1 Please instruct the witness. 1 inappropriate because of what -- he's not going
2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid that. We discussed that 2 to answer the question. I will provide you the
3 yesterday. 3 name.
4 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA:
5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 Q. Okay. She has still insisted that her
6 Q. What was the date of the phone 6 name not be revealed; is that correct?
7 conversation that you tape recorded? 7 A. Her husband asked me to do whatever I
8 A. 1 don't recall. But it's on the 8 could not to put her name in front of the press, in
9 transcript. 9 front of the media.
10 Q. And does it also reflect that the 10 Q. There's no — there's no one from the
11 recording is being made with her permission? 11 press here today.
12 A. Uh-huh. 12 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but they're going to
13 Q. That's a yes? 13 order the transcript and they're going to see,
14 A. Yes. Yes, that's a yes. 14 so that's the same thing. And I've already
15 Q. What is Rebecca's last name? 15 told --
16 A. You know Rebecca's last name and she has 16 A. You will have her name in five --
17 asked me not to reveal it to the press. And so I 17 MR. SCOTT: I will give you her name --
18 would like to comply with that -- with that request. 18 A. -- minutes. All you have to do is --
19 For purposes of discovery, you know her name, you 19 MR. SCOTT: And, Jack, if you want to take
20 know her husband's name, you know her phone number, 20 a break now --
21 and she has been called. But there's no reason for 21 THE REPORTER: I-Iold on. Hold on,
22 me to reveal it so that it appears in the press that 22 gentlemen. You can't talk at the same time.
23 she would be called by newspapers and by the media. 23 MR. SCOTT: Let me do the talking at this
24 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, how do you know what I 24 point.
25 know if you haven't told me? 25 THE WITNESS: Please.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
13 (Pages 225 to 228)
229 231
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 more accomplished.
2 Q. What's her phone number? 2 MR. SCAROLA: Let's take it easy and slow.
3 A. Her phone number is known to Virginia 3 BY MR. SCAROLA:
4 Roberts and presumably -- and to Virginia Roberts' 4 Q. How did Michael tell you he knew these
5 lawyers because she received phone calls from 5 people he didn't speak to were lawyers?
6 Virginia Roberts' lawyers. So all you have to do is 6 A. He told me that he received a phone call
7 ask your colleagues and you will get that. But I 7 from Virginia Roberts. That then his wife received
8 think there's no reason to put her phone number in 8 numerous phone calls and texts from her all through
9 the public record so that she will receive massive 9 the night. And that they received phone calls as
10 amounts of phone calls from the media. Seems to me 10 well from her lawyers. One of them had a Miami
11 that any -- that a judge would try to prevent that 11 phone number.
12 from happening. I would hope so. And I'm -- you 12 And I don't know how he knew they were
13 can get the name and the phone number from my lawyer 13 lawyers. But that's what he conveyed to me. All I
14 as long as it's -- 14 can tell you is what he told me, and I'm telling you
15 MR. SCOTT: We'll provide that. 15 that.
16 A. -- done off the record, not so that the 16 Q. Did you ask him for the phone number?
17 media can see it. 17 A. I did not.
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Why not?
19 Q. You just swore under oath that lawyers 19 A. l didn't think it was appropriate or
20 contacted Rebecca; is that correct? 20 necessary.
21 A. I swore under oath that I was told by 21 Q. What was inappropriate about asking for
22 Michael that lawyers contacted Rebecca, yes. 22 the phone number to find out who was attempting to
23 Q. Which lawyers? 23 contact this witness?
24 A. I don't know the answer to that. 24 A. I was not particularly interested in that.
25 Q. Did you ask him? 25 All I was interested in was getting the truth from
230 232
1 A. I did. 1 the witness and trying to prevent her from having a
2 Q. And he said, I — 2 media barrage that would interfere with their lives.
3 A. He wouldn't answer that. 3 Q. You told Don Lemon on CNN that the flight
4 Q. -- refuse to tell you? 4 manifests would exonerate you, prove that you were
5 A. No, he didn't know the answer to that 5 not in the same place at the same time as Virginia
6 either because he didn't return the phone calls. He 6 Roberts, correct?
7 said -- 7 A. That's right. And that's true.
8 Q. How did he know they were lawyers if he 8 Q. You also told Don Lemon, quote, "I am
9 didn't return the phone calls? 9 waiving the statute of limitations or any immunity."
10 A. Because they left messages, presumably. 10 A. That's right.
11 Q. With names that identified them as 11 Q. You were then subsequently asked to waive
12 lawyers; is that right? 12 the statute of limitations and refused to, correct?
13 MR. SCOTT: You're arguing with the 13 A. Absolutely false.
14 witness -- 14 I waived the statute of limitations by
15 A. I don't know the answer to that. 15 submitting a statement under oath. Had I not
16 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm trying to find out 16 submitted that statement under oath, the statute of
17 whether there's any logical basis for the 17 limitations would have been long gone. But by
18 stories that the witness is telling. 18 stating under oath categorically that I did not have
19 MR. SCOTT: And I think he's trying to 19 any sexual contact with her, I waived the statute of
20 explain it. And I think he's trying to do it 20 limitations and could be prosecuted for the next
21 in an easy, slow format. So, you know -- 21 five or so years for perjury in what I said was
22 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, let's take it 22 false.
23 easy -- 23 But what I said was true, so I have no
24 MR. SCOTT: -- if we all take -- if we all 24 fear of any statute of limitations or any criminal
25 take the tension down here, maybe we can get 25 prosecution. So, yes, I did waive the statute of
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
14 (Pages 229 to 232)
233 235
1 limitations, yes. 1 Q. And by dropping the dime on the media when
2 Q. You refused to waive the statute of 2 they filed it, you intended to convey the message
3 limitations with regard to sexual crimes, correct? 3 that Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards intentionally
4 A. I didn't refuse anything. I didn't feel I 4 generated the focus of press attention on that
5 had any obligation to respond to you. And I did 5 filing; is that correct?
6 not. 6 A. Absolutely. Absolutely without any doubt.
7 Q. So, you were asked to waive the statute of 7 Why else would they have brought Prince Andrew into
8 limitations with regard to your sexual crimes and 8 this filing? Prince Andrew had no connection to the
9 you refused to respond? 9 NPA, no relevance at all. But they knew that by
10 A. I was asked by you, utterly 10 including Prince Andrew, this would drag my name
11 inappropriately, and what I had said -- and if you 11 into every single newspaper and media outlet in the
12 check what I said, I said if any reasonable 12 world.
13 prosecutor were to investigate the case and find 13 It was outrageous for them to do this.
14 that there was any basis, I would then waive the 14 Particularly because they did so little, if any,
15 statute of limitations. I didn't waive the statute 15 investigation, which will, of course, be determined
16 of limitations because you, a lawyer, for two 16 when they're deposed. And -- and --
17 unprofessional, unethical lawyers asked me to do so, 17 Q. Well, you've already made that
18 what obligation do I have to respond to you? 18 determination, right?
19 Q. Well, you have no obligation to respond to 19 MR. SCOTT: Wait.
20 me at all, Mr. Dershowitz, except now while you arc 20 A. I'm convinced that -- that they did little
21 under oath and I am asking you questions and I would 21 or no investigation. They never even bothered to
22 greatly appreciate you responding to the questions 22 call me. That would have been --
23 that I ask. 23 BY MR. SCAROLA:
24 MR. SCOTT: I think he's trying. 24 Q. We'll get to that in just a moment.
25 25 A. -- a simple basic thing.
234 236
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 Q. But right now — right now could you
2 Q. You made the further statement in that 2 please tell us was there anything other than your
3 same interview, "They dropped the diine on the media 3 inferring that they must have contacted the media to
4 when they filed it," referring to the CVRA 4 support your conclusion that either Paul Cassell or
5 pleading -- 5 Brad Edwards did, in fact, alert the media at the
6 A. Right. 6 time of the filing of this pleading?
7 Q. — in which were you named? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. Right. 8 Q. What else besides your inference?
9 Q. What is the basis for that statement? 9 A. When the BBC came to see me, the BBC
10 A. The basis for that statement was that the 10 reporter showed me an e-mail from Paul Cassell,
11 filing was done virtually on the eve of New Year's 11 which urged him, the BBC reporter, to ask me a
12 on a day that the press was completely dead. And 12 series of questions. So I knew that Paul Cassell
13 nonetheless, immediately upon the filing, I got a 13 was in touch with the British media and was trying
14 barrage of phone calls that led me to conclude, and 14 to stimulate and initiate embarrassing questions to
15 led many, many, many other lawyers who called me to 15 be asked of me.
16 conclude that obviously somebody tipped somebody off 16 And when I spoke to a number of reporters,
17 that they didn't just happen to file -- to find in 17 they certainly -- obviously reporters have
18 the middle of an obscure pleading which didn't even 18 privilege, but they said things that certainly led
19 have a heading that indicated that I was involved or 19 me to infer that they had been in close touch with
20 anybody else was involved. 20 your clients or representatives on their behalf.
21 So, I'm certain that a dime was dropped to 21 Q. What was the date of the e-mail —
22 somebody saying, by the way, you want an interesting 22 A. I don't know.
23 story, there's -- Prince Andrew of Great Britain and 23 Q. -- that you referenced in that response?
24 Alan Dershowitz have been accused of sexual 24 A. I don't know.
25 misconduct. I still believe that. 25 Q. Well --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
15 (Pages 233 to 236)
237 239
1 A. It was whenever -- I'm not sure I ever saw 1 MR. SCOTT: I think he's answered that
2 the date. He just quickly showed me the e-mail and 2 twice.
3 1 quickly looked at it. 3 A. It came after. It came after.
4 Q. The e-mail that you are referencing, in 4 BY MR. SCAROLA:
5 fact, occurred after you had begun all of your media 5 Q. Thank you, sir. On January 5, you made
6 appearances with respect to this filing -- 6 another CNN Live appearance in an interview with
7 A. Let me be very clear about -- 7 Hala Gorani. Do you recall that?
8 Q. — didn't it, sir? 8 A. I do not recall the name of the person --
9 A. Let me be very clear about my media 9 Q. Take a look at the transcript, if you
10 appearances so that I -- 10 would, please, page 15.
11 Q. How about just answering the questions? 11 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the
12 A. Pm trying to answer the question. All of 12 transcript, please, Mr. Dershowitz.
13 my media appearances -- 13 THE WITNESS: Page 15.
14 Q. The question is: Did it occur before or 14 MR. SCOTT: Take your time to review that.
15 after your media -- your media appearances? That 15 A. Yeah, that name is not familiar to me but,
16 doesn't call for a speech — 16 of course, I remember doing an interview, yes.
17 A. It came -- 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 Q. — it calls for before or after. 18 Q. All right, sir. And during the course of
19 A. It came before some and after some. It 19 that interview, you said: "There are flight
20 came, for example, before my appearance on the BBC 20 manifests. They will prove I was never on any
21 because they showed me the e-mail before they 21 private airplane with any young woman." Correct?
22 interviewed me for the BBC. So some occurred -- it 22 A. Yes.
23 occurred before some and it occurred after some. 23 Q. Go to page 17, if you would.
24 Q. All right. So it is your assertion that 24 A. Uh-huh.
25 this single e-mail that you have made reference to 25 Q. At line 4 of transcript of that same
238 240
1 where Paul Cassell says "asks Dershowitz these 1 interview, you said: "She made the whole thing up
2 questions" occurred before your -- your media 2 out of whole cloth. I can prove it by flight
3 appearances and after your media appearances; is 3 records. I can prove it by my travel records."
4 that correct? 4 Did you make those statements?
5 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, argumentative 5 A. Yes, and they're absolutely true.
6 and repetitious. 6 Q. Okay. I am going to hand you every flight
7 A. It occurred before some of the media 7 record that has been produced in connection with
8 appearances, and it occurred after some of media 8 this litigation.
9 appearances, yes. 9 A. Uh-huh.
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 MR. SCAROLA: Could we mark that as the
11 Q. Did it occur before your first media 11 next composite exhibit, please?
12 appearances? 12 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
13 A. My first media appearances came as the 13 Exhibit 6.)
14 result of phone calls I received from -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: And mark this as the next
15 Q. That's nonresponsive to my question, sir. 15 composite exhibit, which will be 7.
16 A. -- newspapers -- 16 MR. SCOTT: These are all the flight
17 Q. I didn't ask you anything about what your 17 manuals?
18 first media appearances occurred -- 18 MR. SCAROLA: As far as I know.
19 A. Yes, you did. 19 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
20 Q. -- as a result of. I asked you -- 20 MR. SCAROLA: They're the only ones that
21 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask his question. 21 have been produced in discovery. If there are
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 more, I'm going to be interested to hear about
23 Q. -- whether the c-mail that you claimed to 23 it.
24 have seen was sent before or after your first media 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
25 appearance? 25 Exhibit 7.)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
16 (Pages 237 to 240)
241 243
1 (Discussion off the record.) 1 exonerated by any flight logs that were innocent --
2 THE WITNESS: What's Number 6 then? I'm 2 that were complete and accurate, of course.
3 confused, there were two. 3 Q. So you made the public statements
4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 repeatedly that the flight logs would exonerate you
5 Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit Number 6 5 without having examined the flight logs to see
6 before? 6 whether they were accurate or not; is that correct?
7 A. Exhibit Number 6. I don't believe so. It 7 A. Well, I knew -- I knew that --
8 doesn't look familiar to me. 8 Q. Did you say those things without having
9 Q. No? 9 examined the flight logs?
10 A. It does not look familiar to me. 10 A. I said those things having looked at some
11 Q. Did you bother at any time to review 11 of the flight logs at some point in time. But I
12 discovery that was produced by Bradley Edwards and 12 knew for sure that the flight logs would exonerate
13 Paul Cassell responding to requests for information 13 me because I knew I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's
14 that supported the allegations of Virginia Roberts? 14 plane with Virginia Roberts or any other young
15 A. I'm not clear what you're asking. 15 underage girls. So, I knew that to an absolute
16 Q. I want to know — 16 certainty. And I was prepared to say it. I'm
17 A. In which case? In which case are we 17 prepared to say it again under oath here.
18 talking? 18 And if your clients had simply called me
19 Q. This case. This case. 19 and told me they were planning to do this, we
20 A. Right. 20 wouldn't be here today because I could have shown
21 Q. Did you ever bother to review the 21 them in one day that it was impossible for me to
22 discovery produced in this case responding to 22 have had sex with their client on the island, in the
23 requests for all of the information that supported 23 ranch, on the airplanes, in Palni Beach. And they
24 their belief in the truthfulness of Virginia 24 would have, if they were decent and ethical lawyers,
25 Roberts' allegations against you? 25 not filed that.
242 244
1 A. I don't know if I reviewed everything. 1 And there are cases, legal ethics cases
2 But I certainly, in preparation for this deposition, 2 that say that lawyers are obliged to make that phone
3 reviewed some of the documents that were produced in 3 call. Lawyers are obliged to check if it's easy to
4 discovery. But I can't say I reviewed them all. 4 check. Lawyers are obliged to, particularly when
5 Q. Well, having placed such substantial 5 they're making extremely heinous charges against a
6 emphasis during the course of your public 6 fellow lawyer, do very, very, detailed
7 appearances on the flight logs exonerating you, it 7 investigations. And they didn't do that in this
8 would certainly seem logical that one of the things 8 case.
9 that you would want to review would be all of the 9 Q. I will represent to you that I have handed
10 available -- all of the available flight logs, 10 you all of the available flight logs produced in the
11 right? 11 discovery of this case. Could you show me, please,
12 A. No. 12 which of these flight logs exonerates you?
13 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. 13 A. The absence of evidence is evidence of
14 A. No. 14 absence. None of the flight logs have me on an
15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 airplane with Virginia Roberts. None of the flight
16 Q. No? 16 logs have me on an airplane during the relevant
17 A. No. Look, I knew I was never on a plane 17 period of time when Virginia Roberts claims that she
18 with any underage females under any circumstances. 18 had sex with me in the presence of another woman.
19 I knew that. I knew that as certainly as I'm 19 So, the flight logs clearly exonerate ine.
20 sitting here today. So, I knew absolutely that if 20 There's absolutely no doubt about that.
21 the manifests and the flight logs were accurate, 21 Q. Well, the flight logs, in fact, confirm
22 they would, of course, exonerate me because I am 22 that you were in the same places at the saine time as
23 totally, completely, unequivocally innocent of any 23 Virginia Roberts, don't they?
24 of these charges. 24 A. No, they do not.
25 So of course I knew that I would be 25 Q. Do you -- do you deny that they confirm
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
17 (Pages 241 to 244)
245 247
1 that you were in the same place at the same time — 1 I would be very anxious to see any timeframes when
2 A. First -- 2 Virginia Roberts claims she was with me on the
3 Q. — as Virginia Roberts? 3 island, claims she was with me on -- at the ranch,
4 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. 4 claims she was with me on the airplanes, claims she
5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 was with one in Palin Beach. And they will all
6 MR. SCOTT: Then you answer the question. 6 conclusively --
7 And Mr. Scarola will try to, you know, keep the 7 Q. You forgot --
8 emotion down, I'm sure, so we can get through 8 A. -- prove --
9 this with less acrimony between everybody here. 9 Q. — New York. Didn't you mean New York
10 A. Your client has adamantly refused, as well 10 also?
11 as the lawyer -- 11 A. No, I did not mean New York --
12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. Oh, okay.
13 Q. No, sir, that's nonresponsive to my 13 A. -- because New York is very different. I
14 question. 14 was, in fact, in New York for large periods of time.
15 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 15 I was not, in fact, on the island during the
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 relevant timeframe. I was not in the airplane in
17 Q. My question is: Do you deny that the 17 the relevant timeframe. I was not in Jeffrey
18 flight logs corroborate that you were in the same 18 Epstein's Palm Beach home in the relevant timeframe.
19 place at the same time as Virginia Roberts? 19 And I was once in the ranch but under circumstances
20 A. So the question includes the word "time" 20 where it would have been absolutely impossible for
21 and, therefore, I must answer in this way. Your 21 me to have had any contact with her.
22 client -- 22 So if you will give me the timeframe, I
23 Q. How to build a watch? 23 will be happy to answer your question. But without
24 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute, you're cutting 24 timeframes, that question is an absolutely
25 him off. He's been trying to answer the 25 inappropriate question. And the answer to it is no.
246 248
1 question. 1 Q. Well, Mr. Dershowitz, it might be
2 A. Your client has adamantly refused, and her 2 inappropriate if you had not repeatedly made the
3 lawyers and your clients have refused to give me any 3 public statements that the flight logs exonerate
4 timeframes, any timeframes when your client claims 4 you.
5 that she had improper -- falsely claims, 5 A. They do.
6 perjuriously claims that she had improper sexual 6 Q. So what I am attempting to find out is the
7 encounters with me. 7 basis upon which you can contend that the flight
8 So how can you possibly ask me a question 8 logs exonerate you if you are now telling us you
9 that includes the word "timcframcs" when your client 9 don't even know when it is that you are alleged to
10 has refused -- when Virginia Roberts has refused to 10 have been in the same place at the same time as
11 give any timcframcs? How can it be possible that 11 Virginia Roberts.
12 the flight logs show me being in the same time and 12 A. Okay.
13 same place with her when she has refused to describe 13 Q. So how -- how can you make both those
14 any of the times that she claims to have been in 14 statements?
15 thosc places? 15 A. Very simple, because I know the timeframe
16 So the answer to the question is 16 that Virginia Roberts, A, knew Jeffrey Epstein. And
17 categorically no, sir. 17 during that timeframe, I can conclusively prove that
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's island where she
19 Q. What is the question that you are 19 claimed to have sex with me. That the only time I
20 answering no to? 20 was at the ranch was with my wife, with the Ashe
21 A. Whether or not the timeframe shows that I 21 family, with my daughter, the house was under
22 could have been in the same place at the same time 22 construction, we just simply stayed outside the
23 as your client. Absolutely not. Because we don't 23 house and looked around. That the manifests show I
24 know what times your client -- now, if you know 24 was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during that
25 that, you should have produced them in discovery and 25 period of time. And the manifests show that I never
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
18 (Pages 245 to 248)
249 251
1 flew down to Palm Beach during that relevant period 1 Q. Which of the manifests are you referring
2 of time. 2 to when you claim what you have claimed about the
3 So 1 have a timeframe not that was 3 manifests, Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7?
4 provided by your client but that was provided by the 4 A. I can only tell you that I have reviewed
5 externalities of the case. And that timeframe 5 the manifests and they show, to me, that I was never
6 coupled with the manifests clearly exonerate me 6 on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane during the relevant
7 without any doubt. 7 period of time. That's all I can tell you now.
8 Q. 1 want to make sure that I understood what 8 I'm not in a position where I look at all
9 you just said. "I never flew down to Palm Beach 9 these documents now. If you point me to any
10 during the relevant timeframe"? 10 particular trip that shows that I was on Jeffrey
11 A. I never flew down and stayed at Jeffrey's 11 Epstein's plane, I would be happy to respond to
12 house in Palm Beach during that relevant period of 12 that.
13 time. 13 Q. There are two separate collections of
14 Q. Okay. So you want to withdraw the 14 documents purporting to be flight manifests for
15 statement that you never flew down to Palm Beach — 15 Jeffrey Epstein's plane. When you made the public
16 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 16 statements that you made regarding the flight logs
17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 or manifests exonerating you, were you referring to
18 Q. — during that relevant period of time -- 18 Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7?
19 A. Let me be -- 19 A. I have no recollection as to which
20 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 20 particular exhibits, which are fonned for purposes
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 of the legal case, I had reviewed. I know I had
22 Q. — and what you want to say is, "I never 22 reviewed the manifests. Not only had I reviewed the
23 flew down to Palm Beach and stayed at Jeffrey 23 manifests, but others reviewed the manifests and
24 Epstein's house during that timeframe period," 24 have conclusively told me that their review of the
25 correct? 25 manifests shows that I was right.
250 252
1 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative -- 1 Q. Who else —
2 A. Let me be -- 2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid any attorney-client
3 MR. SCOTT: -- mischaracterization. 3 communications either with Ms. -- you know,
4 A. Let me be clear. A, I never flew down on 4 with your current lawyers, please.
5 Jeffrey Epstein's plane during the relevant period 5 THE WITNESS: Okay.
6 of time. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA:
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Who told you that they had reviewed the
8 Q. Flew down to where? 8 manifests and they confirmed your position?
9 A. To Palm Beach or anywhere else. I was 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product.
10 never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, according to the 10 MR. SCAROLA: Well, you know, Mr. Scott,
11 flight manifests and according to my own records, 11 he can't have it both ways. He can't insert
12 during the relevant period of time. 12 into the record the gratuitous statements that
13 I have independent records of my travel 13 he inserts into the record regarding others
14 which demonstrate that I was not in Jeffrey 14 having corroborated his inaccurate testimony,
15 Epstein's house during the relevant period of time. 15 and then refuse to tell us who those othcrs
16 And -- but the -- talking about the manifests, the 16 arc. It constitutes a waiver of whatever
17 manifests conclusively prove that I was never on the 17 privilege might exist.
18 airplane during the relevant period of time. 18 MR. SCOTT: He can -- he can tell who they
19 So I don't know how you can claim that the 19 arc. I'm just saying he can't go into
20 manifests show that I was with Virginia Roberts 20 communications with them.
21 during the relevant period of time. They do not do 21 MR. SCAROLA: Well, he's already said what
22 that. And if you would testify under oath to that, 22 the communication was. The communication was
23 I think you could be subject to pretty -- pretty 23 these manifests prove your position.
24 scathing cross examination. So your statement is 24 MR. SCOTT: And he's answered that because
25 categorically false, sir. 25 based on his review of them, Mr. Scarola.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
19 (Pages 249 to 252)
253 255
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren.
2 Q. Who told you that the manifests confirm 2 Anything that relates to your conversations
3 the accuracy of your public statements? 3 with Jeffrey --
4 MR. SCOTT: If it involves lawyer-client 4 THE REPORTER: He's going to have to speak
5 privilege, don't answer it. 5 up.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 MR. SCOTT: You're going to have to speak
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 up a little bit more, Counsel.
8 Q. You're refusing to answer? 8 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren
9 A. No, I would like -- 9 Indyke. Anything that Alan might have to say
10 MR. SCOTT: Instruct you not to answer. 10 to that, to the extent they are covered under
11 A. -- to answer. But I've been instructed 11 conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, privileged
12 not to answer. I would like to answer. 12 under attorney-client privileges as well as
13 You've made a statement -- 13 common interest privileges.
14 MR. SCOTT: There's no question pending. 14 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand?
15 THE WITNESS: But he made a statement -- 15 THE WITNESS: I do.
16 MR. SCOTT: But there's no question 16 BY MR. SCAROLA:
17 pending, sir. 17 Q. To which your response was: "Sure, sure,
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 certainly I have been his lawyer and I did speak to
19 Q. What does it mean to make something up out 19 him about it. I wanted to make sure that his memory
20 of whole cloth? 20 and mine coordinated about when I was at his island.
21 A. It means that Virginia Roberts and your 21 He was able to check. I was able to check. 1
22 clients -- 22 checked with my friends who went with me."
23 Q. No, sir, I haven't asked you anything 23 Did you make that answer to that question?
24 about Virginia Roberts. I haven't asked you 24 A. Yes.
25 anything about my clients. 25 Q. Disclosing the contents of your
254 256
1 1 want to know what the words "making 1 communication with Jeffrey Epstein, correct?
2 something up out of whole cloth" mean. 2 A. I disclosed that I had spoken to him to
3 A. l said thosc words in the context of 3 find out whether he had any records of when I was on
4 Virginia Roberts. 4 his island. And, yes.
5 MR. SCOTT: That's -- that's fine. Go 5 MR. INDYKE: Again, this is Darren Indyke.
6 ahead. 6 Jeffrey does not waive any attorney-client
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 privileges here.
8 Q. What do the words mean? 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 A. That there was absolutely no basis for 9 Q. Well, the reason why you were able to
10 Virginia Roberts' claim that she had any sexual 10 answer that question and discuss with the press what
11 contact with me. That the story was entirely false. 11 Jeffrey Epstein was telling you was because you
12 I don't know where the metaphor derives about whole 12 weren't his lawyer at that time, right?
13 cloth, but certainly that's the common 13 A. No, I was his lawyer at that time. Pm
14 understanding. And I repeat under oath that 14 still his lawyer.
15 Virginia Roberts made up the entire story about 15 Q. Oh, what were you representing him on
16 having sexual contact with me out of whole cloth. 16 then --
17 Q. During the course of the same interview 17 A. The ongoing --
18 that we have been referencing with Hata Gorani — 18 Q. — that is, on January' --
19 for the record, that's H-A-L-A, G-0-R-A-N-1. 19 MR. SCOTT: Whoa.
20 A. What page? 20 BY MR. SCAROLA:
21 Q. Page 19. 21. Q. -- on January 5,2015?
22 You were asked: "I'm wondering, have you 22 A. The ongoing --
23 spoken to Jeffrey Epstein about this since these 23 MR. INDYKE: My objection stands.
24 allegations came out in this suit in the United 24 MR. SCOTT: You can answer what you were
25 States? Have conversations happened there?" 25 representing him on, I think.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
20 (Pages 253 to 256)
257 259
1 A. The ongoing issues -- 1 Q. — the last 10 years?
2 MR. SCOTT: But nothing about 2 A. I would say 15 --
3 communications. 3 Q. Last 15 --
4 A. Right. The ongoing issues relating to the 4 A. -- years.
5 NPA, which continue to this day. And I regard 5 Q. -- how about the last 20 years?
6 myself as his lawyer basically on all those -- all 6 A. I have -- I don't think so.
7 those issues. 7 Q. Okay.
8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 A. As I stand here today, I have no
9 Q. So, when the pleadings were filed in the 9 recollection of ever being in New Mexico except to
10 Crime Victims Rights Act regarding your conduct in 10 visit the Ashes in January of 2000.
11 relationship to Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey 11 I'm 77 years old. I've lived a long life.
12 Epstein, you were and still are his lawyer in the 12 It is certainly possible that at some earlier point
13 Crime Victim's Rights Act case; is that correct? 13 in my life -- I mean, I've been in most of the
14 A. I certainly am bound by lawyer-client 14 states. But I have no recollection of ever being in
15 privilege and communications, yes. 15 New Mexico.
16 Q. Okay. You go on to say in that same 16 And I can tell you unequivocally the only
17 interview: "Only once in my life have I been in 17 time I was ever at Jeffrey Epstein's ranch was that
18 that area," referring to New Mexico.
18 one time with my wife with the Ashes, with my
19 A. Yes. 19 daughter. And we only stayed there for an hour and
20 Q. "Only once in my life did my travel 20 the house was not completed. It was under
21 records show I was in New Mexico."
21 construction. And I certainly did not have any
22 A. Uh-huh.
22 sexual encounter or any encounter with Virginia
23 Q. Is that an accurate statement?
23 Roberts during that visit.
24
25
A. To the best of my knowledge. I have no
recollection of being in New Mexico other than
24
2 5
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
unresponsive portions of the answer.
258 260
1 during that visit to the Ashes, which was not during 1 MR. SCOTT: We don't agree on that point,
2 the -- the narrower timeframe. 2 so let's go ahead.
3 The narrower timeframe, remember, is 3 MR. SCAROLA: It's of any help, I can
4 Virginia Roberts meets Jeffrey Epstein in the late 4 agree that you don't agree to any of my
5 summer, the summer just before she's turning 16, of 5 objections.
6 1999. She says she didn't commence having sexual 6 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not true. I mean,
7 activities with any of Epstein's friends until nine 7 I'm trying to work with you, sir.
8 months later. That would put it in March or April 8 I have to tell you, this -- this is
9 of 2000. This visit occurred in January of 2000. 9 obviously one of the most acrimonious
10 It's the only time I recall having been in 10 depositions I've sat through in my 40 plus
11 New Mexico. 11 years because of the personalities involved
12 Q. Okay. I want to be sure now. You're not 12 here and because of the personal issues. And
13 just saying that you were only at Jeffrey Epstein's 13 it's quite difficult for everybody in this
14 ranch in New Mexico once; you are confirming your 14 room.
15 statement on national television that you have only 15 MR. SCAROLA: I agree.
16 been in New Mexico one time? 16 MR. SCOTT: And all I'm saying, and my
17 A. My recollection right now is that I was 17 client is -- who's 77, is trying to defend his
18 only there once. I have no -- no other recollection 18 life. And I understand you're trying to
19 of -- it's conceivable when I was a very young man, 19 vigorously -- and you're a great lawyer --
20 I could have been there. But I have no recollection 2 0 represent your clients. And it's -- this is
21 of having been there. It certainly -- certainly I 21 not the typical deposition. And we're trying
22 haven't been there recently. And during the 22 our very best, both of us.
23 relevant time period, I know I haven't been there. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. And you're
24 Q. "Recently" means — 24 right, you and 1 do agree on something.
25 A. Fifteen -- 25 MR. SCOTT: As you said yesterday, more
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
21 (Pages 257 to 260)
261 263
1 often than we usually say. 1 A. Where? Where? Can you point to that?
2 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA:
3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. Well, I'm asking you, sir, based upon your
4 Q. In interviews on January 4 and January 5, 4 superb memory whether you remember having said -
5 you claim to have completed the necessary work to 5 MR. SCOTT: No, we're going to do --
6 identify documents exonerating you within an hour 6 BY MR. SCAROLA:
7 after learning of the accusations that were made, 7 Q. -- on Jan --
8 correct? 8 MR. SCOTT: He's going to take a moment to
9 A. I don't remember having said that. But 9 review the transcript and -- and that's -- any
10
11
within a minute, I had clear knowledge that every
document in the world would exonerate me because I
3.0
11
witness is entitled to do that. So why don't
we take a break, hell review transcript and
12 knew for absolute certainty that every aspect of her 12 we'll come back? We've been going an hour --
13 allegation was totally false. That's why I 13 MR. SCAROLA: Because I haven't asked him
14 challenged the other side to produce videos, to 14 a question about the transcript.
15 produce photographs. I knew that there could be no 15 MR. SCOTT': You've asked --
16 evidence inculpating me because I knew I was 16 MR. SCAROLA: I'm asking him a question
17 innocent. So I knew that all of my records would 17 about his recollection.
18 prove that. 18 MR. SCOTT: Based upon what he said in the
19 Facts are facts. And I just wasn't in any 19 transcript.
20 contact or any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts, 20 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm asking him whether
21 and I knew with absolute certainty that the facts 21 he has a recollection of having made public
22 would completely exonerate me. And if your clients 22 statements that within an hour, he had gathered
23 had just called me, at the courtesy of simply 23 the documents that proved his innocence,
24 calling me, I would have been able to point them to 24 exonerated him.
25 Professor Michael Porter of the Harvard Business 25
262 264
1 School. I would have been able to -- to alert them 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 to the Ashes. I would have been able to tell them 2 Q. Do you remember having made those
3 that I keep little black books which have all of my 3 statements?
4 travel information. Although they were in the 4 A. I do not, but its true. I was able to
5 basement of Martha's Vineyard, I would have been 5 gather documents literally within an hour. I was
6 happy to go up and get them. 6 able to call Tom Ashe. He was able to access his
7 If they had just simply called me, I would 7 daughter's journal notes that I had taught his
8 have been able to persuade them without any doubt 8 daughter's class. I was able to find out where my
9 that these allegations were false. If they needed 9 other documents were.
10 any persuading because I believe, as I sit here 10 My wife made some phone calls immediately.
11 today, that they knew they were false at the time -- 11 We called the Canyon Ranch. We called and
12 certainly should have known, but I believe knew they 12 determined the dates of when I was in Florida. We
13 were false at the time that they leveled them. 13 called the Porters. We very, very, very quickly
14 Q. My question related to your gathering 14 were able to gather information that conclusively
15 documents that you claim exonerated you -- 15 would prove that she was lying about me having had
16 A. That's right. 16 sex with me on the island, in the ranch,
17 Q. -- and your public statements were that 17 particularly those two I was able to prove
18 within an hour, you -- 18 conclusively.
19 A. Can you -- 19 And when a woman lies deliberately and
20 Q. -- had gathered the documents -- 20 willfully about two instances where she in great
21 MR. SCOTT: Listen to the question. 21 detail claims she had had sex, I think you can be
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 clear that you should discount any other -- any
23 Q. -- you had gathered the documents that 23 other false allegations.
24 exonerated you, correct? 24 MR. SCOTT: We've been going for an hour.
25 MR. SCOTT: You can refer. 25 Let's take a break for a few minutes. Then we
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
22 (Pages 261 to 264)
265 267
3. have another hour. 1 and then explained it but now you have it
2 MR. SCAROLA: I'm almost ready to take a 2 directly answered. So we're -- we're at a
3 break. 3 brcak point.
4 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
5 MR. SCAROLA: Could you read back the last 5 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
6 question, please? 6 time is approximately 11:01 a.m.
7 First of all, I move to strike the 7 (Recess was held from 11:01 a.m. until 11:23 a.m.)
8 =responsive speech. 8 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record.
9 And now read back the last question, if 9 The time is approximately 11:23 a.m.
10 you would. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA:
11 (Requested portion read back as follows:) 11 Q. When did you last travel from outside the
12 THE REPORTER: "Do you remember having 12 State of Florida to arrive in Florida?
13 made those statements?" 13 A. The day before yesterday, 1 think.
14 Do you want me to read prior to that? 14 Q. And where did you travel from?
15 MR. SCAROLA: No, that's fine. That's the 15 A. New York.
16 question that I asked. 16 Q. When were you last in Boston, in the
17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Boston area?
18 Q. Is the answer yes? 18 A. About two weeks ago.
19 A. I don't remember specifically. I do 19 Q. So, if anyone had represented that you
20 generally remember having said that your clients 20 were going to be traveling from Boston to Florida
21 could have easily discovered conclusive proof that 21 this past weekend, that would have been a
22 Virginia Roberts was lying about me and that I 22 misrepresentation; is that correct?
23 had -- because I knew, of course, it was false -- 23 A. I have no idea what you're talking about.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Tom -- 24 Q. Well, I'm talking about your personal
25 A. -- been able to uncover such proof. 25 travels. If anyone had represented that you were
266 268
1 MR. SCAROLA: That has nothing to do with 1 going to travel from Boston to Florida and canceled
2 the question I asked -- 2 travel arrangements from Boston to Florida this past
3 MR. SCOTT: Let's take -- let's take a 3 weekend, that would have been a misrepresentation,
4 break like I suggested and we'll come back and 4 correct?
5 then you can ask your question and -- okay? 5 A. I have no idea what you're talking about.
6 MR. SCAROLA: Well, while the question is 6 I'm sorry.
7 pending, I would like an answer to the question 7 Q. Well, what is it that you don't understand
8 before we break. 8 about that question? Either you were in —
9 MR. SCOTT: Did you answer the question? 9 A. The basis --
10 THE WITNESS: I thought I did. 10 Q. — Boston and were planning on traveling
11 A. But what -- could you repeat the question? 11 from Boston to Florida this past weekend or the last
12 I'll try to answer it in a yes or no if I can. 12 time you were in Boston was two weeks ago, so you
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 couldn't have been planning —
14 Q. Did you make the statement that within an 14 A. I --
15 hour of learning of these allegations, you had 15 Q. — on traveling from Boston to Florida.
16 gathered documents that completely exonerated you? 16 A. I was actually in Boston -- now that I
17 A. I don't recall those specific words -- 17 checked any calendar, I was actually in Boston --
18 Q. Thank you, sir. 18 here, 1 have -- aha. It says -- and my calendar
19 A. -- but the truth -- 19 says I was in Boston. Then it says leave for
2 0 MR. SCOTT: That's it, and I think he 20 Florida, but that got changed. Yes, that got
21 indicated that before. 21 changed, right.
22 MR. SCAROLA: That would be very helpful 22 Q. May I see that, please?
23 if we said that and then we stopped and we can 23 A. No, this is my personal calendar.
24 take a break. 24 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, but if you refer to
25 MR. SCOTT: He previously had said that 25 anything to refresh your recollection --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
23 (Pages 265 to 268)
269 271
1 A. I have -- 1 Cassell had done in the course of their
2 Q. -- during the course of the deposition,1 2 investigation of the credibility of the accusations
3 am permitted to examine it. 3 made by Virginia Roberts against you?
4 A. I have lawyer-client privileged 4 A. Well, first and foremost, the most
5 information in here, so I can't give it to you. I 5 important piece of infonnation I had was my firm and
6 can give it to you in a redacted form. I have a 6 complete knowledge and memory that I had never had
7 quote from David Boies in here, which I'm sure -- 7 any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts ever under
8 MR. SCOTT: Don't — 8 any circumstances or any other underage girls. So I
9 A. — nobody is going to want to sec -- 9 knew --
10 MR. SCOTT: We'll make a copy and give it 10 Q. The question I'm asking, sir --
11 to you. 11 A. -- this information --
12 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. Would you hand 12 Q. -- focuses on what knowledge you had
13 it to your counsel, please? 13 regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell did
14 MR. SCOTT: On that note, hold on to that. 14 in the course of their investigation of the
15 TFIE WITNESS: But I need that back. 15 credibility of the accusations against you made by
16 MR. SCOTT: Of course. Don't worry. 16 Virginia Roberts?
17 MR. SIMPSON: Hold on to it. 17 A. That was the first and most important bit
18 MR. SCOTT: That's why I gave it to him 18 of infonnation; namely, that I couldn't have done it
19 because I'd lose it. 19 and didn't do it. So I knew for sure that they
20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 20 could not have conducted any kind of valid
21 Q. Before January 21,2015, what information 21 investigation.
22 did you have regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul 22 Second, I knew from -- that they also had
23 Cassell had gathered in the course of investigating 23 a letter from Mr. Scarola that said that multiple
24 the accuracy of Virginia Roberts' accusations 24 witnesses had placed me in the presence of Jeffrey
25 against you? 25 Epstein and underage girls and I knew that
270 272
1 A. Well, first, I knew that anything they 1 Mr. Scarola's letter was a patent lie. And they had
2 gathered -- 2 access to that letter and that information.
3 MR. INDYKE: Objection to the extent that 3 I also knew they were relying on
4 requires -- 4 depositions of two house people of Jeffrey Epstein.
5 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. 5 And I've read these two depositions. And I'm sure I
6 MS. McCAWLEY: -- you to disclose anything 6 knew of other -- other information as well.
7 you gave -- 7 I knew that they had stated -- I knew that
8 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. 8 they had stated publicly, or you had stated publicly
9 I'm sorry, Mr. Indyke, can you repeat your 9 on their behalf as a witness, that you had stated
10 objection? 10 publicly that you had tried to depose me on these --
11 MR. SCOTT: Can you say that a little 11 on this subject. I knew that that was a blatant lie
12 louder? 12 and unethical conduct because nobody ever tricd to
13 MR. INDYKE: Darren Indyke. I would 13 depose me on this subject.
14 object to the extent that your answer would 14 I had never been accused, nor did I have
15 disclose anything you -- you obtained or 15 any knowledge that anybody had ever falsely accused
16 learned or any knowledge you gained in 16 me of having any sexual encounters. And I had a
17 connection with your representation of Jeffrey 17 great deal of infonnation about the paucity or
18 Epstein. 18 absence of any legitimate investigation. And I also
19 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand that 19 knew that they hadn't called me, they hadn't tried
20 instruction? 20 to call me, there was no record of an attempt to
21 THE WITNESS: I do, yes. 21 call me or c-mail me. My c-mail is available on my
22 Could you repeat the question? 22 wcbsite. My phone number is available on my
23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 website.
24 Q. Yes, sir. I want to know what information 24 The most basic thing they could have done,
28 you had regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul 25 as courts have said, when you're accusing somebody
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
txt
Cont'd.
12 (Pages 221 to 224)
225 227
1 MR. SIMPSON: The flash drive is the same 1 A. I know what you know because I'm a logical
2 as the document production. 2 person and I know that Virginia -- I know that
3 MR. SCAROLA: So the answer is no, they're 3 Virginia Roberts repeatedly called this -- this
4 not there; is that correct? 4 woman and her husband, repeatedly text her, and
5 MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 5 knows her name. And you and Virginia Roberts'
6 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. And what's the 6 lawyers are operating in privity here. You're
7 explanation for that? 7 whispering to each other, you're passing notes. You
8 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate this 8 are part of a joint legal team.
9 on the record with you, Mr. Scarola. 9 And if you want to know her name, all you
10 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Thank you. 10 have to do is ask Sigrid McCawley and she'll tell
11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 you her name. Pm sure you know her name. And if
12 Q. Which conversation with Rebecca did you 12 you don't know her name, it's because you haven't
13 tape record? 13 asked.
1.4 A. I tape recorded a conversation with her 14 Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking you —
15 permission where she told me that she was pressured, 15 A. Pm not going to tell you --
16 she didn't -- where Rebecca told me that Virginia 16 Q. -- and I'm telling you I don't know her
17 was pressured and that she didn't want to name me 17 name.
18 but she was pressured to name me, that she had never 18 A. Okay.
19 previously named me. 19 Q. Okay? As an officer of the court, I am
20 By the way, I told this to Virginia 20 telling you I don't know her name. And you are
21. Roberts' lawyer. 21 under oath and obliged to answer material and
22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. To the extent 22 relevant questions, and I want to know what her name
23 you're going to reveal anything that was said 23 is.
24 during settlement discussions, I'm moving for 24 MR. SCOTT: I will provide you the name
25 sanctions, period. We're not doing this today. 25 off the record, but Pm not -- if he feels its
226 228
1 Please instruct the witness. 1 inappropriate because of what -- he's not going
2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid that. We discussed that 2 to answer the question. I will provide you the
3 yesterday. 3 name.
4 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA:
5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 Q. Okay. She has still insisted that her
6 Q. What was the date of the phone 6 name not be revealed; is that correct?
7 conversation that you tape recorded? 7 A. Her husband asked me to do whatever I
8 A. 1 don't recall. But it's on the 8 could not to put her name in front of the press, in
9 transcript. 9 front of the media.
10 Q. And does it also reflect that the 10 Q. There's no — there's no one from the
11 recording is being made with her permission? 11 press here today.
12 A. Uh-huh. 12 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but they're going to
13 Q. That's a yes? 13 order the transcript and they're going to see,
14 A. Yes. Yes, that's a yes. 14 so that's the same thing. And I've already
15 Q. What is Rebecca's last name? 15 told --
16 A. You know Rebecca's last name and she has 16 A. You will have her name in five --
17 asked me not to reveal it to the press. And so I 17 MR. SCOTT: I will give you her name --
18 would like to comply with that -- with that request. 18 A. -- minutes. All you have to do is --
19 For purposes of discovery, you know her name, you 19 MR. SCOTT: And, Jack, if you want to take
20 know her husband's name, you know her phone number, 20 a break now --
21 and she has been called. But there's no reason for 21 THE REPORTER: I-Iold on. Hold on,
22 me to reveal it so that it appears in the press that 22 gentlemen. You can't talk at the same time.
23 she would be called by newspapers and by the media. 23 MR. SCOTT: Let me do the talking at this
24 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, how do you know what I 24 point.
25 know if you haven't told me? 25 THE WITNESS: Please.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
13 (Pages 225 to 228)
229 231
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 more accomplished.
2 Q. What's her phone number? 2 MR. SCAROLA: Let's take it easy and slow.
3 A. Her phone number is known to Virginia 3 BY MR. SCAROLA:
4 Roberts and presumably -- and to Virginia Roberts' 4 Q. How did Michael tell you he knew these
5 lawyers because she received phone calls from 5 people he didn't speak to were lawyers?
6 Virginia Roberts' lawyers. So all you have to do is 6 A. He told me that he received a phone call
7 ask your colleagues and you will get that. But I 7 from Virginia Roberts. That then his wife received
8 think there's no reason to put her phone number in 8 numerous phone calls and texts from her all through
9 the public record so that she will receive massive 9 the night. And that they received phone calls as
10 amounts of phone calls from the media. Seems to me 10 well from her lawyers. One of them had a Miami
11 that any -- that a judge would try to prevent that 11 phone number.
12 from happening. I would hope so. And I'm -- you 12 And I don't know how he knew they were
13 can get the name and the phone number from my lawyer 13 lawyers. But that's what he conveyed to me. All I
14 as long as it's -- 14 can tell you is what he told me, and I'm telling you
15 MR. SCOTT: We'll provide that. 15 that.
16 A. -- done off the record, not so that the 16 Q. Did you ask him for the phone number?
17 media can see it. 17 A. I did not.
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Why not?
19 Q. You just swore under oath that lawyers 19 A. l didn't think it was appropriate or
20 contacted Rebecca; is that correct? 20 necessary.
21 A. I swore under oath that I was told by 21 Q. What was inappropriate about asking for
22 Michael that lawyers contacted Rebecca, yes. 22 the phone number to find out who was attempting to
23 Q. Which lawyers? 23 contact this witness?
24 A. I don't know the answer to that. 24 A. I was not particularly interested in that.
25 Q. Did you ask him? 25 All I was interested in was getting the truth from
230 232
1 A. I did. 1 the witness and trying to prevent her from having a
2 Q. And he said, I — 2 media barrage that would interfere with their lives.
3 A. He wouldn't answer that. 3 Q. You told Don Lemon on CNN that the flight
4 Q. -- refuse to tell you? 4 manifests would exonerate you, prove that you were
5 A. No, he didn't know the answer to that 5 not in the same place at the same time as Virginia
6 either because he didn't return the phone calls. He 6 Roberts, correct?
7 said -- 7 A. That's right. And that's true.
8 Q. How did he know they were lawyers if he 8 Q. You also told Don Lemon, quote, "I am
9 didn't return the phone calls? 9 waiving the statute of limitations or any immunity."
10 A. Because they left messages, presumably. 10 A. That's right.
11 Q. With names that identified them as 11 Q. You were then subsequently asked to waive
12 lawyers; is that right? 12 the statute of limitations and refused to, correct?
13 MR. SCOTT: You're arguing with the 13 A. Absolutely false.
14 witness -- 14 I waived the statute of limitations by
15 A. I don't know the answer to that. 15 submitting a statement under oath. Had I not
16 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm trying to find out 16 submitted that statement under oath, the statute of
17 whether there's any logical basis for the 17 limitations would have been long gone. But by
18 stories that the witness is telling. 18 stating under oath categorically that I did not have
19 MR. SCOTT: And I think he's trying to 19 any sexual contact with her, I waived the statute of
20 explain it. And I think he's trying to do it 20 limitations and could be prosecuted for the next
21 in an easy, slow format. So, you know -- 21 five or so years for perjury in what I said was
22 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, let's take it 22 false.
23 easy -- 23 But what I said was true, so I have no
24 MR. SCOTT: -- if we all take -- if we all 24 fear of any statute of limitations or any criminal
25 take the tension down here, maybe we can get 25 prosecution. So, yes, I did waive the statute of
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
14 (Pages 229 to 232)
233 235
1 limitations, yes. 1 Q. And by dropping the dime on the media when
2 Q. You refused to waive the statute of 2 they filed it, you intended to convey the message
3 limitations with regard to sexual crimes, correct? 3 that Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards intentionally
4 A. I didn't refuse anything. I didn't feel I 4 generated the focus of press attention on that
5 had any obligation to respond to you. And I did 5 filing; is that correct?
6 not. 6 A. Absolutely. Absolutely without any doubt.
7 Q. So, you were asked to waive the statute of 7 Why else would they have brought Prince Andrew into
8 limitations with regard to your sexual crimes and 8 this filing? Prince Andrew had no connection to the
9 you refused to respond? 9 NPA, no relevance at all. But they knew that by
10 A. I was asked by you, utterly 10 including Prince Andrew, this would drag my name
11 inappropriately, and what I had said -- and if you 11 into every single newspaper and media outlet in the
12 check what I said, I said if any reasonable 12 world.
13 prosecutor were to investigate the case and find 13 It was outrageous for them to do this.
14 that there was any basis, I would then waive the 14 Particularly because they did so little, if any,
15 statute of limitations. I didn't waive the statute 15 investigation, which will, of course, be determined
16 of limitations because you, a lawyer, for two 16 when they're deposed. And -- and --
17 unprofessional, unethical lawyers asked me to do so, 17 Q. Well, you've already made that
18 what obligation do I have to respond to you? 18 determination, right?
19 Q. Well, you have no obligation to respond to 19 MR. SCOTT: Wait.
20 me at all, Mr. Dershowitz, except now while you arc 20 A. I'm convinced that -- that they did little
21 under oath and I am asking you questions and I would 21 or no investigation. They never even bothered to
22 greatly appreciate you responding to the questions 22 call me. That would have been --
23 that I ask. 23 BY MR. SCAROLA:
24 MR. SCOTT: I think he's trying. 24 Q. We'll get to that in just a moment.
25 25 A. -- a simple basic thing.
234 236
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 Q. But right now — right now could you
2 Q. You made the further statement in that 2 please tell us was there anything other than your
3 same interview, "They dropped the diine on the media 3 inferring that they must have contacted the media to
4 when they filed it," referring to the CVRA 4 support your conclusion that either Paul Cassell or
5 pleading -- 5 Brad Edwards did, in fact, alert the media at the
6 A. Right. 6 time of the filing of this pleading?
7 Q. — in which were you named? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. Right. 8 Q. What else besides your inference?
9 Q. What is the basis for that statement? 9 A. When the BBC came to see me, the BBC
10 A. The basis for that statement was that the 10 reporter showed me an e-mail from Paul Cassell,
11 filing was done virtually on the eve of New Year's 11 which urged him, the BBC reporter, to ask me a
12 on a day that the press was completely dead. And 12 series of questions. So I knew that Paul Cassell
13 nonetheless, immediately upon the filing, I got a 13 was in touch with the British media and was trying
14 barrage of phone calls that led me to conclude, and 14 to stimulate and initiate embarrassing questions to
15 led many, many, many other lawyers who called me to 15 be asked of me.
16 conclude that obviously somebody tipped somebody off 16 And when I spoke to a number of reporters,
17 that they didn't just happen to file -- to find in 17 they certainly -- obviously reporters have
18 the middle of an obscure pleading which didn't even 18 privilege, but they said things that certainly led
19 have a heading that indicated that I was involved or 19 me to infer that they had been in close touch with
20 anybody else was involved. 20 your clients or representatives on their behalf.
21 So, I'm certain that a dime was dropped to 21 Q. What was the date of the e-mail —
22 somebody saying, by the way, you want an interesting 22 A. I don't know.
23 story, there's -- Prince Andrew of Great Britain and 23 Q. -- that you referenced in that response?
24 Alan Dershowitz have been accused of sexual 24 A. I don't know.
25 misconduct. I still believe that. 25 Q. Well --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
15 (Pages 233 to 236)
237 239
1 A. It was whenever -- I'm not sure I ever saw 1 MR. SCOTT: I think he's answered that
2 the date. He just quickly showed me the e-mail and 2 twice.
3 1 quickly looked at it. 3 A. It came after. It came after.
4 Q. The e-mail that you are referencing, in 4 BY MR. SCAROLA:
5 fact, occurred after you had begun all of your media 5 Q. Thank you, sir. On January 5, you made
6 appearances with respect to this filing -- 6 another CNN Live appearance in an interview with
7 A. Let me be very clear about -- 7 Hala Gorani. Do you recall that?
8 Q. — didn't it, sir? 8 A. I do not recall the name of the person --
9 A. Let me be very clear about my media 9 Q. Take a look at the transcript, if you
10 appearances so that I -- 10 would, please, page 15.
11 Q. How about just answering the questions? 11 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the
12 A. Pm trying to answer the question. All of 12 transcript, please, Mr. Dershowitz.
13 my media appearances -- 13 THE WITNESS: Page 15.
14 Q. The question is: Did it occur before or 14 MR. SCOTT: Take your time to review that.
15 after your media -- your media appearances? That 15 A. Yeah, that name is not familiar to me but,
16 doesn't call for a speech — 16 of course, I remember doing an interview, yes.
17 A. It came -- 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 Q. — it calls for before or after. 18 Q. All right, sir. And during the course of
19 A. It came before some and after some. It 19 that interview, you said: "There are flight
20 came, for example, before my appearance on the BBC 20 manifests. They will prove I was never on any
21 because they showed me the e-mail before they 21 private airplane with any young woman." Correct?
22 interviewed me for the BBC. So some occurred -- it 22 A. Yes.
23 occurred before some and it occurred after some. 23 Q. Go to page 17, if you would.
24 Q. All right. So it is your assertion that 24 A. Uh-huh.
25 this single e-mail that you have made reference to 25 Q. At line 4 of transcript of that same
238 240
1 where Paul Cassell says "asks Dershowitz these 1 interview, you said: "She made the whole thing up
2 questions" occurred before your -- your media 2 out of whole cloth. I can prove it by flight
3 appearances and after your media appearances; is 3 records. I can prove it by my travel records."
4 that correct? 4 Did you make those statements?
5 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, argumentative 5 A. Yes, and they're absolutely true.
6 and repetitious. 6 Q. Okay. I am going to hand you every flight
7 A. It occurred before some of the media 7 record that has been produced in connection with
8 appearances, and it occurred after some of media 8 this litigation.
9 appearances, yes. 9 A. Uh-huh.
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 MR. SCAROLA: Could we mark that as the
11 Q. Did it occur before your first media 11 next composite exhibit, please?
12 appearances? 12 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
13 A. My first media appearances came as the 13 Exhibit 6.)
14 result of phone calls I received from -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: And mark this as the next
15 Q. That's nonresponsive to my question, sir. 15 composite exhibit, which will be 7.
16 A. -- newspapers -- 16 MR. SCOTT: These are all the flight
17 Q. I didn't ask you anything about what your 17 manuals?
18 first media appearances occurred -- 18 MR. SCAROLA: As far as I know.
19 A. Yes, you did. 19 MR. SCOTT: Okay.
20 Q. -- as a result of. I asked you -- 20 MR. SCAROLA: They're the only ones that
21 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask his question. 21 have been produced in discovery. If there are
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 more, I'm going to be interested to hear about
23 Q. -- whether the c-mail that you claimed to 23 it.
24 have seen was sent before or after your first media 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
25 appearance? 25 Exhibit 7.)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
16 (Pages 237 to 240)
241 243
1 (Discussion off the record.) 1 exonerated by any flight logs that were innocent --
2 THE WITNESS: What's Number 6 then? I'm 2 that were complete and accurate, of course.
3 confused, there were two. 3 Q. So you made the public statements
4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 repeatedly that the flight logs would exonerate you
5 Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit Number 6 5 without having examined the flight logs to see
6 before? 6 whether they were accurate or not; is that correct?
7 A. Exhibit Number 6. I don't believe so. It 7 A. Well, I knew -- I knew that --
8 doesn't look familiar to me. 8 Q. Did you say those things without having
9 Q. No? 9 examined the flight logs?
10 A. It does not look familiar to me. 10 A. I said those things having looked at some
11 Q. Did you bother at any time to review 11 of the flight logs at some point in time. But I
12 discovery that was produced by Bradley Edwards and 12 knew for sure that the flight logs would exonerate
13 Paul Cassell responding to requests for information 13 me because I knew I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's
14 that supported the allegations of Virginia Roberts? 14 plane with Virginia Roberts or any other young
15 A. I'm not clear what you're asking. 15 underage girls. So, I knew that to an absolute
16 Q. I want to know — 16 certainty. And I was prepared to say it. I'm
17 A. In which case? In which case are we 17 prepared to say it again under oath here.
18 talking? 18 And if your clients had simply called me
19 Q. This case. This case. 19 and told me they were planning to do this, we
20 A. Right. 20 wouldn't be here today because I could have shown
21 Q. Did you ever bother to review the 21 them in one day that it was impossible for me to
22 discovery produced in this case responding to 22 have had sex with their client on the island, in the
23 requests for all of the information that supported 23 ranch, on the airplanes, in Palni Beach. And they
24 their belief in the truthfulness of Virginia 24 would have, if they were decent and ethical lawyers,
25 Roberts' allegations against you? 25 not filed that.
242 244
1 A. I don't know if I reviewed everything. 1 And there are cases, legal ethics cases
2 But I certainly, in preparation for this deposition, 2 that say that lawyers are obliged to make that phone
3 reviewed some of the documents that were produced in 3 call. Lawyers are obliged to check if it's easy to
4 discovery. But I can't say I reviewed them all. 4 check. Lawyers are obliged to, particularly when
5 Q. Well, having placed such substantial 5 they're making extremely heinous charges against a
6 emphasis during the course of your public 6 fellow lawyer, do very, very, detailed
7 appearances on the flight logs exonerating you, it 7 investigations. And they didn't do that in this
8 would certainly seem logical that one of the things 8 case.
9 that you would want to review would be all of the 9 Q. I will represent to you that I have handed
10 available -- all of the available flight logs, 10 you all of the available flight logs produced in the
11 right? 11 discovery of this case. Could you show me, please,
12 A. No. 12 which of these flight logs exonerates you?
13 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. 13 A. The absence of evidence is evidence of
14 A. No. 14 absence. None of the flight logs have me on an
15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 airplane with Virginia Roberts. None of the flight
16 Q. No? 16 logs have me on an airplane during the relevant
17 A. No. Look, I knew I was never on a plane 17 period of time when Virginia Roberts claims that she
18 with any underage females under any circumstances. 18 had sex with me in the presence of another woman.
19 I knew that. I knew that as certainly as I'm 19 So, the flight logs clearly exonerate ine.
20 sitting here today. So, I knew absolutely that if 20 There's absolutely no doubt about that.
21 the manifests and the flight logs were accurate, 21 Q. Well, the flight logs, in fact, confirm
22 they would, of course, exonerate me because I am 22 that you were in the same places at the saine time as
23 totally, completely, unequivocally innocent of any 23 Virginia Roberts, don't they?
24 of these charges. 24 A. No, they do not.
25 So of course I knew that I would be 25 Q. Do you -- do you deny that they confirm
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
17 (Pages 241 to 244)
245 247
1 that you were in the same place at the same time — 1 I would be very anxious to see any timeframes when
2 A. First -- 2 Virginia Roberts claims she was with me on the
3 Q. — as Virginia Roberts? 3 island, claims she was with me on -- at the ranch,
4 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. 4 claims she was with me on the airplanes, claims she
5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 was with one in Palin Beach. And they will all
6 MR. SCOTT: Then you answer the question. 6 conclusively --
7 And Mr. Scarola will try to, you know, keep the 7 Q. You forgot --
8 emotion down, I'm sure, so we can get through 8 A. -- prove --
9 this with less acrimony between everybody here. 9 Q. — New York. Didn't you mean New York
10 A. Your client has adamantly refused, as well 10 also?
11 as the lawyer -- 11 A. No, I did not mean New York --
12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. Oh, okay.
13 Q. No, sir, that's nonresponsive to my 13 A. -- because New York is very different. I
14 question. 14 was, in fact, in New York for large periods of time.
15 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 15 I was not, in fact, on the island during the
16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 relevant timeframe. I was not in the airplane in
17 Q. My question is: Do you deny that the 17 the relevant timeframe. I was not in Jeffrey
18 flight logs corroborate that you were in the same 18 Epstein's Palm Beach home in the relevant timeframe.
19 place at the same time as Virginia Roberts? 19 And I was once in the ranch but under circumstances
20 A. So the question includes the word "time" 20 where it would have been absolutely impossible for
21 and, therefore, I must answer in this way. Your 21 me to have had any contact with her.
22 client -- 22 So if you will give me the timeframe, I
23 Q. How to build a watch? 23 will be happy to answer your question. But without
24 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute, you're cutting 24 timeframes, that question is an absolutely
25 him off. He's been trying to answer the 25 inappropriate question. And the answer to it is no.
246 248
1 question. 1 Q. Well, Mr. Dershowitz, it might be
2 A. Your client has adamantly refused, and her 2 inappropriate if you had not repeatedly made the
3 lawyers and your clients have refused to give me any 3 public statements that the flight logs exonerate
4 timeframes, any timeframes when your client claims 4 you.
5 that she had improper -- falsely claims, 5 A. They do.
6 perjuriously claims that she had improper sexual 6 Q. So what I am attempting to find out is the
7 encounters with me. 7 basis upon which you can contend that the flight
8 So how can you possibly ask me a question 8 logs exonerate you if you are now telling us you
9 that includes the word "timcframcs" when your client 9 don't even know when it is that you are alleged to
10 has refused -- when Virginia Roberts has refused to 10 have been in the same place at the same time as
11 give any timcframcs? How can it be possible that 11 Virginia Roberts.
12 the flight logs show me being in the same time and 12 A. Okay.
13 same place with her when she has refused to describe 13 Q. So how -- how can you make both those
14 any of the times that she claims to have been in 14 statements?
15 thosc places? 15 A. Very simple, because I know the timeframe
16 So the answer to the question is 16 that Virginia Roberts, A, knew Jeffrey Epstein. And
17 categorically no, sir. 17 during that timeframe, I can conclusively prove that
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's island where she
19 Q. What is the question that you are 19 claimed to have sex with me. That the only time I
20 answering no to? 20 was at the ranch was with my wife, with the Ashe
21 A. Whether or not the timeframe shows that I 21 family, with my daughter, the house was under
22 could have been in the same place at the same time 22 construction, we just simply stayed outside the
23 as your client. Absolutely not. Because we don't 23 house and looked around. That the manifests show I
24 know what times your client -- now, if you know 24 was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during that
25 that, you should have produced them in discovery and 25 period of time. And the manifests show that I never
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
18 (Pages 245 to 248)
249 251
1 flew down to Palm Beach during that relevant period 1 Q. Which of the manifests are you referring
2 of time. 2 to when you claim what you have claimed about the
3 So 1 have a timeframe not that was 3 manifests, Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7?
4 provided by your client but that was provided by the 4 A. I can only tell you that I have reviewed
5 externalities of the case. And that timeframe 5 the manifests and they show, to me, that I was never
6 coupled with the manifests clearly exonerate me 6 on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane during the relevant
7 without any doubt. 7 period of time. That's all I can tell you now.
8 Q. 1 want to make sure that I understood what 8 I'm not in a position where I look at all
9 you just said. "I never flew down to Palm Beach 9 these documents now. If you point me to any
10 during the relevant timeframe"? 10 particular trip that shows that I was on Jeffrey
11 A. I never flew down and stayed at Jeffrey's 11 Epstein's plane, I would be happy to respond to
12 house in Palm Beach during that relevant period of 12 that.
13 time. 13 Q. There are two separate collections of
14 Q. Okay. So you want to withdraw the 14 documents purporting to be flight manifests for
15 statement that you never flew down to Palm Beach — 15 Jeffrey Epstein's plane. When you made the public
16 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 16 statements that you made regarding the flight logs
17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 or manifests exonerating you, were you referring to
18 Q. — during that relevant period of time -- 18 Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7?
19 A. Let me be -- 19 A. I have no recollection as to which
20 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 20 particular exhibits, which are fonned for purposes
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 of the legal case, I had reviewed. I know I had
22 Q. — and what you want to say is, "I never 22 reviewed the manifests. Not only had I reviewed the
23 flew down to Palm Beach and stayed at Jeffrey 23 manifests, but others reviewed the manifests and
24 Epstein's house during that timeframe period," 24 have conclusively told me that their review of the
25 correct? 25 manifests shows that I was right.
250 252
1 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative -- 1 Q. Who else —
2 A. Let me be -- 2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid any attorney-client
3 MR. SCOTT: -- mischaracterization. 3 communications either with Ms. -- you know,
4 A. Let me be clear. A, I never flew down on 4 with your current lawyers, please.
5 Jeffrey Epstein's plane during the relevant period 5 THE WITNESS: Okay.
6 of time. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA:
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Who told you that they had reviewed the
8 Q. Flew down to where? 8 manifests and they confirmed your position?
9 A. To Palm Beach or anywhere else. I was 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product.
10 never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, according to the 10 MR. SCAROLA: Well, you know, Mr. Scott,
11 flight manifests and according to my own records, 11 he can't have it both ways. He can't insert
12 during the relevant period of time. 12 into the record the gratuitous statements that
13 I have independent records of my travel 13 he inserts into the record regarding others
14 which demonstrate that I was not in Jeffrey 14 having corroborated his inaccurate testimony,
15 Epstein's house during the relevant period of time. 15 and then refuse to tell us who those othcrs
16 And -- but the -- talking about the manifests, the 16 arc. It constitutes a waiver of whatever
17 manifests conclusively prove that I was never on the 17 privilege might exist.
18 airplane during the relevant period of time. 18 MR. SCOTT: He can -- he can tell who they
19 So I don't know how you can claim that the 19 arc. I'm just saying he can't go into
20 manifests show that I was with Virginia Roberts 20 communications with them.
21 during the relevant period of time. They do not do 21 MR. SCAROLA: Well, he's already said what
22 that. And if you would testify under oath to that, 22 the communication was. The communication was
23 I think you could be subject to pretty -- pretty 23 these manifests prove your position.
24 scathing cross examination. So your statement is 24 MR. SCOTT: And he's answered that because
25 categorically false, sir. 25 based on his review of them, Mr. Scarola.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
19 (Pages 249 to 252)
253 255
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren.
2 Q. Who told you that the manifests confirm 2 Anything that relates to your conversations
3 the accuracy of your public statements? 3 with Jeffrey --
4 MR. SCOTT: If it involves lawyer-client 4 THE REPORTER: He's going to have to speak
5 privilege, don't answer it. 5 up.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 MR. SCOTT: You're going to have to speak
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 up a little bit more, Counsel.
8 Q. You're refusing to answer? 8 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren
9 A. No, I would like -- 9 Indyke. Anything that Alan might have to say
10 MR. SCOTT: Instruct you not to answer. 10 to that, to the extent they are covered under
11 A. -- to answer. But I've been instructed 11 conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, privileged
12 not to answer. I would like to answer. 12 under attorney-client privileges as well as
13 You've made a statement -- 13 common interest privileges.
14 MR. SCOTT: There's no question pending. 14 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand?
15 THE WITNESS: But he made a statement -- 15 THE WITNESS: I do.
16 MR. SCOTT: But there's no question 16 BY MR. SCAROLA:
17 pending, sir. 17 Q. To which your response was: "Sure, sure,
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 certainly I have been his lawyer and I did speak to
19 Q. What does it mean to make something up out 19 him about it. I wanted to make sure that his memory
20 of whole cloth? 20 and mine coordinated about when I was at his island.
21 A. It means that Virginia Roberts and your 21 He was able to check. I was able to check. 1
22 clients -- 22 checked with my friends who went with me."
23 Q. No, sir, I haven't asked you anything 23 Did you make that answer to that question?
24 about Virginia Roberts. I haven't asked you 24 A. Yes.
25 anything about my clients. 25 Q. Disclosing the contents of your
254 256
1 1 want to know what the words "making 1 communication with Jeffrey Epstein, correct?
2 something up out of whole cloth" mean. 2 A. I disclosed that I had spoken to him to
3 A. l said thosc words in the context of 3 find out whether he had any records of when I was on
4 Virginia Roberts. 4 his island. And, yes.
5 MR. SCOTT: That's -- that's fine. Go 5 MR. INDYKE: Again, this is Darren Indyke.
6 ahead. 6 Jeffrey does not waive any attorney-client
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 privileges here.
8 Q. What do the words mean? 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 A. That there was absolutely no basis for 9 Q. Well, the reason why you were able to
10 Virginia Roberts' claim that she had any sexual 10 answer that question and discuss with the press what
11 contact with me. That the story was entirely false. 11 Jeffrey Epstein was telling you was because you
12 I don't know where the metaphor derives about whole 12 weren't his lawyer at that time, right?
13 cloth, but certainly that's the common 13 A. No, I was his lawyer at that time. Pm
14 understanding. And I repeat under oath that 14 still his lawyer.
15 Virginia Roberts made up the entire story about 15 Q. Oh, what were you representing him on
16 having sexual contact with me out of whole cloth. 16 then --
17 Q. During the course of the same interview 17 A. The ongoing --
18 that we have been referencing with Hata Gorani — 18 Q. — that is, on January' --
19 for the record, that's H-A-L-A, G-0-R-A-N-1. 19 MR. SCOTT: Whoa.
20 A. What page? 20 BY MR. SCAROLA:
21 Q. Page 19. 21. Q. -- on January 5,2015?
22 You were asked: "I'm wondering, have you 22 A. The ongoing --
23 spoken to Jeffrey Epstein about this since these 23 MR. INDYKE: My objection stands.
24 allegations came out in this suit in the United 24 MR. SCOTT: You can answer what you were
25 States? Have conversations happened there?" 25 representing him on, I think.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
20 (Pages 253 to 256)
257 259
1 A. The ongoing issues -- 1 Q. — the last 10 years?
2 MR. SCOTT: But nothing about 2 A. I would say 15 --
3 communications. 3 Q. Last 15 --
4 A. Right. The ongoing issues relating to the 4 A. -- years.
5 NPA, which continue to this day. And I regard 5 Q. -- how about the last 20 years?
6 myself as his lawyer basically on all those -- all 6 A. I have -- I don't think so.
7 those issues. 7 Q. Okay.
8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 A. As I stand here today, I have no
9 Q. So, when the pleadings were filed in the 9 recollection of ever being in New Mexico except to
10 Crime Victims Rights Act regarding your conduct in 10 visit the Ashes in January of 2000.
11 relationship to Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey 11 I'm 77 years old. I've lived a long life.
12 Epstein, you were and still are his lawyer in the 12 It is certainly possible that at some earlier point
13 Crime Victim's Rights Act case; is that correct? 13 in my life -- I mean, I've been in most of the
14 A. I certainly am bound by lawyer-client 14 states. But I have no recollection of ever being in
15 privilege and communications, yes. 15 New Mexico.
16 Q. Okay. You go on to say in that same 16 And I can tell you unequivocally the only
17 interview: "Only once in my life have I been in 17 time I was ever at Jeffrey Epstein's ranch was that
18 that area," referring to New Mexico.
18 one time with my wife with the Ashes, with my
19 A. Yes. 19 daughter. And we only stayed there for an hour and
20 Q. "Only once in my life did my travel 20 the house was not completed. It was under
21 records show I was in New Mexico."
21 construction. And I certainly did not have any
22 A. Uh-huh.
22 sexual encounter or any encounter with Virginia
23 Q. Is that an accurate statement?
23 Roberts during that visit.
24
25
A. To the best of my knowledge. I have no
recollection of being in New Mexico other than
24
2 5
MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the
unresponsive portions of the answer.
258 260
1 during that visit to the Ashes, which was not during 1 MR. SCOTT: We don't agree on that point,
2 the -- the narrower timeframe. 2 so let's go ahead.
3 The narrower timeframe, remember, is 3 MR. SCAROLA: It's of any help, I can
4 Virginia Roberts meets Jeffrey Epstein in the late 4 agree that you don't agree to any of my
5 summer, the summer just before she's turning 16, of 5 objections.
6 1999. She says she didn't commence having sexual 6 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not true. I mean,
7 activities with any of Epstein's friends until nine 7 I'm trying to work with you, sir.
8 months later. That would put it in March or April 8 I have to tell you, this -- this is
9 of 2000. This visit occurred in January of 2000. 9 obviously one of the most acrimonious
10 It's the only time I recall having been in 10 depositions I've sat through in my 40 plus
11 New Mexico. 11 years because of the personalities involved
12 Q. Okay. I want to be sure now. You're not 12 here and because of the personal issues. And
13 just saying that you were only at Jeffrey Epstein's 13 it's quite difficult for everybody in this
14 ranch in New Mexico once; you are confirming your 14 room.
15 statement on national television that you have only 15 MR. SCAROLA: I agree.
16 been in New Mexico one time? 16 MR. SCOTT: And all I'm saying, and my
17 A. My recollection right now is that I was 17 client is -- who's 77, is trying to defend his
18 only there once. I have no -- no other recollection 18 life. And I understand you're trying to
19 of -- it's conceivable when I was a very young man, 19 vigorously -- and you're a great lawyer --
20 I could have been there. But I have no recollection 2 0 represent your clients. And it's -- this is
21 of having been there. It certainly -- certainly I 21 not the typical deposition. And we're trying
22 haven't been there recently. And during the 22 our very best, both of us.
23 relevant time period, I know I haven't been there. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. And you're
24 Q. "Recently" means — 24 right, you and 1 do agree on something.
25 A. Fifteen -- 25 MR. SCOTT: As you said yesterday, more
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
21 (Pages 257 to 260)
261 263
1 often than we usually say. 1 A. Where? Where? Can you point to that?
2 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA:
3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. Well, I'm asking you, sir, based upon your
4 Q. In interviews on January 4 and January 5, 4 superb memory whether you remember having said -
5 you claim to have completed the necessary work to 5 MR. SCOTT: No, we're going to do --
6 identify documents exonerating you within an hour 6 BY MR. SCAROLA:
7 after learning of the accusations that were made, 7 Q. -- on Jan --
8 correct? 8 MR. SCOTT: He's going to take a moment to
9 A. I don't remember having said that. But 9 review the transcript and -- and that's -- any
10
11
within a minute, I had clear knowledge that every
document in the world would exonerate me because I
3.0
11
witness is entitled to do that. So why don't
we take a break, hell review transcript and
12 knew for absolute certainty that every aspect of her 12 we'll come back? We've been going an hour --
13 allegation was totally false. That's why I 13 MR. SCAROLA: Because I haven't asked him
14 challenged the other side to produce videos, to 14 a question about the transcript.
15 produce photographs. I knew that there could be no 15 MR. SCOTT': You've asked --
16 evidence inculpating me because I knew I was 16 MR. SCAROLA: I'm asking him a question
17 innocent. So I knew that all of my records would 17 about his recollection.
18 prove that. 18 MR. SCOTT: Based upon what he said in the
19 Facts are facts. And I just wasn't in any 19 transcript.
20 contact or any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts, 20 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm asking him whether
21 and I knew with absolute certainty that the facts 21 he has a recollection of having made public
22 would completely exonerate me. And if your clients 22 statements that within an hour, he had gathered
23 had just called me, at the courtesy of simply 23 the documents that proved his innocence,
24 calling me, I would have been able to point them to 24 exonerated him.
25 Professor Michael Porter of the Harvard Business 25
262 264
1 School. I would have been able to -- to alert them 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 to the Ashes. I would have been able to tell them 2 Q. Do you remember having made those
3 that I keep little black books which have all of my 3 statements?
4 travel information. Although they were in the 4 A. I do not, but its true. I was able to
5 basement of Martha's Vineyard, I would have been 5 gather documents literally within an hour. I was
6 happy to go up and get them. 6 able to call Tom Ashe. He was able to access his
7 If they had just simply called me, I would 7 daughter's journal notes that I had taught his
8 have been able to persuade them without any doubt 8 daughter's class. I was able to find out where my
9 that these allegations were false. If they needed 9 other documents were.
10 any persuading because I believe, as I sit here 10 My wife made some phone calls immediately.
11 today, that they knew they were false at the time -- 11 We called the Canyon Ranch. We called and
12 certainly should have known, but I believe knew they 12 determined the dates of when I was in Florida. We
13 were false at the time that they leveled them. 13 called the Porters. We very, very, very quickly
14 Q. My question related to your gathering 14 were able to gather information that conclusively
15 documents that you claim exonerated you -- 15 would prove that she was lying about me having had
16 A. That's right. 16 sex with me on the island, in the ranch,
17 Q. -- and your public statements were that 17 particularly those two I was able to prove
18 within an hour, you -- 18 conclusively.
19 A. Can you -- 19 And when a woman lies deliberately and
20 Q. -- had gathered the documents -- 20 willfully about two instances where she in great
21 MR. SCOTT: Listen to the question. 21 detail claims she had had sex, I think you can be
22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 clear that you should discount any other -- any
23 Q. -- you had gathered the documents that 23 other false allegations.
24 exonerated you, correct? 24 MR. SCOTT: We've been going for an hour.
25 MR. SCOTT: You can refer. 25 Let's take a break for a few minutes. Then we
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
22 (Pages 261 to 264)
265 267
3. have another hour. 1 and then explained it but now you have it
2 MR. SCAROLA: I'm almost ready to take a 2 directly answered. So we're -- we're at a
3 break. 3 brcak point.
4 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
5 MR. SCAROLA: Could you read back the last 5 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
6 question, please? 6 time is approximately 11:01 a.m.
7 First of all, I move to strike the 7 (Recess was held from 11:01 a.m. until 11:23 a.m.)
8 =responsive speech. 8 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record.
9 And now read back the last question, if 9 The time is approximately 11:23 a.m.
10 you would. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA:
11 (Requested portion read back as follows:) 11 Q. When did you last travel from outside the
12 THE REPORTER: "Do you remember having 12 State of Florida to arrive in Florida?
13 made those statements?" 13 A. The day before yesterday, 1 think.
14 Do you want me to read prior to that? 14 Q. And where did you travel from?
15 MR. SCAROLA: No, that's fine. That's the 15 A. New York.
16 question that I asked. 16 Q. When were you last in Boston, in the
17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Boston area?
18 Q. Is the answer yes? 18 A. About two weeks ago.
19 A. I don't remember specifically. I do 19 Q. So, if anyone had represented that you
20 generally remember having said that your clients 20 were going to be traveling from Boston to Florida
21 could have easily discovered conclusive proof that 21 this past weekend, that would have been a
22 Virginia Roberts was lying about me and that I 22 misrepresentation; is that correct?
23 had -- because I knew, of course, it was false -- 23 A. I have no idea what you're talking about.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Tom -- 24 Q. Well, I'm talking about your personal
25 A. -- been able to uncover such proof. 25 travels. If anyone had represented that you were
266 268
1 MR. SCAROLA: That has nothing to do with 1 going to travel from Boston to Florida and canceled
2 the question I asked -- 2 travel arrangements from Boston to Florida this past
3 MR. SCOTT: Let's take -- let's take a 3 weekend, that would have been a misrepresentation,
4 break like I suggested and we'll come back and 4 correct?
5 then you can ask your question and -- okay? 5 A. I have no idea what you're talking about.
6 MR. SCAROLA: Well, while the question is 6 I'm sorry.
7 pending, I would like an answer to the question 7 Q. Well, what is it that you don't understand
8 before we break. 8 about that question? Either you were in —
9 MR. SCOTT: Did you answer the question? 9 A. The basis --
10 THE WITNESS: I thought I did. 10 Q. — Boston and were planning on traveling
11 A. But what -- could you repeat the question? 11 from Boston to Florida this past weekend or the last
12 I'll try to answer it in a yes or no if I can. 12 time you were in Boston was two weeks ago, so you
13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 couldn't have been planning —
14 Q. Did you make the statement that within an 14 A. I --
15 hour of learning of these allegations, you had 15 Q. — on traveling from Boston to Florida.
16 gathered documents that completely exonerated you? 16 A. I was actually in Boston -- now that I
17 A. I don't recall those specific words -- 17 checked any calendar, I was actually in Boston --
18 Q. Thank you, sir. 18 here, 1 have -- aha. It says -- and my calendar
19 A. -- but the truth -- 19 says I was in Boston. Then it says leave for
2 0 MR. SCOTT: That's it, and I think he 20 Florida, but that got changed. Yes, that got
21 indicated that before. 21 changed, right.
22 MR. SCAROLA: That would be very helpful 22 Q. May I see that, please?
23 if we said that and then we stopped and we can 23 A. No, this is my personal calendar.
24 take a break. 24 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, but if you refer to
25 MR. SCOTT: He previously had said that 25 anything to refresh your recollection --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
23 (Pages 265 to 268)
269 271
1 A. I have -- 1 Cassell had done in the course of their
2 Q. -- during the course of the deposition,1 2 investigation of the credibility of the accusations
3 am permitted to examine it. 3 made by Virginia Roberts against you?
4 A. I have lawyer-client privileged 4 A. Well, first and foremost, the most
5 information in here, so I can't give it to you. I 5 important piece of infonnation I had was my firm and
6 can give it to you in a redacted form. I have a 6 complete knowledge and memory that I had never had
7 quote from David Boies in here, which I'm sure -- 7 any sexual contact with Virginia Roberts ever under
8 MR. SCOTT: Don't — 8 any circumstances or any other underage girls. So I
9 A. — nobody is going to want to sec -- 9 knew --
10 MR. SCOTT: We'll make a copy and give it 10 Q. The question I'm asking, sir --
11 to you. 11 A. -- this information --
12 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. Would you hand 12 Q. -- focuses on what knowledge you had
13 it to your counsel, please? 13 regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell did
14 MR. SCOTT: On that note, hold on to that. 14 in the course of their investigation of the
15 TFIE WITNESS: But I need that back. 15 credibility of the accusations against you made by
16 MR. SCOTT: Of course. Don't worry. 16 Virginia Roberts?
17 MR. SIMPSON: Hold on to it. 17 A. That was the first and most important bit
18 MR. SCOTT: That's why I gave it to him 18 of infonnation; namely, that I couldn't have done it
19 because I'd lose it. 19 and didn't do it. So I knew for sure that they
20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 20 could not have conducted any kind of valid
21 Q. Before January 21,2015, what information 21 investigation.
22 did you have regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul 22 Second, I knew from -- that they also had
23 Cassell had gathered in the course of investigating 23 a letter from Mr. Scarola that said that multiple
24 the accuracy of Virginia Roberts' accusations 24 witnesses had placed me in the presence of Jeffrey
25 against you? 25 Epstein and underage girls and I knew that
270 272
1 A. Well, first, I knew that anything they 1 Mr. Scarola's letter was a patent lie. And they had
2 gathered -- 2 access to that letter and that information.
3 MR. INDYKE: Objection to the extent that 3 I also knew they were relying on
4 requires -- 4 depositions of two house people of Jeffrey Epstein.
5 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. 5 And I've read these two depositions. And I'm sure I
6 MS. McCAWLEY: -- you to disclose anything 6 knew of other -- other information as well.
7 you gave -- 7 I knew that they had stated -- I knew that
8 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. 8 they had stated publicly, or you had stated publicly
9 I'm sorry, Mr. Indyke, can you repeat your 9 on their behalf as a witness, that you had stated
10 objection? 10 publicly that you had tried to depose me on these --
11 MR. SCOTT: Can you say that a little 11 on this subject. I knew that that was a blatant lie
12 louder? 12 and unethical conduct because nobody ever tricd to
13 MR. INDYKE: Darren Indyke. I would 13 depose me on this subject.
14 object to the extent that your answer would 14 I had never been accused, nor did I have
15 disclose anything you -- you obtained or 15 any knowledge that anybody had ever falsely accused
16 learned or any knowledge you gained in 16 me of having any sexual encounters. And I had a
17 connection with your representation of Jeffrey 17 great deal of infonnation about the paucity or
18 Epstein. 18 absence of any legitimate investigation. And I also
19 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand that 19 knew that they hadn't called me, they hadn't tried
20 instruction? 20 to call me, there was no record of an attempt to
21 THE WITNESS: I do, yes. 21 call me or c-mail me. My c-mail is available on my
22 Could you repeat the question? 22 wcbsite. My phone number is available on my
23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 website.
24 Q. Yes, sir. I want to know what information 24 The most basic thing they could have done,
28 you had regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul 25 as courts have said, when you're accusing somebody
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:05 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
Cont'd.
24 (Pages 269 to 272)
273 275
1 of outrageous, horrible, inexcusable misconduct, at 1 your assertion that the testimony of these two
2 least call the person and ask them if they can 2 individuals completely exculpates you.
3 disprove it before you file a -- a statement. Not 3 A. Uh-huh.
4 even asking for a hearing on it, not even basically 4 Q. The following question was asked of --
5 seeking to prove it, just -- just putting it in a 5 MR. SCOTT: What you arc reading from?
6 pleading as if scrolling on a bathroom stall. 6 MR. SCAROLA: I'm reading from the
7 So, yes, I had -- I had a great basis for 7 deposition transcript.
8 making that kind of statement and I repeat it here 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 today. And we will find out in depositions what 9 Q. The following question was asked of —
10 basis they actually had. And I'm anxiously awaiting 10 MR. SCOTT: The deposition transcript --
II Mr. Cassell's deposition this afternoon. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA:
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 12 Q. -- of Mr. Juan — Mr. Juan Alessi and --
13 non-responsive portion of that answer. 13 MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the -- first
14 Could I have a standing objection to 14 of all, let me object to this format because he
15 unresponsive -- 15 has not been provided a part of the deposition.
16 MR. SCOTT: Sure. 16 You're reading portions from the deposition --
17 MR. SCAROLA: -- answers? That would be 17 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, I am.
18 helpful. Thank you. I appreciate that. That 18 MR. SCOTT: -- which can be taken out of
19 will save us -- 19 context. He has not had the ability to review
20 MR. SCOTT: Absolutely. No, any time. 20 the deposition. This is improper.
21 MR. SCAROLA: -- save us some time. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, sir. 22 MR. SCOTT: Cross-examination.
23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 BY MR. SCAROLA:
24 Q. The one portion of what you just said that 24 Q. Do you recall the following questions
25 directly responded to my question was you knew in 25 having been asked of Mr. Alessi and the following
274 276
1 early January of 2015 that Bradley Edwards and Paul 1 answers have been given during the course of this
2 Cassell had the sworn testimony of two -- did you 2 deposition which you contend completely exonerates
3 refer to them as house -- 3 you?
4 A. House people. 4 "Question: Do you have any recollection
5 Q. House staff? 5 of VR, referring to Virginia Roberts, coming to
6 A. /louse staff. 6 the house when Prince Andrew was there?
7 Q. House staff of Jeffrey Epstein's -- 7 "Answer: It could have been, but I'm not
8 A. That's right. 8 sure.
9 Q. — correct? 9 "Question: When Mr. Dershowitz was
10 And those two individuals are Juan Alessi 10 visiting --
11 and Alfredo Rodriguez, correct? 11 "Answer: Uh-huh.
12 A. That's right. 12 "Question: -- how often did he come?
13 Q. And you, in fact, were aware of the 3.3 "Answer: He came pretty -- pretty often.
14 existence of that testimony from shortly after the 14 I would say at least four or five times a year.
15 time that the testimony was given, weren't you? 15 "Question: And how long would lie stay
16 A. Well, I was certainly aware of it at the 16 typically?
17 time I made these statements. 17 "Answer: Two to three days.
18 Q. Yes, sir. But you also knew as far back 18 "Question: Did he have massages sometimes
19 as 2009, when this sworn testimony was given, that 19 when he was there?
20 you were specifically identified by name in the 20 "Answer: Yes. A massage was like a treat
21 sworn testimony of Jeffrey Epstein's house staff 21 for everybody. If they wanted, we call the
22 members, right? 22 massage, and they get -- excuse me — and they
23 A. I was identified by name in a manner that 23 have a massage.
24 completely exculpated me, yes. 24 "Question: You said that you set up the
25 Q. Okay. Well, let's -- let's take a look at 25 massage tables, and would you also set up the
www.phippsreporting.com
(888) 811-3408
25 (Pages 273 to 276)
277 279
1 oils and towels? 1 is a third-year student at Harvard, were all there
2 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 2 with me. That was the only time that I stayed over
3 "Question: And did you ever have occasion 3 more than one night. And I never stayed even one
4 to go upstairs and clean up after the massages? 4 night during the relevant timeframe.
5 "Answer: Yeah, uh-huh. 5 But most importantly, he gives no
6 "Question: Did you ever find any 6 timeframe. And clearly his reference to the sex
7 vibrators in that area? 7 toys is a reference to the part of the house that 1
8 "Answer: Yes. I told him yes. 8 was never permitted in and never entered.
9 "Question: Would you describe for me what 9 Q. What is the question that you think you
10 kinds of vibrators you found? 10 were answering?
11 "Answer: I'm not too familiar with the 11 A. Whether --
12 names, but they were like big dildos, what they 12 MR. SCOTT: He was explaining to you
13 call the big rubber things like that 13 exactly why he felt that that was
14 (indicating). And I used to go and put my 14 inappropriatc, which is exactly what you asked
15 gloves on and pick them up, put them in the 15 him.
16 sink, rinse it off and put it in Ms. Maxwell — 16 MR. SCAROLA: No, it is not.
17 Ms. Maxwell had in her closet, she had like a 17 MR. SCOTT: Well, it is my recollection,
18 laundry basket. And you put laundry in. She 18 so I don't know --
19 have full of those toys." 19 MR. SCAROLA: Well, thcn --
20 Is that testimony that exonerates you, 20 MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending --
21 Mr. Dershowitz? Is that what you were referring to? 21 MR. SCAROLA: Let me try the same question
22 MR. SCOTT: Let me -- objection to the 22 over again.
23 form, improper cross examination by taking 23 MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending
24 excerpts out of depositions of witnesses. 24 his -- his position.
25 25 THE WITNESS: Right.
278 280
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Is it your contention that that testimony, 2 Q. The question was: Is that part of the
3 under oath, of your friend, Mr. Epstein's staff 3 time that you claim exonerates you?
4 person, exonerates you? 4 A. Well, I think if you read the whole
5 A. First, a little background. Mr. Alessi 5 testimony, it clearly exonerates me and I think that
6 was fired for theft of material from Mr. Epstein, so 6 part of the testimony in no way inculpates me and no
7 Mr. Alessi was not on a friendly basis with Jeffrey 7 reasonable person reading that could use that as a
8 Epstein. 8 basis for making allegations that I had sexual
9 Second, the description of the dildos and 9 encounters or misconduct with Virginia Roberts.
10 sex toys clearly refers to the area of the house 10 So, when -- if that's the best testimony
11 that I was never in, the area of Ms. Maxwell's room, 11 that your unprofessional clients relied on, then
12 rather than the area of the room that I stayed in. 12 clearly that exonerates me.
13 Third, he gives no timeframe for the 13 Again, the absence of evidence is evidence
14 visits. 14 of absence. And the very idea that this is seen as
15 And, fourth, he certainly didn't in any 15 some basis for concluding that I had sexual
16 way confirm that I was there while Virginia Roberts 16 encounters with -- with Virginia Roberts, why wasn't
17 was there. His answer was simply that l was there 17 he asked did he ever sec ine have a massage by
18 from time to time. He's wrong about that. During 18 Virginia Roberts? Did he ever see me have a sexual
19 the relevant timeframe, I was never in the house. 19 encounter with Virginia Roberts? Did he ever go to
20 And even taking outside the relevant 20 the room I was staying in and find any sex toys?
21 timeframe, the only time I was in the house for more 21 The answers to all those questions, if
22 than one day was when my family, my wife, my son, my 22 truthful, would be no.
23 daughter-in-law, my then probably seven or 23 Q. What was Mr. Alessi's motive against you?
24 eight-year-old granddaughter, who just graduated 24 You've told us he was fired by Jeffrey Epstein, so
25 Harvard, and my probably four-year-old grandson, who 25 he may have had some motive against Mr. Epstein.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
26 (Pages 277 to 280)
281 283
1 What was his motive against you? 1 A. Yes.
2 A. 1 was Jeffrey Epstein's friend and lawyer 2 Q. A man who would never undertake to advance
3 and, in fact -- well, I can't get into this. But I 3 the cause of a client whom he believed to be
4 can say this, I gave advice -- 4 incredible, right?
5 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about anything 5 A. Yes. And a man who told me and a man
6 involving -- 6 who --
7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 MR. SCOTT: That's it.
8 MR. SCOTT: -- Mr. Epstein, please. 8 A. Okay. And a man who believes I'm
9 A. He could easily have believed that I was 9 innocent.
10 one of the causes of his firing. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA:
11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. You know that Bob Josefsberg would never
12 Q. So, he was -- he may have been angry at 12 file charges on behalf of a client alleging that she
13 you because you assisted in getting him fired? 13 was lent out by Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of
14 A. It's -- 14 sexual abuse while she was a minor to academicians
15 MR. SCOTT: Objection, 15 unless he absolutely had confidence that those
16 mischaracterization. 16 statements were true --
17 A. Its conjecture. It's possible. But in 17 MR. SCOTT: Let me object --
18 any event, even -- 18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. — right?
20 Q. It's conjecture, is that what you were 20 MR. SCOTT: -- that this is completely
21 about to say? 21 irrelevant to the issues in this case.
22 A. I'm saying I have -- I don't know what he 22 Whatever Mr. Josefsberg thinks has nothing to
23 was thinking, but there is a basis for him believing 23 do with this lawsuit. This is all your effort
24 that. But most -- most important, even if you take 24 to try to put Josefsberg into this case to try
25 everything he says as true, which its not, its 25 to give some justification to your position.
282 284
1 exculpatory because it has no suggestion that I ever 1 A. I'll answer that question.
2 had any sexual encounter with Virginia Roberts. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA:
3 And if I were a lawyer reading that -- 3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. SCOTT: Its okay? 4 A. And I also know Bob Josefsberg and know
5 A. -- I certainly would not base this heinous 5 that he would never maintain a friendship, as he has
6 accusation on that flimsy read. 6 with me, if he believed that I was one of the,
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 quote, academicians --
8 Q. You know the context in which that 8 Q. Well, how about —
9 deposition was taken, don't you? 9 A. -- with whom --
10 A. I don't recall it as Pm sitting here 10 Q. -- answering my question --
11 today. 11 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. No, no, no.
12 Q. Do you remember that the lawsuit in which 12 A. You're going to let me finish.
13 that deposition was taken was a lawsuit in which 13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Virginia Roberts was being represented by Bob 14 Q. I know I'm going to go, but I don't have
15 Josefsberg? 15 to like it —
16 A. No. 16 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but --
17 Q. You know Bob Josefsberg, don't you? 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 A. We -- we were classmates at law school. 18 Q. — when you're not being responsive to the
19 Q. You know Bob Josefsberg to be an extremely 19 questions that are being asked.
20 ethical, highly professional and extraordinarily 20 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but you're
21 well-respected lawyer, right? 21 interjecting --
22 A. Absolutely, yes. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA:
23 Q. Absolutely? 23 Q. And --
24 A. Yeah. 24 MR. SCOTT: You're interjecting questions
25 Q. A man of impeccable honesty and integrity? 25 that are irrelevant utilizing Bob Josefsberg's
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
27 (Pages 281 to 284)
285 287
1 relationship with him and he has an ability to 1 the people who the FBI had put on the -- the list.
2 justify and explain his position in response -- 2 I just don't know what his responsibility was.
3 MR. SCAROLA: If its responsive to the 3 I can say with confidence that he would
4 question. 4 only act ethically and would, A, not represent --
5 A. Its responsive. And as far as the 5 not make any false statements the way your clients
6 filibustering is -- 6 made them, and that I wish your clients had the
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 ethics of Bob Josefsberg.
8 Q. Do you remember what the question is? 8 Q. You then agree that if Bob Josefsberg
9 A. -- is concerned, I was here -- 9 advanced the claims that I have described in a
10 Q. Do you remember what the question was? 10 complaint on behalf of a client, he would not have
11 A. Yes. Yes. 11 done so unless he believed those allegations to be
12 Q. What is the question? 12 true, having conducted a fair and reasonable
13 A. The question is -- no, why don't you 13 investigation, correct?
14 repeat the question. 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered
15 Q. Yes, sir. 15 several times.
16 A. So -- 16 A. I don't know the answer to that question
17 Q. You know that Bob Josefsberg would not 17 because I don't know the context in which he made
18 advance allegations on behalf of a client that that 18 these arguments. All do know is that he never
19 client had been lent out by Jeffrey Epstein to 19 would maintain a friendship with me if he believed
20 satisfy the sexual desires of friends of Jeffrey 20 in any way that I was one of the people that she had
21 Epstein, including academicians, unless Bob 21 accused.
22 Josefsberg believed those allegations to be true, 22 BY MR. SCAROLA:
23 right? 23 Q. Did Alfredo Rodriguez, another one of your
24 A. I believe that -- I know that Bob 24 friend's staff persons, have a motive to lie against
25 Josefsberg would never maintain a friendship with 25 you?
286 288
1 me, as he has, if he believed that I was one of 1 A. Alberto Rodriguez --
2 those academicians. Bob Josefsberg knows that I was 2 Q. No, sir, Alfredo Rodriguez.
3 not one of those academicians, and the inference of 3 A. Alfredo Rodriguez, I never knew him by
4 your question is beneath contempt, sir. 4 name. He was, of course, there out -- well outside
5 Q. Could we try to answer the question now? 5 of the timeframe of the alleged events in this case.
6 A. The answer is that Bob Josefsberg would 6 And so anything that he would be able to testify to
7 never maintain a friendship with me if he believed 7 would bear no relationship whatsoever to the -- the
8 that there was any possibility that I was among the 8 allegations here.
9 academicians who she was accusing of sexual 9 He was criminally prosecuted, to my
10 misconduct. I do not believe that she ever accused 10 memory, for having stolen material and turned it
11 me of sexual misconduct to Bob Josefsberg, to the 11 over to Bradley Edwards is my recollection. And as
12 FBI, to the U.S. attorney, or even, sir, to you and 12 the result of that clearly had a motive to lie. And
13 Bradley Edwards, as she says in 2000, I think, '11. 13 the same with Mr. Alessi, clearly would have a basis
14 I think she made up this story on the eve of the 14 for believing that I may have played a role as
15 filing in 2014. 15 Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer in seeking to do harm to
16 Q. You do agree that Bob Josefsberg would not 16 him.
17 have advanced the claims that he advanced if he did 17 But again, there's nothing in
18 not have confidence that they were true, correct? 18 Mr. Rodriguez's testimony which is in any way
19 A. 1 have no idea what he believed or knew at 19 inculpatory of me. I think he has me sitting and --
20 the time. I would say this: I know Bob Josefsberg 20 and reading a book and drinking a glass of wine.
21 is an extraordinarily ethical lawyer. Idol* know 21 Q. In the presence of young women?
22 what his responsibilities were in the case. I don't 22 A. No.
23 know whether his responsibilities were to make those 23 Q. No?
24 kinds of judgments or whether his responsibility was 24 A. I don't --
25 simply to make sure that money was paid to each of 25 Q. Do you --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
28 (Pages 285 to 288)
289 291
1 A. -- believe that. 1 that testimony?
2 Q. -- recall the following testimony -- 2 A. Yes.
3 A. It wouldn't be true if he said it. 3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. This is totally
4 Q. Yes, sir. Well, do you recall the 4 improper cross examination of a witness by
5 following testimony having been given by Mr. Alfredo 5 trying to use a deposition. The only purpose
6 Rodriguez in a deposition that was taken on 6 of doing this is to interject this into the
7 August 7, 2009? 7 record, which has no relevance and would not be
8 "Question: Mr. Rodriguez, you stated last 8 admissible at trial. And in any case, he never
9 time that there were guests at the house, 9 actually has my client doing any of the things
10 frequent guests from Harvard. Do you remember 10 that you've accused him of.
11 that testimony? 13. Go ahead, let's go ahead and do it.
12 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 12 Answer the question. Answer the question.
13 "Question: Was there a lawyer from 13 MR. SCAROLA: He did.
14 Harvard named Alan Dershowitz? 14 A. Yes, I remember that.
15 "Answer: Ycs, ma'am. 15 MR. SCAROLA: He said yes.
16 "Question: And are you familiar with the 16 A. Yes, I remember that, yes.
17 fact that he's a famous author and famous 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 lawyer? 18 Q. And do you know why it was that back in
19 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 19 19 -- excuse me, back in 2009, August of 2009, four
20 "Question: How often during the six 20 and a half years before you allege that this story
21 months or so that you were there was 21 about you was being made up out of whole cloth, that
22 Mr. Dershowitz there? 22 lawyers representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims,
23 "Answer: Two or three times. 23 including Katherine Ezell, E-Z-E-L-L front Bob
24 "Question: And did you have any knowledge 24 Josefsberg's office, who had filed the complaint
25 of why he was visiting there? 25 alleging that you had -- excuse me, that Virginia
290 292
1 "Answer: No, ma'am. 1 Roberts had been lent out for sexual purposes to
2 "Question: You don't know whether or not 2 academicians, were asking specific questions about
3 he was a lawyer acting as a lawyer or whether 3 you? Do you know why it was in 2009 they were doing
4 he was there as a friend? 4 that?
5 "Answer: 1 believe as a friend. 5 A. l have no idea that it happened. And I
6 "Question: Were there also young ladies 6 imagine that they had a list of every academic that
7 in the house at the time he was there? 7 was in the house. Probably included --
8 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 8 MR. SCOTT: I want to object to this whole
9 "Question: And would those have included, 9 procedure because you're taking pieces out of
10 for instance, Sarah Kellen, Nada Marcinkova? 10 the record and not reading other pieces that
11 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 11 totally absolve my client. For example,
12 "Question: Were there other young ladies 12 there's testimony by him that says --
13 there when Mr. Dershowitz was there? 13 MR. SCAROLA: Is this an objection?
14 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 14 MR. SCOTT: Yes, it's a statement into the
15 "Question: Do you have any idea who those 15 record just like you're putting into the
16 young women were? 16 record. There's -- I want to show this to my
17 "Answer: No, ma'am. 3.7 client and refresh his memory as to some other
18 "Question: Were there any of these — 18 testimony by this witness --
19 excuse me. Were any of these young women that 19 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending
20 you have said came to give massages? 20 as to what you can -- as to what you can
21 "Answer: Yes, ma'am." 21 refresh your client's memory. What you are
22 Do you recall that testimony having been 22 doing is coaching him.
23 given -- 23 MR. SCOTT: No, lin not.
24 A. Yes. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Improperly.
25 Q. — and those answers having been given to 25 MR. SCOTT: And you are improperly reading
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
29 (Pages 289 to 292)
293 295
1 excerpts out of a deposition to try to imply 1 Do you remember that testimony having been
2 something when there's other parts that totally 2 given?
3 arc inconsistent with that. And if you're 3 A. I assume that when your clients used the
4 going to do that, then he has the ability under 4 transcript as a basis for their false conclusion
5 our rules to review the entire transcript of 5 that I was guilty, they read the whole transcripts,
6 the deposition and that's what I'm permitting 6 not just the --
7 him to do, just like when we're in court. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8 MR. SCAROLA: What I am doing, 8 Q. Every word.
9 Mr. Scott -- what I am doing, Mr. Scott -- 9 MR. SCOTT: Don't interrupt him.
10 MR. SCOTT: Have you read that now, sir? 10 BY MR. SCAROLA:
11 MR. SCAROLA: -- is reviewing the evidence 11 Q. You don't need to assume that. I will
12 that was relied upon by Bradley Edwards and by 12 stipulate they read every word.
13 Paul Cassell in corning to the conclusion that 13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, he's speaking.
14 the allegations that had been made by Virginia 14 You don't have a right to do this.
15 Roberts were, in fact, credible allegations. 15 A. And if you read every word, you will see
16 MR. SCOTT: And I'm -- 16 that it's totally exculpatory, that I have no idea
17 MR. SCAROLA: Because your own client has 17 whether there were any young women in one part of
18 acknowledged that this is information that was 18 the house when I was in another part of the house.
19 available to both him and to them back in 2009. 19 It's completely consistent with my testimony that I
20 MR. SCOTT: And what I am doing is showing 20 have never seen any underage women. Let's see.
21 him portions of the same deposition that 21 And if you read the whole transcript,
22 totally take a different position from this 22 you'll see, I think:
23 witness from what you have read, so that this 23 "Was Dershowitz ever there when one of the
24 record is a complete record and not a partial 24 woman gave a massage?
25 record with your inference only. And I feel 25 "I don't remember that.
294 296
1 that that's totally appropriate. If we were in 1 "Were you in -- were you in any way
2 a courtroom, a judge would permit him to do it. 2 attempting in your response to imply that
3 So you have your position and I have mine. 3 Mr. Dershowitz had a massage by one of these
4 MR. SWEDER: Can we have the witness read 4 young ladies?
5 that? 5 "I don't know, sir.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 "You have no knowledge?
7 Q. Do you recall the following testimony 7 "No, sir.
8 having been given in that same deposition? 8 "And you certainly weren't implying that
9 "Question: All right. This is follow-up 9 that occurred; you just have no knowledge,
10 to questioning by Ms. Ezell. Ms. Ezell asked 10 correct?
11 you about Mr. Dershowitz being present in 11 "Answer: I don't know."
12 Mr. Epstein's home, and I think you said -- I 12 And I would hope that your clients would
13 think you said Mr. Epstein and he and 13 be reading the whole thing in context, unlike what
14 Mr. Dershowitz were friends? 14 you've tried to do to try to create a false
15 "Answer: Yes. 15 impression that this testimony in any way exculpates
16 "Question: She also, I think, asked was 16 me.
17 Mr. Dershowitz ever there when one of the young 17 I have to say if this is what they relied
18 women who gave a massage was present in the 18 on, my confirmation of their unethical and
19 home. 19 unprofessional conduct has been strongly
20 "Answer: I don't remember that. 20 corroborated by that and you're helping my case.
21 "Question: That's where l want to clear 21 BY MR. SCAROLA:
22 up. Is it your testimony that Mr. Dershowitz 22 Q. Would it have been reasonable for Bradley
23 was there when any of the women came to 23 Edwards and Paul Cassell to have relied upon the
24 Mr. Epstein's home to give a massage? 24 detailed reports of Palm Beach police department?
25 "Answer: Yes." 25 A. I don't know. I don't know what the Pahn
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
30 (Pages 293 to 296)
297 299
1 Beach police department says. 1 this.
2 Q. You never read those reports? 2 A. Excuse me one second.
3 A. I don't know which reports you're 3 MR. SCOTT: You know, you think this is
4 referring to. 4 funny and I think this man's -- and I think
5 Q. All of the reports about Jeffrey Epstein. 5 this man's --
6 MR. SCOTT: Asked and answered yesterday 6 MR. SCAROLA: I think its improper for
7 on this whole line. 7 you to be coaching the witness in the middle of
8 A. I probably did not read all the reports on 8 examination. If you think that there's
9 Jeffrey Epstein. I'm sure I've read some of them. 9 something that needs to be brought out, you do
10 I do not recall --
10 that in cross examination. You don't feed him
11 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about any work -- 11 information that you want him to be reading in
12 attorney-client privilege. 12 the middle of my examination of this witness.
13 THE WITNESS: Right.
13 MR. SCOTT: No. But it's also true that
14 A. I don't remember my name coming up. I was
14 under our rules, when you read portions of a
15 the lawyer during that period of time.
15 deposition, he has the ability to read other
16
17
18
19
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. To the extent that Bradley Edwards and
Paul Cassell relied upon detailed reports from the
Palm Beach police department in order to assess the
16
17
18
19
portions of the deposition which clarify the
answers. That's done in every courtroom on
every time a witness -- you have selected
portions of it that are not accurate based on
20 credibility of Virginia Roberts, would it be
20 other portions and I am having him review them
21
22
23
24
25
reasonable for them to rely upon police reports?
A. I would hope that they would rely on all
the police reports, including the ones that showed
that she was involved in criminal actions, including
the ones that would show that she took money as an
21
22
23
24
25
since you did not offer him the deposition to
review.
MR. SCAROLA: And that's what you do --
MR. SCOTT: And I think that's totally
proper --
298 300
1 adult to provide sexual services to people. 1 MR. SCAROLA: -- in cross examination. It
2 I would hope they would look at all the 2 is --
3 reports, not just selected portions of those 3 MR. SCOTT: -- to do. No --
4 reports. 4 MR. SCAROLA: -- improper.
5 Q. Would that include the reports of the 5 MR. SCOTT: No.
6 Federal Bureau of Investigation? 6 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending
7 A. I would hope so. 7 as to which that's relevant. But let's take a
8 Q. Would that include the information 8 look at what you're showing him.
9 provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office? 9 MR. SCOTT: Surc. Why don't you read it
10 A. I would sure hope so, and I could tell you 10 into the record?
11 that the -- 11 THE WITNESS: I've read it.
12 Q. Would that include — 12 MR. SCOTT: Read it into the record so
13 A. Let one just say that the U.S. Attorney's 13 that Mr. Scarola is advised.
14 Office has told me unequivocally that my name never 14 A. "Okay. When Alan Dershowitz was in the.
15 came up in any context of any accusation against me 15 house, I understand you to say that these local
16 during the negotiations. 16 Palm Beach girls would come over to the house
17 Q. Is this part of your work product that 17 while he was there, but you're not sure if he
18 you're waiving right now? 18 had a massage from any of these girls?
19 MR. SWEDER: No, no. 19 "Exactly.
20 A. My conversation with Jeffrey Slotnan is not 20 "And what would he do while these girls
21 work product. 21 were in the house?
22 MR. SCOTT: Here's a -- 22 "He would read a book with a glass of
23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 wine by the pool, stay inside.
24 Q. What is the work product — 24 "Did he ever talk to any of the girls?
25 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. Please review 25 "I don't know, sir.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
31 (Pages 297 to 300)
301 303
1 "Certainly he knew they were there? 1 A. Let me answer. "Rely" connotes to me that
2 "I don't know, sir." 2 they would place a heavy emphasis on that to the
3 That's the best you can do? That's really 3 exclusion of other things and that it would be
4 the best you can do? You think a professional 4 enough. And so my answer is, yes, they certainly
5 lawyer would make these allegations based on "I 5 should have read all the reports. They certainly
6 don't know, sir." 6 should have read all the transcripts. But they also
7 MR. SCAROLA: Is there a question pending, 7 should have called me, they should have made other
8 Mr. Scott? 8 inquiry, and they should have made sure that they
9 MR. SCOTT: He's reading -- you asked him 9 read all of these depositions and reports in
10 what he was reading -- 10 context.
11 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 11 And if you're implying that there are FBI
12 MR. SCOTT: -- from and I had him publish 12 reports that in any way inculpate me, that's
13 it. 13 inconsistent with the information I have from Former
14 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I know, and then he 14 Chief of Assistant Jeffrey Sloman, who was prepared
15 went on to make a speech. So I know I don't 15 to file an affidavit saying that that wasn't the
16 have to do it, but I'm compelled to move to 16 case but was prevented from doing so by the Justice
17 strike the unresponsive speeches. 17 Department.
18 MR. SCOTT: And I consider these to be a 18 MR. SCOTT: It's about noon now. So I
19 response to the interrogation that you did 19 guess were heading -- were wrapping this up?
20 taking excerpts improperly and not having the 20 MR. SCAROLA: Not quite yet.
21 entire record in front of him, which he's 21 BY MR. SCAROLA:
22 entitled to do to make that the record is 22 Q. You do agree that the allegations that
23 complete. And I intend to protect him in that 23 Virginia Roberts made against Prince Andrew were
24 way. 24 well-founded allegations, correct?
25 25 A. I have absolutely no idea. I've met
302 304
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 Prince Andrew on a number of occasions in a public
2 Q. So we have agreed that it was reasonable 2 context. He came and spoke in my class at Harvard
3 for Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, in assessing 3 law school. The dean then had a dinner in his -- or
4 the credibility of Virginia Roberts, to rely upon 4 lunch in his honor. I was then invited to a dinner
5 police reports, FBI reports, U.S. Attorney's Office 5 at the British Consulate.
6 information, and information from the Palm Beach 6 I've never seen him in the presence of any
7 County State Attorney's Office, correct? 7 underaged women, so I have absolutely no basis for
8 A. No. 8 reaching any conclusion whatsoever about
9 Q. No? 9 Prince Andrew.
10 A. No. It would not be enough for them to do 10 Q. So you don't know one way or another
11 that -- 11 whether those allegations are true or false?
12 Q. I didn't ask you whether it was enough. 12 A. Neither do you. Nobody would know except
13 A. You said it was -- 13 two people, I imagine. But I don't know. Of course
14 Q. I asked you: Would it reasonable for them 14 not.
15 to rely upon those sources of information in 15 Q. All right.
16 assessing the credibility of Virginia Roberts? 16 A. But I presume --
17 A. Not alone, not without looking at -- 17 Q. You say you have never seen him --
18 Q. That wasn't my question. 18 A. -- people innocent --
19 A. -- other sources of information. 19 Q. — in the presence of any underaged women,
20 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 20 but you've seen photographs of him in the presence
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 of an underaged woman, correct?
22 Q. Well, what he's relying upon — 22 A. I have, yes.
23 MR. SCOTT: You're not the judge here. 23 MR. SCAROLA: May we mark this as the next
24 Let him -- ask a question and let him answer it 24 numbered exhibit, please.
25 and not cut him off, please. 25 A. And I want to note --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
32 (Pages 301 to 304)
305 307
1 THE REPORTER: Hold on. Hold on. 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I need to a take
2 A. -- the absence of any -- 2 a very quick bathroom break.
3 MR. SCOTT: She can't take it down. 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine.
4 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 4 THE WITNESS: Probably be two minutes or
5 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 5 less than two minutes.
6 Exhibit 8.) 6 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
7 THE REPORTER: It's okay. Go ahead. 7 time is approximately 12:03 p.m.
8 A. And I want to note the absence of any 8 (Sidebar held off the record.)
9 photograph of me with Virginia Roberts. 9 MR. SCAROLA: While we're waiting, let me
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 mark the ncxt numbered exhibits as well. That
11 Q. That's the photograph that you were 11 will save us some time.
12 referring to? 12 MR. SCOTT: What is this?
13 A. I've seen this photograph in the 13 MR. SCAROLA: Her calendar, his calendar.
14 newspapers. 14 MR. SCOTT: Who's calendar is this,
15 Q. Yes, sir. And the woman on the far right 15 Carolyn's?
16 of that photograph, who is that? 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. This is Numbcr 10.
17 A. Ghislaine Maxwell. 17 MR. SCOTT: Carolyn's calendar.
18 Q. The woman that you and your friend Jeffrey 18 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
19 Epstein have traveled with repeatedly, correct? 19 Exhibit 10.)
20 A. No. A woman who I may have traveled with 20 MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 11.
21 on two or three occasions. I can't think of more 21 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
22 times than that that I traveled with her, but its 22 Exhibit 11.)
23 possible. But not -- I wouldn't say repeated 23 MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 12.
24 occasions. I've -- 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
25 Q. Well -- 25 Exhibit 12.)
306 308
1 A. -- probably been in her presence fewer I. BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 than a dozen timcs. 2 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, I have handed you a
3 Q. I'm going to hand you -- 3 composite exhibit that is marked as Number 9.
4 A. But just to be clear, what I knew about 4 A. Yes.
5 Ghislainc Maxwell was that she was the daughter of a 5 Q. The first document in that composite is a
6 prominent British publisher -- 6 page from --
7 Q. I haven't asked you what you knew about 7 MR. SCOTT: Here's Number 9.
8 Ghislaine Maxwell. I asked you -- 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 A. Well, you askcd -- 9 Q. — is a page from your wife's calendar; is
10 Q. -- whether or not you recognized her in 10 that correct?
11 the photograph? 11 A. Yes.
12 A. Ycs. Ycs. 12 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the
13 Q. Thank you very much, sir. 13 exhibit, please.
14 I'm going to hand you an airport codes log 14 A. Yes, it looks like -- I'm looking at the
15 that identifies the airports that are identified by 15 first page. It looks like my wife's -- my wife's
16 abbreviations in the case -- in case that is of some 16 handwriting, yes.
17 assistance to you in answering the next series of 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 questions that I'm about to ask you. 18 Q. And the second page is another page from
19 A. Right. 19 your wife's calendar; is that correct?
20 Q. And I'm going to hand you this composite 20 A. Looks like it, yes.
21 exhibit, which we will mark as the next numbered 21 Q. And —
22 composite. 22 MR. SCOTT: Take the time to review it
23 A. Uh-huh, right. 23 before you answer questions, please.
24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 24 A. Right.
25 Exhibit 9.) 25
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
33 (Pages 305 to 308)
309 311
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 December.
2 Q. And can you determine from the calendar 2 Q. One shows the subsequent two months and
3 entries here where your wife is during the period of 3 the --
4 time that's covered by these calendar entries? 4 A. Okay.
5 A. 1 would have to look at a particular 5 Q. — other one shows --
6 entry. If it describes where she is, yes. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Well, tell me where she is. 7 Q. -- the preceding and following month,
8 A. What day? 8 correct?
9 MR. SCOTT: Which one? What point? 9 A. Ycs, that does look like it's December of
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 2000, ycs.
11 Q. The period covered by this calendar 11 Q. Okay, sir. So look at the calendar and
12 between December 7 and December 13. 12 tell me where it appears your wife is during this
13 A. What year? 13 period of time.
14 Q. You know what, I can't tell you what year 14 A. The whole period of time?
15 it is from these calendars. So you tell me. 15 MR. SCOTT: Please read the exhibit, all
16 I suggest to you that this is a calendar 16 the pages, thoroughly, so that you have a full
17 from December of 2000, since the next two months at 17 context.
18 the top of the calendar are January 2001 and 18 A. It says, A.D. in Boston. That means I was
19 February 2001. So let's assume that since it is a 19 in -- in Boston.
20 page from a calendar that appears to be December of 2 0 It says Charleston, Ncw York. It says
21 2000, that it's December of 2000. 21 book fair. It says book fair. It says A.D. in
22 That would be a reasonable conclusion, 22 Boston.
23 wouldn't it? 23 It then says the Halbreiches arrive.
24 A. I have no idea. 24 They -- they were probably our guests.
25 Q. You don't know? 25
310 312
1 A. I don't know. I mean, I don't know -- you 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 said you don't -- you can't tell what the year is, 2 Q. Your guests at home in Cambridge,
3 so -- 3 Massachusetts, right?
4 Q. Well, I'm telling — 4 A. No, I don't know. I don't know.
5 A. -- I can't tell what the year is. 5 Halbreiches arrive.
6 Q. — you that it appears to be December 2000 6 And I can't really tell from here where
7 because the next two months at the top of the 7 Carolyn is. McDonalds -- let's see, this is 2000
8 calendar are January of 2001 and February of 2001. 8 and what year? 2001. 2000. Yeah, yeah.
9 A. I only see -- I'm sorry, were probably 9 So tell me what you're looking for. I'll
10 looking at different things. I see November 2000, 10 try to --
11 December 2000. I don't see January or anything like 11 Q. I want to know where your wife was during
12 that. Maybe you can show them to me. Oh, it's on 12 this period of time if you can tell from the
13 the first page. 13 calendar entries.
14 Q. First page, yes, sir. 14 A. Well, she may have been in -- there's
15 A. So it's in reverse order. 15 something about Charleston. There's something about
16 Yeah, so the pages are in reverse order. 16 New York. There's something about me being in
17 The first page says on top January 2001, 17 Boston. I really can't tell much beyond that.
18 February 2001 and the second page says 18 Q. Okay. So you don't know one way or
19 November 2000, December 2000, yeah. 19 another from these calendar entries where your wife
20 Q. So it appears we're looking at 20 was during this period of time; is that correct?
21 December 2000, correct? 21 A. I can't tell that from this entry, no.
22 A. When were looking at which page? When 22 Q. What we can tell from the entry in the
23 we -- 23 bottom right-hand corner --
24 Q. Both pages. 24 MR. SCOTT: Which page?
25 A. Well, one is January/February and one is 25 A. Which page?
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
34 (Pages 309 to 312)
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Of the first page of this composite is
3 that there is a notation that says Alan Dershowitz
4 11:45 a.m., New York City, right?
5 A. Eleven -- A.D. 11:45 and then there's a
6 word that I can't read.
7 Q. How about a.m.?
8 A. Oh, 5:00 a.m., New York City, yes.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you, sir.
10 And the next page, where did — where did
11 your wife have opera instructions?
12 A. I have no idea. We go to the opera in
313
13 Boston, we go to the opera in New York, we go to the
14 opera in Florida. We do a lot -- a lot of opera. I
15 don't know what "opera instructions" means.
16 Maybe it would be best if you asked my
17 wife about these things. It's her calendar.
18 Q. I -- I intend to, sir, but --
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. -- these are calendars that you produced
21 as part of the evidence that you contend exonerates
22 you. So, I assumed that you had some knowledge of
23 the meaning of these pages.
24 A. No.
25 Q. But I may be wrong.
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. And you would appear in New York --
3 A. Well, no --
4 Q. — for those Court TV appearances --
5 A. I would appear --
6 Q. -- on a regular basis, correct?
7 A. I would appear wherever I was. So when I
8 was in New York, I appeared in New York, but they
9 would do it by remote when I was in a different
315
10 city. And I clearly did some remotes for Court TV.
11 Q. In fact, you took an apartment in New York
12 for purposes of convenience to facilitate your
13 New York Court TV appearances, correct?
14 A. Totally false.
15 Q. Did you have an apartment in New York
1.6 during this period of time in December of 2000?
17 A. I had an apartment for -- I've had an
18 apartment in New York for 30 -- 30 years or more.
19 But I certainly didn't take an apartment for
20 purposes of Court TV, no.
21 Q. On Tuesday, December n, the entry is
22 1:30, Jeff, correct?
23 A. Right. Yeah.
24 Q. And that's a reference to Jeffrey Epstein,
25 correct?
1 A. We have --
2 Q. So you're telling me that you don't know
3 where she was and that's --
4 A. We just -- we just gave you everything we
5 had --
6 MR. SCOTT: We provided hundreds and
7 hundreds of pages. You're picking out one.
8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 Q. Let's go -- let's go to the next page, if
10 we could, please, the third page in this composite.
11 A. The third, okay. Third, okay.
12 Q. And can we agree that this is a calendar
13 from December of 2000?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can we agree it's your calendar from
16 December of 2000?
17 A. That's right, yeah.
18 Q. And can we also agree that during this
314
19 period of time, you were making regular appearances
20 in New York on Court TV?
21 MR. SCOTT: Review the document before you
22 answer the question, please.
23 A. It says 12/30, Court TV, yes. There was a
24 period of time where I had a contract with Court TV
25 and I would appear when they asked me to, yeah.
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
316
A. I don't -- I don't know.
Q. Well, what other Jeff might it be?
A. 1 know -- I know many, many Jeffs.
Q. Tell me which other Jeffs it might have
been a reference to --
A. I have no idea.
Q. -- on this calendar page.
A. I just have no idea. I would be
speculating.
Q. During the same period of time on
December 12 when there's a calendar entry that
reflects 1:30, Jeff, we know from the flight logs
that Jeffrey Epstein traveled on December 11 from
Palm Beach International Airport to Teterboro
Airport, which is the private plane facility that
services the New York Metropolitan area.
A. I have no idea.
You don't know?
A. No, I have no idea whether he was on that
plane. 1 haven't seen the flight log.
Q. Well, I'm calling your attention to the
flight log. It's the next page.
A. It's the next page here?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Okay.
txt
Cont'd.
24 (Pages 269 to 272)
273 275
1 of outrageous, horrible, inexcusable misconduct, at 1 your assertion that the testimony of these two
2 least call the person and ask them if they can 2 individuals completely exculpates you.
3 disprove it before you file a -- a statement. Not 3 A. Uh-huh.
4 even asking for a hearing on it, not even basically 4 Q. The following question was asked of --
5 seeking to prove it, just -- just putting it in a 5 MR. SCOTT: What you arc reading from?
6 pleading as if scrolling on a bathroom stall. 6 MR. SCAROLA: I'm reading from the
7 So, yes, I had -- I had a great basis for 7 deposition transcript.
8 making that kind of statement and I repeat it here 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 today. And we will find out in depositions what 9 Q. The following question was asked of —
10 basis they actually had. And I'm anxiously awaiting 10 MR. SCOTT: The deposition transcript --
II Mr. Cassell's deposition this afternoon. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA:
12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 12 Q. -- of Mr. Juan — Mr. Juan Alessi and --
13 non-responsive portion of that answer. 13 MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the -- first
14 Could I have a standing objection to 14 of all, let me object to this format because he
15 unresponsive -- 15 has not been provided a part of the deposition.
16 MR. SCOTT: Sure. 16 You're reading portions from the deposition --
17 MR. SCAROLA: -- answers? That would be 17 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, I am.
18 helpful. Thank you. I appreciate that. That 18 MR. SCOTT: -- which can be taken out of
19 will save us -- 19 context. He has not had the ability to review
20 MR. SCOTT: Absolutely. No, any time. 20 the deposition. This is improper.
21 MR. SCAROLA: -- save us some time. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, sir. 22 MR. SCOTT: Cross-examination.
23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 BY MR. SCAROLA:
24 Q. The one portion of what you just said that 24 Q. Do you recall the following questions
25 directly responded to my question was you knew in 25 having been asked of Mr. Alessi and the following
274 276
1 early January of 2015 that Bradley Edwards and Paul 1 answers have been given during the course of this
2 Cassell had the sworn testimony of two -- did you 2 deposition which you contend completely exonerates
3 refer to them as house -- 3 you?
4 A. House people. 4 "Question: Do you have any recollection
5 Q. House staff? 5 of VR, referring to Virginia Roberts, coming to
6 A. /louse staff. 6 the house when Prince Andrew was there?
7 Q. House staff of Jeffrey Epstein's -- 7 "Answer: It could have been, but I'm not
8 A. That's right. 8 sure.
9 Q. — correct? 9 "Question: When Mr. Dershowitz was
10 And those two individuals are Juan Alessi 10 visiting --
11 and Alfredo Rodriguez, correct? 11 "Answer: Uh-huh.
12 A. That's right. 12 "Question: -- how often did he come?
13 Q. And you, in fact, were aware of the 3.3 "Answer: He came pretty -- pretty often.
14 existence of that testimony from shortly after the 14 I would say at least four or five times a year.
15 time that the testimony was given, weren't you? 15 "Question: And how long would lie stay
16 A. Well, I was certainly aware of it at the 16 typically?
17 time I made these statements. 17 "Answer: Two to three days.
18 Q. Yes, sir. But you also knew as far back 18 "Question: Did he have massages sometimes
19 as 2009, when this sworn testimony was given, that 19 when he was there?
20 you were specifically identified by name in the 20 "Answer: Yes. A massage was like a treat
21 sworn testimony of Jeffrey Epstein's house staff 21 for everybody. If they wanted, we call the
22 members, right? 22 massage, and they get -- excuse me — and they
23 A. I was identified by name in a manner that 23 have a massage.
24 completely exculpated me, yes. 24 "Question: You said that you set up the
25 Q. Okay. Well, let's -- let's take a look at 25 massage tables, and would you also set up the
www.phippsreporting.com
(888) 811-3408
25 (Pages 273 to 276)
277 279
1 oils and towels? 1 is a third-year student at Harvard, were all there
2 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 2 with me. That was the only time that I stayed over
3 "Question: And did you ever have occasion 3 more than one night. And I never stayed even one
4 to go upstairs and clean up after the massages? 4 night during the relevant timeframe.
5 "Answer: Yeah, uh-huh. 5 But most importantly, he gives no
6 "Question: Did you ever find any 6 timeframe. And clearly his reference to the sex
7 vibrators in that area? 7 toys is a reference to the part of the house that 1
8 "Answer: Yes. I told him yes. 8 was never permitted in and never entered.
9 "Question: Would you describe for me what 9 Q. What is the question that you think you
10 kinds of vibrators you found? 10 were answering?
11 "Answer: I'm not too familiar with the 11 A. Whether --
12 names, but they were like big dildos, what they 12 MR. SCOTT: He was explaining to you
13 call the big rubber things like that 13 exactly why he felt that that was
14 (indicating). And I used to go and put my 14 inappropriatc, which is exactly what you asked
15 gloves on and pick them up, put them in the 15 him.
16 sink, rinse it off and put it in Ms. Maxwell — 16 MR. SCAROLA: No, it is not.
17 Ms. Maxwell had in her closet, she had like a 17 MR. SCOTT: Well, it is my recollection,
18 laundry basket. And you put laundry in. She 18 so I don't know --
19 have full of those toys." 19 MR. SCAROLA: Well, thcn --
20 Is that testimony that exonerates you, 20 MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending --
21 Mr. Dershowitz? Is that what you were referring to? 21 MR. SCAROLA: Let me try the same question
22 MR. SCOTT: Let me -- objection to the 22 over again.
23 form, improper cross examination by taking 23 MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending
24 excerpts out of depositions of witnesses. 24 his -- his position.
25 25 THE WITNESS: Right.
278 280
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Is it your contention that that testimony, 2 Q. The question was: Is that part of the
3 under oath, of your friend, Mr. Epstein's staff 3 time that you claim exonerates you?
4 person, exonerates you? 4 A. Well, I think if you read the whole
5 A. First, a little background. Mr. Alessi 5 testimony, it clearly exonerates me and I think that
6 was fired for theft of material from Mr. Epstein, so 6 part of the testimony in no way inculpates me and no
7 Mr. Alessi was not on a friendly basis with Jeffrey 7 reasonable person reading that could use that as a
8 Epstein. 8 basis for making allegations that I had sexual
9 Second, the description of the dildos and 9 encounters or misconduct with Virginia Roberts.
10 sex toys clearly refers to the area of the house 10 So, when -- if that's the best testimony
11 that I was never in, the area of Ms. Maxwell's room, 11 that your unprofessional clients relied on, then
12 rather than the area of the room that I stayed in. 12 clearly that exonerates me.
13 Third, he gives no timeframe for the 13 Again, the absence of evidence is evidence
14 visits. 14 of absence. And the very idea that this is seen as
15 And, fourth, he certainly didn't in any 15 some basis for concluding that I had sexual
16 way confirm that I was there while Virginia Roberts 16 encounters with -- with Virginia Roberts, why wasn't
17 was there. His answer was simply that l was there 17 he asked did he ever sec ine have a massage by
18 from time to time. He's wrong about that. During 18 Virginia Roberts? Did he ever see me have a sexual
19 the relevant timeframe, I was never in the house. 19 encounter with Virginia Roberts? Did he ever go to
20 And even taking outside the relevant 20 the room I was staying in and find any sex toys?
21 timeframe, the only time I was in the house for more 21 The answers to all those questions, if
22 than one day was when my family, my wife, my son, my 22 truthful, would be no.
23 daughter-in-law, my then probably seven or 23 Q. What was Mr. Alessi's motive against you?
24 eight-year-old granddaughter, who just graduated 24 You've told us he was fired by Jeffrey Epstein, so
25 Harvard, and my probably four-year-old grandson, who 25 he may have had some motive against Mr. Epstein.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
26 (Pages 277 to 280)
281 283
1 What was his motive against you? 1 A. Yes.
2 A. 1 was Jeffrey Epstein's friend and lawyer 2 Q. A man who would never undertake to advance
3 and, in fact -- well, I can't get into this. But I 3 the cause of a client whom he believed to be
4 can say this, I gave advice -- 4 incredible, right?
5 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about anything 5 A. Yes. And a man who told me and a man
6 involving -- 6 who --
7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 MR. SCOTT: That's it.
8 MR. SCOTT: -- Mr. Epstein, please. 8 A. Okay. And a man who believes I'm
9 A. He could easily have believed that I was 9 innocent.
10 one of the causes of his firing. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA:
11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. You know that Bob Josefsberg would never
12 Q. So, he was -- he may have been angry at 12 file charges on behalf of a client alleging that she
13 you because you assisted in getting him fired? 13 was lent out by Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of
14 A. It's -- 14 sexual abuse while she was a minor to academicians
15 MR. SCOTT: Objection, 15 unless he absolutely had confidence that those
16 mischaracterization. 16 statements were true --
17 A. Its conjecture. It's possible. But in 17 MR. SCOTT: Let me object --
18 any event, even -- 18 BY MR. SCAROLA:
19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. — right?
20 Q. It's conjecture, is that what you were 20 MR. SCOTT: -- that this is completely
21 about to say? 21 irrelevant to the issues in this case.
22 A. I'm saying I have -- I don't know what he 22 Whatever Mr. Josefsberg thinks has nothing to
23 was thinking, but there is a basis for him believing 23 do with this lawsuit. This is all your effort
24 that. But most -- most important, even if you take 24 to try to put Josefsberg into this case to try
25 everything he says as true, which its not, its 25 to give some justification to your position.
282 284
1 exculpatory because it has no suggestion that I ever 1 A. I'll answer that question.
2 had any sexual encounter with Virginia Roberts. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA:
3 And if I were a lawyer reading that -- 3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. SCOTT: Its okay? 4 A. And I also know Bob Josefsberg and know
5 A. -- I certainly would not base this heinous 5 that he would never maintain a friendship, as he has
6 accusation on that flimsy read. 6 with me, if he believed that I was one of the,
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 quote, academicians --
8 Q. You know the context in which that 8 Q. Well, how about —
9 deposition was taken, don't you? 9 A. -- with whom --
10 A. I don't recall it as Pm sitting here 10 Q. -- answering my question --
11 today. 11 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. No, no, no.
12 Q. Do you remember that the lawsuit in which 12 A. You're going to let me finish.
13 that deposition was taken was a lawsuit in which 13 BY MR. SCAROLA:
14 Virginia Roberts was being represented by Bob 14 Q. I know I'm going to go, but I don't have
15 Josefsberg? 15 to like it —
16 A. No. 16 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but --
17 Q. You know Bob Josefsberg, don't you? 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 A. We -- we were classmates at law school. 18 Q. — when you're not being responsive to the
19 Q. You know Bob Josefsberg to be an extremely 19 questions that are being asked.
20 ethical, highly professional and extraordinarily 20 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but you're
21 well-respected lawyer, right? 21 interjecting --
22 A. Absolutely, yes. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA:
23 Q. Absolutely? 23 Q. And --
24 A. Yeah. 24 MR. SCOTT: You're interjecting questions
25 Q. A man of impeccable honesty and integrity? 25 that are irrelevant utilizing Bob Josefsberg's
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
27 (Pages 281 to 284)
285 287
1 relationship with him and he has an ability to 1 the people who the FBI had put on the -- the list.
2 justify and explain his position in response -- 2 I just don't know what his responsibility was.
3 MR. SCAROLA: If its responsive to the 3 I can say with confidence that he would
4 question. 4 only act ethically and would, A, not represent --
5 A. Its responsive. And as far as the 5 not make any false statements the way your clients
6 filibustering is -- 6 made them, and that I wish your clients had the
7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 ethics of Bob Josefsberg.
8 Q. Do you remember what the question is? 8 Q. You then agree that if Bob Josefsberg
9 A. -- is concerned, I was here -- 9 advanced the claims that I have described in a
10 Q. Do you remember what the question was? 10 complaint on behalf of a client, he would not have
11 A. Yes. Yes. 11 done so unless he believed those allegations to be
12 Q. What is the question? 12 true, having conducted a fair and reasonable
13 A. The question is -- no, why don't you 13 investigation, correct?
14 repeat the question. 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered
15 Q. Yes, sir. 15 several times.
16 A. So -- 16 A. I don't know the answer to that question
17 Q. You know that Bob Josefsberg would not 17 because I don't know the context in which he made
18 advance allegations on behalf of a client that that 18 these arguments. All do know is that he never
19 client had been lent out by Jeffrey Epstein to 19 would maintain a friendship with me if he believed
20 satisfy the sexual desires of friends of Jeffrey 20 in any way that I was one of the people that she had
21 Epstein, including academicians, unless Bob 21 accused.
22 Josefsberg believed those allegations to be true, 22 BY MR. SCAROLA:
23 right? 23 Q. Did Alfredo Rodriguez, another one of your
24 A. I believe that -- I know that Bob 24 friend's staff persons, have a motive to lie against
25 Josefsberg would never maintain a friendship with 25 you?
286 288
1 me, as he has, if he believed that I was one of 1 A. Alberto Rodriguez --
2 those academicians. Bob Josefsberg knows that I was 2 Q. No, sir, Alfredo Rodriguez.
3 not one of those academicians, and the inference of 3 A. Alfredo Rodriguez, I never knew him by
4 your question is beneath contempt, sir. 4 name. He was, of course, there out -- well outside
5 Q. Could we try to answer the question now? 5 of the timeframe of the alleged events in this case.
6 A. The answer is that Bob Josefsberg would 6 And so anything that he would be able to testify to
7 never maintain a friendship with me if he believed 7 would bear no relationship whatsoever to the -- the
8 that there was any possibility that I was among the 8 allegations here.
9 academicians who she was accusing of sexual 9 He was criminally prosecuted, to my
10 misconduct. I do not believe that she ever accused 10 memory, for having stolen material and turned it
11 me of sexual misconduct to Bob Josefsberg, to the 11 over to Bradley Edwards is my recollection. And as
12 FBI, to the U.S. attorney, or even, sir, to you and 12 the result of that clearly had a motive to lie. And
13 Bradley Edwards, as she says in 2000, I think, '11. 13 the same with Mr. Alessi, clearly would have a basis
14 I think she made up this story on the eve of the 14 for believing that I may have played a role as
15 filing in 2014. 15 Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer in seeking to do harm to
16 Q. You do agree that Bob Josefsberg would not 16 him.
17 have advanced the claims that he advanced if he did 17 But again, there's nothing in
18 not have confidence that they were true, correct? 18 Mr. Rodriguez's testimony which is in any way
19 A. 1 have no idea what he believed or knew at 19 inculpatory of me. I think he has me sitting and --
20 the time. I would say this: I know Bob Josefsberg 20 and reading a book and drinking a glass of wine.
21 is an extraordinarily ethical lawyer. Idol* know 21 Q. In the presence of young women?
22 what his responsibilities were in the case. I don't 22 A. No.
23 know whether his responsibilities were to make those 23 Q. No?
24 kinds of judgments or whether his responsibility was 24 A. I don't --
25 simply to make sure that money was paid to each of 25 Q. Do you --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
28 (Pages 285 to 288)
289 291
1 A. -- believe that. 1 that testimony?
2 Q. -- recall the following testimony -- 2 A. Yes.
3 A. It wouldn't be true if he said it. 3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. This is totally
4 Q. Yes, sir. Well, do you recall the 4 improper cross examination of a witness by
5 following testimony having been given by Mr. Alfredo 5 trying to use a deposition. The only purpose
6 Rodriguez in a deposition that was taken on 6 of doing this is to interject this into the
7 August 7, 2009? 7 record, which has no relevance and would not be
8 "Question: Mr. Rodriguez, you stated last 8 admissible at trial. And in any case, he never
9 time that there were guests at the house, 9 actually has my client doing any of the things
10 frequent guests from Harvard. Do you remember 10 that you've accused him of.
11 that testimony? 13. Go ahead, let's go ahead and do it.
12 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 12 Answer the question. Answer the question.
13 "Question: Was there a lawyer from 13 MR. SCAROLA: He did.
14 Harvard named Alan Dershowitz? 14 A. Yes, I remember that.
15 "Answer: Ycs, ma'am. 15 MR. SCAROLA: He said yes.
16 "Question: And are you familiar with the 16 A. Yes, I remember that, yes.
17 fact that he's a famous author and famous 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 lawyer? 18 Q. And do you know why it was that back in
19 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 19 19 -- excuse me, back in 2009, August of 2009, four
20 "Question: How often during the six 20 and a half years before you allege that this story
21 months or so that you were there was 21 about you was being made up out of whole cloth, that
22 Mr. Dershowitz there? 22 lawyers representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims,
23 "Answer: Two or three times. 23 including Katherine Ezell, E-Z-E-L-L front Bob
24 "Question: And did you have any knowledge 24 Josefsberg's office, who had filed the complaint
25 of why he was visiting there? 25 alleging that you had -- excuse me, that Virginia
290 292
1 "Answer: No, ma'am. 1 Roberts had been lent out for sexual purposes to
2 "Question: You don't know whether or not 2 academicians, were asking specific questions about
3 he was a lawyer acting as a lawyer or whether 3 you? Do you know why it was in 2009 they were doing
4 he was there as a friend? 4 that?
5 "Answer: 1 believe as a friend. 5 A. l have no idea that it happened. And I
6 "Question: Were there also young ladies 6 imagine that they had a list of every academic that
7 in the house at the time he was there? 7 was in the house. Probably included --
8 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 8 MR. SCOTT: I want to object to this whole
9 "Question: And would those have included, 9 procedure because you're taking pieces out of
10 for instance, Sarah Kellen, Nada Marcinkova? 10 the record and not reading other pieces that
11 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 11 totally absolve my client. For example,
12 "Question: Were there other young ladies 12 there's testimony by him that says --
13 there when Mr. Dershowitz was there? 13 MR. SCAROLA: Is this an objection?
14 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 14 MR. SCOTT: Yes, it's a statement into the
15 "Question: Do you have any idea who those 15 record just like you're putting into the
16 young women were? 16 record. There's -- I want to show this to my
17 "Answer: No, ma'am. 3.7 client and refresh his memory as to some other
18 "Question: Were there any of these — 18 testimony by this witness --
19 excuse me. Were any of these young women that 19 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending
20 you have said came to give massages? 20 as to what you can -- as to what you can
21 "Answer: Yes, ma'am." 21 refresh your client's memory. What you are
22 Do you recall that testimony having been 22 doing is coaching him.
23 given -- 23 MR. SCOTT: No, lin not.
24 A. Yes. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Improperly.
25 Q. — and those answers having been given to 25 MR. SCOTT: And you are improperly reading
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
29 (Pages 289 to 292)
293 295
1 excerpts out of a deposition to try to imply 1 Do you remember that testimony having been
2 something when there's other parts that totally 2 given?
3 arc inconsistent with that. And if you're 3 A. I assume that when your clients used the
4 going to do that, then he has the ability under 4 transcript as a basis for their false conclusion
5 our rules to review the entire transcript of 5 that I was guilty, they read the whole transcripts,
6 the deposition and that's what I'm permitting 6 not just the --
7 him to do, just like when we're in court. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8 MR. SCAROLA: What I am doing, 8 Q. Every word.
9 Mr. Scott -- what I am doing, Mr. Scott -- 9 MR. SCOTT: Don't interrupt him.
10 MR. SCOTT: Have you read that now, sir? 10 BY MR. SCAROLA:
11 MR. SCAROLA: -- is reviewing the evidence 11 Q. You don't need to assume that. I will
12 that was relied upon by Bradley Edwards and by 12 stipulate they read every word.
13 Paul Cassell in corning to the conclusion that 13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, he's speaking.
14 the allegations that had been made by Virginia 14 You don't have a right to do this.
15 Roberts were, in fact, credible allegations. 15 A. And if you read every word, you will see
16 MR. SCOTT: And I'm -- 16 that it's totally exculpatory, that I have no idea
17 MR. SCAROLA: Because your own client has 17 whether there were any young women in one part of
18 acknowledged that this is information that was 18 the house when I was in another part of the house.
19 available to both him and to them back in 2009. 19 It's completely consistent with my testimony that I
20 MR. SCOTT: And what I am doing is showing 20 have never seen any underage women. Let's see.
21 him portions of the same deposition that 21 And if you read the whole transcript,
22 totally take a different position from this 22 you'll see, I think:
23 witness from what you have read, so that this 23 "Was Dershowitz ever there when one of the
24 record is a complete record and not a partial 24 woman gave a massage?
25 record with your inference only. And I feel 25 "I don't remember that.
294 296
1 that that's totally appropriate. If we were in 1 "Were you in -- were you in any way
2 a courtroom, a judge would permit him to do it. 2 attempting in your response to imply that
3 So you have your position and I have mine. 3 Mr. Dershowitz had a massage by one of these
4 MR. SWEDER: Can we have the witness read 4 young ladies?
5 that? 5 "I don't know, sir.
6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 "You have no knowledge?
7 Q. Do you recall the following testimony 7 "No, sir.
8 having been given in that same deposition? 8 "And you certainly weren't implying that
9 "Question: All right. This is follow-up 9 that occurred; you just have no knowledge,
10 to questioning by Ms. Ezell. Ms. Ezell asked 10 correct?
11 you about Mr. Dershowitz being present in 11 "Answer: I don't know."
12 Mr. Epstein's home, and I think you said -- I 12 And I would hope that your clients would
13 think you said Mr. Epstein and he and 13 be reading the whole thing in context, unlike what
14 Mr. Dershowitz were friends? 14 you've tried to do to try to create a false
15 "Answer: Yes. 15 impression that this testimony in any way exculpates
16 "Question: She also, I think, asked was 16 me.
17 Mr. Dershowitz ever there when one of the young 17 I have to say if this is what they relied
18 women who gave a massage was present in the 18 on, my confirmation of their unethical and
19 home. 19 unprofessional conduct has been strongly
20 "Answer: I don't remember that. 20 corroborated by that and you're helping my case.
21 "Question: That's where l want to clear 21 BY MR. SCAROLA:
22 up. Is it your testimony that Mr. Dershowitz 22 Q. Would it have been reasonable for Bradley
23 was there when any of the women came to 23 Edwards and Paul Cassell to have relied upon the
24 Mr. Epstein's home to give a massage? 24 detailed reports of Palm Beach police department?
25 "Answer: Yes." 25 A. I don't know. I don't know what the Pahn
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
30 (Pages 293 to 296)
297 299
1 Beach police department says. 1 this.
2 Q. You never read those reports? 2 A. Excuse me one second.
3 A. I don't know which reports you're 3 MR. SCOTT: You know, you think this is
4 referring to. 4 funny and I think this man's -- and I think
5 Q. All of the reports about Jeffrey Epstein. 5 this man's --
6 MR. SCOTT: Asked and answered yesterday 6 MR. SCAROLA: I think its improper for
7 on this whole line. 7 you to be coaching the witness in the middle of
8 A. I probably did not read all the reports on 8 examination. If you think that there's
9 Jeffrey Epstein. I'm sure I've read some of them. 9 something that needs to be brought out, you do
10 I do not recall --
10 that in cross examination. You don't feed him
11 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about any work -- 11 information that you want him to be reading in
12 attorney-client privilege. 12 the middle of my examination of this witness.
13 THE WITNESS: Right.
13 MR. SCOTT: No. But it's also true that
14 A. I don't remember my name coming up. I was
14 under our rules, when you read portions of a
15 the lawyer during that period of time.
15 deposition, he has the ability to read other
16
17
18
19
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. To the extent that Bradley Edwards and
Paul Cassell relied upon detailed reports from the
Palm Beach police department in order to assess the
16
17
18
19
portions of the deposition which clarify the
answers. That's done in every courtroom on
every time a witness -- you have selected
portions of it that are not accurate based on
20 credibility of Virginia Roberts, would it be
20 other portions and I am having him review them
21
22
23
24
25
reasonable for them to rely upon police reports?
A. I would hope that they would rely on all
the police reports, including the ones that showed
that she was involved in criminal actions, including
the ones that would show that she took money as an
21
22
23
24
25
since you did not offer him the deposition to
review.
MR. SCAROLA: And that's what you do --
MR. SCOTT: And I think that's totally
proper --
298 300
1 adult to provide sexual services to people. 1 MR. SCAROLA: -- in cross examination. It
2 I would hope they would look at all the 2 is --
3 reports, not just selected portions of those 3 MR. SCOTT: -- to do. No --
4 reports. 4 MR. SCAROLA: -- improper.
5 Q. Would that include the reports of the 5 MR. SCOTT: No.
6 Federal Bureau of Investigation? 6 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending
7 A. I would hope so. 7 as to which that's relevant. But let's take a
8 Q. Would that include the information 8 look at what you're showing him.
9 provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office? 9 MR. SCOTT: Surc. Why don't you read it
10 A. I would sure hope so, and I could tell you 10 into the record?
11 that the -- 11 THE WITNESS: I've read it.
12 Q. Would that include — 12 MR. SCOTT: Read it into the record so
13 A. Let one just say that the U.S. Attorney's 13 that Mr. Scarola is advised.
14 Office has told me unequivocally that my name never 14 A. "Okay. When Alan Dershowitz was in the.
15 came up in any context of any accusation against me 15 house, I understand you to say that these local
16 during the negotiations. 16 Palm Beach girls would come over to the house
17 Q. Is this part of your work product that 17 while he was there, but you're not sure if he
18 you're waiving right now? 18 had a massage from any of these girls?
19 MR. SWEDER: No, no. 19 "Exactly.
20 A. My conversation with Jeffrey Slotnan is not 20 "And what would he do while these girls
21 work product. 21 were in the house?
22 MR. SCOTT: Here's a -- 22 "He would read a book with a glass of
23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 wine by the pool, stay inside.
24 Q. What is the work product — 24 "Did he ever talk to any of the girls?
25 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. Please review 25 "I don't know, sir.
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
31 (Pages 297 to 300)
301 303
1 "Certainly he knew they were there? 1 A. Let me answer. "Rely" connotes to me that
2 "I don't know, sir." 2 they would place a heavy emphasis on that to the
3 That's the best you can do? That's really 3 exclusion of other things and that it would be
4 the best you can do? You think a professional 4 enough. And so my answer is, yes, they certainly
5 lawyer would make these allegations based on "I 5 should have read all the reports. They certainly
6 don't know, sir." 6 should have read all the transcripts. But they also
7 MR. SCAROLA: Is there a question pending, 7 should have called me, they should have made other
8 Mr. Scott? 8 inquiry, and they should have made sure that they
9 MR. SCOTT: He's reading -- you asked him 9 read all of these depositions and reports in
10 what he was reading -- 10 context.
11 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 11 And if you're implying that there are FBI
12 MR. SCOTT: -- from and I had him publish 12 reports that in any way inculpate me, that's
13 it. 13 inconsistent with the information I have from Former
14 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I know, and then he 14 Chief of Assistant Jeffrey Sloman, who was prepared
15 went on to make a speech. So I know I don't 15 to file an affidavit saying that that wasn't the
16 have to do it, but I'm compelled to move to 16 case but was prevented from doing so by the Justice
17 strike the unresponsive speeches. 17 Department.
18 MR. SCOTT: And I consider these to be a 18 MR. SCOTT: It's about noon now. So I
19 response to the interrogation that you did 19 guess were heading -- were wrapping this up?
20 taking excerpts improperly and not having the 20 MR. SCAROLA: Not quite yet.
21 entire record in front of him, which he's 21 BY MR. SCAROLA:
22 entitled to do to make that the record is 22 Q. You do agree that the allegations that
23 complete. And I intend to protect him in that 23 Virginia Roberts made against Prince Andrew were
24 way. 24 well-founded allegations, correct?
25 25 A. I have absolutely no idea. I've met
302 304
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 Prince Andrew on a number of occasions in a public
2 Q. So we have agreed that it was reasonable 2 context. He came and spoke in my class at Harvard
3 for Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, in assessing 3 law school. The dean then had a dinner in his -- or
4 the credibility of Virginia Roberts, to rely upon 4 lunch in his honor. I was then invited to a dinner
5 police reports, FBI reports, U.S. Attorney's Office 5 at the British Consulate.
6 information, and information from the Palm Beach 6 I've never seen him in the presence of any
7 County State Attorney's Office, correct? 7 underaged women, so I have absolutely no basis for
8 A. No. 8 reaching any conclusion whatsoever about
9 Q. No? 9 Prince Andrew.
10 A. No. It would not be enough for them to do 10 Q. So you don't know one way or another
11 that -- 11 whether those allegations are true or false?
12 Q. I didn't ask you whether it was enough. 12 A. Neither do you. Nobody would know except
13 A. You said it was -- 13 two people, I imagine. But I don't know. Of course
14 Q. I asked you: Would it reasonable for them 14 not.
15 to rely upon those sources of information in 15 Q. All right.
16 assessing the credibility of Virginia Roberts? 16 A. But I presume --
17 A. Not alone, not without looking at -- 17 Q. You say you have never seen him --
18 Q. That wasn't my question. 18 A. -- people innocent --
19 A. -- other sources of information. 19 Q. — in the presence of any underaged women,
20 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 20 but you've seen photographs of him in the presence
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 of an underaged woman, correct?
22 Q. Well, what he's relying upon — 22 A. I have, yes.
23 MR. SCOTT: You're not the judge here. 23 MR. SCAROLA: May we mark this as the next
24 Let him -- ask a question and let him answer it 24 numbered exhibit, please.
25 and not cut him off, please. 25 A. And I want to note --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
32 (Pages 301 to 304)
305 307
1 THE REPORTER: Hold on. Hold on. 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I need to a take
2 A. -- the absence of any -- 2 a very quick bathroom break.
3 MR. SCOTT: She can't take it down. 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine.
4 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 4 THE WITNESS: Probably be two minutes or
5 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 5 less than two minutes.
6 Exhibit 8.) 6 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
7 THE REPORTER: It's okay. Go ahead. 7 time is approximately 12:03 p.m.
8 A. And I want to note the absence of any 8 (Sidebar held off the record.)
9 photograph of me with Virginia Roberts. 9 MR. SCAROLA: While we're waiting, let me
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 mark the ncxt numbered exhibits as well. That
11 Q. That's the photograph that you were 11 will save us some time.
12 referring to? 12 MR. SCOTT: What is this?
13 A. I've seen this photograph in the 13 MR. SCAROLA: Her calendar, his calendar.
14 newspapers. 14 MR. SCOTT: Who's calendar is this,
15 Q. Yes, sir. And the woman on the far right 15 Carolyn's?
16 of that photograph, who is that? 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. This is Numbcr 10.
17 A. Ghislaine Maxwell. 17 MR. SCOTT: Carolyn's calendar.
18 Q. The woman that you and your friend Jeffrey 18 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
19 Epstein have traveled with repeatedly, correct? 19 Exhibit 10.)
20 A. No. A woman who I may have traveled with 20 MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 11.
21 on two or three occasions. I can't think of more 21 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
22 times than that that I traveled with her, but its 22 Exhibit 11.)
23 possible. But not -- I wouldn't say repeated 23 MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 12.
24 occasions. I've -- 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff
25 Q. Well -- 25 Exhibit 12.)
306 308
1 A. -- probably been in her presence fewer I. BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 than a dozen timcs. 2 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, I have handed you a
3 Q. I'm going to hand you -- 3 composite exhibit that is marked as Number 9.
4 A. But just to be clear, what I knew about 4 A. Yes.
5 Ghislainc Maxwell was that she was the daughter of a 5 Q. The first document in that composite is a
6 prominent British publisher -- 6 page from --
7 Q. I haven't asked you what you knew about 7 MR. SCOTT: Here's Number 9.
8 Ghislaine Maxwell. I asked you -- 8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 A. Well, you askcd -- 9 Q. — is a page from your wife's calendar; is
10 Q. -- whether or not you recognized her in 10 that correct?
11 the photograph? 11 A. Yes.
12 A. Ycs. Ycs. 12 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the
13 Q. Thank you very much, sir. 13 exhibit, please.
14 I'm going to hand you an airport codes log 14 A. Yes, it looks like -- I'm looking at the
15 that identifies the airports that are identified by 15 first page. It looks like my wife's -- my wife's
16 abbreviations in the case -- in case that is of some 16 handwriting, yes.
17 assistance to you in answering the next series of 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 questions that I'm about to ask you. 18 Q. And the second page is another page from
19 A. Right. 19 your wife's calendar; is that correct?
20 Q. And I'm going to hand you this composite 20 A. Looks like it, yes.
21 exhibit, which we will mark as the next numbered 21 Q. And —
22 composite. 22 MR. SCOTT: Take the time to review it
23 A. Uh-huh, right. 23 before you answer questions, please.
24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 24 A. Right.
25 Exhibit 9.) 25
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
33 (Pages 305 to 308)
309 311
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 December.
2 Q. And can you determine from the calendar 2 Q. One shows the subsequent two months and
3 entries here where your wife is during the period of 3 the --
4 time that's covered by these calendar entries? 4 A. Okay.
5 A. 1 would have to look at a particular 5 Q. — other one shows --
6 entry. If it describes where she is, yes. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Well, tell me where she is. 7 Q. -- the preceding and following month,
8 A. What day? 8 correct?
9 MR. SCOTT: Which one? What point? 9 A. Ycs, that does look like it's December of
10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 2000, ycs.
11 Q. The period covered by this calendar 11 Q. Okay, sir. So look at the calendar and
12 between December 7 and December 13. 12 tell me where it appears your wife is during this
13 A. What year? 13 period of time.
14 Q. You know what, I can't tell you what year 14 A. The whole period of time?
15 it is from these calendars. So you tell me. 15 MR. SCOTT: Please read the exhibit, all
16 I suggest to you that this is a calendar 16 the pages, thoroughly, so that you have a full
17 from December of 2000, since the next two months at 17 context.
18 the top of the calendar are January 2001 and 18 A. It says, A.D. in Boston. That means I was
19 February 2001. So let's assume that since it is a 19 in -- in Boston.
20 page from a calendar that appears to be December of 2 0 It says Charleston, Ncw York. It says
21 2000, that it's December of 2000. 21 book fair. It says book fair. It says A.D. in
22 That would be a reasonable conclusion, 22 Boston.
23 wouldn't it? 23 It then says the Halbreiches arrive.
24 A. I have no idea. 24 They -- they were probably our guests.
25 Q. You don't know? 25
310 312
1 A. I don't know. I mean, I don't know -- you 1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 said you don't -- you can't tell what the year is, 2 Q. Your guests at home in Cambridge,
3 so -- 3 Massachusetts, right?
4 Q. Well, I'm telling — 4 A. No, I don't know. I don't know.
5 A. -- I can't tell what the year is. 5 Halbreiches arrive.
6 Q. — you that it appears to be December 2000 6 And I can't really tell from here where
7 because the next two months at the top of the 7 Carolyn is. McDonalds -- let's see, this is 2000
8 calendar are January of 2001 and February of 2001. 8 and what year? 2001. 2000. Yeah, yeah.
9 A. I only see -- I'm sorry, were probably 9 So tell me what you're looking for. I'll
10 looking at different things. I see November 2000, 10 try to --
11 December 2000. I don't see January or anything like 11 Q. I want to know where your wife was during
12 that. Maybe you can show them to me. Oh, it's on 12 this period of time if you can tell from the
13 the first page. 13 calendar entries.
14 Q. First page, yes, sir. 14 A. Well, she may have been in -- there's
15 A. So it's in reverse order. 15 something about Charleston. There's something about
16 Yeah, so the pages are in reverse order. 16 New York. There's something about me being in
17 The first page says on top January 2001, 17 Boston. I really can't tell much beyond that.
18 February 2001 and the second page says 18 Q. Okay. So you don't know one way or
19 November 2000, December 2000, yeah. 19 another from these calendar entries where your wife
20 Q. So it appears we're looking at 20 was during this period of time; is that correct?
21 December 2000, correct? 21 A. I can't tell that from this entry, no.
22 A. When were looking at which page? When 22 Q. What we can tell from the entry in the
23 we -- 23 bottom right-hand corner --
24 Q. Both pages. 24 MR. SCOTT: Which page?
25 A. Well, one is January/February and one is 25 A. Which page?
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
34 (Pages 309 to 312)
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. Of the first page of this composite is
3 that there is a notation that says Alan Dershowitz
4 11:45 a.m., New York City, right?
5 A. Eleven -- A.D. 11:45 and then there's a
6 word that I can't read.
7 Q. How about a.m.?
8 A. Oh, 5:00 a.m., New York City, yes.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you, sir.
10 And the next page, where did — where did
11 your wife have opera instructions?
12 A. I have no idea. We go to the opera in
313
13 Boston, we go to the opera in New York, we go to the
14 opera in Florida. We do a lot -- a lot of opera. I
15 don't know what "opera instructions" means.
16 Maybe it would be best if you asked my
17 wife about these things. It's her calendar.
18 Q. I -- I intend to, sir, but --
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. -- these are calendars that you produced
21 as part of the evidence that you contend exonerates
22 you. So, I assumed that you had some knowledge of
23 the meaning of these pages.
24 A. No.
25 Q. But I may be wrong.
1 BY MR. SCAROLA:
2 Q. And you would appear in New York --
3 A. Well, no --
4 Q. — for those Court TV appearances --
5 A. I would appear --
6 Q. -- on a regular basis, correct?
7 A. I would appear wherever I was. So when I
8 was in New York, I appeared in New York, but they
9 would do it by remote when I was in a different
315
10 city. And I clearly did some remotes for Court TV.
11 Q. In fact, you took an apartment in New York
12 for purposes of convenience to facilitate your
13 New York Court TV appearances, correct?
14 A. Totally false.
15 Q. Did you have an apartment in New York
1.6 during this period of time in December of 2000?
17 A. I had an apartment for -- I've had an
18 apartment in New York for 30 -- 30 years or more.
19 But I certainly didn't take an apartment for
20 purposes of Court TV, no.
21 Q. On Tuesday, December n, the entry is
22 1:30, Jeff, correct?
23 A. Right. Yeah.
24 Q. And that's a reference to Jeffrey Epstein,
25 correct?
1 A. We have --
2 Q. So you're telling me that you don't know
3 where she was and that's --
4 A. We just -- we just gave you everything we
5 had --
6 MR. SCOTT: We provided hundreds and
7 hundreds of pages. You're picking out one.
8 BY MR. SCAROLA:
9 Q. Let's go -- let's go to the next page, if
10 we could, please, the third page in this composite.
11 A. The third, okay. Third, okay.
12 Q. And can we agree that this is a calendar
13 from December of 2000?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can we agree it's your calendar from
16 December of 2000?
17 A. That's right, yeah.
18 Q. And can we also agree that during this
314
19 period of time, you were making regular appearances
20 in New York on Court TV?
21 MR. SCOTT: Review the document before you
22 answer the question, please.
23 A. It says 12/30, Court TV, yes. There was a
24 period of time where I had a contract with Court TV
25 and I would appear when they asked me to, yeah.
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
316
A. I don't -- I don't know.
Q. Well, what other Jeff might it be?
A. 1 know -- I know many, many Jeffs.
Q. Tell me which other Jeffs it might have
been a reference to --
A. I have no idea.
Q. -- on this calendar page.
A. I just have no idea. I would be
speculating.
Q. During the same period of time on
December 12 when there's a calendar entry that
reflects 1:30, Jeff, we know from the flight logs
that Jeffrey Epstein traveled on December 11 from
Palm Beach International Airport to Teterboro
Airport, which is the private plane facility that
services the New York Metropolitan area.
A. I have no idea.
You don't know?
A. No, I have no idea whether he was on that
plane. 1 haven't seen the flight log.
Q. Well, I'm calling your attention to the
flight log. It's the next page.
A. It's the next page here?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Okay.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:06 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
Cont'd.
35 (Pages 313 to 316)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
1 Q. December 11, 2000, PBI to Teterboro,
2 passengers, Jeffrey Epstein --
3 A. Wait a second. I have to find it.
4 MR. SCOTT: Well, let him -- let him read
5 the exhibit.
6 A. What -- what's the date?
7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8 Q. December 11.
9 A. December 11. Yes, 1 see that.
10 Q. Palm Beach International Airport to
317
11. Teterboro?
12 A. Right, yeah.
13 Q. Passengers, Jeffrey Epstein?
14 A. Right.
15 Q. GM, a reference to Ghislaine -- excuse me,
16 Ghislaine Maxwell.
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. And ET and Virginia, right?
19 A. That's what it says, yes, sir.
20 Q. And then we see three of the same four
21 passengers leaving the New York area.
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. To fly to another destination three days
24 later on December 14, correct?
25 A. Yes.
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
319
that, but that you were in New York at the same time
Jeffrey Epstein --
A. And that Carolyn --
Q. — and Virginia were in Ncw York and you
were --
A. And that Carolyn arranged for a massage.
Q. -- having a massage.
A. And that my wife arranged for a massage.
Q. No, 1 didn't say that at all, sir?
MR. SCOTT: Well, that's what he's saying
that the record reflects.
A. The record --
MR. SCOTT: Don't cut him off.
A. -- reflects that Carolyn -- Carolyn always
wanted me to have massages because she thought it
would relax me. ldon't like massages particularly,
but when Carolyn arranged massages, almost always we
had them together at the same time. We would have
the same masseuse, sometimes a man, sometimes a
woman, come to the house and give us massages
together.
The idea that my wife would arrange for me
to have a massage with an underage girl for sexual
purposes is so bizarre and absurd as to defy any
kind of credibility, but go on.
318
1 Q. And let's look at the next page of your
2 wife's diary for December 13, the period of time
3 when the flight log shows Jeffrey Epstein and
4 Virginia in New York --
5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. -- at the same time when it would appear
7 that you were in New York. And at the bottom of
8 this calendar, Wednesday, December 13, A.D.,
9 massage, right?
10 A. 10:00 a.m. it says? What is it?
11 Q. It says 10, 10-A.D. massage?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. Okay.
14 Let's go to the next composite.
15 A. I don't have -- there's another page after
16 that. Oh, the next composite.
17 Q. Yes, sir.
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Composite Number 10.
20 A. Uh-huh. But -- but I just want to be
21 clear. So you're saying Carolyn was with me in
22 Ncw York during that period of time.
23 Q. No, I'm not saying that at all, sir. I
24 suggest that when we take a close look at the
25 calendar, it's going to reveal something other than
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
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. Yes. Thank you very much, sir.
A. Go on.
Q. 1 intend --
MR. SCOTT: Since you're both smiling,
there seems to be some humor that I'm missing
here. I guess I --
too.
MR. SCAROLA: Well, I'm missing the humor
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. Lees go to Composite Exhibit Number 10.
A. Yeah.
Q. The first page of that composite exhibit
320
is a photocopy of pages from your personal calendar
in January 2001, correct?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. Another Court TV appearance on January 11,
correct?
A. January 11.
Q. Yes, sir. Thursday, January 11, entry in
the left-hand column, Court TV.
A. Entry on -- yes, January -- I see it as --
I see it on January 12. Idon't see it on
January l 1, but...
36 (Pages 317 to 320)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
3 2 1. 323
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. Let him get to
2 Q. I'm sorry, maybe it is January 12, but 2 it.
3 some time between the Ilth and 12th, either on the 3 A. 2 of the composite. Page 2, and what-
4 11th or on the 12th, it's Court TV, correct? 4 what day are we on?
5 A. No, no, no. You're just totally -- 5 MR. SWEDER: Do we even have it?
6 Q. It's the 12th — 6 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Do we
7 A. -- wrong -- its the 12th, yes. 7 have copies of this exhibit?
8 Q. Okay. Good. Thank you. 8 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you copies of
9 A. Its clearly stated on the 12, yeah. 9 everything --
10 Q. Okay. And then on Friday, the 19th, a 10 THE WITNESS: Were these produced in
11 week later, another Court TV appearance, correct? 11 discovery?
12 A. 19th. Yes. 12 MR. SCOTT: I assume.
13 Q. Okay. And on the 26th on Friday, 13 A. Okay. What are we up to? What page?
14 another Court TV appearance, correct? 14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 A. That's what it says, yes. These were 15 Q. Page 2 of Composite Exhibit Number 10.
16 all -- 16 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now, stop.
17 Q. During this period of time -- 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. Let -- let him finish 18 Q. Tuesday, the 16th.
19 his answer. 19 MR. SCOTT: What year arc we talking about
20 A. These are all scheduled appearances. 1 20 now?
21 assume that I did them. These -- these were -- when 21 MR. SCAROLA: 2001, the only year covered
22 they requested ine to -- to do them, I would do them, 22 in this composite exhibit.
23 yes. 23 A. Yeah, dimmer foreign policy Epstein, that
24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 was dinner we had at Jeffrey Epstein's house with a
25 Q. Okay. And it looks like you're appearing 25 group of very distinguished foreign policy experts,
1 on a scheduled basis every Friday during this period 1 yes.
322 324
2 of time? 2 BY MR. SCAROLA:
3 A. I don't think that was right. Yeah,1 3 Q. All right, sir. Lees go to the next
4 don't think that was right. I think that they 4 page. I've just focused on this period of time in
5 called me when they wanted me. And it may have been 5 January 2001 and on Friday, January 12 —
6 several Fridays in a row, but I think it depended on 6 A. So we're going back to Friday, January 12.
7 breaking news at the -- 7 Yeah.
8 Q. What is "scheduled appearance" -- 8 Q. Your wife is in Cambridge, correct?
9 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let him 9 A. No, I don't think so. My wife was living
10 finish his questions [sic]. 10 in New York with me at the time. 1 don't see any
11 A. It would depend very much on whether there 11 record of her being in Cambridge.
12 was a particular trial because I would be the 12 She was -- we were living together in
13 commentator on the trial, along with other lawyers. 13 New York at NYU downtown. I was a visiting scholar.
14 And there were some days when there were trials and 14 Having been appointed by John Sexton of NYU to be a
15 some days when there weren't and I would be 15 visiting scholar, we were there for the year. And
16 available because t was living in New York at the 16 my wife was with me during the year. Our daughter
17 time. 17 was in school in New York. She went to Little Red
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Schoolhouse in New York. And we had -- our life was
19 Q. On Tuesday, the 16th, there is an entry 19 in New York for a period of one year.
20 that says Epstein, right? 20 Q. And on Friday, January 12, you had another
21 A. On Tuesday, the l6th? 21 massage, right?
22 Q. Yes, sir. 22 A. I don't see anything on my record that --
23 A. Where are we? Which calendar now? 23 Q. Massage, A.D.?
24 Q. Page 2. Page 2 of the composite, Tuesday, 24 A. We must be looking at the different pages.
25 the 16th, Epstein. 25 Q. Friday, January 12, page 4 --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
37 (Pages 321 to 324)
325 327
1 A. Who's -- 1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. — of Composite Exhibit 10. 2 Q. Okay. Or from 3:30 to 4:15, that would be
3 MR. SCOTT: Let me see the page you're 3 a playing time for you in Cambridge; is that
4 talking about so he can -- 4 correct?
5 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire 5 A. You'd be asking me to speculate. I can't
6 calendar. 6 speculate based on my wife's calendar. It says
7 MR. SCOTT: Come on, Jack. 7 utility bill, Reservoir address. That suggests
8 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire 8 Cambridge. Reservoir is our house in Cambridge.
9 composite -- 9 Q. So, it would appear that this is another
10 THE WITNESS: So you're talking about my 10 massage that you got somewhere?
11 wife's -- 11 A. But I would like to also say one thing. I
12 MR. SCAROLA: Fourth page -- fourth page 12 don't -- I at least wonder were these records
13 of Exhibit 10. You have Exhibit 10, I've given 13 available to your clients at the time they made the
14 a copy of that. 14 false accusations against me or arc they
15 MR. SCOTT: I understand it and he has it 15 after-the-fact constructs designed to simply try to
16 front of him and I'm trying to get him to the 16 find excuses to justify their false allegations? It
17 right page. Thank you. Please take it down. 17 seems to me the latter is probably the case.
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. And you are going to have an opportunity
19 Q. Fourth page, Composite Exhibit 10. 19 through your counsel to ask those questions.
20 A. Yes. 20 A. And we will.
21 Q. Friday, January 12. 21 Q. And my clients are anxious to be able to
22 A. Okay. That's very simple. We were both 22 answer those questions.
23 in Cambridge and I had a massage in Cambridge. How 23 A. Not as anxious as I am to hear their
24 do I know that? Because it had basketball. And 24 answers.
25 that's where I play and watch basketball was in 25 Q. Okay.
326 328
1 Cambridge. So probably I was in Cambridge if it 1 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Let's wrap it up.
2 says B ball 3:30, 4:15 and says Cambridge with Ella, 2 MR. SCAROLA: Not quite.
3 so I'm sure I was in Cambridge. 3 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, it's 12:30. I'm ending
4 Q. All right. So -- 4 this. That gives you three and a half hours.
5 A. But I'm -- I'm looking at my wife's 5 We take a lunch break and then we have three
6 calendar. I can't tell you and nor can you tell me 6 and a half.
7 where I was at that period of time. 7 MR. SCAROLA: We don't need three and a
8 Q. So, the basketball entries are references 8 half hours for lunch.
9 to your watching basketball in Cambridge? 9 MR. SCOTT: No, I didn't say that. I said
10 A. No. They could be playing basketball. I 10 we take an hour break and then we have three
11 played basketball in those days -- 11 and a half hours with your client, just like...
12 Q. Watching or playing basketball? 12 MR. SCAROLA: If -- if that's what you
13 MR. SCOTT: Let him finish his answer, 13 want to do --
14 please. 14 MR. SCOTT: That's the fair thing to do
15 A. I either watched basketball or played 15 because that's why we're dividing it equally
16 basketball, yeah. I did not go to basketball games 16 and I suggested that --
17 in New York, to my recollection, unless the Celtics 17 MR. SCAROLA: I will state -- I will state
18 were in New York and maybe we can check -- 18 for the record that Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 --
19 MR. SCOTT: You've got about five minutes, 19 excuse me, Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 12,
20 Counsel. 20 composite exhibits, directly conflict with the
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 witness's assertion --
22 Q. The Celtics didn't play from 4:15 to 5:00, 22 MR. SCOT 1: This is all a speech on your
23 did they? 23 part.
24 A. No, but I did. 24 MR. SCAROLA: It is a speech.
25 Q. You did? 25 MR. SCOTT: It is a speech and --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
38 (Pages 325 to 328)
329 331
1 MR. SCAROLA: I'm giving you notice as to CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 what you can do to do your homework. Okay?
3 They directly conflict with the witness's STATE OF FLORIDA
4 assertion that the flight logs exonerate him. COUNTY OF BROWARD
5 In fact --
6 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. I, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, Registered
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
MR. SCAROLA: -- the flight logs -- the
flight logs corroborate Virginia Roberts'
assertions.
MR. SCOTT: And I thank you very much for
that explanation and we look forward to
resuming this at the appropriate time and
responding to that.
THE WITNESS: And that is a false
statement.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that 1
was authorized to and did stenographically report
the foregoing videotape deposition of ALAN M.
DERSHOWITZ; pages through 145; that a review of
the transcript was requested; and that the
transcript is a true record of my stenographic
notes.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a
relative, employee, attomey, or counsel of any
of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee
of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel
VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
connected with the action, nor am I financially
18 time is approximately 12:26 p.m. interested in the action.
19 (The proceedings ADJOURNED at 12:26 p.m.) Dated this 16th day of October, 2015.
20
21
22 KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF OATH October 16, 2015
330 332
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadcland Centre II - Suite 1400
STATE OF FLORIDA
9150 South Dadcland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
COUNTY OF BROWARD
BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ.
Re: Edwards v. Dcrshowitz
Please take notice that on the 16th day of October,
2015, you gave your deposition in the above cause.
I, the undersigned authority, certify At that time, you did not waive your signature.
that ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ personally appeared
The above-addressed attorney has ordered a copy of
this transcript and will make arrangements with you
before me and was duly sworn on the 16th day of
to read their copy. Please execute the Errata
October, 2015.
Sheet, which can be found at the back of the
Signed this 16th day of October. 2015.
transcript, and have it returned to us for
distribution to all parties.
14.4.i. -44".„4-0-
KIMBERLY FONTAL‘v u, &PR, FPR, CLR
Notary Public, State of Florida
My Commission No. EE 161994
Expires: 2/0 l /16
If you do not read and sign the deposition within a
reasonable amount of time, the original, which has
already been forwarded to the ordering attorney, may
be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
If you wish to waive your signature now, please sign
your name in the blank at the bottom of this letter
and return to the address listed below.
Very truly yours,
KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR
Phipps Reporting, Inc.
1615 Fon= Place, Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
1 do hereby waive my signature.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
39 (Pages 329 to 332)
333
ERRATA SHEET
DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE
In Re: EDWARDS V. DERSHOWITZ
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
October 16, 2015
PAGE LINE CHANGE
REASON
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have
read the foregoing document and that the facts
slated in it are true.
Date
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
40 (Page 333)
.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
Exhibit 3
1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED
3
2 Also on behalf of the Defendant:
1
2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 SW EDER & ROSS, LLP
BY: KENNETH A. SW EDER, ESQUIRE
4 131 Oliver Street
3 CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 Boston, Massachusetts 02110
4
5 Tel: 617.646.4466
Fax: 617.646.4470
5 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, 6 E-mail: [email protected]
6
7
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
7
On behalf of the Witness:
vs. 8
8 UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, P.A.
9 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
9 BY: JONI J. JONES, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Litigation Division
10 10 160 East 300 South
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Heber Wells Building - 6th Floor
11 / 11 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
12
12
Tel: 801.366.0100
Fax: 801.366.0101
13 E-mail: [email protected]
14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
13
15 PAUL G. CASSELL
14 Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
16 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT 15 DARREN K. I N D Y K E, P L L C
17 VOLUME I, PAGES 1 to 151
16
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE
575 Lexington Avenue
18 4th Floor
17 New York, New York 10022
19 Tel: 212.971.1314
20 Friday, October 16, 2015
18
21 1:33 p.m. - 4:31 p.m. 19 Also Present:
22
23
24
110 Southeast 6th Street
110 Tower- Suite 1850
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
20
21
DON SAVOY, Videographer
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
CAROLYN COHEN
22
25 Theresa Tomasel I i , RMR
23
24
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
25
(954) 331 -4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400
2 4
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
2
On behalf of the Plaintiffs:
2 WITNESS PAGE
3
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
3 PAUL G. CASSELL
4
5
BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE
2 1 3 9 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SIMPSON
6
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 5
6 Tel: 561.686.6300
Fax: 561.383.9541 6
7 E-mail: [email protected] INDEX TO EXHIBITS
7
8
0 n behalf of Virginia Roberts: 8 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
9
10
11
12
BOIES, SCH ILLER & FLEXN ER, LLP
BY: SIGRID STONE McCAW LEY, ESQUIRE
401 East Las 0 las Boulevard
Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tel: 954.356.0011
9
10
11
Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 1 - Plaintiff's 21
Response to Motion for Limited Intervention
by Alan M. Dershowitz
Fax: 954.356.0022 Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 2 - Jane Doe 22
13 E-mail: sm ccawley@ bsfIlp.com 12 Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4's Motion
Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action
14 13
On behalf of the Defendant: Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 3 - one-page 106
15 14 document produced by the witness
WILEY REIN LLP
16 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE
AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQUIRE
15
17 1776 K Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20006
16
18 Tel: 202.719.7000
Fax: 202.719.7049 17
19 E-m ail: rsim pson@ w ileyrein.com
18
20
Also on behalf of the Defendant: 19
21
22
23
24
25
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQUIRE
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: 305.350.5329
Fax: 305.373.2294
E-mail: [email protected]
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Original Exhibits have been attached to the
original transcript.)
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954)331-4400 (954)331-4400
1 of 38 sheets Page 1 to 4 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
61 63
0110:55 1 Q. I would like to know why you alleged "and 01:12:55 1 was your basis for this?
01:10:57 2 other minors" given what you have said about your 01:12:56 2 A. All right. So the initial basis for it
01:11:01 3 knowledge of the factual basis, so to speak, for that 01:1100 3 was --
01,11:06 4 allegation. 01:1100 4 MR. SCAROLA: First of all, let me object
0111:06 5 A. Okay. There are going to be -- I'm going to 01:1102 5 because Professor Cassell is not here as an
01:11:08 6 end up giving you nine reasons, each of which is 01:13:04 6 expert witness and hypotheticals are
01:11:11 7 complicated, so I just want to -- if -- if -- I don't 01:1106 7 inappropriate. You're calling for speculation on
01:11:13 8 want to be accused of -- of filibustering or anything. 01:1108 8 his part. I'm not going to instruct him not to
01:11:15 9 I just want you to know that you have asked a broad 01:13:10 9 answer, but it is an improper question.
01:11:18 10 question that's going to require a broad and extended 01:1314 10 MR. SIMPSON: I disagree, but you can answer
01:11:20 11 answer. It -- it -- 01:13:14 11 the question.
01:11:21 12 Q. Answer the question. 01:13:14 12 THE WITNESS: Right. So the -- the factual
011122 13 A. Okay. Then I'm going to refer to a -- I have 01:13.17 13 basis would -- we are setting aside
01:11:27 14 a -- well, actually, I don't. 01:13:21 14 attorney/client communications, right?
01:11:28 15 Q. Let me ask you this: Before you refer to 01:13:21 15 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:11:30 16 something -- 01:13:22 16 Q. I'm asking: What would you tell the judge?
01:11:30 17 A. Yeah. 01:13:2617 A. Right. So that -- I -- I -- that's
01:11:30 18 Q. -- please give me your best recollection of 01.112818 speculative to -- I don't think I can give a fair answer
01:1134 19 what the basis was, the factual basis that you had in 01:13:30 19 at this point because that would have involved going
01:11:37 20 mind. If the court said to you -- let me put it this 01:113220 back to my client and -- and carving out what kinds
01:11:40 21 way. If you went to court and Judge Marra said, 01:1136 21 of things we were going to present to Judge Marra in
01.11:43 22 Professor Cassell, what's your factual basis for this 01:13:30 22 light of the posture of the case at that point.
01:11:46 23 allegation? Tell me. What would you say? 0113,42 23 So it's a speculative question. I would
01:11:48 24 A. Right. 01:1145 24 have -- let me just -- without going into any
01:11:49 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Wait. Outside the context of 01:1348 25 attorney/client privileged communications, I would have
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
62 64
01:11:50 1 anything that's been communicated to you. 01:13:51 1 provided an ample factual basis for those allegations.
01:11:53 2 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. You have asked two 01:13:55 2 MR. SIMPSON: I move to strike as
01:11:55 3 different questions now, and I need to understand 01:1156 3 nonresponsive.
01:11:56 4 which question you are asking. 01:13,56 4 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:1158 5 The question that you posed before just now 01:13:58 5 Q. Let me ask it this way: We have talked
01:12:02 6 was: What was the reason for your including 01:14'00 6 about -- somewhat about the basis for this allegation
01:12:06 7 those allegations in this pleading? 01:14.02 7 about other minors. Putting aside information as to
01.12:08 8 Now you have asked: What is the factual 01:14:09 8 which you're claiming privilege, tell me what you knew
01:12:10 9 basis? And that's going back to questions that 01:14:13 9 as of December 30th, 2014, that formed the factual basis
01:12:14 10 we have already covered, and we have, I think, 01:14:20 10 for your -- for that allegation about other minors.
01'12:17 11 exhausted the ability to respond to that question 01:14:23 11 MR. SCAROLA: And I'll instruct you not to
01:12:20 12 outside of privileged information. 01:14:25 12 answer that question for the same reason, that
01:1213 13 Do you want to go back to the question about: 01:14:27 13 when the same question was asked earlier, I
01:12:26 14 What was your reason for including those 01:14:29 14 instructed you not to answer.
01:12:28 15 allegations? 01:1411 15 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I'm -- maybe we are not
01:12:29 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'll ask the question a 01:14:33 16 being clear, Jack. I'm asking him to put
01:1210 17 different way. 01:14:35 17 aside -- I mean, certainly, he -- he filed a
01:12:31 18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 01:14:37 18 pleading. You've asserted privilege as to
01:12:31 19 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:14:40 19 certain aspects. I'm simply asking him, putting
011213 20 Q. Mr. Cassell, I'm going to ask you: If you're 01:14:43 20 aside whatever you're claiming privilege for,
0t12:37 21 in court and Judge Marra said to you, counsel, what is 01:14:45 21 right, so I'm not -- I'm not asking you right now
0112:42 22 the factual basis for your allegation that Professor 01:14:47 22 to tell me anything you're claiming as
01:1247 23 Dershowitz abused other minors, what would you say? And 01:14,49 23 privileged.
0112:51 24 if you wouldn't say something because it was privileged, 01:14:49 24 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:12'52 25 then don't include it. What would you tell the judge 01:14:50 25 Q. Tell me whatever is not privileged that
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 61 to 64 of 151 16 of 38 sheets
65 67
0114:53 1 supports that allegation. 01:16:52 1 began, you know, I guess what we would call
01:14:55 2 A. Okay. The privileged information, obviously, 01:16:54 2 knock-and-talks, knocking on doors to try to get to some
01:14:58 3 you're asking me not to reveal at this point. 01:16:57 3 of these girls, and they would get to the girls, and
01:14:59 4 Q. I'm asking you -- I'm asking you to tell me 0116:59 4 many of them initially were -- were afraid to explain
01:75930 5 the nonprivileged information. And I'm not agreeing 0117:02 5 what had happened.
01:15:04 6 with your privilege assertion -- 0117:03 6 But as they -- as they continued talking to
01:15:04 7 A. Sure. 01:17:06 7 them, the girls began to explain that what was happening
01:15:07 8 Q. -- but for purposes of this question -- 0117:09 8 was, they were going over to Epstein's house under the
01:15:07 9 A. For purposes of this question. 01:17:13 9 guise of giving a massage, and when they got there, the
01:1507 10 Q. -- I'm accepting it. 01'1717 10 massage was, in fact, sexual activity.
01:15:07 11 A. All right. 0117:19 11 And for many of the girls, I think, as I say
0115:08 12 Q. Putting aside what you claim is privileged, I 01:17:22 12 around 23, 24, something along those lines, they were
0115:10 13 want to know everything that's the factual basis for 01:1725 13 underage. They were under the age of consent in
01:15:12 14 including the allegation about other minors. 0117:28 14 Florida.
01:15:14 15 A. Okay. Privileged information which I'm not 01.17:28 15 And so each and every one of those events was
0115'17 16 disclosing in any way would have interacted with a vast 01:17:30 16 a crime being perpetrated -- and let's be clear, not
011620 17 body of other information. 01:17:35 17 just being perpetrated by Epstein, but by other people
01:15:22 18 The vast body of other information would have 01:17.36 18 who were involved there at the mansion.
01:15:24 19 started with an 89-page police report from the Palm 01:17:38 19 And so what the -- the Palm Beach Police
0115:29 20 Beach Police Department that showed for about a 0117.40 20 Department was putting together was that this mansion in
01:15:30 21 six-month period in 2005, there was sexual abuse of 01:17:43 21 Florida was the nest of sexual abuse of young girls here
01:15:35 22 minor girls going on on a daily basis, in -- whenever 01:17-48 22 in Florida that involved, literally, in the -- in this
01:15:40 23 Jeffrey Epstein was in his Palm Beach mansion. 01:17:53 23 period of time, more than a hundred events that they
01:15:44 24 And on some cases, it was going on not once, 01:17:57 24 were able to document of sexual abuse.
01:15:48 25 not twice, but three times during the day. That -- let 0117:59 25 And when you put that together with the
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
66 68
01:15:51 1 me just be clear. I mean, I -- I referred to the 01:18:01 1 pattern or practice that was being revealed there, there
01:15:53 2 89-page police report. I have offered to put it into 011803 2 were hundreds of acts of sexual abuse going on in the
01:15:55 3 the record if -- if it would speed things up, but let's 01:1806 3 mansion.
01-15:58 4 just talk about some of the things that are in that 01:18:07 4 But then what becomes -- and this is where I
01:15:59 5 89-page police report. 0118:10 5 indicated that, you know, the answer would continue on.
0116:02 6 This was a -- a very intensive investigation 01:1812 6 The -- the problem was that the evidence was starting to
51:18:05 7 that the Palm Beach Police Department put together. 01:1814 7 show that this was a much broader series of events. For
011607 8 They did, for example, what are called trash covers; 011818 8 example, there were flight logs showing that Mr. Epstein
01:16:09 9 that is when trash came out of the -- of the mansion of 01:18:21 9 was then flying with underaged girls, and those flight
01:16:13 10 Epstein, the police would intercept the trash and then 0118:27 10 logs, you know, as -- as the flight logs began to
01:16.16 11 they would go through the trash and look for 01-18'29 11 develop, for example, we have seen, I know in the last
01:16:17 12 incriminating information. 0118:32 12 day or two here, one underage girl was Virginia Roberts
0116'19 13 And what they began to discover was memo 0118:35 13 who is on the flight, you know, with Epstein, and with
01,1022 14 pads -- and I say "memo pads," let's be clear, pad after 01:18:39 14 Maxwell, and those sorts of things.
01:1026 15 pad after pad, or I guess I should say, sheet after 01:18:41 15 So you start to look at the flight logs and
01:16:28 16 sheet after sheet that had the name of a girl, and then 01:1643 16 you see what's going on is not just events that are
0016:33 17 there was a notation of something to the effect of a 01:18,46 17 occurring in Florida, but it's occurring on a
01:16:35 18 massage. 01:18:50 18 multi-state basis, which now starts to make it a federal
01:16:36 19 And so the Palm Beach Police Department began 01:18:53 19 crime. For example, we are seeing evidence that --
01:16:39 20 tracking down, well, wait a minute, these -- these are 01:18:56 20 let's just talk about Virginia Roberts since she's
01:16'41 21 girls giving massages and they don't seem to have any 01:1858 21 central to this case.
01:16:44 22 specialized training in massages; they don't seem to be 01,18:59 22 We are seeing Virginia Roberts being flown
01,16.47 23 masseuses in any sense of the term; what's going on 01:19:02 23 from Florida to New York where she's in the clutches of
01:1047 24 here? 01:19.07 24 Jeffrey Epstein who is sexually abusing her, you know,
01:16:50 25 And so the Palm Beach Police Department 011912 25 many times a week. And not just Jeffrey Epstein, but
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
17 of 38 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
69 71
01:19:15 1 other powerful persons. For example, Ghislaine Maxwell 01:21:37 1 particular girl had been sexually abused.
01:19:18 2 is there with him on all of these flights and apparently 01:21:40 2 What the Palm Beach Police Department had
01,19:21 3 being involved in the abuse. 01:21:42 3 discovered was brazen, notorious, repetitive activity
01:1924 4 Indeed -- and so you -- you have -- you 01:2146 4 sometimes occurring as often as three times in a
01:1927 5 have that. You also start to see on the flight logs, 01,21:48 5 particular day. And so that led me to believe that the
01:19:30 6 what to my mind are some very sinister things, 01:21:51 6 sexual activity that was going on in Florida was such
01:19:34 7 suggesting that the pattern is not just confined to sort 01:21:54 7 that someone who was a regular house guest there would
01:19:36 8 of, you know, the girls that are there in Florida, but 01:21:57 8 have immediately come to the conclusion that, well,
01:19:39 9 it -- it is extending more broadly. 0122:00 9 look, gee, there are these underage girls coming in here
01,19A1 10 Like one of the -- to my mind, sinister and 01:22:0310 and they -- they seem to be -- you know, they don't seem
01:1544 11 scary things on the flight logs is, we see, you know, 01:2206 11 to be here to be doing, you know, business activities;
01:19:48 12 Virginia Roberts, who we know has been sexually abused, 0122:0812 they -- they might be here doing other kinds of
01:19:51 13 and we see Jeffrey Epstein, and then we see on the 01:22:11 13 activities. So those would be the kinds of things that
01:19:54 14 flight logs one female. 0122:13 14 would -- would have formed the factual basis.
01:19:55 15 That's kind of an odd notation for a flight 01:22:17 15 There are other things as well, but I'm sure
01:19:59 16 log because, you know, typically, I understand the 0122:18 16 you want to ask other questions in addition to that. So
01:20:02 17 flight logs, the purpose is, well, if something happens 01:22:22 17 I'll stop there, but those -- that's -- I think gives
0120:04 18 with the flight, or there's some question about who was 01:22:24 18 you a small flavor of the kind of evidence that, you
01:20:05 19 on it, you want to know who -- who the person was who 01:22:28 19 know, was form -- undergirding the allegations that were
01:20:07 20 was on the flight. 01:22:32 20 being presented here.
01:20:08 21 So, to my mind, when I started to see on 01:2232 21 Q. It sounds like you quite passionately believe
01,20:10 22 these flight logs entries like one female, I viewed that 012235 22 that there was strong evidence that Mr. Epstein had
01:20:15 23 as a potential device for obscuring the fact that there 01:22:39 23 engaged in sexual misconduct; is that right?
01:20:17 24 was interstate trafficking of underage girls for 01:22:41 24 A. I think "strong" understates it.
01:20:19 25 purposes of sexual activity. Serious federal offenses. 01:2244 25 Q. In the course of that long answer, you didn't
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
70 72
01:20:22 1 But then that evidence extended, you know, 01:22:48 1 mention Professor Dershowitz's name once.
01:2026 2 more broadly than that. The evidence also started to 01:22:51 2 A. I said flight logs. And let's talk about
01:20:28 3 show, again, if we talk just about flight logs, that 01:22:53 3 flight logs.
01,20,31 4 the -- that underage girls such as Virginia Roberts were 01:22:54 4 Q. Let me back up. You didn't answer his
01:20:34 5 being flown internationally from, for example, Teterboro 01:22:57 5 name -- mention his name once; is that -- is that your
01:20:39 6 in New York to -- to locations, just to pick one, you 01:23:00 6 recollection as well?
01:20:42 7 know, for example, in London, where again sexual abuse 01:23:00 7 A. That's correct. We were talking about a
0120:45 8 was occurring. 01:23:02 8 factual basis, and I'll be glad -- I told you that there
0120:47 9 And so you started to put together this 01:23:05 9 were other things if you want, factual basis for -- for
01:20:50 10 pattern of criminality that was started in this -- you 01:23:07 10 Mr. Dershowitz. I'll be glad to add that in. Let me -.-
01:20,54 11 know, I don't know what the right word is here. I don't 01:23:10 11 let's -- let me -- let me -- I would like to supplement
012056 12 want to -- I don't want to -- you know, you've heard 01:2311 12 my answer then if I could.
01:20:58 13 discussions of hyperbole and things like that, but we 01:23:12 13 Q. Do you want to look at a document?
01:21:01 14 have got this nest of -- of -- and I won't say snakes, 01:23:14 14 A. Yes.
0121:04 15 but we have this nest of criminals in Florida, but it -- 01:23:14 15 Q. Let me first -- have we exhausted your
01:21,07 16 it seems to be spreading to Epstein's mansion in New 0123:16 16 recollection without documents of all the evidence that
01:21:10 17 York; it seems to be spreading to Ghislaine Maxwell's 01:23:21 17 you would refer to to support the allegation that
01:21:14 18 flat in London, and -- and -- and it goes on. 01:23:23 18 Professor Dershowitz abused other minors?
01:21:17 19 So those are the kinds of things that would 0123:26 19 A. No.
01:21:19 20 have formed the -- the -- the basis, particularly when 01:23:26 20 MR. SCAROLA: And let me say that you have a
01:2125 21 you -- when you start to add in this fact: What the 0123:28 21 right to refer to whatever documents you choose
0121:28 22 Palm -- going back now to Florida with the Palm Beach 0123:31 22 to refer to, to be sure that you give a complete
01:21:31 23 Police Department. What the Palm Beach Police 0123:35 23 response to the question that has been asked, as
01:21:33 24 Department has -- had discovered was not a one-off kind 0123:38 24 long as you understand that whatever you refer to
01:21:35 25 of event, you know, on one particular day, one 01:23:40 25 is going to be available to the other side, and
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 69 to 72 of 151 18 of sheets
73 75
01:23:43 1 we would be happy to make it available to you. 0125,38 1 Mr. Epstein saying that she had been trafficked,
01:23:45 2 MR. SIMPSON: And -- and I'll give you an 0125:41 2 sexually trafficked, you know, not just abused by
01:23:47 3 opportunity to look at that -- 01:25:44 3 Mr. Epstein, but now being forcibly sent to, you know,
01:23:47 4 THE WITNESS: Sure -- 01,25:48 4 other people to abuse.
01:23:47 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 012649 5 And in the categories of people that were
01:23.48 6 Q. -- but I'm entitled to ask first about your 0125:52 6 sexually abusing her were academicians, and I knew that
01:23:50 7 recollection. 01:25:58 7 Mr. Dershowitz fell within that category of -- of being
01:23:51 8 A. Okay. 0126:00 8 an academician. The -- that complaint also indicated
0123:51 9 Q. Based on your recollection -- 0126:05 9 that there might be flight logs that would show that
0123:51 10 A. Right. 01:26.08 10 Virginia Roberts had been sexually abused in these
0123:52 11 Q. -- I want to know all the evidence -- 0126:13 11 various locations. And that started to indicate to me
0123:52 12 A. Right. 01:2616 12 that there might be what the law refers to as a common
01:23:54 13 Q. -- you were relying on here. 01:26:19 13 scheme or plan. And that, just as Virginia Roberts was
01:23:55 14 A. So what -- what I'm going to do is, I'm going 01:2623 14 being trafficked to these powerful people in various
01:2367 15 to make a list here on my -- on my notepad of all the 01:2626 15 places, there might well be other girls.
01:23:59 16 things, and then I'm going to compare that with notes I 01:26:28 16 And so I have mentioned a flight log, and let
0124:01 17 have here. There may be a couple things that I don't 01:26:31 17 you -- you wanted to talk about Mr. Dershowitz. On .-
01:24:03 18 cover. 01:26:35 18 on December 30th, 2009, I was aware that there was a
01:24:03 19 Q. As long as your counsel is okay with that. 01:26:39 19 flight log showing Mr. Dershowitz flying with Tatiana,
0124-0420 A. Yeah. 01:26:44 20 who as far as I can tell was not a business person, was
01:24:05 21 Q. You understand you'll have to give that to 01:26:49 21 not providing financial advice or something else.
01:24:07 22 me? 01:26:51 22 I understood that Mr. Epstein was a
01:24:07 23 A. Yeah. I'll give you the notes -- 01:26:53 23 billionaire who was heavily involved in financial
01:24:07 24 Q. All right. 0126:57 24 issues. I knew that Tatiana was on a plane with
01:24:09 25 A. -- and then I will compare with what I've got 0127'01 25 Mr. Dershowitz, and then there was also, if I recall
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
74 76
0124:11 1 there. So I mentioned the Palm Beach Police Department 0127:01 1 correctly, working from memory as -- as you were
01:24:14 2 report. 01:27:04 2 wondering about, there was a notation that
01:24:15 3 The next thing that I want to mention is the 01:27:06 3 Mr. Dershowitz was on a plane with one female.
012419 4 Jane Doe 102 complaint. In August of 2009, Bob 0127:08 4 And so I was -- when I looked at that, I'm
01:24:27 5 Josefsberg -- who is, from what I understood, a very 0127:11 5 seeing Mr. Dershowitz on a -- on a flight with a woman
01:24:32 6 well-regarded lawyer here in Florida; in fact, a lawyer 01:2715 6 who doesn't seem to be there for, frankly anything other
01:24:33 7 that was selected by the United States Government to 01:27:18 7 than sexual purposes or something along those lines with
01:24:36 8 represent a number of the -- of the girls that had been 01:27:21 8 Mr. Epstein, with Mr. Epstein, who is a sex trafficker,
01:24,40 9 sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. He was -- he was 01:27:25 9 and with one female which seemed to me to be a potential
01'24.43 10 part of the procedure that was including the
0127:30 10 entry for disguising international sex trafficking. So
01:24:45 11 nonprosecution agreement. 01:27:33 11 that was of concern.
01:24:46 12 In August of 2009, he filed a complaint on 01:27:34 12 I then began to look at, well, I wonder, how
01:24:48 13 behalf of Virginia Roberts. That complaint indicated 0127:36 13 would I find out if Mr. Dershowitz had been abusing
01:24:54 14 that Virginia Roberts had been sexually abused in 01:2739 14 other girls? Let's see. I knew that Virginia Roberts
01,24:58 15 Florida, in New York, and in -- in other places, as I 01:274215 had been forced to -- to -- to -- to do this sort of
01:25:02 16 recall. The thing that -- that I particularly recall 01:27:48 16 thing.
01,25:06 17 was that Mr. Josefsberg had said, Virginia Roberts was 01:27:56 17 MS. McCAWLEY: You're okay as long as
01:2$.12 18 abused by -- and he gave some categories of people. 01:2756 18 you're -- if you're revealing something that's in
01:2515 19 He mentioned, I think, business people. He 01:2759 19 an affidavit --
01:25:17 20 mentioned royalty, and he mentioned academicians. And 012759 20 THE WITNESS: That's right.
01:25:23 21 so to tie into your question, I knew that Professor 0127:59 21 MS. McCAWLEY: -- that she submitted, you're
01:2525 22 Dershowitz was an academician. And so what I was seeing 0127.59 22 fine.
0125:29 23 now was, that according to a very, very respected 01:28:00 23 THE WITNESS: Right. So -- so what...
01:2632 24 attorney here in Florida, he had found Virginia Roberts 0128'05 24 Let's see. What did I want, at this point --
01:25:34 25 to be credible, and had filed a lawsuit against 01:2605 25
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
19 of 38 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
77 79
0128:05 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:29:47 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah.
01:28:09 2 Q. Do you want the question back? 01:29:49 2 MR. SCAROLA: -- who keeps jumping up and
01:28:10 3 A. No. I'm just trying to remember what I was 01:29:50 3 down and distracting everybody in the room?
01:28:12 4 thinking about with -- with regard to -- 0129:52 4 MS. McCAWLEY: And there was also profanity
0128:15 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you need the response read 01'2054 5 used earlier. I mean, we just have to settle
01:28:17 6 back up to the point -- 01:29:55 6 down on this side, and take a deep breath, and
0128:18 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you would do that, 0129:58 7 let him answer his questions.
01:2820 8 yeah. I just -- 0129:58 8 MR. SIMPSON: Look, I mean, the same thing
01:28:20 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- about privilege arose. 01:29:59 9 was happening on the other side.
01:28:20 10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Let's just see what that 01:30:00 10 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir.
01:2820 11 one -- 01:3600 11 MS. McCAWLEY: There was no profanity on this
01:2821 12 MR. SCAROLA: Just read the last couple of 01;30:00 12 side of the table.
01:28:22 13 sentences back, or the last two sentences. 01:3060 13 MR. SCAROLA: No, no, no. There was never
01:28:31 14 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. Now I remember 01:3003 14 anyone who jumped to their feet at any time
0128:32 15 exactly what I was thinking. 01:3066 15 during the course of the last two days. The only
01:28:32 16 How would we go find out whether Mr. Epstein 01:30:08 16 person who keeps jumping up is Alan Dershowitz.
01:28:35 17 was lending women, or in this case, underage 01:30:13 17 Have him pass you a note quietly, if you would,
01:28:39 18 girls, to Mr. Dershowitz for sexual purposes? 01'3016 18 please.
01:2841 19 Well, the first thing I want to do was ask -- you 01:30:18 19 MR. SIMPSON: I will disagree with your
01:2845 20 know, I'd -- I'd go ask Jeffrey Epstein. 01:30:19 20 characterization, but let me say the
01728:47 21 And so what I discovered when I started to 01:3020 21 argumentation -
01:2848 22 look at the transcripts, there were a number of 01:30:21 22 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Are you -- are you
01:28:52 23 transcripts where Mr. Epstein was asked about 01:30:22 23 making the representation --
01:28:55 24 Alan Dershowitz. And rather than say, well, no, 01:30:22 24 MR. SIMPSON: No, I'm not.
01:28,57 25 he wasn't involved in any of these illegal 01:3023 25 MR. SCAROLA: -- that somebody on this side
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
78 80
012000 1 activities, Jeffrey Epstein took the Fifth as the 01:30:24 1 of the room jumped up?
01:29:03 2 phrase, you know, to be more precise. He 01:3025 2 MR. SIMPSON: No, no, no, I'm not.
01:29:05 3 exercised his right against compelled 01:3026 3 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you.
01:2966 4 self-incrimination and refused to answer the 01:3026 4 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not.
01:2909 5 question, which since these were civil cases, 01:30:27 5 MR. SCAROLA: And I appreciate that.
01:29:11 6 indicated to me, since he was being represented 01:30:27 6 MR. SIMPSON: And I --
01:29:14 7 by very experienced legal counsel, that there was 01:3029 7 MR. SCAROLA: And you do acknowledge that
01:2016 8 more than an insignificant risk of incriminating 01:30:30 8 Mr. Dershowitz has repeatedly been jumping up in
01:2919 9 himself if he answered that. 01:30:33 9 the middle of testimony, correct?
01:2920 10 And so Jeffrey Epstein now had taken the 01:30:36 10 MR. SIMPSON: That's -- he just got up and
01:29:23 11 Fifth. And one of the things that I was aware of 01:30:37 11 came over to me. That's the only time I'm aware
0129:26 12 having been involved in, you know, civil 01:30:39 12 of, because I'm -- I'm looking at the witness,
01:29:28 13 litigation and criminal litigation in other 01:3041 13 but he did just do that, and I will pass notes.
01:29:30 14 cases, was that once somebody refuses to answer a 01:30:44 14 We won't get up.
01:2032 15 question like, you know: Do you know 01:30,45 15 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, I will tell you --
01:29:35 16 Mr. Dershowitz? And they take the Fifth on that, 01:30:45 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to take time from
01:29:38 17 that you're then entitled to draw what's called 01:3047 17 this.
0129:40 18 an adverse inference. You can -- you can infer 01:30:47 18 MR. SCAROLA: I will -- I will, for the
012042 19 that, well, if they answered that question, they 01:3049 19 record, as an officer of the court, represent
01:29:44 20 would have -- 01:30:51 20 that there have been multiple times during the
01:29,44 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. 01:30:54 21 course of Professor Cassell's deposition when
0129:44 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah, I want to make an 01,30:58 22 Alan Dershowitz has jumped up in the middle of
01:29:44 23 objection here -- 01:3161 23 the testimony and excitedly whispered in your
01:29,44 24 MR. SCAROLA: Pardon me. Could you please 01:31:07 24 ear.
012047 25 try to control your client -- 01:31:07 25 You may not have realized it because you were
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
txt
Cont'd.
35 (Pages 313 to 316)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
1 Q. December 11, 2000, PBI to Teterboro,
2 passengers, Jeffrey Epstein --
3 A. Wait a second. I have to find it.
4 MR. SCOTT: Well, let him -- let him read
5 the exhibit.
6 A. What -- what's the date?
7 BY MR. SCAROLA:
8 Q. December 11.
9 A. December 11. Yes, 1 see that.
10 Q. Palm Beach International Airport to
317
11. Teterboro?
12 A. Right, yeah.
13 Q. Passengers, Jeffrey Epstein?
14 A. Right.
15 Q. GM, a reference to Ghislaine -- excuse me,
16 Ghislaine Maxwell.
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. And ET and Virginia, right?
19 A. That's what it says, yes, sir.
20 Q. And then we see three of the same four
21 passengers leaving the New York area.
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. To fly to another destination three days
24 later on December 14, correct?
25 A. Yes.
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
319
that, but that you were in New York at the same time
Jeffrey Epstein --
A. And that Carolyn --
Q. — and Virginia were in Ncw York and you
were --
A. And that Carolyn arranged for a massage.
Q. -- having a massage.
A. And that my wife arranged for a massage.
Q. No, 1 didn't say that at all, sir?
MR. SCOTT: Well, that's what he's saying
that the record reflects.
A. The record --
MR. SCOTT: Don't cut him off.
A. -- reflects that Carolyn -- Carolyn always
wanted me to have massages because she thought it
would relax me. ldon't like massages particularly,
but when Carolyn arranged massages, almost always we
had them together at the same time. We would have
the same masseuse, sometimes a man, sometimes a
woman, come to the house and give us massages
together.
The idea that my wife would arrange for me
to have a massage with an underage girl for sexual
purposes is so bizarre and absurd as to defy any
kind of credibility, but go on.
318
1 Q. And let's look at the next page of your
2 wife's diary for December 13, the period of time
3 when the flight log shows Jeffrey Epstein and
4 Virginia in New York --
5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. -- at the same time when it would appear
7 that you were in New York. And at the bottom of
8 this calendar, Wednesday, December 13, A.D.,
9 massage, right?
10 A. 10:00 a.m. it says? What is it?
11 Q. It says 10, 10-A.D. massage?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. Okay.
14 Let's go to the next composite.
15 A. I don't have -- there's another page after
16 that. Oh, the next composite.
17 Q. Yes, sir.
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Composite Number 10.
20 A. Uh-huh. But -- but I just want to be
21 clear. So you're saying Carolyn was with me in
22 Ncw York during that period of time.
23 Q. No, I'm not saying that at all, sir. I
24 suggest that when we take a close look at the
25 calendar, it's going to reveal something other than
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
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. Yes. Thank you very much, sir.
A. Go on.
Q. 1 intend --
MR. SCOTT: Since you're both smiling,
there seems to be some humor that I'm missing
here. I guess I --
too.
MR. SCAROLA: Well, I'm missing the humor
BY MR. SCAROLA:
Q. Lees go to Composite Exhibit Number 10.
A. Yeah.
Q. The first page of that composite exhibit
320
is a photocopy of pages from your personal calendar
in January 2001, correct?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. Another Court TV appearance on January 11,
correct?
A. January 11.
Q. Yes, sir. Thursday, January 11, entry in
the left-hand column, Court TV.
A. Entry on -- yes, January -- I see it as --
I see it on January 12. Idon't see it on
January l 1, but...
36 (Pages 317 to 320)
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
3 2 1. 323
1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. Let him get to
2 Q. I'm sorry, maybe it is January 12, but 2 it.
3 some time between the Ilth and 12th, either on the 3 A. 2 of the composite. Page 2, and what-
4 11th or on the 12th, it's Court TV, correct? 4 what day are we on?
5 A. No, no, no. You're just totally -- 5 MR. SWEDER: Do we even have it?
6 Q. It's the 12th — 6 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Do we
7 A. -- wrong -- its the 12th, yes. 7 have copies of this exhibit?
8 Q. Okay. Good. Thank you. 8 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you copies of
9 A. Its clearly stated on the 12, yeah. 9 everything --
10 Q. Okay. And then on Friday, the 19th, a 10 THE WITNESS: Were these produced in
11 week later, another Court TV appearance, correct? 11 discovery?
12 A. 19th. Yes. 12 MR. SCOTT: I assume.
13 Q. Okay. And on the 26th on Friday, 13 A. Okay. What are we up to? What page?
14 another Court TV appearance, correct? 14 BY MR. SCAROLA:
15 A. That's what it says, yes. These were 15 Q. Page 2 of Composite Exhibit Number 10.
16 all -- 16 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now, stop.
17 Q. During this period of time -- 17 BY MR. SCAROLA:
18 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. Let -- let him finish 18 Q. Tuesday, the 16th.
19 his answer. 19 MR. SCOTT: What year arc we talking about
20 A. These are all scheduled appearances. 1 20 now?
21 assume that I did them. These -- these were -- when 21 MR. SCAROLA: 2001, the only year covered
22 they requested ine to -- to do them, I would do them, 22 in this composite exhibit.
23 yes. 23 A. Yeah, dimmer foreign policy Epstein, that
24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 was dinner we had at Jeffrey Epstein's house with a
25 Q. Okay. And it looks like you're appearing 25 group of very distinguished foreign policy experts,
1 on a scheduled basis every Friday during this period 1 yes.
322 324
2 of time? 2 BY MR. SCAROLA:
3 A. I don't think that was right. Yeah,1 3 Q. All right, sir. Lees go to the next
4 don't think that was right. I think that they 4 page. I've just focused on this period of time in
5 called me when they wanted me. And it may have been 5 January 2001 and on Friday, January 12 —
6 several Fridays in a row, but I think it depended on 6 A. So we're going back to Friday, January 12.
7 breaking news at the -- 7 Yeah.
8 Q. What is "scheduled appearance" -- 8 Q. Your wife is in Cambridge, correct?
9 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let him 9 A. No, I don't think so. My wife was living
10 finish his questions [sic]. 10 in New York with me at the time. 1 don't see any
11 A. It would depend very much on whether there 11 record of her being in Cambridge.
12 was a particular trial because I would be the 12 She was -- we were living together in
13 commentator on the trial, along with other lawyers. 13 New York at NYU downtown. I was a visiting scholar.
14 And there were some days when there were trials and 14 Having been appointed by John Sexton of NYU to be a
15 some days when there weren't and I would be 15 visiting scholar, we were there for the year. And
16 available because t was living in New York at the 16 my wife was with me during the year. Our daughter
17 time. 17 was in school in New York. She went to Little Red
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Schoolhouse in New York. And we had -- our life was
19 Q. On Tuesday, the 16th, there is an entry 19 in New York for a period of one year.
20 that says Epstein, right? 20 Q. And on Friday, January 12, you had another
21 A. On Tuesday, the l6th? 21 massage, right?
22 Q. Yes, sir. 22 A. I don't see anything on my record that --
23 A. Where are we? Which calendar now? 23 Q. Massage, A.D.?
24 Q. Page 2. Page 2 of the composite, Tuesday, 24 A. We must be looking at the different pages.
25 the 16th, Epstein. 25 Q. Friday, January 12, page 4 --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
37 (Pages 321 to 324)
325 327
1 A. Who's -- 1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. — of Composite Exhibit 10. 2 Q. Okay. Or from 3:30 to 4:15, that would be
3 MR. SCOTT: Let me see the page you're 3 a playing time for you in Cambridge; is that
4 talking about so he can -- 4 correct?
5 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire 5 A. You'd be asking me to speculate. I can't
6 calendar. 6 speculate based on my wife's calendar. It says
7 MR. SCOTT: Come on, Jack. 7 utility bill, Reservoir address. That suggests
8 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire 8 Cambridge. Reservoir is our house in Cambridge.
9 composite -- 9 Q. So, it would appear that this is another
10 THE WITNESS: So you're talking about my 10 massage that you got somewhere?
11 wife's -- 11 A. But I would like to also say one thing. I
12 MR. SCAROLA: Fourth page -- fourth page 12 don't -- I at least wonder were these records
13 of Exhibit 10. You have Exhibit 10, I've given 13 available to your clients at the time they made the
14 a copy of that. 14 false accusations against me or arc they
15 MR. SCOTT: I understand it and he has it 15 after-the-fact constructs designed to simply try to
16 front of him and I'm trying to get him to the 16 find excuses to justify their false allegations? It
17 right page. Thank you. Please take it down. 17 seems to me the latter is probably the case.
18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. And you are going to have an opportunity
19 Q. Fourth page, Composite Exhibit 10. 19 through your counsel to ask those questions.
20 A. Yes. 20 A. And we will.
21 Q. Friday, January 12. 21 Q. And my clients are anxious to be able to
22 A. Okay. That's very simple. We were both 22 answer those questions.
23 in Cambridge and I had a massage in Cambridge. How 23 A. Not as anxious as I am to hear their
24 do I know that? Because it had basketball. And 24 answers.
25 that's where I play and watch basketball was in 25 Q. Okay.
326 328
1 Cambridge. So probably I was in Cambridge if it 1 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Let's wrap it up.
2 says B ball 3:30, 4:15 and says Cambridge with Ella, 2 MR. SCAROLA: Not quite.
3 so I'm sure I was in Cambridge. 3 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, it's 12:30. I'm ending
4 Q. All right. So -- 4 this. That gives you three and a half hours.
5 A. But I'm -- I'm looking at my wife's 5 We take a lunch break and then we have three
6 calendar. I can't tell you and nor can you tell me 6 and a half.
7 where I was at that period of time. 7 MR. SCAROLA: We don't need three and a
8 Q. So, the basketball entries are references 8 half hours for lunch.
9 to your watching basketball in Cambridge? 9 MR. SCOTT: No, I didn't say that. I said
10 A. No. They could be playing basketball. I 10 we take an hour break and then we have three
11 played basketball in those days -- 11 and a half hours with your client, just like...
12 Q. Watching or playing basketball? 12 MR. SCAROLA: If -- if that's what you
13 MR. SCOTT: Let him finish his answer, 13 want to do --
14 please. 14 MR. SCOTT: That's the fair thing to do
15 A. I either watched basketball or played 15 because that's why we're dividing it equally
16 basketball, yeah. I did not go to basketball games 16 and I suggested that --
17 in New York, to my recollection, unless the Celtics 17 MR. SCAROLA: I will state -- I will state
18 were in New York and maybe we can check -- 18 for the record that Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 --
19 MR. SCOTT: You've got about five minutes, 19 excuse me, Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 12,
20 Counsel. 20 composite exhibits, directly conflict with the
21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 witness's assertion --
22 Q. The Celtics didn't play from 4:15 to 5:00, 22 MR. SCOT 1: This is all a speech on your
23 did they? 23 part.
24 A. No, but I did. 24 MR. SCAROLA: It is a speech.
25 Q. You did? 25 MR. SCOTT: It is a speech and --
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
38 (Pages 325 to 328)
329 331
1 MR. SCAROLA: I'm giving you notice as to CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 what you can do to do your homework. Okay?
3 They directly conflict with the witness's STATE OF FLORIDA
4 assertion that the flight logs exonerate him. COUNTY OF BROWARD
5 In fact --
6 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. I, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, Registered
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
MR. SCAROLA: -- the flight logs -- the
flight logs corroborate Virginia Roberts'
assertions.
MR. SCOTT: And I thank you very much for
that explanation and we look forward to
resuming this at the appropriate time and
responding to that.
THE WITNESS: And that is a false
statement.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that 1
was authorized to and did stenographically report
the foregoing videotape deposition of ALAN M.
DERSHOWITZ; pages through 145; that a review of
the transcript was requested; and that the
transcript is a true record of my stenographic
notes.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a
relative, employee, attomey, or counsel of any
of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee
of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel
VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The
connected with the action, nor am I financially
18 time is approximately 12:26 p.m. interested in the action.
19 (The proceedings ADJOURNED at 12:26 p.m.) Dated this 16th day of October, 2015.
20
21
22 KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF OATH October 16, 2015
330 332
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadcland Centre II - Suite 1400
STATE OF FLORIDA
9150 South Dadcland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
COUNTY OF BROWARD
BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ.
Re: Edwards v. Dcrshowitz
Please take notice that on the 16th day of October,
2015, you gave your deposition in the above cause.
I, the undersigned authority, certify At that time, you did not waive your signature.
that ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ personally appeared
The above-addressed attorney has ordered a copy of
this transcript and will make arrangements with you
before me and was duly sworn on the 16th day of
to read their copy. Please execute the Errata
October, 2015.
Sheet, which can be found at the back of the
Signed this 16th day of October. 2015.
transcript, and have it returned to us for
distribution to all parties.
14.4.i. -44".„4-0-
KIMBERLY FONTAL‘v u, &PR, FPR, CLR
Notary Public, State of Florida
My Commission No. EE 161994
Expires: 2/0 l /16
If you do not read and sign the deposition within a
reasonable amount of time, the original, which has
already been forwarded to the ordering attorney, may
be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
If you wish to waive your signature now, please sign
your name in the blank at the bottom of this letter
and return to the address listed below.
Very truly yours,
KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR
Phipps Reporting, Inc.
1615 Fon= Place, Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
1 do hereby waive my signature.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
www.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
39 (Pages 329 to 332)
333
ERRATA SHEET
DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE
In Re: EDWARDS V. DERSHOWITZ
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
October 16, 2015
PAGE LINE CHANGE
REASON
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have
read the foregoing document and that the facts
slated in it are true.
Date
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
40 (Page 333)
.phippsreporting.com
(888)811-3408
Exhibit 3
1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED
3
2 Also on behalf of the Defendant:
1
2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 SW EDER & ROSS, LLP
BY: KENNETH A. SW EDER, ESQUIRE
4 131 Oliver Street
3 CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 Boston, Massachusetts 02110
4
5 Tel: 617.646.4466
Fax: 617.646.4470
5 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, 6 E-mail: [email protected]
6
7
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
7
On behalf of the Witness:
vs. 8
8 UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, P.A.
9 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
9 BY: JONI J. JONES, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Litigation Division
10 10 160 East 300 South
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Heber Wells Building - 6th Floor
11 / 11 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
12
12
Tel: 801.366.0100
Fax: 801.366.0101
13 E-mail: [email protected]
14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
13
15 PAUL G. CASSELL
14 Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
16 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT 15 DARREN K. I N D Y K E, P L L C
17 VOLUME I, PAGES 1 to 151
16
BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE
575 Lexington Avenue
18 4th Floor
17 New York, New York 10022
19 Tel: 212.971.1314
20 Friday, October 16, 2015
18
21 1:33 p.m. - 4:31 p.m. 19 Also Present:
22
23
24
110 Southeast 6th Street
110 Tower- Suite 1850
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
20
21
DON SAVOY, Videographer
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
CAROLYN COHEN
22
25 Theresa Tomasel I i , RMR
23
24
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
25
(954) 331 -4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400
2 4
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
2
On behalf of the Plaintiffs:
2 WITNESS PAGE
3
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
3 PAUL G. CASSELL
4
5
BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE
2 1 3 9 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SIMPSON
6
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 5
6 Tel: 561.686.6300
Fax: 561.383.9541 6
7 E-mail: [email protected] INDEX TO EXHIBITS
7
8
0 n behalf of Virginia Roberts: 8 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
9
10
11
12
BOIES, SCH ILLER & FLEXN ER, LLP
BY: SIGRID STONE McCAW LEY, ESQUIRE
401 East Las 0 las Boulevard
Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tel: 954.356.0011
9
10
11
Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 1 - Plaintiff's 21
Response to Motion for Limited Intervention
by Alan M. Dershowitz
Fax: 954.356.0022 Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 2 - Jane Doe 22
13 E-mail: sm ccawley@ bsfIlp.com 12 Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4's Motion
Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action
14 13
On behalf of the Defendant: Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 3 - one-page 106
15 14 document produced by the witness
WILEY REIN LLP
16 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE
AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQUIRE
15
17 1776 K Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20006
16
18 Tel: 202.719.7000
Fax: 202.719.7049 17
19 E-m ail: rsim pson@ w ileyrein.com
18
20
Also on behalf of the Defendant: 19
21
22
23
24
25
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQUIRE
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: 305.350.5329
Fax: 305.373.2294
E-mail: [email protected]
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Original Exhibits have been attached to the
original transcript.)
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954)331-4400 (954)331-4400
1 of 38 sheets Page 1 to 4 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
61 63
0110:55 1 Q. I would like to know why you alleged "and 01:12:55 1 was your basis for this?
01:10:57 2 other minors" given what you have said about your 01:12:56 2 A. All right. So the initial basis for it
01:11:01 3 knowledge of the factual basis, so to speak, for that 01:1100 3 was --
01,11:06 4 allegation. 01:1100 4 MR. SCAROLA: First of all, let me object
0111:06 5 A. Okay. There are going to be -- I'm going to 01:1102 5 because Professor Cassell is not here as an
01:11:08 6 end up giving you nine reasons, each of which is 01:13:04 6 expert witness and hypotheticals are
01:11:11 7 complicated, so I just want to -- if -- if -- I don't 01:1106 7 inappropriate. You're calling for speculation on
01:11:13 8 want to be accused of -- of filibustering or anything. 01:1108 8 his part. I'm not going to instruct him not to
01:11:15 9 I just want you to know that you have asked a broad 01:13:10 9 answer, but it is an improper question.
01:11:18 10 question that's going to require a broad and extended 01:1314 10 MR. SIMPSON: I disagree, but you can answer
01:11:20 11 answer. It -- it -- 01:13:14 11 the question.
01:11:21 12 Q. Answer the question. 01:13:14 12 THE WITNESS: Right. So the -- the factual
011122 13 A. Okay. Then I'm going to refer to a -- I have 01:13.17 13 basis would -- we are setting aside
01:11:27 14 a -- well, actually, I don't. 01:13:21 14 attorney/client communications, right?
01:11:28 15 Q. Let me ask you this: Before you refer to 01:13:21 15 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:11:30 16 something -- 01:13:22 16 Q. I'm asking: What would you tell the judge?
01:11:30 17 A. Yeah. 01:13:2617 A. Right. So that -- I -- I -- that's
01:11:30 18 Q. -- please give me your best recollection of 01.112818 speculative to -- I don't think I can give a fair answer
01:1134 19 what the basis was, the factual basis that you had in 01:13:30 19 at this point because that would have involved going
01:11:37 20 mind. If the court said to you -- let me put it this 01:113220 back to my client and -- and carving out what kinds
01:11:40 21 way. If you went to court and Judge Marra said, 01:1136 21 of things we were going to present to Judge Marra in
01.11:43 22 Professor Cassell, what's your factual basis for this 01:13:30 22 light of the posture of the case at that point.
01:11:46 23 allegation? Tell me. What would you say? 0113,42 23 So it's a speculative question. I would
01:11:48 24 A. Right. 01:1145 24 have -- let me just -- without going into any
01:11:49 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Wait. Outside the context of 01:1348 25 attorney/client privileged communications, I would have
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
62 64
01:11:50 1 anything that's been communicated to you. 01:13:51 1 provided an ample factual basis for those allegations.
01:11:53 2 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. You have asked two 01:13:55 2 MR. SIMPSON: I move to strike as
01:11:55 3 different questions now, and I need to understand 01:1156 3 nonresponsive.
01:11:56 4 which question you are asking. 01:13,56 4 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:1158 5 The question that you posed before just now 01:13:58 5 Q. Let me ask it this way: We have talked
01:12:02 6 was: What was the reason for your including 01:14'00 6 about -- somewhat about the basis for this allegation
01:12:06 7 those allegations in this pleading? 01:14.02 7 about other minors. Putting aside information as to
01.12:08 8 Now you have asked: What is the factual 01:14:09 8 which you're claiming privilege, tell me what you knew
01:12:10 9 basis? And that's going back to questions that 01:14:13 9 as of December 30th, 2014, that formed the factual basis
01:12:14 10 we have already covered, and we have, I think, 01:14:20 10 for your -- for that allegation about other minors.
01'12:17 11 exhausted the ability to respond to that question 01:14:23 11 MR. SCAROLA: And I'll instruct you not to
01:12:20 12 outside of privileged information. 01:14:25 12 answer that question for the same reason, that
01:1213 13 Do you want to go back to the question about: 01:14:27 13 when the same question was asked earlier, I
01:12:26 14 What was your reason for including those 01:14:29 14 instructed you not to answer.
01:12:28 15 allegations? 01:1411 15 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I'm -- maybe we are not
01:12:29 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'll ask the question a 01:14:33 16 being clear, Jack. I'm asking him to put
01:1210 17 different way. 01:14:35 17 aside -- I mean, certainly, he -- he filed a
01:12:31 18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 01:14:37 18 pleading. You've asserted privilege as to
01:12:31 19 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:14:40 19 certain aspects. I'm simply asking him, putting
011213 20 Q. Mr. Cassell, I'm going to ask you: If you're 01:14:43 20 aside whatever you're claiming privilege for,
0t12:37 21 in court and Judge Marra said to you, counsel, what is 01:14:45 21 right, so I'm not -- I'm not asking you right now
0112:42 22 the factual basis for your allegation that Professor 01:14:47 22 to tell me anything you're claiming as
01:1247 23 Dershowitz abused other minors, what would you say? And 01:14,49 23 privileged.
0112:51 24 if you wouldn't say something because it was privileged, 01:14:49 24 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:12'52 25 then don't include it. What would you tell the judge 01:14:50 25 Q. Tell me whatever is not privileged that
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 61 to 64 of 151 16 of 38 sheets
65 67
0114:53 1 supports that allegation. 01:16:52 1 began, you know, I guess what we would call
01:14:55 2 A. Okay. The privileged information, obviously, 01:16:54 2 knock-and-talks, knocking on doors to try to get to some
01:14:58 3 you're asking me not to reveal at this point. 01:16:57 3 of these girls, and they would get to the girls, and
01:14:59 4 Q. I'm asking you -- I'm asking you to tell me 0116:59 4 many of them initially were -- were afraid to explain
01:75930 5 the nonprivileged information. And I'm not agreeing 0117:02 5 what had happened.
01:15:04 6 with your privilege assertion -- 0117:03 6 But as they -- as they continued talking to
01:15:04 7 A. Sure. 01:17:06 7 them, the girls began to explain that what was happening
01:15:07 8 Q. -- but for purposes of this question -- 0117:09 8 was, they were going over to Epstein's house under the
01:15:07 9 A. For purposes of this question. 01:17:13 9 guise of giving a massage, and when they got there, the
01:1507 10 Q. -- I'm accepting it. 01'1717 10 massage was, in fact, sexual activity.
01:15:07 11 A. All right. 0117:19 11 And for many of the girls, I think, as I say
0115:08 12 Q. Putting aside what you claim is privileged, I 01:17:22 12 around 23, 24, something along those lines, they were
0115:10 13 want to know everything that's the factual basis for 01:1725 13 underage. They were under the age of consent in
01:15:12 14 including the allegation about other minors. 0117:28 14 Florida.
01:15:14 15 A. Okay. Privileged information which I'm not 01.17:28 15 And so each and every one of those events was
0115'17 16 disclosing in any way would have interacted with a vast 01:17:30 16 a crime being perpetrated -- and let's be clear, not
011620 17 body of other information. 01:17:35 17 just being perpetrated by Epstein, but by other people
01:15:22 18 The vast body of other information would have 01:17.36 18 who were involved there at the mansion.
01:15:24 19 started with an 89-page police report from the Palm 01:17:38 19 And so what the -- the Palm Beach Police
0115:29 20 Beach Police Department that showed for about a 0117.40 20 Department was putting together was that this mansion in
01:15:30 21 six-month period in 2005, there was sexual abuse of 01:17:43 21 Florida was the nest of sexual abuse of young girls here
01:15:35 22 minor girls going on on a daily basis, in -- whenever 01:17-48 22 in Florida that involved, literally, in the -- in this
01:15:40 23 Jeffrey Epstein was in his Palm Beach mansion. 01:17:53 23 period of time, more than a hundred events that they
01:15:44 24 And on some cases, it was going on not once, 01:17:57 24 were able to document of sexual abuse.
01:15:48 25 not twice, but three times during the day. That -- let 0117:59 25 And when you put that together with the
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
66 68
01:15:51 1 me just be clear. I mean, I -- I referred to the 01:18:01 1 pattern or practice that was being revealed there, there
01:15:53 2 89-page police report. I have offered to put it into 011803 2 were hundreds of acts of sexual abuse going on in the
01:15:55 3 the record if -- if it would speed things up, but let's 01:1806 3 mansion.
01-15:58 4 just talk about some of the things that are in that 01:18:07 4 But then what becomes -- and this is where I
01:15:59 5 89-page police report. 0118:10 5 indicated that, you know, the answer would continue on.
0116:02 6 This was a -- a very intensive investigation 01:1812 6 The -- the problem was that the evidence was starting to
51:18:05 7 that the Palm Beach Police Department put together. 01:1814 7 show that this was a much broader series of events. For
011607 8 They did, for example, what are called trash covers; 011818 8 example, there were flight logs showing that Mr. Epstein
01:16:09 9 that is when trash came out of the -- of the mansion of 01:18:21 9 was then flying with underaged girls, and those flight
01:16:13 10 Epstein, the police would intercept the trash and then 0118:27 10 logs, you know, as -- as the flight logs began to
01:16.16 11 they would go through the trash and look for 01-18'29 11 develop, for example, we have seen, I know in the last
01:16:17 12 incriminating information. 0118:32 12 day or two here, one underage girl was Virginia Roberts
0116'19 13 And what they began to discover was memo 0118:35 13 who is on the flight, you know, with Epstein, and with
01,1022 14 pads -- and I say "memo pads," let's be clear, pad after 01:18:39 14 Maxwell, and those sorts of things.
01:1026 15 pad after pad, or I guess I should say, sheet after 01:18:41 15 So you start to look at the flight logs and
01:16:28 16 sheet after sheet that had the name of a girl, and then 01:1643 16 you see what's going on is not just events that are
0016:33 17 there was a notation of something to the effect of a 01:18,46 17 occurring in Florida, but it's occurring on a
01:16:35 18 massage. 01:18:50 18 multi-state basis, which now starts to make it a federal
01:16:36 19 And so the Palm Beach Police Department began 01:18:53 19 crime. For example, we are seeing evidence that --
01:16:39 20 tracking down, well, wait a minute, these -- these are 01:18:56 20 let's just talk about Virginia Roberts since she's
01:16'41 21 girls giving massages and they don't seem to have any 01:1858 21 central to this case.
01:16:44 22 specialized training in massages; they don't seem to be 01,18:59 22 We are seeing Virginia Roberts being flown
01,16.47 23 masseuses in any sense of the term; what's going on 01:19:02 23 from Florida to New York where she's in the clutches of
01:1047 24 here? 01:19.07 24 Jeffrey Epstein who is sexually abusing her, you know,
01:16:50 25 And so the Palm Beach Police Department 011912 25 many times a week. And not just Jeffrey Epstein, but
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
17 of 38 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
69 71
01:19:15 1 other powerful persons. For example, Ghislaine Maxwell 01:21:37 1 particular girl had been sexually abused.
01:19:18 2 is there with him on all of these flights and apparently 01:21:40 2 What the Palm Beach Police Department had
01,19:21 3 being involved in the abuse. 01:21:42 3 discovered was brazen, notorious, repetitive activity
01:1924 4 Indeed -- and so you -- you have -- you 01:2146 4 sometimes occurring as often as three times in a
01:1927 5 have that. You also start to see on the flight logs, 01,21:48 5 particular day. And so that led me to believe that the
01:19:30 6 what to my mind are some very sinister things, 01:21:51 6 sexual activity that was going on in Florida was such
01:19:34 7 suggesting that the pattern is not just confined to sort 01:21:54 7 that someone who was a regular house guest there would
01:19:36 8 of, you know, the girls that are there in Florida, but 01:21:57 8 have immediately come to the conclusion that, well,
01:19:39 9 it -- it is extending more broadly. 0122:00 9 look, gee, there are these underage girls coming in here
01,19A1 10 Like one of the -- to my mind, sinister and 01:22:0310 and they -- they seem to be -- you know, they don't seem
01:1544 11 scary things on the flight logs is, we see, you know, 01:2206 11 to be here to be doing, you know, business activities;
01:19:48 12 Virginia Roberts, who we know has been sexually abused, 0122:0812 they -- they might be here doing other kinds of
01:19:51 13 and we see Jeffrey Epstein, and then we see on the 01:22:11 13 activities. So those would be the kinds of things that
01:19:54 14 flight logs one female. 0122:13 14 would -- would have formed the factual basis.
01:19:55 15 That's kind of an odd notation for a flight 01:22:17 15 There are other things as well, but I'm sure
01:19:59 16 log because, you know, typically, I understand the 0122:18 16 you want to ask other questions in addition to that. So
01:20:02 17 flight logs, the purpose is, well, if something happens 01:22:22 17 I'll stop there, but those -- that's -- I think gives
0120:04 18 with the flight, or there's some question about who was 01:22:24 18 you a small flavor of the kind of evidence that, you
01:20:05 19 on it, you want to know who -- who the person was who 01:22:28 19 know, was form -- undergirding the allegations that were
01:20:07 20 was on the flight. 01:22:32 20 being presented here.
01:20:08 21 So, to my mind, when I started to see on 01:2232 21 Q. It sounds like you quite passionately believe
01,20:10 22 these flight logs entries like one female, I viewed that 012235 22 that there was strong evidence that Mr. Epstein had
01:20:15 23 as a potential device for obscuring the fact that there 01:22:39 23 engaged in sexual misconduct; is that right?
01:20:17 24 was interstate trafficking of underage girls for 01:22:41 24 A. I think "strong" understates it.
01:20:19 25 purposes of sexual activity. Serious federal offenses. 01:2244 25 Q. In the course of that long answer, you didn't
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
70 72
01:20:22 1 But then that evidence extended, you know, 01:22:48 1 mention Professor Dershowitz's name once.
01:2026 2 more broadly than that. The evidence also started to 01:22:51 2 A. I said flight logs. And let's talk about
01:20:28 3 show, again, if we talk just about flight logs, that 01:22:53 3 flight logs.
01,20,31 4 the -- that underage girls such as Virginia Roberts were 01:22:54 4 Q. Let me back up. You didn't answer his
01:20:34 5 being flown internationally from, for example, Teterboro 01:22:57 5 name -- mention his name once; is that -- is that your
01:20:39 6 in New York to -- to locations, just to pick one, you 01:23:00 6 recollection as well?
01:20:42 7 know, for example, in London, where again sexual abuse 01:23:00 7 A. That's correct. We were talking about a
0120:45 8 was occurring. 01:23:02 8 factual basis, and I'll be glad -- I told you that there
0120:47 9 And so you started to put together this 01:23:05 9 were other things if you want, factual basis for -- for
01:20:50 10 pattern of criminality that was started in this -- you 01:23:07 10 Mr. Dershowitz. I'll be glad to add that in. Let me -.-
01:20,54 11 know, I don't know what the right word is here. I don't 01:23:10 11 let's -- let me -- let me -- I would like to supplement
012056 12 want to -- I don't want to -- you know, you've heard 01:2311 12 my answer then if I could.
01:20:58 13 discussions of hyperbole and things like that, but we 01:23:12 13 Q. Do you want to look at a document?
01:21:01 14 have got this nest of -- of -- and I won't say snakes, 01:23:14 14 A. Yes.
0121:04 15 but we have this nest of criminals in Florida, but it -- 01:23:14 15 Q. Let me first -- have we exhausted your
01:21,07 16 it seems to be spreading to Epstein's mansion in New 0123:16 16 recollection without documents of all the evidence that
01:21:10 17 York; it seems to be spreading to Ghislaine Maxwell's 01:23:21 17 you would refer to to support the allegation that
01:21:14 18 flat in London, and -- and -- and it goes on. 01:23:23 18 Professor Dershowitz abused other minors?
01:21:17 19 So those are the kinds of things that would 0123:26 19 A. No.
01:21:19 20 have formed the -- the -- the basis, particularly when 01:23:26 20 MR. SCAROLA: And let me say that you have a
01:2125 21 you -- when you start to add in this fact: What the 0123:28 21 right to refer to whatever documents you choose
0121:28 22 Palm -- going back now to Florida with the Palm Beach 0123:31 22 to refer to, to be sure that you give a complete
01:21:31 23 Police Department. What the Palm Beach Police 0123:35 23 response to the question that has been asked, as
01:21:33 24 Department has -- had discovered was not a one-off kind 0123:38 24 long as you understand that whatever you refer to
01:21:35 25 of event, you know, on one particular day, one 01:23:40 25 is going to be available to the other side, and
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 69 to 72 of 151 18 of sheets
73 75
01:23:43 1 we would be happy to make it available to you. 0125,38 1 Mr. Epstein saying that she had been trafficked,
01:23:45 2 MR. SIMPSON: And -- and I'll give you an 0125:41 2 sexually trafficked, you know, not just abused by
01:23:47 3 opportunity to look at that -- 01:25:44 3 Mr. Epstein, but now being forcibly sent to, you know,
01:23:47 4 THE WITNESS: Sure -- 01,25:48 4 other people to abuse.
01:23:47 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 012649 5 And in the categories of people that were
01:23.48 6 Q. -- but I'm entitled to ask first about your 0125:52 6 sexually abusing her were academicians, and I knew that
01:23:50 7 recollection. 01:25:58 7 Mr. Dershowitz fell within that category of -- of being
01:23:51 8 A. Okay. 0126:00 8 an academician. The -- that complaint also indicated
0123:51 9 Q. Based on your recollection -- 0126:05 9 that there might be flight logs that would show that
0123:51 10 A. Right. 01:26.08 10 Virginia Roberts had been sexually abused in these
0123:52 11 Q. -- I want to know all the evidence -- 0126:13 11 various locations. And that started to indicate to me
0123:52 12 A. Right. 01:2616 12 that there might be what the law refers to as a common
01:23:54 13 Q. -- you were relying on here. 01:26:19 13 scheme or plan. And that, just as Virginia Roberts was
01:23:55 14 A. So what -- what I'm going to do is, I'm going 01:2623 14 being trafficked to these powerful people in various
01:2367 15 to make a list here on my -- on my notepad of all the 01:2626 15 places, there might well be other girls.
01:23:59 16 things, and then I'm going to compare that with notes I 01:26:28 16 And so I have mentioned a flight log, and let
0124:01 17 have here. There may be a couple things that I don't 01:26:31 17 you -- you wanted to talk about Mr. Dershowitz. On .-
01:24:03 18 cover. 01:26:35 18 on December 30th, 2009, I was aware that there was a
01:24:03 19 Q. As long as your counsel is okay with that. 01:26:39 19 flight log showing Mr. Dershowitz flying with Tatiana,
0124-0420 A. Yeah. 01:26:44 20 who as far as I can tell was not a business person, was
01:24:05 21 Q. You understand you'll have to give that to 01:26:49 21 not providing financial advice or something else.
01:24:07 22 me? 01:26:51 22 I understood that Mr. Epstein was a
01:24:07 23 A. Yeah. I'll give you the notes -- 01:26:53 23 billionaire who was heavily involved in financial
01:24:07 24 Q. All right. 0126:57 24 issues. I knew that Tatiana was on a plane with
01:24:09 25 A. -- and then I will compare with what I've got 0127'01 25 Mr. Dershowitz, and then there was also, if I recall
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
74 76
0124:11 1 there. So I mentioned the Palm Beach Police Department 0127:01 1 correctly, working from memory as -- as you were
01:24:14 2 report. 01:27:04 2 wondering about, there was a notation that
01:24:15 3 The next thing that I want to mention is the 01:27:06 3 Mr. Dershowitz was on a plane with one female.
012419 4 Jane Doe 102 complaint. In August of 2009, Bob 0127:08 4 And so I was -- when I looked at that, I'm
01:24:27 5 Josefsberg -- who is, from what I understood, a very 0127:11 5 seeing Mr. Dershowitz on a -- on a flight with a woman
01:24:32 6 well-regarded lawyer here in Florida; in fact, a lawyer 01:2715 6 who doesn't seem to be there for, frankly anything other
01:24:33 7 that was selected by the United States Government to 01:27:18 7 than sexual purposes or something along those lines with
01:24:36 8 represent a number of the -- of the girls that had been 01:27:21 8 Mr. Epstein, with Mr. Epstein, who is a sex trafficker,
01:24,40 9 sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. He was -- he was 01:27:25 9 and with one female which seemed to me to be a potential
01'24.43 10 part of the procedure that was including the
0127:30 10 entry for disguising international sex trafficking. So
01:24:45 11 nonprosecution agreement. 01:27:33 11 that was of concern.
01:24:46 12 In August of 2009, he filed a complaint on 01:27:34 12 I then began to look at, well, I wonder, how
01:24:48 13 behalf of Virginia Roberts. That complaint indicated 0127:36 13 would I find out if Mr. Dershowitz had been abusing
01:24:54 14 that Virginia Roberts had been sexually abused in 01:2739 14 other girls? Let's see. I knew that Virginia Roberts
01,24:58 15 Florida, in New York, and in -- in other places, as I 01:274215 had been forced to -- to -- to -- to do this sort of
01:25:02 16 recall. The thing that -- that I particularly recall 01:27:48 16 thing.
01,25:06 17 was that Mr. Josefsberg had said, Virginia Roberts was 01:27:56 17 MS. McCAWLEY: You're okay as long as
01:2$.12 18 abused by -- and he gave some categories of people. 01:2756 18 you're -- if you're revealing something that's in
01:2515 19 He mentioned, I think, business people. He 01:2759 19 an affidavit --
01:25:17 20 mentioned royalty, and he mentioned academicians. And 012759 20 THE WITNESS: That's right.
01:25:23 21 so to tie into your question, I knew that Professor 0127:59 21 MS. McCAWLEY: -- that she submitted, you're
01:2525 22 Dershowitz was an academician. And so what I was seeing 0127.59 22 fine.
0125:29 23 now was, that according to a very, very respected 01:28:00 23 THE WITNESS: Right. So -- so what...
01:2632 24 attorney here in Florida, he had found Virginia Roberts 0128'05 24 Let's see. What did I want, at this point --
01:25:34 25 to be credible, and had filed a lawsuit against 01:2605 25
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
19 of 38 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
77 79
0128:05 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:29:47 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah.
01:28:09 2 Q. Do you want the question back? 01:29:49 2 MR. SCAROLA: -- who keeps jumping up and
01:28:10 3 A. No. I'm just trying to remember what I was 01:29:50 3 down and distracting everybody in the room?
01:28:12 4 thinking about with -- with regard to -- 0129:52 4 MS. McCAWLEY: And there was also profanity
0128:15 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you need the response read 01'2054 5 used earlier. I mean, we just have to settle
01:28:17 6 back up to the point -- 01:29:55 6 down on this side, and take a deep breath, and
0128:18 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you would do that, 0129:58 7 let him answer his questions.
01:2820 8 yeah. I just -- 0129:58 8 MR. SIMPSON: Look, I mean, the same thing
01:28:20 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- about privilege arose. 01:29:59 9 was happening on the other side.
01:28:20 10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Let's just see what that 01:30:00 10 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir.
01:2820 11 one -- 01:3600 11 MS. McCAWLEY: There was no profanity on this
01:2821 12 MR. SCAROLA: Just read the last couple of 01;30:00 12 side of the table.
01:28:22 13 sentences back, or the last two sentences. 01:3060 13 MR. SCAROLA: No, no, no. There was never
01:28:31 14 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. Now I remember 01:3003 14 anyone who jumped to their feet at any time
0128:32 15 exactly what I was thinking. 01:3066 15 during the course of the last two days. The only
01:28:32 16 How would we go find out whether Mr. Epstein 01:30:08 16 person who keeps jumping up is Alan Dershowitz.
01:28:35 17 was lending women, or in this case, underage 01:30:13 17 Have him pass you a note quietly, if you would,
01:28:39 18 girls, to Mr. Dershowitz for sexual purposes? 01'3016 18 please.
01:2841 19 Well, the first thing I want to do was ask -- you 01:30:18 19 MR. SIMPSON: I will disagree with your
01:2845 20 know, I'd -- I'd go ask Jeffrey Epstein. 01:30:19 20 characterization, but let me say the
01728:47 21 And so what I discovered when I started to 01:3020 21 argumentation -
01:2848 22 look at the transcripts, there were a number of 01:30:21 22 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Are you -- are you
01:28:52 23 transcripts where Mr. Epstein was asked about 01:30:22 23 making the representation --
01:28:55 24 Alan Dershowitz. And rather than say, well, no, 01:30:22 24 MR. SIMPSON: No, I'm not.
01:28,57 25 he wasn't involved in any of these illegal 01:3023 25 MR. SCAROLA: -- that somebody on this side
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
78 80
012000 1 activities, Jeffrey Epstein took the Fifth as the 01:30:24 1 of the room jumped up?
01:29:03 2 phrase, you know, to be more precise. He 01:3025 2 MR. SIMPSON: No, no, no, I'm not.
01:29:05 3 exercised his right against compelled 01:3026 3 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you.
01:2966 4 self-incrimination and refused to answer the 01:3026 4 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not.
01:2909 5 question, which since these were civil cases, 01:30:27 5 MR. SCAROLA: And I appreciate that.
01:29:11 6 indicated to me, since he was being represented 01:30:27 6 MR. SIMPSON: And I --
01:29:14 7 by very experienced legal counsel, that there was 01:3029 7 MR. SCAROLA: And you do acknowledge that
01:2016 8 more than an insignificant risk of incriminating 01:30:30 8 Mr. Dershowitz has repeatedly been jumping up in
01:2919 9 himself if he answered that. 01:30:33 9 the middle of testimony, correct?
01:2920 10 And so Jeffrey Epstein now had taken the 01:30:36 10 MR. SIMPSON: That's -- he just got up and
01:29:23 11 Fifth. And one of the things that I was aware of 01:30:37 11 came over to me. That's the only time I'm aware
0129:26 12 having been involved in, you know, civil 01:30:39 12 of, because I'm -- I'm looking at the witness,
01:29:28 13 litigation and criminal litigation in other 01:3041 13 but he did just do that, and I will pass notes.
01:29:30 14 cases, was that once somebody refuses to answer a 01:30:44 14 We won't get up.
01:2032 15 question like, you know: Do you know 01:30,45 15 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, I will tell you --
01:29:35 16 Mr. Dershowitz? And they take the Fifth on that, 01:30:45 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to take time from
01:29:38 17 that you're then entitled to draw what's called 01:3047 17 this.
0129:40 18 an adverse inference. You can -- you can infer 01:30:47 18 MR. SCAROLA: I will -- I will, for the
012042 19 that, well, if they answered that question, they 01:3049 19 record, as an officer of the court, represent
01:29:44 20 would have -- 01:30:51 20 that there have been multiple times during the
01:29,44 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. 01:30:54 21 course of Professor Cassell's deposition when
0129:44 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah, I want to make an 01,30:58 22 Alan Dershowitz has jumped up in the middle of
01:29:44 23 objection here -- 01:3161 23 the testimony and excitedly whispered in your
01:29,44 24 MR. SCAROLA: Pardon me. Could you please 01:31:07 24 ear.
012047 25 try to control your client -- 01:31:07 25 You may not have realized it because you were
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:08 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
Cont'd.
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 77 to 80 of 151 20 of 38 sheets
81 83
01:31:08 1 focusing on the witness, but everybody on this 01:33:11 1 review, in which he took the Fifth when asked questions
01:31:10 2 side of the room has been distracted by his 01:33:13 2 about Dershowitz.
01:31:13 3 unprofessional conduct. 01:3114 3 So, at that point, in trying to figure out,
0111:16 4 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to argue with 01:33,17 4 you know, whether Mr. Dershowitz was involved in
01:31:18 5 you. And I -- 01:3120 5 sexually abusing, not only Virginia Roberts, but in
01:3318 6 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 01:33:24 6 other girls, then you go down to the next level, next
01:31:18 7 MR. SIMPSON: -- I disagree with that 01:3126 7 layer of the criminal conspiracy.
01:31:20 8 characterization. There is another attorney 01:33:28 8 Epstein is at the top, so you go to the next
01:31:22 9 sitting between us. We will pass notes. 01:3131 9 layer. These are, you know, basically the -- the women
0111,24 10 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 011313 10 who, from what I could gather, were -- were older than
01:31:25 11 MR. SIMPSON: And we -- and I believe, 01:33:36 11 the age that Epstein wanted to sexually abuse. I think
01,31:29 12 Ms. McCawley, were you instructing not to answer 01,3140 12 these were 22 and 23-year-old girls, so they had, you
01:31:30 13 or what was happening? What did you -- what were 01,33:44 13 know, essentially aged out of being his sexual abuse
01:3134 14 you raising? 01:33:47 14 victims, but they continued to -- what they would do is
01:31:34 15 MS. McCAWLEY: No. There was a lot of 01:33:50 15 collect girls for him under the age of 18, that I guess
01:31:35 16 yelling going on here, so I was trying to make 01:33:5316 was in his target range.
01:31:37 17 sure that everybody was quiet -- 01:3355 17 And so what -- so the next person I wanted to
18 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 01:3358 18 talk to, you know, and get information from was Sarah
19 MS. McCAWLEY: -- so that the client could 01:34:01 19 Kellen. Sarah Kellen is on a lot of these flight logs
20 answer. 01:3404 20 with, you know, these girls that -- or women and with
21 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me back up. 01:34:07 21 Epstein and others, and so I wanted to talk to Sarah
22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0114:07 22 Kellen.
01:3141 23 Q. Professor Cassell, I think you were in the 011411 23 But what I discovered there was that, when
01:31:41 24 middle of an answer? 01:3415 24 Sarah Kellen was asked about Alan Dershowitz, she took
01:31:42 25 A. i was. Yes, if I could conclude -- 01:3418 25 the Fifth, and there was -- she wasn't the only one.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
82 84
01:31:43 1 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Could the court 01:34:21 1 There was Miss Mucinska, who also took the Fifth when
01:31:44 2 reporter read me the last two lines of your 01:34:25 2 asked questions about Alan Dershowitz.
01:31:46 3 answer? 01:34:27 3 And then there was Marcin -- Miss Marcinkova
01:3146 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 01:34:30 4 who also took the Fifth. So what we -- what I had at
01,31:46 5 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read 011433 5 this point was Jeffrey Epstein's international sex
01:31:46 6 by the reporter.) 01:34:35 6 trafficking organization. I had the next echelon, and
01:31:46 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0134:38 7 both the top kingpin of the sex trafficking
01:32:26 8 Q. Okay. Can you pick up then? 01,34:42 8 organization, and the next echelon had taken the Fifth,
01.32:27 9 A. Sure. I'll pick up -- pick up the -- 01:34:46 9 had refused to answer questions about Alan Dershowitz.
01:32:27 10 Q. Okay. 011449 10 And so, at -- at that point, I was drawing an
01:32:31 11 A. So I was beginning to draw an adverse 01:3451 11 adverse inference, not just from one person, but from
01:32,31 12 inference when 3effrey Epstein, who is at the heart of 01:34:54 12 four persons, and that adverse inference was being
01:32:34 13 the sexual abuse of, not only Virginia Roberts, but 01:34157 13 strengthened by the surrounding circumstances, some of
01:32:39 14 dozens and dozens and dozens of -- of girls literally 01:35.00 14 which we have already talked about.
01:32,40 15 scattered across the globe, takes the Fifth, refuses to 01:35:00 15 One of the things that -- that really
01:32:43 16 answer the question, off the top of my head, I can't 01:35:02 16 bolstered the adverse inference that I was drawing in
01:32:46 17 recall exactly, but something along lines of: Do you 0135.55 17 this case was that I've mentioned those three girls,
011148 18 know Alan Dershowitz? And he says, I take the Fifth. 01:35:09 18 Kellen, Mucinska, and Marcinkova. They were all covered
01:3260 19 That sort of, frankly, startled me, that -- that this 0115:12 19 by a nonprosecution agreement. And the nonprosecution
01,32:55 20 international sex trafficker was taking the Fifth now 01:35:15 20 agreement was highly unusual.
01:32:57 21 when asked about Mr. Dershowitz. 01:35:17 21 1 -- I had been a federal prosecutor for
01:3101 22 And so I was stymied in trying to get 01:35:18 22 about four years, I had been a federal judge for about
01,33:04 23 information from Mr. Epstein at that point. I think 01,35:21 23 five-and-a-half years, so I had seen a lot of -- of, you
011107 24 there were two depositions, if I recall correctly off 0115:23 24 know, nonprosecution types of arrangements. And one of
01:33:09 25 the top of my head, that -- that I had an opportunity to 011626 25 the things that was very unusual in this one is, it has
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
21 of 38 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
85 87
01:35:29 1 what I'll refer to as the blank-check immunity 01:37:40 1 that are said there, but Alessi puts Mr. Dershowitz at
01:35:33 2 provision. 01,37:46 2 the nest of this international sex trafficking
01:35:34 3 There was a provision in the nonprosecution 01:37:47 3 organization. Let's see. I think he said four or five
01:3636 4 agreement that said, this agreement will prevent federal 01:37:51 4 times a year, two or three -- you know, two or three
01:35:40 5 prosecution for international and interstate sex 01:37:55 5 days when he goes there.
01:35:43 6 trafficking, not only of Jeffrey Epstein, and not only 01:3766 6 And let's be clear, I know Mr. Dershowitz had
01:35:46 7 of the four women who were identified, but -- and this 01:37:58 7 said at some points like, I'm an attorney, and that's my
01:35:49 8 is a direct quote: Any other potential co-conspirator, 01:38:00 8 client and so forth. And Alessi said, no, but this was
01:35:53 9 close quote. 01:38:03 9 not in a -- in a lawyer/client capacity; this is in a
01:35:55 10 And so that was unusual because what it -- 01:38:09 10 friend capacity.
01:35:57 11 what it seemed to be doing was that somehow this 01:38:10 11 And so now we have Alessi putting him there
01:3568 12 agreement was quite out of the normal and had been 01,38:1212 at the same time when young girls were there. And one
01:36:00 13 designed to extend immunity to other people that might 01:38:15 13 of the -- the -- the things that I picked up, so is
01:36:04 14 have been associated with Epstein. 01:38:17 14 Alessi -- you know, is he able to figure out who these
01:36:05 15 And I knew that that category included the 01:38:19 15 girls are?
01:36:09 16 people that were involved in negotiating this highly 01:38:20 16 A photograph of Virginia Roberts is shown to
01:36:11 17 unusual provision included Mr. Dershowitz, who had been 012822 17 Juan Alessi in the deposition, and he I.D.s the
01:36:14 18 heavily involved, not only in the drafting of the 01,38:26 18 photograph as, you know, V.R., so he -- he had, you
01:36:18 19 agreement, but had also been involved remarkably in 01:38:30 19 know, put two and two together.
01:3622 20 attacking the credibility of these girls and saying 0128:30 20 So now I've got V.R. coming to the house at a
01:36:25 21 things like, you know, it was -- Epstein wasn't 0128:34 21 time when Mr. Dershowitz is also in the house, and
01:36:28 22 targeting minor girls, which just struck -- you know, I 01:38:37 22 apparently spending, you know, two to three nights there
01:36:33 23 was -- I don't want to use a technical term, 01:38:40 23 and doing this four or five times a year.
01:36:35 24 gob-smocked, that a defense attorney with an obligation 01:38:45 24 Now, Alessi wasn't the only one. There was
01:36:37 25 to tell the truth was making a factual representation
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
01:38:48 25 Alfredo Rodriguez who was there in about 2004 to 2005,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
86 88
01:36:42 1 that Jeffrey Epstein was not targeting minor girls, when 01:3863 1 after the time period of Virginia Roberts, but it's part
01:36:44 2 the Palm Beach Police Department had collected, you 01:38:56 2 of the common scheme or plan that we've been discussing
01:3647 3 know, 23 of them that had all given essentially 01:38:59 3 here.
01:36:50 4 interlocking stories about how they had all gone over to 01:3659 4 And so in 2005, Alfredo Rodriguez says, yeah,
01:36:54 5 this house, you know, the mansion, to give a massage and 01:39:02 5 again, Mr. Dershowitz is there at a time when these
01:36:57 6 when they had gotten there, they had been sexually 01:39:05 6 massages are going on. When you start to look at Alessi
01:36:58 7 abused. 01:39:09 7 and Rodriguez's statements in context where they're --
01:3658 8 So the kingpin wouldn't talk. The next 01:39:14 8 they're saying he's there at the same time the massages
01:37:01 9 echelon of the trafficking organization wouldn't talk. 01:3616 9 are occurring, and with the West Palm Beach Police
01:37:03 10 So the next step was to say, okay, let's see if we can 01:39:19 10 Department reports showing that massages are of a sexual
01:37:06 11 find somebody, you know, lower level in there, you know, 01:39:22 11 nature, again, it started to put two and two together.
01:37:08 12 a household employee or something like that; maybe they 01:3626 12 One of the things that was particularly
01:37:10 13 will have some information about, you know, what this 01:39:30 13 important about Rodriguez's situation was that Rodriguez
0127:12 14 criminal organization is doing. 01:39:34 14 had an access to what's been called the little black
01:37:14 15 Now, let's -- let's understand, you know, 01:3938 15 book, or I think he referred to it as the holy grail.
01:37:16 16 given the pervasiveness of the -- of the criminal 01:39:40 16 This was Jeffrey Epstein's, you know, telephone book
01:37:19 17 activity, I -- I wasn't convinced that they were going 01:39:42 17 where he had telephone numbers in it.
01:3721 18 to be able to get in there and start saying exactly what 01:39:45 18 And so Rodriguez had that and, you know, I
01:3724 19 was going on because they might well be exposing 01:3648 19 guess thought that this would be worth a lot of money
01:37:26 20 themselves to criminal -- you know, criminal 01:3650 20 because it would -- you know, it would identify all of
01:3729 21 culpability. 01:3652 21 the people that have been sexually abused by -- by
01:37:30 22 But I -- I was able to read a sworn 01:3654 22 Jeffrey Epstein. And so he tried to sell it. The FBI
01:37:32 23 deposition from Juan Alessi, and Juan Alessi -- I 01:3657 23 busted him for that.
01:37:37 24 think -- I don't know. Maybe just to speed things up 01:39:58 24 And when the FBI busted him, now he's got
01:37:38 25 today, I won't go through all the things that are -- 01:40:00 25 this book. And so the book went to Alessi, and
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 85 to 88 of 151 22 of 38 sheets
89 91
01:40:05 1 according to a -- to a later FBI report, Alessi 01A2:32 1 a lot of money. I mean, Epstein was identified as a
01A0'.07 2 identified information that was pertinent to the FBI's 01:42:32 2 billionaire in this article, billionaire with -- with a
01A0:07 3 investigation. 01:4Z38 3 B, so the record is clear.
01:40:11 4 And so when I look at the little black book 01A2:39 4 But he said, look, if Epstein lost all his
01:40:14 5 that I have seen copies of, there are a handful of names 01:42:43 5 money -- I'm paraphrasing here -- I would be, you know,
01:40:17 6 in that black book that have been circled, apparently by 01A2.44 6 happy to walk down, you know, the Coney Island Boardwalk
01:40:22 7 Mr. Rodriguez, and one of the names that's -- that has 01:42:47 7 with him and discuss things with him, as -- you know,
01:40:25 8 been circled is Alan Dershowitz. And so that, to me, 01:42:49 8 even if he didn't have any money.
01:40:30 9 was suggesting that Mr. Rodriguez had identified, you 01A2:50 9 So now I'm seeing Dershowitz is a very close
01:40:35 10 know, Alan Dershowitz as somebody who had information 01:42:54 10 personal friend of Jeffrey Epstein. And then I started
01:40:38 11 about this -- this international sex trafficking ring. 01:42:58 11 to look at flight logs. There were -- there were some
01:40:40 12 But just as a side note, but an important 01:43:01 12 very interesting things that I noticed on the flight
01:40:42 13 note, when the -- the thing that was circled on the Alan 01:43:04 13 logs.
01:40:46 14 Dershowitz page was not a single phone number 01:43:04 14 One of the things I noticed was when I began
01A0:49 15 indicating, you know, somebody had bumped -- you know, 01:43:07 15 to, you know, get into this, that, you know, I was
01,40-51 16 Epstein had bumped into at one point. I believe there 01:43:13 16 wondering, well, what -- well, how do these flight logs
01:40:56 17 were 10 or 11 phone numbers that were associated with 01'4314 17 come into the possession of, you know, law enforcement
01:40:57 18 Mr. Dershowitz that had all been circled and an e-mail 01:43:16 18 agencies? And the answer turned out to be that they had
01:41:00 19 address as well. 01:4320 19 been provided by Epstein's defense attorney and -- and,
01:41:02 20 So that started to corroborate my sense that 01:4323 20 you know, coincidentally, I suppose, or in my mind,
01'41:05 21 Mr. Dershowitz was, indeed, a very close friend of
01:43:27 21 suspiciously, they were not provided by just any defense
01:41:10 22 Jeffrey Epstein. Now, I had then continued to do -- 01A3:30 22 attorney on this rather large defense team. They were
01:41:14 23 there's been reference today to, you know, using Google 01:43:33 23 provided by one attorney according to Detective Recarey.
01:41:16 24 to do research and so forth. So I Googled Jeffrey 01:43:36 24 Detective Recarey testified under oath that the flight
01:41:20 25 Epstein and one of the things that pops up rather 01:43:39 25 logs were provided to him by Alan Dershowitz.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331.4400 (954) 331-4400
90 92
01A1:22 1 rapidly is an article in Vanity Fair. 01:43:41 1 So one of the things that was -- was
01:41:25 2 And what you see in that article is, you 01:43:43 2 interesting is, Dershowitz has had access to these
01:41:28 3 know, discussion about Mr. Epstein, but when you're 01:43:45 3 flight logs, and now I'm beginning to wonder, well, has
01:41:33 4 trying to do a profile of someone, you try to figure out 01:43:48 4 there been an opportunity to sanitize those flight logs
01:41:34 5 who that person's closest friends are. 01:43:50 5 or remove any incriminating information?
01:41:35 6 And so the Vanity Fair author had gone to 01:43:52 6 And -- and one of the things that was
01:41:38 7 Alan Dershowitz, you know, our -- Mr. Dershowitz here, 01,43:54 7 interesting about the flight logs that were produced --
01:41:42 8 and had asked him, hey, what do you know about Jeffrey 01:4356 8 I believe just so the record is clear, that was Exhibit
01:41:45 9 Epstein? 01:44:02 9 1 that -- if we could -- if I could refer -- I need to
01:41:46 10 And, again, off the top of my head, you want 01A4104 10 refresh my recollection as to -- well, I don't -- you
01:41:47 11 to know what I can remember right now. What I can 01:44:07 11 may not want me to look at documents.
01:41A9 12 remember right now is that in the Vanity Fair article, 01'44:08 12 It was either Exhibit 1 or 2 this morning
0141:53 13 the -- in the Vanity Fair article, Mr. Dershowitz said, 01:44:11 13 during Dershowitz's deposition which was covering a time
01:41:59 14 I've written 20-some odd books; there's only one person 01:44:15 14 period of January to, I believe, September 2005. These
01A2:03 15 outside my immediate family with whom I share drafts, 01:44:20 15 were flight logs that were produced by Mr. Dershowitz to
0142:06 16 and that's Jeffrey Epstein. 01:44:23 16 the Palm Beach Police Department.
01.42:08 17 So I took that as indicating a -- a very 01:44:25 17 And you wonder why did they stop in
01:42:10 18 close personal association that -- you know, among the 01A4.27 18 September -- you know, why stop in September 2005?
01:42'13 19 people that -- that obviously he's sharing this -- these
01:44'31 19 What's the significance of that? Well, later on,
01A2:15 20 kinds of things that he wants evaluated before he shares 01:44'35 20 additional flight logs were obtained, and sure enough,
01:42:18 21 them with the broader world, there's his immediate 01:44:39 21 who shows up on an October 2005 flight log with Jeffrey
01:42:21 22 family and then there's -- there's Jeffrey Epstein. 01:44:45 22 Epstein? Mr. Dershowitz.
01:4223 23 There was also another similar quote in the 01:44:46 23 So that led to a suspicion that
01:42:24 24 article that indicated that -- that Mr. Dershowitz said 01:44:49 24 Mr. Dershowitz had provided to the Palm Beach Police
01:42:29 25 that he wasn't interested in Epstein just because he had 01:44:52 25 Department flight logs that, the time period of which
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
23 of 38 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
93 95
01:44:54 1 for the production had been carefully crafted to keep 01:46:33 1 THE WITNESS: Right. No, I mean, I want to
01:44:57 2 him out of it; in other words, to not produce the 01:48:36 2 make -- I want to make clear that there was a lot
01:4459 3 October 2005 version. 01:46:37 3 of information that I was relying on in filing
01:45:03 4 The other thing I -- I began to discover as I 01,46:40 4 this pleading, and -- and, of course, the later
01:45:05 5 started going through some flight logs, Dave Rogers, who 01:46.42 5 pleading. So we are on the subject of flight
01:45:08 6 is one of I think about three pilots that -- that 01:46:44 6 logs.
01:4610 7 Epstein regularly relied on to fly his -- you know, he 01:46:44 7 Flight logs showed that the flight logs
01:45:13 8 had very fancy -- to use the technical term -- jets. 01:4646 8 Mr. Dershowitz had produced to Detective Recarey
01:45:18 9 There were about -- there were about three pilots there. 01:46:49 9 were incomplete and inaccurate. And so that led
01:45:20 10 One of them had some flight logs and that -- 01:46:52 10 to concern on my part that Mr. Dershowitz had had
01:45:24 11 that was Pilot Dave Rogers, if I'm recalling his name 01:46:55 11 an opportunity to sanitize the flight logs,
01:45:26 12 correctly. And so later on in the litigation, the sex 01:46:57 12 had -- had -- had provided incomplete production,
01:45:30 13 abuse litigation against Epstein, flight logs were 01:47:01 13 you know, obviously, very important production
01:45:34 14 obtained from Dave Rogers, and it was possible to -- to 01:47:02 14 that the Palm Beach Police Department was looking
01'4637 15 compare -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to -- I want to make 01:47:05 15 at.
01:4640 16 sure I get -- you know, the question is: How much can -I
01:47:06 16 Then we got some additional flight logs from
01:45:42 17 remember and I'm trying to make sure I get -- get it all 01:47:09 17 Dave Rogers. And what those flight logs
01:45:44 18 in. 01:47:11 18 showed -- first off, let's talk again about
01:45:45 19 And so the flight logs were produced from 01:47:14 19 the -- the production of those flight logs.
01:45:48 20 Dave Rogers. And so Dave Rogers produced some flight 01:4717 20 My recollection is that Dave Rogers's flight
01:45:51 21 logs, and some of the flights that he produced logs for 01:4721 21 logs were provided by Bruce Reinhart who was a
01:45:56 22 coincided with the logs that Mr. Dershowitz had provided 01:47:24 22 former Assistant U.S. Attorney who had been
01:45:59 23 to the Palm Beach Police Department, and there were 0147-26 23 inside the Southern District of Florida Office at
01:46:01 24 inconsistencies. And so that, again, aroused my 01:47:29 24 a time when the Epstein case was the subject of
01:46:05 25 suspicion that maybe Mr. Dershowitz when he had -- 01:47:32 25 regular discussion in that office.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
94 96
01:46:08 1 MR. SCOTT: I just got a call from a lawyer 01:47:33 1 And then he had gone to work for some kind of
01:4609 2 on the screen. His -- his phone is not working, 01:47:36 2 a -- a law firm or private operation that was
01:4610 3 Epstein's lawyer, Darren Indyke. 01:47:39 3 located adjacent to Mr. Epstein's business. And
01:46:10 4 MR. SIMPSON: Why don't -- 01:47:44 4 so, now, Reinhart, who appeared to be being paid
01:46:15 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you want to take a break for 01:47:48 5 by Mr. Epstein, and certainly was adjacent to
01:46:17 6 a second? 01:47:49 6 Mr. Epstein's business office, was producing
01:46:17 7 MR. SIMPSON: Well, why don't -- well, why 01:4761 7 these flight logs.
01:46:17 8 don't we let him finish his answer? 01:47:52 8 So that, again, aroused suspicion that the
01:46:18 9 MR. SCAROLA: Let him finish the answer. 01:47:54 9 flight logs that were being produced would have
01:46:20 10 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, lets do that. You're 01:4757 10 been sanitized or inaccurate.
01'46:20 11 right. 01:47:58 11 But even -- I mean, you know, I think the
01:46:21 12 MR. SCAROLA: Although it may take a while. 0148:00 12 problem with -- you know, you cant sanitize
01:4621 13 THE WITNESS: It -- its, I mean, the 01:4602 13 everything. That would be too suspicious. And
01.46:21 14 question -- 01:48:04 14 so what -- what was -- was -- what was evident on
01:46:21 15 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah. But lets -- 01:4607 15 these flight logs was, for example, approximately
01,4625 16 MR. SCOTT: I don't care. 01:48:11 16 ten flights by Mr. Dershowitz with Tatiana has --
01:46:25 17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Lets -- let's go ahead 01:48:18 17 has been discussed; with Maxwell; with Jeffrey
01:46:27 18 and finish. 01.48:21 18 Epstein. One of them had one female, which,
01:46:27 19 MR. SCOTT: Let's go ahead and finish the 01:48:25 19 again, in the context that I was looking at,
01:46:29 20 answer. We heard this much. 01.48:27 20 seemed to be a potential code word for
01:46:29 21 MR. SCAROLA: Good. Thank you. 01:48:28 21 underage -- underage girl.
01.46:29 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. So there -- 01:48:32 22 And so those flight logs showed, you know,
01:46:31 23 MR. SCOTT: I don't want to break him on a 01:48:35 23 again, close association and travel with --
01.46:32 24 roll. 01,48.40 24 with -- with -- with Mr. Dershowitz, and
01:4633 25 MR. SCAROLA: Thanks. 0148:47 25 Mr. Epstein.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 93 to 96 of 151 24 of 38 sheets
97 99
01:48:51 1 Another thing that I had, and I will not 01:50:19 1 going into any confidential communications or
01748:53 2 reveal any privileged communications here or any 01:50:22 2 trying to waive in any way, I knew that David
01:48:56 3 confidential information, but on December 30th, I 01:5024 3 Boies had agreed to represent Virginia Roberts,
01:48:59 4 was aware that one of the preeminent lawyers in 01:5027 4 which gave me additional confidence in the fact
01:49:02 5 the United States, David Boies, had agreed to 01:50:30 5 that I was also representing this young woman in
01,49:07 6 represent Virginia Roberts. And given the vast 01:50:34 6 her effort to bring sex traffickers to justice,
01:49:11 7 amount of business that -- that, you know, tries 01:50:37 7 and those who had sexually abused her to justice.
01:49:13 8 to get in the door -- 01:5641 8 And so those are things that come to mind
01A9:15 9 MR. SIMPSON: Could I interrupt? I mean, I 01:50:46 9 immediately as -- let me just take a second and
01:49:17 10 think we are going towards a waiver here. 01:50:50 10 see if there were other things regarding
01:49:19 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. No, no, no, I do not -- 01:50:56 11 Dershowitz that -- that come immediately --
01:4920 12 MR. SIMPSON: We can't have testimony 01:51:01 12 immediately to mind.
01A9:21 13 about -- 01:51:03 13 Oh, one of the things was in the Jane Doe 102
01A921 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. 01:51:09 14 complaint, which alleged academicians that had --
01:49:22 15 MR. SIMPSON: -- this is one of the most 01:51:14 15 that had abused -- sexually abused Jane Doe 3,
01A922 16 respected people in the country, or lawyers in 01:51:19 16 there -- there were -- so that raises a question,
01:49:26 17 the country, and then you won't answer the 01:51:24 17 obviously, of who were the academicians that Bob
01:4926 18 questions -- 01,51:30 18 Josefsberg had identified?
01:49:26 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. 01:51:31 19 I can't recall, actually. Let me -- the
014928 20 MR. SIMPSON: -- you said not to answer. 01:51:33 20 record should be clear, I can't recall
01:49:28 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh. Well, describing David 01:51:34 21 immediately whether it was singular or plural.
01:49:30 22 Boies in general -- 01:5116 22 It may have been plural, but if it's singular, I
0149:30 23 MR. SIMPSON: I agree with the description. 01:51:36 23 don't want to suggest that there were other
01A9:31 24 MS. McCAWLEY: -- doesn't constitute a 01:51:40 24 academicians, but at least one academician had
01:4922 25 waiver. 01:5142 25 sexually abused Jane Doe 3, according to the
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
98 100
01:49:32 1 MR. SIMPSON: He's a distinguished lawyer. 01:51:45 1 complaint that had been filed by Bob Josefsberg.
01:49:32 2 MR. SCAROLA: And I don't think we are 01:5148 2 There were two things that were of interest
01:49:33 3 getting beyond anything that is a matter of 01:51:49 3 to that: One was that Mr. Epstein, the man that
01:49:37 4 public record. 01:51:51 4 I wasn't able to get information from because he
01:49:37 5 MR. SIMPSON: I just -- I -- 0,51:54 5 was invoking the Fifth, had refused or declined
01:49:38 6 MS. McCAWLEY: But I appreciate you -- 01:51:57 6 to file an answer to that complaint.
01:49:38 7 MR. SIMPSON: Be aware of waiver. 01:52:00 7 Rather than deny the allegations, he had,
01:49:39 8 MS. McCAWLEY: -- letting me know that. 01:5203 8 ultimately, it's my understanding -- I don't have
01:4940 9 THE WITNESS: All right. I will be -- I will 01:52,05 9 inside information and I'm not trying to waive
01:49:41 10 not waive anything, and if I start to do that, I 01:52:07 10 any information, but my understanding is that
01:49'43 11 would certainly request the opportunity to -- to 01:52:09 11 rather than answer the complaint, he settled the
0149:4512 retract what I'm doing, but I was aware -- since 01:52:11 12 case through the payment of some kind of
01:49:48 13 the issue is, well, what's in the public record, 01:52:13 13 compensation that lane Doe 102 found desirable
01:49'50 14 I was aware that, you know, probably the most 01:52:17 14 for dropping her claim.
01:49:52 15 significant United States Supreme Court case 01:5219 15 The other thing that I found interesting is
01:49:55 16 argued in the last 20 years was Bush versus Gore, 01:52:21 16 that 3osefsberg's partner, I believe it is,
01:49:58 17 which was a case that essentially determined who 01:52:25 17 Miss Ezell, had been to some of the depositions
01:50:01 18 was going to be President of the most powerful 01:5229 18 of, for example, I believe Juan Alessi and
01:50:03 19 country in the world. 01:52:33 19 Alfredo Rodriguez. And I believe at least one of
01:50:04 20 There were two attorneys who argued that case 01:5235 20 those, and perhaps both of those. And she had
01:5065 21 in front of the United States Supreme Court, and 01:52:36 21 asked questions about Alan Dershowitz in those
01:50:07 22 arguing for the Democratic Presidential 01:52:39 22 depositions, but had not asked questions about
0150:10 23 Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. 01:52:42 23 other academics in those depositions.
01:50:12 24 He had put his credibility on the line in 01524524 So that led me to conclude that Bob
01:5016 25 arguing the Bush versus Gore case, and without 01:52:51 25 Josefsberg and his outstanding law firm had
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
25 of 38 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
101 103
01:52:51 1 identified Alan Dershowitz as someone who had 02:0923 1 let me clear all of that misunderstanding up.
01:52:54 2 information relevant -- and let's be clear, that 02:0925 2 You know, that's -- frankly, if I had gotten
01,52:56 3 this is not a lawsuit about some contract dispute 020928 3 something like that, that's what I would have
01:52:58 4 or something -- that he was someone who had 02.09:29 4 said.
01:53:00 5 information relevant to the sexual abuse of 02:0030 5 The answer that came back was -- from
01:53102 6 underage girls and, indeed, they were asking 02:09:32 6 Mr. Dershowitz was something along the lines of,
01:53:05 7 questions about what information -- what 020134 7 if I remember correctly, well, tell me what
01:53:07 8 information he might have. 02:0136 8 you -- you -- tell me what you want to know and
01:53:09 9 Another -- I know, I remember now, there's a 02:09:38 9 I'll decide whether to cooperate, was I think
01:53:11 10 whole other line of things that -- that I had in 02:0041 10 the phrase that was used. And -- and so there
01:53:13 11 mind at the time, and I think since you want to 020043 11 was an attempt, you know, a 2009 attempt, a 2011
010316 12 test my memory -- I'm not -- let me be clear. 02:09:46 12 attempt to get information from Mr. Dershowitz.
01:5319 13 I'm not claiming I have a superb memory. I have 02:09:49 13 Then there was another subpoena without
01:53:21 14 an average memory, but this is a subject that's 02:09:52 14 deposition for -- for documents. You know, we
01:5322 15 very important to me, and so I've worked, you 0209:54 15 have heard a lot about records in this case that
01:53:26 16 know, very hard to get all the information. 02:09:57 16 could prove innocence. There was a records
01:53:31 17 I would like to take a break. 02:09:58 17 request to Mr. Dershowitz in 2013. And, again,
01:53:32 18 MR. SCAROLA: Sure. Take a break. 021001 18 my understanding was that there was no -- you
01:53:33 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 02:1003 19 know, no documents were provided on that.
01:53:36 20 record, 3:27 p.m. 021007 20 And so those -- I had that information.
02:07:43 21 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 02:10:11 21 Another bit of information that I had was that in
02:07:4322 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 021014 22 2011, I believe in early April -- this is not
0208:03 23 record, 3:41 p.m. 02:1019 23 attorney/client privileged information from
020006 24 THE WITNESS: I want to continue my answer. 0210:21 24 Virginia Roberts. This is a telephone call that
02:08:08 25 I'm sorry. I got emotional there for a moment. 02:1023 25 she placed from Australia where she had been
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
102 104
02:08:12 1 I want to do a good job for Virginia Roberts 02:1027 1 essentially forced into hiding by Jeffrey
02:08:12 2 on -- on representing all the -- the evidence 02:1028 2 Epstein. She managed to escape and was hiding
02:08:14 3 that is available to support her. 02:10:31 3 out in -- in Australia, and that she would --
02:08:16 4 The next thing that I was thinking of was, 02:10:35 4 that somehow, you know, Mr. Scarola and
02:08:19 5 all right, then the question is: Well, what does 02:1038 5 Mr. Edwards were able to reach her and there was
02.08:23 6 Mr. Dershowitz have to say about all this? So I 02:10:41 6 a telephone call that was made.
02:08:27 7 started to look at the information on that as 0210:43 7 And in that telephone call she identified
02:08:28 8 well. 02:10:46 8 Alan Dershowitz as someone who would have
02:08:29 9 In 2009, there had been a deposition request 0210;48 9 relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein and
02:08:34 10 sent to Mr. Dershowitz, and I -- I saw a document 0210:50 10 the sexual abuse of underage girls.
02:08:37 11 showing that that had actually been served on -- 02:10:53 11 And so I had that information as well. So
02:08:40 12 on him, and, you know, to the extent that what I 0211,01 12 that, as I understand, the question was: What
02:08:44 13 saw was a -- I think a receipt from the process 02:11:01 13 could I recall off the top of my head with regard
02:08:48 14 server, or something along those lines, so I saw 02:11:05 14 to the factual basis for information connecting
02:08:51 15 attempt to contact him in -- in 2009. 021107 15 Mr. Dershowitz with the sexual abuse of minor
02:08:53 16 And then I saw an additional attempt to 02:11:12 16 girls, plural, and that, sitting here at this
02:08:55 17 contact him in 2011. Mr. Scarola had sent him a 0211.15 17 moment, is the best that I can recall for the
02:09:01 18 note and there was, you know, some back and 021118 18 information along those lines.
02,09:03 19 forth. The -- the one note that -- that jumped 021118 19 BY MR. SIMPSON:
02:0906 20 out to me was one in which Mr. Scarola had 02:1121 20 Q. Was that answer --
02:09:09 21 written to Mr. Dershowitz, I think the phrase 02:11:21 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Before -- before
020912 22 was: Multiple witnesses have placed you in the 02,1123 22 you go on to another subject, Professor Cassell
02:09:14 23 presence of Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls; I 0211:26 23 is entitled to refresh his recollection to give
02:09:18 24 would like to depose you about those subjects. 02.11:29 24 you a complete response. So why don't you go
020921 25 And the answer that came back was not, well,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
02:11:31 25 ahead and do that now. Make sure you've covered
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 101 to 104 of 151 26 of 38 sheets
105 107
0211:34 1 everything. 02:12:45 1 document produced by the witness was marked for
021114 2 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I think I get to ask the 011145 2 identification.)
0211:35 3 questions, but I was going to ask the same 02:1110 3 THE WITNESS: All right. So let me -- if I
02:11:38 4 question. 02:13:11 4 could look at this to see if it -- the top
0111:39 5 MR. SCAROLA: Wonderful. We are on the same 021113 5 portion of it to see if it refreshes my
021 1A0 6 page. 02:13:13 6 recollection about --
02:11:40 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 021113 7 BY MR. SIMPSON:
02:11:41 8 Q. Mr. Cassell, you -- you mentioned that you 02.13:16 8 Q. Could I just see it for one second?
02:11:43 9 had something that you had prepared -- 02:13:18 9 A. Sure. Absolutely.
02:11:44 10 A. Yes. 02:13:21 10 Q. All right. Yeah. Let me just clarify one
0211:44 11 Q. -- that would summarize -- 02:13:27 11 point before you do that.
02:11:46 12 A. Right. 02:1127 12 A. Yes, sir.
02:11:46 13 Q. -- your knowledge. 02:1327 13 Q. In your answer, were you referring to the
0211:48 14 A. Right. 02:1128 14 evidence you could recall or the information you could
02:11:48 15 Q. And now that you have exhausted your 02:13:30 15 recall that supported your allegations as to both
32:11,51 16 recollection, could you produce that and let's just mark 02:13:34 16 Virginia Roberts and other minors, or were you treating
3211:54 17 it -- 0213:36 17 those separately?
02:11:54 18 A. Yeah, sure. 02:13:37 18 A. No, I was not treating those separately. I
0211:55 19 Q. -- as an exhibit? 02113919 was -- for me, there's a common -- what -- what the law
02:11:56 20 MR. SIMPSON: We are up to Exhibit 3, I 02:114220 refers to as a common scheme or plan in a --
0211:59 21 believe. Cassell 3. 02:13:42 21 Q. Okay.
02:12:01 22 THE WITNESS: Right. Now, there -- there are 0213:44 22 A. -- a criminal conspiracy for international
0212:01 23 two parts to this -- 02:13:46 23 trafficking that involved not just a single girl, but
02:12:02 24 MR. SIMPSON: Can we mark it first and 02:13:49 24 multiple girls. So the answer was -- was with respect
021102 25 then -- 02:1352 25 to -- to multiple girls.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
106 108
02:12:04 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I just want the record 02:1153 1 Q. Okay. So I may have some questions to
02:1106 2 to be clear, that I'm only looking -- there's -- 02:13:56 2 distinguish further between those two --
02:12:07 3 there's a pre-December 30th section and a 02:13:57 3 A. Yes.
02:12:10 4 post-December 30th section, so the top part is 02:1158 4 Q. -- but is it fair to say that -- and I
0/12:13 5 the -- is what I was working off of. 02,14:02 5 realize you're going to refresh your recollection, but
02:1113 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: 02:14:05 6 that you had exhausted your recollection of the basis
02:12:15 7 Q. Okay. 021407 7 for the allegation in this Exhibit 2, the motion to join
0/1115 8 A. Now, underneath this is -- you know, if you 02:14:14 8 as to both Miss Roberts and other minors?
0112:18 9 have questions about what happened after December 30th. 011417 9 A. Yes.
02:12:19 10 Q. So you're -- you're prepared to produce the 02,1417 10 Q. Okay. So then, now, take a look at that and
02:12:22 11 entire document, but you're clarifying? I don't -- I 02:14:20 11 tell me if there's anything there that refreshes your
02:12:24 12 don't want to ask you -- if you're going to use it in 02:14:25 12 recollection as to something that you have not yet told
02:12:26 13 your testimony, then we will mark the whole thing. 02:14:28 13 me about.
021127 14 MR. SCAROLA: Mark the whole thing. You can 02:14:29 14 A. So this refreshes my recollection. Sarah
02:12:30 15 use it. 02:14:46 15 Kellen. I think I referred to her as Miss Kellen.
02:12:30 16 MR. SIMPSON: Mark the whole thing and I'll 02:14:49 16 Sarah Kellen was the first name.
02:12:30 17 ask you about it. 02:14:52 17 Nadia Marcinkova, Nadia was the first name
0112:30 18 THE WITNESS: That would be great. 02:1453 18 there. Adrianna Mucinska was the full name of those --
02:12:33 19 Absolutely. 0214:58 19 that's the second echelon of the -- of the -- of the
02:12733 20 MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'm going to ask 02:15:00 20 criminal conspiracy.
011215 21 the court reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 3, 02:15:06 21 Oh, this refreshes my recollection that
0112:39 22 a one-page document that the witness has just 0/15:08 22 Jeffrey Epstein had answered some questions in the civil
02:12:42 23 handed to me. It's mostly typed. It has some 02:15,11 23 litigation. He provided, for example, names of -- of
0112:44 24 handwriting on it. 02,15:15 24 some people who were involved, but he took the Fifth
02:12:45 25 (Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 3 - one-page 02:15:18 25 when asked -- he took -- he provided names of some
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
txt
Cont'd.
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 77 to 80 of 151 20 of 38 sheets
81 83
01:31:08 1 focusing on the witness, but everybody on this 01:33:11 1 review, in which he took the Fifth when asked questions
01:31:10 2 side of the room has been distracted by his 01:33:13 2 about Dershowitz.
01:31:13 3 unprofessional conduct. 01:3114 3 So, at that point, in trying to figure out,
0111:16 4 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to argue with 01:33,17 4 you know, whether Mr. Dershowitz was involved in
01:31:18 5 you. And I -- 01:3120 5 sexually abusing, not only Virginia Roberts, but in
01:3318 6 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 01:33:24 6 other girls, then you go down to the next level, next
01:31:18 7 MR. SIMPSON: -- I disagree with that 01:3126 7 layer of the criminal conspiracy.
01:31:20 8 characterization. There is another attorney 01:33:28 8 Epstein is at the top, so you go to the next
01:31:22 9 sitting between us. We will pass notes. 01:3131 9 layer. These are, you know, basically the -- the women
0111,24 10 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 011313 10 who, from what I could gather, were -- were older than
01:31:25 11 MR. SIMPSON: And we -- and I believe, 01:33:36 11 the age that Epstein wanted to sexually abuse. I think
01,31:29 12 Ms. McCawley, were you instructing not to answer 01,3140 12 these were 22 and 23-year-old girls, so they had, you
01:31:30 13 or what was happening? What did you -- what were 01,33:44 13 know, essentially aged out of being his sexual abuse
01:3134 14 you raising? 01:33:47 14 victims, but they continued to -- what they would do is
01:31:34 15 MS. McCAWLEY: No. There was a lot of 01:33:50 15 collect girls for him under the age of 18, that I guess
01:31:35 16 yelling going on here, so I was trying to make 01:33:5316 was in his target range.
01:31:37 17 sure that everybody was quiet -- 01:3355 17 And so what -- so the next person I wanted to
18 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 01:3358 18 talk to, you know, and get information from was Sarah
19 MS. McCAWLEY: -- so that the client could 01:34:01 19 Kellen. Sarah Kellen is on a lot of these flight logs
20 answer. 01:3404 20 with, you know, these girls that -- or women and with
21 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me back up. 01:34:07 21 Epstein and others, and so I wanted to talk to Sarah
22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0114:07 22 Kellen.
01:3141 23 Q. Professor Cassell, I think you were in the 011411 23 But what I discovered there was that, when
01:31:41 24 middle of an answer? 01:3415 24 Sarah Kellen was asked about Alan Dershowitz, she took
01:31:42 25 A. i was. Yes, if I could conclude -- 01:3418 25 the Fifth, and there was -- she wasn't the only one.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
82 84
01:31:43 1 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Could the court 01:34:21 1 There was Miss Mucinska, who also took the Fifth when
01:31:44 2 reporter read me the last two lines of your 01:34:25 2 asked questions about Alan Dershowitz.
01:31:46 3 answer? 01:34:27 3 And then there was Marcin -- Miss Marcinkova
01:3146 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 01:34:30 4 who also took the Fifth. So what we -- what I had at
01,31:46 5 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read 011433 5 this point was Jeffrey Epstein's international sex
01:31:46 6 by the reporter.) 01:34:35 6 trafficking organization. I had the next echelon, and
01:31:46 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0134:38 7 both the top kingpin of the sex trafficking
01:32:26 8 Q. Okay. Can you pick up then? 01,34:42 8 organization, and the next echelon had taken the Fifth,
01.32:27 9 A. Sure. I'll pick up -- pick up the -- 01:34:46 9 had refused to answer questions about Alan Dershowitz.
01:32:27 10 Q. Okay. 011449 10 And so, at -- at that point, I was drawing an
01:32:31 11 A. So I was beginning to draw an adverse 01:3451 11 adverse inference, not just from one person, but from
01:32,31 12 inference when 3effrey Epstein, who is at the heart of 01:34:54 12 four persons, and that adverse inference was being
01:32:34 13 the sexual abuse of, not only Virginia Roberts, but 01:34157 13 strengthened by the surrounding circumstances, some of
01:32:39 14 dozens and dozens and dozens of -- of girls literally 01:35.00 14 which we have already talked about.
01:32,40 15 scattered across the globe, takes the Fifth, refuses to 01:35:00 15 One of the things that -- that really
01:32:43 16 answer the question, off the top of my head, I can't 01:35:02 16 bolstered the adverse inference that I was drawing in
01:32:46 17 recall exactly, but something along lines of: Do you 0135.55 17 this case was that I've mentioned those three girls,
011148 18 know Alan Dershowitz? And he says, I take the Fifth. 01:35:09 18 Kellen, Mucinska, and Marcinkova. They were all covered
01:3260 19 That sort of, frankly, startled me, that -- that this 0115:12 19 by a nonprosecution agreement. And the nonprosecution
01,32:55 20 international sex trafficker was taking the Fifth now 01:35:15 20 agreement was highly unusual.
01:32:57 21 when asked about Mr. Dershowitz. 01:35:17 21 1 -- I had been a federal prosecutor for
01:3101 22 And so I was stymied in trying to get 01:35:18 22 about four years, I had been a federal judge for about
01,33:04 23 information from Mr. Epstein at that point. I think 01,35:21 23 five-and-a-half years, so I had seen a lot of -- of, you
011107 24 there were two depositions, if I recall correctly off 0115:23 24 know, nonprosecution types of arrangements. And one of
01:33:09 25 the top of my head, that -- that I had an opportunity to 011626 25 the things that was very unusual in this one is, it has
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
21 of 38 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
85 87
01:35:29 1 what I'll refer to as the blank-check immunity 01:37:40 1 that are said there, but Alessi puts Mr. Dershowitz at
01:35:33 2 provision. 01,37:46 2 the nest of this international sex trafficking
01:35:34 3 There was a provision in the nonprosecution 01:37:47 3 organization. Let's see. I think he said four or five
01:3636 4 agreement that said, this agreement will prevent federal 01:37:51 4 times a year, two or three -- you know, two or three
01:35:40 5 prosecution for international and interstate sex 01:37:55 5 days when he goes there.
01:35:43 6 trafficking, not only of Jeffrey Epstein, and not only 01:3766 6 And let's be clear, I know Mr. Dershowitz had
01:35:46 7 of the four women who were identified, but -- and this 01:37:58 7 said at some points like, I'm an attorney, and that's my
01:35:49 8 is a direct quote: Any other potential co-conspirator, 01:38:00 8 client and so forth. And Alessi said, no, but this was
01:35:53 9 close quote. 01:38:03 9 not in a -- in a lawyer/client capacity; this is in a
01:35:55 10 And so that was unusual because what it -- 01:38:09 10 friend capacity.
01:35:57 11 what it seemed to be doing was that somehow this 01:38:10 11 And so now we have Alessi putting him there
01:3568 12 agreement was quite out of the normal and had been 01,38:1212 at the same time when young girls were there. And one
01:36:00 13 designed to extend immunity to other people that might 01:38:15 13 of the -- the -- the things that I picked up, so is
01:36:04 14 have been associated with Epstein. 01:38:17 14 Alessi -- you know, is he able to figure out who these
01:36:05 15 And I knew that that category included the 01:38:19 15 girls are?
01:36:09 16 people that were involved in negotiating this highly 01:38:20 16 A photograph of Virginia Roberts is shown to
01:36:11 17 unusual provision included Mr. Dershowitz, who had been 012822 17 Juan Alessi in the deposition, and he I.D.s the
01:36:14 18 heavily involved, not only in the drafting of the 01,38:26 18 photograph as, you know, V.R., so he -- he had, you
01:36:18 19 agreement, but had also been involved remarkably in 01:38:30 19 know, put two and two together.
01:3622 20 attacking the credibility of these girls and saying 0128:30 20 So now I've got V.R. coming to the house at a
01:36:25 21 things like, you know, it was -- Epstein wasn't 0128:34 21 time when Mr. Dershowitz is also in the house, and
01:36:28 22 targeting minor girls, which just struck -- you know, I 01:38:37 22 apparently spending, you know, two to three nights there
01:36:33 23 was -- I don't want to use a technical term, 01:38:40 23 and doing this four or five times a year.
01:36:35 24 gob-smocked, that a defense attorney with an obligation 01:38:45 24 Now, Alessi wasn't the only one. There was
01:36:37 25 to tell the truth was making a factual representation
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
01:38:48 25 Alfredo Rodriguez who was there in about 2004 to 2005,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
86 88
01:36:42 1 that Jeffrey Epstein was not targeting minor girls, when 01:3863 1 after the time period of Virginia Roberts, but it's part
01:36:44 2 the Palm Beach Police Department had collected, you 01:38:56 2 of the common scheme or plan that we've been discussing
01:3647 3 know, 23 of them that had all given essentially 01:38:59 3 here.
01:36:50 4 interlocking stories about how they had all gone over to 01:3659 4 And so in 2005, Alfredo Rodriguez says, yeah,
01:36:54 5 this house, you know, the mansion, to give a massage and 01:39:02 5 again, Mr. Dershowitz is there at a time when these
01:36:57 6 when they had gotten there, they had been sexually 01:39:05 6 massages are going on. When you start to look at Alessi
01:36:58 7 abused. 01:39:09 7 and Rodriguez's statements in context where they're --
01:3658 8 So the kingpin wouldn't talk. The next 01:39:14 8 they're saying he's there at the same time the massages
01:37:01 9 echelon of the trafficking organization wouldn't talk. 01:3616 9 are occurring, and with the West Palm Beach Police
01:37:03 10 So the next step was to say, okay, let's see if we can 01:39:19 10 Department reports showing that massages are of a sexual
01:37:06 11 find somebody, you know, lower level in there, you know, 01:39:22 11 nature, again, it started to put two and two together.
01:37:08 12 a household employee or something like that; maybe they 01:3626 12 One of the things that was particularly
01:37:10 13 will have some information about, you know, what this 01:39:30 13 important about Rodriguez's situation was that Rodriguez
0127:12 14 criminal organization is doing. 01:39:34 14 had an access to what's been called the little black
01:37:14 15 Now, let's -- let's understand, you know, 01:3938 15 book, or I think he referred to it as the holy grail.
01:37:16 16 given the pervasiveness of the -- of the criminal 01:39:40 16 This was Jeffrey Epstein's, you know, telephone book
01:37:19 17 activity, I -- I wasn't convinced that they were going 01:39:42 17 where he had telephone numbers in it.
01:3721 18 to be able to get in there and start saying exactly what 01:39:45 18 And so Rodriguez had that and, you know, I
01:3724 19 was going on because they might well be exposing 01:3648 19 guess thought that this would be worth a lot of money
01:37:26 20 themselves to criminal -- you know, criminal 01:3650 20 because it would -- you know, it would identify all of
01:3729 21 culpability. 01:3652 21 the people that have been sexually abused by -- by
01:37:30 22 But I -- I was able to read a sworn 01:3654 22 Jeffrey Epstein. And so he tried to sell it. The FBI
01:37:32 23 deposition from Juan Alessi, and Juan Alessi -- I 01:3657 23 busted him for that.
01:37:37 24 think -- I don't know. Maybe just to speed things up 01:39:58 24 And when the FBI busted him, now he's got
01:37:38 25 today, I won't go through all the things that are -- 01:40:00 25 this book. And so the book went to Alessi, and
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 85 to 88 of 151 22 of 38 sheets
89 91
01:40:05 1 according to a -- to a later FBI report, Alessi 01A2:32 1 a lot of money. I mean, Epstein was identified as a
01A0'.07 2 identified information that was pertinent to the FBI's 01:42:32 2 billionaire in this article, billionaire with -- with a
01A0:07 3 investigation. 01:4Z38 3 B, so the record is clear.
01:40:11 4 And so when I look at the little black book 01A2:39 4 But he said, look, if Epstein lost all his
01:40:14 5 that I have seen copies of, there are a handful of names 01:42:43 5 money -- I'm paraphrasing here -- I would be, you know,
01:40:17 6 in that black book that have been circled, apparently by 01A2.44 6 happy to walk down, you know, the Coney Island Boardwalk
01:40:22 7 Mr. Rodriguez, and one of the names that's -- that has 01:42:47 7 with him and discuss things with him, as -- you know,
01:40:25 8 been circled is Alan Dershowitz. And so that, to me, 01:42:49 8 even if he didn't have any money.
01:40:30 9 was suggesting that Mr. Rodriguez had identified, you 01A2:50 9 So now I'm seeing Dershowitz is a very close
01:40:35 10 know, Alan Dershowitz as somebody who had information 01:42:54 10 personal friend of Jeffrey Epstein. And then I started
01:40:38 11 about this -- this international sex trafficking ring. 01:42:58 11 to look at flight logs. There were -- there were some
01:40:40 12 But just as a side note, but an important 01:43:01 12 very interesting things that I noticed on the flight
01:40:42 13 note, when the -- the thing that was circled on the Alan 01:43:04 13 logs.
01:40:46 14 Dershowitz page was not a single phone number 01:43:04 14 One of the things I noticed was when I began
01A0:49 15 indicating, you know, somebody had bumped -- you know, 01:43:07 15 to, you know, get into this, that, you know, I was
01,40-51 16 Epstein had bumped into at one point. I believe there 01:43:13 16 wondering, well, what -- well, how do these flight logs
01:40:56 17 were 10 or 11 phone numbers that were associated with 01'4314 17 come into the possession of, you know, law enforcement
01:40:57 18 Mr. Dershowitz that had all been circled and an e-mail 01:43:16 18 agencies? And the answer turned out to be that they had
01:41:00 19 address as well. 01:4320 19 been provided by Epstein's defense attorney and -- and,
01:41:02 20 So that started to corroborate my sense that 01:4323 20 you know, coincidentally, I suppose, or in my mind,
01'41:05 21 Mr. Dershowitz was, indeed, a very close friend of
01:43:27 21 suspiciously, they were not provided by just any defense
01:41:10 22 Jeffrey Epstein. Now, I had then continued to do -- 01A3:30 22 attorney on this rather large defense team. They were
01:41:14 23 there's been reference today to, you know, using Google 01:43:33 23 provided by one attorney according to Detective Recarey.
01:41:16 24 to do research and so forth. So I Googled Jeffrey 01:43:36 24 Detective Recarey testified under oath that the flight
01:41:20 25 Epstein and one of the things that pops up rather 01:43:39 25 logs were provided to him by Alan Dershowitz.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331.4400 (954) 331-4400
90 92
01A1:22 1 rapidly is an article in Vanity Fair. 01:43:41 1 So one of the things that was -- was
01:41:25 2 And what you see in that article is, you 01:43:43 2 interesting is, Dershowitz has had access to these
01:41:28 3 know, discussion about Mr. Epstein, but when you're 01:43:45 3 flight logs, and now I'm beginning to wonder, well, has
01:41:33 4 trying to do a profile of someone, you try to figure out 01:43:48 4 there been an opportunity to sanitize those flight logs
01:41:34 5 who that person's closest friends are. 01:43:50 5 or remove any incriminating information?
01:41:35 6 And so the Vanity Fair author had gone to 01:43:52 6 And -- and one of the things that was
01:41:38 7 Alan Dershowitz, you know, our -- Mr. Dershowitz here, 01,43:54 7 interesting about the flight logs that were produced --
01:41:42 8 and had asked him, hey, what do you know about Jeffrey 01:4356 8 I believe just so the record is clear, that was Exhibit
01:41:45 9 Epstein? 01:44:02 9 1 that -- if we could -- if I could refer -- I need to
01:41:46 10 And, again, off the top of my head, you want 01A4104 10 refresh my recollection as to -- well, I don't -- you
01:41:47 11 to know what I can remember right now. What I can 01:44:07 11 may not want me to look at documents.
01:41A9 12 remember right now is that in the Vanity Fair article, 01'44:08 12 It was either Exhibit 1 or 2 this morning
0141:53 13 the -- in the Vanity Fair article, Mr. Dershowitz said, 01:44:11 13 during Dershowitz's deposition which was covering a time
01:41:59 14 I've written 20-some odd books; there's only one person 01:44:15 14 period of January to, I believe, September 2005. These
01A2:03 15 outside my immediate family with whom I share drafts, 01:44:20 15 were flight logs that were produced by Mr. Dershowitz to
0142:06 16 and that's Jeffrey Epstein. 01:44:23 16 the Palm Beach Police Department.
01.42:08 17 So I took that as indicating a -- a very 01:44:25 17 And you wonder why did they stop in
01:42:10 18 close personal association that -- you know, among the 01A4.27 18 September -- you know, why stop in September 2005?
01:42'13 19 people that -- that obviously he's sharing this -- these
01:44'31 19 What's the significance of that? Well, later on,
01A2:15 20 kinds of things that he wants evaluated before he shares 01:44'35 20 additional flight logs were obtained, and sure enough,
01:42:18 21 them with the broader world, there's his immediate 01:44:39 21 who shows up on an October 2005 flight log with Jeffrey
01:42:21 22 family and then there's -- there's Jeffrey Epstein. 01:44:45 22 Epstein? Mr. Dershowitz.
01:4223 23 There was also another similar quote in the 01:44:46 23 So that led to a suspicion that
01:42:24 24 article that indicated that -- that Mr. Dershowitz said 01:44:49 24 Mr. Dershowitz had provided to the Palm Beach Police
01:42:29 25 that he wasn't interested in Epstein just because he had 01:44:52 25 Department flight logs that, the time period of which
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
23 of 38 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
93 95
01:44:54 1 for the production had been carefully crafted to keep 01:46:33 1 THE WITNESS: Right. No, I mean, I want to
01:44:57 2 him out of it; in other words, to not produce the 01:48:36 2 make -- I want to make clear that there was a lot
01:4459 3 October 2005 version. 01:46:37 3 of information that I was relying on in filing
01:45:03 4 The other thing I -- I began to discover as I 01,46:40 4 this pleading, and -- and, of course, the later
01:45:05 5 started going through some flight logs, Dave Rogers, who 01:46.42 5 pleading. So we are on the subject of flight
01:45:08 6 is one of I think about three pilots that -- that 01:46:44 6 logs.
01:4610 7 Epstein regularly relied on to fly his -- you know, he 01:46:44 7 Flight logs showed that the flight logs
01:45:13 8 had very fancy -- to use the technical term -- jets. 01:4646 8 Mr. Dershowitz had produced to Detective Recarey
01:45:18 9 There were about -- there were about three pilots there. 01:46:49 9 were incomplete and inaccurate. And so that led
01:45:20 10 One of them had some flight logs and that -- 01:46:52 10 to concern on my part that Mr. Dershowitz had had
01:45:24 11 that was Pilot Dave Rogers, if I'm recalling his name 01:46:55 11 an opportunity to sanitize the flight logs,
01:45:26 12 correctly. And so later on in the litigation, the sex 01:46:57 12 had -- had -- had provided incomplete production,
01:45:30 13 abuse litigation against Epstein, flight logs were 01:47:01 13 you know, obviously, very important production
01:45:34 14 obtained from Dave Rogers, and it was possible to -- to 01:47:02 14 that the Palm Beach Police Department was looking
01'4637 15 compare -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to -- I want to make 01:47:05 15 at.
01:4640 16 sure I get -- you know, the question is: How much can -I
01:47:06 16 Then we got some additional flight logs from
01:45:42 17 remember and I'm trying to make sure I get -- get it all 01:47:09 17 Dave Rogers. And what those flight logs
01:45:44 18 in. 01:47:11 18 showed -- first off, let's talk again about
01:45:45 19 And so the flight logs were produced from 01:47:14 19 the -- the production of those flight logs.
01:45:48 20 Dave Rogers. And so Dave Rogers produced some flight 01:4717 20 My recollection is that Dave Rogers's flight
01:45:51 21 logs, and some of the flights that he produced logs for 01:4721 21 logs were provided by Bruce Reinhart who was a
01:45:56 22 coincided with the logs that Mr. Dershowitz had provided 01:47:24 22 former Assistant U.S. Attorney who had been
01:45:59 23 to the Palm Beach Police Department, and there were 0147-26 23 inside the Southern District of Florida Office at
01:46:01 24 inconsistencies. And so that, again, aroused my 01:47:29 24 a time when the Epstein case was the subject of
01:46:05 25 suspicion that maybe Mr. Dershowitz when he had -- 01:47:32 25 regular discussion in that office.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
94 96
01:46:08 1 MR. SCOTT: I just got a call from a lawyer 01:47:33 1 And then he had gone to work for some kind of
01:4609 2 on the screen. His -- his phone is not working, 01:47:36 2 a -- a law firm or private operation that was
01:4610 3 Epstein's lawyer, Darren Indyke. 01:47:39 3 located adjacent to Mr. Epstein's business. And
01:46:10 4 MR. SIMPSON: Why don't -- 01:47:44 4 so, now, Reinhart, who appeared to be being paid
01:46:15 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you want to take a break for 01:47:48 5 by Mr. Epstein, and certainly was adjacent to
01:46:17 6 a second? 01:47:49 6 Mr. Epstein's business office, was producing
01:46:17 7 MR. SIMPSON: Well, why don't -- well, why 01:4761 7 these flight logs.
01:46:17 8 don't we let him finish his answer? 01:47:52 8 So that, again, aroused suspicion that the
01:46:18 9 MR. SCAROLA: Let him finish the answer. 01:47:54 9 flight logs that were being produced would have
01:46:20 10 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, lets do that. You're 01:4757 10 been sanitized or inaccurate.
01'46:20 11 right. 01:47:58 11 But even -- I mean, you know, I think the
01:46:21 12 MR. SCAROLA: Although it may take a while. 0148:00 12 problem with -- you know, you cant sanitize
01:4621 13 THE WITNESS: It -- its, I mean, the 01:4602 13 everything. That would be too suspicious. And
01.46:21 14 question -- 01:48:04 14 so what -- what was -- was -- what was evident on
01:46:21 15 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah. But lets -- 01:4607 15 these flight logs was, for example, approximately
01,4625 16 MR. SCOTT: I don't care. 01:48:11 16 ten flights by Mr. Dershowitz with Tatiana has --
01:46:25 17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Lets -- let's go ahead 01:48:18 17 has been discussed; with Maxwell; with Jeffrey
01:46:27 18 and finish. 01.48:21 18 Epstein. One of them had one female, which,
01:46:27 19 MR. SCOTT: Let's go ahead and finish the 01:48:25 19 again, in the context that I was looking at,
01:46:29 20 answer. We heard this much. 01.48:27 20 seemed to be a potential code word for
01:46:29 21 MR. SCAROLA: Good. Thank you. 01:48:28 21 underage -- underage girl.
01.46:29 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. So there -- 01:48:32 22 And so those flight logs showed, you know,
01:46:31 23 MR. SCOTT: I don't want to break him on a 01:48:35 23 again, close association and travel with --
01.46:32 24 roll. 01,48.40 24 with -- with -- with Mr. Dershowitz, and
01:4633 25 MR. SCAROLA: Thanks. 0148:47 25 Mr. Epstein.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 93 to 96 of 151 24 of 38 sheets
97 99
01:48:51 1 Another thing that I had, and I will not 01:50:19 1 going into any confidential communications or
01748:53 2 reveal any privileged communications here or any 01:50:22 2 trying to waive in any way, I knew that David
01:48:56 3 confidential information, but on December 30th, I 01:5024 3 Boies had agreed to represent Virginia Roberts,
01:48:59 4 was aware that one of the preeminent lawyers in 01:5027 4 which gave me additional confidence in the fact
01:49:02 5 the United States, David Boies, had agreed to 01:50:30 5 that I was also representing this young woman in
01,49:07 6 represent Virginia Roberts. And given the vast 01:50:34 6 her effort to bring sex traffickers to justice,
01:49:11 7 amount of business that -- that, you know, tries 01:50:37 7 and those who had sexually abused her to justice.
01:49:13 8 to get in the door -- 01:5641 8 And so those are things that come to mind
01A9:15 9 MR. SIMPSON: Could I interrupt? I mean, I 01:50:46 9 immediately as -- let me just take a second and
01:49:17 10 think we are going towards a waiver here. 01:50:50 10 see if there were other things regarding
01:49:19 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. No, no, no, I do not -- 01:50:56 11 Dershowitz that -- that come immediately --
01:4920 12 MR. SIMPSON: We can't have testimony 01:51:01 12 immediately to mind.
01A9:21 13 about -- 01:51:03 13 Oh, one of the things was in the Jane Doe 102
01A921 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. 01:51:09 14 complaint, which alleged academicians that had --
01:49:22 15 MR. SIMPSON: -- this is one of the most 01:51:14 15 that had abused -- sexually abused Jane Doe 3,
01A922 16 respected people in the country, or lawyers in 01:51:19 16 there -- there were -- so that raises a question,
01:49:26 17 the country, and then you won't answer the 01:51:24 17 obviously, of who were the academicians that Bob
01:4926 18 questions -- 01,51:30 18 Josefsberg had identified?
01:49:26 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. 01:51:31 19 I can't recall, actually. Let me -- the
014928 20 MR. SIMPSON: -- you said not to answer. 01:51:33 20 record should be clear, I can't recall
01:49:28 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh. Well, describing David 01:51:34 21 immediately whether it was singular or plural.
01:49:30 22 Boies in general -- 01:5116 22 It may have been plural, but if it's singular, I
0149:30 23 MR. SIMPSON: I agree with the description. 01:51:36 23 don't want to suggest that there were other
01A9:31 24 MS. McCAWLEY: -- doesn't constitute a 01:51:40 24 academicians, but at least one academician had
01:4922 25 waiver. 01:5142 25 sexually abused Jane Doe 3, according to the
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
98 100
01:49:32 1 MR. SIMPSON: He's a distinguished lawyer. 01:51:45 1 complaint that had been filed by Bob Josefsberg.
01:49:32 2 MR. SCAROLA: And I don't think we are 01:5148 2 There were two things that were of interest
01:49:33 3 getting beyond anything that is a matter of 01:51:49 3 to that: One was that Mr. Epstein, the man that
01:49:37 4 public record. 01:51:51 4 I wasn't able to get information from because he
01:49:37 5 MR. SIMPSON: I just -- I -- 0,51:54 5 was invoking the Fifth, had refused or declined
01:49:38 6 MS. McCAWLEY: But I appreciate you -- 01:51:57 6 to file an answer to that complaint.
01:49:38 7 MR. SIMPSON: Be aware of waiver. 01:52:00 7 Rather than deny the allegations, he had,
01:49:39 8 MS. McCAWLEY: -- letting me know that. 01:5203 8 ultimately, it's my understanding -- I don't have
01:4940 9 THE WITNESS: All right. I will be -- I will 01:52,05 9 inside information and I'm not trying to waive
01:49:41 10 not waive anything, and if I start to do that, I 01:52:07 10 any information, but my understanding is that
01:49'43 11 would certainly request the opportunity to -- to 01:52:09 11 rather than answer the complaint, he settled the
0149:4512 retract what I'm doing, but I was aware -- since 01:52:11 12 case through the payment of some kind of
01:49:48 13 the issue is, well, what's in the public record, 01:52:13 13 compensation that lane Doe 102 found desirable
01:49'50 14 I was aware that, you know, probably the most 01:52:17 14 for dropping her claim.
01:49:52 15 significant United States Supreme Court case 01:5219 15 The other thing that I found interesting is
01:49:55 16 argued in the last 20 years was Bush versus Gore, 01:52:21 16 that 3osefsberg's partner, I believe it is,
01:49:58 17 which was a case that essentially determined who 01:52:25 17 Miss Ezell, had been to some of the depositions
01:50:01 18 was going to be President of the most powerful 01:5229 18 of, for example, I believe Juan Alessi and
01:50:03 19 country in the world. 01:52:33 19 Alfredo Rodriguez. And I believe at least one of
01:50:04 20 There were two attorneys who argued that case 01:5235 20 those, and perhaps both of those. And she had
01:5065 21 in front of the United States Supreme Court, and 01:52:36 21 asked questions about Alan Dershowitz in those
01:50:07 22 arguing for the Democratic Presidential 01:52:39 22 depositions, but had not asked questions about
0150:10 23 Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. 01:52:42 23 other academics in those depositions.
01:50:12 24 He had put his credibility on the line in 01524524 So that led me to conclude that Bob
01:5016 25 arguing the Bush versus Gore case, and without 01:52:51 25 Josefsberg and his outstanding law firm had
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
25 of 38 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
101 103
01:52:51 1 identified Alan Dershowitz as someone who had 02:0923 1 let me clear all of that misunderstanding up.
01:52:54 2 information relevant -- and let's be clear, that 02:0925 2 You know, that's -- frankly, if I had gotten
01,52:56 3 this is not a lawsuit about some contract dispute 020928 3 something like that, that's what I would have
01:52:58 4 or something -- that he was someone who had 02.09:29 4 said.
01:53:00 5 information relevant to the sexual abuse of 02:0030 5 The answer that came back was -- from
01:53102 6 underage girls and, indeed, they were asking 02:09:32 6 Mr. Dershowitz was something along the lines of,
01:53:05 7 questions about what information -- what 020134 7 if I remember correctly, well, tell me what
01:53:07 8 information he might have. 02:0136 8 you -- you -- tell me what you want to know and
01:53:09 9 Another -- I know, I remember now, there's a 02:09:38 9 I'll decide whether to cooperate, was I think
01:53:11 10 whole other line of things that -- that I had in 02:0041 10 the phrase that was used. And -- and so there
01:53:13 11 mind at the time, and I think since you want to 020043 11 was an attempt, you know, a 2009 attempt, a 2011
010316 12 test my memory -- I'm not -- let me be clear. 02:09:46 12 attempt to get information from Mr. Dershowitz.
01:5319 13 I'm not claiming I have a superb memory. I have 02:09:49 13 Then there was another subpoena without
01:53:21 14 an average memory, but this is a subject that's 02:09:52 14 deposition for -- for documents. You know, we
01:5322 15 very important to me, and so I've worked, you 0209:54 15 have heard a lot about records in this case that
01:53:26 16 know, very hard to get all the information. 02:09:57 16 could prove innocence. There was a records
01:53:31 17 I would like to take a break. 02:09:58 17 request to Mr. Dershowitz in 2013. And, again,
01:53:32 18 MR. SCAROLA: Sure. Take a break. 021001 18 my understanding was that there was no -- you
01:53:33 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 02:1003 19 know, no documents were provided on that.
01:53:36 20 record, 3:27 p.m. 021007 20 And so those -- I had that information.
02:07:43 21 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 02:10:11 21 Another bit of information that I had was that in
02:07:4322 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 021014 22 2011, I believe in early April -- this is not
0208:03 23 record, 3:41 p.m. 02:1019 23 attorney/client privileged information from
020006 24 THE WITNESS: I want to continue my answer. 0210:21 24 Virginia Roberts. This is a telephone call that
02:08:08 25 I'm sorry. I got emotional there for a moment. 02:1023 25 she placed from Australia where she had been
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
102 104
02:08:12 1 I want to do a good job for Virginia Roberts 02:1027 1 essentially forced into hiding by Jeffrey
02:08:12 2 on -- on representing all the -- the evidence 02:1028 2 Epstein. She managed to escape and was hiding
02:08:14 3 that is available to support her. 02:10:31 3 out in -- in Australia, and that she would --
02:08:16 4 The next thing that I was thinking of was, 02:10:35 4 that somehow, you know, Mr. Scarola and
02:08:19 5 all right, then the question is: Well, what does 02:1038 5 Mr. Edwards were able to reach her and there was
02.08:23 6 Mr. Dershowitz have to say about all this? So I 02:10:41 6 a telephone call that was made.
02:08:27 7 started to look at the information on that as 0210:43 7 And in that telephone call she identified
02:08:28 8 well. 02:10:46 8 Alan Dershowitz as someone who would have
02:08:29 9 In 2009, there had been a deposition request 0210;48 9 relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein and
02:08:34 10 sent to Mr. Dershowitz, and I -- I saw a document 0210:50 10 the sexual abuse of underage girls.
02:08:37 11 showing that that had actually been served on -- 02:10:53 11 And so I had that information as well. So
02:08:40 12 on him, and, you know, to the extent that what I 0211,01 12 that, as I understand, the question was: What
02:08:44 13 saw was a -- I think a receipt from the process 02:11:01 13 could I recall off the top of my head with regard
02:08:48 14 server, or something along those lines, so I saw 02:11:05 14 to the factual basis for information connecting
02:08:51 15 attempt to contact him in -- in 2009. 021107 15 Mr. Dershowitz with the sexual abuse of minor
02:08:53 16 And then I saw an additional attempt to 02:11:12 16 girls, plural, and that, sitting here at this
02:08:55 17 contact him in 2011. Mr. Scarola had sent him a 0211.15 17 moment, is the best that I can recall for the
02:09:01 18 note and there was, you know, some back and 021118 18 information along those lines.
02,09:03 19 forth. The -- the one note that -- that jumped 021118 19 BY MR. SIMPSON:
02:0906 20 out to me was one in which Mr. Scarola had 02:1121 20 Q. Was that answer --
02:09:09 21 written to Mr. Dershowitz, I think the phrase 02:11:21 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Before -- before
020912 22 was: Multiple witnesses have placed you in the 02,1123 22 you go on to another subject, Professor Cassell
02:09:14 23 presence of Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls; I 0211:26 23 is entitled to refresh his recollection to give
02:09:18 24 would like to depose you about those subjects. 02.11:29 24 you a complete response. So why don't you go
020921 25 And the answer that came back was not, well,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
02:11:31 25 ahead and do that now. Make sure you've covered
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 101 to 104 of 151 26 of 38 sheets
105 107
0211:34 1 everything. 02:12:45 1 document produced by the witness was marked for
021114 2 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I think I get to ask the 011145 2 identification.)
0211:35 3 questions, but I was going to ask the same 02:1110 3 THE WITNESS: All right. So let me -- if I
02:11:38 4 question. 02:13:11 4 could look at this to see if it -- the top
0111:39 5 MR. SCAROLA: Wonderful. We are on the same 021113 5 portion of it to see if it refreshes my
021 1A0 6 page. 02:13:13 6 recollection about --
02:11:40 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 021113 7 BY MR. SIMPSON:
02:11:41 8 Q. Mr. Cassell, you -- you mentioned that you 02.13:16 8 Q. Could I just see it for one second?
02:11:43 9 had something that you had prepared -- 02:13:18 9 A. Sure. Absolutely.
02:11:44 10 A. Yes. 02:13:21 10 Q. All right. Yeah. Let me just clarify one
0211:44 11 Q. -- that would summarize -- 02:13:27 11 point before you do that.
02:11:46 12 A. Right. 02:1127 12 A. Yes, sir.
02:11:46 13 Q. -- your knowledge. 02:1327 13 Q. In your answer, were you referring to the
0211:48 14 A. Right. 02:1128 14 evidence you could recall or the information you could
02:11:48 15 Q. And now that you have exhausted your 02:13:30 15 recall that supported your allegations as to both
32:11,51 16 recollection, could you produce that and let's just mark 02:13:34 16 Virginia Roberts and other minors, or were you treating
3211:54 17 it -- 0213:36 17 those separately?
02:11:54 18 A. Yeah, sure. 02:13:37 18 A. No, I was not treating those separately. I
0211:55 19 Q. -- as an exhibit? 02113919 was -- for me, there's a common -- what -- what the law
02:11:56 20 MR. SIMPSON: We are up to Exhibit 3, I 02:114220 refers to as a common scheme or plan in a --
0211:59 21 believe. Cassell 3. 02:13:42 21 Q. Okay.
02:12:01 22 THE WITNESS: Right. Now, there -- there are 0213:44 22 A. -- a criminal conspiracy for international
0212:01 23 two parts to this -- 02:13:46 23 trafficking that involved not just a single girl, but
02:12:02 24 MR. SIMPSON: Can we mark it first and 02:13:49 24 multiple girls. So the answer was -- was with respect
021102 25 then -- 02:1352 25 to -- to multiple girls.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
106 108
02:12:04 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I just want the record 02:1153 1 Q. Okay. So I may have some questions to
02:1106 2 to be clear, that I'm only looking -- there's -- 02:13:56 2 distinguish further between those two --
02:12:07 3 there's a pre-December 30th section and a 02:13:57 3 A. Yes.
02:12:10 4 post-December 30th section, so the top part is 02:1158 4 Q. -- but is it fair to say that -- and I
0/12:13 5 the -- is what I was working off of. 02,14:02 5 realize you're going to refresh your recollection, but
02:1113 6 BY MR. SIMPSON: 02:14:05 6 that you had exhausted your recollection of the basis
02:12:15 7 Q. Okay. 021407 7 for the allegation in this Exhibit 2, the motion to join
0/1115 8 A. Now, underneath this is -- you know, if you 02:14:14 8 as to both Miss Roberts and other minors?
0112:18 9 have questions about what happened after December 30th. 011417 9 A. Yes.
02:12:19 10 Q. So you're -- you're prepared to produce the 02,1417 10 Q. Okay. So then, now, take a look at that and
02:12:22 11 entire document, but you're clarifying? I don't -- I 02:14:20 11 tell me if there's anything there that refreshes your
02:12:24 12 don't want to ask you -- if you're going to use it in 02:14:25 12 recollection as to something that you have not yet told
02:12:26 13 your testimony, then we will mark the whole thing. 02:14:28 13 me about.
021127 14 MR. SCAROLA: Mark the whole thing. You can 02:14:29 14 A. So this refreshes my recollection. Sarah
02:12:30 15 use it. 02:14:46 15 Kellen. I think I referred to her as Miss Kellen.
02:12:30 16 MR. SIMPSON: Mark the whole thing and I'll 02:14:49 16 Sarah Kellen was the first name.
02:12:30 17 ask you about it. 02:14:52 17 Nadia Marcinkova, Nadia was the first name
0112:30 18 THE WITNESS: That would be great. 02:1453 18 there. Adrianna Mucinska was the full name of those --
02:12:33 19 Absolutely. 0214:58 19 that's the second echelon of the -- of the -- of the
02:12733 20 MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'm going to ask 02:15:00 20 criminal conspiracy.
011215 21 the court reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 3, 02:15:06 21 Oh, this refreshes my recollection that
0112:39 22 a one-page document that the witness has just 0/15:08 22 Jeffrey Epstein had answered some questions in the civil
02:12:42 23 handed to me. It's mostly typed. It has some 02:15,11 23 litigation. He provided, for example, names of -- of
0112:44 24 handwriting on it. 02,15:15 24 some people who were involved, but he took the Fifth
02:12:45 25 (Cassell I.D. Exhibit No. 3 - one-page 02:15:18 25 when asked -- he took -- he provided names of some
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:08 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
Cont'd.
27 of 38 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
109 111
021521 1 people who would have relevant information in the civil 02:1860 1 strategy to sort of stall the investigation to say:
02:15:25 2 cases, but when asked in deposition about 0218:03 2 Well, we will get you Epstein; oh, we can't meet now;
02:1629 3 Mr. Dershowitz, he took the Fifth. 02:18:03 3 oh, we will get it now -- and then -- and so forth.
02:15:31 4 So I -- I found it significant that for some 021864 4 And one of the things that I noted from all
02:15:33 5 people, he was willing to answer questions, but with 02:18:06 5 that was that Mr. Dershowitz, as Mr. Epstein's attorney,
0215:35 6 regard to Mr. Dershowitz, he took his -- he invoked his 02:18:09 6 never ultimately produced Epstein for a meeting with the
02:15:39 7 Fifth Amendment right against compelled 0218:14 7 Palm Beach Police Department, having made another offer.
02:15:41 8 self-incrimination presumably because revealing what he 021817 8 Now, obviously, something could have happened
02:15:44 9 knew about Mr. Dershowitz would, you know, cause 02:18:19 9 there. I mean, I don't -- you know, I don't know what
02:15:48 10 criminal -- criminal charges potentially to be filed 02:18:21 10 was the communications and so forth, but as an attorney
02:15:51 11 against him. 02:18:24 11 trying to get information and unable to do that, I had
021652 12 There was a common scheme or plan, and I'll 02:18:26 12 to make some reasonable inferences.
021608 13 elaborate on that in a moment, but yeah, one of -- so 02:18:29 13 And so one of the inferences I began to draw
02:16:14 14 this was another point. I mentioned that -- that there 021631 14 was that this was a stall tactic by Mr. Dershowitz, and
0216:17 15 had been three efforts to get information from 02:18734 15 in my view, potentially, an unethical one, but I
021518 16 Mr. Dershowitz by way of a 2009 deposition request, a 02:1637 16 don't -- I don't think we need to get into that in this
02:16:23 17 2011 deposition request, and further follow-up 02:18:39 17 litigation.
02:16:26 18 correspondence from counsel on that, and a 2013 document 02:18:40 18 What I saw was a stall tactic going on,
02:16:31 19 request all propounded to Mr. Dershowitz that had not 02:18:44 19 and -- and the reason I think it was a stall tactic, as
02:16:34 20 gone answered. 02:18:46 20 we are sitting here now in, what is it, October of 2015,
021635 21 Yeah, and this was -- yeah, I'm sorry, this 02:1651 21 and Mr. Epstein has never been willing to answer
0216:37 22 slipped my mind at the time -- but when -- when we saw 0218:54 22 questions about his sexual abuse of these girls.
02:164O 23 Mr. Dershowitz not responding to these answers, you 02:1868 23 And this was back in around -- what was it?
02:16:44 24 know, maybe the mail didn't get delivered to him or 02:19.01 24 I guess it would be 2005, 2006, you know, roughly a
021646 25 something like that. I don't -- I suppose that's, you 0219:04 25 decade ago, Mr. Dershowitz was offering to make Epstein
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
110 112
02:18:48 1 know, a theoretical possibility. 02:1607 1 available. And then that never happened, and given the
02:18:50 2 But -- but the reason I ruled out that 02:1511 2 ten-year pattern that -- that developed -- I guess I
02:1652 3 possibility, first, it didn't seem likely; but secondly, 02:1612 3 should go back. I'm sorry. Let me correct my answer.
02:16:55 4 there was a pattern of Mr. Epstein's associates evading 02:19:14 4 We should go back to December 30th, 2014. So
0216:59 5 efforts to get information from them. 02:19:17 5 there -- there appeared to be about an eight-year period
021762 6 And so let me just go back to the earliest 021621 6 of time during which Mr. Epstein had refused to answer
0217:05 7 instance of that. According to the Chief of Police in 021924 7 any questions about his sexual abuse of girls and yet,
02:17:07 8 the Palm Beach -- of the Palm Beach Police Department, 021929 8 Mr. Dershowitz said, oh, it's just a scheduling issue
02:1711 9 Mr. Dershowitz had said that he would make available 02:1630 9 and -- and we will get the Palm Beach Police Department
0217:14 10 Mr. Epstein for questions about the -- the sex, you 021633 10 to -- to, you know, to meet and -- and learn all this.
02:17:18 11 know, abuse that was going on. And, you know, 0219:37 11 The other thing that I'm -- that I'm seeing
02:17:21 12 Mr. Dershowitz had said to the Palm Beach Police 02:19:39 12 here, so now there's -- there's -- Mr. Dershowitz had
021723 13 Department, yeah, we will make him available; no, we got 02:1642 13 been involved in concealing Mr. Epstein from the Palm
0217:25 14 to reschedule it; you know, and then another time, 02:19:46 14 Beach Police Department, but there were others that had
0217:28 15 reschedule, another time. And so there were multiple -- 02:1647 15 done similar sorts of things.
02:17:32 16 according to the Chief of Police, there had been 0219:49 16 So one of them was a Ghislaine Maxwell. I
02:17:34 17 multiple, you know, requests to interview Mr. Epstein 02:19:55 17 will just call her Glenn Maxwell. I think that's kind
021738 18 and Mr. Dershowitz had repeatedly said: Oh, yeah, we 02:19:55 18 of the nickname I understand she goes by.
02:17:41 19 will schedule that, and then it hadn't happened. 02:19:59 19 So Glenn Maxwell -- remember, she is -- she
0217:43 20 Now, obviously, there could have been a 021969 20 is the one, you know, I think the record is clear, in --
82.17:45 21 situation there where, you know, an emergency had come 02:20:03 21 in -- in litigation that, you know, an allegation has
0217:47 22 up for Mr. Epstein and he wasn't able to make a schedule 02:20:06 22 been made that she was the one that -- that brought
0217:49 23 or something like that. But what I saw was a -- was a 02:20708 23 Virginia Roberts into the -- into the sex trafficking,
0217:52 24 pattern of offers to -- to meet and then withdrawals, 0220:1224 and was heavily involved with -- you know, on all the --
0217:55 25 and that seemed to me to be a deliberately calculated 0220:15 25 not all the flights, but on many of the flights with
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 109 to 112 of 151 28 of 38 sheets
113 115
0220:17 1 Jeffrey Epstein where -- where this seemed to be going 02:2228 I what his excuse was, but, you know, evaded the
022019 2 on and was very close to Epstein, staying at the mansion 02:22:31 2 deposition and, in fact, later information came to light
02:20:22 3 frequently. 02:2233 3 he was hiding out in, you know, in the mansion of
02:20:23 4 And so she would, obviously, be -- I guess if 02:22:35 4 Epstein while he's claiming he's unavailable for -- for
02:20:25 5 you have Epstein at the -- the top of the -- you know, 02:22:39 5 deposition.
02:20:27 6 the kingpin of the operation, Maxwell would be, you 02:22:39 6 So -- so this pattern of Mr. Dershowitz, you
0220:30 7 know, a close second or certainly at, you know, the 02:22:42 7 know, where there were three attempts to obtain
022012 8 higher echelon. 02:22:44 8 information from him, if that's all I had, I guess that
02:20:33 9 So, obviously, someone who would have, you 022246 9 would have been one thing. But what I had was a pattern
02:20:35 10 know, very significant information about, you know, the 02:2249 10 of people who were implicated in this sex trafficking
02:2018 11 sex trafficking, who were the other people that the -- 02:22:52 11 ring evading questions, you know, quite in violation of
02:20:41 12 the girls were being trafficked to, what kind of abuse 0222:57 12 court orders and depositions and things -- I shouldn't
0220:43 13 was going on, you know, what kinds of sex toys were 0222:58 13 say court order -- in violation of the deposition
0220:46 14 being used to abuse them, because I think it was in her 02:23:01 14 notices that were being sent and agreements being made,
0220:48 15 room or -- or adjacent to her room that many of these -- 0223:03 15 you know, through counsel.
02:2052 16 these devices were located, and so she would have had 02:23:05 16 And then in addition to that, I had this, so
02:20:55 17 very significant information to provide. 02:23:11 17 why -- why would you think that, you know, there's this
02:20:57 18 And so in connection with the civil cases 02:2113 18 sex trafficking, you know, ring going on? It sounds
02:21,00 19 that some of the girls had filed against Mr. Epstein, 0223:17 19 kind of farfetched.
0221:02 20 her deposition was set, in fact, by my co-counsel, 02:23:18 20 Well -- well, one of the things that I had
02:21:05 21 Mr. Edwards, and then there was some haggling over a 0223:19 21 available to me on December 30th was a photograph that
02:21:10 22 confidentiality agreement, you know, what are we 0223:22 22 was widely available on the Internet, and that
02:21:12 23 gonna -- and that had all been worked out, and then she 02:23:26 23 photograph depicted three people.
02:21:14 24 was set for a deposition and finally agreed, you know, 02:23:28 24 It depicted Glenn Maxwell, Prince Andrew, and
02:2116 25 to a deposition. 022134 25 Virginia Roberts, and the -- at the time that it looked
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
114 116
02:21:17 1 And just shortly, you know, I think a couple 0223:38 1 like Virginia Roberts was an underage girl. She was not
022119 2 of days before that deposition, she canceled. And well, 02:23:43 2 dressed in formal attire. And Prince Andrew had his arm
02:2023 3 she didn't cancel. Her -- her attorney called to cancel 02:23:47 3 around her, I think if memory serves, and right next --
0221:26 4 the deposition and represented that Miss Maxwell was 02:23:52 4 smiling in the background is Miss Maxwell, and it
02:21:30 5 outside the United States of America and had no plans to 02:23:54 5 appeared that that was a private residence, presumably
02:2113 6 return back to the United States. 02:2157 6 in London, close to Buckingham Palace where -- where
0221:35 7 And so, at that point, the deposition was -- 0224,00 7 Prince Andrew lived.
02:21,40 8 was not able to go forward. But it turned out that she 02:24:01 8 And so here was Prince Andrew with this
02:21:43 9 had not left the United States for an extended period of 02,24:03 9 underage girl with Glenn Maxwell, the -- the right-hand
02:21:46 10 time. She was spotted later at a wedding of a prominent 0224:05 10 girl, if that's the right expression -- I probably
02:21:49 11 person in New York. 0224:07 11 should say -- strike that -- right-hand woman of --
02:21:50 12 And so that was Maxwell fitting into this 022411 12 of -- of Mr. Epstein -- that were there and somebody had
02:21:52 13 pattern of, you know, Epstein was being told -- you 02:24:16 13 taken the photograph.
02:21:56 14 know, the Palm Beach Police Department being told by 02:24:17 14 Given the surrounding circumstances, I
02:21:57 15 Dershowitz that Epstein will answer your questions, and 022419 15 thought perhaps Mr. Epstein had taken the photograph.
02:22:00 16 then, you know, not -- not getting information, Maxwell 02:24:21 16 So that would have shown Virginia Roberts's sexual abuse
02:2203 17 evading the deposition. 02:2424 17 was not confined just to Florida, not confined to the
02:22:06 18 Jean Luc Brunel was another person who seemed 02:24:27 18 New York mansion; it would have -- it would have
02:2209 19 to be very much involved in -- in trafficking the girls, 02:24:31 19 presumably continued into London where one of, you know,
02:22:10 20 and it was the same situation. A deposition was set to 02:24:37 20 the highest, most powerful persons in the governmental
02:22:13 21 try to get answers, you know, who is involved, which 02:24.43 21 structure that -- that exists in England was now
02:22:16 22 girls are involved, what are their names, what's -- 02:2447 22 involved in -- in sexual abuse.
0222:17 23 what's going on? 022449 23 And so that created grave concern about, how
02:2216 24 And so Brunel's deposition is set and then 0224,52 24 far did this sex trafficking ring reach; what were their
02:2225 25 he -- he finagles out of it too. I don't recall exactly 022456 25 connections; what were their abilities to influence, you
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
29 of 38 sheets Page 113 to 116 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
117 119
02:25:01 1 know, law enforcement agencies in those countries, you 0226:51 1 Mr. Dershowitz was trying to do the same
02:25:04 2 know, in England, or law enforcement agencies in this 02:26:53 2 thing and it is a difficult situation.
02-25:07 3 country, through -- through power that, you know, 0226:55 3 A. All right.
02251 0 4 somebody at that level, fifth I think in line to the 0226,55 4 Q. So I was not trying to make light of the
02:25:15 5 British Throne, would have, you know, presumably access 0226:58 5 questions I'm asking you.
0225:17 6 to levers of power that other people might not -- might 0226:58 6 A. Right. This involves sexual abuse ...-
022521 7 not have. 0226:58 7 Q. I understand that.
02:25:22 8 And so that is the -- I believe is the -- the 0227:01 8 A. -- of multiple girls.
02:25:29 9 information that I had available to me on December 30th 02:27:02 9 Q. I understand that. Your -- I understand the
0225:32 10 involving not just Virginia Roberts, but the entire sex 0227:04 10 allegations that have been made.
02:25:35 11 trafficking organization. 02727:06 11 A. And your side keeps attacking these girls.
02:25:37 12 Q. Okay. And that -- just to clarify again, it 0227:09 12 That's why it's emotional for me.
02,25:42 13 exhausts your refreshed recollection as to both the 02:27:1213 Q. That -- that part is not true, but I will ask
0225:46 14 information you were relying on as to the allegations 02:27:15 14 questions --
02:2048 15 about Virginia Roberts, and as to the allegations about 02:27:15 15 A. I believe that part is true.
0225:52 16 other minors; is that right? 02:27:16 16 THE WITNESS: I would like to take a break.
0525:53 17 A. Correct. 02:2718 17 I'm sorry.
0225:53 18 Q. So I don't have to ask you separately about 0227:15 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video
02:25:55 19 Roberts? 0227,21 19 record, 4:01 p.m.
02:25:56 20 A. That's right. No, and I gave you a heads-up, 02:30:41 20 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
02:25:58 21 that was going to be a long answer. 02:30:41 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video
02:26:00 22 Q. You made Mr. Dershowitz look like an amateur. 0220:47 22 record, 4:04 p.m.
02:26:03 23 If I could -- 0230:47 23 (Thereupon, Kenneth A. Sweder, Esquire, Alan
0226:03 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Like a what? 02:30:47 24 M. Dershowitz and Carolyn Cohen left the
02:26:04 25 MR. SIMPSON: Amateur, at the long answers. 02:30:48 25 proceedings.)
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
118 120
02:26:07 1 THE WITNESS: Well, I wasn't trying to -- let 02:3048 1 MR. SCAROLA: The record should reflect that
02:26:08 2 me be clear. I want the record to be clear: I 02:30:50 2 Mr. and Mrs. Dershowitz have -- are no longer
02:26:11 3 was not trying to filibuster. You asked me a 0230:52 3 present.
02:26:12 4 very direct question which was: I want to know 02:3053 4 MR. SIMPSON: Correct.
02:26:15 5 everything that was in your memory on December 02:30:54 5 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
02:26:17 6 30th, and as you can tell, this was a very 02:30-55 6 BY MR. SIMPSON:
022620 7 important subject to me, and its very important 02:30:56 7 Q. Mr. Cassell, would you agree with me that
02:26:21 8 to Miss Roberts, and I wanted to be 02:31:00 8 accusing someone --
0226:24 9 comprehensive. 02:31:03 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. I just
02:26:25 10 And I gave you the opportunity to say, 0231:04 10 realized that she stepped out to get water, I
02:26:26 11 lets -- let's have a narrower question, and -- 02:31:06 11 believe. I didn't ask. I'm sure its
02:26:28 12 but you wanted the broad question and that's why 02:31:08 12 probably okay - -
0226:30 13 I did this, so I wasn't... 02,31-68 13 THE WITNESS: Its all right.
02:26:30 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0231:08 14 MR. SCAROLA: Its all right.
02:26:30 15 Q. Mr. Cassell, I apologize for attempting humor 02:31:11 15 MR. SIMPSON: That's okay with you?
02,26:34 16 in this intense situation. 02:31:11 16 THE WITNESS: Sure.
02:26:35 17 A. This is very important to me. 02:3111 17 BY MR. SIMPSON:
02,26:35 18 Q. I -- I -- I -- 0231:1318 Q. Would you agree with me that accusing a
02:26:36 19 A. This is not -- this is not something that I 02:3117 19 person of -- an adult of engaging in sex with a minor is
02:26:38 20 find funny. 02,3124 20 a serious accusation?
02:26140 21 Q. And -- well, it -- like I say, its very 02:31:26 21 A. Sure.
02:26:43 22 important to Mr. Dershowitz, or Professor Dershowitz 02:31:27 22 Q. And would you agree with me that the cause of
02:26:45 23 also. He was trying to answer questions. I'm not 02:31,33 23 Victims' Rights is harmed and not furthered by false
0226:47 24 questioning that you were trying to answer my question, 02:31:39 24 allegations of sexual abuse?
0226:49 25 and I appreciate it. 02:31,11 25 A. Sure.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 117 to 120 of 151 30 of 38 sheets
Exhibit 4
152 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED
154
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH 2
2
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
3
3 CASE NO. CACE 15-000072
Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
4 4 BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL,
5
575 Lexington Avenue
4th Floor
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, New York, New York 10022
vs. 6 Tel: 212.971.1314
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, 7
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. 8
Also Present:
DON SAVOY, Videographer
12 9 BRADLEY 3. EDWARDS
13 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ (Telephonically)
14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
15 PAUL G. CASSELL
16 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT 12
17 VOLUME II, PAGES 152 to 335 13
18
19
20 Saturday, October 17, 2015 17
21 8:32 a.m. - 12:14 p.m. 18
22
19
23
425 North Andrews Avenue
Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
20
21
24 22
25 Theresa Tomaselli, RMR 23
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 25
(954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954)331-4400
153 155
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
2
On behalf of the Plaintiffs:
2 WITNESS PAGE
3
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
3 PAUL G. CASSELL
4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 4 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 160
5 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard BY MR. SIMPSON
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 5
6 Tel: 561.686.6300
7
Fax: 561.383.9541
E-m ail: m ep@ searcylaw .com
6 INDEX TO EXHIBITS
8
On behalf of Virginia Roberts:
9
7
8
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
10 BY: SIGRID STONE McCAW LEY, ESQUIRE 9
401 East Las Olas Boulevard Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document 203
11 Suite 1200 10 produced by the witness
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
12
13
Tel: 954.356.0011
Fax: 954.356.0022
E-m ail: sm ccaw ley@ bsfllp.com
11
12
Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 - copy of 229
address book
14
Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 309
On behalf of the Defendant: 13 e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 - -514
15
WILEY REIN LLP 14
16 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE
AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQUIRE 15
17 1776 K Street Northwest
18
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202.719.7000
16
19
Fax: 202.719.7049
E-m ail: rsim pson@ w ileyrein.com
17
20 18
Also on behalf of the Defendant:
21
19 (Original Exhibits have been attached to the
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
original transcript.)
22 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, 3R., ESQUIRE 20
23
24
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: 305.350.5329
21
22
23
24
Fax: 305.373.2294
25 E-m ail: thorn [email protected] 25
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954)331-4400
10
11
14
15
16
24
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954)331-4400
1 of 46 sheets Page 152 to 155 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
156 158
1 DEPOSITION OF PAUL G. CASSELL 00:02:01 1 never thought to record it, but that's fine.
0002:04 2 MR. SIMPSON: We don't -- we don't need to
2 Saturday, October 17, 2015
000205 3 make that --
00:02:05 4 MR. SCAROLA: We don't need to discuss that.
3
00:0206 5 The question is --
4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video
00:0206 6 MR. SIMPSON: What you're saying does --
00:00:01 5 record. Today is Saturday, the 17th day of
0002'06 7 MR. SCAROLA: -- are you going to produce the
00:00:03 6 October, 2015. The time is 8:32 a.m. We are
mom 7 here at 425 North Andrews Avenue, Fort
00:021,8 8 recording without the necessity of a new request
0002:10
00:00:10 8 Lauderdale, Florida, for the purpose of taking 9 to produce, or will it be necessary for us to
00:0213
00:00:11 9 the videotaped deposition of Paul G. Cassell. 10 file a new request to produce?
00:0014 10 The case is Bradley J. Edwards and Paul
00:02:15 11 MR. SIMPSON: As Mr. Scott indicated
00:00:17 11 G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz. 00:02:17 12 yesterday, we will respond to you to the
00:00:19 12 The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli, and 00:02:19 13 discovery request. We will confer at a break and
00:00:20 13 the videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire 00:02:23 14 respond to that question. I don't want to take
00:00:23 14 Deposition Solutions. 0002:24 15 time on the record debating it. After Mr. Scott
0000:24 15 Will counsel please announce their
000228 16 and I have conferred at a break, we will respond
00:00,26 16 appearances for the record.
00:02:29 17 further to your question.
00:00:27 17 MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola on behalf of the
00:02:30 18 MR. SCAROLA: All right. So that the record
00:0030 18 Plaintiffs.
00:02:31 19 is clear, it is our position that the recording
00:0030 19 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson of Wiley Rein
00.02,35 20 itself, any evidence of any communication between
00,0335 20 on behalf of the Defendant and Counterclaim
00:02:40 21 Mr. Dershowitz and Rebecca and/or Michael, any
000038 21 Plaintiff, Alan Dershowitz. With me is my
00,00:39 22 colleague, Nicole Richardson, and Thomas Scott of
00:02:45 22 notes with respect to any such communications,
00:0260
00:00:44 23 Cole, Scott & Kissane, also for Mr. -- Professor
23 text messages, e-mails, and an accurate privilege
000257
00,0048 24 Dershowitz. 24 log as to everything that is being withheld is
00:00:50 25 MR. SCAROLA: Before we begin the deposition,
000101 25 responsive to the earlier request to produce, and
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
157 159
0000:52 1 we were informed for the first time yesterday 00:03:04 1 that the obligation was to have provided it to us
00:0055 2 morning of the existence of a recording of a 00:0108 2 previously and is to provide it to us now.
00:01:01 3 telephone communication between Alan Dershowitz 00:03:11 3 We understand that you're considering that
00:01:05 4 and a woman identified only as Rebecca. 000313 4 and you will respond, so we can proceed with the
00:01:10 5 That information was conveyed to us 00:03:15 5 deposition.
00:01:13 6 subsequent to Professor Dershowitz's sworn 00:03:16 6 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. And we disagree about
000116 7 testimony that no recording existed, but now that 000117 7 that, and as you know, we have a motion to compel
00:01:20 8 we know that the recording existed and that it 00:0319 8 regarding your inadequate privilege log.
00:01:23 9 was obviously made according to the 00:03:24 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Just before we begin, I'm
00:01:25 10 representations given to us, prior to the 00:0324 10 sorry, I didn't announce my appearance for the
00:01:29 11 completion of the responses to our earlier 00:03:24 11 record. Sigrid McCawley from Boies, Schiller &
00:01:31 12 discovery requests, I would like to know whether 00:0328 12 Flexner, and I have a standing objection that I'd
00:01:34 13 it is the Defendant's position that it is 00:03:31 13 just like to repeat on the record.
00:01:37 14 necessary for us to propound a new discovery 00:03:32 14 MR. SCOTT: Feel better that you got that off
00.01:40 15 request to get information that clearly should 00:0132 15 your chest?
0001:43 16 have been disclosed in response to the earlier 00:03:32 16 MS. McCAWLEY: With respect to -- excuse me.
00:01:46 17 discovery request. 00:03:34 17 With respect to my client, Virginia Roberts,
00:01:47 18 Is that the position that you're taking? 000337 18 she is asserting her attorney/client privilege
00:01:48 19 MR. SIMPSON: First, Mr. Scarola, I believe 00:0339 19 with her attorneys and is not waiving it through
00:01:50 20 you have mischaracterized Professor Dershowitz's 00:03:41 20 any testimony here today, and that I object to
00:01:53 21 testimony. You didn't ask the question whether 00:0344 21 any testimony elicited that would be used as a
0001;55 22 he made a recording. Yesterday morning, he 000147 22 subject of waiver for her attorney/client
00:01:57 23 provided that information in response to a 000348 23 privilege.
00:01:59 24 different question. 24 MR. SIMPSON: Would you reswear the witness,
00:02:00 25 MR. SCAROLA: His exact testimony was: I 25 please?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 156 to 159 of 335 2 of 46 sheets
160 162
1 Thereupon, 0005,28 1 Q. And when you say "all day," what time period
2 PAUL G. CASSELL, 00:05:31 2 are you referring to?
3 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 00:0632 3 A. 9:00 to 5:00.
4 as follows: 00:05:33 4 Q. 9:00 to 5:00. Okay. And was that through
5 THE WITNESS: I do. 00:05:38 5 lunch; you just stayed through eight hours; is that --
6 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 000040 6 what's your recollection of that?
7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:05:41 7 A. Yeah, I remember we were working very hard
00:04:01 8 Q. Good morning -- 00:05:43 8 on -- on it, so I think we had, if I recall correctly,
00:04:01 9 A. Good morning. 00,05:46 9 had lunch brought in and worked straight through that.
00:04:01 10 Q. -- Mr. Cassell. 00:0049 10 Q. Any other meetings in person with
00:04:03 11 As of December 30th, 2014, had you ever met 00:05:53 11 Miss Roberts before December 30th of 2014?
00:04:08 12 with Virginia Roberts in person? 00:0557 12 A. No.
00:04:10 13 A. Yes. 00:05:57 13 Q. Any telephone calls with her that you -- you
00:04:10 14 Q. And how many times had you met with her in 000003 14 had, obviously, before December 30th, 2014?
00:04,14 15 person? 00:06:07 15 A. I believe there were a couple of -- of
00:04:14 16 A. Once. 00,06:09 16 telephone calls.
00,04:15 17 Q. When was that? 000609 17 Q. And can you tell us when those were?
0004:16 18 A. Approximately May 2014. 00:06:12 18 A. Let's see. Roughly September 2014. Give or
00:04:20 19 Q. May of 2014? 00,06:18 19 take a month. I mean, you know, sometime after May and
00:04:21 20 A. Yes. 00:06:22 20 before December 30th.
00:04:21 21 Q. Who was present for that meeting? 00:06:23 21 Q. Okay. And were those telephone calls between
00:04:24 22 A. I'm just pausing for a second because I 0006:2722 just you and Miss Roberts, or was anyone else on the
00:04:28 23 don't -- I think we're -- 00:0601 23 line?
00:04:28 24 Q. I -- I'm not -- 00:06:32 24 A. No. It was just the two of -- just
00:04:30 25 A. -- clearly not trying to get into 0006:34 25 Miss Roberts and I.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
161 163
00:04:31 1 attorney/client communication. 000605 1 Q. Okay. And are you able to distinguish the
00:04:32 2 Q. I'm not asking you for what was said at this 00:0608 2 calls in your mind as two separate telephone calls?
00:04,34 3 point. I'm just asking you who was present. I'm going 00:0040 3 A. I -- I think there were either one or two
0004:36 4 to ask you where it was, those kind of questions. 000043 4 calls. I think there may have been two, but it -- it
00:04:39 5 A. Sure. Yeah. The main person who was present 0006:46 5 would not have been more than two that I can recall.
0004:42 6 was Bradley J. Edwards, my Co-Plaintiff in this case. 0006:49 6 Q. Okay. How long did each of the telephone
00:04:45 7 Q. Okay. And Miss Roberts obviously was 00:06:51 7 calls last?
00:04:47 8 present? 0006:52 8 A. Less than five minutes.
00:04:47 9 A. Yes. 0006704 9 Q. I'm going to ask you a question now, but
00:0448 10 Q. Anyone else present? 00:06:59 10 before you answer it, pause, because I believe you will
0004,49 11 A. You know, there were -- this was at the 00:07:01 11 be instructed not to answer it --
00:04:53 12 Farmer, Jaffee office here, and so persons who were 00,07:03 12 A. Okay.
00:04,56 13 associated with the law firm were assisting, but those 00:07:03 13 Q. -- but want to -- I think -- we disagree on
00:05:00 14 were the main people. 00:07:07 14 the privilege --
00:05:00 15 Q. Okay. Do you remember any of those other 0007:07 15 A. Sure.
00:05:02 16 people associated with the law firm who were present? 00:07:07 16 Q. -- we believe it's been waived.
00:05:05 17 A. Present for, you know, coming in and 0007:07 17 My question is: During the meeting, did you
00:05:08 18 assisting, I believe Brad's assistant, Maria, was there, 00:07:11 18 discuss Professor Dershowitz?
00:05:13 19 and perhaps others at the firm, but it was -- it was 00:07:13 19 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to any
00:05,17 20 basically Brad and I. 00:07:15 20 discussion of what my client told you during any
00:05:18 21 Q. Was there anyone else who attended for the 00:07:19 21 situation where you were representing her as
00:05:21 22 entire meeting or a substantial portion of the meeting? 0007:21 22 an -- an attorney.
00:05:2323 A. No. 00:07:22 23 MR. SIMPSON: So -- and I think we had an
00:05:23 24 Q. Okay. How long did the meeting last? 0007,24 24 agreement yesterday, if you follow your own
mos:26 25 A. Approximately all day. 00:07:28 25 counsel's instruction on not answering, are you
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
3 of 46 sheets Page 160 to 163 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
164 166
00:07:28 1 also going to follow Miss McCawley's instructions 0009:08 1 and all that goes into the advice that they were
00:07:32 2 on not answering on behalf of -- 00:09:08 2 giving her and surrounding that advice, so I
00:0712 3 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Cassell will follow the 00:0911 3 would object to that.
00:07:36 4 instructions of Virginia Roberts' counsel. It is 00:09:12 4 MR. SCAROLA: Could I have the question read
0007:38 5 not his privilege to waive, and he is ethically 0009:15 5 back?
00,07,42 6 obliged to respect the direction coming from 00:0915 6 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read
00:07:46 7 Virginia Roberts' counsel. 00:09:15 7 by the reporter.)
00:07:48 8 MR. SIMPSON: Yes, I'm -- I'm simply, 00:09:33 8 MS. McCAWLEY: And I would like to clarify
00:07:49 9 Mr. Scarola, making my record that the witness -- 00:0933 9 what case as well that you're referring to.
00:07:52 10 MR. SCAROLA: I understand that. 000034 10 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask the
000752 11 MR. SIMPSON: Right. We disagree. 00:09:36 11 question, and -- and I will note for the record
00:07:53 12 MR. SCAROLA: I understand, but you can 0009:38 12 that yesterday, the witness testified that the
0007:54 13 assume the same way I have authorized you to 00:0040 13 fact that Mr. Boies was representing Virginia
00:07:58 14 assume that Professor Cassell will follow my 00:09:42 14 Roberts was significant to him. So it's sort of
oo,oe:oi 15 instructions, Professor Cassell will also follow 00:0047 15 being used as a sword and a shield here, but I
0008:04 16 all instructions concerning the assertion of 00:09,48 16 have only asked the question. I'll clarify.
00:08:07 17 attorney/client privilege expressed on the record 00:09:48 17 MR. SCAROLA: We haven't used it any way yet.
00:08:10 18 by Miss McCawley on behalf of Virginia Roberts. 00:09:51 18 MR. SIMPSON: Well, the -- the witness
00:08:13 19 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 00:09:52 19 volunteered. Shall I put it that way? And we
00:08:14 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:0954 20 have a waiver.
00:0816 21 Q. So, Mr. Cassell, based on that, I will assume 00:0054 21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:08:21 22 that if I ask you what you recall the discussion being 00:09:55 22 Q. But, in any event, my question is: Have you
00:08:24 23 at the meeting or at each of the phone calls, that 00:09:58 23 spoken -- before December 30th of 2014, had you spoken
00:0829 24 you're not going to answer those questions; is that 00:10:02 24 with David Boies about Virginia Roberts' allegations
00:08:29 25 correct? 00:10:06 25 regarding Professor Dershowitz?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
165 167
00:08:29 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 00:10:10 1 MR. SCAROLA: Without getting into the
0008:30 2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, obviously not. 001013 2 substance of any such discussions, you can answer
00:08:30 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 001016 3 that question.
00:08:30 4 Q. Okay. 001017 4 THE WITNESS: My recollection is no.
00:08:32 5 A. I mean, I have a duty to my client which I'm 00:10:20 5 MR. SCOTT: I think you're right on that one.
0008:36 6 going to respect. 001020 6 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:08:36 7 Q. All right. So we'll -- we'll take that up 001022 7 Q. Okay. So the answer is, no, you had not
00:08:37 8 later with the judge. 00:10:23 8 spoken with him?
00:08:39 9 As of December 30th, 2014, had you spoken 00,1023 9 A. My recollection --
00:08:44 10 about this case with David Boies, and the question is 00:10:24 10 MR. SCAROLA: Judge Scott has issued a
00:08:47 11 just: Had you spoken -- 0010:27 11 ruling, so "-
0008:48 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 001029 12 MR. SCOTT: I wrote several opinions on that
00:08:48 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 001029 13 actually.
00:08:50 14 Q. -- not what the discussion was. 00:10:29 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- we'll proceed.
00:08,91 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. It's the 00:10:29 15 THE WITNESS: Let me go back -
00:08:52 16 common-interest privilege. 00:10:29 16 MR. SCOTT: In the context of criminal
00:08:52 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0010:33 17 lawyers.
0008:53 18 Q. I'm only asking if there was a discussion, no 00:10:33 18 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember if I
0008:55 19 substance at all. Just, was there a discussion? 00:10:34 19 wrote any opinions on that one when I was a
00,08:58 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to instruct you not 0010;36 20 judge. My -- I don't recall, but -- I don't
00:0000 21 to answer that. 0010:41 21 recall. I -- my recollection is I had not
00:0001 22 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. You're taking the 00:10:42 22 personally spoken to David Boies before December
00:0002 23 position that the fact of whether or not -- 00:10:44 23 30th, 2014.
000004 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, because you're also 0010:44 24 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:09:05 25 trying to get into the timing of communications,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
00:10:45 25 Q. Okay. Had you, before December 30th of 2014,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 164 to 167 of 335 4 of 46 sheets
168 170
00:10:53 1 spoken with any other lawyers at Mr. Boies' firm? 00:1464 1 record, 8:47 a.m.
00:10:58 2 A. My recollection is, no. 00:14:54 2 MR. SCAROLA: As it turns out, while we may
0611:02 3 Q. And after December 30th of 2014, have you 00:14:57 3 reach some issue of privilege at some point in
00:11:08 4 spoken with Mr. Boies about Virginia Roberts's 00:14:59 4 this discussion, the answer to your pending
00:11:13 5 allegations against -- 00:15:01 5 question is, no, so there's no privilege concern.
00:11:15 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Again, I'm going to object. 00:15:04 6 MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'll -- I'll ask
00:11:15 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:1606 7 the witness for the --
0611:16 8 Q. -- Professor Dershowitz? 00:15:07 8 MR. SCAROLA: Sure.
00:11:19 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Sorry. I will let you finish. 00:15:08 9 MR. SIMPSON: -- the -- the answer. I'll
0011:19 10 I'm objecting to this. I think it gets into 00:15:10 10 move to -- I'll reask the question.
00:11:20 11 the substance of conversations under the 00:15:11 11 THE WITNESS: Sure. That will be good.
00:11:24 12 common-interest privilege, whether there was a 00:15:11 12 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:11:25 13 conversation, but you're getting into the 00:15:12 13 Q. My question is: I believed you had already
00:11:27 14 substance of what the conversation was about, and 00:15:15 14 answered the question as to before December 30th, 2014,
00:11:28 15 I think that is a violation of her -- her 00:15:19 15 you had discussed Miss Roberts' allegations against
00:11:31 16 privilege. 00:1621 16 Professor Dershowitz, and you said, no; is that right?
00:11:31 17 MR. SCAROLA: And just so that I can clarify 061525 17 MR. SCAROLA: David Boies.
0011:34 18 our position on the record, I think that we can 0015:28 18 MR. SIMPSON: David Boies. I'm sorry.
00:11:38 19 identify the general subject matter in order to 00:15:28 19 THE WITNESS: Before December 30th, no
00:11:42 20 support our position that it falls within the 00:15:31 20 discussions that I can recall with David Boies.
0611:45 21 common-interest privilege. So we are willing to 00:15:31 21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:11:48 22 answer the question about the general subject 00:15:34 22 Q. After December 30th, 2014, did you have any
0011:51 23 matter to support our assertion of 001537 23 discussions with David Boies about Professor Dershowitz?
00:11:53 24 common-interest privilege, but not get into the 00:1642 24 A. Can I --
00:11:56 25 substance of the communications beyond that. 0615:44 25 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
169 171
00:11:58 1 MR. SIMPSON: And I believe its the same 0615:45 1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
00:1200 2 question that was answered a moment ago for a 00:15:46 2 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:12:02 3 different time period, and again, I'm not asking 00:15:47 3 Q. You did.
00:12:05 4 for any substance. I'm just asking whether, 0015,47 4 A. Yes.
00:12:07 5 since December 30th, 2014, you have discussed the 00:1648 5 Q. What was the substance of those
00:12:13 6 allegations by Virginia Roberts against Professor 00:15:51 6 communications?
00:12:17 7 Dershowitz. 00:15:52 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that.
00:12:17 8 THE WITNESS: I would like to confer with my 0615:53 8 You -- its under the common-interest privilege
0012:19 9 counsel on that question. It gets into a 0015:55 9 and its Virginia's privilege to waive, and she's
00:12:22 10 complicated legal issue that I'm not sure I 00:15:57 10 not waiving it.
00:12:25 11 can -- 061658 11 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
0612:25 12 MR. SIMPSON: You want to confer on a 00:1658 12 MR. SCAROLA: We -- we assert the
00:12:26 13 privilege issue; is that right? 00:16:01 13 common-interest privilege with regard to the
00:1227 14 THE WITNESS: I want to confer with my 00:16:02 14 substance as well.
00:12:29 15 counsel before answering that question anyway. 00:16:03 15 MR. SIMPSON: All right. And that -- that
00:12:32 16 MR. SIMPSON: I just want to clarify -- 00:16:04 16 will be -- that will be asserted as to all
00:12:32 17 MR. SCAROLA: With respect to privilege. 0016:06 17 questions about the substance of the discussions
00:12:33 18 MR. SIMPSON: All right. As long as its 00:16:09 18 with Mr. Boies; is that right?
00.12:35 19 with respect to privilege, you're entitled to do 00:16:11 19 MR. SCAROLA: I cant say that for sure.
00:12:37 20 that. 0016:14 20 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask my
00:12:37 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 00:1615 21 question then.
00:12:38 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 00:16:15 22 MR. SCAROLA: And let -- maybe this -- maybe
00:12:40 23 record, 8:45 a.m. 0616:17 23 this will help you and maybe it won't. But,
0614:50 24 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) oa 16:20 24 obviously, there have been some public statements
00:14:50 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 00.16:27 25 with regard to this general area. If the
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
5 of 46 sheets Page 168 to 171 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
172 174
00:16:33 1 communications were not considered to be 002009 1 MR. SCAROLA: Because of concern about a --
00:16:34 2 privileged at the time that they were made, we 0020:14 2 an inadvertent potential waiver of the
00:16:37 3 can answer questions about that. If they were 002018 3 work-product privilege, while it is not our
00:16:39 4 considered to be privileged at the time they were 0020:21 4 intent to assert a privilege with regard to
00:16:41 5 made, we can't answer questions. 00:20:27 5 nonexistent communications, any effort to
0016:42 6 So I can't tell you that there's a blanket 00:20:33 6 identify the subject matter of communications in
00:16:45 7 assertion. We need to hear the question. 00:20:37 7 the questions that you asked will require that we
00:16:47 8 THE WITNESS: I need the question back. 00:20:40 8 assert work-product privilege with regard to
0016:47 9 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 00:2043 9 those questions.
0016:48 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0020:44 10 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. We disagree, obviously,
0016:49 11 Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Boies about the 00:2046 11 on that position.
0016:53 12 allegations against Professor Dershowitz? 002047 12 MR. SCAROLA: We understand.
0016:55 13 MR. SCAROLA: And that is common-interest 0020:48 13 MR. SIMPSON: So I will ask some additional
0016'68 14 privilege information and we do assert a 0020,49 14 questions and we will see if the witness answers
00:17:00 15 privilege. 0020:5315 them.
00:17:00 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:20:53 16 MR. SCAROLA: If it begins: "Did you talk
001701 17 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any 00:20:54 17 about," the answer is going to be an assertion of
00:17:05 18 discussions he had had with Professor Dershowitz? 0020:58 18 privilege.
00:17:08 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 00:20:58 19 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
00:17:09 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 0020:58 20 MR. SCAROLA: Okay?
00:17:11 21 instruction. 00:20:59 21 MR. SIMPSON: I'll ask the questions.
00:1711 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:21:00 22 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:17:12 23 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any documents 00:21:05 23 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any meetings
001716 24 that Mr. Boies had reviewed? 00:21:09 24 Mr. Boies had had with Professor Dershowitz?
00:17:18 25 MR. SCAROLA: Well, let me -- again, I don't 0021:12 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
txt
Cont'd.
27 of 38 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
109 111
021521 1 people who would have relevant information in the civil 02:1860 1 strategy to sort of stall the investigation to say:
02:15:25 2 cases, but when asked in deposition about 0218:03 2 Well, we will get you Epstein; oh, we can't meet now;
02:1629 3 Mr. Dershowitz, he took the Fifth. 02:18:03 3 oh, we will get it now -- and then -- and so forth.
02:15:31 4 So I -- I found it significant that for some 021864 4 And one of the things that I noted from all
02:15:33 5 people, he was willing to answer questions, but with 02:18:06 5 that was that Mr. Dershowitz, as Mr. Epstein's attorney,
0215:35 6 regard to Mr. Dershowitz, he took his -- he invoked his 02:18:09 6 never ultimately produced Epstein for a meeting with the
02:15:39 7 Fifth Amendment right against compelled 0218:14 7 Palm Beach Police Department, having made another offer.
02:15:41 8 self-incrimination presumably because revealing what he 021817 8 Now, obviously, something could have happened
02:15:44 9 knew about Mr. Dershowitz would, you know, cause 02:18:19 9 there. I mean, I don't -- you know, I don't know what
02:15:48 10 criminal -- criminal charges potentially to be filed 02:18:21 10 was the communications and so forth, but as an attorney
02:15:51 11 against him. 02:18:24 11 trying to get information and unable to do that, I had
021652 12 There was a common scheme or plan, and I'll 02:18:26 12 to make some reasonable inferences.
021608 13 elaborate on that in a moment, but yeah, one of -- so 02:18:29 13 And so one of the inferences I began to draw
02:16:14 14 this was another point. I mentioned that -- that there 021631 14 was that this was a stall tactic by Mr. Dershowitz, and
0216:17 15 had been three efforts to get information from 02:18734 15 in my view, potentially, an unethical one, but I
021518 16 Mr. Dershowitz by way of a 2009 deposition request, a 02:1637 16 don't -- I don't think we need to get into that in this
02:16:23 17 2011 deposition request, and further follow-up 02:18:39 17 litigation.
02:16:26 18 correspondence from counsel on that, and a 2013 document 02:18:40 18 What I saw was a stall tactic going on,
02:16:31 19 request all propounded to Mr. Dershowitz that had not 02:18:44 19 and -- and the reason I think it was a stall tactic, as
02:16:34 20 gone answered. 02:18:46 20 we are sitting here now in, what is it, October of 2015,
021635 21 Yeah, and this was -- yeah, I'm sorry, this 02:1651 21 and Mr. Epstein has never been willing to answer
0216:37 22 slipped my mind at the time -- but when -- when we saw 0218:54 22 questions about his sexual abuse of these girls.
02:164O 23 Mr. Dershowitz not responding to these answers, you 02:1868 23 And this was back in around -- what was it?
02:16:44 24 know, maybe the mail didn't get delivered to him or 02:19.01 24 I guess it would be 2005, 2006, you know, roughly a
021646 25 something like that. I don't -- I suppose that's, you 0219:04 25 decade ago, Mr. Dershowitz was offering to make Epstein
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
110 112
02:18:48 1 know, a theoretical possibility. 02:1607 1 available. And then that never happened, and given the
02:18:50 2 But -- but the reason I ruled out that 02:1511 2 ten-year pattern that -- that developed -- I guess I
02:1652 3 possibility, first, it didn't seem likely; but secondly, 02:1612 3 should go back. I'm sorry. Let me correct my answer.
02:16:55 4 there was a pattern of Mr. Epstein's associates evading 02:19:14 4 We should go back to December 30th, 2014. So
0216:59 5 efforts to get information from them. 02:19:17 5 there -- there appeared to be about an eight-year period
021762 6 And so let me just go back to the earliest 021621 6 of time during which Mr. Epstein had refused to answer
0217:05 7 instance of that. According to the Chief of Police in 021924 7 any questions about his sexual abuse of girls and yet,
02:17:07 8 the Palm Beach -- of the Palm Beach Police Department, 021929 8 Mr. Dershowitz said, oh, it's just a scheduling issue
02:1711 9 Mr. Dershowitz had said that he would make available 02:1630 9 and -- and we will get the Palm Beach Police Department
0217:14 10 Mr. Epstein for questions about the -- the sex, you 021633 10 to -- to, you know, to meet and -- and learn all this.
02:17:18 11 know, abuse that was going on. And, you know, 0219:37 11 The other thing that I'm -- that I'm seeing
02:17:21 12 Mr. Dershowitz had said to the Palm Beach Police 02:19:39 12 here, so now there's -- there's -- Mr. Dershowitz had
021723 13 Department, yeah, we will make him available; no, we got 02:1642 13 been involved in concealing Mr. Epstein from the Palm
0217:25 14 to reschedule it; you know, and then another time, 02:19:46 14 Beach Police Department, but there were others that had
0217:28 15 reschedule, another time. And so there were multiple -- 02:1647 15 done similar sorts of things.
02:17:32 16 according to the Chief of Police, there had been 0219:49 16 So one of them was a Ghislaine Maxwell. I
02:17:34 17 multiple, you know, requests to interview Mr. Epstein 02:19:55 17 will just call her Glenn Maxwell. I think that's kind
021738 18 and Mr. Dershowitz had repeatedly said: Oh, yeah, we 02:19:55 18 of the nickname I understand she goes by.
02:17:41 19 will schedule that, and then it hadn't happened. 02:19:59 19 So Glenn Maxwell -- remember, she is -- she
0217:43 20 Now, obviously, there could have been a 021969 20 is the one, you know, I think the record is clear, in --
82.17:45 21 situation there where, you know, an emergency had come 02:20:03 21 in -- in litigation that, you know, an allegation has
0217:47 22 up for Mr. Epstein and he wasn't able to make a schedule 02:20:06 22 been made that she was the one that -- that brought
0217:49 23 or something like that. But what I saw was a -- was a 02:20708 23 Virginia Roberts into the -- into the sex trafficking,
0217:52 24 pattern of offers to -- to meet and then withdrawals, 0220:1224 and was heavily involved with -- you know, on all the --
0217:55 25 and that seemed to me to be a deliberately calculated 0220:15 25 not all the flights, but on many of the flights with
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 109 to 112 of 151 28 of 38 sheets
113 115
0220:17 1 Jeffrey Epstein where -- where this seemed to be going 02:2228 I what his excuse was, but, you know, evaded the
022019 2 on and was very close to Epstein, staying at the mansion 02:22:31 2 deposition and, in fact, later information came to light
02:20:22 3 frequently. 02:2233 3 he was hiding out in, you know, in the mansion of
02:20:23 4 And so she would, obviously, be -- I guess if 02:22:35 4 Epstein while he's claiming he's unavailable for -- for
02:20:25 5 you have Epstein at the -- the top of the -- you know, 02:22:39 5 deposition.
02:20:27 6 the kingpin of the operation, Maxwell would be, you 02:22:39 6 So -- so this pattern of Mr. Dershowitz, you
0220:30 7 know, a close second or certainly at, you know, the 02:22:42 7 know, where there were three attempts to obtain
022012 8 higher echelon. 02:22:44 8 information from him, if that's all I had, I guess that
02:20:33 9 So, obviously, someone who would have, you 022246 9 would have been one thing. But what I had was a pattern
02:20:35 10 know, very significant information about, you know, the 02:2249 10 of people who were implicated in this sex trafficking
02:2018 11 sex trafficking, who were the other people that the -- 02:22:52 11 ring evading questions, you know, quite in violation of
02:20:41 12 the girls were being trafficked to, what kind of abuse 0222:57 12 court orders and depositions and things -- I shouldn't
0220:43 13 was going on, you know, what kinds of sex toys were 0222:58 13 say court order -- in violation of the deposition
0220:46 14 being used to abuse them, because I think it was in her 02:23:01 14 notices that were being sent and agreements being made,
0220:48 15 room or -- or adjacent to her room that many of these -- 0223:03 15 you know, through counsel.
02:2052 16 these devices were located, and so she would have had 02:23:05 16 And then in addition to that, I had this, so
02:20:55 17 very significant information to provide. 02:23:11 17 why -- why would you think that, you know, there's this
02:20:57 18 And so in connection with the civil cases 02:2113 18 sex trafficking, you know, ring going on? It sounds
02:21,00 19 that some of the girls had filed against Mr. Epstein, 0223:17 19 kind of farfetched.
0221:02 20 her deposition was set, in fact, by my co-counsel, 02:23:18 20 Well -- well, one of the things that I had
02:21:05 21 Mr. Edwards, and then there was some haggling over a 0223:19 21 available to me on December 30th was a photograph that
02:21:10 22 confidentiality agreement, you know, what are we 0223:22 22 was widely available on the Internet, and that
02:21:12 23 gonna -- and that had all been worked out, and then she 02:23:26 23 photograph depicted three people.
02:21:14 24 was set for a deposition and finally agreed, you know, 02:23:28 24 It depicted Glenn Maxwell, Prince Andrew, and
02:2116 25 to a deposition. 022134 25 Virginia Roberts, and the -- at the time that it looked
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
114 116
02:21:17 1 And just shortly, you know, I think a couple 0223:38 1 like Virginia Roberts was an underage girl. She was not
022119 2 of days before that deposition, she canceled. And well, 02:23:43 2 dressed in formal attire. And Prince Andrew had his arm
02:2023 3 she didn't cancel. Her -- her attorney called to cancel 02:23:47 3 around her, I think if memory serves, and right next --
0221:26 4 the deposition and represented that Miss Maxwell was 02:23:52 4 smiling in the background is Miss Maxwell, and it
02:21:30 5 outside the United States of America and had no plans to 02:23:54 5 appeared that that was a private residence, presumably
02:2113 6 return back to the United States. 02:2157 6 in London, close to Buckingham Palace where -- where
0221:35 7 And so, at that point, the deposition was -- 0224,00 7 Prince Andrew lived.
02:21,40 8 was not able to go forward. But it turned out that she 02:24:01 8 And so here was Prince Andrew with this
02:21:43 9 had not left the United States for an extended period of 02,24:03 9 underage girl with Glenn Maxwell, the -- the right-hand
02:21:46 10 time. She was spotted later at a wedding of a prominent 0224:05 10 girl, if that's the right expression -- I probably
02:21:49 11 person in New York. 0224:07 11 should say -- strike that -- right-hand woman of --
02:21:50 12 And so that was Maxwell fitting into this 022411 12 of -- of Mr. Epstein -- that were there and somebody had
02:21:52 13 pattern of, you know, Epstein was being told -- you 02:24:16 13 taken the photograph.
02:21:56 14 know, the Palm Beach Police Department being told by 02:24:17 14 Given the surrounding circumstances, I
02:21:57 15 Dershowitz that Epstein will answer your questions, and 022419 15 thought perhaps Mr. Epstein had taken the photograph.
02:22:00 16 then, you know, not -- not getting information, Maxwell 02:24:21 16 So that would have shown Virginia Roberts's sexual abuse
02:2203 17 evading the deposition. 02:2424 17 was not confined just to Florida, not confined to the
02:22:06 18 Jean Luc Brunel was another person who seemed 02:24:27 18 New York mansion; it would have -- it would have
02:2209 19 to be very much involved in -- in trafficking the girls, 02:24:31 19 presumably continued into London where one of, you know,
02:22:10 20 and it was the same situation. A deposition was set to 02:24:37 20 the highest, most powerful persons in the governmental
02:22:13 21 try to get answers, you know, who is involved, which 02:24.43 21 structure that -- that exists in England was now
02:22:16 22 girls are involved, what are their names, what's -- 02:2447 22 involved in -- in sexual abuse.
0222:17 23 what's going on? 022449 23 And so that created grave concern about, how
02:2216 24 And so Brunel's deposition is set and then 0224,52 24 far did this sex trafficking ring reach; what were their
02:2225 25 he -- he finagles out of it too. I don't recall exactly 022456 25 connections; what were their abilities to influence, you
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
29 of 38 sheets Page 113 to 116 of 151 10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM
117 119
02:25:01 1 know, law enforcement agencies in those countries, you 0226:51 1 Mr. Dershowitz was trying to do the same
02:25:04 2 know, in England, or law enforcement agencies in this 02:26:53 2 thing and it is a difficult situation.
02-25:07 3 country, through -- through power that, you know, 0226:55 3 A. All right.
02251 0 4 somebody at that level, fifth I think in line to the 0226,55 4 Q. So I was not trying to make light of the
02:25:15 5 British Throne, would have, you know, presumably access 0226:58 5 questions I'm asking you.
0225:17 6 to levers of power that other people might not -- might 0226:58 6 A. Right. This involves sexual abuse ...-
022521 7 not have. 0226:58 7 Q. I understand that.
02:25:22 8 And so that is the -- I believe is the -- the 0227:01 8 A. -- of multiple girls.
02:25:29 9 information that I had available to me on December 30th 02:27:02 9 Q. I understand that. Your -- I understand the
0225:32 10 involving not just Virginia Roberts, but the entire sex 0227:04 10 allegations that have been made.
02:25:35 11 trafficking organization. 02727:06 11 A. And your side keeps attacking these girls.
02:25:37 12 Q. Okay. And that -- just to clarify again, it 0227:09 12 That's why it's emotional for me.
02,25:42 13 exhausts your refreshed recollection as to both the 02:27:1213 Q. That -- that part is not true, but I will ask
0225:46 14 information you were relying on as to the allegations 02:27:15 14 questions --
02:2048 15 about Virginia Roberts, and as to the allegations about 02:27:15 15 A. I believe that part is true.
0225:52 16 other minors; is that right? 02:27:16 16 THE WITNESS: I would like to take a break.
0525:53 17 A. Correct. 02:2718 17 I'm sorry.
0225:53 18 Q. So I don't have to ask you separately about 0227:15 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video
02:25:55 19 Roberts? 0227,21 19 record, 4:01 p.m.
02:25:56 20 A. That's right. No, and I gave you a heads-up, 02:30:41 20 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
02:25:58 21 that was going to be a long answer. 02:30:41 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video
02:26:00 22 Q. You made Mr. Dershowitz look like an amateur. 0220:47 22 record, 4:04 p.m.
02:26:03 23 If I could -- 0230:47 23 (Thereupon, Kenneth A. Sweder, Esquire, Alan
0226:03 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Like a what? 02:30:47 24 M. Dershowitz and Carolyn Cohen left the
02:26:04 25 MR. SIMPSON: Amateur, at the long answers. 02:30:48 25 proceedings.)
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
118 120
02:26:07 1 THE WITNESS: Well, I wasn't trying to -- let 02:3048 1 MR. SCAROLA: The record should reflect that
02:26:08 2 me be clear. I want the record to be clear: I 02:30:50 2 Mr. and Mrs. Dershowitz have -- are no longer
02:26:11 3 was not trying to filibuster. You asked me a 0230:52 3 present.
02:26:12 4 very direct question which was: I want to know 02:3053 4 MR. SIMPSON: Correct.
02:26:15 5 everything that was in your memory on December 02:30:54 5 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
02:26:17 6 30th, and as you can tell, this was a very 02:30-55 6 BY MR. SIMPSON:
022620 7 important subject to me, and its very important 02:30:56 7 Q. Mr. Cassell, would you agree with me that
02:26:21 8 to Miss Roberts, and I wanted to be 02:31:00 8 accusing someone --
0226:24 9 comprehensive. 02:31:03 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. I just
02:26:25 10 And I gave you the opportunity to say, 0231:04 10 realized that she stepped out to get water, I
02:26:26 11 lets -- let's have a narrower question, and -- 02:31:06 11 believe. I didn't ask. I'm sure its
02:26:28 12 but you wanted the broad question and that's why 02:31:08 12 probably okay - -
0226:30 13 I did this, so I wasn't... 02,31-68 13 THE WITNESS: Its all right.
02:26:30 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0231:08 14 MR. SCAROLA: Its all right.
02:26:30 15 Q. Mr. Cassell, I apologize for attempting humor 02:31:11 15 MR. SIMPSON: That's okay with you?
02,26:34 16 in this intense situation. 02:31:11 16 THE WITNESS: Sure.
02:26:35 17 A. This is very important to me. 02:3111 17 BY MR. SIMPSON:
02,26:35 18 Q. I -- I -- I -- 0231:1318 Q. Would you agree with me that accusing a
02:26:36 19 A. This is not -- this is not something that I 02:3117 19 person of -- an adult of engaging in sex with a minor is
02:26:38 20 find funny. 02,3124 20 a serious accusation?
02:26140 21 Q. And -- well, it -- like I say, its very 02:31:26 21 A. Sure.
02:26:43 22 important to Mr. Dershowitz, or Professor Dershowitz 02:31:27 22 Q. And would you agree with me that the cause of
02:26:45 23 also. He was trying to answer questions. I'm not 02:31,33 23 Victims' Rights is harmed and not furthered by false
0226:47 24 questioning that you were trying to answer my question, 02:31:39 24 allegations of sexual abuse?
0226:49 25 and I appreciate it. 02:31,11 25 A. Sure.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:07:28 PM Page 117 to 120 of 151 30 of 38 sheets
Exhibit 4
152 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED
154
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH 2
2
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
3
3 CASE NO. CACE 15-000072
Telephonically on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein:
DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
4 4 BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL,
5
575 Lexington Avenue
4th Floor
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, New York, New York 10022
vs. 6 Tel: 212.971.1314
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, 7
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. 8
Also Present:
DON SAVOY, Videographer
12 9 BRADLEY 3. EDWARDS
13 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ (Telephonically)
14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
15 PAUL G. CASSELL
16 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT 12
17 VOLUME II, PAGES 152 to 335 13
18
19
20 Saturday, October 17, 2015 17
21 8:32 a.m. - 12:14 p.m. 18
22
19
23
425 North Andrews Avenue
Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
20
21
24 22
25 Theresa Tomaselli, RMR 23
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 25
(954) 331-4400 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954)331-4400
153 155
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
2
On behalf of the Plaintiffs:
2 WITNESS PAGE
3
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
3 PAUL G. CASSELL
4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
BY: JOHN SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 4 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 160
5 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard BY MR. SIMPSON
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 5
6 Tel: 561.686.6300
7
Fax: 561.383.9541
E-m ail: m ep@ searcylaw .com
6 INDEX TO EXHIBITS
8
On behalf of Virginia Roberts:
9
7
8
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
10 BY: SIGRID STONE McCAW LEY, ESQUIRE 9
401 East Las Olas Boulevard Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document 203
11 Suite 1200 10 produced by the witness
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
12
13
Tel: 954.356.0011
Fax: 954.356.0022
E-m ail: sm ccaw ley@ bsfllp.com
11
12
Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 - copy of 229
address book
14
Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 6 - series of 309
On behalf of the Defendant: 13 e-mails, Bates numbered BE-510 - -514
15
WILEY REIN LLP 14
16 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE
AND: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQUIRE 15
17 1776 K Street Northwest
18
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202.719.7000
16
19
Fax: 202.719.7049
E-m ail: rsim pson@ w ileyrein.com
17
20 18
Also on behalf of the Defendant:
21
19 (Original Exhibits have been attached to the
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
original transcript.)
22 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, 3R., ESQUIRE 20
23
24
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33156
Tel: 305.350.5329
21
22
23
24
Fax: 305.373.2294
25 E-m ail: thorn [email protected] 25
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954)331-4400
10
11
14
15
16
24
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954)331-4400
1 of 46 sheets Page 152 to 155 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
156 158
1 DEPOSITION OF PAUL G. CASSELL 00:02:01 1 never thought to record it, but that's fine.
0002:04 2 MR. SIMPSON: We don't -- we don't need to
2 Saturday, October 17, 2015
000205 3 make that --
00:02:05 4 MR. SCAROLA: We don't need to discuss that.
3
00:0206 5 The question is --
4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video
00:0206 6 MR. SIMPSON: What you're saying does --
00:00:01 5 record. Today is Saturday, the 17th day of
0002'06 7 MR. SCAROLA: -- are you going to produce the
00:00:03 6 October, 2015. The time is 8:32 a.m. We are
mom 7 here at 425 North Andrews Avenue, Fort
00:021,8 8 recording without the necessity of a new request
0002:10
00:00:10 8 Lauderdale, Florida, for the purpose of taking 9 to produce, or will it be necessary for us to
00:0213
00:00:11 9 the videotaped deposition of Paul G. Cassell. 10 file a new request to produce?
00:0014 10 The case is Bradley J. Edwards and Paul
00:02:15 11 MR. SIMPSON: As Mr. Scott indicated
00:00:17 11 G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz. 00:02:17 12 yesterday, we will respond to you to the
00:00:19 12 The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli, and 00:02:19 13 discovery request. We will confer at a break and
00:00:20 13 the videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire 00:02:23 14 respond to that question. I don't want to take
00:00:23 14 Deposition Solutions. 0002:24 15 time on the record debating it. After Mr. Scott
0000:24 15 Will counsel please announce their
000228 16 and I have conferred at a break, we will respond
00:00,26 16 appearances for the record.
00:02:29 17 further to your question.
00:00:27 17 MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola on behalf of the
00:02:30 18 MR. SCAROLA: All right. So that the record
00:0030 18 Plaintiffs.
00:02:31 19 is clear, it is our position that the recording
00:0030 19 MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson of Wiley Rein
00.02,35 20 itself, any evidence of any communication between
00,0335 20 on behalf of the Defendant and Counterclaim
00:02:40 21 Mr. Dershowitz and Rebecca and/or Michael, any
000038 21 Plaintiff, Alan Dershowitz. With me is my
00,00:39 22 colleague, Nicole Richardson, and Thomas Scott of
00:02:45 22 notes with respect to any such communications,
00:0260
00:00:44 23 Cole, Scott & Kissane, also for Mr. -- Professor
23 text messages, e-mails, and an accurate privilege
000257
00,0048 24 Dershowitz. 24 log as to everything that is being withheld is
00:00:50 25 MR. SCAROLA: Before we begin the deposition,
000101 25 responsive to the earlier request to produce, and
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
157 159
0000:52 1 we were informed for the first time yesterday 00:03:04 1 that the obligation was to have provided it to us
00:0055 2 morning of the existence of a recording of a 00:0108 2 previously and is to provide it to us now.
00:01:01 3 telephone communication between Alan Dershowitz 00:03:11 3 We understand that you're considering that
00:01:05 4 and a woman identified only as Rebecca. 000313 4 and you will respond, so we can proceed with the
00:01:10 5 That information was conveyed to us 00:03:15 5 deposition.
00:01:13 6 subsequent to Professor Dershowitz's sworn 00:03:16 6 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. And we disagree about
000116 7 testimony that no recording existed, but now that 000117 7 that, and as you know, we have a motion to compel
00:01:20 8 we know that the recording existed and that it 00:0319 8 regarding your inadequate privilege log.
00:01:23 9 was obviously made according to the 00:03:24 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Just before we begin, I'm
00:01:25 10 representations given to us, prior to the 00:0324 10 sorry, I didn't announce my appearance for the
00:01:29 11 completion of the responses to our earlier 00:03:24 11 record. Sigrid McCawley from Boies, Schiller &
00:01:31 12 discovery requests, I would like to know whether 00:0328 12 Flexner, and I have a standing objection that I'd
00:01:34 13 it is the Defendant's position that it is 00:03:31 13 just like to repeat on the record.
00:01:37 14 necessary for us to propound a new discovery 00:03:32 14 MR. SCOTT: Feel better that you got that off
00.01:40 15 request to get information that clearly should 00:0132 15 your chest?
0001:43 16 have been disclosed in response to the earlier 00:03:32 16 MS. McCAWLEY: With respect to -- excuse me.
00:01:46 17 discovery request. 00:03:34 17 With respect to my client, Virginia Roberts,
00:01:47 18 Is that the position that you're taking? 000337 18 she is asserting her attorney/client privilege
00:01:48 19 MR. SIMPSON: First, Mr. Scarola, I believe 00:0339 19 with her attorneys and is not waiving it through
00:01:50 20 you have mischaracterized Professor Dershowitz's 00:03:41 20 any testimony here today, and that I object to
00:01:53 21 testimony. You didn't ask the question whether 00:0344 21 any testimony elicited that would be used as a
0001;55 22 he made a recording. Yesterday morning, he 000147 22 subject of waiver for her attorney/client
00:01:57 23 provided that information in response to a 000348 23 privilege.
00:01:59 24 different question. 24 MR. SIMPSON: Would you reswear the witness,
00:02:00 25 MR. SCAROLA: His exact testimony was: I 25 please?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 156 to 159 of 335 2 of 46 sheets
160 162
1 Thereupon, 0005,28 1 Q. And when you say "all day," what time period
2 PAUL G. CASSELL, 00:05:31 2 are you referring to?
3 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 00:0632 3 A. 9:00 to 5:00.
4 as follows: 00:05:33 4 Q. 9:00 to 5:00. Okay. And was that through
5 THE WITNESS: I do. 00:05:38 5 lunch; you just stayed through eight hours; is that --
6 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 000040 6 what's your recollection of that?
7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:05:41 7 A. Yeah, I remember we were working very hard
00:04:01 8 Q. Good morning -- 00:05:43 8 on -- on it, so I think we had, if I recall correctly,
00:04:01 9 A. Good morning. 00,05:46 9 had lunch brought in and worked straight through that.
00:04:01 10 Q. -- Mr. Cassell. 00:0049 10 Q. Any other meetings in person with
00:04:03 11 As of December 30th, 2014, had you ever met 00:05:53 11 Miss Roberts before December 30th of 2014?
00:04:08 12 with Virginia Roberts in person? 00:0557 12 A. No.
00:04:10 13 A. Yes. 00:05:57 13 Q. Any telephone calls with her that you -- you
00:04:10 14 Q. And how many times had you met with her in 000003 14 had, obviously, before December 30th, 2014?
00:04,14 15 person? 00:06:07 15 A. I believe there were a couple of -- of
00:04:14 16 A. Once. 00,06:09 16 telephone calls.
00,04:15 17 Q. When was that? 000609 17 Q. And can you tell us when those were?
0004:16 18 A. Approximately May 2014. 00:06:12 18 A. Let's see. Roughly September 2014. Give or
00:04:20 19 Q. May of 2014? 00,06:18 19 take a month. I mean, you know, sometime after May and
00:04:21 20 A. Yes. 00:06:22 20 before December 30th.
00:04:21 21 Q. Who was present for that meeting? 00:06:23 21 Q. Okay. And were those telephone calls between
00:04:24 22 A. I'm just pausing for a second because I 0006:2722 just you and Miss Roberts, or was anyone else on the
00:04:28 23 don't -- I think we're -- 00:0601 23 line?
00:04:28 24 Q. I -- I'm not -- 00:06:32 24 A. No. It was just the two of -- just
00:04:30 25 A. -- clearly not trying to get into 0006:34 25 Miss Roberts and I.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
161 163
00:04:31 1 attorney/client communication. 000605 1 Q. Okay. And are you able to distinguish the
00:04:32 2 Q. I'm not asking you for what was said at this 00:0608 2 calls in your mind as two separate telephone calls?
00:04,34 3 point. I'm just asking you who was present. I'm going 00:0040 3 A. I -- I think there were either one or two
0004:36 4 to ask you where it was, those kind of questions. 000043 4 calls. I think there may have been two, but it -- it
00:04:39 5 A. Sure. Yeah. The main person who was present 0006:46 5 would not have been more than two that I can recall.
0004:42 6 was Bradley J. Edwards, my Co-Plaintiff in this case. 0006:49 6 Q. Okay. How long did each of the telephone
00:04:45 7 Q. Okay. And Miss Roberts obviously was 00:06:51 7 calls last?
00:04:47 8 present? 0006:52 8 A. Less than five minutes.
00:04:47 9 A. Yes. 0006704 9 Q. I'm going to ask you a question now, but
00:0448 10 Q. Anyone else present? 00:06:59 10 before you answer it, pause, because I believe you will
0004,49 11 A. You know, there were -- this was at the 00:07:01 11 be instructed not to answer it --
00:04:53 12 Farmer, Jaffee office here, and so persons who were 00,07:03 12 A. Okay.
00:04,56 13 associated with the law firm were assisting, but those 00:07:03 13 Q. -- but want to -- I think -- we disagree on
00:05:00 14 were the main people. 00:07:07 14 the privilege --
00:05:00 15 Q. Okay. Do you remember any of those other 0007:07 15 A. Sure.
00:05:02 16 people associated with the law firm who were present? 00:07:07 16 Q. -- we believe it's been waived.
00:05:05 17 A. Present for, you know, coming in and 0007:07 17 My question is: During the meeting, did you
00:05:08 18 assisting, I believe Brad's assistant, Maria, was there, 00:07:11 18 discuss Professor Dershowitz?
00:05:13 19 and perhaps others at the firm, but it was -- it was 00:07:13 19 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to any
00:05,17 20 basically Brad and I. 00:07:15 20 discussion of what my client told you during any
00:05:18 21 Q. Was there anyone else who attended for the 00:07:19 21 situation where you were representing her as
00:05:21 22 entire meeting or a substantial portion of the meeting? 0007:21 22 an -- an attorney.
00:05:2323 A. No. 00:07:22 23 MR. SIMPSON: So -- and I think we had an
00:05:23 24 Q. Okay. How long did the meeting last? 0007,24 24 agreement yesterday, if you follow your own
mos:26 25 A. Approximately all day. 00:07:28 25 counsel's instruction on not answering, are you
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
3 of 46 sheets Page 160 to 163 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
164 166
00:07:28 1 also going to follow Miss McCawley's instructions 0009:08 1 and all that goes into the advice that they were
00:07:32 2 on not answering on behalf of -- 00:09:08 2 giving her and surrounding that advice, so I
00:0712 3 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Cassell will follow the 00:0911 3 would object to that.
00:07:36 4 instructions of Virginia Roberts' counsel. It is 00:09:12 4 MR. SCAROLA: Could I have the question read
0007:38 5 not his privilege to waive, and he is ethically 0009:15 5 back?
00,07,42 6 obliged to respect the direction coming from 00:0915 6 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read
00:07:46 7 Virginia Roberts' counsel. 00:09:15 7 by the reporter.)
00:07:48 8 MR. SIMPSON: Yes, I'm -- I'm simply, 00:09:33 8 MS. McCAWLEY: And I would like to clarify
00:07:49 9 Mr. Scarola, making my record that the witness -- 00:0933 9 what case as well that you're referring to.
00:07:52 10 MR. SCAROLA: I understand that. 000034 10 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask the
000752 11 MR. SIMPSON: Right. We disagree. 00:09:36 11 question, and -- and I will note for the record
00:07:53 12 MR. SCAROLA: I understand, but you can 0009:38 12 that yesterday, the witness testified that the
0007:54 13 assume the same way I have authorized you to 00:0040 13 fact that Mr. Boies was representing Virginia
00:07:58 14 assume that Professor Cassell will follow my 00:09:42 14 Roberts was significant to him. So it's sort of
oo,oe:oi 15 instructions, Professor Cassell will also follow 00:0047 15 being used as a sword and a shield here, but I
0008:04 16 all instructions concerning the assertion of 00:09,48 16 have only asked the question. I'll clarify.
00:08:07 17 attorney/client privilege expressed on the record 00:09:48 17 MR. SCAROLA: We haven't used it any way yet.
00:08:10 18 by Miss McCawley on behalf of Virginia Roberts. 00:09:51 18 MR. SIMPSON: Well, the -- the witness
00:08:13 19 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 00:09:52 19 volunteered. Shall I put it that way? And we
00:08:14 20 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:0954 20 have a waiver.
00:0816 21 Q. So, Mr. Cassell, based on that, I will assume 00:0054 21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:08:21 22 that if I ask you what you recall the discussion being 00:09:55 22 Q. But, in any event, my question is: Have you
00:08:24 23 at the meeting or at each of the phone calls, that 00:09:58 23 spoken -- before December 30th of 2014, had you spoken
00:0829 24 you're not going to answer those questions; is that 00:10:02 24 with David Boies about Virginia Roberts' allegations
00:08:29 25 correct? 00:10:06 25 regarding Professor Dershowitz?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
165 167
00:08:29 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 00:10:10 1 MR. SCAROLA: Without getting into the
0008:30 2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, obviously not. 001013 2 substance of any such discussions, you can answer
00:08:30 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 001016 3 that question.
00:08:30 4 Q. Okay. 001017 4 THE WITNESS: My recollection is no.
00:08:32 5 A. I mean, I have a duty to my client which I'm 00:10:20 5 MR. SCOTT: I think you're right on that one.
0008:36 6 going to respect. 001020 6 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:08:36 7 Q. All right. So we'll -- we'll take that up 001022 7 Q. Okay. So the answer is, no, you had not
00:08:37 8 later with the judge. 00:10:23 8 spoken with him?
00:08:39 9 As of December 30th, 2014, had you spoken 00,1023 9 A. My recollection --
00:08:44 10 about this case with David Boies, and the question is 00:10:24 10 MR. SCAROLA: Judge Scott has issued a
00:08:47 11 just: Had you spoken -- 0010:27 11 ruling, so "-
0008:48 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 001029 12 MR. SCOTT: I wrote several opinions on that
00:08:48 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 001029 13 actually.
00:08:50 14 Q. -- not what the discussion was. 00:10:29 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- we'll proceed.
00:08,91 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. It's the 00:10:29 15 THE WITNESS: Let me go back -
00:08:52 16 common-interest privilege. 00:10:29 16 MR. SCOTT: In the context of criminal
00:08:52 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0010:33 17 lawyers.
0008:53 18 Q. I'm only asking if there was a discussion, no 00:10:33 18 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember if I
0008:55 19 substance at all. Just, was there a discussion? 00:10:34 19 wrote any opinions on that one when I was a
00,08:58 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to instruct you not 0010;36 20 judge. My -- I don't recall, but -- I don't
00:0000 21 to answer that. 0010:41 21 recall. I -- my recollection is I had not
00:0001 22 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. You're taking the 00:10:42 22 personally spoken to David Boies before December
00:0002 23 position that the fact of whether or not -- 00:10:44 23 30th, 2014.
000004 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, because you're also 0010:44 24 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:09:05 25 trying to get into the timing of communications,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
00:10:45 25 Q. Okay. Had you, before December 30th of 2014,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 164 to 167 of 335 4 of 46 sheets
168 170
00:10:53 1 spoken with any other lawyers at Mr. Boies' firm? 00:1464 1 record, 8:47 a.m.
00:10:58 2 A. My recollection is, no. 00:14:54 2 MR. SCAROLA: As it turns out, while we may
0611:02 3 Q. And after December 30th of 2014, have you 00:14:57 3 reach some issue of privilege at some point in
00:11:08 4 spoken with Mr. Boies about Virginia Roberts's 00:14:59 4 this discussion, the answer to your pending
00:11:13 5 allegations against -- 00:15:01 5 question is, no, so there's no privilege concern.
00:11:15 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Again, I'm going to object. 00:15:04 6 MR. SIMPSON: All right. I'll -- I'll ask
00:11:15 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:1606 7 the witness for the --
0611:16 8 Q. -- Professor Dershowitz? 00:15:07 8 MR. SCAROLA: Sure.
00:11:19 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Sorry. I will let you finish. 00:15:08 9 MR. SIMPSON: -- the -- the answer. I'll
0011:19 10 I'm objecting to this. I think it gets into 00:15:10 10 move to -- I'll reask the question.
00:11:20 11 the substance of conversations under the 00:15:11 11 THE WITNESS: Sure. That will be good.
00:11:24 12 common-interest privilege, whether there was a 00:15:11 12 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:11:25 13 conversation, but you're getting into the 00:15:12 13 Q. My question is: I believed you had already
00:11:27 14 substance of what the conversation was about, and 00:15:15 14 answered the question as to before December 30th, 2014,
00:11:28 15 I think that is a violation of her -- her 00:15:19 15 you had discussed Miss Roberts' allegations against
00:11:31 16 privilege. 00:1621 16 Professor Dershowitz, and you said, no; is that right?
00:11:31 17 MR. SCAROLA: And just so that I can clarify 061525 17 MR. SCAROLA: David Boies.
0011:34 18 our position on the record, I think that we can 0015:28 18 MR. SIMPSON: David Boies. I'm sorry.
00:11:38 19 identify the general subject matter in order to 00:15:28 19 THE WITNESS: Before December 30th, no
00:11:42 20 support our position that it falls within the 00:15:31 20 discussions that I can recall with David Boies.
0611:45 21 common-interest privilege. So we are willing to 00:15:31 21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:11:48 22 answer the question about the general subject 00:15:34 22 Q. After December 30th, 2014, did you have any
0011:51 23 matter to support our assertion of 001537 23 discussions with David Boies about Professor Dershowitz?
00:11:53 24 common-interest privilege, but not get into the 00:1642 24 A. Can I --
00:11:56 25 substance of the communications beyond that. 0615:44 25 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
169 171
00:11:58 1 MR. SIMPSON: And I believe its the same 0615:45 1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
00:1200 2 question that was answered a moment ago for a 00:15:46 2 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:12:02 3 different time period, and again, I'm not asking 00:15:47 3 Q. You did.
00:12:05 4 for any substance. I'm just asking whether, 0015,47 4 A. Yes.
00:12:07 5 since December 30th, 2014, you have discussed the 00:1648 5 Q. What was the substance of those
00:12:13 6 allegations by Virginia Roberts against Professor 00:15:51 6 communications?
00:12:17 7 Dershowitz. 00:15:52 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to that.
00:12:17 8 THE WITNESS: I would like to confer with my 0615:53 8 You -- its under the common-interest privilege
0012:19 9 counsel on that question. It gets into a 0015:55 9 and its Virginia's privilege to waive, and she's
00:12:22 10 complicated legal issue that I'm not sure I 00:15:57 10 not waiving it.
00:12:25 11 can -- 061658 11 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
0612:25 12 MR. SIMPSON: You want to confer on a 00:1658 12 MR. SCAROLA: We -- we assert the
00:12:26 13 privilege issue; is that right? 00:16:01 13 common-interest privilege with regard to the
00:1227 14 THE WITNESS: I want to confer with my 00:16:02 14 substance as well.
00:12:29 15 counsel before answering that question anyway. 00:16:03 15 MR. SIMPSON: All right. And that -- that
00:12:32 16 MR. SIMPSON: I just want to clarify -- 00:16:04 16 will be -- that will be asserted as to all
00:12:32 17 MR. SCAROLA: With respect to privilege. 0016:06 17 questions about the substance of the discussions
00:12:33 18 MR. SIMPSON: All right. As long as its 00:16:09 18 with Mr. Boies; is that right?
00.12:35 19 with respect to privilege, you're entitled to do 00:16:11 19 MR. SCAROLA: I cant say that for sure.
00:12:37 20 that. 0016:14 20 MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask my
00:12:37 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 00:1615 21 question then.
00:12:38 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video 00:16:15 22 MR. SCAROLA: And let -- maybe this -- maybe
00:12:40 23 record, 8:45 a.m. 0616:17 23 this will help you and maybe it won't. But,
0614:50 24 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) oa 16:20 24 obviously, there have been some public statements
00:14:50 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 00.16:27 25 with regard to this general area. If the
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
5 of 46 sheets Page 168 to 171 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
172 174
00:16:33 1 communications were not considered to be 002009 1 MR. SCAROLA: Because of concern about a --
00:16:34 2 privileged at the time that they were made, we 0020:14 2 an inadvertent potential waiver of the
00:16:37 3 can answer questions about that. If they were 002018 3 work-product privilege, while it is not our
00:16:39 4 considered to be privileged at the time they were 0020:21 4 intent to assert a privilege with regard to
00:16:41 5 made, we can't answer questions. 00:20:27 5 nonexistent communications, any effort to
0016:42 6 So I can't tell you that there's a blanket 00:20:33 6 identify the subject matter of communications in
00:16:45 7 assertion. We need to hear the question. 00:20:37 7 the questions that you asked will require that we
00:16:47 8 THE WITNESS: I need the question back. 00:20:40 8 assert work-product privilege with regard to
0016:47 9 MR. SIMPSON: All right. 00:2043 9 those questions.
0016:48 10 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0020:44 10 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. We disagree, obviously,
0016:49 11 Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Boies about the 00:2046 11 on that position.
0016:53 12 allegations against Professor Dershowitz? 002047 12 MR. SCAROLA: We understand.
0016:55 13 MR. SCAROLA: And that is common-interest 0020:48 13 MR. SIMPSON: So I will ask some additional
0016'68 14 privilege information and we do assert a 0020,49 14 questions and we will see if the witness answers
00:17:00 15 privilege. 0020:5315 them.
00:17:00 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:20:53 16 MR. SCAROLA: If it begins: "Did you talk
001701 17 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any 00:20:54 17 about," the answer is going to be an assertion of
00:17:05 18 discussions he had had with Professor Dershowitz? 0020:58 18 privilege.
00:17:08 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 00:20:58 19 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
00:17:09 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 0020:58 20 MR. SCAROLA: Okay?
00:17:11 21 instruction. 00:20:59 21 MR. SIMPSON: I'll ask the questions.
00:1711 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:21:00 22 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:17:12 23 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any documents 00:21:05 23 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any meetings
001716 24 that Mr. Boies had reviewed? 00:21:09 24 Mr. Boies had had with Professor Dershowitz?
00:17:18 25 MR. SCAROLA: Well, let me -- again, I don't 0021:12 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:09 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
Cont'd.
173 175
00:17:23 1 want to be asserting a privilege to questions as 00:21:13 1 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Same instruction.
00:17:26 2 to which the answer is no, so you can answer 00:2115 2 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0017:34 3 generally as to whether the subject matter was 00:21:15 3 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as
00:17:40 4 covered in any discussion that you had with 00:2120 4 to the credibility of Virginia Roberts?
00:17:42 5 Mr. Boies. 002122 5 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection.
00:17:43 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 00:21:23 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
00:17:44 7 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. If the answer is no. If 002123 7 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction.
00:17:47 8 the answer -- as I sink down in this chair, if 00:21:25 8 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0017:51 9 the answer may be yes, you can't respond. 00:21:25 9 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any
00:17:56 10 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I -- that's a new version. 00:21:35 10 allegations about sexual misconduct by Les Wexner?
00:17:58 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm afraid -- yeah, I want 00:21:41 11 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection.
0018:00 12 to -- I'm sorry. I want to confer on that 0021:44 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
0018:01 13 because I have an objection. 0021:44 13 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction.
001802 14 THE WITNESS: I have to say I want to confer, 00:21,44 14 MR. SIMPSON: That's the same question you
0018:04 15 I'm confused, too, so let's take a short break. 00:21:46 15 allowed to be answered. Did you -- let me ask it
001806 16 MR. SIMPSON: Again, you're conferring on the 00:21:47 16 a different way.
0018:06 17 privilege now, not the substance? 00:21:47 17 BY MR. SIMPSON:
001806 18 THE WITNESS: That's right. 00:21:48 18 Q. Did you discuss, in any way, Les Wexner with
001806 19 MR. SCAROLA: Can we go off the record? 00:21:51 19 Mr. Boies?
001814 20 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. 00:21:51 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection.
00:1814 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video 0021,51 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
00:1817 22 record, 8:48 a.m. 00:21,53 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction.
0019:54 23 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 0021:55 23 MR. SIMPSON: He's instructed not to answer
00.1054 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 00:21:55 24 whether that topic was discussed?
002006 25 record, 8:52 a.m. 0021.56 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 172 to 175 of 335 6 of 46 sheets
176 178
0021:57 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 00:23:58 1 discussed Virginia Roberts' allegations of sexual
00:21:57 2 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 0624'07 2 misconduct against Professor Dershowitz with Bob
00:21:57 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0624:14 3 Josefsberg?
00:22:02 4 Q. Did you discuss former Prime Minister Barak 062414 4 A. Me personally?
0622:05 5 with Mr. Boies? 00:2418 5 Q. Yes, you personally.
00:22:08 6 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. 0024:18 6 A. No.
00:22:08 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 062418 7 Q. After December 30th of 2014, had you -- did
00:22:08 8 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. 00:24:24 8 you discuss with Mr. Josefsberg Ms. Roberts' allegations
062210 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:24:30 9 against Professor Dershowitz?
002212 10 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned that one of the 0024:32 10 A. Not personally, no.
0022:14 11 reasons that supported your conclusion that it -- you 00:24:32 11 Q. You say not personally. Are you aware of
002220 12 had an adequate basis to allege in the joinder motion 0024:36 12 someone else who had those discussions of -- with Mr. --
00:22:25 13 that the allegations against Professor Dershowitz was 00:24:39 13 had any discussions on that topic with Mr. Josefsberg?
00:22:29 14 that Mr. Boies was representing Virginia Roberts -- yes, 0024:43 14 MR. SCAROLA: To the extent that that
00:22:31 15 Virginia Roberts; do you recall that testimony? 00:24:46 15 question would call for any information that was
00:22:35 16 A. Yes. 0024,51 16 communicated to you in the context of the
00:2236 17 Q. And you said that because of how highly 00:24:55 17 common-interest privilege, you should not answer.
002240 18 regarded Mr. Boies was, I think you mentioned the Bush 0625:00 18 THE WITNESS: All right. I'm not going to...
00:22:45 19 v. Gore case; is that right? 0625:0319 MR. SCAROLA: So you -- you can answer it if
00:22:45 20 A. Yes. 0625:04 20 any such communication came to you outside the
00:22:45 21 Q. I used to work for his opponent in Bush v. 00:25:07 21 context of the common-interest privilege, but you
00:22:49 22 Gore case. They are both very good. 00:25:10 22 may not include in your response any information
00:22:50 23 A. I'm trying -- I was trying to remember. T- '—m 002512 23 derived from the common-interest privilege.
002251 24 sorry to take time, but who was the other lawyer? 06251224 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:22:53 25 Q. Ted Olson. 00:25:15 25 Q. And my question right now is not the
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
177 179
00:22:54 1 A. Ted, that's right. That's... 002517 1 substance. We will get to that. But, to your
00:22:55 2 Q. But that's a side note. 00:25:19 2 knowledge -- put -- let me rephrase that.
0022:57 3 My question is: Given your high regard for 062624 3 Did someone tell you that they had discussed
00:23:00 4 Mr. Boies, would you -- would his views as to the 0025:26 4 with Mr. Josefsbergs -- Josefsberg, the allegations made
00:23:07 5 credibility of Virginia Roberts be something that would 00:25:32 5 by Miss Roberts against Professor Dershowitz?
00:23:10 6 be important to you in evaluating the case? 062635 6 MR. SCAROLA: You may only answer that
00:23:12 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 00:25:36 7 question to the extent that you had any
00:23:12 8 MR. SIMPSON: Are you instructing him not to 0625:39 8 communication regarding that subject matter with
00:2615 9 answer? 0025:43 9 someone outside the common-interest privilege, or
0023:15 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I mean, is it a hypothetical? 002546 10 the attorney/client privilege for that matter.
002318 11 MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm just asking whether 00:25:46 11 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0023:1912 his views -- those views -- I'm not asking what 00:25:48 12 Q. I'm simply -- I'm not asking for substance,
0023:19 13 the views are. I'm simply asking whether those 00:25:50 13 just the name if you did.
00:23:23 14 views would be important to him. 00:2652 14 MR. SCAROLA: Well, I understand that, but
0623:23 15 MR. SCAROLA: You may answer that question. 002554 15 following along the same lines as before, you are
062325 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 00:25:57 16 asking us to identify the subject matter of a
0023:25 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0026:01 17 communication that is privileged. We won't
00:23:28 18 Q. And if I -- I may have asked this already, 0626:04 18 answer questions regarding the subject matter of
002630 19 but did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as to the 002607 19 privileged communications, but if
0623:35 20 credibility of Miss Roberts? 0626:09 20 Professor Cassell had a conversation with Sam
0623.38 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 0626:14 21 Smith standing on the street corner about Bob
00:23:39 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 0026:17 22 Josefsberg, he can answer that question.
0623:40 23 instruction. 062620 23 BY MR. SIMPSON:
062641 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 062620 24 Q. Did you have a conversation with anyone -
002653 25 Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you 0626:24 25 just narrow question: Did you have a conversation with
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
7 of 46 sheets Page 176 to 179 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
180 182
0026:26 1 anyone who told you that they, that person, had 00:2023 1 helpful. So please just instruct him to answer
002812 2 discussed the subject matter of Virginia Roberts's 0028:25 2 or not answer, and we will let the judge decide.
00:26:36 3 allegations against Professor Dershowitz with 00:2827 3 MR. SCAROLA: Well, the instruction -- I only
00:26:38 4 Mr. Josefsberg? Just did you discuss it with anyone? 00:28:29 4 gave the explanation in the hope that it might
0026:41 5 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 00:28:31 5 facilitate the examination and allow you to move
0026:42 6 instruction. 00:28:33 6 to areas where you can get substantive
00:26:42 7 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 0028:36 7 information.
00:26:43 8 MR. SCAROLA: If you want to rephrase the 0028:36 8 I apologize if you consider it a waste of
002044 9 question to ask him whether he had such a 0028:39 9 time. So I will simply instruct Professor
00:26:46 10 conversation with anyone outside the 00:28:42 10 Cassell not to answer the question as phrased.
00:26:48 11 attorney/client or work-product privilege, that's 00:28:45 11 If you ever want an explanation as to the basis
0026:51 12 a question that we are obliged to answer. 00:2647 12 of my instruction, I'm prepared to give that to
00:26:55 13 The question, as you phrased it, is a 00:28:50 13 you.
00:26:56 14 question that we are precluded from answering. 0028:50 14 MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. That -- that's a
00:26:59 15 MR. SIMPSON: That's a very strange notion of 00:28:51 15 helpful way to proceed.
00:27:07 16 privilege. 0028:52 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.
0027:01 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:28:53 17 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:27:01 18 Q. But let me ask it this way: Did you discuss 0028:56 18 Q. Have you -- well, let's start this way: Have
00:27:07 19 with anyone who is not an attorney -- let me rephrase it 00:28:58 19 you discussed with any of the attorneys within what you
00:27:15 20 a different way. 0029:05 20 described as the common-interest attorney/client group,
00:27:16 21 You testified yesterday about your 0029:12 21 whether that person had discussed with Mr. Josefsberg
00:2718 22 understanding of the scope of the alleged 002916 22 Virginia Roberts's allegations against Professor
002721 23 common-interest privilege, correct? 002920 23 Dershowitz?
00:27:23 24 A. Yes. 00:29:20 24 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same
00:27:23 25 Q. Putting aside the people within the scope of 00:2920 25 instruction.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
181 183
00:27:23 1 that privilege -- 00:2920 1 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:27:23 2 A. Yes. 00:2922 2 Q. Have you discussed with anyone who is not an
00:27,27 3 Q. -- that you identified -- 002927 3 attorney for Miss Roberts whether -- strike that.
002727 4 A. Uh-huh. 0029:33 4 Has anyone who is not an attorney for
0027:30 5 Q. -- your definition of it -- 0029:35 5 Miss Roberts told you that they had discussed with
00:27:31 6 A. Right. That's right. 0029:40 6 Mr. Josefsberg the allegations against -- by Virginia
00:27:31 7 Q. -- did you discuss the topic -- did anyone 00:29:46 7 Roberts against Professor Dershowitz?
00:27:34 8 tell you they had discussed the topic of Virginia 0029:47 8 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same
00:27:37 9 Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz with 002948 9 instruction.
0027:40 10 Mr. Josefsberg? 00:29:48 10 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:27A1 11 MR. SCAROLA: You may not answer that 0029:59 11 Q. Have you personally spoken with anyone else
0027:44 12 question to the extent the question still 00:30:03 12 at Mr. Josefsberg's firm, other than him, about Virginia
00:27,45 13 encompasses attorney/client privileged 00:30:12 13 Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz?
0027:49 14 communications. If you want to rephrase the 00:3015 14 A. Not to my knowledge.
00:27:50 15 question to exclude both common-interest 00:3016 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can
0027:55 16 privileged communications and attorney/client 00:3018 16 you read that back?
00:27:57 17 privileged communications, that's a question we 00:30:19 17 MR. SCAROLA: Was a communication with anyone
0028:00 18 are prepared to answer. 00:30:20 18 else in Bob Josefsberg -- Bob Josefsberg's firm,
0028:01 19 Otherwise, we are prohibited from answering 003025 19 personal communication between Professor Cassell
00:28,04 20 the question as phrased as a consequence of it 00:3028 20 and any firm member of Bob Josefsberg.
00:28:09 21 encompassing privileged communications. 00:3031 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Okay.
0028:12 22 MR. SIMPSON: As he defined the 00:3031 22 BY MR. SIMPSON:
002814 23 common-interest privileged group, it included 00:30:31 23 Q. And the answer was, not that you recall?
0028:17 24 attorney/client, but I think at this point the 00:3034 24 A. Not to my knowledge. I don't know all the
00:28:20 25 explanations you're providing aren't really 00:3034 25 members of his firm, but I certainly have no
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 180 to 183 of 335 8 of 46 sheets
184 186
00:30:37 1 recollection of talking to, you know, anyone who is -- 00:3220 1 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:3019 2 who was in his firm. 00:32:22 2 Q. Have you ever -- I'll rephrase the question.
00:30:40 3 Q. Okay. 00:32:25 3 Have you ever discussed with Mr. Boies his
00:3041 4 A. 1-- I think the record should be clear, 00:32:30 4 views as to whether or not Miss Roberts is mistaken in
00:30:43 5 I'm -- I'm an attorney and a law professor in Salt Lake 00:32:37 5 her allegations against Professor Dershowitz?
00:30:46 6 City, Utah, and my understanding, he's an attorney here 00:32:39 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
00:30:49 7 in Florida. So I don't ordinarily interact with -- 00:32:39 7 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same
00:30:51 8 with, you know, attorneys in Florida, other than the 00:32:40 8 instruction.
0030,54 9 ones that I'm interacting with on -- on this case. 00:32:45 9 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0030:56 10 MR. SCAROLA: Which is now occurring on a 0012:46 10 Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you
00:30:58 11 very regular basis. 0012:52 11 personally reviewed any of the flight logs that had been
00:31:01 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0012:56 12 referred to in the testimony in this case?
00:31:01 13 Q. Mr. Cassell -- 00:32:58 13 A. All right?
00:31:01 14 MR. SCOTT: No teaming, Mr. Scarola, please. 0033:02 14 Q. My only question is whether you personally
00:31:01 15 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0013:03 15 reviewed them.
00:31:04 16 Q. -- did -- didn't you testify yesterday that 00:33:04 16 A. Yes.
00:31:05 17 the fact that Mr. Josefsberg's firm had filed a 00:33:04 17 Q. What flight logs have you reviewed; how would
00:31:10 18 complaint against Miss Roberts, who is also your client, 003107 18 you describe them?
0011:12 19 to be significant to your evaluation of the case? 00:33:08 19 A. Both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 that were shown
0031:15 20 A. Yes. 00:33:13 20 to Mr. Dershowitz yesterday.
00:31:15 21 Q. And if it -- if that was significant to 00:33:15 21 Q. If -- I believe those were Exhibits 6 and
00:31:18 22 evaluation of the case, why are you telling us you don't 00:33:19 22 7 --
0011.20 23 normally talk with attorneys in Florida? Doesn't he 00:33:19 23 A. Okay.
00:31:25 24 represent -- at one point, represent the same client? 00:33:19 24 Q. -- but can we agree that flight logs were
00:31:26 25 A. Right. 00:33:21 25 marked as exhibits?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
185 187
00:31:27 1 Q. And so wouldn't it be natural for you to be 00:33:22 1 A. Right. The two composite exhibits of flight
00:31:29 2 speaking with -- at least within the realm of something 00:33:26 2 logs I had examined previously.
0011:33 3 one might expect for you to speak? 00:33:27 3 Q. Okay. So the same documents that Professor
00:31:35 4 A. If I were a solo representative of Virginia 003130 4 Dershowitz was shown at his deposition; is that right?
0011:38 5 Roberts, that would be the case, but I think you're 00:3314 5 A. That's my recollection, yes.
00:31:40 6 obviously aware that I have co-counsel on this case, and 0013:35 6 Q. Okay. When did you review those?
0031:43 7 there are other attorneys who are also participating in 00:3137 7 A. So one of the reviews was in May 2014. There
0011:46 8 this matter. 003146 8 may have also been an earlier review at an earlier --
00:31:47 9 So I think it would be obvious that if 00:3153 9 earlier time, but I definitely remember reviewing them
00:31:50 10 there's a division of labor, it might not be along the 0013:55 10 in May -- approximately May 2014.
0031:53 11 lines that you're suggesting. And I can't go any 00:33:58 11 Q. Would -- do you -- isn't it true that those
0031:55 12 further without going into work product and other issues 00:34:02 12 flight logs support Professor Dershowitz's testimony
0011:59 13 surrounding Miss Roberts' representation. 0014,07 13 that he was never on a plane with Virginia Roberts?
00:32:01 14 Q. Has Mr. Boies ever told you that he believes 00:34:10 14 A. No.
00:32:05 15 Miss Roberts was mistaken in her accusations against 00:34:12 15 Q. How do they not? What is -- what is the
00:32:08 16 Professor Dershowitz? 001414 16 explanation for your conclusion in that regard?
00:32:09 17 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 0014:16 17 A. Right. We talked about this yesterday, so
00:3211 18 instruction. 0014:20 18 I'll incorporate to speed things up some of the
0012:12 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Same instruction. 00:34.22 19 testimony that I gave yesterday.
0032:13 20 THE WITNESS: I'd like to confer with my 003423 20 What the flight logs showed was, to my mind,
00:32:15 21 counsel on a attorney/client privilege issue in 00:34:26 21 evidence of potential doctoring, evidence of -- of
00:32:19 22 connection with that question. 001410 22 selective presentation of evidence. Mr. Dershowitz had
00:32:19 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just write down the 0034:34 23 presented to a law enforcement agency, at their request,
00,32:19 24 question and -- 0014:37 24 apparently what I understood to be the -- the -- I
0032,20 25 MR. SIMPSON: I'll -- I'll rephrase it. 0034.40 25 understood that he had been requested by a law
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
9 of 46 sheets Page 184 to 187 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
188 190
00:34:42 1 enforcement agency to provide flight logs relevant to 00:37:16 1 that covered the jet were not just the David Rogers'
0064:46 2 this investigation. 00:37:20 2 flight logs, but there should be flight logs for other
00:34:47 3 And rather than providing all the flight logs 00:37:22 3 pilots which were not apparently being produced.
00:34:49 4 that were available at that time, he appears to have 063725 4 And so, in light of all that, what I was
00:34:52 5 provided flight logs that went from January 2005 through 00:37:27 5 seeing was a -- a production of flight logs that was
00:34:57 6 September 2005, knowing that he appeared on an 00:37:32 6 incomplete. And then I started to hear from
00:35:01 7 October -- I may be off by one month here -- but on an 00:37:35 7 Mr. Dershowitz that, well, these records prove
00:35:04 8 October 2005 flight log. 00:37:37 8 conclusively I couldn't have done that. And I knew to
00:35:06 9 So that, to my mind, had indicated that 00:37:40 9 an absolute certainty, that the records were
00:35:08 10 Professor Dershowitz was providing selective information 0637:42 10 inconsistent and inaccurate; and for somebody who had
00:35:11 11 to law enforcement. Those concerns -- this is, you 00:37:45 11 apparently carefully produced these records, to
00:35:15 12 know, there's -- there's more to it. 0637,48 12 represent that these conclusively prove that he wasn't
00:35:18 13 The other problem was that the flight logs 00:37:52 13 on the flights, seemed to me to be inaccurate
0635:22 14 that Mr. Dershowitz had produced were inconsistent with 00:37:54 14 information.
063526 15 the flight logs that Dave Rogers, one of Mr. Epstein's 0637:55 15 So that was -- those were the kinds of things
00:35:31 16 pilots had, so there were now inconsistencies on these 00:37:56 16 I was thinking about.
00.35:35 17 flight logs. And it seemed to be -- it seemed to me to 00:37:59 17 Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony --
00:35,39 18 be surprising that during the period of time where 00:38:02 18 MR. SIMPSON: Well, first of all, I move to
00:35:41 19 Virginia Roberts was involved, Mr. Dershowitz was not 063603 19 strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer.
00:35:45 20 appearing on those flight logs. 0638:03 20 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0635,46 21 Now, it is possible, I suppose, and that 00:38:07 21 Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony that you
00,3649 22 seems to be Mr. Dershowitz's position, that the reason 0638,08 22 have sufficient information to conclude and allege that
00:35:52 23 he's not on those flight logs is that he was not on 0638:12 23 Professor Dershowitz falsified documents and gave
0035:54 24 those flights. But given all of the information -- and 00:38:16 24 falsified documents to a prosecuting authority?
00:35:57 25 I won't take your time this morning to go through -- all 0638:19 25 A. It is my belief that Professor Dershowitz
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
189 191
00:35:59 1 the information I had about this international sex 0638:22 1 provided incomplete production to law enforcement
00:313:03 2 trafficking organization, it seemed to me that it was 00:3825 2 agencies.
0636:05 3 also possible that the sex trafficking organization, 00:38:25 3 Q. Is it your testimony under oath that you have
00:36:08 4 which was represented by, you know, vast resources and 00:38:26 4 sufficient information to allege that Professor
00.36,12 5 the ability to produce witnesses and documents and other 00:38,31 5 Dershowitz intentionally provided false information to a
0636:15 6 information that would -- would cover up the existence 00:38:37 6 prosecuting authority?
00:36:19 7 of this organization, had gone through the flight logs 0638,38 7 A. It is my position that he provided incomplete
00:36:22 8 and had made necessary alterations to -- to conceal the 00:38:42 8 information to a prosecuting authority and inaccurate
0636:26 9 scope of -- of the -- of the operation. 0038:45 9 information to a prosecuting authority.
0636:29 10 In addition to that, when I started to 0638:47 10 Now, as to precisely what his state of mind
00:3633 11 compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the David -- 063649 11 was when he was producing the incomplete and inaccurate
00:3638 12 excuse me. I am going to get a drink. 0638:52 12 information, that remains to be this -- you know, that
00:36:42 13 When I started to compare the -- oh, I'm 00:3854 13 was one of the topics that I was hoping could have been
00:36:46 14 sorry. I should be looking at the camera. 0638:56 14 covered in -- in the depositions here in the last two
0636:48 15 When I started -- when I started to compare 00:38:59 15 days, but unfortunately, there wasn't sufficient time.
00:36:49 16 the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the Dershowitz -- 00;39:03 16 Q. Let me ask it a different way. You -- you
0636:54 17 which we call them the Dershowitz flight logs, which 063605 17 gave a long answer in which you described reasons you
00:36:55 18 were the logs that he had produced, there were 00,39,08 18 apparently believe that these flight logs were not
063658 19 inconsistencies, and so it struck me as odd that there 00:39:13 19 merely incomplete, but that someone had false --
0637:03 20 were these inconsistent flight logs. 00:39:16 20 falsified them. And did I understand you correctly?
0637:03 21 The other thing that I noticed is, I don't 00:39:20 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The question that
00:3765 22 believe that Dave Rogers was the exclusive pilot for 00:3622 22 was asked was limited to the time period prior to
0637:08 23 Mr. Epstein. And so I had a concern -- excuse me. I'm 00:3626 23 December 30th. The answer that was given was
00:3713 24 sorry. 0639,29 24 limited to the time period prior to December
00:37:13 25 I had a concern that the flight logs that -- 00:3631 25 30th.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 188 to 191 of 335 10 of 46 sheets
192 194
00:39:32 1 Are you now asking for an expansion of that 00:42:08 1 Another thing that happened during the
00:39:35 2 response to include information that's been 00:42:10 2 deposition, and I will not repeat what was said in the
00:39:38 3 gathered since December 30th? 00:42:14 3 deposition, because there was immediately an objection
00:39:40 4 MR. SIMPSON: I will take your objection to 00,42:17 4 from Ms. McCawley, but there were two points in the
00:39:43 5 the form. 00:42:19 5 deposition where Mr. Dershowitz made representations
00.3944 6 Can we have the question back? 00:42:22 6 about what a New York Attorney David Boies would say,
00:39:44 7 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read 00:42:25 7 and I'm not going into any ....-
00:40:05 8 by the reporter.) 00:42:27 8 Q. I -- I just want to say if he starts talking
004006 9 MR. SCAROLA: And I object. The question is 00:42:30 9 about it --
00:40:07 10 vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify 00:42:31 10 MS. McCAWLEY: No, I -- I object to any
00:40:09 11 the time period about which you are inquiring. 00:42:32 11 reference --
00:4009 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:42:33 12 MR. SIMPSON: -- then I get to ask all the
00:40:14 13 Q. Mr. Cassell, as you sit here today, are you 00:42:34 13 questions if he should say anything.
00:40:18 14 prepared, based on the information you have available to 0042:34 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I think he's just
00:40:21 15 you, to assert that Professor Dershowitz intentionally 00:42:35 15 acknowledging that -- I'm sorry. I think he's
00:40:28 16 provided misleading or doctored documents to a 00:42:37 16 acknowledging that that occurred. I object to
00:40:34 17 prosecuting authority? 00:42:39 17 any -- any discussion of any settlement
00:40:37 18 A. So based on all the information I have today? 00:42:43 18 communications in the context of that privilege.
00:40:39 19 Q. Yes. 00:42:44 19 MR. SCAROLA: I don't intend to get into any
00:40:40 20 A. Yes. 00:42:48 20 settlement discussions. We are not going to
0040:40 21 Q. What do you base -- what is the basis for 00:4250 21 repeat the substance of the objected-to
00:40:44 22 that conclusion, and include information up until today? 0042:51 22 testimony.
00:40:48 23 A. All right. So, obviously, that's an 00:42:51 23 MR. SIMPSON: My point, I just want it to be
00:40:51 24 open-ended question. 00:4254 24 on notice --
00:40:52 25 Q. I -- just answer the question, please, as 0042:54 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
193 195
00:40:55 1 best you can. 00:4255 1 MR. SIMPSON: -- is if this witness starts
00:4055 2 A. Sure. All right. Well, let me just -- 00:4256 2 saying anything about his communications or why
00:40:58 3 that's a lot -- there's a lot of things to get into on 00:43:00 3 he -- he's coming to a conclusion, he's putting
00:41:00 4 that. 00:43:02 4 that forth as a basis, he has opened the door.
00:41:02 5 Let's start with the events of the last two 00:43:05 5 You can't put it forth and park and not let
00:41:05 6 days, the deposition of Mr. Dershowitz, which in my mind 00:43:07 6 me ask for all the discussions.
00:41:10 7 demonstrates repeated false statements that were made by 00:43:09 7 MR. SCAROLA: You can -- you can proceed and
00,41:14 8 Mr. Dershowitz. 00:43:10 8 you know not to include privileged --
00:41:15 9 Let's begin with the overarching point about 00:43:10 9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
0041:18 10 the deposition of the last two days. I've been 0043:13 10 MR. SCAROLA: -- communications.
00:41:20 11 practicing law -- law since about 1986. And in my 00:43:13 11 THE WITNESS: There was a newspaper that
00:41:26 12 experience, I have never seen a more evasive effort to 00:43:15 12 reported -- a Florida business newspaper that
00:41:30 13 avoid answering questions, and to essentially run out 00:43:18 13 promptly after Mr. Dershowitz said that Mr. Boies
00:41:34 14 the clock so that detailed questions could not be asked 00:43:21 14 had made certain representations, a Florida --
00:41:38 15 by my attorney. And I witnessed over the last two days, 00:4324 15 respected Florida business newspaper immediately
00:41:41 16 Mr. Dershowitz was asked a series of very simple 00:43:27 16 reported that David Boies had said, that was a
00:41:44 17 questions; where were you on this day; or what's the 00:43:29 17 false statement.
00:41:46 18 name; or what time, things like that, and instead of, 00:43:31 18 And in light of that, I now had David Boies
0041:49 19 you know, giving an -- an immediate answer, he ended up 00:43:34 19 saying that Mr. Dershowitz was making false
00:4153 20 giving a very extended answer commonly punctuated with 0043:37 20 statements under oath during the -- the
00:4157 21 disparaging remarks that seemed to have nothing to do 00:43:38 21 deposition that occurred over the last two days.
00:42:00 22 with answering the question. 00:43:41 22 In addition to that, I had -- again, during
00:42:01 23 So I drew the inference from that that 00:43:44 23 the deposition, I heard Mr. Dershowitz say that
00:42:03 24 Mr. Dershowitz did not want to answer questions over the 00:43:48 24 Attorney Bob Josefsberg had said that -- words to
00:42:07 25 last two days. 0043:52 25 the effect that he, Josefsberg, did not believe
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
11 of 46 sheets Page 192 to 195 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
196 198
00:43:54 1 Virginia Roberts. 0646:02 1 You know, I also have -- I would like to
0643:55 2 I knew Josefsberg was an attorney who had 0646:05 2 refresh my recollection and if -- if counsel --
0044:00 3 represented Miss Roberts based on public 064610 3 that's --
00:4460 4 information, and I knew that that would be a 00:46:10 4 MR. SCAROLA: You can refresh your
00:4462 5 gross violation of Mr. Josefsberg's 0646:12 5 recollection on anything you need to.
00:4464 6 attorney/client obligations. And as a result of 00:4612 6 THE WITNESS: All right. I'd like to refresh
0644:09 7 that, it seemed to me that, once again, 00;46:15 7 my recollection by looking at -
064466 8 Mr. Dershowitz was giving false information under 0646:16 8 MR. SIMPSON: Actually, I -- I object to this
00:4412 9 oath in an effort to exculpate himself from the 00:4617 9 answer as nonresponsive. I haven't heard
064417 10 sex trafficking that he had been involved with. 0646:20 10 anything about flight logs once.
0644:19 11 In addition to that, I learned during the 00:46:21 11 MR. SCAROLA: You can continue.
00:44:21 12 deposition on Thursday that it had, quote, not 00:4623 12 THE WITNESS: These -- you know, these all go
00:44:26 13 crossed my mind, close quote -- I believe that's 0646:27 13 to the statements.
00:44:29 14 a direct quote from Mr. Dershowitz -- to record a 00:46,27 14 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:44:31 15 conversation with a woman allegedly named Rebecca 0646:28 15 Q. You're looking at a document?
0644:34 16 who had allegedly made certain statements. That 064629 16 A. Yeah. Let's mark it as an exhibit if you'd
0644:37 17 was on Thursday. 00:4632 17 like. This is a memory aid to me.
0644:38 18 And then yesterday, Friday, I learned that 00:46:34 18 Q. Did you prepare it?
00:44:40 19 Mr. Dershowitz, not only had it crossed his mind 00:46:35 19 A. Yes, I did. All right. Let's see. At page
00:44:43 20 to make a recording, he had, in fact, made such a 00:464220 114 of a rough transcript that I saw prepared of
00:44:47 21 recording; and in fact, had it transcribed; and 00:46:46 21 Thursday's testimony, Mr. Dershowitz was asked. Quote:
0644:50 22 in fact, turned it over to his attorneys. So, 0646:50 22 You know that Virginia Roberts is not the only person
00:44:53 23 once again, I had what appeared to be a false 0646,5223 who has sworn under oath that you were present at
00:44:56 24 statement under oath by Mr. Dershowitz in an 00:46:55 24 Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home with young girls,
00:44:58 25 attempt to exculpate himself from the -- the sex 00:46:59 25 right? Answer: No.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
197 199
00:45:03 1 trafficking that we -- we have evidence he has 00:4762 1 That seemed to me to be false or at the very
00:45:06 2 been involved with. 00:47:05 2 least misleading testimony given that Mr. Dershowitz
00:45:06 3 The false statements or certainly misleading 0047:07 3 knew that Juan Alessi, among potentially other people,
00:45:12 4 statements continue. I suppose, some of these 00:4711 4 had identified him as having been in the presence of
00:45:14 5 could be a matter of judgment. The -- they raise 00:47:14 5 Jeffrey Epstein and young girls at the Florida mansion
0645:18 6 grave concern to me. 00:4717 6 and, indeed, had identified a photograph of Virginia
0645:18 7 One of them was that we had propounded an 00:4720 7 Roberts.
00:45:20 8 interrogatory requesting the basis for 064721 8 At page 164 of the transcript, Mr. Dershowitz
00:4523 9 Mr. Dershowitz's statements that Virginia Roberts 00:47:25 9 was asked, quote: All of the manifests that have been
00:45126 10 had a criminal record. And he said that, well, 00:47:28 10 produced in this litigation, the ones that you say
00:45:29 11 she's admitted that she had sex with various 0647:31 11 corroborate your testimony and exonerate you,
00:45:32 12 people, so that renders her a criminal, and 00:47:34 12 demonstrate that you never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's
00:45:34 13 something along those lines, which I didn't think 0647:37 13 plane in the company of your wife, correct? Answer:
0645,36 14 was very accurate. 0647:41 14 No, that's not true. I don't know that.
00:45:38 15 But in any event, that was the answer he 00:47:44 15 And, again, in the context of this litigation
00.45:39 16 gave. And then I learned during the deposition 0647:46 16 where the flight logs have been, as this question that
00:45:42 17 in the last two days, that Mr. Dershowitz had 00:47:48 17 I'm answering tends to show, are so central for
00:45:45 18 received information that he says shows that 00:47:52 18 Mr. Dershowitz to testify under oath that he didn't know
00:45:48 19 Virginia Roberts had stolen money from a 06A7:56 19 whether his wife was depicted on the flight log, struck
00:45:50 20 restaurant and had been criminally charged with 00:47:59 20 me as, at the very least, misleading information, but I
0645:51 21 that. 00.4862 21 concluded in my opinion was actually deliberately false
00:45:52 22 That was not produced to us during discovery, 0648:05 22 information, particularly, given this litigation where
00:45:54 23 even though it would have been obviously 0648:08 23 he has produced, not only his own personal travel
0645,56 24 relevant, and it was directly called for in the 0648,11 24 record, but all of his wife's travel records for the
00:45:59 25 discovery that we were provided with. 0648:14 25 relevant period of time.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 196 to 199 of 335 12 of 46 sheets
200 202
00:48:15 1 So I thought that was, again, a deliberate 00:50:41 1 logs. And I could refresh my recollection here by
00:48:19 2 false statement under oath designed to exculpate him 00:50:45 2 looking at, I think it's docket entry 291 of our
00:48:22 3 from his criminal involvement in this international sex 00:50:49 3 pleading that we presented on January 21st to
00:48:26 4 trafficking ring. 00:50:51 4 Judge Marra where we provided specific itemized examples
00:48:27 5 At another point in the transcript, he was 00:50:54 5 of inconsistencies between the Dave Rogers' flight log
00:4829 6 asked, quote, -- no, I'm sorry. He stated, quote: I 00:50:58 6 and the -- again, I'll call it, the Alan Dershowitz
00:48:32 7 challenge you to find any statement where I said I have 00:51:01 7 flight log, which was a selected presentation of flight
00:48:35 8 never traveled outside the presence of my wife, close 00:51,03 8 log information.
00:48:38 9 quote, representing that there would be no such 00:51:04 9 And when you see those inconsistencies, it
00:48:42 10 statement there, when, in fact, I'm aware of an American 00:51:06 10 becomes very hard to believe that all of the information
00:48:45 11 Lawyer quotation attributed to him from January 15th, 00:51:09 11 that was provided in those flight logs was accurate. So
00:48:48 12 2015, quote: I've been married to the same woman for 28 00:51:11 12 when I take all of that information, put it together, I
00:48:52 13 years. She goes with me everywhere, close quote. And, 00:51:14 13 believe that there's sufficient -- I have a sufficient
00:48:56 14 again, you know, this -- I understand sometimes people 00:51:17 14 basis for believing at this point in time, that
00'4869 15 may go away from their wife, but the American Lawyer 00:51:19 15 Mr. Dershowitz has, indeed, provided inaccurate
00:49:01 16 was, obviously, on January 15th, 2015, asking about: 0651:22 16 information to -- to law enforcement agencies, or at a
00:49:05 17 Well, have you been outside the presence of your wife in 00:51:25 17 minimum has provided -- has produced inaccurate
00:49:08 18 situations where you might have interacted with Virginia 00:51:29 18 information through circumstances beyond his control.
00:49:10 19 Roberts? And that was the answer that he gave to the 00:51:32 19 But when he continually represents that the
00:49:12 20 American Lawyer. 00:51:34 20 information is accurate and exonerates him, I believe
00:49:13 21 And based on -- on my review of the flight 00:51:37 21 that that is a deliberately false statement.
00:49:15 22 logs, I thought that was, again, a deliberate effort to 00:51:41 22 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the answer --
00:49:20 23 obscure and try to exculpate himself from his 00,51:42 23 the nonresponsive portion of the answer.
00:49:23 24 involvement in this international sex trafficking ring. 00:51:46 24 MR. SCAROLA: Which portion is that?
00:49:26 25 The -- he also said yesterday: Nobody knows 00:51:47 25 MR. SIMPSON: 99 percent of it. I think at
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
201 203
00:49:33 1 about Prince Andrew and Virginia, except for the two of 00:51:50 1 the end, we got to the flight logs.
00:49:36 2 them. And, again, I thought that was at a minimum, 00:51:52 2 I move to strike the nonresponsive portion.
00:49:39 3 deliberately mis -- misleading information and more 00:51:54 3 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:49:41 4 likely deliberately false information, because 00:51:55 4 Q. Mr. Cassell, you came here today looking for
00:49:43 5 Mr. Dershowitz was aware of the photograph and had long 00:51:57 5 an opportunity to give that statement; did you not?
00:49:47 6 been aware of the photograph that shows Prince Andrew 00:51:59 6 A. If it was relevant to an answer I was giving,
0649:50 7 with his arm around Virginia Roberts, standing next to a 00:52:03 7 yes.
00:49:53 8 beaming Glenn Maxwell who has been involved in this 00:52:03 8 Q. The answer to my question is, yes, you came
00:4966 9 international sex trafficking organization. 00:52:05 9 here today looking for a question to which you could
00:49:59 10 And in the circumstances of that photograph, 0652:08 10 respond with that prepared statement?
00:50:01 11 it seems quite likely that the photographer who took 00:52:10 11 A. I was prepared to give that -- I anticipated
00:50;04 12 that picture was the head of the international sex 00:52:13 12 that a very good attorney for Mr. Dershowitz might ask a
00:50:07 13 trafficking ring, Jeffrey Epstein. And so for him to 00:5215 13 question where that would be relevant. And if that
00:50:10 14 say that only two people knew what went on was, again, 00:52:18 14 question were asked and I was given the opportunity to
00:5014 15 deliberately false information, because I know he is the 00:52:20 15 make that statement, I wanted to be prepared to give it
0650:17 16 attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and he could have asserted 00:52:23 16 in the most accurate way that I could.
00:50:20 17 attorney/client privilege over that, said, I can't get 00:52:25 17 MR. SIMPSON: I would like the reporter to
00:50:22 18 into my communications with my client about what he was 00:52:27 18 mark as Exhibit -- are we up to 4 -- Exhibit 4,
00:50:25 19 doing with Prince Andrew. 00:52:31 19 the document that Mr. Cassell was referring to.
00:50:26 20 But instead he said, no one knows what 00:52:34 20 I'll let the reporter do that.
00:50:29 21 happened, other than those two people in circumstances 00:52:36 21 THE WITNESS: Okay.
00:50:31 22 where it was quite clear that there would have been 00:52:36 22 (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document
00:50:34 23 others who would have been aware of that. 00:52:36 23 produced by the witness was marked for identification.)
00:50:35 24 Now, the question is: Why do I think the -- 0652:59 24 MR. SIMPSON: I just want to make that part
00:50:39 25 the -- you know, there are inaccuracies in the flight 00:53:00 25 of the record.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
13 of 46 sheets Page 200 to 203 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
204 206
00:53:00 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 065568 1 perfectly clear.
0653:02 2 Q. Before Wednesday of this week, you had none 006568 2 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:5367 3 of the information that you just described about 00:55:08 3 Q. My question, Mr. Cassell, is: You reviewed
00:53:10 4 Professor Dershowitz's testimony, correct? 0065:11 4 the flight logs, correct?
00:53:12 5 A. Correct. 00:55:12 5 A. Correct.
0653,12 6 Q. I'm trying to look at my notes here of your 0055:12 6 Q. You reviewed them in some detail, correct?
0653:28 7 long answer, but one thing you indicated that -- was the 00:55:14 7 A. Correct.
00:53:30 8 fact that Professor Dershowitz gave long answers is 00:55:15 8 Q. Is there any entry on those flight lines -
00:53'34 9 somehow indicative of false answers or perjury -- 00:5617 9 logs that you read as putting Professor Dershowitz and
065314 10 MR. SCAROLA: That is -- 00:55:21 10 Miss Roberts on the same plane?
00:53:34 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:55:23 11 A. No.
0653'19 12 Q. -- is that right? 00:5624 12 Q. And so your testimony about questions about
00,53:39 13 MR. SCAROLA: That is an absolute 00:55:26 13 the completeness and accuracy of those flight logs goes
00:53:40 14 mischaracterization of the statement that 00:55:33 14 to whether the logs are -- let me rephrase that.
00:53:43 15 Professor Cassell made. He did not refer to the 00:55:39 15 The answer that you gave about your question
0653:47 16 length of the answers, but rather their 00:55:43 16 as -- your views as to the completeness of the flight
0653:47 17 nonresponsiveness. 00:55:47 17 logs and whether they may have been changed in some
0653:47 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 065650 18 ways, goes to whether those logs are conclusive, not
00:53:52 19 Q. Let me -- let me ask a different question. 00:55:54 19 whether they, in fact, support Professor Dershowitz's
00:53:55 20 Go back to the flight logs themselves. 00:55:5820 testimony that he was not on a plane with Virginia
065367 21 A. Okay. 065662 21 Roberts?
0653:57 22 Q. My initial question that got us going down 00:56:03 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form
03:54:01 23 this line was: Isn't it true that the flight logs 065664 23 of the question as vague and ambiguous. I don't
00:54:05 24 themselves support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that 00:56:08 24 understand it.
00:54:13 25 he was never on a plane with Virginia Roberts, the face
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
00,56:08 25 THE WITNESS: And I won't give a long answer,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
205 207
00:54:17 1 of the flight logs support that proposition? 065668 1 but I -- I think, as I previously indicated, you
00:5420 2 A. The face of the flight logs for the relevant 00:5611 2 can't just look at the face of these documents
00:54:23 3 period of time, we can call it the hot period of time or 006614 3 without -- with -- you know, against the context
065425 4 whatever you want, did not reveal the presence of 0656:17 4 of an international sex trafficking ring that's
00:54:27 5 Mr. Dershowitz on those flights, yes. 00:56:19 5 trying to cover up what it's doing. You cant
00. 54:29 6 Q. Okay. So during the period -- well, 00:56:21 6 just look and documents and assume that they are
0654,32 7 actually, there's no flight log that shows Virginia 0656:22 7 100 percent accurate without that -- having that
00:54:34 8 Roberts and Professor Dershowitz on the same airplane, 00:5624 8 context in mind.
00:54:37 9 correct? 00,56:20 9 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:54,37 10 A. That's my understanding, yes. 00:5626 10 Q. And so am I right, that on the face of the
0054:39 11 Q. And -- 0656.29 11 flight logs, there's nothing showing Virginia Roberts
00:54:39 12 MR. SCAROLA: By name. You're -- you're -- 0066:32 12 and Professor Dershowitz on the same plane?
0654:39 13 MS. McCAWLEY: And it -- 00:56:35 13 A. That's correct.
00:54:41 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- asking whether she was there 0656:35 14 Q. And -- go on.
00:54:43 15 identified by name? 0656:40 15 And so do I understand correctly that your
0654:45 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 06566716 position is that the flight logs may not be complete or
00:54:47 17 Q. To your knowledge, isn't it correct that 00:57:06 17 may have been changed, but you do not dispute, that on
00:54:49 18 there is no flight log that's been produced in this case 00:57:10 18 their face, they support Professor Dershowitz's
00:54:51 19 by any party that reflects Professor Dershowitz and 00:57,13 19 testimony?
065465 20 Virginia Roberts on the same plane, as you read the 00:57714 20 MR. SCAROLA: Objection.
00:5468 21 flight log? 00:57:16 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
00:54:59 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you asking 0657:16 22 MR. SCAROLA: Compound.
0065:02 23 whether those same names appear on the flight log 0067:16 23 THE WITNESS: Could you just aggregate that?
00:55:06 24 together? 00:57:19 24 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:55:06 25 MR. SIMPSON: My question, I think, is 0067:20 25 Q. You follow the objections very well.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 204 to 207 of 335 14 of 46 sheets
208 210
0057:22 1 A. I was thinking of that as well. 00:5008 1 A. I recall his testimony to that effect, yes.
00:57:22 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00,59:10 2 Q. And you testified that no support for that
00:57:22 3 Q. Let me -- 00:59:14 3 had been produced in discovery; is that correct?
00:57:23 4 A. I wasn't -- 00:59:16 4 A. That's my understanding, yes.
09:5723 5 Q. Let me -- 0059:17 5 Q. Isn't it true that in Mr. Alessi's
00:57:25 6 A. -- following their answer. 00:59:20 6 deposition, he describes that under oath and says that
00:57:25 7 Q. Let me -- let me just ask a different 00:5023 7 it happened?
00:57:27 8 question. 0059:24 8 A. I don't have a recollection of criminal
00:57:27 9 A. Sure. Thanks. 00:59:27 9 charges having been discussed in the Alessi deposition.
00:57:31 10 Q. You testified that you have -- at some 0015901 10 Q. Is it -- well, let me -- let me ask you: Is
00:57:35 11 length, about why you question the accuracy of the 005904 11 it your testimony that you understood that, in fact,
00:57:40 12 flight logs, correct? 00:59:40 12 Miss Roberts had been accused of stealing money from her
00:57:43 13 A. Correct. 00:59:44 13 employer?
00:57:43 14 Q. But I may be redundant, but you don't 00:59:47 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the
00:57.45 15 question that what they show on their face supports 00:5048 15 extent it gets into any conversations that you
00:57:48 16 Professor Dershowitz's testimony -- 00:59:49 16 had with Virginia on any of these issues.
00:57:48 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 005052 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm trying to -- if your
00:57:48 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:59:55 18 question is about the Alessi depo, I don't --
00:57:50 19 Q. -- that he was not on a plane with Virginia 00:59:58 19 don't immediately recall him discussing --
00:57:52 20 Roberts? otcaol 20 discussing them.
00:57:53 21 A. The -- you know, the -- the sex trafficking 01:00:03 21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:57:56 22 ring run by Jeffrey Epstein has produced Epstein flight 01:00:04 22 Q. If I represent to you that Mr. Alessi, in his
00:57:59 23 logs that appear to show that -- that Dershowitz and 01:00,07 23 deposition, referred to a police report and an arrest of
005804 24 Virginia Roberts are not on the plane, so... otooll 24 Miss Roberts, do you have any reason to question that?
00:58:06 25 Q. So the answer to my question is, yes? 01:001325 MR. SCAROLA: Could we -- could we pull out
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
209 211
00:5809 1 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. 01:0014 1 the deposition? And if you have got a reference
00:58:09 2 THE WITNESS: Which question now? 010016 2 in the deposition, lets take a look at it.
00:58:10 3 MR. SIMPSON: The question you just -- could 0100:17 3 MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking for his
00:58:12 4 you read back my -- my question and the answer? 01,00:18 4 recollection right now. The document will speak
00:58:12 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:00:20 5 for itself. But I want to --
00:58:31 6 Q. Let me ask it again. 01,00:21 6 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, it will.
00:58:31 7 A. Okay. 01:0021 7 MR. SIMPSON: He -- he made a very serious
00:58:31 8 Q. That's fine. 01100:23 8 accusation. I would like to get an answer to my
00:5033 9 A. I mean, I thought I was -- 01:00:25 9 question. Does he recall whether, in that
00:58:33 10 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending. 01:0027 10 deposition that all the parties in this case
00:58:34 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 01:0029 11 have, Mr. Alessi said under oath, that she had
00:58:35 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:00:32 12 been arrested and charged with stealing from her
00:58:35 13 Q. What were you about to say? 01:00:34 13 employer.
00.58:36 14 A. I was about to say that the records that they 01:00:35 14 THE WITNESS: When you -- the question built
00:58:39 15 produced -- I'm -- I'm sorry... 01:00:37 15 in a serious accusation, the -- the -- the -- the
00:58:42 16 Q. The records -- the records that were 01:00:39 16 statement I was making is that we had propounded
0058:44 17 produced -- 01:00:42 17 an interrogatory to Mr. Dershowitz saying:
0058,44 18 A. On -- on their face, I cannot give you a 0100:44 18 What's the basis for your assertion that
0058:47 19 flight log that has Virginia Roberts and Alan Dershowitz 01:0046 19 Miss Roberts had a criminal record? And that
00:5850 20 sitting next to each other, yes. 01:00:49 20 answer didn't refer to an Alessi depo. If it --
005051 21 Q. And you also -- you also testified a moment 01.00:51 21 this is one of the problems that I'm having.
0058:54 22 ago that Professor Dershowitz in his testimony in the 01:00:53 22 When -- when -- you know, when you come into
0058:57 23 last couple of days, had testified that Virginia Roberts 0100:56 23 a deposition, both sides are supposed to turn
0059:03 24 had been arrested for stealing cash; do you refer -- do 01,00:58 24 everything over. And then if I get a question
0059:08 25 you recall that? 01:01:00 25 about, well, what if -- you know, we're relying
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
15 of 46 sheets Page 208 to 211 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
212 214
01:0101 1 on this piece of the Alessi depo and it's not in 01:02:48 1 Mr. Alessi had also testified previously about the
01:01:03 2 the answers to interrogatories, it's hard for me 01:0254 2 arrest of Miss Roberts for stealing from her employer?
01:01:05 3 to -- to give an answer to that. So -- so that's 01:02:57 3 A. I didn't recall that. If that's in there,
01:0107 4 the -- that's the concern I have. 01:03:00 4 you're -- you're making a representation, and I know
01:01:10 5 MR. SIMPSON: I move -- I move to strike as 01:03:01 5 you're a fine lawyer, so I'll accept your
01:01:11 6 nonresponsive. 01:03:04 6 representation.
01:01:11 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:03:05 7 I didn't recall that when he was testifying
01:01,12 8 Q. My question went to whether -- let me back 01:03:06 8 a -- a day or two ago on that subject.
01:01:18 9 up. If -- if I'm -- unless I misunderstood you -- 01:0315 9 MR. SCAROLA: We have been going for about an
01:01:21 10 MR. SCAROLA: The question was: Did he 01:0317 10 hour. Is it time to take a break? Is that
01:01:23 11 recall the contents -- 01:03:19 11 convenient for you?
01:0123 12 MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking the question. 01:0319 12 MR. SIMPSON: We can take a break now.
01:01:23 13 MR. SCAROLA: -- of the Alessi deposition. 010321 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video
01:01:24 14 MR. SIMPSON: I'm withdrawing it. I will ask 01:0322 14 record, 9:35 a.m.
01:0125 15 a new question. 0115:01 15 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
01:01:26 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. 01:15:01 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video
01:01:26 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:15:28 17 record, 9:47 a.m.
0101:27 18 Q. I understood you in your -- the long answer 01:15:30 18 THE WITNESS: I need to take two minutes, if
01:01:32 19 that you gave a while ago to suggest that Professor 0115:34 19 I may, and just supplement the long answer that I
01,0116 20 Dershowitz had either testified falsely or failed to 01,1524 20 gave about the series of things.
01:01:41 21 provide relevant information on which he was basing his 01:15:36 21 By looking over my checklist, I noticed that
01:01:44 22 testimony about Miss Roberts's arrest; is that right? 01:15:38 22 item 5 of the 12 items was not given during my
01:01:46 23 A. Yes. 01:16:42 23 testimony. I'm -
01:01:46 24 Q. And that assertion would be incorrect if 01:15:42 24 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:01:50 25 there's a deposition in this case that all the parties 01:15:44 25 Q. I don't -- I'm not going to ask about item 5.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
213 215
0101:53 1 have that include that information? 01:15:45 1 It's in the record as part of your -- your -- your --
01:01:55 2 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Simpson, there was an 01:15:49 2 A. I would like to just supplement --
01:01:58 3 express reference to an answer to interrogatory, 0115:50 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. That's fine. If
01:0201 4 and the absence of any reference to an arrest for 01:15:51 4 you don't want to hear it, that's okay.
01:02:05 5 theft in your client's sworn answer to 01:15:51 5 THE WITNESS: I'd like --
01:02,09 6 interrogatory. That's -- 0115,53 6 MR. SCAROLA: Just as long as it's noted that
01:02:09 7 MR. SIMPSON: We -- we -- 0115,54 7 there was an inadvertent omission.
01:02:11 8 MR. SCAROLA: -- exactly what the testimony 01:15:66 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
0102712 9 was. 0115:56 9 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:02:12 10 MR. SIMPSON: If you object to the form, 01:15:58 10 Q. As part of -- I'm going to go back actually
010213 11 please just object to the form. I think it's a 01:16:02 11 to -
01:0215 12 proper question -- 01:16:02 12 A. Sure.
01:02:17 13 MR. SCAROLA: I -- I object -- 01:16:02 13 Q. -- the questions I was asking. One question
01:02:17 14 MR. SIMPSON: -- in our discovery response. 01:16:06 14 about the -- the flight logs again.
01:02:18 15 MR. SCAROLA: -- I object to your 0116:08 15 A. Okay.
01:02:19 16 misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. I'm 01,16:08 16 Q. It's true, is it not, that you have no
01,02:21 17 sure it was not intentional, and that's why I'm 01:16:12 17 personal knowledge as to whether Professor Dershowitz or
01:02:25 18 calling it to your attention so that we don't go 01:1615 18 some other member of Jeffrey Epstein's defense team
01:02:27 19 down a rabbit trail. 01:1621 19 prepared those logs for production to the government?
01:02:30 20 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going down any rabbit 01:16:23 20 A. i don't have personal knowledge of -- of
01:02:32 21 trail. I'm really -- objection to the form will 01:16:25 21 that, that's right.
01:02:34 22 preserve it. 01,1626 22 Q. And you would agree, would you not, that it's
01:02:34 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01.16:33 23 the duty of a defense counsel to represent a client
01:0237 24 Q. My question is whether you were aware at the 01:16:38 24 zealously within the bounds of the law, correct?
01:02:44 25 time that Professor Dershowitz testified that, in fact,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
01:16:40 25 A. Correct.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
txt
Cont'd.
173 175
00:17:23 1 want to be asserting a privilege to questions as 00:21:13 1 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Same instruction.
00:17:26 2 to which the answer is no, so you can answer 00:2115 2 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0017:34 3 generally as to whether the subject matter was 00:21:15 3 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as
00:17:40 4 covered in any discussion that you had with 00:2120 4 to the credibility of Virginia Roberts?
00:17:42 5 Mr. Boies. 002122 5 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection.
00:17:43 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 00:21:23 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
00:17:44 7 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. If the answer is no. If 002123 7 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction.
00:17:47 8 the answer -- as I sink down in this chair, if 00:21:25 8 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0017:51 9 the answer may be yes, you can't respond. 00:21:25 9 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Boies any
00:17:56 10 MR. SIMPSON: I -- I -- that's a new version. 00:21:35 10 allegations about sexual misconduct by Les Wexner?
00:17:58 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm afraid -- yeah, I want 00:21:41 11 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection.
0018:00 12 to -- I'm sorry. I want to confer on that 0021:44 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
0018:01 13 because I have an objection. 0021:44 13 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction.
001802 14 THE WITNESS: I have to say I want to confer, 00:21,44 14 MR. SIMPSON: That's the same question you
0018:04 15 I'm confused, too, so let's take a short break. 00:21:46 15 allowed to be answered. Did you -- let me ask it
001806 16 MR. SIMPSON: Again, you're conferring on the 00:21:47 16 a different way.
0018:06 17 privilege now, not the substance? 00:21:47 17 BY MR. SIMPSON:
001806 18 THE WITNESS: That's right. 00:21:48 18 Q. Did you discuss, in any way, Les Wexner with
001806 19 MR. SCAROLA: Can we go off the record? 00:21:51 19 Mr. Boies?
001814 20 MR. SIMPSON: Yes. 00:21:51 20 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection.
00:1814 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video 0021,51 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
00:1817 22 record, 8:48 a.m. 00:21,53 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction.
0019:54 23 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 0021:55 23 MR. SIMPSON: He's instructed not to answer
00.1054 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 00:21:55 24 whether that topic was discussed?
002006 25 record, 8:52 a.m. 0021.56 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 172 to 175 of 335 6 of 46 sheets
176 178
0021:57 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 00:23:58 1 discussed Virginia Roberts' allegations of sexual
00:21:57 2 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 0624'07 2 misconduct against Professor Dershowitz with Bob
00:21:57 3 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0624:14 3 Josefsberg?
00:22:02 4 Q. Did you discuss former Prime Minister Barak 062414 4 A. Me personally?
0622:05 5 with Mr. Boies? 00:2418 5 Q. Yes, you personally.
00:22:08 6 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. 0024:18 6 A. No.
00:22:08 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 062418 7 Q. After December 30th of 2014, had you -- did
00:22:08 8 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction. 00:24:24 8 you discuss with Mr. Josefsberg Ms. Roberts' allegations
062210 9 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:24:30 9 against Professor Dershowitz?
002212 10 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned that one of the 0024:32 10 A. Not personally, no.
0022:14 11 reasons that supported your conclusion that it -- you 00:24:32 11 Q. You say not personally. Are you aware of
002220 12 had an adequate basis to allege in the joinder motion 0024:36 12 someone else who had those discussions of -- with Mr. --
00:22:25 13 that the allegations against Professor Dershowitz was 00:24:39 13 had any discussions on that topic with Mr. Josefsberg?
00:22:29 14 that Mr. Boies was representing Virginia Roberts -- yes, 0024:43 14 MR. SCAROLA: To the extent that that
00:22:31 15 Virginia Roberts; do you recall that testimony? 00:24:46 15 question would call for any information that was
00:22:35 16 A. Yes. 0024,51 16 communicated to you in the context of the
00:2236 17 Q. And you said that because of how highly 00:24:55 17 common-interest privilege, you should not answer.
002240 18 regarded Mr. Boies was, I think you mentioned the Bush 0625:00 18 THE WITNESS: All right. I'm not going to...
00:22:45 19 v. Gore case; is that right? 0625:0319 MR. SCAROLA: So you -- you can answer it if
00:22:45 20 A. Yes. 0625:04 20 any such communication came to you outside the
00:22:45 21 Q. I used to work for his opponent in Bush v. 00:25:07 21 context of the common-interest privilege, but you
00:22:49 22 Gore case. They are both very good. 00:25:10 22 may not include in your response any information
00:22:50 23 A. I'm trying -- I was trying to remember. T- '—m 002512 23 derived from the common-interest privilege.
002251 24 sorry to take time, but who was the other lawyer? 06251224 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:22:53 25 Q. Ted Olson. 00:25:15 25 Q. And my question right now is not the
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
177 179
00:22:54 1 A. Ted, that's right. That's... 002517 1 substance. We will get to that. But, to your
00:22:55 2 Q. But that's a side note. 00:25:19 2 knowledge -- put -- let me rephrase that.
0022:57 3 My question is: Given your high regard for 062624 3 Did someone tell you that they had discussed
00:23:00 4 Mr. Boies, would you -- would his views as to the 0025:26 4 with Mr. Josefsbergs -- Josefsberg, the allegations made
00:23:07 5 credibility of Virginia Roberts be something that would 00:25:32 5 by Miss Roberts against Professor Dershowitz?
00:23:10 6 be important to you in evaluating the case? 062635 6 MR. SCAROLA: You may only answer that
00:23:12 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 00:25:36 7 question to the extent that you had any
00:23:12 8 MR. SIMPSON: Are you instructing him not to 0625:39 8 communication regarding that subject matter with
00:2615 9 answer? 0025:43 9 someone outside the common-interest privilege, or
0023:15 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I mean, is it a hypothetical? 002546 10 the attorney/client privilege for that matter.
002318 11 MR. SIMPSON: No. I'm just asking whether 00:25:46 11 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0023:1912 his views -- those views -- I'm not asking what 00:25:48 12 Q. I'm simply -- I'm not asking for substance,
0023:19 13 the views are. I'm simply asking whether those 00:25:50 13 just the name if you did.
00:23:23 14 views would be important to him. 00:2652 14 MR. SCAROLA: Well, I understand that, but
0623:23 15 MR. SCAROLA: You may answer that question. 002554 15 following along the same lines as before, you are
062325 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 00:25:57 16 asking us to identify the subject matter of a
0023:25 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0026:01 17 communication that is privileged. We won't
00:23:28 18 Q. And if I -- I may have asked this already, 0626:04 18 answer questions regarding the subject matter of
002630 19 but did you discuss with Mr. Boies his views as to the 002607 19 privileged communications, but if
0623:35 20 credibility of Miss Roberts? 0626:09 20 Professor Cassell had a conversation with Sam
0623.38 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 0626:14 21 Smith standing on the street corner about Bob
00:23:39 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 0026:17 22 Josefsberg, he can answer that question.
0623:40 23 instruction. 062620 23 BY MR. SIMPSON:
062641 24 BY MR. SIMPSON: 062620 24 Q. Did you have a conversation with anyone -
002653 25 Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you 0626:24 25 just narrow question: Did you have a conversation with
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
7 of 46 sheets Page 176 to 179 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
180 182
0026:26 1 anyone who told you that they, that person, had 00:2023 1 helpful. So please just instruct him to answer
002812 2 discussed the subject matter of Virginia Roberts's 0028:25 2 or not answer, and we will let the judge decide.
00:26:36 3 allegations against Professor Dershowitz with 00:2827 3 MR. SCAROLA: Well, the instruction -- I only
00:26:38 4 Mr. Josefsberg? Just did you discuss it with anyone? 00:28:29 4 gave the explanation in the hope that it might
0026:41 5 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 00:28:31 5 facilitate the examination and allow you to move
0026:42 6 instruction. 00:28:33 6 to areas where you can get substantive
00:26:42 7 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. 0028:36 7 information.
00:26:43 8 MR. SCAROLA: If you want to rephrase the 0028:36 8 I apologize if you consider it a waste of
002044 9 question to ask him whether he had such a 0028:39 9 time. So I will simply instruct Professor
00:26:46 10 conversation with anyone outside the 00:28:42 10 Cassell not to answer the question as phrased.
00:26:48 11 attorney/client or work-product privilege, that's 00:28:45 11 If you ever want an explanation as to the basis
0026:51 12 a question that we are obliged to answer. 00:2647 12 of my instruction, I'm prepared to give that to
00:26:55 13 The question, as you phrased it, is a 00:28:50 13 you.
00:26:56 14 question that we are precluded from answering. 0028:50 14 MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. That -- that's a
00:26:59 15 MR. SIMPSON: That's a very strange notion of 00:28:51 15 helpful way to proceed.
00:27:07 16 privilege. 0028:52 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.
0027:01 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:28:53 17 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:27:01 18 Q. But let me ask it this way: Did you discuss 0028:56 18 Q. Have you -- well, let's start this way: Have
00:27:07 19 with anyone who is not an attorney -- let me rephrase it 00:28:58 19 you discussed with any of the attorneys within what you
00:27:15 20 a different way. 0029:05 20 described as the common-interest attorney/client group,
00:27:16 21 You testified yesterday about your 0029:12 21 whether that person had discussed with Mr. Josefsberg
00:2718 22 understanding of the scope of the alleged 002916 22 Virginia Roberts's allegations against Professor
002721 23 common-interest privilege, correct? 002920 23 Dershowitz?
00:27:23 24 A. Yes. 00:29:20 24 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same
00:27:23 25 Q. Putting aside the people within the scope of 00:2920 25 instruction.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
181 183
00:27:23 1 that privilege -- 00:2920 1 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:27:23 2 A. Yes. 00:2922 2 Q. Have you discussed with anyone who is not an
00:27,27 3 Q. -- that you identified -- 002927 3 attorney for Miss Roberts whether -- strike that.
002727 4 A. Uh-huh. 0029:33 4 Has anyone who is not an attorney for
0027:30 5 Q. -- your definition of it -- 0029:35 5 Miss Roberts told you that they had discussed with
00:27:31 6 A. Right. That's right. 0029:40 6 Mr. Josefsberg the allegations against -- by Virginia
00:27:31 7 Q. -- did you discuss the topic -- did anyone 00:29:46 7 Roberts against Professor Dershowitz?
00:27:34 8 tell you they had discussed the topic of Virginia 0029:47 8 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same
00:27:37 9 Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz with 002948 9 instruction.
0027:40 10 Mr. Josefsberg? 00:29:48 10 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:27A1 11 MR. SCAROLA: You may not answer that 0029:59 11 Q. Have you personally spoken with anyone else
0027:44 12 question to the extent the question still 00:30:03 12 at Mr. Josefsberg's firm, other than him, about Virginia
00:27,45 13 encompasses attorney/client privileged 00:30:12 13 Roberts's allegations against Professor Dershowitz?
0027:49 14 communications. If you want to rephrase the 00:3015 14 A. Not to my knowledge.
00:27:50 15 question to exclude both common-interest 00:3016 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can
0027:55 16 privileged communications and attorney/client 00:3018 16 you read that back?
00:27:57 17 privileged communications, that's a question we 00:30:19 17 MR. SCAROLA: Was a communication with anyone
0028:00 18 are prepared to answer. 00:30:20 18 else in Bob Josefsberg -- Bob Josefsberg's firm,
0028:01 19 Otherwise, we are prohibited from answering 003025 19 personal communication between Professor Cassell
00:28,04 20 the question as phrased as a consequence of it 00:3028 20 and any firm member of Bob Josefsberg.
00:28:09 21 encompassing privileged communications. 00:3031 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Okay.
0028:12 22 MR. SIMPSON: As he defined the 00:3031 22 BY MR. SIMPSON:
002814 23 common-interest privileged group, it included 00:30:31 23 Q. And the answer was, not that you recall?
0028:17 24 attorney/client, but I think at this point the 00:3034 24 A. Not to my knowledge. I don't know all the
00:28:20 25 explanations you're providing aren't really 00:3034 25 members of his firm, but I certainly have no
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 180 to 183 of 335 8 of 46 sheets
184 186
00:30:37 1 recollection of talking to, you know, anyone who is -- 00:3220 1 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:3019 2 who was in his firm. 00:32:22 2 Q. Have you ever -- I'll rephrase the question.
00:30:40 3 Q. Okay. 00:32:25 3 Have you ever discussed with Mr. Boies his
00:3041 4 A. 1-- I think the record should be clear, 00:32:30 4 views as to whether or not Miss Roberts is mistaken in
00:30:43 5 I'm -- I'm an attorney and a law professor in Salt Lake 00:32:37 5 her allegations against Professor Dershowitz?
00:30:46 6 City, Utah, and my understanding, he's an attorney here 00:32:39 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
00:30:49 7 in Florida. So I don't ordinarily interact with -- 00:32:39 7 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same
00:30:51 8 with, you know, attorneys in Florida, other than the 00:32:40 8 instruction.
0030,54 9 ones that I'm interacting with on -- on this case. 00:32:45 9 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0030:56 10 MR. SCAROLA: Which is now occurring on a 0012:46 10 Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you
00:30:58 11 very regular basis. 0012:52 11 personally reviewed any of the flight logs that had been
00:31:01 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0012:56 12 referred to in the testimony in this case?
00:31:01 13 Q. Mr. Cassell -- 00:32:58 13 A. All right?
00:31:01 14 MR. SCOTT: No teaming, Mr. Scarola, please. 0033:02 14 Q. My only question is whether you personally
00:31:01 15 BY MR. SIMPSON: 0013:03 15 reviewed them.
00:31:04 16 Q. -- did -- didn't you testify yesterday that 00:33:04 16 A. Yes.
00:31:05 17 the fact that Mr. Josefsberg's firm had filed a 00:33:04 17 Q. What flight logs have you reviewed; how would
00:31:10 18 complaint against Miss Roberts, who is also your client, 003107 18 you describe them?
0011:12 19 to be significant to your evaluation of the case? 00:33:08 19 A. Both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 that were shown
0031:15 20 A. Yes. 00:33:13 20 to Mr. Dershowitz yesterday.
00:31:15 21 Q. And if it -- if that was significant to 00:33:15 21 Q. If -- I believe those were Exhibits 6 and
00:31:18 22 evaluation of the case, why are you telling us you don't 00:33:19 22 7 --
0011.20 23 normally talk with attorneys in Florida? Doesn't he 00:33:19 23 A. Okay.
00:31:25 24 represent -- at one point, represent the same client? 00:33:19 24 Q. -- but can we agree that flight logs were
00:31:26 25 A. Right. 00:33:21 25 marked as exhibits?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
185 187
00:31:27 1 Q. And so wouldn't it be natural for you to be 00:33:22 1 A. Right. The two composite exhibits of flight
00:31:29 2 speaking with -- at least within the realm of something 00:33:26 2 logs I had examined previously.
0011:33 3 one might expect for you to speak? 00:33:27 3 Q. Okay. So the same documents that Professor
00:31:35 4 A. If I were a solo representative of Virginia 003130 4 Dershowitz was shown at his deposition; is that right?
0011:38 5 Roberts, that would be the case, but I think you're 00:3314 5 A. That's my recollection, yes.
00:31:40 6 obviously aware that I have co-counsel on this case, and 0013:35 6 Q. Okay. When did you review those?
0031:43 7 there are other attorneys who are also participating in 00:3137 7 A. So one of the reviews was in May 2014. There
0011:46 8 this matter. 003146 8 may have also been an earlier review at an earlier --
00:31:47 9 So I think it would be obvious that if 00:3153 9 earlier time, but I definitely remember reviewing them
00:31:50 10 there's a division of labor, it might not be along the 0013:55 10 in May -- approximately May 2014.
0031:53 11 lines that you're suggesting. And I can't go any 00:33:58 11 Q. Would -- do you -- isn't it true that those
0031:55 12 further without going into work product and other issues 00:34:02 12 flight logs support Professor Dershowitz's testimony
0011:59 13 surrounding Miss Roberts' representation. 0014,07 13 that he was never on a plane with Virginia Roberts?
00:32:01 14 Q. Has Mr. Boies ever told you that he believes 00:34:10 14 A. No.
00:32:05 15 Miss Roberts was mistaken in her accusations against 00:34:12 15 Q. How do they not? What is -- what is the
00:32:08 16 Professor Dershowitz? 001414 16 explanation for your conclusion in that regard?
00:32:09 17 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 0014:16 17 A. Right. We talked about this yesterday, so
00:3211 18 instruction. 0014:20 18 I'll incorporate to speed things up some of the
0012:12 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Same instruction. 00:34.22 19 testimony that I gave yesterday.
0032:13 20 THE WITNESS: I'd like to confer with my 003423 20 What the flight logs showed was, to my mind,
00:32:15 21 counsel on a attorney/client privilege issue in 00:34:26 21 evidence of potential doctoring, evidence of -- of
00:32:19 22 connection with that question. 001410 22 selective presentation of evidence. Mr. Dershowitz had
00:32:19 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just write down the 0034:34 23 presented to a law enforcement agency, at their request,
00,32:19 24 question and -- 0014:37 24 apparently what I understood to be the -- the -- I
0032,20 25 MR. SIMPSON: I'll -- I'll rephrase it. 0034.40 25 understood that he had been requested by a law
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
9 of 46 sheets Page 184 to 187 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
188 190
00:34:42 1 enforcement agency to provide flight logs relevant to 00:37:16 1 that covered the jet were not just the David Rogers'
0064:46 2 this investigation. 00:37:20 2 flight logs, but there should be flight logs for other
00:34:47 3 And rather than providing all the flight logs 00:37:22 3 pilots which were not apparently being produced.
00:34:49 4 that were available at that time, he appears to have 063725 4 And so, in light of all that, what I was
00:34:52 5 provided flight logs that went from January 2005 through 00:37:27 5 seeing was a -- a production of flight logs that was
00:34:57 6 September 2005, knowing that he appeared on an 00:37:32 6 incomplete. And then I started to hear from
00:35:01 7 October -- I may be off by one month here -- but on an 00:37:35 7 Mr. Dershowitz that, well, these records prove
00:35:04 8 October 2005 flight log. 00:37:37 8 conclusively I couldn't have done that. And I knew to
00:35:06 9 So that, to my mind, had indicated that 00:37:40 9 an absolute certainty, that the records were
00:35:08 10 Professor Dershowitz was providing selective information 0637:42 10 inconsistent and inaccurate; and for somebody who had
00:35:11 11 to law enforcement. Those concerns -- this is, you 00:37:45 11 apparently carefully produced these records, to
00:35:15 12 know, there's -- there's more to it. 0637,48 12 represent that these conclusively prove that he wasn't
00:35:18 13 The other problem was that the flight logs 00:37:52 13 on the flights, seemed to me to be inaccurate
0635:22 14 that Mr. Dershowitz had produced were inconsistent with 00:37:54 14 information.
063526 15 the flight logs that Dave Rogers, one of Mr. Epstein's 0637:55 15 So that was -- those were the kinds of things
00:35:31 16 pilots had, so there were now inconsistencies on these 00:37:56 16 I was thinking about.
00.35:35 17 flight logs. And it seemed to be -- it seemed to me to 00:37:59 17 Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony --
00:35,39 18 be surprising that during the period of time where 00:38:02 18 MR. SIMPSON: Well, first of all, I move to
00:35:41 19 Virginia Roberts was involved, Mr. Dershowitz was not 063603 19 strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer.
00:35:45 20 appearing on those flight logs. 0638:03 20 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0635,46 21 Now, it is possible, I suppose, and that 00:38:07 21 Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony that you
00,3649 22 seems to be Mr. Dershowitz's position, that the reason 0638,08 22 have sufficient information to conclude and allege that
00:35:52 23 he's not on those flight logs is that he was not on 0638:12 23 Professor Dershowitz falsified documents and gave
0035:54 24 those flights. But given all of the information -- and 00:38:16 24 falsified documents to a prosecuting authority?
00:35:57 25 I won't take your time this morning to go through -- all 0638:19 25 A. It is my belief that Professor Dershowitz
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
189 191
00:35:59 1 the information I had about this international sex 0638:22 1 provided incomplete production to law enforcement
00:313:03 2 trafficking organization, it seemed to me that it was 00:3825 2 agencies.
0636:05 3 also possible that the sex trafficking organization, 00:38:25 3 Q. Is it your testimony under oath that you have
00:36:08 4 which was represented by, you know, vast resources and 00:38:26 4 sufficient information to allege that Professor
00.36,12 5 the ability to produce witnesses and documents and other 00:38,31 5 Dershowitz intentionally provided false information to a
0636:15 6 information that would -- would cover up the existence 00:38:37 6 prosecuting authority?
00:36:19 7 of this organization, had gone through the flight logs 0638,38 7 A. It is my position that he provided incomplete
00:36:22 8 and had made necessary alterations to -- to conceal the 00:38:42 8 information to a prosecuting authority and inaccurate
0636:26 9 scope of -- of the -- of the operation. 0038:45 9 information to a prosecuting authority.
0636:29 10 In addition to that, when I started to 0638:47 10 Now, as to precisely what his state of mind
00:3633 11 compare the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the David -- 063649 11 was when he was producing the incomplete and inaccurate
00:3638 12 excuse me. I am going to get a drink. 0638:52 12 information, that remains to be this -- you know, that
00:36:42 13 When I started to compare the -- oh, I'm 00:3854 13 was one of the topics that I was hoping could have been
00:36:46 14 sorry. I should be looking at the camera. 0638:56 14 covered in -- in the depositions here in the last two
0636:48 15 When I started -- when I started to compare 00:38:59 15 days, but unfortunately, there wasn't sufficient time.
00:36:49 16 the Dave Rogers' flight logs with the Dershowitz -- 00;39:03 16 Q. Let me ask it a different way. You -- you
0636:54 17 which we call them the Dershowitz flight logs, which 063605 17 gave a long answer in which you described reasons you
00:36:55 18 were the logs that he had produced, there were 00,39,08 18 apparently believe that these flight logs were not
063658 19 inconsistencies, and so it struck me as odd that there 00:39:13 19 merely incomplete, but that someone had false --
0637:03 20 were these inconsistent flight logs. 00:39:16 20 falsified them. And did I understand you correctly?
0637:03 21 The other thing that I noticed is, I don't 00:39:20 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The question that
00:3765 22 believe that Dave Rogers was the exclusive pilot for 00:3622 22 was asked was limited to the time period prior to
0637:08 23 Mr. Epstein. And so I had a concern -- excuse me. I'm 00:3626 23 December 30th. The answer that was given was
00:3713 24 sorry. 0639,29 24 limited to the time period prior to December
00:37:13 25 I had a concern that the flight logs that -- 00:3631 25 30th.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 188 to 191 of 335 10 of 46 sheets
192 194
00:39:32 1 Are you now asking for an expansion of that 00:42:08 1 Another thing that happened during the
00:39:35 2 response to include information that's been 00:42:10 2 deposition, and I will not repeat what was said in the
00:39:38 3 gathered since December 30th? 00:42:14 3 deposition, because there was immediately an objection
00:39:40 4 MR. SIMPSON: I will take your objection to 00,42:17 4 from Ms. McCawley, but there were two points in the
00:39:43 5 the form. 00:42:19 5 deposition where Mr. Dershowitz made representations
00.3944 6 Can we have the question back? 00:42:22 6 about what a New York Attorney David Boies would say,
00:39:44 7 (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read 00:42:25 7 and I'm not going into any ....-
00:40:05 8 by the reporter.) 00:42:27 8 Q. I -- I just want to say if he starts talking
004006 9 MR. SCAROLA: And I object. The question is 00:42:30 9 about it --
00:40:07 10 vague and ambiguous because it fails to identify 00:42:31 10 MS. McCAWLEY: No, I -- I object to any
00:40:09 11 the time period about which you are inquiring. 00:42:32 11 reference --
00:4009 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:42:33 12 MR. SIMPSON: -- then I get to ask all the
00:40:14 13 Q. Mr. Cassell, as you sit here today, are you 00:42:34 13 questions if he should say anything.
00:40:18 14 prepared, based on the information you have available to 0042:34 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I think he's just
00:40:21 15 you, to assert that Professor Dershowitz intentionally 00:42:35 15 acknowledging that -- I'm sorry. I think he's
00:40:28 16 provided misleading or doctored documents to a 00:42:37 16 acknowledging that that occurred. I object to
00:40:34 17 prosecuting authority? 00:42:39 17 any -- any discussion of any settlement
00:40:37 18 A. So based on all the information I have today? 00:42:43 18 communications in the context of that privilege.
00:40:39 19 Q. Yes. 00:42:44 19 MR. SCAROLA: I don't intend to get into any
00:40:40 20 A. Yes. 00:42:48 20 settlement discussions. We are not going to
0040:40 21 Q. What do you base -- what is the basis for 00:4250 21 repeat the substance of the objected-to
00:40:44 22 that conclusion, and include information up until today? 0042:51 22 testimony.
00:40:48 23 A. All right. So, obviously, that's an 00:42:51 23 MR. SIMPSON: My point, I just want it to be
00:40:51 24 open-ended question. 00:4254 24 on notice --
00:40:52 25 Q. I -- just answer the question, please, as 0042:54 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
193 195
00:40:55 1 best you can. 00:4255 1 MR. SIMPSON: -- is if this witness starts
00:4055 2 A. Sure. All right. Well, let me just -- 00:4256 2 saying anything about his communications or why
00:40:58 3 that's a lot -- there's a lot of things to get into on 00:43:00 3 he -- he's coming to a conclusion, he's putting
00:41:00 4 that. 00:43:02 4 that forth as a basis, he has opened the door.
00:41:02 5 Let's start with the events of the last two 00:43:05 5 You can't put it forth and park and not let
00:41:05 6 days, the deposition of Mr. Dershowitz, which in my mind 00:43:07 6 me ask for all the discussions.
00:41:10 7 demonstrates repeated false statements that were made by 00:43:09 7 MR. SCAROLA: You can -- you can proceed and
00,41:14 8 Mr. Dershowitz. 00:43:10 8 you know not to include privileged --
00:41:15 9 Let's begin with the overarching point about 00:43:10 9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
0041:18 10 the deposition of the last two days. I've been 0043:13 10 MR. SCAROLA: -- communications.
00:41:20 11 practicing law -- law since about 1986. And in my 00:43:13 11 THE WITNESS: There was a newspaper that
00:41:26 12 experience, I have never seen a more evasive effort to 00:43:15 12 reported -- a Florida business newspaper that
00:41:30 13 avoid answering questions, and to essentially run out 00:43:18 13 promptly after Mr. Dershowitz said that Mr. Boies
00:41:34 14 the clock so that detailed questions could not be asked 00:43:21 14 had made certain representations, a Florida --
00:41:38 15 by my attorney. And I witnessed over the last two days, 00:4324 15 respected Florida business newspaper immediately
00:41:41 16 Mr. Dershowitz was asked a series of very simple 00:43:27 16 reported that David Boies had said, that was a
00:41:44 17 questions; where were you on this day; or what's the 00:43:29 17 false statement.
00:41:46 18 name; or what time, things like that, and instead of, 00:43:31 18 And in light of that, I now had David Boies
0041:49 19 you know, giving an -- an immediate answer, he ended up 00:43:34 19 saying that Mr. Dershowitz was making false
00:4153 20 giving a very extended answer commonly punctuated with 0043:37 20 statements under oath during the -- the
00:4157 21 disparaging remarks that seemed to have nothing to do 00:43:38 21 deposition that occurred over the last two days.
00:42:00 22 with answering the question. 00:43:41 22 In addition to that, I had -- again, during
00:42:01 23 So I drew the inference from that that 00:43:44 23 the deposition, I heard Mr. Dershowitz say that
00:42:03 24 Mr. Dershowitz did not want to answer questions over the 00:43:48 24 Attorney Bob Josefsberg had said that -- words to
00:42:07 25 last two days. 0043:52 25 the effect that he, Josefsberg, did not believe
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
11 of 46 sheets Page 192 to 195 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
196 198
00:43:54 1 Virginia Roberts. 0646:02 1 You know, I also have -- I would like to
0643:55 2 I knew Josefsberg was an attorney who had 0646:05 2 refresh my recollection and if -- if counsel --
0044:00 3 represented Miss Roberts based on public 064610 3 that's --
00:4460 4 information, and I knew that that would be a 00:46:10 4 MR. SCAROLA: You can refresh your
00:4462 5 gross violation of Mr. Josefsberg's 0646:12 5 recollection on anything you need to.
00:4464 6 attorney/client obligations. And as a result of 00:4612 6 THE WITNESS: All right. I'd like to refresh
0644:09 7 that, it seemed to me that, once again, 00;46:15 7 my recollection by looking at -
064466 8 Mr. Dershowitz was giving false information under 0646:16 8 MR. SIMPSON: Actually, I -- I object to this
00:4412 9 oath in an effort to exculpate himself from the 00:4617 9 answer as nonresponsive. I haven't heard
064417 10 sex trafficking that he had been involved with. 0646:20 10 anything about flight logs once.
0644:19 11 In addition to that, I learned during the 00:46:21 11 MR. SCAROLA: You can continue.
00:44:21 12 deposition on Thursday that it had, quote, not 00:4623 12 THE WITNESS: These -- you know, these all go
00:44:26 13 crossed my mind, close quote -- I believe that's 0646:27 13 to the statements.
00:44:29 14 a direct quote from Mr. Dershowitz -- to record a 00:46,27 14 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:44:31 15 conversation with a woman allegedly named Rebecca 0646:28 15 Q. You're looking at a document?
0644:34 16 who had allegedly made certain statements. That 064629 16 A. Yeah. Let's mark it as an exhibit if you'd
0644:37 17 was on Thursday. 00:4632 17 like. This is a memory aid to me.
0644:38 18 And then yesterday, Friday, I learned that 00:46:34 18 Q. Did you prepare it?
00:44:40 19 Mr. Dershowitz, not only had it crossed his mind 00:46:35 19 A. Yes, I did. All right. Let's see. At page
00:44:43 20 to make a recording, he had, in fact, made such a 00:464220 114 of a rough transcript that I saw prepared of
00:44:47 21 recording; and in fact, had it transcribed; and 00:46:46 21 Thursday's testimony, Mr. Dershowitz was asked. Quote:
0644:50 22 in fact, turned it over to his attorneys. So, 0646:50 22 You know that Virginia Roberts is not the only person
00:44:53 23 once again, I had what appeared to be a false 0646,5223 who has sworn under oath that you were present at
00:44:56 24 statement under oath by Mr. Dershowitz in an 00:46:55 24 Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home with young girls,
00:44:58 25 attempt to exculpate himself from the -- the sex 00:46:59 25 right? Answer: No.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
197 199
00:45:03 1 trafficking that we -- we have evidence he has 00:4762 1 That seemed to me to be false or at the very
00:45:06 2 been involved with. 00:47:05 2 least misleading testimony given that Mr. Dershowitz
00:45:06 3 The false statements or certainly misleading 0047:07 3 knew that Juan Alessi, among potentially other people,
00:45:12 4 statements continue. I suppose, some of these 00:4711 4 had identified him as having been in the presence of
00:45:14 5 could be a matter of judgment. The -- they raise 00:47:14 5 Jeffrey Epstein and young girls at the Florida mansion
0645:18 6 grave concern to me. 00:4717 6 and, indeed, had identified a photograph of Virginia
0645:18 7 One of them was that we had propounded an 00:4720 7 Roberts.
00:45:20 8 interrogatory requesting the basis for 064721 8 At page 164 of the transcript, Mr. Dershowitz
00:4523 9 Mr. Dershowitz's statements that Virginia Roberts 00:47:25 9 was asked, quote: All of the manifests that have been
00:45126 10 had a criminal record. And he said that, well, 00:47:28 10 produced in this litigation, the ones that you say
00:45:29 11 she's admitted that she had sex with various 0647:31 11 corroborate your testimony and exonerate you,
00:45:32 12 people, so that renders her a criminal, and 00:47:34 12 demonstrate that you never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's
00:45:34 13 something along those lines, which I didn't think 0647:37 13 plane in the company of your wife, correct? Answer:
0645,36 14 was very accurate. 0647:41 14 No, that's not true. I don't know that.
00:45:38 15 But in any event, that was the answer he 00:47:44 15 And, again, in the context of this litigation
00.45:39 16 gave. And then I learned during the deposition 0647:46 16 where the flight logs have been, as this question that
00:45:42 17 in the last two days, that Mr. Dershowitz had 00:47:48 17 I'm answering tends to show, are so central for
00:45:45 18 received information that he says shows that 00:47:52 18 Mr. Dershowitz to testify under oath that he didn't know
00:45:48 19 Virginia Roberts had stolen money from a 06A7:56 19 whether his wife was depicted on the flight log, struck
00:45:50 20 restaurant and had been criminally charged with 00:47:59 20 me as, at the very least, misleading information, but I
0645:51 21 that. 00.4862 21 concluded in my opinion was actually deliberately false
00:45:52 22 That was not produced to us during discovery, 0648:05 22 information, particularly, given this litigation where
00:45:54 23 even though it would have been obviously 0648:08 23 he has produced, not only his own personal travel
0645,56 24 relevant, and it was directly called for in the 0648,11 24 record, but all of his wife's travel records for the
00:45:59 25 discovery that we were provided with. 0648:14 25 relevant period of time.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 196 to 199 of 335 12 of 46 sheets
200 202
00:48:15 1 So I thought that was, again, a deliberate 00:50:41 1 logs. And I could refresh my recollection here by
00:48:19 2 false statement under oath designed to exculpate him 00:50:45 2 looking at, I think it's docket entry 291 of our
00:48:22 3 from his criminal involvement in this international sex 00:50:49 3 pleading that we presented on January 21st to
00:48:26 4 trafficking ring. 00:50:51 4 Judge Marra where we provided specific itemized examples
00:48:27 5 At another point in the transcript, he was 00:50:54 5 of inconsistencies between the Dave Rogers' flight log
00:4829 6 asked, quote, -- no, I'm sorry. He stated, quote: I 00:50:58 6 and the -- again, I'll call it, the Alan Dershowitz
00:48:32 7 challenge you to find any statement where I said I have 00:51:01 7 flight log, which was a selected presentation of flight
00:48:35 8 never traveled outside the presence of my wife, close 00:51,03 8 log information.
00:48:38 9 quote, representing that there would be no such 00:51:04 9 And when you see those inconsistencies, it
00:48:42 10 statement there, when, in fact, I'm aware of an American 00:51:06 10 becomes very hard to believe that all of the information
00:48:45 11 Lawyer quotation attributed to him from January 15th, 00:51:09 11 that was provided in those flight logs was accurate. So
00:48:48 12 2015, quote: I've been married to the same woman for 28 00:51:11 12 when I take all of that information, put it together, I
00:48:52 13 years. She goes with me everywhere, close quote. And, 00:51:14 13 believe that there's sufficient -- I have a sufficient
00:48:56 14 again, you know, this -- I understand sometimes people 00:51:17 14 basis for believing at this point in time, that
00'4869 15 may go away from their wife, but the American Lawyer 00:51:19 15 Mr. Dershowitz has, indeed, provided inaccurate
00:49:01 16 was, obviously, on January 15th, 2015, asking about: 0651:22 16 information to -- to law enforcement agencies, or at a
00:49:05 17 Well, have you been outside the presence of your wife in 00:51:25 17 minimum has provided -- has produced inaccurate
00:49:08 18 situations where you might have interacted with Virginia 00:51:29 18 information through circumstances beyond his control.
00:49:10 19 Roberts? And that was the answer that he gave to the 00:51:32 19 But when he continually represents that the
00:49:12 20 American Lawyer. 00:51:34 20 information is accurate and exonerates him, I believe
00:49:13 21 And based on -- on my review of the flight 00:51:37 21 that that is a deliberately false statement.
00:49:15 22 logs, I thought that was, again, a deliberate effort to 00:51:41 22 MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the answer --
00:49:20 23 obscure and try to exculpate himself from his 00,51:42 23 the nonresponsive portion of the answer.
00:49:23 24 involvement in this international sex trafficking ring. 00:51:46 24 MR. SCAROLA: Which portion is that?
00:49:26 25 The -- he also said yesterday: Nobody knows 00:51:47 25 MR. SIMPSON: 99 percent of it. I think at
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
201 203
00:49:33 1 about Prince Andrew and Virginia, except for the two of 00:51:50 1 the end, we got to the flight logs.
00:49:36 2 them. And, again, I thought that was at a minimum, 00:51:52 2 I move to strike the nonresponsive portion.
00:49:39 3 deliberately mis -- misleading information and more 00:51:54 3 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:49:41 4 likely deliberately false information, because 00:51:55 4 Q. Mr. Cassell, you came here today looking for
00:49:43 5 Mr. Dershowitz was aware of the photograph and had long 00:51:57 5 an opportunity to give that statement; did you not?
00:49:47 6 been aware of the photograph that shows Prince Andrew 00:51:59 6 A. If it was relevant to an answer I was giving,
0649:50 7 with his arm around Virginia Roberts, standing next to a 00:52:03 7 yes.
00:49:53 8 beaming Glenn Maxwell who has been involved in this 00:52:03 8 Q. The answer to my question is, yes, you came
00:4966 9 international sex trafficking organization. 00:52:05 9 here today looking for a question to which you could
00:49:59 10 And in the circumstances of that photograph, 0652:08 10 respond with that prepared statement?
00:50:01 11 it seems quite likely that the photographer who took 00:52:10 11 A. I was prepared to give that -- I anticipated
00:50;04 12 that picture was the head of the international sex 00:52:13 12 that a very good attorney for Mr. Dershowitz might ask a
00:50:07 13 trafficking ring, Jeffrey Epstein. And so for him to 00:5215 13 question where that would be relevant. And if that
00:50:10 14 say that only two people knew what went on was, again, 00:52:18 14 question were asked and I was given the opportunity to
00:5014 15 deliberately false information, because I know he is the 00:52:20 15 make that statement, I wanted to be prepared to give it
0650:17 16 attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and he could have asserted 00:52:23 16 in the most accurate way that I could.
00:50:20 17 attorney/client privilege over that, said, I can't get 00:52:25 17 MR. SIMPSON: I would like the reporter to
00:50:22 18 into my communications with my client about what he was 00:52:27 18 mark as Exhibit -- are we up to 4 -- Exhibit 4,
00:50:25 19 doing with Prince Andrew. 00:52:31 19 the document that Mr. Cassell was referring to.
00:50:26 20 But instead he said, no one knows what 00:52:34 20 I'll let the reporter do that.
00:50:29 21 happened, other than those two people in circumstances 00:52:36 21 THE WITNESS: Okay.
00:50:31 22 where it was quite clear that there would have been 00:52:36 22 (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 4 - document
00:50:34 23 others who would have been aware of that. 00:52:36 23 produced by the witness was marked for identification.)
00:50:35 24 Now, the question is: Why do I think the -- 0652:59 24 MR. SIMPSON: I just want to make that part
00:50:39 25 the -- you know, there are inaccuracies in the flight 00:53:00 25 of the record.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
13 of 46 sheets Page 200 to 203 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
204 206
00:53:00 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 065568 1 perfectly clear.
0653:02 2 Q. Before Wednesday of this week, you had none 006568 2 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:5367 3 of the information that you just described about 00:55:08 3 Q. My question, Mr. Cassell, is: You reviewed
00:53:10 4 Professor Dershowitz's testimony, correct? 0065:11 4 the flight logs, correct?
00:53:12 5 A. Correct. 00:55:12 5 A. Correct.
0653,12 6 Q. I'm trying to look at my notes here of your 0055:12 6 Q. You reviewed them in some detail, correct?
0653:28 7 long answer, but one thing you indicated that -- was the 00:55:14 7 A. Correct.
00:53:30 8 fact that Professor Dershowitz gave long answers is 00:55:15 8 Q. Is there any entry on those flight lines -
00:53'34 9 somehow indicative of false answers or perjury -- 00:5617 9 logs that you read as putting Professor Dershowitz and
065314 10 MR. SCAROLA: That is -- 00:55:21 10 Miss Roberts on the same plane?
00:53:34 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:55:23 11 A. No.
0653'19 12 Q. -- is that right? 00:5624 12 Q. And so your testimony about questions about
00,53:39 13 MR. SCAROLA: That is an absolute 00:55:26 13 the completeness and accuracy of those flight logs goes
00:53:40 14 mischaracterization of the statement that 00:55:33 14 to whether the logs are -- let me rephrase that.
00:53:43 15 Professor Cassell made. He did not refer to the 00:55:39 15 The answer that you gave about your question
0653:47 16 length of the answers, but rather their 00:55:43 16 as -- your views as to the completeness of the flight
0653:47 17 nonresponsiveness. 00:55:47 17 logs and whether they may have been changed in some
0653:47 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 065650 18 ways, goes to whether those logs are conclusive, not
00:53:52 19 Q. Let me -- let me ask a different question. 00:55:54 19 whether they, in fact, support Professor Dershowitz's
00:53:55 20 Go back to the flight logs themselves. 00:55:5820 testimony that he was not on a plane with Virginia
065367 21 A. Okay. 065662 21 Roberts?
0653:57 22 Q. My initial question that got us going down 00:56:03 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the form
03:54:01 23 this line was: Isn't it true that the flight logs 065664 23 of the question as vague and ambiguous. I don't
00:54:05 24 themselves support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that 00:56:08 24 understand it.
00:54:13 25 he was never on a plane with Virginia Roberts, the face
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
00,56:08 25 THE WITNESS: And I won't give a long answer,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
205 207
00:54:17 1 of the flight logs support that proposition? 065668 1 but I -- I think, as I previously indicated, you
00:5420 2 A. The face of the flight logs for the relevant 00:5611 2 can't just look at the face of these documents
00:54:23 3 period of time, we can call it the hot period of time or 006614 3 without -- with -- you know, against the context
065425 4 whatever you want, did not reveal the presence of 0656:17 4 of an international sex trafficking ring that's
00:54:27 5 Mr. Dershowitz on those flights, yes. 00:56:19 5 trying to cover up what it's doing. You cant
00. 54:29 6 Q. Okay. So during the period -- well, 00:56:21 6 just look and documents and assume that they are
0654,32 7 actually, there's no flight log that shows Virginia 0656:22 7 100 percent accurate without that -- having that
00:54:34 8 Roberts and Professor Dershowitz on the same airplane, 00:5624 8 context in mind.
00:54:37 9 correct? 00,56:20 9 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:54,37 10 A. That's my understanding, yes. 00:5626 10 Q. And so am I right, that on the face of the
0054:39 11 Q. And -- 0656.29 11 flight logs, there's nothing showing Virginia Roberts
00:54:39 12 MR. SCAROLA: By name. You're -- you're -- 0066:32 12 and Professor Dershowitz on the same plane?
0654:39 13 MS. McCAWLEY: And it -- 00:56:35 13 A. That's correct.
00:54:41 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- asking whether she was there 0656:35 14 Q. And -- go on.
00:54:43 15 identified by name? 0656:40 15 And so do I understand correctly that your
0654:45 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 06566716 position is that the flight logs may not be complete or
00:54:47 17 Q. To your knowledge, isn't it correct that 00:57:06 17 may have been changed, but you do not dispute, that on
00:54:49 18 there is no flight log that's been produced in this case 00:57:10 18 their face, they support Professor Dershowitz's
00:54:51 19 by any party that reflects Professor Dershowitz and 00:57,13 19 testimony?
065465 20 Virginia Roberts on the same plane, as you read the 00:57714 20 MR. SCAROLA: Objection.
00:5468 21 flight log? 00:57:16 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection.
00:54:59 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you asking 0657:16 22 MR. SCAROLA: Compound.
0065:02 23 whether those same names appear on the flight log 0067:16 23 THE WITNESS: Could you just aggregate that?
00:55:06 24 together? 00:57:19 24 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:55:06 25 MR. SIMPSON: My question, I think, is 0067:20 25 Q. You follow the objections very well.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 204 to 207 of 335 14 of 46 sheets
208 210
0057:22 1 A. I was thinking of that as well. 00:5008 1 A. I recall his testimony to that effect, yes.
00:57:22 2 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00,59:10 2 Q. And you testified that no support for that
00:57:22 3 Q. Let me -- 00:59:14 3 had been produced in discovery; is that correct?
00:57:23 4 A. I wasn't -- 00:59:16 4 A. That's my understanding, yes.
09:5723 5 Q. Let me -- 0059:17 5 Q. Isn't it true that in Mr. Alessi's
00:57:25 6 A. -- following their answer. 00:59:20 6 deposition, he describes that under oath and says that
00:57:25 7 Q. Let me -- let me just ask a different 00:5023 7 it happened?
00:57:27 8 question. 0059:24 8 A. I don't have a recollection of criminal
00:57:27 9 A. Sure. Thanks. 00:59:27 9 charges having been discussed in the Alessi deposition.
00:57:31 10 Q. You testified that you have -- at some 0015901 10 Q. Is it -- well, let me -- let me ask you: Is
00:57:35 11 length, about why you question the accuracy of the 005904 11 it your testimony that you understood that, in fact,
00:57:40 12 flight logs, correct? 00:59:40 12 Miss Roberts had been accused of stealing money from her
00:57:43 13 A. Correct. 00:59:44 13 employer?
00:57:43 14 Q. But I may be redundant, but you don't 00:59:47 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the
00:57.45 15 question that what they show on their face supports 00:5048 15 extent it gets into any conversations that you
00:57:48 16 Professor Dershowitz's testimony -- 00:59:49 16 had with Virginia on any of these issues.
00:57:48 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 005052 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm trying to -- if your
00:57:48 18 BY MR. SIMPSON: 00:59:55 18 question is about the Alessi depo, I don't --
00:57:50 19 Q. -- that he was not on a plane with Virginia 00:59:58 19 don't immediately recall him discussing --
00:57:52 20 Roberts? otcaol 20 discussing them.
00:57:53 21 A. The -- you know, the -- the sex trafficking 01:00:03 21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
00:57:56 22 ring run by Jeffrey Epstein has produced Epstein flight 01:00:04 22 Q. If I represent to you that Mr. Alessi, in his
00:57:59 23 logs that appear to show that -- that Dershowitz and 01:00,07 23 deposition, referred to a police report and an arrest of
005804 24 Virginia Roberts are not on the plane, so... otooll 24 Miss Roberts, do you have any reason to question that?
00:58:06 25 Q. So the answer to my question is, yes? 01:001325 MR. SCAROLA: Could we -- could we pull out
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
209 211
00:5809 1 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. 01:0014 1 the deposition? And if you have got a reference
00:58:09 2 THE WITNESS: Which question now? 010016 2 in the deposition, lets take a look at it.
00:58:10 3 MR. SIMPSON: The question you just -- could 0100:17 3 MR. SIMPSON: I'm just asking for his
00:58:12 4 you read back my -- my question and the answer? 01,00:18 4 recollection right now. The document will speak
00:58:12 5 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:00:20 5 for itself. But I want to --
00:58:31 6 Q. Let me ask it again. 01,00:21 6 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, it will.
00:58:31 7 A. Okay. 01:0021 7 MR. SIMPSON: He -- he made a very serious
00:58:31 8 Q. That's fine. 01100:23 8 accusation. I would like to get an answer to my
00:5033 9 A. I mean, I thought I was -- 01:00:25 9 question. Does he recall whether, in that
00:58:33 10 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending. 01:0027 10 deposition that all the parties in this case
00:58:34 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 01:0029 11 have, Mr. Alessi said under oath, that she had
00:58:35 12 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:00:32 12 been arrested and charged with stealing from her
00:58:35 13 Q. What were you about to say? 01:00:34 13 employer.
00.58:36 14 A. I was about to say that the records that they 01:00:35 14 THE WITNESS: When you -- the question built
00:58:39 15 produced -- I'm -- I'm sorry... 01:00:37 15 in a serious accusation, the -- the -- the -- the
00:58:42 16 Q. The records -- the records that were 01:00:39 16 statement I was making is that we had propounded
0058:44 17 produced -- 01:00:42 17 an interrogatory to Mr. Dershowitz saying:
0058,44 18 A. On -- on their face, I cannot give you a 0100:44 18 What's the basis for your assertion that
0058:47 19 flight log that has Virginia Roberts and Alan Dershowitz 01:0046 19 Miss Roberts had a criminal record? And that
00:5850 20 sitting next to each other, yes. 01:00:49 20 answer didn't refer to an Alessi depo. If it --
005051 21 Q. And you also -- you also testified a moment 01.00:51 21 this is one of the problems that I'm having.
0058:54 22 ago that Professor Dershowitz in his testimony in the 01:00:53 22 When -- when -- you know, when you come into
0058:57 23 last couple of days, had testified that Virginia Roberts 0100:56 23 a deposition, both sides are supposed to turn
0059:03 24 had been arrested for stealing cash; do you refer -- do 01,00:58 24 everything over. And then if I get a question
0059:08 25 you recall that? 01:01:00 25 about, well, what if -- you know, we're relying
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
15 of 46 sheets Page 208 to 211 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
212 214
01:0101 1 on this piece of the Alessi depo and it's not in 01:02:48 1 Mr. Alessi had also testified previously about the
01:01:03 2 the answers to interrogatories, it's hard for me 01:0254 2 arrest of Miss Roberts for stealing from her employer?
01:01:05 3 to -- to give an answer to that. So -- so that's 01:02:57 3 A. I didn't recall that. If that's in there,
01:0107 4 the -- that's the concern I have. 01:03:00 4 you're -- you're making a representation, and I know
01:01:10 5 MR. SIMPSON: I move -- I move to strike as 01:03:01 5 you're a fine lawyer, so I'll accept your
01:01:11 6 nonresponsive. 01:03:04 6 representation.
01:01:11 7 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:03:05 7 I didn't recall that when he was testifying
01:01,12 8 Q. My question went to whether -- let me back 01:03:06 8 a -- a day or two ago on that subject.
01:01:18 9 up. If -- if I'm -- unless I misunderstood you -- 01:0315 9 MR. SCAROLA: We have been going for about an
01:01:21 10 MR. SCAROLA: The question was: Did he 01:0317 10 hour. Is it time to take a break? Is that
01:01:23 11 recall the contents -- 01:03:19 11 convenient for you?
01:0123 12 MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking the question. 01:0319 12 MR. SIMPSON: We can take a break now.
01:01:23 13 MR. SCAROLA: -- of the Alessi deposition. 010321 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video
01:01:24 14 MR. SIMPSON: I'm withdrawing it. I will ask 01:0322 14 record, 9:35 a.m.
01:0125 15 a new question. 0115:01 15 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
01:01:26 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. 01:15:01 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video
01:01:26 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:15:28 17 record, 9:47 a.m.
0101:27 18 Q. I understood you in your -- the long answer 01:15:30 18 THE WITNESS: I need to take two minutes, if
01:01:32 19 that you gave a while ago to suggest that Professor 0115:34 19 I may, and just supplement the long answer that I
01,0116 20 Dershowitz had either testified falsely or failed to 01,1524 20 gave about the series of things.
01:01:41 21 provide relevant information on which he was basing his 01:15:36 21 By looking over my checklist, I noticed that
01:01:44 22 testimony about Miss Roberts's arrest; is that right? 01:15:38 22 item 5 of the 12 items was not given during my
01:01:46 23 A. Yes. 01:16:42 23 testimony. I'm -
01:01:46 24 Q. And that assertion would be incorrect if 01:15:42 24 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:01:50 25 there's a deposition in this case that all the parties 01:15:44 25 Q. I don't -- I'm not going to ask about item 5.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
213 215
0101:53 1 have that include that information? 01:15:45 1 It's in the record as part of your -- your -- your --
01:01:55 2 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Simpson, there was an 01:15:49 2 A. I would like to just supplement --
01:01:58 3 express reference to an answer to interrogatory, 0115:50 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. That's fine. If
01:0201 4 and the absence of any reference to an arrest for 01:15:51 4 you don't want to hear it, that's okay.
01:02:05 5 theft in your client's sworn answer to 01:15:51 5 THE WITNESS: I'd like --
01:02,09 6 interrogatory. That's -- 0115,53 6 MR. SCAROLA: Just as long as it's noted that
01:02:09 7 MR. SIMPSON: We -- we -- 0115,54 7 there was an inadvertent omission.
01:02:11 8 MR. SCAROLA: -- exactly what the testimony 01:15:66 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
0102712 9 was. 0115:56 9 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:02:12 10 MR. SIMPSON: If you object to the form, 01:15:58 10 Q. As part of -- I'm going to go back actually
010213 11 please just object to the form. I think it's a 01:16:02 11 to -
01:0215 12 proper question -- 01:16:02 12 A. Sure.
01:02:17 13 MR. SCAROLA: I -- I object -- 01:16:02 13 Q. -- the questions I was asking. One question
01:02:17 14 MR. SIMPSON: -- in our discovery response. 01:16:06 14 about the -- the flight logs again.
01:02:18 15 MR. SCAROLA: -- I object to your 0116:08 15 A. Okay.
01:02:19 16 misrepresentation of the earlier testimony. I'm 01,16:08 16 Q. It's true, is it not, that you have no
01,02:21 17 sure it was not intentional, and that's why I'm 01:16:12 17 personal knowledge as to whether Professor Dershowitz or
01:02:25 18 calling it to your attention so that we don't go 01:1615 18 some other member of Jeffrey Epstein's defense team
01:02:27 19 down a rabbit trail. 01:1621 19 prepared those logs for production to the government?
01:02:30 20 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going down any rabbit 01:16:23 20 A. i don't have personal knowledge of -- of
01:02:32 21 trail. I'm really -- objection to the form will 01:16:25 21 that, that's right.
01:02:34 22 preserve it. 01,1626 22 Q. And you would agree, would you not, that it's
01:02:34 23 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01.16:33 23 the duty of a defense counsel to represent a client
01:0237 24 Q. My question is whether you were aware at the 01:16:38 24 zealously within the bounds of the law, correct?
01:02:44 25 time that Professor Dershowitz testified that, in fact,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
01:16:40 25 A. Correct.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Epstein emails
by admin » Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:10 am
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010757
txt
Cont'd.
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 212 to 215 of 335 16 of 46 sheets
216 218
01:16:41 1 Q. In fact, I think you testified yesterday 01:1919 1 MS. McCAWLEY: The location is fine.
0116:44 2 about your duty with respect to Miss Roberts along those 0119.20 2 THE WITNESS: The location, once
0116:47 3 lines, correct? 01:1922 3 personally -- once here in Florida, and then in
01:16.48 4 A. That's right. 011925 4 my office in -- while in Salt Lake City.
01:16:48 5 Q. And so with respect to Professor Dershowitz's 01:19-25 5 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:16:52 6 representation of Jeffrey Epstein, he would have been 0119:28 6 Q. And are you able to place in time when you
01'16:57 7 acting unethically if he didn't attempt to negotiate the 01.19.29 7 reviewed these portions of the police report, other than
0117:00 8 best resolution for his client that he could, consistent 0119:35 8 before December 30th of 2014?
01:17.05 9 with the law; is that correct? 0119:37 9 A. Not precisely, no.
0117:06 10 A. Right. Consistent with the law, yes. 01:1940 10 Q. And do I understand correctly from your
0117:09 11 Q. And so you wouldn't -- 01:19-42 11 testimony yesterday that that police report is one of
0117:09 12 A. I'm sorry. Let me just -- consistent with 01:19.47 12 the things you relied on to support making the
01:1711 13 the law and with the ethical obligations of attorneys. 01_19:51 13 allegations against Professor Dershowitz that are
01:17:14 14 Attorneys cannot make, for example, false 0119:54 14 included in the joinder motion?
01:17:16 15 representations when they are negotiating those kinds of 01:19:56 15 A. That's right.
011718 16 things. 0119:56 16 Q. It's also true, is it not, that that police
0117:18 17 Q. Right. The duty as a defense counsel, 01:20:01 17 report includes an interview with an adult woman who was
01.17:22 18 Professor Dershowitz's duty was to attempt to obtain the 0120:07 18 retained to provide massages at Jeffrey Epstein's
01:1727 19 best resolution he could for Jeffrey Epstein consistent 01:20:11 19 residence for guests, among others; isn't that correct?
01:17:31 20 with the law and legal ethics, correct? 01:20:14 20 A. I believe that's correct.
01:17:34 21 A. That's correct. 01:20:16 21 Q. And based on that, is it your testimony that
01:17:34 22 Q. And, in fact, if he had not done that, he 01:20:20 22 it's fair to presume that a reference that a guest got a
01:17:39 23 would have been acting unethically, correct? 01:20:24 23 massage is a code word for abusing a minor sexually?
01:17741 24 A. That's correct. 01:20:31 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you -- are you
01:17:41 25 Q. And would you agree that it would be 01:2033 25 isolating --
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
217 219
01:17:46 1 inappropriate, totally inappropriate, to infer anything 0120.33 1 MR. SIMPSON: I don't -- I don't want a
01:17:55 2 negative about an attorney because the attorney 01:2034 2 speech, Mr. Scarola. If you object to the form,
01:17:58 3 represented someone accused of heinous crimes? 01:20:36 3 object to the form, and I -- if its not a proper
01:18:01 4 A. Just the fact of representation alone? 0120:38 4 question --
01:18:04 5 Q. Yes. 01:20.38 5 MR. SCAROLA: I want a clarification of the
0118:04 6 A. Yeah, that's right. Sure, of course, 01:20:39 6 question, please. Are you isolating only that
0118:06 7 everyone is entitled to a defense. 01:20:36 7 piece --
01:18:08 8 Q. As -- before December 30th of 2014, had you 01:2039 8 MR. SIMPSON: I -- the question --
01:1818 9 reviewed the Palm Beach Police report? 01-20,41 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- of information?
01:1822 10 A. Portions of it, yes. 0120:42 10 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I am asking a question
01:18:23 11 Q. Had you reviewed the entire report? 0120:45 11 that's perfectly clear. If you think it's
01:18:25 12 A. I think I reviewed most of it, but I don't 0120:46 12 objectionable, it wont -- it will stand.
0118'31 13 think I've gone through it page by page. 01:20'49 13 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object on the
01:18:3214 Q. When did you do that? 01:20:5014 basis that it is vague and ambiguous. It is
0118'35 15 A. Well, let's see. Before December 30th, 2014, 01:20:53 15 unclear whether you're asking for him --
01:18:41 16 Brad and I filed the case in about July 2008, so it was 0120:55 16 MR. SIMPSON: Please don't coach the witness.
01:18:49 17 about a six-year period of time, and I remember I'd been 01:20:56 17 MR. SCAROLA: -- to isolate -- to isolate his
01:18:56 18 to Florida a couple of times on this case, once in 2010 01:20:59 18 focus to that single piece of evidence.
01,19:03 19 and I think another a year or two later. And I 01:20:59 19 MR. SIMPSON: I object on the coaching of the
01:19:07 20 remember, at least on one of those times, reviewing the 0121:01 20 witness.
01:19:09 21 report here with -- I don't know if I can... 0121:01 21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:1915 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I wouldn't go into 01:21:02 22 Q. My question is: Is it reasonable,
01:19:15 23 anything. 0121:06 23 considering that the police report on its face shows
01:1915 24 THE WITNESS: To the -- right. So we just -- 012111 24 evidence -- let me back this up. Ask another question
01:19:15 25 we just want to know -- 0121,16 25 to you.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
17 of 46 sheets Page 216 to 219 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
220 222
01:21:16 1 Are you aware that the police report reflects 01:23:34 1 A. That sounds accurate with the information I
01:21:21 2 that the woman I referred to who was hired to give 01,23:37 2 have, yes, she doesn't sound like she would fit his
01;2124 3 massages, told them that she never touched anyone 01:23:40 3 type.
01:21:28 4 inappropriately? 01:23:40 4 Q. And so do you agree with me then --
012129 5 A. I think that there are -- there is 01:23:42 5 A. And she's over the age of 18, which is
0121:32 6 information along those lines in the police report, yes. 01:23:44 6 another reason why wouldn't fit his type, so...
01:21:34 7 Q. Okay. And so do you acknowledge that the 01:2/47 7 Q. But you acknowledge that -- that this
01:21:37 8 police report, on its face, reflects both reports of 01:23:50 8 woman -- that the police report reflects a woman over --
01:21:41 9 massages that involved improper sexual contact -- 01:2154 9 well over the age of 18, being hired to give perfectly
01:21:45 10 contact and massages that were perfectly legitimate? 01:23:57 10 legitimate massages, correct?
0121:50 11 A. Yes, but not in the same proportion. 01:23:58 11 A. Yeah. That was cover for the sex trafficking
01:21:54 12 Q. My question wasn't proportion. The -- the 01:24:01 12 that was going on.
01:21:57 13 report on its face, you understood, reflected that there 01:24:01 13 Q. Okay. So you're now -- does the police
01:22:01 14 were massages given at Mr. Epstein's residence that were 0124:04 14 report say "it was cover" --
01:22:06 15 perfectly legitimate? 01:24:04 15 A. That was --
01:22:08 16 A. Some -- it was basically a few isolated 01:24:05 16 Q. -- "for the sex trafficking"?
0112:13 17 examples from what I could see. 01:24:07 17 A. That was my conclusion when I reviewed the
0122:14 18 Q. So you would characterize what was said in 01:24:09 18 materials.
01:22:18 19 the police report as "a few isolated examples"? 0124:09 19 Q. Okay. So your inclusion is that a
01:2221 20 A. Well, given the backdrop that they had -- 01:24:11 20 fair-minded reader of the police report would come to
012225 21 Q. No. My question -- it's a yes or no 01:24:14 21 that conclusion?
01:22:26 22 question. Is that how you would characterize it? 01:24:15 22 A. December 30th of 2014, knowing what we know
0122:27 23 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The witness is not 01:24:18 23 now, yes.
01:22:29 24 confined to answering yes or no, if yes or no 01:24:19 24 Q. Do you consider yourself a very suspicious
01:22:31 25 would be misleading. 01:24:24 25 person?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
01:22:33 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:24:25 1 A. No.
221 223
01:22:33 2 Q. It's a different position than was taken 01:24:25 2 Q. Do you consider yourself a conspira -- having
01:22:35 3 previously, but -- 0124:31 3 a conspiratorial view?
01:22:36 4 A. I mean, I was just going to give one 0124:31 4 A. Absolutely not.
01:22:38 5 sentence, and the one sentence would be, in the context 01:24:34 5 Q. Do you consider yourself a crusader?
01:22:41 6 of this whole police report where they had 24, 01:24:35 6 A. Well, crusader for justice, I would say, yes.
01:22:44 7 approximately, minor girls who were -- who were being 01:24,41 7 Q. If -- let me put it this way: In your view,
01:22:47 8 sexually abused, the references to legitimate massages I 01:24:49 8 is evidence that a person, any person, any guest at
01:22:51 9 would view as isolated. 01:24:54 9 Mr. Epstein's house had a massage, evidence that that
0122:53 10 Q. So you're coming to the conclusion, looking 0125:01 10 person engaged in criminal sexual conduct, contact with
01:22:56 11 at the police report, that they are isolated; is that 01:25:07 11 minors, because of the fact of having a massage?
0122:59 12 right? 01:25:13 12 A. You'd have to look at the context.
01:225913 A. Yes. 01:25:16 13 Q. On its own, is it any evidence -- doesn't
01:23:01 14 Q. And do you think a fair-minded reader of the 01:25:19 14 it -- is it any evidence at all, in your view?
0123:04 15 police report would reach that conclusion? 01:2521 15 A. It would be some evidence, yes.
01:23:05 16 A. Absolutely. 0125:22 16 Q. Notwithstanding that the report, on its face,
01:23:07 17 Q. And were you aware that the police report, to 0125:26 17 reflects both legitimate and illegitimate massages?
01:2112 18 give a bit more detail, reflected that a woman who was 01,25:30 18 A. The report on its face, let's be clear,
01:23:14 19 described as having tattoos was hired to give 01:25:32 19 reflects a lot of illegitimate sag -- massages and a
0123:17 20 deep-tissue Swedish massages. Do you recall that being 0125:36 20 sporadic or isolated, you know, legitimate massages. So
01:23:20 21 in the -- in the police report? 01:25:38 21 the fact that somebody gets a massage in that context,
01:23:22 22 A. Something along those lines, yes. 0125:42 22 I -- I think is -- is -- raises, you know, the concerns
01:23:23 23 Q. And she also -- that woman also told the 01:25:45 23 we have been talking about.
51:23:26 24 police that she was not Jeffrey Epstein's type, that she 01:25:47 24 Q. Did you, before December 30th of 2014,
01:23:30 25 wasn't thin, had tattoos, didn't fit his type? 01:26:03 25 yourself personally, review what I think you referred to
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 220 to 223 of 335 18 of 46 sheets
224 226
01:26:07 1 in your testimony yesterday as the holy grail, an 012829 1 Q. Would it be a reasonable inference, or a
01:26,12 2 address book of Mr. Epstein? 01:28:36 2 possible reasonable inference to draw, that
0126:17 3 A. Pieces of it, yes. 01:28:39 3 Mr. Rodriguez was trying to highlight people who would
01:26:18 4 Q. Did you review the entire document? 0128:42 4 be of interest to the Press for purposes of selling the
01:26:21 5 A. No. 0128:45 5 book?
01:26:21 6 Q. Did I understand yesterday that you 0128:46 6 A. No, because he was not talking to the Press.
01:26:25 7 testified -- did I understand correctly yesterday, that 01:28:49 7 He was talking to an FBI agent who had busted him for
01:26:28 8 you testified that the fact that names were circled 01:28:52 8 criminal activity. And so I was assuming that what he
01:26:33 9 indicated that those persons likely engaged in illegal 01:28,54 9 was trying to do, as many criminals do when they are
0126:39 10 sexual contact with minors? 01:28:58 10 apprehended, was give information to law enforcement
01:26:41 11 A. My -- my impression is the names that were 0129:01 11 agency that would be helpful so that they can catch
0126:44 12 circled were circled by Alfredo Rodriguez when he was 0129:03 12 other "bigger fishes" is the phrase that's sometimes
01:2647 13 busted by the FBI for involvement, and he was asked to 01:29:06 13 used, so that the little fish would -- would get off or
01:26:51 14 identify those who would have information about the sex 0129:09 14 get a cooperation deal from the law enforcement agency.
0126:54 15 trafficking organization. And my -- based on all the 0129:12 15 He was talking -- let's be clear. He was
01:26:58 16 evidence I have, I believe the names that were circled 01:29:14 16 talking to somebody he understood was an FBI agent at
01:27:00 17 were those who would have that kind of information. 01:29:17 17 the time, and so that was the context of the
01:27:02 18 Q. So is it your testimony that if the name is 01,29:18 18 conversation.
01:27:05 19 circled, it indicates that they have information, or 01:29:19 19 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that WS
01:2708 20 that they are criminals? 0128:22 20 in the context of talking to the FBI that Mr. Rodriguez
01:27:09 21 A. That they would have information about the 0129:25 21 circled those names?
01:2712 22 sex trafficking organization, and that would probably 0129:26 22 A. i have reviewed -- I know I could refresh my
01:27:15 23 mean that they were part of the organization. It may 0129:30 23 recollection here, but there's an FBI 302, a report of
01:27:18 24 mean that they were witnesses to what the organization 01:29:33 24 interview of the circumstances surrounding
01:27:19 25 was doing. 0129:35 25 Mr. Rodriguez's arrest, and I believe I reviewed that
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
01:27:20 1 But they would have information that the FBI, 01:29:38 1 302.
225 227
01:2724 2 among other law enforcement agencies, should be 01:29:39 2 Q. Do you know whether the FBI, at any point,
01:2726 3 following up on, if they are trying to piece together 01:29:47 3 contacted Professor Dershowitz to discuss any evidence
01:27:28 4 what the sex trafficking organization was doing. 01:29:53 4 he might have after his name was circled on this
01:27:32 5 Q. Would you agree that a fair-minded person, 01:29:56 5 document?
0127737 6 with that background that you just described, would not 01:29:57 6 A. I don't have personal knowledge of what the
01:27:41 7 go to the conclusion that the fact that a name is 01:29:58 7 FBI did to follow up after that.
01:27:44 8 circled indicates that that person has engaged in 01:30:01 8 Q. Okay. One of the names that's circled in the
0127:46 9 criminal conduct? 01:30:05 9 book is Courtney Love. Do you know who she is?
01:27:48 10 A. They -- what it would indicate is that they 01:30:08 10 A. Not off the top of my head, no.
01:27;51 11 had information relevant to criminal activity. Now, 01:30:12 11 Q. If I mention to you or if I represent that
01:27:54 12 would they on the -- just the fact that a name was 01:3016 12 she's a famous actress, any reason to question that?
01:27:55 13 circled, standing alone, reach that conclusion? 01:30:19 13 A. No.
01:2759 14 Well, that's a hypothetical question because 0120:21 14 Q. In your view, was Courtney Love involved in
01:28:01 15 obviously in this case, there's lots of other 01:30:25 15 sex trafficking?
01:28:02 16 information. 01:30:26 16 A. i don't know.
01:28:02 17 Q. Did you understand -- it is true, is it not, 01:30:27 17 Q. In your view, was Courtney Love a witness to
01:28:06 18 that Mr. Rodriguez was trying to sell that book? 01:3022 18 sex trafficking?
0128:09 19 A. That's true. 01:30,33 19 A. If -- is there a way -- are you representing
0128:10 20 Q. And is it not also true that the people who 0120:36 20 her name is circled?
0128:13 21 are circled are famous people? 01:30:38 21 Q. Her name is circled on the book. In fact, we
01:28:15 22 A. I'd have to refresh my recollection as to 01:30:40 22 can show it --
01:28:22 23 exactly who was circled, but I know that some famous 01:30:40 23 A. Okay. Yeah.
01,28:25 24 people were circled and some famous people were not 01204024 Q. It is circled on the book.
01:28:29 25 circled. 01:30:42 25 A. Okay. Sure. Yeah, I mean, my -- my
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
19 of 46 sheets Page 224 to 227 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
228 230
0120:44 1 understanding would be that if her -- and this is -- 01:3822 1 all.
01:30:46 2 could I ask a question about the circling -- or your 01:38:23 2 Q. Take as long as you want to look at the
01:3049 3 representation? 01:3826 3 document.
01:30:50 4 Is the circling the same type of circling 01:3827 4 A. Super. Thank you.
01:30:52 5 that is done for Mr. Dershowitz, for example? Is it the 01:38:51 5 Okay. Yeah. I think I'm -- I'm oriented
01:30,56 6 same, you know, handwriting, same ink, same -- same 01:3654 6 now. But I haven't looked at the Love entry.
01:30:59 7 appearance? You know, if it's consistent with the 0128:54 7 Q. My -- my first --
01:31:02 8 circling -- are you representing it's consistent with 01:38:57 8 A. I want to look at the Love --
01:31:04 9 the circling? 01:38:57 9 Q. -- question is: Is this a copy of the
01:31:07 10 Q. Mr. Cassell, we have a document produced in 01:39:02 10 address book that you referred to in your testimony?
01:31:09 11 discovery that has various names circled. Looking at 01:39:05 11 A. Yes.
01:31:14 12 the document, I don't see any difference among the 01:3005 12 Q. Okay. And if you would take a look at the --
01:31:17 13 circles. Are you aware of any document -- 0129:08 13 I've marked the entries for Courtney Love. Take a look
01:31:20 14 MR. SCAROLA: Could we have a look -- could 01:39:13 14 at that one.
01:31:21 15 we see the document? 012913 15 A. All right. I see it.
01:31:25 16 MR. SIMPSON: Take a -- go off the record for 01:39:14 16 Q. Okay. And then if you look at the last
01:31:28 17 one moment. 01:39:16 17 entry, there's an entry for Professor Dershowitz that's
01:31:28 18 THE WITNESS: We are going off the video 01,39,21 18 also circled. It should be on the flag. Its
01,31:30 19 record, 10:03. 01:39:26 19 two-sided.
01:3622 20 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 01,39:28 20 A. Oh, yeah.
01:3622 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 01:3929 21 Q. Do you see that one?
01:36:24 22 record, 10:08 a.m. 01:39,30 22 A. I see it.
01:36:30 23 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Back on the record. I'm 01:39:31 23 Q. And then also the other one I marked is
01:3621 24 going to ask the reporter to mark as Cassell 01:39:32 24 Donald Trump.
01:36:36 25 Exhibit 5, a multi-page document. It's a copy of 01:39:38 25 A. Yes. Got it. I see those entries circled.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
229 231
01:36:44 1 the address book we have been speaking about, and 01:39:47 1 Q. So am I right -- I'm right, am I not, that
01:36:49 2 ask that Doc -- Mr. Cassell to take a look at 01:39:50 2 among the others circled are: Courtney Love, Donald
01:36:51 3 this, and I'm going to ask him about certain of 01:39:54 3 Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, correct?
01:36:55 4 the entries. 01:39:55 4 A. Correct, among the others, yes.
01:37:03 5 (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 - copy of 01:39:57 5 Q. And they are all circled in the same way; are
01:37:03 6 address book was marked for identification.) 01:40:00 6 they not?
01:37:03 7 MR. SIMPSON: And I will note, I put a few 01:4000 7 A. Yeah. It's kind of a -- a box is what I
01,37:03 8 flags on here -- 01:40:04 8 would say. Some, yes.
01:37:03 9 THE WITNESS: Sure. 01:4006 9 Q. Is there anything on the face of that
01:37:06 10 MR. SIMPSON: -- to direct your attention -- 01,40,08 10 document that leads you to conclude that the circling --
01,37:06 11 THE WITNESS: Correct, yeah. 01:40:13 11 the significance of the circling is any different for
01:37:09 12 MR. SIMPSON: -- which we can -- I'll note 01:40,16 12 one person than another?
01:3710 13 the pages for the record just so we have them. 01:40:17 13 A. No.
01:3716 14 38, 76, and 85. 01:4018 14 Q. So based on the document, do you infer that
01:37:24 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. I just -- I just want to 01:4023 15 Courtney Love was involved in some kind of sexual abuse
01:37:25 16 take two minutes or so -- 01,4020 16 of minors?
01:37:25 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:4030 17 A. I would infer that if I were running a
01:37:27 18 Q. Yeah. Take -- take a moment to look at it. 01:4025 18 criminal investigation through the FBI and I'm trying to
01,37:29 19 A. Okay. I want to make a few notes, if that's 01:4037 19 find people who would have relevant information, she
01:38,07 20 all right, just to get them in -- 01:40:40 20 would be one of the people I'd want to talk to. I mean,
01:38:07 21 Q. You're going to mark on the -- 01:40:43 21 the names that are circled here, Glenn Maxwell, one of
01:38:09 22 A. No, not on the exhibit. I'm just going to 01:4045 22 the identified traffickers, Epstein is circled, the
01.3811 23 make notes to refresh my recollection so we don't have 01:40-.48 23 pilot -- one of the pilots is circled. So it's these
0138:13 24 to take time. I'm just -- I'm just making notes of the 01:4051 24 people that all seemed to be connected are -- are all
0138,15 25 context here. This will just take another minute is 01:40:05 25 being marked here, and -- and the number of people that
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 228 to 231 of 335 20 of 46 sheets
232 234
0140:57 1 are circled is, I would say, you know, 5 to 10 percent 01:43:17 1 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:41.00 2 of the -- of the names ball-parking in the dark. 01:43:17 2 Q. But based on your testimony previously, you
01A1:03 3 Q. Do you know whether this address book was 01:43:20 3 would consider all of those facts to be evidence that he
01:4t07 4 Jeffrey Epstein's address book or Glenn Maxwell's 01:43:26 4 may have been?
01:41:11 5 address book? 0143:28 5 A. They are, you know, certainly things that I
01:41:12 6 A. I'm not certain exactly whose book it is. I 01:43:31 6 would want to follow up on.
01:41:16 7 actually thought it was Alfredo Rodriguez maintaining a 01:43:32 7 Q. And --
01:41:19 8 copy of records in case he was worried that Epstein 01:43:34 8 A. If I were running an -- we were in the
01:41:22 9 might try to have him killed at some point, and so this 01:43:36 9 context, I take it, of your question, you know, if
01:41.25 10 was his insurance policy, I think he said, against that 01;4138 10 somebody is running an investigation into the
01:41:28 11 happening. 01:43:42 11 organization, so...
01:41:29 12 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the nonresponsive 01,43:43 12 Q. Did you, in the course of your representation
01:41:31 13 portion of the answer. 01:43:47 13 of Miss Roberts or any of the other Jane Doe clients you
01:41:31 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:43:56 14 have had who have had claims against Mr. Epstein, make
01:41:32 15 Q. Is the answer to my question: You don't know 01:43-58 15 any effort to find out whether Mr. Trump had abused any
01:41:34 16 whether it was Jeffrey Epstein's or Glenn Maxwell's 01A4:02 16 of them?
01:41:38 17 address book? 01:44:04 17 MR. EDWARDS: I would just object to this
01:41-39 18 A. i don't know. And the reason I don't know 01:44:09 18 being work-product privilege as it relates to
01:41-41 19 that is because I actually believe it is neither -- 01:44.1019 other cases that I'm working on with Paul that
01:41:44 20 neither of their -- that's -- is it one or the other? 01:44,1220 Jack is not involved in.
01:41:46 21 Actually, I think it's a third possibility. I think 01:44:12 21 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
01:41:48 22 this was Alfredo Rodriguez's insurance policy against 01:44:15 22 MR. EDWARDS: With respect to what we did
01:41:51 23 getting knocked off by Jeffrey Epstein. 01A4:16 23 during our investigation on behalf of other
01:41:55 24 Q. So that's the view you have of the 01:4418 24 clients.
01:42:04 25 significance of this document? 01:44:19 25 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
233 235
01:42:06 1 A. Yes. In part. I mean, there are other 01:44:20 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. And I object on that
01:421/8 2 reasons it's significant, as we have been talking about, 01:44:20 2 to the extent that it reveals anything you did on
01:42:10 3 names are circled who appear to have relevant 01:44:23 3 behalf of Virginia Roberts.
01:42:13 4 information on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities. 01:44:23 4 MR. EDWARDS: I don't think Jack would know
01:42:17 5 Q. Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein; 01.44:26 5 to object to this, but because I know of another
01:42:22 6 is that not correct? 0144'28 6 case that we work on, that's protected by our
01:42:23 7 A. I really don't -- my understanding is, yes, 01:44:30 7 work-product privilege, who I talked to and who I
01:42:26 8 but I -- I don't have a lot of information about Trump. 01:44:32 8 did not.
01:42:29 9 Q. Its true also, is it not, that Mr. Trump was 0144:32 9 THE WITNESS: I'd like to --
01:42:34 10 a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein's residence? 01:44:32 10 MR. SCAROLA: In that case, I instruct you
01:42:38 11 A. 1-- I know that he visited frequent. I -- I 01:44'34 11 not to answer.
01:42'41 12 don't have a lot of information about Trump. 01:44.34 12 THE WITNESS: All right.
01:42:43 13 Q. And his name is circled in this book; is it 01•44.37 13 MR. SIMPSON: All right. You're here,
01:42:47 14 not? 01.44.39 14 Mr. Edwards, as a client, not an attorney,
01-42:47 15 A. I believe it is. 01-44:41 15 correct?
01:42:48 16 Q. Based on him -- assuming he's a frequent 01:44:42 16 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. That's my primary role in
01:42:5217 visitor to Mr. Epstein's home, and that he's a friend of 01:44:44 17 being here, but I'm going to protect the
01:43:00 18 Mr. Epstein's, and that his name is circled in this 01:44:46 18 privilege to the extent that it's not being
01.43:03 19 book, do you infer that he was engaged in criminal 01144:47 19 protected by others who don't recognize that the
01:43:09 20 sexual abuse of minors? 01:44:50 20 privilege needs to be protected on other matters.
01:43:11 21 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the 01:44:52 21 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
01,43.13 22 extent that your answer would reveal anything 01:44:53 22 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:4316 23 that my client has told you. 01A4:58 23 Q. Mr. Cassell, as of December 30th of 2014,
01:43:16 24 THE WITNESS: No. 01:45:03 24 were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had visited
01:43:17 25 01:45:09 25 Mr. Epstein's home and stayed as a guest for a week in
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
21 of 46 sheets Page 232 to 235 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
236 238
01:45:14 1 the company of his grandchildren, among other family 01:47:08 1 scene of ongoing criminal abuse of minors, and who
01:45:18 2 members? 01:47:12 2 himself, has engaged in that criminal abuse, would bring
01A5:19 3 A. I'm sorry. Which residence? Which Epstein 01:47:16 3 his grandchildren to stay there for a week?
01:4523 4 residence? 01:4718 4 A. It would depend on the circumstances.
01A5:23 5 Q. Palm Beach. 01:47:21 5 Q. When you say that Professor Dershowitz was a
01:45:25 6 A. Can you -- can you restate? 01:47:33 6 regular guest at the mansion, at the Palm Beach house,
01:45:25 7 Q. Yes. 01:47:41 7 it's correct, is it not, that you're referring to a
51:45:27 8 A. I mean that's kind of a compound question. -I
01:47:43 8 period after Virginia Roberts had left for Thailand?
01:4630 9 mean... 01:47.47 9 A. No.
01:45:30 10 Q. Well, let me rephrase it. I will be clear. 01:47:49 10 Q. Are you aware of any evidence -- let me back
01:45:31 11 A. Yeah. 01:47:55 11 that up.
01:45:3212 Q. Were you aware as of December 30th of 2014 -- 01:47:57 12 Are -- during the period that Virginia
01:45:36 13 let me back up a moment. 01:47:59 13 Roberts contends she was sexually abused, which I
01:45,37 14 A. Sure. 01:48:02 14 understand to be middle of 1999 to middle of 2002 -- is
01:45:37 15 Q. You indicated yesterday that part of the 01:48:09 15 that consistent with your understanding?
01:45:40 16 basis for your conclusion that this pleading -- it was 01:48:10 16 A. Approximately, yes.
01:45:44 17 appropriate to file this pleading accusing Professor 01:48:12 17 Q. -- how many times did Professor Dershowitz
01:45:49 18 Dershowitz of misconduct was that he was a guest at the 01:48:14 18 visit the Palm Beach mansion during that period?
01:45:53 19 Palm Beach house, correct? 01A8:17 19 A. My understanding is in the neighborhood of --
01:45:55 20 A. No. It was more than that. He was a 01:48:21 20 what was it? Three to five times a year, staying two to
01:45:57 21 frequent guest, a frequent overnight guest. 01:48:25 21 three nights at a time.
01:46:01 22 Q. My question is: As of December 30th, 2014, 01:4826 22 Q. And was that your understanding as of
0146:06 23 were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had spent a 01,48:29 23 December 30th of 2014?
01:46:10 24 week at the Palm Beach house with family members, 01:48,32 24 A. Yes.
01A6,13 25 including his grandchildren?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
01:48:32 25 Q. What was the basis for your understanding,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
237 239
01:46:15 1 A. No. 01:48:38 1 what pieces, what documents, or testimony?
01:46:15 2 Q. Okay. Do you think it's reasonable -- would 01:48:41 2 A. Right. The information, you know, I gave a
01:46:20 3 it be reasonable to believe that someone who is 01:48:44 3 long presentation yesterday. So it was that
01:46:23 4 committing criminal sexual abuse of minors at a home 01:48:46 4 information.
01:46:28 5 where such abuse, as you understand it, is a daily 01:48:48 5 Q. I want to focus now specifically -- I'm not
01A6:33 6 occurrence would bring his grandchildren to stay for a 01:4650 6 looking for a full answer on your entire views --
01:4635 7 week? 01:48:50 7 A. Yeah, right.
01:46:35 8 A. It would depend on the circumstances. I 01:48:53 8 Q. -- on the case.
01A637 9 mean, you know, so -- you know, it would depend on the 01:48:53 9 A. I appreciate that.
01:46:40 10 circumstances. 01:4654 10 Q. I just want to say, you've testified that you
01:46A0 11 MR. SCAROLA: Are you representing that 01:48:57 11 understood as of December 30th, 2014, that Professor
01A6A1 12 Jeffrey Epstein was there at the time? 01.49:0312 Dershowitz had -- was a visitor at the Palm Beach
01A6:42 13 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not answering questions. 01;49:04 13 mansion three to five times during this relevant period
01:46A4 14 I'm asking questions. 01:49:09 14 of 1999 to -- middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002.
01:46:45 15 MR. SCAROLA: Oh, okay. 01A9,14 15 What was the basis on December 30th of 2014, for just
01:46:45 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:49:20 16 that fact?
01:46:47 17 Q. So, in your view, you can -- let me -- let me 01:49:21 17 A. Right. I mean, I will take about a minute
0146:50 18 rephrase that. 01:49:23 18 here because there are a few things I want --
01.46:52 19 You say it would depend on the 01:492519 Q. Okay. And I want to make sure my question is
01:46:54 20 circumstances -- 01:49:28 20 clear.
01:46:54 21 A. Sure. Sure. 01:49:28 21 A. Sure.
01,46:54 22 Q. -- that's your answer? 0149:29 22 Q. I'm not asking you about any of your
01:46:55 23 A. Yes. 01:49:30 23 inferences about anything else. Just, what's the basis
01:46:56 24 Q. Okay. So that you don't find it incongruous 01:49:34 24 for your belief that he visited three to five times
01:47:00 25 that someone who knows that a particular home is the 01:4918 25 during that two-year period?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 236 to 239 of 335 22 of 46 sheets
240 242
01:49:39 1 MR. SCAROLA: Could I ask for a 01:51:23 1 context, in other words, information that was
01:49:40 2 clarification? Are you looking only for direct 01:51:25 2 going to be disclosed, not for advice, but
01:49:42 3 evidence and you want to exclude the 01:5126 3 factual information that she intended to
01:49:44 4 circumstantial evidence? Is that the way you 01751:28 4 disclose, that's no -- that's not privileged.
01A9A6 5 want to -- 01:51:30 5 But if it's something that she communicated to
01:49:46 6 MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking. You can object to 01:51:32 6 you in confidence with respect to getting legal
01:49:48 7 the form. 01:51:36 7 advice, then that would be privileged.
01:49:48 8 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01,51:39 8 THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. So Juan Alessi's
01:49:48 9 Q. My question is: What was -- what were you -- 01:51:45 9 deposition, Alfredo Rodriguez's deposition, and
01:49:51 10 what did you have in mind as supporting your conclusion 01:51A9 10 then considerable circumstantial evidence which
01A9:57 11 or belief that he -- that Professor Dershowitz visited 01:51:52 11 we don't have to rehash here involving the close
01:50:02 12 three to five times during that relevant period? 01:51:55 12 personal association between Epstein and
01:50:04 13 MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm sorry. Can I just 01:52:00 13 Dershowitz.
01:50:06 14 place an objection on the record. I'm going to 01:52:00 14 I mean, again, we can rehash all of that, but
01:50:07 15 object to the extent that -- so that you do not 01;52:03 15 those were -- those are -- that's kind of a
01:5010 16 reveal attorney/client privileged communication, 01:52:04 16 quick -- because I know you want to get to a lot
01:50:12 17 unless it's something that's already public that 01:52:06 17 of questions -- that's a quick sort of highlight
01:50:15 18 she's revealed. 01:52:09 18 film, if you will.
01:50:15 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. Right. So I'm going to 01:5209 19 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:50:17 20 just exclude -- I take it your question isn't 01:5211 20 Q. Mr. Cassell, isn't it true that Mr. Rodriguez
01:5019 21 asking about any communications. 01:52:14 21 was not hired until several years after the Summer --
01:50:19 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:52:19 22 A. 2004.
01:50:22 23 Q. My question is asking about that, but I 01:52:20 23 Q. Let me ask it again.
01:50:24 24 understand you're going to refuse to provide it. 01:5221 24 -- until well after 2002?
01:50:25 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Unless it's already public. 01:52:22 25 A. Yeah, about 2004.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
241 243
01:50:28 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. So as of December 30th, 01:5223 1 Q. And Mr. Rodriguez would have no personal
01:50:30 2 I'm going to exclude any communications from 01:5228 2 knowledge of how often Professor Dershowitz visited
01:50:33 3 Virginia Roberts from -- 01,52:31 3 during a period two years or three years before he was
01:50:34 4 MR. SCAROLA: Except to extent that they have 01:52:34 4 hired; isn't that true?
01:50:37 5 already been made public. That is, if she has 01:52:35 5 A. So, look, this is -- this is why I was trying
0150:39 6 given express permission to make disclosures, 01,52:37 6 to speed up the answer to the question. We have a sex
01:50:43 7 these were not confidential communications, but 01:52:41 7 trafficking organization that is running a common scheme
0150:46 8 communications intended to be communicated to 01:52:43 8 and plan that is continuing on until it was interrupted
01:50:48 9 third parties, then you are permitted to include 01:52:45 9 by law enforcement about 2005 and 2006.
01:50:52 10 information from Virginia Roberts in your 01:52:49 10 So what the -- the criminal organization is
01150:54 11 response to that extent. And I -- go ahead. 01:52:51 11 doing in 2004, unless I have some significant evidence
01:51M 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 01:52:54 12 that it's different than what was going on in 2002,
01:51:00 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:52:58 13 2001, 2000, 1999, I think it's reasonable to conclude
01:51:00 14 Q. As of December -- 01:53:01 14 that the same sort of criminal activities are going on
01:5101 15 A. Right. 01.53:03 15 later.
01:51:03 16 Q. -- 30th, 2014 -- 0153:04 16 So if -- if you want -- if you want me to get
01:51:06 17 A. Right. 01,53:07 17 into the -- the full scope of the criminal organization,
01.51:06 18 Q. -- correct? So -- 01:53:09 18 we can get into it. But the fact that somebody in 2004
01:51:06 19 A. Yeah, that's right. 01:5313 19 sees this going on, leads me to conclude that it's
01:51:07 20 Q. -- any -- any public statements by her after 01'53:16 20 probably the same thing going on in the absence of other
01,51:10 21 December 30th, 2014 would not be included in the answer. 01:53:19 21 information in 2001.
01:51:14 22 A. Okay. 01:53:21 22 Q. So from Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about what
01:51:14 23 MS. McCAWLEY: But let me be clear. Let me 01:53:28 23 was going on, so to speak -- and my question related,
01:51:16 24 be clear about my objection. To the extent that 01;5132 24 what was going on the number of times that Professor
01,51:18 25 she revealed something to you in a nonprivileged 01753:35 25 Dershowitz visited. That's the topic.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
23 of 46 sheets Page 240 to 243 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
244 246
01:53:37 1 A. Right. 01:55:20 1 MR. SIMPSON: Really, objecting to the form
01:53:37 2 Q. That because he visited, according to 01:55:23 2 of the question preserves all of any problems
0163:40 3 Mr. Rodriguez, several times a year in 2004, 2005, he 01:55:26 3 there may be with the question.
01:53:45 4 must have visited several times a year in 2000 -- 19- -- 01:55.27 4 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir.
01:5362 5 middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. 01:5627 5 MR. SIMPSON: We don't need a speech.
01:53:55 6 A. i didn't say must have. I said that that's 01.55:27 6 MR. SCAROLA: It doesn't. It doesn't.
01:5367 7 going to be evidence of the common scheme and plan, and 01:5627 7 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:53:59 8 then, in the absence of, you know, some falling out 01:55:32 8 Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony that, from
016462 9 between people or somebody becoming, you know, more 01:5517 9 Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about how often he says
0164:05 10 associated or less associated with a criminal 01:55:43 10 Professor Dershowitz visited in a 2004/2005 time frame,
01:54:07 11 organization. I mean, if you want to get into the 01:55:49 11 its fair to draw an inference about how often he
01.54:09 12 circumstantial evidence, in 2003, there's an article on 01:55:52 12 visited in an earlier -- three-year earlier time frame?
01:5413 13 which, you know, Dershowitz identifies himself -- 01:55:56 13 A. In the circumstances of this case,
01:54:15 14 Q. Let me interrupt you because I'm asking -- 01:5659 14 absolutely.
01:54:15 15 A. Okay. 01:55:59 15 Q. And would it be fair to infer from the number
0164:18 16 Q. -- about -- my only question is evidence of 01666316 of times that Donald Trump visited three years later,
0164:18 17 how -- not anything, whether engaged in conduct or 01:5608 17 how often he visited at an earlier period?
01:54:23 18 didn't engage in conduct, just how many times he came 01:56:09 18 A. I did not investigate the circumstances
01:54:26 19 during this period. 01:56:12 19 involving Trump. He wasn't somebody that was coming up.
01:54:26 20 A. Right. 0166.16 20 Q. Were you aware on December 30th of 2014 that
01:5426 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. That's the 01:5625 21 Donald Trump was quoted in Vanity Fair as saying: "I've
01:54:28 22 reason why I asked you to clarify whether you 01:5628 22 known Jeff" -- referring to Epstein -- oh, I'm sorry.
5164:30 23 want to limit this to direct evidence or whether 01:56:34 23 It was a New Yorker Magazine, not Vanity Fair. That he
01:54:33 24 you want all of the evidence including 01:56:37 24 was quoted as saying: "I've known Jeff.' -- referring to
01:54:35 25 circumstantial evidence, because as we both know,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
0166:40 25 Epstein -- "for 15 years. Terrific guy. And he's a lot
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
245 247
01:54:39 1 circumstantial evidence is good evidence. A 01:5644 1 of fun to be with." It even said that: "He likes
01:54:42 2 well-connected chain of circumstance can be -- 01:56:47 2 beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on
01:54:45 3 MR. SIMPSON: We really don't need a speech. 016662 3 the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys the
01:54:47 4 MR. SCAROLA: -- a well-connected -- 01:56:56 4 social -- social life"? Were you aware of that on
01:54,17 5 MR. SIMPSON: We really don't -- 01:58:57 5 December 30th, 2014?
5164:48 6 MR. SCAROLA: -- chain of circumstance may be 01:5668 6 A. Possibly. I mean that sounds vaguely
01:54:49 7 as compelling proof as direct evidence of a given 01:57:01 7 familiar. Trump has just not been somebody that -- that
01:5463 8 fact. That's the law. 01:57:05 8 I've paid much attention to in this case.
01:54:55 9 If you don't want -- 01:57:07 9 Q. Based on that statement, and the facts we
01:54:57 10 MR. SIMPSON: Really, sir. 01:57.14 10 discussed earlier about Mr. Trump visiting and being a
01:54:55 11 MR. SCAROLA: -- the circumstantial 01,57:21 11 friend, and the other circumstances we discussed, are
01:54:56 12 evidence -- 01:57:24 12 you suspicious about whether he engaged in sexual
01:54:57 13 MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola -- 01:57:27 13 misconduct with minors?
01:54:57 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- tell us that. 01:57:29 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the
0164:58 15 MR. SIMPSON: -- please don't make speeches, 01:57:30 15 extent that you can't reveal anything that my
01.54:59 16 and please don't coach the witness. 01:57:31 16 client has informed you of.
01:5501 17 MR. SCAROLA: Just tell us that. I'm not 01:57:33 17 THE WITNESS: Right. If we set aside that
01:5602 18 coaching the witness. I'm asking you -- you're 01:57:35 18 information, I'm not -- I'm not suspicious, no,
016606 19 asking ambiguous questions. 0167:39 19 not given the information I have.
016608 20 MR. SIMPSON: There's nothing ambiguous -- 01:57:39 20 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0165:09 21 MR. SCAROLA: If you want only direct 01:57:40 21 Q. Okay. So notwithstanding that his name is
0165:10 22 evidence, we will give you only direct evidence. 01:57:42 22 circled in the address book, he was a good friend, he
01:55:13 23 If you want a full and complete answer, it's 01:57:49 23 visited often, and he was quoted as saying that Jeff was
01:55:15 24 got to include circumstantial evidence, so don't 0167:54 24 a terrific guy who liked young women almost as much as
016619 25 cut him off when he's giving you that. 01:57:58 25 Trump did, you're not even suspicious?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 244 to 247 of 335 24 of 46 sheets
248 250
016801 1 A. Not -- you know, let's break that down in a 0200:11 1 and energy in that, right.
01:58:05 2 couple pieces. 020012 2 Q. And you referred to your pro bono case. What
01:58:06 3 The fact that his name is circled, if I were 02:0016 3 is your best estimate of how much money you have made
016808 4 running an FBI investigation, I'd go send somebody to 02:0021 4 representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein?
01:58:10 5 see what he knew about it, but no, it would take a lot 02:0024 5 A. In which case are we talking about now?
01:58:13 6 more for me to become suspicious that somebody is 020026 6 Q. Any -- any case representing a victim of
01:5816 7 involved in -- in sexual activity like that. 02:00:28 7 Jeffrey Epstein.
01:58:19 8 Q. Okay. So you would agree with me then, that 02:00,29 8 A. I need to confer with .-
01:5821 9 the fact that a person often visited the mansion, the 020013 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I'm going to object.
01:5824 10 person -- the fact that a person was a friend of 02001310 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0168:27 11 Mr. Epstein for 15 years, the fact that the person had 02:00:34 11 Q. And that -- that's a fact -- that's not a
016812 12 stated publicly that: "Mr. Epstein liked young women 02:0036 12 privileged question. That's a factual question.
01:5816 13 almost as much as I do myself," and the fact that the 02:00:37 13 A. Factual. Well, there are -- there are --
01:58:40 14 name is circled in the address book is not sufficient to 0200:38 14 Q. Just how much money? You don't have to tell
01:58:43 15 raise a suspicion that that person engaged in sexual 02:00:41 15 me who the clients are. Just how much money?
01:5047 16 misconduct? 0200:44 16 A. Okay. I need to --
0168.47 17 A. So... 02:0046 17 MR. SIMPSON: There's a question pending. I
01:5048 18 Q. Yes or no. It's a yes or no question. 02:00:47 18 object to a break. There's no possible
0168:51 19 A. It requires -- 02:00:48 19 privilege.
01:58:51 20 MR. SCAROLA: You're not required to answer 02:00:48 20 MR. SCAROLA: He has a privilege -- he has a
01:58:53 21 yes or no, if a yes or no response alone would be 02:00:50 21 privilege question. He wants to consult with
01:58:55 22 misleading. 02:00:51 22 counsel.
01:58:56 23 THE WITNESS: The problem is the word 0200:51 23 MR. SIMPSON: Well, really? My question is
01;58:57 24 "suspicion." I'm not particularly suspicious on 020053 24 how much money, and that's privileged?
01:58:59 25 those facts, but it -- you know, what do you mean 02:00:5525 MR. SCAROLA: It may be. I don't know. We
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
249 251
016903 1 by "suspicion"? If I -- if I were running an FBI 02:00:56 1 need to talk.
01:59:04 2 investigation and somebody circled a name as -- 020067 2 THE WITNESS: That's why I need to --
0169:05 3 as saying, look, this fellow may have some 0200:58 3 MR. SCOTT: There's no federal law or state
01:5909 4 information, I'd go follow up on that. 02:01:01 4 law that supports that financial information and
01:59:10 5 If you say that's suspicion, then the answer 02:01:02 5 fees is privileged.
01:59:13 6 would be, yes. But I -- you know, based on that 02:01:03 6 MS. McCAWLEY: We can argue about that
01:59:15 7 information alone, no. I mean that -- that 02:01:05 7 because that's in my motion, so we can argue
01:59:18 8 wouldn't -- wouldn't be enough for me to, you 020109 8 about that.
01:59:22 9 know, invest time and energy into that particular 02.01:09 9 MR. SIMPSON: Well, can -- can --
01:59:26 10 possibility. 02:01:09 10 MR. SCOTT: That one, I know all about.
01:59:26 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 02:01:10 11 MR. SCAROLA: You're objecting to our taking
01:59:27 12 Q. Okay. So none of those facts are sufficient 02:01:11 12 a break --
0169:31 13 even to justify spending time and energy, correct? 020111 13 MR. SIMPSON: I am objecting --
0169:34 14 A. Unless -- if I'm running -- this is -- again, 02:01:11 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- while this question is
01:59:37 15 what do you mean by "suspicion"? Time and energy in the 02:01:13 15 pending?
01:59:42 16 context of somebody who is running a pro bono case with 0201713 16 MR. SIMPSON: That's correct.
01:59:44 17 limited resources to try to figure out what the sex 02:01:14 17 MR. SCAROLA: It is our position that the
01:59:47 18 trafficking ring's going to do, I'm not going to chase 02:01:16 18 witness has a legal question about privilege. We
01:59:49 19 after that rabbit. It seems farfetched. 020120 19 are going to take a break. We are going to talk
01:59:53 20 I'm going to focus my efforts on the people 02:01:22 20 about it. It may turn out that it's not a
016963 21 who appear to be more directly involved. 02:0124 21 problem at all. I don't know.
01:59:56 22 Q. Okay. So based on the facts that I gave you 02:0126 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video
0169:59 23 a moment ago, you think it's farfetched that Donald 0201,28 23 record, 10:38.
02:00:04 24 Trump was engaged in abusing minors? 020129 24 MR. SIMPSON: With my note, we are taking a
02:0007 25 A. If that's all I had, I would not invest time 02.0112 25 break over my objection.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
txt
Cont'd.
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 212 to 215 of 335 16 of 46 sheets
216 218
01:16:41 1 Q. In fact, I think you testified yesterday 01:1919 1 MS. McCAWLEY: The location is fine.
0116:44 2 about your duty with respect to Miss Roberts along those 0119.20 2 THE WITNESS: The location, once
0116:47 3 lines, correct? 01:1922 3 personally -- once here in Florida, and then in
01:16.48 4 A. That's right. 011925 4 my office in -- while in Salt Lake City.
01:16:48 5 Q. And so with respect to Professor Dershowitz's 01:19-25 5 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:16:52 6 representation of Jeffrey Epstein, he would have been 0119:28 6 Q. And are you able to place in time when you
01'16:57 7 acting unethically if he didn't attempt to negotiate the 01.19.29 7 reviewed these portions of the police report, other than
0117:00 8 best resolution for his client that he could, consistent 0119:35 8 before December 30th of 2014?
01:17.05 9 with the law; is that correct? 0119:37 9 A. Not precisely, no.
0117:06 10 A. Right. Consistent with the law, yes. 01:1940 10 Q. And do I understand correctly from your
0117:09 11 Q. And so you wouldn't -- 01:19-42 11 testimony yesterday that that police report is one of
0117:09 12 A. I'm sorry. Let me just -- consistent with 01:19.47 12 the things you relied on to support making the
01:1711 13 the law and with the ethical obligations of attorneys. 01_19:51 13 allegations against Professor Dershowitz that are
01:17:14 14 Attorneys cannot make, for example, false 0119:54 14 included in the joinder motion?
01:17:16 15 representations when they are negotiating those kinds of 01:19:56 15 A. That's right.
011718 16 things. 0119:56 16 Q. It's also true, is it not, that that police
0117:18 17 Q. Right. The duty as a defense counsel, 01:20:01 17 report includes an interview with an adult woman who was
01.17:22 18 Professor Dershowitz's duty was to attempt to obtain the 0120:07 18 retained to provide massages at Jeffrey Epstein's
01:1727 19 best resolution he could for Jeffrey Epstein consistent 01:20:11 19 residence for guests, among others; isn't that correct?
01:17:31 20 with the law and legal ethics, correct? 01:20:14 20 A. I believe that's correct.
01:17:34 21 A. That's correct. 01:20:16 21 Q. And based on that, is it your testimony that
01:17:34 22 Q. And, in fact, if he had not done that, he 01:20:20 22 it's fair to presume that a reference that a guest got a
01:17:39 23 would have been acting unethically, correct? 01:20:24 23 massage is a code word for abusing a minor sexually?
01:17741 24 A. That's correct. 01:20:31 24 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Are you -- are you
01:17:41 25 Q. And would you agree that it would be 01:2033 25 isolating --
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
217 219
01:17:46 1 inappropriate, totally inappropriate, to infer anything 0120.33 1 MR. SIMPSON: I don't -- I don't want a
01:17:55 2 negative about an attorney because the attorney 01:2034 2 speech, Mr. Scarola. If you object to the form,
01:17:58 3 represented someone accused of heinous crimes? 01:20:36 3 object to the form, and I -- if its not a proper
01:18:01 4 A. Just the fact of representation alone? 0120:38 4 question --
01:18:04 5 Q. Yes. 01:20.38 5 MR. SCAROLA: I want a clarification of the
0118:04 6 A. Yeah, that's right. Sure, of course, 01:20:39 6 question, please. Are you isolating only that
0118:06 7 everyone is entitled to a defense. 01:20:36 7 piece --
01:18:08 8 Q. As -- before December 30th of 2014, had you 01:2039 8 MR. SIMPSON: I -- the question --
01:1818 9 reviewed the Palm Beach Police report? 01-20,41 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- of information?
01:1822 10 A. Portions of it, yes. 0120:42 10 MR. SIMPSON: I'm -- I am asking a question
01:18:23 11 Q. Had you reviewed the entire report? 0120:45 11 that's perfectly clear. If you think it's
01:18:25 12 A. I think I reviewed most of it, but I don't 0120:46 12 objectionable, it wont -- it will stand.
0118'31 13 think I've gone through it page by page. 01:20'49 13 MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to object on the
01:18:3214 Q. When did you do that? 01:20:5014 basis that it is vague and ambiguous. It is
0118'35 15 A. Well, let's see. Before December 30th, 2014, 01:20:53 15 unclear whether you're asking for him --
01:18:41 16 Brad and I filed the case in about July 2008, so it was 0120:55 16 MR. SIMPSON: Please don't coach the witness.
01:18:49 17 about a six-year period of time, and I remember I'd been 01:20:56 17 MR. SCAROLA: -- to isolate -- to isolate his
01:18:56 18 to Florida a couple of times on this case, once in 2010 01:20:59 18 focus to that single piece of evidence.
01,19:03 19 and I think another a year or two later. And I 01:20:59 19 MR. SIMPSON: I object on the coaching of the
01:19:07 20 remember, at least on one of those times, reviewing the 0121:01 20 witness.
01:19:09 21 report here with -- I don't know if I can... 0121:01 21 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:1915 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I wouldn't go into 01:21:02 22 Q. My question is: Is it reasonable,
01:19:15 23 anything. 0121:06 23 considering that the police report on its face shows
01:1915 24 THE WITNESS: To the -- right. So we just -- 012111 24 evidence -- let me back this up. Ask another question
01:19:15 25 we just want to know -- 0121,16 25 to you.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
17 of 46 sheets Page 216 to 219 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
220 222
01:21:16 1 Are you aware that the police report reflects 01:23:34 1 A. That sounds accurate with the information I
01:21:21 2 that the woman I referred to who was hired to give 01,23:37 2 have, yes, she doesn't sound like she would fit his
01;2124 3 massages, told them that she never touched anyone 01:23:40 3 type.
01:21:28 4 inappropriately? 01:23:40 4 Q. And so do you agree with me then --
012129 5 A. I think that there are -- there is 01:23:42 5 A. And she's over the age of 18, which is
0121:32 6 information along those lines in the police report, yes. 01:23:44 6 another reason why wouldn't fit his type, so...
01:21:34 7 Q. Okay. And so do you acknowledge that the 01:2/47 7 Q. But you acknowledge that -- that this
01:21:37 8 police report, on its face, reflects both reports of 01:23:50 8 woman -- that the police report reflects a woman over --
01:21:41 9 massages that involved improper sexual contact -- 01:2154 9 well over the age of 18, being hired to give perfectly
01:21:45 10 contact and massages that were perfectly legitimate? 01:23:57 10 legitimate massages, correct?
0121:50 11 A. Yes, but not in the same proportion. 01:23:58 11 A. Yeah. That was cover for the sex trafficking
01:21:54 12 Q. My question wasn't proportion. The -- the 01:24:01 12 that was going on.
01:21:57 13 report on its face, you understood, reflected that there 01:24:01 13 Q. Okay. So you're now -- does the police
01:22:01 14 were massages given at Mr. Epstein's residence that were 0124:04 14 report say "it was cover" --
01:22:06 15 perfectly legitimate? 01:24:04 15 A. That was --
01:22:08 16 A. Some -- it was basically a few isolated 01:24:05 16 Q. -- "for the sex trafficking"?
0112:13 17 examples from what I could see. 01:24:07 17 A. That was my conclusion when I reviewed the
0122:14 18 Q. So you would characterize what was said in 01:24:09 18 materials.
01:22:18 19 the police report as "a few isolated examples"? 0124:09 19 Q. Okay. So your inclusion is that a
01:2221 20 A. Well, given the backdrop that they had -- 01:24:11 20 fair-minded reader of the police report would come to
012225 21 Q. No. My question -- it's a yes or no 01:24:14 21 that conclusion?
01:22:26 22 question. Is that how you would characterize it? 01:24:15 22 A. December 30th of 2014, knowing what we know
0122:27 23 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. The witness is not 01:24:18 23 now, yes.
01:22:29 24 confined to answering yes or no, if yes or no 01:24:19 24 Q. Do you consider yourself a very suspicious
01:22:31 25 would be misleading. 01:24:24 25 person?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
01:22:33 1 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:24:25 1 A. No.
221 223
01:22:33 2 Q. It's a different position than was taken 01:24:25 2 Q. Do you consider yourself a conspira -- having
01:22:35 3 previously, but -- 0124:31 3 a conspiratorial view?
01:22:36 4 A. I mean, I was just going to give one 0124:31 4 A. Absolutely not.
01:22:38 5 sentence, and the one sentence would be, in the context 01:24:34 5 Q. Do you consider yourself a crusader?
01:22:41 6 of this whole police report where they had 24, 01:24:35 6 A. Well, crusader for justice, I would say, yes.
01:22:44 7 approximately, minor girls who were -- who were being 01:24,41 7 Q. If -- let me put it this way: In your view,
01:22:47 8 sexually abused, the references to legitimate massages I 01:24:49 8 is evidence that a person, any person, any guest at
01:22:51 9 would view as isolated. 01:24:54 9 Mr. Epstein's house had a massage, evidence that that
0122:53 10 Q. So you're coming to the conclusion, looking 0125:01 10 person engaged in criminal sexual conduct, contact with
01:22:56 11 at the police report, that they are isolated; is that 01:25:07 11 minors, because of the fact of having a massage?
0122:59 12 right? 01:25:13 12 A. You'd have to look at the context.
01:225913 A. Yes. 01:25:16 13 Q. On its own, is it any evidence -- doesn't
01:23:01 14 Q. And do you think a fair-minded reader of the 01:25:19 14 it -- is it any evidence at all, in your view?
0123:04 15 police report would reach that conclusion? 01:2521 15 A. It would be some evidence, yes.
01:23:05 16 A. Absolutely. 0125:22 16 Q. Notwithstanding that the report, on its face,
01:23:07 17 Q. And were you aware that the police report, to 0125:26 17 reflects both legitimate and illegitimate massages?
01:2112 18 give a bit more detail, reflected that a woman who was 01,25:30 18 A. The report on its face, let's be clear,
01:23:14 19 described as having tattoos was hired to give 01:25:32 19 reflects a lot of illegitimate sag -- massages and a
0123:17 20 deep-tissue Swedish massages. Do you recall that being 0125:36 20 sporadic or isolated, you know, legitimate massages. So
01:23:20 21 in the -- in the police report? 01:25:38 21 the fact that somebody gets a massage in that context,
01:23:22 22 A. Something along those lines, yes. 0125:42 22 I -- I think is -- is -- raises, you know, the concerns
01:23:23 23 Q. And she also -- that woman also told the 01:25:45 23 we have been talking about.
51:23:26 24 police that she was not Jeffrey Epstein's type, that she 01:25:47 24 Q. Did you, before December 30th of 2014,
01:23:30 25 wasn't thin, had tattoos, didn't fit his type? 01:26:03 25 yourself personally, review what I think you referred to
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 220 to 223 of 335 18 of 46 sheets
224 226
01:26:07 1 in your testimony yesterday as the holy grail, an 012829 1 Q. Would it be a reasonable inference, or a
01:26,12 2 address book of Mr. Epstein? 01:28:36 2 possible reasonable inference to draw, that
0126:17 3 A. Pieces of it, yes. 01:28:39 3 Mr. Rodriguez was trying to highlight people who would
01:26:18 4 Q. Did you review the entire document? 0128:42 4 be of interest to the Press for purposes of selling the
01:26:21 5 A. No. 0128:45 5 book?
01:26:21 6 Q. Did I understand yesterday that you 0128:46 6 A. No, because he was not talking to the Press.
01:26:25 7 testified -- did I understand correctly yesterday, that 01:28:49 7 He was talking to an FBI agent who had busted him for
01:26:28 8 you testified that the fact that names were circled 01:28:52 8 criminal activity. And so I was assuming that what he
01:26:33 9 indicated that those persons likely engaged in illegal 01:28,54 9 was trying to do, as many criminals do when they are
0126:39 10 sexual contact with minors? 01:28:58 10 apprehended, was give information to law enforcement
01:26:41 11 A. My -- my impression is the names that were 0129:01 11 agency that would be helpful so that they can catch
0126:44 12 circled were circled by Alfredo Rodriguez when he was 0129:03 12 other "bigger fishes" is the phrase that's sometimes
01:2647 13 busted by the FBI for involvement, and he was asked to 01:29:06 13 used, so that the little fish would -- would get off or
01:26:51 14 identify those who would have information about the sex 0129:09 14 get a cooperation deal from the law enforcement agency.
0126:54 15 trafficking organization. And my -- based on all the 0129:12 15 He was talking -- let's be clear. He was
01:26:58 16 evidence I have, I believe the names that were circled 01:29:14 16 talking to somebody he understood was an FBI agent at
01:27:00 17 were those who would have that kind of information. 01:29:17 17 the time, and so that was the context of the
01:27:02 18 Q. So is it your testimony that if the name is 01,29:18 18 conversation.
01:27:05 19 circled, it indicates that they have information, or 01:29:19 19 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that WS
01:2708 20 that they are criminals? 0128:22 20 in the context of talking to the FBI that Mr. Rodriguez
01:27:09 21 A. That they would have information about the 0129:25 21 circled those names?
01:2712 22 sex trafficking organization, and that would probably 0129:26 22 A. i have reviewed -- I know I could refresh my
01:27:15 23 mean that they were part of the organization. It may 0129:30 23 recollection here, but there's an FBI 302, a report of
01:27:18 24 mean that they were witnesses to what the organization 01:29:33 24 interview of the circumstances surrounding
01:27:19 25 was doing. 0129:35 25 Mr. Rodriguez's arrest, and I believe I reviewed that
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
01:27:20 1 But they would have information that the FBI, 01:29:38 1 302.
225 227
01:2724 2 among other law enforcement agencies, should be 01:29:39 2 Q. Do you know whether the FBI, at any point,
01:2726 3 following up on, if they are trying to piece together 01:29:47 3 contacted Professor Dershowitz to discuss any evidence
01:27:28 4 what the sex trafficking organization was doing. 01:29:53 4 he might have after his name was circled on this
01:27:32 5 Q. Would you agree that a fair-minded person, 01:29:56 5 document?
0127737 6 with that background that you just described, would not 01:29:57 6 A. I don't have personal knowledge of what the
01:27:41 7 go to the conclusion that the fact that a name is 01:29:58 7 FBI did to follow up after that.
01:27:44 8 circled indicates that that person has engaged in 01:30:01 8 Q. Okay. One of the names that's circled in the
0127:46 9 criminal conduct? 01:30:05 9 book is Courtney Love. Do you know who she is?
01:27:48 10 A. They -- what it would indicate is that they 01:30:08 10 A. Not off the top of my head, no.
01:27;51 11 had information relevant to criminal activity. Now, 01:30:12 11 Q. If I mention to you or if I represent that
01:27:54 12 would they on the -- just the fact that a name was 01:3016 12 she's a famous actress, any reason to question that?
01:27:55 13 circled, standing alone, reach that conclusion? 01:30:19 13 A. No.
01:2759 14 Well, that's a hypothetical question because 0120:21 14 Q. In your view, was Courtney Love involved in
01:28:01 15 obviously in this case, there's lots of other 01:30:25 15 sex trafficking?
01:28:02 16 information. 01:30:26 16 A. i don't know.
01:28:02 17 Q. Did you understand -- it is true, is it not, 01:30:27 17 Q. In your view, was Courtney Love a witness to
01:28:06 18 that Mr. Rodriguez was trying to sell that book? 01:3022 18 sex trafficking?
0128:09 19 A. That's true. 01:30,33 19 A. If -- is there a way -- are you representing
0128:10 20 Q. And is it not also true that the people who 0120:36 20 her name is circled?
0128:13 21 are circled are famous people? 01:30:38 21 Q. Her name is circled on the book. In fact, we
01:28:15 22 A. I'd have to refresh my recollection as to 01:30:40 22 can show it --
01:28:22 23 exactly who was circled, but I know that some famous 01:30:40 23 A. Okay. Yeah.
01,28:25 24 people were circled and some famous people were not 01204024 Q. It is circled on the book.
01:28:29 25 circled. 01:30:42 25 A. Okay. Sure. Yeah, I mean, my -- my
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
19 of 46 sheets Page 224 to 227 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
228 230
0120:44 1 understanding would be that if her -- and this is -- 01:3822 1 all.
01:30:46 2 could I ask a question about the circling -- or your 01:38:23 2 Q. Take as long as you want to look at the
01:3049 3 representation? 01:3826 3 document.
01:30:50 4 Is the circling the same type of circling 01:3827 4 A. Super. Thank you.
01:30:52 5 that is done for Mr. Dershowitz, for example? Is it the 01:38:51 5 Okay. Yeah. I think I'm -- I'm oriented
01:30,56 6 same, you know, handwriting, same ink, same -- same 01:3654 6 now. But I haven't looked at the Love entry.
01:30:59 7 appearance? You know, if it's consistent with the 0128:54 7 Q. My -- my first --
01:31:02 8 circling -- are you representing it's consistent with 01:38:57 8 A. I want to look at the Love --
01:31:04 9 the circling? 01:38:57 9 Q. -- question is: Is this a copy of the
01:31:07 10 Q. Mr. Cassell, we have a document produced in 01:39:02 10 address book that you referred to in your testimony?
01:31:09 11 discovery that has various names circled. Looking at 01:39:05 11 A. Yes.
01:31:14 12 the document, I don't see any difference among the 01:3005 12 Q. Okay. And if you would take a look at the --
01:31:17 13 circles. Are you aware of any document -- 0129:08 13 I've marked the entries for Courtney Love. Take a look
01:31:20 14 MR. SCAROLA: Could we have a look -- could 01:39:13 14 at that one.
01:31:21 15 we see the document? 012913 15 A. All right. I see it.
01:31:25 16 MR. SIMPSON: Take a -- go off the record for 01:39:14 16 Q. Okay. And then if you look at the last
01:31:28 17 one moment. 01:39:16 17 entry, there's an entry for Professor Dershowitz that's
01:31:28 18 THE WITNESS: We are going off the video 01,39,21 18 also circled. It should be on the flag. Its
01,31:30 19 record, 10:03. 01:39:26 19 two-sided.
01:3622 20 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 01,39:28 20 A. Oh, yeah.
01:3622 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video 01:3929 21 Q. Do you see that one?
01:36:24 22 record, 10:08 a.m. 01:39,30 22 A. I see it.
01:36:30 23 MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Back on the record. I'm 01:39:31 23 Q. And then also the other one I marked is
01:3621 24 going to ask the reporter to mark as Cassell 01:39:32 24 Donald Trump.
01:36:36 25 Exhibit 5, a multi-page document. It's a copy of 01:39:38 25 A. Yes. Got it. I see those entries circled.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
229 231
01:36:44 1 the address book we have been speaking about, and 01:39:47 1 Q. So am I right -- I'm right, am I not, that
01:36:49 2 ask that Doc -- Mr. Cassell to take a look at 01:39:50 2 among the others circled are: Courtney Love, Donald
01:36:51 3 this, and I'm going to ask him about certain of 01:39:54 3 Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, correct?
01:36:55 4 the entries. 01:39:55 4 A. Correct, among the others, yes.
01:37:03 5 (Cassell's I.D. Exhibit No. 5 - copy of 01:39:57 5 Q. And they are all circled in the same way; are
01:37:03 6 address book was marked for identification.) 01:40:00 6 they not?
01:37:03 7 MR. SIMPSON: And I will note, I put a few 01:4000 7 A. Yeah. It's kind of a -- a box is what I
01,37:03 8 flags on here -- 01:40:04 8 would say. Some, yes.
01:37:03 9 THE WITNESS: Sure. 01:4006 9 Q. Is there anything on the face of that
01:37:06 10 MR. SIMPSON: -- to direct your attention -- 01,40,08 10 document that leads you to conclude that the circling --
01,37:06 11 THE WITNESS: Correct, yeah. 01:40:13 11 the significance of the circling is any different for
01:37:09 12 MR. SIMPSON: -- which we can -- I'll note 01:40,16 12 one person than another?
01:3710 13 the pages for the record just so we have them. 01:40:17 13 A. No.
01:3716 14 38, 76, and 85. 01:4018 14 Q. So based on the document, do you infer that
01:37:24 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. I just -- I just want to 01:4023 15 Courtney Love was involved in some kind of sexual abuse
01:37:25 16 take two minutes or so -- 01,4020 16 of minors?
01:37:25 17 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:4030 17 A. I would infer that if I were running a
01:37:27 18 Q. Yeah. Take -- take a moment to look at it. 01:4025 18 criminal investigation through the FBI and I'm trying to
01,37:29 19 A. Okay. I want to make a few notes, if that's 01:4037 19 find people who would have relevant information, she
01:38,07 20 all right, just to get them in -- 01:40:40 20 would be one of the people I'd want to talk to. I mean,
01:38:07 21 Q. You're going to mark on the -- 01:40:43 21 the names that are circled here, Glenn Maxwell, one of
01:38:09 22 A. No, not on the exhibit. I'm just going to 01:4045 22 the identified traffickers, Epstein is circled, the
01.3811 23 make notes to refresh my recollection so we don't have 01:40-.48 23 pilot -- one of the pilots is circled. So it's these
0138:13 24 to take time. I'm just -- I'm just making notes of the 01:4051 24 people that all seemed to be connected are -- are all
0138,15 25 context here. This will just take another minute is 01:40:05 25 being marked here, and -- and the number of people that
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 228 to 231 of 335 20 of 46 sheets
232 234
0140:57 1 are circled is, I would say, you know, 5 to 10 percent 01:43:17 1 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:41.00 2 of the -- of the names ball-parking in the dark. 01:43:17 2 Q. But based on your testimony previously, you
01A1:03 3 Q. Do you know whether this address book was 01:43:20 3 would consider all of those facts to be evidence that he
01:4t07 4 Jeffrey Epstein's address book or Glenn Maxwell's 01:43:26 4 may have been?
01:41:11 5 address book? 0143:28 5 A. They are, you know, certainly things that I
01:41:12 6 A. I'm not certain exactly whose book it is. I 01:43:31 6 would want to follow up on.
01:41:16 7 actually thought it was Alfredo Rodriguez maintaining a 01:43:32 7 Q. And --
01:41:19 8 copy of records in case he was worried that Epstein 01:43:34 8 A. If I were running an -- we were in the
01:41:22 9 might try to have him killed at some point, and so this 01:43:36 9 context, I take it, of your question, you know, if
01:41.25 10 was his insurance policy, I think he said, against that 01;4138 10 somebody is running an investigation into the
01:41:28 11 happening. 01:43:42 11 organization, so...
01:41:29 12 MR. SIMPSON: Object to the nonresponsive 01,43:43 12 Q. Did you, in the course of your representation
01:41:31 13 portion of the answer. 01:43:47 13 of Miss Roberts or any of the other Jane Doe clients you
01:41:31 14 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:43:56 14 have had who have had claims against Mr. Epstein, make
01:41:32 15 Q. Is the answer to my question: You don't know 01:43-58 15 any effort to find out whether Mr. Trump had abused any
01:41:34 16 whether it was Jeffrey Epstein's or Glenn Maxwell's 01A4:02 16 of them?
01:41:38 17 address book? 01:44:04 17 MR. EDWARDS: I would just object to this
01:41-39 18 A. i don't know. And the reason I don't know 01:44:09 18 being work-product privilege as it relates to
01:41-41 19 that is because I actually believe it is neither -- 01:44.1019 other cases that I'm working on with Paul that
01:41:44 20 neither of their -- that's -- is it one or the other? 01:44,1220 Jack is not involved in.
01:41:46 21 Actually, I think it's a third possibility. I think 01:44:12 21 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
01:41:48 22 this was Alfredo Rodriguez's insurance policy against 01:44:15 22 MR. EDWARDS: With respect to what we did
01:41:51 23 getting knocked off by Jeffrey Epstein. 01A4:16 23 during our investigation on behalf of other
01:41:55 24 Q. So that's the view you have of the 01:4418 24 clients.
01:42:04 25 significance of this document? 01:44:19 25 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
233 235
01:42:06 1 A. Yes. In part. I mean, there are other 01:44:20 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. And I object on that
01:421/8 2 reasons it's significant, as we have been talking about, 01:44:20 2 to the extent that it reveals anything you did on
01:42:10 3 names are circled who appear to have relevant 01:44:23 3 behalf of Virginia Roberts.
01:42:13 4 information on Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities. 01:44:23 4 MR. EDWARDS: I don't think Jack would know
01:42:17 5 Q. Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein; 01.44:26 5 to object to this, but because I know of another
01:42:22 6 is that not correct? 0144'28 6 case that we work on, that's protected by our
01:42:23 7 A. I really don't -- my understanding is, yes, 01:44:30 7 work-product privilege, who I talked to and who I
01:42:26 8 but I -- I don't have a lot of information about Trump. 01:44:32 8 did not.
01:42:29 9 Q. Its true also, is it not, that Mr. Trump was 0144:32 9 THE WITNESS: I'd like to --
01:42:34 10 a frequent visitor to Mr. Epstein's residence? 01:44:32 10 MR. SCAROLA: In that case, I instruct you
01:42:38 11 A. 1-- I know that he visited frequent. I -- I 01:44'34 11 not to answer.
01:42'41 12 don't have a lot of information about Trump. 01:44.34 12 THE WITNESS: All right.
01:42:43 13 Q. And his name is circled in this book; is it 01•44.37 13 MR. SIMPSON: All right. You're here,
01:42:47 14 not? 01.44.39 14 Mr. Edwards, as a client, not an attorney,
01-42:47 15 A. I believe it is. 01-44:41 15 correct?
01:42:48 16 Q. Based on him -- assuming he's a frequent 01:44:42 16 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. That's my primary role in
01:42:5217 visitor to Mr. Epstein's home, and that he's a friend of 01:44:44 17 being here, but I'm going to protect the
01:43:00 18 Mr. Epstein's, and that his name is circled in this 01:44:46 18 privilege to the extent that it's not being
01.43:03 19 book, do you infer that he was engaged in criminal 01144:47 19 protected by others who don't recognize that the
01:43:09 20 sexual abuse of minors? 01:44:50 20 privilege needs to be protected on other matters.
01:43:11 21 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the 01:44:52 21 MR. SIMPSON: Okay.
01,43.13 22 extent that your answer would reveal anything 01:44:53 22 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:4316 23 that my client has told you. 01A4:58 23 Q. Mr. Cassell, as of December 30th of 2014,
01:43:16 24 THE WITNESS: No. 01:45:03 24 were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had visited
01:43:17 25 01:45:09 25 Mr. Epstein's home and stayed as a guest for a week in
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
21 of 46 sheets Page 232 to 235 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
236 238
01:45:14 1 the company of his grandchildren, among other family 01:47:08 1 scene of ongoing criminal abuse of minors, and who
01:45:18 2 members? 01:47:12 2 himself, has engaged in that criminal abuse, would bring
01A5:19 3 A. I'm sorry. Which residence? Which Epstein 01:47:16 3 his grandchildren to stay there for a week?
01:4523 4 residence? 01:4718 4 A. It would depend on the circumstances.
01A5:23 5 Q. Palm Beach. 01:47:21 5 Q. When you say that Professor Dershowitz was a
01:45:25 6 A. Can you -- can you restate? 01:47:33 6 regular guest at the mansion, at the Palm Beach house,
01:45:25 7 Q. Yes. 01:47:41 7 it's correct, is it not, that you're referring to a
51:45:27 8 A. I mean that's kind of a compound question. -I
01:47:43 8 period after Virginia Roberts had left for Thailand?
01:4630 9 mean... 01:47.47 9 A. No.
01:45:30 10 Q. Well, let me rephrase it. I will be clear. 01:47:49 10 Q. Are you aware of any evidence -- let me back
01:45:31 11 A. Yeah. 01:47:55 11 that up.
01:45:3212 Q. Were you aware as of December 30th of 2014 -- 01:47:57 12 Are -- during the period that Virginia
01:45:36 13 let me back up a moment. 01:47:59 13 Roberts contends she was sexually abused, which I
01:45,37 14 A. Sure. 01:48:02 14 understand to be middle of 1999 to middle of 2002 -- is
01:45:37 15 Q. You indicated yesterday that part of the 01:48:09 15 that consistent with your understanding?
01:45:40 16 basis for your conclusion that this pleading -- it was 01:48:10 16 A. Approximately, yes.
01:45:44 17 appropriate to file this pleading accusing Professor 01:48:12 17 Q. -- how many times did Professor Dershowitz
01:45:49 18 Dershowitz of misconduct was that he was a guest at the 01:48:14 18 visit the Palm Beach mansion during that period?
01:45:53 19 Palm Beach house, correct? 01A8:17 19 A. My understanding is in the neighborhood of --
01:45:55 20 A. No. It was more than that. He was a 01:48:21 20 what was it? Three to five times a year, staying two to
01:45:57 21 frequent guest, a frequent overnight guest. 01:48:25 21 three nights at a time.
01:46:01 22 Q. My question is: As of December 30th, 2014, 01:4826 22 Q. And was that your understanding as of
0146:06 23 were you aware that Professor Dershowitz had spent a 01,48:29 23 December 30th of 2014?
01:46:10 24 week at the Palm Beach house with family members, 01:48,32 24 A. Yes.
01A6,13 25 including his grandchildren?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
01:48:32 25 Q. What was the basis for your understanding,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
237 239
01:46:15 1 A. No. 01:48:38 1 what pieces, what documents, or testimony?
01:46:15 2 Q. Okay. Do you think it's reasonable -- would 01:48:41 2 A. Right. The information, you know, I gave a
01:46:20 3 it be reasonable to believe that someone who is 01:48:44 3 long presentation yesterday. So it was that
01:46:23 4 committing criminal sexual abuse of minors at a home 01:48:46 4 information.
01:46:28 5 where such abuse, as you understand it, is a daily 01:48:48 5 Q. I want to focus now specifically -- I'm not
01A6:33 6 occurrence would bring his grandchildren to stay for a 01:4650 6 looking for a full answer on your entire views --
01:4635 7 week? 01:48:50 7 A. Yeah, right.
01:46:35 8 A. It would depend on the circumstances. I 01:48:53 8 Q. -- on the case.
01A637 9 mean, you know, so -- you know, it would depend on the 01:48:53 9 A. I appreciate that.
01:46:40 10 circumstances. 01:4654 10 Q. I just want to say, you've testified that you
01:46A0 11 MR. SCAROLA: Are you representing that 01:48:57 11 understood as of December 30th, 2014, that Professor
01A6A1 12 Jeffrey Epstein was there at the time? 01.49:0312 Dershowitz had -- was a visitor at the Palm Beach
01A6:42 13 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not answering questions. 01;49:04 13 mansion three to five times during this relevant period
01:46A4 14 I'm asking questions. 01:49:09 14 of 1999 to -- middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002.
01:46:45 15 MR. SCAROLA: Oh, okay. 01A9,14 15 What was the basis on December 30th of 2014, for just
01:46:45 16 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:49:20 16 that fact?
01:46:47 17 Q. So, in your view, you can -- let me -- let me 01:49:21 17 A. Right. I mean, I will take about a minute
0146:50 18 rephrase that. 01:49:23 18 here because there are a few things I want --
01.46:52 19 You say it would depend on the 01:492519 Q. Okay. And I want to make sure my question is
01:46:54 20 circumstances -- 01:49:28 20 clear.
01:46:54 21 A. Sure. Sure. 01:49:28 21 A. Sure.
01,46:54 22 Q. -- that's your answer? 0149:29 22 Q. I'm not asking you about any of your
01:46:55 23 A. Yes. 01:49:30 23 inferences about anything else. Just, what's the basis
01:46:56 24 Q. Okay. So that you don't find it incongruous 01:49:34 24 for your belief that he visited three to five times
01:47:00 25 that someone who knows that a particular home is the 01:4918 25 during that two-year period?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 236 to 239 of 335 22 of 46 sheets
240 242
01:49:39 1 MR. SCAROLA: Could I ask for a 01:51:23 1 context, in other words, information that was
01:49:40 2 clarification? Are you looking only for direct 01:51:25 2 going to be disclosed, not for advice, but
01:49:42 3 evidence and you want to exclude the 01:5126 3 factual information that she intended to
01:49:44 4 circumstantial evidence? Is that the way you 01751:28 4 disclose, that's no -- that's not privileged.
01A9A6 5 want to -- 01:51:30 5 But if it's something that she communicated to
01:49:46 6 MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking. You can object to 01:51:32 6 you in confidence with respect to getting legal
01:49:48 7 the form. 01:51:36 7 advice, then that would be privileged.
01:49:48 8 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01,51:39 8 THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. So Juan Alessi's
01:49:48 9 Q. My question is: What was -- what were you -- 01:51:45 9 deposition, Alfredo Rodriguez's deposition, and
01:49:51 10 what did you have in mind as supporting your conclusion 01:51A9 10 then considerable circumstantial evidence which
01A9:57 11 or belief that he -- that Professor Dershowitz visited 01:51:52 11 we don't have to rehash here involving the close
01:50:02 12 three to five times during that relevant period? 01:51:55 12 personal association between Epstein and
01:50:04 13 MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm sorry. Can I just 01:52:00 13 Dershowitz.
01:50:06 14 place an objection on the record. I'm going to 01:52:00 14 I mean, again, we can rehash all of that, but
01:50:07 15 object to the extent that -- so that you do not 01;52:03 15 those were -- those are -- that's kind of a
01:5010 16 reveal attorney/client privileged communication, 01:52:04 16 quick -- because I know you want to get to a lot
01:50:12 17 unless it's something that's already public that 01:52:06 17 of questions -- that's a quick sort of highlight
01:50:15 18 she's revealed. 01:52:09 18 film, if you will.
01:50:15 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. Right. So I'm going to 01:5209 19 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:50:17 20 just exclude -- I take it your question isn't 01:5211 20 Q. Mr. Cassell, isn't it true that Mr. Rodriguez
01:5019 21 asking about any communications. 01:52:14 21 was not hired until several years after the Summer --
01:50:19 22 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:52:19 22 A. 2004.
01:50:22 23 Q. My question is asking about that, but I 01:52:20 23 Q. Let me ask it again.
01:50:24 24 understand you're going to refuse to provide it. 01:5221 24 -- until well after 2002?
01:50:25 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Unless it's already public. 01:52:22 25 A. Yeah, about 2004.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
241 243
01:50:28 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. So as of December 30th, 01:5223 1 Q. And Mr. Rodriguez would have no personal
01:50:30 2 I'm going to exclude any communications from 01:5228 2 knowledge of how often Professor Dershowitz visited
01:50:33 3 Virginia Roberts from -- 01,52:31 3 during a period two years or three years before he was
01:50:34 4 MR. SCAROLA: Except to extent that they have 01:52:34 4 hired; isn't that true?
01:50:37 5 already been made public. That is, if she has 01:52:35 5 A. So, look, this is -- this is why I was trying
0150:39 6 given express permission to make disclosures, 01,52:37 6 to speed up the answer to the question. We have a sex
01:50:43 7 these were not confidential communications, but 01:52:41 7 trafficking organization that is running a common scheme
0150:46 8 communications intended to be communicated to 01:52:43 8 and plan that is continuing on until it was interrupted
01:50:48 9 third parties, then you are permitted to include 01:52:45 9 by law enforcement about 2005 and 2006.
01:50:52 10 information from Virginia Roberts in your 01:52:49 10 So what the -- the criminal organization is
01150:54 11 response to that extent. And I -- go ahead. 01:52:51 11 doing in 2004, unless I have some significant evidence
01:51M 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 01:52:54 12 that it's different than what was going on in 2002,
01:51:00 13 BY MR. SIMPSON: 01:52:58 13 2001, 2000, 1999, I think it's reasonable to conclude
01:51:00 14 Q. As of December -- 01:53:01 14 that the same sort of criminal activities are going on
01:5101 15 A. Right. 01.53:03 15 later.
01:51:03 16 Q. -- 30th, 2014 -- 0153:04 16 So if -- if you want -- if you want me to get
01:51:06 17 A. Right. 01,53:07 17 into the -- the full scope of the criminal organization,
01.51:06 18 Q. -- correct? So -- 01:53:09 18 we can get into it. But the fact that somebody in 2004
01:51:06 19 A. Yeah, that's right. 01:5313 19 sees this going on, leads me to conclude that it's
01:51:07 20 Q. -- any -- any public statements by her after 01'53:16 20 probably the same thing going on in the absence of other
01,51:10 21 December 30th, 2014 would not be included in the answer. 01:53:19 21 information in 2001.
01:51:14 22 A. Okay. 01:53:21 22 Q. So from Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about what
01:51:14 23 MS. McCAWLEY: But let me be clear. Let me 01:53:28 23 was going on, so to speak -- and my question related,
01:51:16 24 be clear about my objection. To the extent that 01;5132 24 what was going on the number of times that Professor
01,51:18 25 she revealed something to you in a nonprivileged 01753:35 25 Dershowitz visited. That's the topic.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
23 of 46 sheets Page 240 to 243 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM
244 246
01:53:37 1 A. Right. 01:55:20 1 MR. SIMPSON: Really, objecting to the form
01:53:37 2 Q. That because he visited, according to 01:55:23 2 of the question preserves all of any problems
0163:40 3 Mr. Rodriguez, several times a year in 2004, 2005, he 01:55:26 3 there may be with the question.
01:53:45 4 must have visited several times a year in 2000 -- 19- -- 01:55.27 4 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir.
01:5362 5 middle of 1999 to the middle of 2002. 01:5627 5 MR. SIMPSON: We don't need a speech.
01:53:55 6 A. i didn't say must have. I said that that's 01.55:27 6 MR. SCAROLA: It doesn't. It doesn't.
01:5367 7 going to be evidence of the common scheme and plan, and 01:5627 7 BY MR. SIMPSON:
01:53:59 8 then, in the absence of, you know, some falling out 01:55:32 8 Q. Mr. Cassell, is it your testimony that, from
016462 9 between people or somebody becoming, you know, more 01:5517 9 Mr. Rodriguez's testimony about how often he says
0164:05 10 associated or less associated with a criminal 01:55:43 10 Professor Dershowitz visited in a 2004/2005 time frame,
01:54:07 11 organization. I mean, if you want to get into the 01:55:49 11 its fair to draw an inference about how often he
01.54:09 12 circumstantial evidence, in 2003, there's an article on 01:55:52 12 visited in an earlier -- three-year earlier time frame?
01:5413 13 which, you know, Dershowitz identifies himself -- 01:55:56 13 A. In the circumstances of this case,
01:54:15 14 Q. Let me interrupt you because I'm asking -- 01:5659 14 absolutely.
01:54:15 15 A. Okay. 01:55:59 15 Q. And would it be fair to infer from the number
0164:18 16 Q. -- about -- my only question is evidence of 01666316 of times that Donald Trump visited three years later,
0164:18 17 how -- not anything, whether engaged in conduct or 01:5608 17 how often he visited at an earlier period?
01:54:23 18 didn't engage in conduct, just how many times he came 01:56:09 18 A. I did not investigate the circumstances
01:54:26 19 during this period. 01:56:12 19 involving Trump. He wasn't somebody that was coming up.
01:54:26 20 A. Right. 0166.16 20 Q. Were you aware on December 30th of 2014 that
01:5426 21 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, counsel. That's the 01:5625 21 Donald Trump was quoted in Vanity Fair as saying: "I've
01:54:28 22 reason why I asked you to clarify whether you 01:5628 22 known Jeff" -- referring to Epstein -- oh, I'm sorry.
5164:30 23 want to limit this to direct evidence or whether 01:56:34 23 It was a New Yorker Magazine, not Vanity Fair. That he
01:54:33 24 you want all of the evidence including 01:56:37 24 was quoted as saying: "I've known Jeff.' -- referring to
01:54:35 25 circumstantial evidence, because as we both know,
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
0166:40 25 Epstein -- "for 15 years. Terrific guy. And he's a lot
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
245 247
01:54:39 1 circumstantial evidence is good evidence. A 01:5644 1 of fun to be with." It even said that: "He likes
01:54:42 2 well-connected chain of circumstance can be -- 01:56:47 2 beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on
01:54:45 3 MR. SIMPSON: We really don't need a speech. 016662 3 the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys the
01:54:47 4 MR. SCAROLA: -- a well-connected -- 01:56:56 4 social -- social life"? Were you aware of that on
01:54,17 5 MR. SIMPSON: We really don't -- 01:58:57 5 December 30th, 2014?
5164:48 6 MR. SCAROLA: -- chain of circumstance may be 01:5668 6 A. Possibly. I mean that sounds vaguely
01:54:49 7 as compelling proof as direct evidence of a given 01:57:01 7 familiar. Trump has just not been somebody that -- that
01:5463 8 fact. That's the law. 01:57:05 8 I've paid much attention to in this case.
01:54:55 9 If you don't want -- 01:57:07 9 Q. Based on that statement, and the facts we
01:54:57 10 MR. SIMPSON: Really, sir. 01:57.14 10 discussed earlier about Mr. Trump visiting and being a
01:54:55 11 MR. SCAROLA: -- the circumstantial 01,57:21 11 friend, and the other circumstances we discussed, are
01:54:56 12 evidence -- 01:57:24 12 you suspicious about whether he engaged in sexual
01:54:57 13 MR. SIMPSON: Mr. Scarola -- 01:57:27 13 misconduct with minors?
01:54:57 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- tell us that. 01:57:29 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the
0164:58 15 MR. SIMPSON: -- please don't make speeches, 01:57:30 15 extent that you can't reveal anything that my
01.54:59 16 and please don't coach the witness. 01:57:31 16 client has informed you of.
01:5501 17 MR. SCAROLA: Just tell us that. I'm not 01:57:33 17 THE WITNESS: Right. If we set aside that
01:5602 18 coaching the witness. I'm asking you -- you're 01:57:35 18 information, I'm not -- I'm not suspicious, no,
016606 19 asking ambiguous questions. 0167:39 19 not given the information I have.
016608 20 MR. SIMPSON: There's nothing ambiguous -- 01:57:39 20 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0165:09 21 MR. SCAROLA: If you want only direct 01:57:40 21 Q. Okay. So notwithstanding that his name is
0165:10 22 evidence, we will give you only direct evidence. 01:57:42 22 circled in the address book, he was a good friend, he
01:55:13 23 If you want a full and complete answer, it's 01:57:49 23 visited often, and he was quoted as saying that Jeff was
01:55:15 24 got to include circumstantial evidence, so don't 0167:54 24 a terrific guy who liked young women almost as much as
016619 25 cut him off when he's giving you that. 01:57:58 25 Trump did, you're not even suspicious?
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM Page 244 to 247 of 335 24 of 46 sheets
248 250
016801 1 A. Not -- you know, let's break that down in a 0200:11 1 and energy in that, right.
01:58:05 2 couple pieces. 020012 2 Q. And you referred to your pro bono case. What
01:58:06 3 The fact that his name is circled, if I were 02:0016 3 is your best estimate of how much money you have made
016808 4 running an FBI investigation, I'd go send somebody to 02:0021 4 representing victims of Jeffrey Epstein?
01:58:10 5 see what he knew about it, but no, it would take a lot 02:0024 5 A. In which case are we talking about now?
01:58:13 6 more for me to become suspicious that somebody is 020026 6 Q. Any -- any case representing a victim of
01:5816 7 involved in -- in sexual activity like that. 02:00:28 7 Jeffrey Epstein.
01:58:19 8 Q. Okay. So you would agree with me then, that 02:00,29 8 A. I need to confer with .-
01:5821 9 the fact that a person often visited the mansion, the 020013 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Yeah. I'm going to object.
01:5824 10 person -- the fact that a person was a friend of 02001310 BY MR. SIMPSON:
0168:27 11 Mr. Epstein for 15 years, the fact that the person had 02:00:34 11 Q. And that -- that's a fact -- that's not a
016812 12 stated publicly that: "Mr. Epstein liked young women 02:0036 12 privileged question. That's a factual question.
01:5816 13 almost as much as I do myself," and the fact that the 02:00:37 13 A. Factual. Well, there are -- there are --
01:58:40 14 name is circled in the address book is not sufficient to 0200:38 14 Q. Just how much money? You don't have to tell
01:58:43 15 raise a suspicion that that person engaged in sexual 02:00:41 15 me who the clients are. Just how much money?
01:5047 16 misconduct? 0200:44 16 A. Okay. I need to --
0168.47 17 A. So... 02:0046 17 MR. SIMPSON: There's a question pending. I
01:5048 18 Q. Yes or no. It's a yes or no question. 02:00:47 18 object to a break. There's no possible
0168:51 19 A. It requires -- 02:00:48 19 privilege.
01:58:51 20 MR. SCAROLA: You're not required to answer 02:00:48 20 MR. SCAROLA: He has a privilege -- he has a
01:58:53 21 yes or no, if a yes or no response alone would be 02:00:50 21 privilege question. He wants to consult with
01:58:55 22 misleading. 02:00:51 22 counsel.
01:58:56 23 THE WITNESS: The problem is the word 0200:51 23 MR. SIMPSON: Well, really? My question is
01;58:57 24 "suspicion." I'm not particularly suspicious on 020053 24 how much money, and that's privileged?
01:58:59 25 those facts, but it -- you know, what do you mean 02:00:5525 MR. SCAROLA: It may be. I don't know. We
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
249 251
016903 1 by "suspicion"? If I -- if I were running an FBI 02:00:56 1 need to talk.
01:59:04 2 investigation and somebody circled a name as -- 020067 2 THE WITNESS: That's why I need to --
0169:05 3 as saying, look, this fellow may have some 0200:58 3 MR. SCOTT: There's no federal law or state
01:5909 4 information, I'd go follow up on that. 02:01:01 4 law that supports that financial information and
01:59:10 5 If you say that's suspicion, then the answer 02:01:02 5 fees is privileged.
01:59:13 6 would be, yes. But I -- you know, based on that 02:01:03 6 MS. McCAWLEY: We can argue about that
01:59:15 7 information alone, no. I mean that -- that 02:01:05 7 because that's in my motion, so we can argue
01:59:18 8 wouldn't -- wouldn't be enough for me to, you 020109 8 about that.
01:59:22 9 know, invest time and energy into that particular 02.01:09 9 MR. SIMPSON: Well, can -- can --
01:59:26 10 possibility. 02:01:09 10 MR. SCOTT: That one, I know all about.
01:59:26 11 BY MR. SIMPSON: 02:01:10 11 MR. SCAROLA: You're objecting to our taking
01:59:27 12 Q. Okay. So none of those facts are sufficient 02:01:11 12 a break --
0169:31 13 even to justify spending time and energy, correct? 020111 13 MR. SIMPSON: I am objecting --
0169:34 14 A. Unless -- if I'm running -- this is -- again, 02:01:11 14 MR. SCAROLA: -- while this question is
01:59:37 15 what do you mean by "suspicion"? Time and energy in the 02:01:13 15 pending?
01:59:42 16 context of somebody who is running a pro bono case with 0201713 16 MR. SIMPSON: That's correct.
01:59:44 17 limited resources to try to figure out what the sex 02:01:14 17 MR. SCAROLA: It is our position that the
01:59:47 18 trafficking ring's going to do, I'm not going to chase 02:01:16 18 witness has a legal question about privilege. We
01:59:49 19 after that rabbit. It seems farfetched. 020120 19 are going to take a break. We are going to talk
01:59:53 20 I'm going to focus my efforts on the people 02:01:22 20 about it. It may turn out that it's not a
016963 21 who appear to be more directly involved. 02:0124 21 problem at all. I don't know.
01:59:56 22 Q. Okay. So based on the facts that I gave you 02:0126 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video
0169:59 23 a moment ago, you think it's farfetched that Donald 0201,28 23 record, 10:38.
02:00:04 24 Trump was engaged in abusing minors? 020129 24 MR. SIMPSON: With my note, we are taking a
02:0007 25 A. If that's all I had, I would not invest time 02.0112 25 break over my objection.
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
(954) 331-4400 (954) 331-4400
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38693
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
50 posts
• Page 3 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Return to Sacrifice Virgins, Get World by the Balls: The Mossad's Lolita Gambit
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests