Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-27702House OversightDeposition

Deposition transcript shows procedural dispute over video playback involving Alan Dershowitz and witness [REDACTED - Survivor]

The passage records a deposition where counsel objects to viewing video evidence linking Dershowitz and Roberts. It provides no concrete allegations, financial flows, or wrongdoing, and the individual Deposition timestamps and procedural objections recorded. Counsel requests video of [REDACTED - Survivor] testimony to confirm presence with Professor Dershowitz. Deposition ended early by agreement, with

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010885
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage records a deposition where counsel objects to viewing video evidence linking Dershowitz and Roberts. It provides no concrete allegations, financial flows, or wrongdoing, and the individual Deposition timestamps and procedural objections recorded. Counsel requests video of [REDACTED - Survivor] testimony to confirm presence with Professor Dershowitz. Deposition ended early by agreement, with

Tags

evidence-disputevirginia-robertsevidence-handlinglegal-proceduredepositionalan-dershowitzlegal-exposurehouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
03:40:25 03:40:26 03:40:26 03:40:28 03:40:28 03:40:28 03:40:29 03:40:31 03:40:33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 oao2s 10 0340-37 14 034042 12 oxaoas 13 osaoar 14 os4os0 15 osaosa 16 03:40:56 17 oa4os0 18 03:41:00 19 oaa102 20 034103 21 os4t05 22 osat0s 23 03-4108 24 osaioe 25 03:44:10 03:41:13 03:44:14 03:41:17 03:41:18 03:41:20 03:41:21 03:41:22 03:41:23 On oOnAh WN = 9 o3ar.23 10 03:41:24 1 1 03:41:25 1 2 03:41:29 1 3 03:41:32 1 4 03:41:35 1 5 03:41:38 1 6 03:41:39 41 7 03:41:40 1 8 03:41:44 1 9 03:41:43 20 03:41:46 21 03:41:46 22 03:44:48 23 03:41:50 24 03:41:52 25 328 right now. MR. SIMPSON: I've got -- THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Two minutes. MR. SIMPSON: Two minutes. All right. That won't take -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I want you to look at the video of that -- that testimony. Would you play it, please, for the witness? This is from the videotape of the deposition. THE WITNESS: I do not want to watch just -- I want to watch -- what -- what I'm seeing here as I dive into this, I would -- if you're going to ask me questions about what's in these particular lines, I want to see -- I want to go back. I want all of the -- the relevant parts of [REDACTED]'s testimony played. And I believe there are approximately four points in the transcript where she’s mentioned, so can we play all four of those? MR, SCAROLA: We are not going to do that. We have run out of time. Per agreement, this was supposed to stop at noon. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: It is now 12:12, so this deposition is ended. There were a lot of things ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 329 that I would have like to have finished with Professor Dershowitz and wasn't permitted to do that. So by agreement, this deposition is now over. MR, SIMPSON: It -- it's -- it's ending over my objection and the witness's -- MR. SCAROLA: I -- I understand that. MR, SIMPSON: -- the -- I'm going to make my record, MR. SCAROLA: Okay. MR. SIMPSON: -- the witness's refusal to look at the videotape of the portion of the deposition that he just characterized in his testimony as suggesting an affirmative answer to the question of whether [REDACTED] and Professor Dershowitz were there at the same time, and I will represent -- MR. SCAROLA: That record is clear. MR. SIMPSON: -- and anyone looking at that videotape would know, to a moral certainty, that that was false. THE WITNESS: Okay. And I -- I want to make clear that I would be happy to look at everything. We will do that at another time perhaps. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 03:41:54 03:41:54 03:41:55 On aA kh w© Ph = hm DH PD RD RD ee wk wk kkk ah ON | OM ON DP Oh WH 3 © 0 ON OA hw bp «a CEE CREE CE Cn Cn NS te es At WOH 4H OW ON Oak wh 3 © © 330 MR. SCAROLA: Right. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 12:14 p.m. (Witness excused.) (Deposition was adjourned.) ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 331 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET Assignment no: 220190 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the entire transcript of my deposition/examination under oath taken in the captioned matter or the same has been read to me, and the same is true and accurate, save and except for changes and/or corrections, if any, as indicated by me on the DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET hereof, with the understanding that I offer these changes as if still under oath. day of ; Signed on the 2015. PAUL G. CASSELL ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 45 of 46 sheets Page 328 to 331 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone(954) 331-4400

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.