EFTA02726484

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„ Plaintiffs, vs. 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.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726484 181 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of Plaintiffs: 3 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA 4 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. 6 7 8 On behalf of Defendant: 9 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 10 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 11 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ. 12 BY: ST ISAFRAG. (Via phone) 13 --and-- 14 SWEDER & ROSS, LLP 131 Oliver Street 15 Boston, MA 02110 BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER, ESQ. 16 • 17 --and-- 18 WILEY, REIN 17769 K Street NW 19 Washington, DC 20006 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ. 20 BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ. 21 22 23 24 25 www.piiiiiiiiiiiiir.com EFTA02726485 182 1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 2 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 3 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl. 4 New York, New York BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone) 5 6 On behalf of 7 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 8 Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 BY: 9 10 11 ALSO PRESENT: 12 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office 13 Travis Gallagher, Videographer 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726486 183 1 INDEX 2 Examination Page 3 4 VOLUME 2 (Pages 180 - 333) 5 Direct By Mr. Scarola 184 6 Certificate of Oath 330 Certificate of Reporter 331 7 Read and Sign Letter to Witness 332 Errata Sheet (forwarded upon execution) 333 8 PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS 9 No. Page 10 1 Television Interview Transcript 193 11 2 Except from Deposition of Alan M. 193 12 Dershowitz 13 3 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 194 14 4 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 197 15 5 Flight Log Information Sheet 198 16 6 Composite - Flight logs 240 17 7 Composite - Flight manuals 240 18 8 Photograph - 8x10 - Color 305 19 9 Composite - Calendar entries 306 20 10 Composite - Calendar entries 307 21 11 Composite - Calendar entries 307 22 12 Composite - Calendar entries 307 23 24 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726487 184 1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record. This 2 is day two of Alan Dershowitz's deposition. 3 The date is October 16, 2015, and the time is 4 approximately 9:18 a.m. 5 MR. SCAROLA: Would you please reswear the 6 witness. 7 THE COURT REPORTER: Would you raise your 8 right hand, please? 9 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 10 you are about to give will be the truth, the 11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 Thereupon: 14 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ 15 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 16 testified as follows: 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, what is rhetorical 20 hyperbole? 21 A. Rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole 22 means exaggeration. 23 Q. Something other than the truth, correct? 24 A. Truth -- 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, relevancy. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726488 185 1 A. Truth has many, many meanings and is a 2 continuum. The Supreme Court has held that 3 rhetorical hyperbole cannot be the basis, for 4 example, of perjury prosecutions or generally of a 5 defamation prosecution. 6 So it depends on the context. You might 7 just look at the dictionary and probably get a 8 variety of definitions for it. 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 Q. Well, what I'm concerned about, 11 Mr. Dershowitz, is not a dictionary definition. I 12 want to know what your understanding of rhetorical 13 hyperbole is. 14 And do you agree that pursuant to your 15 understanding of rhetorical hyperbole, it is an 16 exaggeration beyond the facts? 17 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative and 18 compound, three questions. 19 A. No -- 20 MR. SCOTT: You can answer. 21 A. -- I would not agree with that definition. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. Okay. Then define it for us, if you 24 would, please. 25 A. I think I have already. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726489 186 1 Q. I'm sorry, I missed the definition. Could 2 you tell us what rhetorical hyperbole is? 3 MR. SCOTT: Objection, repetitious. He's 4 done it. 5 A. Why don't we just read back my answer. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Because I didn't understand it, so I would 8 like you to try to give us a direct response to that 9 question if you're able to. 10 A. I will repeat exactly what I said. A 11 rhetorical means verbal and hyperbole means some 12 exaggeration of the facts for political or other 13 reasons, but generally it is truthful in a literal 14 sense but perhaps -- it all depends on context. 15 And if you tell me the context in which I 16 used it, I will be happy to describe what I meant in 17 that context. But I don't think you can really 18 answer a question about what two words put together 19 mean without understanding the context. 20 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to talk about 21 some context. 22 Do you recall having been interviewed on 23 on 24 A. I have no current recollection of -- 25 MR. SCOTT: Do you have a copy of the www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726490 187 1 transcript of the interview? We'd like to see 2 it. 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what I gave 4 you, the photocopy. 5 MR. SCOTT: We're doing it right now. 6 Maybe we can move on and come back then. 7 MR. SCAROLA: No, I would like to proceed. 8 MR. SCOTT: Then let's stop until I get a 9 copy of it. Because he -- I want -- 10 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that's 11 necessary because your client has told us that 12 he has a superb memory and one of the things I 13 would like to know is what he's able to recall. 14 If he needs to refresh his memory, the 15 transcripts will be here in just a moment, but 16 I don't want to delay going forward. 17 MR. SCOTT: Do you need the transcript to 18 refresh your memory? 19 THE WITNESS: Well, I have no memory of 20 what specifically I said on a particular day in 21 a particular interview. 22 MR. SCOTT: Since you have a copy in front 23 of him, why don't you just show him your copy 24 then? Read the -- ask your question and let 25 him read it. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726491 188 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on 3 by 4 A. Yes, I do. 5 Q. Do you recall having been interviewed on 6 by in early 7 where you spoke about matters that have become the 8 subject of this litigation? 9 A. Yes, I do. 10 Q. Did you make the following statement 11 during the course of that interview: "As to the 12 airplanes, there are manifests that will prove 13 beyond any doubt that I was never on a private 14 airplane with this woman or any other underage 15 girl"? 16 MR. SCOTT: You need to see the 17 transcript? 18 THE WITNESS: No. No. 19 A. That is a truthful statement. I would 20 repeat it right now. I've reviewed the manifests. 21 First, I know I was never on the airplane 22 with any underage woman. I know that for a fact. I 23 have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. And 24 the records that I have reviewed confirm that. 25 They have on a number of www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726492 189 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 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 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. 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 , 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 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726493 190 1 idea who was in the front cabin of the airplane with 2 the pilots. Obviously what I intended to say and 3 what I say here now is I never saw an underaged 4 person on an airplane. 5 Now, when I -- when I flew with Jeffrey 6 Epstein to the launch, my recollection is that there 7 may have been a couple on the plane with their child 8 who was going to see the launch. But that was 9 certainly not the context in which I made the 10 statement. 11 I never saw any underage, young person who 12 would be the subject or object of any improper 13 sexual activities. Had I seen Jeffrey Epstein ever 14 in the presence of an underage woman in a context 15 that suggested sexuality, I would have, A, left the 16 scene; B, reported it; and, C, never had any further 17 contact with Jeffrey Epstein. 18 Q. You have also made the statement that you 19 were never on a private airplane with any underage 20 women or any young women, correct? 21 A. The context was underage women in a sexual 22 context. If it was a -- you know, a four-year-old 23 child being carried by her mother, that would not be 24 included in what I intended to say. 25 Q. Your sworn testimony yesterday, according www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726494 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 , 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 I 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 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726495 192 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 I 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. I 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, I do not recall -- and I'm very www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726496 193 1 firm about this -- being on an airplane with anybody 2 who I believed could be the subject of Jeffrey 3 Epstein or anyone else's improper sexual activities. 4 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Let's mark the 5 transcript that we've been referring to as 6 Exhibit Number 1, please. That's the 7 transcript of the television interviews that 8 we'll be discussing. 9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 10 1.) 11 MR. SCOTT: This is actually 2, right? We 12 had one yesterday, an article from the British 13 newspaper? 14 MR. SCAROLA: No. It was not marked as an 15 exhibit. This is the first exhibit that's been 16 marked. 17 MR. SCOTT: No, I know that, but I thought 18 we were going to mark that one. Maybe I was -- 19 I asked for that. Okay. 20 It was an answer and counterclaim about 21 the allegation shown to the witness. 22 MR. SCAROLA: And Exhibit Number 2 will be 23 the transcript from yesterday's proceedings 24 that I have just referenced. 25 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726497 194 1 Exhibit 2.) 2 MR. SCOTT: You don't have a copy of that, 3 do you, of the transcript? 4 MR. SCAROLA: No. Got sent to you. I 5 assume you have it. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. I'm going to hand you what we'll now mark 8 as Exhibit Number 3. 9 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 10 Exhibit 3.) 11 MR. SCOTT: There's no question. 12 MR. SWEDER: Yes. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 14 Q. Do you recognize that young woman, 15 Mr. Dershowitz? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Never saw her? 18 A. Not that I know of. 19 Q. Never flew on an private airplane with 20 her? 21 A. Not that I know of. 22 Q. Do you recognize the name 23 A. I do recall that Jeffrey Epstein had a 24 friend named 25 Q. That you flew with? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726498 195 1 A. I don't remember that I flew with her or 2 not. I may have. But I don't recall necessarily. 3 But I did meet I remember meeting a woman named 4 . This does not look like , like the 5 woman I met. 6 Q. Okay. So that's a -- that's a different 7 8 A. No, I don't know. 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, 10 argumentative. 11 A. I have no idea. I do not recognize this 12 woman. She's not familiar to me at all. 13 I can tell you this: Without any doubt, I 14 never met anybody dressed like this on any airplane 15 or in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein or in any 16 context -- 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Did she have 19 A. -- related to this case. 20 Q. -- more clothes on or less clothes on when 21 you met her? 22 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. He said he 23 never met her. Misrepresent -- 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 25 Q. When you met the woman that you're www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726499 196 1 referencing, did she have more clothes on or less 2 clothes on than that woman? 3 A. Every woman that I met in the presence of 4 Jeffrey Epstein was properly dressed, usually in 5 suits and dresses and -- and appropriately covered 6 up. I never met any women in the context of Jeffrey 7 Epstein who were dressed anything like this. 8 Q. Would you agree that that is a young woman 9 in that photograph? 10 A. I have no idea what her age is. 11 Q. So you don't know whether she was underage 12 or overage or a young woman or not a young woman? 13 A. I don't -- 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 15 A. -- know this woman, so I have no idea how 16 old a woman in a picture is. She could be -- she 17 could be 30. She could be 25. I have no idea. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. Or she could be 15 or 16? 20 A. I don't think so. 21 Q. But you don't know? 22 A. This doesn't -- well, I don't know how old 23 you are. This does not strike me 24 Q. Old enough to know that 25 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726500 197 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. -- that's a young woman. 3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. You're cutting the 4 witness off. You're not letting him finish. 5 A. This looks like a picture out of a Playboy 6 or Penthouse magazine. It does not look to me like 7 a person who is under the age of 16 or 17 or 18. 8 But I don't think you can tell anything from the 9 picture. I think you can tell much more from 10 meeting somebody and being with them and having a 11 conversation with them. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this photograph, 13 if we could, as Exhibit Number 4. 14 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 15 Exhibit 4.) 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Q. Does Exhibit Number 4 help you at all to 18 recognize this young woman? 19 A. I've never -- I have no -- no recollection 20 of this young woman at all. 21 Q. All right. Would you describe for us, 22 please, the that you flew with Jeffrey 23 Epstein on November 17, 2005? 24 A. First, I want to emphasize that that's 25 three years later than any of the issues involved in www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726501 198 1 this case. I have no recollection of flying with 2 this woman. I saw the name on a manifest. 3 And my recollection of -- I have 4 no recollection of flying with her, but my 5 recollection of is that she was a serious, 6 mid 20s woman friend of Jeffrey Epstein, who I may 7 have met on one or two or three occasions when he 8 was with her in -- perhaps at Harvard University 9 where he was meeting with academics and scholars, or 10 perhaps -- I think that's probably the context 11 where -- where she might have been. 12 Q. But you never flew with her? 13 A. I have no recollection of flying with her. 14 Q. Okay. Well, let me see if this helps to 15 refresh your recollection, Mr. Dershowitz. 16 MR. SCAROLA: Let's mark this as Exhibit 17 Number 5, please. 18 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, yes. 19 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 20 Exhibit 5.) 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 Q. Do you see that the name of the woman in 23 the photographs I have handed you is 24 a model? 25 The photographs, sir, look at the www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726502 199 1 photographs. 2 3 A. 4 5 6 The photographs identify the woman as , correct? Yes, but -- MR. SCOTT: Mr. Dershowitz, take your time -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 MR. SCOTT: -- review the exhibits. Don't 8 be rushed by Mr. Scarola. 9 A. Yes, it's a different different 10 spelling of the name. The on the manifest 11 is spelled 12 The in the photograph is 13 . I have no idea whether -- 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 Q. The last name -- 16 A. they are the same person. 17 Q. is the same, , right? 18 A. There's no last name. 19 Q. Well, read down a little bit further, if 20 you would, Mr. Dershowitz. 21 A. You mean as to a different flight? 22 Q. Yes, sir. Identifying the return flight 23 for the same 24 A. I have no idea that it's a return flight. 25 I have nothing on the record that suggests that it's www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726503 200 1 a return flight. And it has different people on it. 2 So I have no reason to believe it's a return flight. 3 Q. Is the last -- the question that I asked 4 you, Mr. Dershowitz, is: Is the last name spelled 5 exactly the same as the last name is spelled in the 6 two photographs I have shown you? 7 A. Let me look. So, on the 20th of 8 November 9 Q. Is the last name -- 10 MR. SCOTT: Whoa, whoa 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. -- spelled the same way on both the flight 13 log and the two photographs I have shown you? 14 A. On -- you mean on a flight log that I was 15 not on the flight? Is that right? You're talking 16 about a flight log that I was not on the flight, 17 right? 18 Q. That flight log shows you on multiple 19 flights, does it not? 20 A. It shows me not on that flight. It shows 21 me on a number of flights, but not on that flight. 22 MR. SCOTT: What's the date of the 23 flights? 24 THE WITNESS: The date of that flight 25 is -- looks like November 20th, 2005, more www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726504 201 1 than three years after left 2 for -- 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 Q. Mr. Dershowitz -- 5 MR. SCOTT: You're cutting the witness 6 off. 7 MR. SCAROLA: He's not answering my 8 question, Tom. 9 MR. SCOTT: Well -- 10 MR. SCAROLA: I want to know whether the 11 last name is spelled the same or it isn't 12 spelled the same on the flight log marked as an 13 exhibit and on the photographs. That's a very 14 direct question. It calls for a very direct 15 yes or no response. 16 And this witness has demonstrated a clear 17 refusal to respond directly to direct 18 questions, which will result, when we resume 19 this deposition, in our requesting that the 20 Court appoint a special master so that this 21 deposition doesn't take two weeks to complete. 22 MR. SCOTT: You know, Mr. Scarola, that's 23 a nice speech and I appreciate it. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 25 MR. SCOTT: I don't agree with your www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726505 202 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 ' 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 I 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 are done, read the question back and 24 the witness will answer it. 25 MR. SCAROLA: I will repeat the question. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726506 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 10 correct? 11 A. I've only seen one reference to on 12 November 17. If you want to show me any other 13 references, I'd be happy to look at them. 14 Q. All right, sir. Thank you. 15 Let's go back to the -- 16 MR. SCOTT: Are we done with this exhibit? 17 MR. SCAROLA: We are done with the 18 exhibit. 19 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Then let's collect the 20 exhibits so that we don't have a big -- then 21 we'll turn them over to the court reporter to 22 keep safekeeping. 23 There you go, young lady, don't lose 24 those, don't get them wet. And we'll proceed. 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726507 204 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Did you state during the same interview, 3 the ■ interview: "She has said that 4 Bill Clinton was with her 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.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726508 205 1 the source of that honest belief was? Identify any 2 source that attributed to the 3 statement that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy 4 on Jeffrey's island. 5 A. We can provide you about, I think, 20 6 newspaper articles and blogs which certainly raise 7 the implication that Bill Clinton had improperly 8 participated in sexual activities on the island 9 either as an observer or as a participant. The 10 issue was raised on Sean Hannity's program. The 11 headlines in various British media had suggested 12 that. 13 It's my belief that 14 intended to convey that impression when she was 15 trying to sell her story to various media, which she 16 successfully sold her story to in Britain, that she 17 wanted to keep that open as a possibility. 18 And then when I firmly declared, based on 19 my research, that Bill Clinton had almost certainly 20 never been on that island, she then made a firm 21 statement that she -- which was a -- which was a 22 perjurious statement, a firm perjurious statement 23 saying that although Bill Clinton had been with her 24 on the island and had had dinner with her, the 25 perjurious statement was that Bill Clinton had been www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726509 206 1 on the island with her. 2 The lie was that she described in great 3 detail a dinner with Bill Clinton and two underaged 4 Russian women who were offered to Bill Clinton for 5 sex but that Bill Clinton turned down. 6 So she then put in her affidavit that 7 although -- perjuriously, although she had seen Bill 8 Clinton on that island, she then stated that she had 9 not had sex with Bill Clinton. To my knowledge, 10 that was -- to my knowledge at least, that was the 11 first time she stated that -- that she not had sex 12 with Bill Clinton. She had certainly implied, or at 13 least some of the media had inferred from her 14 statements that she may very well have observed Bill 15 Clinton in a sexually compromising position. 16 So, when I made that statement to Don 17 Lemon, I had a firm belief, based on reading 18 newspaper accounts and blogs, that it was true. 19 Q. Can you identify a single newspaper that 20 attributed to the statement that 21 Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on Jeffrey's 22 island? 23 A. I think there -- I don't have them in my 24 head right now. But I do recall reading headlines 25 that talked about things like, sex slave places www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726510 207 1 Clinton on orgy island, things of that kind. I 2 would be happy to provide them for you. I don't 3 have them on the top of my head. 4 Q. There's a big difference between saying 5 that Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey's island and saying 6 that Bill Clinton was at an orgy on Jeffrey's 7 island, isn't there? 8 MR. SCOTT: Objection -- 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 Q. Do you recognize a distinction between 11 those statements? 12 MR. SCOTT: Form. 13 A. I don't think that distinction was clearly 14 drawn by the media. 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 Q. I'm asking whether you recognize the 17 distinction? 18 A. Oh, I -- I certainly recognize a 19 distinction. 20 Q. Oh, so 21 A. Let me finish. I certainly recognize a 22 distinction between Bill Clinton being on the 23 island, which I believe she perjuriously put in her 24 affidavit, and Bill Clinton participating actively 25 in an orgy. I also think it's a continuum. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726511 208 1 And there is the possibility, which I 2 don't personally believe to be true, that he was on 3 the island. There was the possibility, which I 4 don't believe to be true, that he was on the island 5 when orgies were taking place. There was the 6 possibility that he was on the island and observed 7 an orgy, and there was the possibility that he was 8 on the island and participated in an orgy. 9 Newspapers picked up those stories. I'll 10 give you an example of a newspaper that actually 11 said that that she had placed or that I was on the 12 island and -- that I participated in an orgy along 13 with Stephen Hawkings [sic.), the famous physicist 14 from Cambridge University, that was a newspaper 15 published in the Virgin Islands, which falsely 16 claimed that I was at an orgy with Stephen Hawkings. 17 So, many newspapers were suggesting, 18 implying, and I inferred from reading those 19 newspapers that that's what she had said to the 20 media. 21 If I was wrong about that based on 22 subsequent information, I apologize. But I 23 certainly, at the time I said it, believed it and 24 made the statement in good faith in the belief that 25 it was an honest statement. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726512 209 1 Q. Okay. So you now are withdrawing the 2 statement that you made that said 3 that Bill Clinton was with her at an orgy on 4 Jeffrey's island; that was wrong? 5 A. I don't know whether she ever said that. 6 I would not repeat that statement and have not 7 repeated that statement based on her denial. As 8 soon as she denied it, I never again made that 9 statement and would not again make that statement. 10 Q. You -- 11 A. But I did reiterate the fact that she 12 committed perjury when she said she was on the 13 island with Bill Clinton. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 15 nonresponsive -- 16 A. That was the perjurious statement. 17 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 18 nonresponsive portions of the answer. 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 20 Q. You have made a reference during that same 21 ■ interview to this woman, referring to 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. Okay. What -- what is a criminal record? 25 A. Well, the way I used the term is that www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726513 210 1 2 3 4 5 . And it was my 6 information that there was a 7 8 Q. How old was she at the time this alleged 9 offense occurred? 10 A. I don't know. 11 12 . To my knowledge, I -- I recall a case 13 where a 14-year-old boy was sentenced as an adult 14 for -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Scott -- 16 A. -- a serious -- 17 MR. SCAROLA: -- did my question ask 18 anything about a 14-year-old boy? 19 A. You asked if 20 MR. SCAROLA: Do we really need to listen 21 to this? 22 MR. SCOTT: You're asking questions, my 23 client is providing his response. 24 MR. SCAROLA: No, your client is not 25 responding. Your client is filibustering. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726514 211 1 Your client is doing everything he can to avoid 2 giving direct answers to these questions. 3 I would appreciate it if you would take a 4 break, counsel your client that the speeches 5 are not helpful to anyone, and especially not 6 helpful to him. 7 MR. SCOTT: If you want to take a break, 8 I'll take a break and I will advise my client 9 whatever I feel is appropriate, not what you 10 instruct me to do. 11 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, if you think it 12 might help at all in the progress of this 13 deposition, then I do want to take a break. If 14 you don't think taking a break would be 15 helpful, I don't want to take a break. 16 MR. SCOTT: Do you want to take a break or 17 not? 18 THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave it to 19 your judgment. I'm happy to proceed -- 20 MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'll be glad to take a 21 break. 22 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 23 MR. SCOTT: I can't say -- 24 MR. SCAROLA: Five minutes. 25 MR. SCOTT: -- it will help you or www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726515 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 anything but -- MR. SCAROLA: I can understand that you don't -- you don't have that control, but if there's any reasonable -- MR. SCOTT: You know, Counsel MR. SCAROLA: -- prospect that it might help, let's give it a try. 8 MR. SCOTT: You know, I really don't 9 appreciate the comments about my abilities as 10 an attorney, like I don't have that control and 11 things of nature. It really is -- 12 MR. SCAROLA: I don't have the control 13 either. 14 MR. SCOTT: It's not -- 15 MR. SCAROLA: I'm not trying to disparage 16 you at all in any respect. I'm just suggesting 17 that -- 18 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 19 MR. SCAROLA: -- there is reason to doubt 20 that it will do any good. But I want to give 21 it a try. 22 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Fine. Thank you. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 24 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 25 time is approximately 9:49 a.m. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726516 213 1 (Recess was held from 9:49 a.m. until 10:01 a.m.) 2 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 3 The time is approximately 10:01 a.m. 4 MR. SCOTT: If you've finished your bagel, 5 we're ready to proceed, I think. 6 MR. SCAROLA: I think we are. I was 7 actually ready to proceed a little bit earlier, 8 but we'll proceed now. 9 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, do you agree with the 11 basic concept that one is presumed to be innocent 12 until proven guilty? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Has 15 t any time, anywhere, at any 16 age? 17 A. I don't know the answer to that question, 18 but I do know that she was 19 and 20 21 22 Q. To the extent that anyone might interpret 23 your comment that was ever 24 , they would be drawing a false 25 conclusion as far as you know, correct? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726517 214 1 A. As far as I know, I don't know of her 2 having convicted of any crime. But I do know that 3 4 And I don't think she contested that. I don't think 5 there's any dispute about the fact that 6 7 Q. When did you find out about this alleged 8 9 A. As soon as the false allegation against me 10 was made public, I got call after call after call 11 from people telling me about , about 12 your 22 clients. The calls just kept coming in 13 because there was such outrage at this false 14 allegation being directed against me. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 16 unresponsive portion of the answer. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. You found out as soon as the CVRA 19 complaint was -- the CVRA allegations referencing 20 you were filed; is that correct? 21 A. I didn't say that. I said as soon as they 22 were made public and as soon as the newspapers 23 carried these false stories, I received phone calls 24 and I learned about -- I learned about her encounter 25 with the criminal justice system. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726518 215 1 Q. That would certainly have been prior to 2 February 23rd of 2015, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 MR. SCOTT: Are you going back to the 5 exhibit now with the newspapers and 6 MR. SCAROLA: Not yet. 7 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. Having reviewed the available airplane 10 flight logs, you are aware that Bill Clinton flew on 11 at least 15 occasions with Jeffrey Epstein on his 12 private plane, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Have you ever attempted to get flight log 15 information with regard to Former President 16 Clinton's other private airplane travel? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Never made a public records request -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. under the Freedom of Information Act 21 with regard to those records? 22 A. Well, we have made a Freedom of 23 Information request. My -- my attorney in New York, 24 Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, has made a 25 FOIA request for all information that would www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726519 216 1 conclusively prove that Bill Clinton was never on 2 Jeffrey Epstein's island, yes. 3 Q. And you were denied those records, 4 correct? 5 A. No, no, no. 6 Q. Oh, you got them? 7 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let's 8 take it slow. Ask a question. 9 A. As any lawyer knows, FOIA requests take a 10 long, long period of time. So they were neither 11 denied nor were they given to us. They are very 12 much in process. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 14 Q. When was 15 A. While we're talking about may I 16 complete -- I want to amend one answer I gave 17 previously. 18 While we're talking about the plane logs, 19 I must say that during the recess, my wife Googled 20 and found out that she was, in fact, • 21 years old in_, at the time she flew on that 22 airplane. So that my characterization of her as 23 about ■ years old is absolutely correct. 24 And the implication that you sought to 25 draw by showing me those pictures was not only www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726520 217 1 demonstrably false, but you could have easily 2 discovered that the implication you were drawing was 3 demonstrably false by simply taking one second and 4 Googling her name as my wife did. 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q. And so at 25 years old, she wasn't a young 7 woman? 8 A. She was not the kind of woman that I was 9 describing as underage. She was a mature, serious, 10 I think I said in my public statements a model. I 11 wasn't aware at the time that see was working for 12 , but Google demonstrates that. 13 And I described her exactly, in exactly the right 14 terms, a serious person. 15 I always saw her dressed when I saw her -- 16 I saw her maybe on two or three occasions, dressed 17 appropriately. She was a serious adult worker and I 18 think you insult and demean her when you suggest 19 that anything other than that she was a serious 20 adult when she flew on that airplane. 21 Q. You were asked on the occasion of that 22 same III interview what possible motive 23 the attorneys, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, could 24 have had to have identified you in the pleading that 25 was filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726521 218 1 2 3 Q. 4 5 Do you remember that? A. That's right, yes. And your response was, quote -- MR. SCOTT: Here's your transcript if you need to refer to it. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. -- "They want to be able to challenge the 8 plea agreement and I was one of the lawyers who 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 organized the plea agreement. I got the very good deal for Jeffrey Epstein." Did you make that response? A. Yes. Q. So, you recognized as of that the reason why the statements were filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case was because the Crime Victim's Rights Act case had, as an objective, setting aside the plea agreement that you had negotiated for Jeffrey Epstein, correct? MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead if you can answer it. A. There were multiple motives. One of the motives was crassly financial. line their pockets with money. and I said this over and over me. They sat down with their They were trying to But as I also said, again, they profiled client, knowing that www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726522 219 1 2 3 4 5 she has a history of lying, knowing that she is easily suggestible, and they basically pressured her, according to my sources, into including me when she didn't want to include me, because by including me, they could make a claim, false as it was, could 6 make a false claim that a person who negotiated the 7 NPA was also criminally involved with her. 8 They also lied -- lied unethically and 9 unprofessionally by saying that I negotiated that 10 provision of the NPA, which gave me, myself, any 11 kind of immunity from prosecution had I had improper 12 sex with , which, of course, I did 13 not. And that was one of the bases on which I was 14 certain that they had engaged in unprofessional, 15 disbarrable and unethical conduct by including that 16 provision, as well as including a provision that 17 Prince Andrew was included because he, Prince 18 Andrew, pressured a United States attorney to try to 19 get a good deal for Jeffrey Epstein. 20 That is so laughable. How any lawyer 21 could put that in a pleading, it doesn't pass even 22 the minimal giggle test. And I'm embarrassed for 23 Professor Cassell that he would have signed his name 24 to a pleading that alleges that Prince Andrew would 25 pressure the United States attorney for the Southern www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726523 220 1 District of Florida into giving Jeffrey Epstein a 2 good deal. 3 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 4 unresponsive portions of the answer. And 5 obviously the break didn't do any good. 6 MR. SCOTT: Let's proceed. 7 MR. SCAROLA: We're going to. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. You stated, quote: "If they," referring 10 to Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, "could find a 11 lawyer who helped draft the agreement" -- 12 A. Right. 13 Q. -- "who also was a criminal having sex, 14 wow, that could help them blow up the agreement." 15 Did you make that statement on -- 16 A. Yes. I just repeated it now, yes, under 17 oath, yes. 18 Q. Did you state the following in that same 19 interview: "So they," referring to Bradley Edwards, 20 Paul Cassell and , "sat down 21 together, the three of them, these two sleazy, 22 unprofessional disbarrable lawyers" 23 A. Uh-huh, uh-huh. 24 Q. -- "they said" -- 25 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726524 221 1 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. -- "who would fit into this description? 4 They and the woman got together and contrived and 5 made this up." 6 Did you make that statement on national 7 television? 8 A. Yes, and I just repeated it under oath. I 9 believe that to be the case. I think that's exactly 10 what happened. And I think that my source has 11 corroborated that. 12 By the way, can I add at this point -- I 13 don't mean to distract you, but I think the record 14 would be more complete if I indicated that I did get 15 a phone call last night from , who told me 16 that he had received numerous phone calls and texts 17 from trying to persuade her not to 18 talk to me or cooperate with me and offering the 19 help of a lawyer. 20 And I also -- although you didn't ask the 21 question, Mr. Scarola, I think for completeness and 22 fullness, I do want to say that you asked me whether 23 or not I knew about what could be taped and what 24 couldn't be taped. I did tape record some of what 25 [sic.) told me, with her www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726525 222 1 permission, and I have those tape recordings. 2 Q. Well, you're getting a little bit 3 overexcited, Mr. Dershowitz, because you never tape 4 recorded anything that told you. 5 A. Did I say 6 Q. You misspoke. 7 A. I misspoke. You wouldn't know that. But, 8 in fact, let me be clear. 9 I tape recorded, with her permission, 10 statements to me about what 11 had told her. And I just want to make sure 12 that for completeness, even though you didn't ask 13 the question yesterday, that's part of the record. 14 Q. Well, I actually did ask the question and 15 my recollection is that you said you didn't even 16 think about tape recording anything -- 17 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not accurate. You 18 never asked that. 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 20 Q. But can you tell us, please, did you turn 21 over those tape recordings in the discovery that you 22 were required to make in this case? 23 A. The discovery -- these events occurred 24 after April of 2015. And I certainly turned over 25 the recordings and the -- recordings to my lawyers, www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726526 223 1 who made transcripts of them. 2 Q. Did you turn them over to opposing 3 counsel -- 4 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts -- 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q. -- in the course of discovery? 7 MR. SCOTT: The transcripts we consider to 8 be work product. If you make a request to 9 produce, we'll provide them. 10 MR. SIMPSON: Just for completeness, they 11 were also after your discovery request. 12 MR. SCOTT: Request to produce, we'll 13 consider providing them. 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 Q. Is there an entry in any privilege log 16 that identifies these allegedly privileged work 17 product documents? 18 MR. SIMPSON: We will -- the lawyers will 19 address the document production issues. But 20 two things, Mr. Scarola, first, they postdate 21 your request and you have said several times 22 there's no duty to supplement. And second, 23 they're work product. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Well, sir, if they postdated 25 a full and complete production, which we are www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726527 224 1 now told they do not, then you wouldn't be 2 obliged to supplement the production that had 3 already been completed. But it is not the date 4 of the request that matters, it is the date of 5 the production that matters. 6 And what we're now being told is there are 7 allegedly highly relevant transcripts of a 8 telephone conversation that occurred months ago 9 when the last production that we received, 10 which we are told still is not complete, 11 occurred approximately two weeks ago. 12 So, there's no privilege log entry. 13 There's no production of these documents. And 14 there is clearly a very significant discovery 15 violation if, in fact, such documents exist. 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate it 17 here, Mr. Scarola, but your assertions are not 18 accurate. 19 MR. SCAROLA: All right. There also was a 20 subpoena duces tecum that was responded to 21 tomorrow -- I'm sorry, yesterday. Can you tell 22 us whether the documents that are now being 23 described are included in response to the 24 subpoena duces tecum on the flash drive that 25 you provided to us? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726528 225 1 MR. SIMPSON: The flash drive is the same 2 as the document production. 3 MR. SCAROLA: So the answer is no, they're 4 not there; is that correct? 5 MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 6 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. And what's the 7 explanation for that? 8 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate this 9 on the record with you, Mr. Scarola. 10 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Thank you. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. Which conversation with did you 13 tape record? 14 A. I tape recorded a conversation with her 15 permission where she told me that she was pressured, 16 she didn't -- where told me that 17 was pressured and that she didn't want to name me 18 but she was pressured to name me, that she had never 19 previously named me. 20 By the way, I told this to 21 lawyer. 22 : Objection. To the extent 23 you're going to reveal anything that was said 24 during settlement discussions, I'm moving for 25 sanctions, period. We're not doing this today. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726529 226 1 Please instruct the witness. 2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid that. We discussed that 3 yesterday. 4 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Q. What was the date of the phone 7 conversation that you tape recorded? 8 A. I don't recall. But it's on the 9 transcript. 10 Q. And does it also reflect that the 11 recording is being made with her permission? 12 A. Uh-huh. 13 Q. That's a yes? 14 A. Yes. Yes, that's a yes. 15 Q. What is last name? 16 A. You know last name and she has 17 asked me not to reveal it to the press. And so I 18 would like to comply with that -- with that request. 19 For purposes of discovery, you know her name, you 20 know her husband's name, you know her phone number, 21 and she has been called. But there's no reason for 22 me to reveal it so that it appears in the press that 23 she would be called by newspapers and by the media. 24 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, how do you know what I 25 know if you haven't told me? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726530 227 1 A. I know what you know because I'm a logical 2 person and I know that -- I know that 3 repeatedly called this -- this 4 woman and her husband, repeatedly text her, and 5 knows her name. And you and 6 lawyers are operating in privity here You're 7 whispering to each other, you're passing notes. You 8 are part of a joint legal team. 9 And if you want to know her name, all you 10 have to do is ask and she'll tell 11 you her name. I'm sure you know her name. And if 12 you don't know her name, it's because you haven't 13 asked. 14 Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking you -- 15 A. I'm not going to tell you -- 16 Q. -- and I'm telling you I don't know her 17 name. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Okay? As an officer of the court, I am 20 telling you I don't know her name. And you are 21 under oath and obliged to answer material and 22 relevant questions, and I want to know what her name 23 is. 24 MR. SCOTT: I will provide you the name 25 off the record, but I'm not -- if he feels it's www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726531 228 1 inappropriate because of what -- he's not going 2 to answer the question. I will provide you the 3 name. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 Q. Okay. She has still insisted that her 6 name not be revealed; is that correct? 7 A. Her husband asked me to do whatever I 8 could not to put her name in front of the press, in 9 front of the media. 10 Q. There's no -- there's no one from the 11 press here today. 12 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but they're going to 13 order the transcript and they're going to see, 14 so that's the same thing. And I've already 15 told 16 A. You will have her name in five -- 17 MR. SCOTT: I will give you her name 18 A. -- minutes. All you have to do is -- 19 MR. SCOTT: And, Jack, if you want to take 20 a break now -- 21 THE REPORTER: Hold on. Hold on, 22 gentlemen. You can't talk at the same time. 23 MR. SCOTT: Let me do the talking at this 24 point. 25 THE WITNESS: Please. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726532 229 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. What's her phone number? 3 A. Her phone number is known to - 4 and presumably -- and to 5 lawyers because she received phone calls from 6 ' lawyers. So all you have to do is 7 ask your colleagues and you will get that. But I 8 think there's no reason to put her phone number in 9 the public record so that she will receive massive 10 amounts of phone calls from the media. Seems to me 11 that any -- that a judge would try to prevent that 12 from happening. I would hope so. And I'm -- you 13 can get the name and the phone number from my lawyer 14 as long as it's -- 15 MR. SCOTT: We'll provide that. 16 A. -- done off the record, not so that the 17 media can see it. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. You just swore under oath that lawyers 20 contacted ; is that correct? 21 A. I swore under oath that I was told by 22 that lawyers contactedIIIIIIII, yes. 23 Q. Which lawyers? 24 A. I don't know the answer to that. 25 Q. Did you ask him? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726533 230 1 A. I did. 2 Q. And he said, I -- 3 A. He wouldn't answer that. 4 Q. -- refuse to tell you? 5 A. No, he didn't know the answer to that 6 either because he didn't return the phone calls. He 7 said -- 8 Q. How did he know they were lawyers if he 9 didn't return the phone calls? 10 A. Because they left messages, presumably. 11 Q. With names that identified them as 12 lawyers; is that right? 13 MR. SCOTT: You're arguing with the 14 witness -- 15 A. I don't know the answer to that. 16 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm trying to find out 17 whether there's any logical basis for the 18 stories that the witness is telling. 19 MR. SCOTT: And I think he's trying to 20 explain it. And I think he's trying to do it 21 in an easy, slow format. So, you know -- 22 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, let's take it 23 easy 24 MR. SCOTT: -- if we all take -- if we all 25 take the tension down here, maybe we can get www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726534 231 1 more accomplished. 2 MR. SCAROLA: Let's take it easy and slow. 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 Q. How did- tell you he knew these 5 people he didn't speak to were lawyers? 6 A. He told me that he received a phone call 7 from That then his wife received 8 numerous phone calls and texts from her all through 9 the night. And that they received phone calls as 10 well from her lawyers. One of them had a Miami 11 phone number. 12 And I don't know how he knew they were 13 lawyers. But that's what he conveyed to me. All I 14 can tell you is what he told me, and I'm telling you 15 that. 16 Q. Did you ask him for the phone number? 17 A. I did not. 18 Q. Why not? 19 A. I didn't think it was appropriate or 20 necessary. 21 Q. What was inappropriate about asking for 22 the phone number to find out who was attempting to 23 contact this witness? 24 A. I was not particularly interested in that. 25 All I was interested in was getting the truth from www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726535 232 1 the witness and trying to prevent her from having a 2 media barrage that would interfere with their lives. 3 Q. You told on ■ that the flight 4 manifests would exonerate you, prove that you were 5 not in the same place at the same time as - 6 , correct? 7 A. That's right. And that's true. 8 Q. You also told , quote, "I am 9 waiving the statute of limitations or any immunity." 10 A. That's right. 11 Q. You were then subsequently asked to waive 12 the statute of limitations and refused to, correct? 13 A. Absolutely false. 14 I waived the statute of limitations by 15 submitting a statement under oath. Had I not 16 submitted that statement under oath, the statute of 17 limitations would have been long gone. But by 18 stating under oath categorically that I did not have 19 any sexual contact with her, I waived the statute of 20 limitations and could be prosecuted for the next 21 five or so years for perjury in what I said was 22 false. 23 But what I said was true, so I have no 24 fear of any statute of limitations or any criminal 25 prosecution. So, yes, I did waive the statute of www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726536 233 1 limitations, yes. 2 Q. You refused to waive the statute of 3 limitations with regard to sexual crimes, correct? 4 A. I didn't refuse anything. I didn't feel I 5 had any obligation to respond to you. And I did 6 not. 7 Q. So, you were asked to waive the statute of 8 limitations with regard to your sexual crimes and 9 you refused to respond? 10 A. I was asked by you, utterly 11 inappropriately, and what I had said -- and if you 12 check what I said, I said if any reasonable 13 prosecutor were to investigate the case and find 14 that there was any basis, I would then waive the 15 statute of limitations. I didn't waive the statute 16 of limitations because you, a lawyer, for two 17 unprofessional, unethical lawyers asked me to do so, 18 what obligation do I have to respond to you? 19 Q. Well, you have no obligation to respond to 20 me at all, Mr. Dershowitz, except now while you are 21 under oath and I am asking you questions and I would 22 greatly appreciate you responding to the questions 23 that I ask. 24 MR. SCOTT: I think he's trying. 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726537 234 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. You made the further statement in that 3 same interview, "They dropped the dime on the media 4 when they filed it," referring to the CVRA 5 pleading 6 A. Right. 7 Q. -- in which were you named? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. What is the basis for that statement? 10 A. The basis for that statement was that the 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 story, there's -- Prince Andrew of Great Britain and 24 Alan Dershowitz have been accused of sexual 25 misconduct. I still believe that. filing was done virtually on the eve of New Year's on a day that the press was completely dead. And nonetheless, immediately upon the filing, I got a barrage of phone calls that led me to conclude, and led many, many, many other lawyers who called me to conclude that obviously somebody tipped somebody off that they didn't just happen to file -- to find in the middle of an obscure pleading which didn't even have a heading that indicated that I was involved or anybody else was involved. So, I'm certain that a dime was dropped to somebody saying, by the way, you want an interesting www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726538 235 1 Q. And by dropping the dime on the media when 2 they filed it, you intended to convey the message 3 that Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards intentionally 4 generated the focus of press attention on that 5 filing; is that correct? 6 A. Absolutely. Absolutely without any doubt. 7 Why else would they have brought Prince Andrew into 8 this filing? Prince Andrew had no connection to the 9 NPA, no relevance at all. But they knew that by 10 including Prince Andrew, this would drag my name 11 into every single newspaper and media outlet in the 12 world. 13 It was outrageous for them to do this. 14 Particularly because they did so little, if any, 15 investigation, which will, of course, be determined 16 when they're deposed. And -- and -- 17 Q. Well, you've already made that 18 determination, right? 19 MR. SCOTT: Wait. 20 A. I'm convinced that -- that they did little 21 or no investigation. They never even bothered to 22 call me. That would have been 23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 Q. We'll get to that in just a moment. 25 A. -- a simple basic thing. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726539 236 1 Q. But right now -- right now could you 2 please tell us was there anything other than your 3 inferring that they must have contacted the media to 4 support your conclusion that either Paul Cassell or 5 Brad Edwards did, in fact, alert the media at the 6 time of the filing of this pleading? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What else besides your inference? 9 A. When the BBC came to see me, the BBC 10 reporter showed me an e-mail from Paul Cassell, 11 which urged him, the BBC reporter, to ask me a 12 series of questions. So I knew that Paul Cassell 13 was in touch with the British media and was trying 14 to stimulate and initiate embarrassing questions to 15 be asked of me. 16 And when I spoke to a number of reporters, 17 they certainly -- obviously reporters have 18 privilege, but they said things that certainly led 19 me to infer that they had been in close touch with 20 your clients or representatives on their behalf. 21 Q. What was the date of the e-mail -- 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. -- that you referenced in that response? 24 A. I don't know. 25 Q. Well -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726540 237 1 A. It was whenever -- I'm not sure I ever saw 2 the date. He just quickly showed me the e-mail and 3 I quickly looked at it. 4 Q. The e-mail that you are referencing, in 5 fact, occurred after you had begun all of your media 6 appearances with respect to this filing -- 7 A. Let me be very clear about 8 Q. -- didn't it, sir? 9 A. Let me be very clear about my media 10 appearances so that I -- 11 Q. How about just answering the questions? 12 A. I'm trying to answer the question. All of 13 my media appearances -- 14 Q. The question is: Did it occur before or 15 after your media -- your media appearances? That 16 doesn't call for a speech -- 17 A. It came -- 18 Q. it calls for before or after. 19 A. It came before some and after some. It 20 came, for example, before my appearance on the BBC 21 because they showed me the e-mail before they 22 interviewed me for the BBC. So some occurred -- it 23 occurred before some and it occurred after some. 24 Q. All right. So it is your assertion that 25 this single e-mail that you have made reference to www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726541 238 1 where Paul Cassell says "asks Dershowitz these 2 questions" occurred before your -- your media 3 appearances and after your media appearances; is 4 that correct? 5 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, argumentative 6 and repetitious. 7 A. It occurred before some of the media 8 appearances, and it occurred after some of media 9 appearances, yes. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. Did it occur before your first media 12 appearances? 13 A. My first media appearances came as the 14 result of phone calls I received from -- 15 Q. That's nonresponsive to my question, sir. 16 A. -- newspapers -- 17 Q. I didn't ask you anything about what your 18 first media appearances occurred -- 19 A. Yes, you did. 20 Q. -- as a result of. I asked you 21 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask his question. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. -- whether the e-mail that you claimed to 24 have seen was sent before or after your first media 25 appearance? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726542 239 1 MR. SCOTT: I think he's answered that 2 twice. 3 A. It came after. It came after. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 Q. Thank you, sir. On , you made 6 another ■ Live appearance in an interview with 7 . Do you recall that? 8 A. I do not recall the name of the person -- 9 Q. Take a look at the transcript, if you 10 would, please, page 15. 11 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the 12 transcript, please, Mr. Dershowitz. 13 THE WITNESS: Page 15. 14 MR. SCOTT: Take your time to review that. 15 A. Yeah, that name is not familiar to me but, 16 of course, I remember doing an interview, yes. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. All right, sir. And during the course of 19 that interview, you said: "There are flight 20 manifests. They will prove I was never on any 21 private airplane with any young woman." Correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Go to page 17, if you would. 24 A. Uh-huh. 25 Q. At line 4 of transcript of that same www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726543 240 1 interview, you said: "She made the whole thing up 2 out of whole cloth. I can prove it by flight 3 records. I can prove it by my travel records." 4 Did you make those statements? 5 A. Yes, and they're absolutely true. 6 Q. Okay. I am going to hand you every flight 7 record that has been produced in connection with 8 this litigation. 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 MR. SCAROLA: Could we mark that as the 11 next composite exhibit, please? 12 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 13 Exhibit 6.) 14 MR. SCAROLA: And mark this as the next 15 composite exhibit, which will be 7. 16 MR. SCOTT: These are all the flight 17 manuals? 18 MR. SCAROLA: As far as I know. 19 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 20 MR. SCAROLA: They're the only ones that 21 have been produced in discovery. If there are 22 more, I'm going to be interested to hear about 23 it. 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 25 Exhibit 7.) www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726544 241 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 THE WITNESS: What's Number 6 then? I'm 3 confused, there were two. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit Number 6 6 before? 7 A. Exhibit Number 6. I don't believe so. It 8 doesn't look familiar to me. 9 Q. No? 10 A. It does not look familiar to me. 11 Q. Did you bother at any time to review 12 discovery that was produced by Bradley Edwards and 13 Paul Cassell responding to requests for information 14 that supported the allegations of 15 A. I'm not clear what you're asking. 16 Q. I want to know -- 17 A. In which case? In which case are we 18 talking? 19 Q. This case. This case. 20 A. Right. 21 Q. Did you ever bother to review the 22 discovery produced in this case responding to 23 requests for all of the information that supported 24 their belief in the truthfulness of 25 ' allegations against you? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726545 242 1 A. I don't know if I reviewed everything. 2 But I certainly, in preparation for this deposition, 3 reviewed some of the documents that were produced in 4 discovery. But I can't say I reviewed them all. 5 Q. Well, having placed such substantial 6 emphasis during the course of your public 7 appearances on the flight logs exonerating you, it 8 would certainly seem logical that one of the things 9 that you would want to review would be all of the 10 available -- all of the available flight logs, 11 right? 12 A. No. 13 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative. 14 A. No. 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 Q. No? 17 A. No. Look, I knew I was never on a plane 18 with any underage females under any circumstances. 19 I knew that. I knew that as certainly as I'm 20 sitting here today. So, I knew absolutely that if 21 the manifests and the flight logs were accurate, 22 they would, of course, exonerate me because I am 23 totally, completely, unequivocally innocent of any 24 of these charges. 25 So of course I knew that I would be www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726546 243 1 exonerated by any flight logs that were innocent 2 that were complete and accurate, of course. 3 Q. So you made the public statements 4 repeatedly that the flight logs would exonerate you 5 without having examined the flight logs to see 6 whether they were accurate or not; is that correct? 7 A. Well, I knew -- I knew that -- 8 Q. Did you say those things without having 9 examined the flight logs? 10 A. I said those things having looked at some 11 of the flight logs at some point in time. But I 12 knew for sure that the flight logs would exonerate 13 me because I knew I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's 14 plane with or any other young 15 underage girls. So, I knew that to an absolute 16 certainty. And I was prepared to say it. I'm 17 prepared to say it again under oath here. 18 And if your clients had simply called me 19 and told me they were planning to do this, we 20 wouldn't be here today because I could have shown 21 them in one day that it was impossible for me to 22 have had sex with their client on the island, in the 23 ranch, on the airplanes, in Palm Beach. And they 24 would have, if they were decent and ethical lawyers, 25 not filed that. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726547 244 1 And there are cases, legal ethics cases 2 that say that lawyers are obliged to make that phone 3 call. Lawyers are obliged to check if it's easy to 4 check. Lawyers are obliged to, particularly when 5 they're making extremely heinous charges against a 6 fellow lawyer, do very, very, detailed 7 investigations. And they didn't do that in this 8 case. 9 Q. I will represent to you that I have handed 10 you all of the available flight logs produced in the 11 discovery of this case. Could you show me, please, 12 which of these flight logs exonerates you? 13 A. The absence of evidence is evidence of 14 absence. None of the flight logs have me on an 15 airplane with . None of the flight 16 logs have me on an airplane during the relevant 17 period of time when claims that she 18 had sex with me in the presence of another woman. 19 So, the flight logs clearly exonerate me. 20 There's absolutely no doubt about that. 21 Q. Well, the flight logs, in fact, confirm 22 that you were in the same places at the same time as 23 , don't they? 24 A. No, they do not. 25 Q. Do you -- do you deny that they confirm www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726548 245 1 that you were in the same place at the same time 2 A. First -- 3 Q. -- as ? 4 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 MR. SCOTT: Then you answer the question. 7 And Mr. Scarola will try to, you know, keep the 8 emotion down, I'm sure, so we can get through 9 this with less acrimony between everybody here. 10 A. Your client has adamantly refused, as well 11 as the lawyer -- 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 13 Q. No, sir, that's nonresponsive to my 14 question. 15 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Q. My question is: Do you deny that the 18 flight logs corroborate that you were in the same 19 place at the same time as 20 A. So the question includes the word "time" 21 and, therefore, I must answer in this way. Your 22 client -- 23 Q. How to build a watch? 24 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute, you're cutting 25 him off. He's been trying to answer the www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726549 246 1 question. 2 A. Your client has adamantly refused, and her 3 lawyers and your clients have refused to give me any 4 timeframes, any timeframes when your client claims 5 that she had improper -- falsely claims, 6 perjuriously claims that she had improper sexual 7 encounters with me. 8 So how can you possibly ask me a question 9 that includes the word "timeframes" when your client 10 has refused -- when has refused to 11 give any timeframes? How can it be possible that 12 the flight logs show me being in the same time and 13 same place with her when she has refused to describe 14 any of the times that she claims to have been in 15 those places? 16 So the answer to the question is 17 categorically no, sir. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. What is the question that you are 20 answering no to? 21 A. Whether or not the timeframe shows that I 22 could have been in the same place at the same time 23 as your client. Absolutely not. Because we don't 24 know what times your client -- now, if you know 25 that, you should have produced them in discovery and www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726550 247 1 I would be very anxious to see any timeframes when 2 claims she was with me on the 3 island, claims she was with me on -- at the ranch, 4 claims she was with me on the airplanes, claims she 5 was with me in Palm Beach. And they will all 6 conclusively -- 7 Q. You forgot -- 8 A. -- prove -- 9 Q. -- New York. Didn't you mean New York 10 also? 11 A. No, I did not mean New York 12 Q. Oh, okay. 13 A. -- because New York is very different. I 14 was, in fact, in New York for large periods of time. 15 I was not, in fact, on the island during the 16 relevant timeframe. I was not in the airplane in 17 the relevant timeframe. I was not in Jeffrey 18 Epstein's Palm Beach home in the relevant timeframe. 19 And I was once in the ranch but under circumstances 20 where it would have been absolutely impossible for 21 me to have had any contact with her. 22 So if you will give me the timeframe, I 23 will be happy to answer your question. But without 24 timeframes, that question is an absolutely 25 inappropriate question. And the answer to it is no. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726551 248 1 Q. Well, Mr. Dershowitz, it might be 2 inappropriate if you had not repeatedly made the 3 public statements that the flight logs exonerate 4 you. 5 A. They do. 6 Q. So what I am attempting to find out is the 7 basis upon which you can contend that the flight 8 logs exonerate you if you are now telling us you 9 don't even know when it is that you are alleged to 10 have been in the same place at the same time as 11 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. So how -- how can you make both those 14 statements? 15 A. Very simple, because I know the timeframe 16 that , A, knew Jeffrey Epstein. And 17 during that timeframe, I can conclusively prove that 18 I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's island where she 19 claimed to have sex with me. That the only time I 20 was at the ranch was with my wife, with the Ashe 21 family, with my daughter, the house was under 22 construction, we just simply stayed outside the 23 house and looked around. That the manifests show I 24 was never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane during that 25 period of time. And the manifests show that I never www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726552 249 1 flew down to Palm Beach during that relevant period 2 of time. 3 So I have a timeframe not that was 4 provided by your client but that was provided by the 5 externalities of the case. And that timeframe 6 coupled with the manifests clearly exonerate me 7 without any doubt. 8 Q. I want to make sure that I understood what 9 you just said. "I never flew down to Palm Beach 10 during the relevant timeframe"? 11 A. I never flew down and stayed at Jeffrey's 12 house in Palm Beach during that relevant period of 13 time. 14 Q. Okay. So you want to withdraw the 15 statement that you never flew down to Palm Beach 16 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. -- during that relevant period of time -- 19 A. Let me be -- 20 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 Q. and what you want to say is, "I never 23 flew down to Palm Beach and stayed at Jeffrey 24 Epstein's house during that timeframe period," 25 correct? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726553 250 1 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative -- 2 A. Let me be -- 3 MR. SCOTT: -- mischaracterization. 4 A. Let me be clear. A, I never flew down on 5 Jeffrey Epstein's plane during the relevant period 6 of time. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 Q. Flew down to where? 9 A. To Palm Beach or anywhere else. I was 10 never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, according to the 11 flight manifests and according to my own records, 12 during the relevant period of time. 13 I have independent records of my travel 14 which demonstrate that I was not in Jeffrey 15 Epstein's house during the relevant period of time. 16 And -- but the -- talking about the manifests, the 17 manifests conclusively prove that I was never on the 18 airplane during the relevant period of time. 19 So I don't know how you can claim that the 20 manifests show that I was with 21 during the relevant period of time. They do not do 22 that. And if you would testify under oath to that, 23 I think you could be subject to pretty -- pretty 24 scathing cross examination. So your statement is 25 categorically false, sir. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726554 251 1 Q. Which of the manifests are you referring 2 to when you claim what you have claimed about the 3 manifests, Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7? 4 A. I can only tell you that I have reviewed 5 the manifests and they show, to me, that I was never 6 on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane during the relevant 7 period of time. That's all I can tell you now. 8 I'm not in a position where 9 these documents now. If you point me 10 particular trip that shows that I was 11 Epstein's plane, I would be happy to respond to 12 that. 13 Q. There are two separate collections of 14 documents purporting to be flight manifests for 15 Jeffrey Epstein's plane. When you 16 statements that you made regarding 17 or manifests exonerating you, were 18 Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7? 19 A. I have no recollection as to which 20 particular exhibits, which are formed 21 of the legal case, I had reviewed. I 22 reviewed the manifests. Not only had 23 manifests, but others reviewed the manifests and 24 have conclusively told me that their review of the 25 manifests shows that I was right. I look at all to any on Jeffrey made the public the flight logs you referring to for purposes know I had I reviewed the www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726555 252 1 Q. Who else -- 2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid any attorney-client 3 communications either with Ms. -- you know, 4 with your current lawyers, please. 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Who told you that they had reviewed the 8 manifests and they confirmed your position? 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product. 10 MR. SCAROLA: Well, you know, Mr. Scott, 11 he can't have it both ways. He can't insert 12 into the record the gratuitous statements that 13 he inserts into the record regarding others 14 having corroborated his inaccurate testimony, 15 and then refuse to tell us who those others 16 are. It constitutes a waiver of whatever 17 privilege might exist. 18 MR. SCOTT: He can -- he can tell who they 19 are. I'm just saying he can't go into 20 communications with them. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Well, he's already said what 22 the communication was. The communication was 23 these manifests prove your position. 24 MR. SCOTT: And he's answered that because 25 based on his review of them, Mr. Scarola. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726556 253 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Who told you that the manifests confirm 3 the accuracy of your public statements? 4 MR. SCOTT: If it involves lawyer-client 5 privilege, don't answer it. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 Q. You're refusing to answer? 9 A. No, I would like -- 10 MR. SCOTT: Instruct you not to answer. 11 A. -- to answer. But I've been instructed 12 not to answer. I would like to answer. 13 You've made a statement -- 14 MR. SCOTT: There's no question pending. 15 THE WITNESS: But he made a statement 16 MR. SCOTT: But there's no question 17 pending, sir. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. What does it mean to make something up out 20 of whole cloth? 21 A. It means that and your 22 clients -- 23 Q. No, sir, I haven't asked you anything 24 about I haven't asked you 25 anything about my clients. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726557 254 1 I want to know what the words "making 2 something up out of whole cloth" mean. 3 A. I said those words in the context of 4 5 MR. SCOTT: That's -- that's fine. Go 6 ahead. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 Q. What do the words mean? 9 A. That there was absolutely no basis for 10 ' claim that she had any sexual 11 contact with me. That the story was entirely false. 12 I don't know where the metaphor derives about whole 13 cloth, but certainly that's the common 14 understanding. And I repeat under oath that 15 made up the entire story about 16 having sexual contact with me out of whole cloth. 17 Q. During the course of the same interview 18 that we have been referencing with 19 for the record, that's 20 A. What page? 21 Q. Page 19. 22 You were asked: "I'm wondering, have you 23 spoken to Jeffrey Epstein about this since these 24 allegations came out in this suit in the United 25 States? Have conversations happened there?" www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726558 255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren. Anything that relates to your conversations with Jeffrey -- THE REPORTER: He's going to have to speak up. MR. SCOTT: You're going to have to speak up a little bit more, Counsel. 8 MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren 9 Indyke. Anything that Alan might have to say 10 to that, to the extent they are covered under 11 conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, privileged 12 under attorney-client privileges as well as 13 common interest privileges. 14 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand? 15 THE WITNESS: I do. 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Q. To which your response was: "Sure, sure, 18 certainly I have been his lawyer and I did speak to 19 him about it. I wanted to make sure that his memory 20 and mine coordinated about when I was at his island. 21 He was able to check. I was able to check. I 22 checked with my friends who went with me." 23 Did you make that answer to that question? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Disclosing the contents of your www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726559 256 1 communication with Jeffrey Epstein, correct? 2 A. I disclosed that I had spoken to him to 3 find out whether he had any records of when I was on 4 his island. And, yes. 5 MR. INDYKE: Again, this is Darren Indyke. 6 Jeffrey does not waive any attorney-client 7 privileges here. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. Well, the reason why you were able to 10 answer that question and discuss with the press what 11 Jeffrey Epstein was telling you was because you 12 weren't his lawyer at that time, right? 13 A. No, I was his lawyer at that time. I'm 14 still his lawyer. 15 Q. Oh, what were you representing him on 16 then -- 17 A. The ongoing -- 18 Q. -- that is, on January -- 19 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 Q. -- on 22 A. The ongoing 23 MR. INDYKE: My objection stands. 24 MR. SCOTT: You can answer what you were 25 representing him on, I think. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726560 257 1 A. The ongoing issues -- 2 MR. SCOTT: But nothing about 3 communications. 4 A. Right. The ongoing issues relating to the 5 NPA, which continue to this day. And I regard 6 myself as his lawyer basically on all those -- all 7 those issues. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. So, when the pleadings were filed in the 10 Crime Victims Rights Act regarding your conduct in 11 relationship to and Jeffrey 12 Epstein, you were and still are his lawyer in the 13 Crime Victim's Rights Act case; is that correct? 14 A. I certainly am bound by lawyer-client 15 privilege and communications, yes. 16 Q. Okay. You go on to say in that same 17 interview: "Only once in my life have I been in 18 that area," referring to New Mexico. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. "Only once in my life did my travel 21 records show I was in New Mexico." 22 A. Uh-huh. 23 Q. Is that an accurate statement? 24 A. To the best of my knowledge. I have no 25 recollection of being in New Mexico other than www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726561 258 1 during that visit to the Ashes, which was not during 2 the -- the narrower timeframe. 3 The narrower timeframe, remember, is 4 meets Jeffrey Epstein in the late 5 summer, the summer just before she's turning ■, of 6 . She says she didn't commence having sexual 7 activities with any of Epstein's friends until nine 8 months later. That would put it in March or April 9 of 2000. This visit occurred in January of 2000. 10 It's the only time I recall having been in 11 New Mexico. 12 Q. Okay. I want to be sure now. You're not 13 just saying that you were only at Jeffrey Epstein's 14 ranch in New Mexico once; you are confirming your 15 statement on national television that you have only 16 been in New Mexico one time? 17 A. My recollection right now is that I was 18 only there once. I have no -- no other recollection 19 of -- it's conceivable when I was a very young man, 20 I could have been there. But I have no recollection 21 of having been there. It certainly -- certainly I 22 haven't been there recently. And during the 23 relevant time period, I know I haven't been there. 24 Q. "Recently" means -- 25 A. Fifteen -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726562 259 1 Q. -- the last 10 years? 2 A. I would say 15 -- 3 Q. Last 15 -- 4 A. years. 5 Q. how about the last 20 years? 6 A. I have -- I don't think so. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. As I stand here today, I have no 9 recollection of ever being in New Mexico except to 10 visit the Ashes in January of 2000. 11 I'm 77 years old. I've lived a long life. 12 It is certainly possible that at some earlier point 13 in my life -- I mean, I've been in most of the 14 states. But I have no recollection of ever being in 15 New Mexico. 16 And I can tell you unequivocally the only 17 time I was ever at Jeffrey Epstein's ranch was that 18 one time with my wife with the Ashes, with my 19 daughter. And we only stayed there for an hour and 20 the house was not completed. It was under 21 construction. And I certainly did not have any 22 sexual encounter or any encounter with 23 during that visit. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 25 unresponsive portions of the answer. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726563 260 1 MR. SCOTT: We don't agree on that point, 2 so let's go ahead. 3 MR. SCAROLA: It's of any help, I can 4 agree that you don't agree to any of my 5 objections. 6 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not true. I mean, 7 I'm trying to work with you, sir. 8 I have to tell you, this -- this is 9 obviously one of the most acrimonious 10 depositions I've sat through in my 40 plus 11 years because of the personalities involved 12 here and because of the personal issues. And 13 it's quite difficult for everybody in this 14 room. 15 MR. SCAROLA: I agree. 16 MR. SCOTT: And all I'm saying, and my 17 client is -- who's 77, is trying to defend his 18 life. And I understand you're trying to 19 vigorously -- and you're a great lawyer -- 20 represent your clients. And it's -- this is 21 not the typical deposition. And we're trying 22 our very best, both of us. 23 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. And you're 24 right, you and I do agree on something. 25 MR. SCOTT: As you said yesterday, more www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726564 261 1 often than we usually say. 2 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 Q. In interviews on January 4 and January 5, 5 you claim to have completed the necessary work to 6 identify documents exonerating you within an hour 7 after learning of the accusations that were made, 8 correct? 9 A. I don't remember having said that. But 10 within a minute, I had clear knowledge that every 11 document in the world would exonerate me because I 12 knew for absolute certainty that every aspect of her 13 allegation was totally false. That's why I 14 challenged the other side to produce videos, to 15 produce photographs. I knew that there could be no 16 evidence inculpating me because I knew I was 17 innocent. So I knew that all of my records would 18 prove that. 19 Facts are facts. And I just wasn't in any 20 contact or any sexual contact with 21 and I knew with absolute certainty that the facts 22 would completely exonerate me. And if your clients 23 had just called me, at the courtesy of simply 24 calling me, I would have been able to point them to 25 Professor Michael Porter of the Harvard Business www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726565 262 1 School. I would have been able to -- to alert them 2 to the Ashes. I would have been able to tell them 3 that I keep little black books which have all of my 4 travel information. Although they were in the 5 basement of Martha's Vineyard, I would have been 6 happy to go up and get them. 7 If they had just simply called me, I would 8 have been able to persuade them without any doubt 9 that these allegations were false. If they needed 10 any persuading because I believe, as I sit here 11 today, that they knew they were false at the time -- 12 certainly should have known, but I believe knew they 13 were false at the time that they leveled them. 14 Q. My question related to your gathering 15 documents that you claim exonerated you -- 16 A. That's right. 17 Q. -- and your public statements were that 18 within an hour, you -- 19 A. Can you -- 20 Q. -- had gathered the documents -- 21 MR. SCOTT: Listen to the question. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. -- you had gathered the documents that 24 exonerated you, correct? 25 MR. SCOTT: You can refer. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726566 263 1 A. Where? Where? Can you point to that? 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. Well, I'm asking you, sir, based upon your 4 superb memory whether you remember having said -- 5 MR. SCOTT: No, we're going to do -- 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. -- on Jan -- 8 MR. SCOTT: He's going to take a moment to 9 review the transcript and -- and that's any 10 witness is entitled to do that. So why don't 11 we take a break, he'll review transcript and 12 we'll come back? We've been going an hour -- 13 MR. SCAROLA: Because I haven't asked him 14 a question about the transcript. 15 MR. SCOTT: You've asked -- 16 MR. SCAROLA: I'm asking him a question 17 about his recollection. 18 MR. SCOTT: Based upon what he said in the 19 transcript. 20 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm asking him whether 21 he has a recollection of having made public 22 statements that within an hour, he had gathered 23 the documents that proved his innocence, 24 exonerated him. 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726567 264 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Do you remember having made those 3 statements? 4 A. I do not, but it's true. I was able to 5 gather documents literally within an hour. I was 6 able to call Tom Ashe. He was able to access his 7 daughter's journal notes that I had taught his 8 daughter's class. I was able to find out where my 9 other documents were. 10 My wife made some phone calls immediately. 11 We called the Canyon Ranch. We called and 12 determined the dates of when I was in Florida. We 13 called the Porters. We very, very, very quickly 14 were able to gather information that conclusively 15 would prove that she was lying about me having had 16 sex with me on the island, in the ranch, 17 particularly those two I was able to prove 18 conclusively. 19 And when a woman lies deliberately and 20 willfully about two instances where she in great 21 22 23 24 25 detail claims she had had sex, I think you can be clear that you should discount any other -- any other false allegations. MR. SCOTT: We've been going for an hour. Let's take a break for a few minutes. Then we www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726568 265 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 have another hour. 2 MR. SCAROLA: I'm almost ready to take a 3 break. 4 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 5 MR. SCAROLA: Could you read back the last 6 question, please? 7 First of all, I move to strike the 8 unresponsive speech. And now read back the last question, if you would. (Requested portion read back as follows:) THE REPORTER: "Do you remember having made those statements?" Do you want me to read prior to that? MR. SCAROLA: No, that's fine. That's the question that I asked. BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Is the answer yes? 19 A. I don't remember specifically. I do 20 generally remember having said that your clients 21 could have easily discovered conclusive proof that 22 was lying about me and that I 23 had -- because I knew, of course, it was false 24 MR. SCAROLA: Tom -- 25 A. -- been able to uncover such proof. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726569 266 1 MR. SCAROLA: That has nothing to do with 2 the question I asked -- 3 MR. SCOTT: Let's take -- let's take a 4 break like I suggested and we'll come back and 5 then you can ask your question and -- okay? 6 MR. SCAROLA: Well, while the question is 7 pending, I would like an answer to the question 8 before we break. 9 MR. SCOTT: Did you answer the question? 10 THE WITNESS: I thought I did. 11 A. But what -- could you repeat the question? 12 I'll try to answer it in a yes or no if I can. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 14 Q. Did you make the statement that within an 15 hour of learning of these allegations, you had 16 gathered documents that completely exonerated you? 17 A. I don't recall those specific words -- 18 Q. Thank you, sir. 19 A. -- but the truth -- 20 MR. SCOTT: That's it, and I think he 21 indicated that before. 22 MR. SCAROLA: That would be very helpful 23 if we said that and then we stopped and we can 24 take a break. 25 MR. SCOTT: He previously had said that www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726570 267 1 and then explained it but now you have it 2 directly answered. So we're -- we're at a 3 break point. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 5 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 6 time is approximately 11:01 a.m. 7 (Recess was held from 11:01 a.m. until 11:23 a.m.) 8 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 9 The time is approximately 11:23 a.m. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. When did you last travel from outside the 12 State of Florida to arrive in Florida? 13 A. The day before yesterday, I think. 14 Q. And where did you travel from? 15 A. New York. 16 Q. When were you last in Boston, in the 17 Boston area? 18 A. About two weeks ago. 19 Q. So, if anyone had represented that you 20 were going to be traveling from Boston to Florida 21 this past weekend, that would have been a 22 misrepresentation; is that correct? 23 A. I have no idea what you're talking about. 24 Q. Well, I'm talking about your personal 25 travels. If anyone had represented that you were www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726571 268 1 going to travel from Boston to Florida and canceled 2 travel arrangements from Boston to Florida this past 3 weekend, that would have been a misrepresentation, 4 correct? 5 A. I have no idea what you're talking about. 6 I'm sorry. 7 Q. Well, what is it that you don't understand 8 about that question? Either you were in -- 9 A. The basis -- 10 Q. -- Boston and were planning on traveling 11 from Boston to Florida this past weekend or the last 12 time you were in Boston was two weeks ago, so you 13 couldn't have been planning 14 A. I -- 15 Q. -- on traveling from Boston to Florida. 16 A. I was actually in Boston -- now that I 17 checked my calendar, I was actually in Boston -- 18 here, I have -- aha. It says -- and my calendar 19 says I was in Boston. Then it says leave for 20 Florida, but that got changed. Yes, that got 21 changed, right. 22 Q. May I see that, please? 23 A. No, this is my personal calendar. 24 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, but if you refer to 25 anything to refresh your recollection -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726572 269 1 A. I have -- 2 Q. -- during the course of the deposition, I 3 am permitted to examine it. 4 A. I have lawyer-client privileged 5 information in here, so I can't give it to you. I 6 can give it to you in a redacted form. I have a 7 quote from David Boies in here, which I'm sure -- 8 MR. SCOTT: Don't -- 9 A. -- nobody is going to want to see -- 10 MR. SCOTT: We'll make a copy and give it 11 to you. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. Would you hand 13 it to your counsel, please? 14 MR. SCOTT: On that note, hold on to that. 15 THE WITNESS: But I need that back. 16 MR. SCOTT: Of course. Don't worry. 17 MR. SIMPSON: Hold on to it. 18 MR. SCOTT: That's why I gave it to him 19 because I'd lose it. 20 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 Q. Before January 21, 2015, what information 22 did you have regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul 23 Cassell had gathered in the course of investigating 24 the accuracy of ' accusations 25 against you? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726573 270 1 A. Well, first, I knew that anything they 2 gathered -- 3 MR. INDYKE: Objection to the extent that 4 requires -- 5 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. 6 : -- you to disclose anything 7 you gave -- 8 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. 9 I'm sorry, Mr. Indyke, can you repeat your 10 objection? 11 MR. SCOTT: Can you say that a little 12 louder? 13 MR. INDYKE: Darren Indyke. I would 14 object to the extent that your answer would 15 disclose anything you -- you obtained or 16 learned or any knowledge you gained in 17 connection with your representation of Jeffrey 18 Epstein. 19 MR. SCOTT: Do you understand that 20 instruction? 21 THE WITNESS: I do, yes. 22 Could you repeat the question? 23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 Q. Yes, sir. I want to know what information 25 you had regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726574 271 1 Cassell had done in the course of their 2 investigation of the credibility of the accusations 3 made by against you? 4 A. Well, first and foremost, the most 5 important piece of information I had was my firm and 6 complete knowledge and memory that I had never had 7 any sexual contact with ever under 8 any circumstances or any other underage girls. So I 9 knew 10 Q. The question I'm asking, sir 11 A. -- this information -- 12 Q. -- focuses on what knowledge you had 13 regarding what Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell did 14 in the course of their investigation of the 15 credibility of the accusations against you made by 16 17 A. That was the first and most important bit 18 of information; namely, that I couldn't have done it 19 and didn't do it. So I knew for sure that they 20 could not have conducted any kind of valid 21 investigation. 22 Second, I knew from -- that they also had 23 a letter from Mr. Scarola that said that multiple 24 witnesses had placed me in the presence of Jeffrey 25 Epstein and underage girls and I knew that www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726575 272 1 Mr. Scarola's letter was a patent lie. And they had 2 access to that letter and that information. 3 I also knew they were relying on 4 depositions of two house people of Jeffrey Epstein. 5 And I've read these two depositions. And I'm sure I 6 knew of other -- other information as well. 7 I knew that they had stated -- I knew that 8 they had stated publicly, or you had stated publicly 9 on their behalf as a witness, that you had stated 10 publicly that you had tried to depose me on these -- 11 on this subject. I knew that that was a blatant lie 12 and unethical conduct because nobody ever tried to 13 depose me on this subject. 14 I had never been accused, nor did I have 15 any knowledge that anybody had ever falsely accused 16 me of having any sexual encounters. And I had a 17 great deal of information about the paucity or 18 absence of any legitimate investigation. And I also 19 knew that they hadn't called me, they hadn't tried 20 to call me, there was no record of an attempt to 21 call me or e-mail me. My e-mail is available on my 22 website. My phone number is available on my 23 website. 24 The most basic thing they could have done, 25 as courts have said, when you're accusing somebody www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726576 273 1 of outrageous, horrible, inexcusable misconduct, at 2 least call the person and ask them if they can 3 disprove it before you file a -- a statement. Not 4 even asking for a hearing on it, not even basically 5 seeking to prove it, just -- just putting it in a 6 pleading as if scrolling on a bathroom stall. 7 So, yes, I had -- I had a great basis for 8 making that kind of statement and I repeat it here 9 today. And we will find out in depositions what 10 basis they actually had. And I'm anxiously awaiting 11 Mr. Cassell's deposition this afternoon. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 13 non-responsive portion of that answer. 14 Could I have a standing objection to 15 unresponsive -- 16 MR. SCOTT: Sure. 17 MR. SCAROLA: -- answers? That would be 18 helpful. Thank you. I appreciate that. That 19 will save us -- 20 MR. SCOTT: Absolutely. No, any time. 21 MR. SCAROLA: save us some time. 22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, sir. 23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 Q. The one portion of what you just said that 25 directly responded to my question was you knew in www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726577 274 1 early January of 2015 that Bradley Edwards and Paul 2 Cassell had the sworn testimony of two -- did you 3 refer to them as house -- 4 A. House people. 5 Q. House staff? 6 A. House staff. 7 Q. House staff of Jeffrey Epstein's 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. -- correct? 10 And those two individuals are Juan Alessi 11 and Alfredo Rodriguez, correct? 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. And you, in fact, were aware of the 14 existence of that testimony from shortly after the 15 time that the testimony was given, weren't you? 16 A. Well, I was certainly aware of it at the 17 time I made these statements. 18 Q. Yes, sir. But you also knew as far back 19 as 2009, when this sworn testimony was given, that 20 you were specifically identified by name in the 21 sworn testimony of Jeffrey Epstein's house staff 22 members, right? 23 A. I was identified by name in a manner that 24 completely exculpated me, yes. 25 Q. Okay. Well, let's -- let's take a look at www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726578 275 1 your assertion that the testimony of these two 2 individuals completely exculpates you. 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. The following question was asked of 5 MR. SCOTT: What you are reading from? 6 MR. SCAROLA: I'm reading from the 7 deposition transcript. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. The following question was asked of 10 MR. SCOTT: The deposition transcript -- 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. -- of Mr. Juan -- Mr. Juan Alessi and -- 13 MR. SCOTT: Let me object to the -- first 14 of all, let me object to this format because he 15 has not been provided a part of the deposition. 16 You're reading portions from the deposition -- 17 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, I am. 18 MR. SCOTT: -- which can be taken out of 19 context. He has not had the ability to review 20 the deposition. This is improper. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 22 MR. SCOTT: Cross-examination. 23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 Q. Do you recall the following questions 25 having been asked of Mr. Alessi and the following www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726579 226 1 answers have been given during the course of this 2 deposition which you contend completely exonerates 3 you? 4 "Question: Do you have any recollection 5 oil', referring to , coming to 6 the house when Prince Andrew was there? 7 "Answer: It could have been, but I'm not 8 sure. 9 "Question: When Mr. Dershowitz was 10 visiting -- 11 "Answer: Uh-huh. 12 "Question: -- how often did he come? 13 "Answer: He came pretty -- pretty often. 14 I would say at least four or five times a year. 15 "Question: And how long would he stay 16 typically? 17 "Answer: Two to three days. 18 "Question: Did he have massages sometimes 19 when he was there? 20 "Answer: Yes. A massage was like a treat 21 for everybody. If they wanted, we call the 22 massage, and they get -- excuse me -- and they 23 have a massage. 24 "Question: You said that you set up the 25 massage tables, and would you also set up the www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726580 277 1 oils and towels? 2 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 3 "Question: And did you ever have occasion 4 to go upstairs and clean up after the massages? 5 "Answer: Yeah, uh-huh. 6 "Question: Did you ever find any 7 vibrators in that area? 8 "Answer: Yes. I told him yes. 9 "Question: Would you describe for me what 10 kinds of vibrators you found? 11 "Answer: I'm not too familiar with the 12 names, but they were like big dildos, what they 13 call the big rubber things like that 14 (indicating). And I used to go and put my 15 gloves on and pick them up, put them in the 16 sink, rinse it off and put it in Ms. Maxwell -- 17 Ms. Maxwell had in her closet, she had like a 18 laundry basket. And you put laundry in. She 19 have full of those toys." 20 Is that testimony that exonerates you, 21 Mr. Dershowitz? Is that what you were referring to? 22 MR. SCOTT: Let me -- objection to the 23 form, improper cross examination by taking 24 excerpts out of depositions of witnesses. 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726581 278 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Is it your contention that that testimony, 3 under oath, of your friend, Mr. Epstein's staff 4 person, exonerates you? 5 A. First, a little background. Mr. Alessi 6 was fired for theft of material from Mr. Epstein, so 7 Mr. Alessi was not on a friendly basis with Jeffrey 8 Epstein. 9 Second, the description of the dildos and 10 sex toys clearly refers to the area of the house 11 that I was never in, the area of Ms. Maxwell's room, 12 rather than the area of the room that I stayed in. 13 Third, he gives no timeframe for the 14 visits. 15 And, fourth, he certainly didn't in any 16 way confirm that I was there while 17 was there. His answer was simply that I was there 18 from time to time. He's wrong about that. During 19 the relevant timeframe, I was never in the house. 20 And even taking outside the relevant 21 timeframe, the only time I was in the house for more 22 than one day was when my family, my wife, my son, my 23 daughter-in-law, my then probably seven or 24 eight-year-old granddaughter, who just graduated 25 Harvard, and my probably four-year-old grandson, who www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726582 279 1 is a third-year student at Harvard, were all there 2 with me. That was the only time that I stayed over 3 more than one night. And I never stayed even one 4 night during the relevant timeframe. 5 But most importantly, he gives no 6 timeframe. And clearly his reference to the sex 7 toys is a reference to the part of the house that I 8 was never permitted in and never entered. 9 Q. What is the question that you think you 10 were answering? 11 A. Whether -- 12 MR. SCOTT: He was explaining to you 13 exactly why he felt that that was 14 inappropriate, which is exactly what you asked 15 him. 16 MR. SCAROLA: No, it is not. 17 MR. SCOTT: Well, it is my recollection, 18 so I don't know -- 19 MR. SCAROLA: Well, then 20 MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending -- 21 MR. SCAROLA: Let me try the same question 22 over again. 23 MR. SCOTT: I think he was defending 24 his -- his position. 25 THE WITNESS: Right. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726583 280 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. The question was: Is that part of the 3 time that you claim exonerates you? 4 A. Well, I think if you read the whole 5 testimony, it clearly exonerates me and I think that 6 part of the testimony in no way inculpates me and no 7 reasonable person reading that could use that as a 8 basis for making allegations that I had sexual 9 encounters or misconduct with 10 So, when -- if that's the best testimony 11 that your unprofessional clients relied on, then 12 clearly that exonerates me. 13 Again, the absence of evidence is evidence 14 of absence. And the very idea that this is seen as 15 some basis for concluding that I had sexual 16 encounters with -- with , why wasn't 17 he asked did he ever see me have a massage by 18 ? Did he ever see me have a sexual 19 encounter with ? Did he ever go to 20 the room I was staying in and find any sex toys? 21 The answers to all those questions, if 22 truthful, would be no. 23 Q. What was Mr. Alessi's motive against you? 24 You've told us he was fired by Jeffrey Epstein, so 25 he may have had some motive against Mr. Epstein. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726584 281 1 What was his motive against you? 2 A. I was Jeffrey Epstein's friend and lawyer 3 and, in fact -- well, I can't get into this. But I 4 can say this, I gave advice 5 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about anything 6 involving -- 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 MR. SCOTT: -- Mr. Epstein, please. 9 A. He could easily have believed that I was 10 one of the causes of his firing. 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. So, he was -- he may have been angry at 13 you because you assisted in getting him fired? 14 A. It's -- 15 MR. SCOTT: Objection, 16 mischaracterization. 17 A. It's conjecture. It's possible. But in 18 any event, even -- 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 20 Q. It's conjecture, is that what you were 21 about to say? 22 A. I'm saying I have -- I don't know what he 23 was thinking, but there is a basis for him believing 24 that. But most -- most important, even if you take 25 everything he says as true, which it's not, it's www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726585 282 1 exculpatory because it has no suggestion that I ever 2 had any sexual encounter with 3 And if I were a lawyer reading that -- 4 MR. SCOTT: It's okay? 5 A. -- I certainly would not base this heinous 6 accusation on that flimsy read. 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 Q. You know the context in which that 9 deposition was taken, don't you? 10 A. I don't recall it as I'm sitting here 11 today. 12 Q. Do you remember that the lawsuit in which 13 that deposition was taken was a lawsuit in which 14 was being represented by- 15 16 A. No. 17 Q. You know , don't you? 18 A. We we were classmates at law school. 19 Q. You know to be an extremely 20 ethical, highly professional and extraordinarily 21 well-respected lawyer, right? 22 A. Absolutely, yes. 23 Q. Absolutely? 24 A. Yeah. 25 Q. A man of impeccable honesty and integrity? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726586 283 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. A man who would never undertake to advance 3 the cause of a client whom he believed to be 4 incredible, right? 5 A. Yes. And a man who told me and a man 6 who -- 7 MR. SCOTT: That's it. 8 A. Okay. And a man who believes I'm 9 innocent. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. You know that would never 12 file charges on behalf of a client alleging that she 13 was lent out by Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of 14 sexual abuse while she was a minor to academicians 15 unless he absolutely had confidence that those 16 statements were true -- 17 MR. SCOTT: Let me object -- 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. -- right? 20 MR. SCOTT: -- that this is completely 21 irrelevant to the issues in this case. 22 Whatever thinks has nothing to 23 do with this lawsuit. This is all your effort 24 to try to put into this case to try 25 to give some justification to your position. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726587 284 1 A. I'll answer that question. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. Thank you. 4 A. And I also know and know 5 that he would never maintain a friendship, as he has 6 with me, if he believed that I was one of the, 7 quote, academicians -- 8 Q. Well, how about 9 A. -- with whom -- 10 Q. -- answering my question -- 11 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. No, no, no. 12 A. You're going to let me finish. 13 BY MR. SCAROLA: 14 Q. I know I'm going to go, but I don't have 15 to like it -- 16 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but -- 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. -- when you're not being responsive to the 19 questions that are being asked. 20 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but you're 21 interjecting 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. And -- 24 MR. SCOTT: You're interjecting questions 25 that are irrelevant utilizing www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726588 285 1 relationship with him and he has an ability to 2 justify and explain his position in response 3 MR. SCAROLA: If it's responsive to the 4 question. 5 A. It's responsive. And as far as the 6 filibustering is -- 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 Q. Do you remember what the question is? 9 A. is concerned, I was here -- 10 Q. Do you remember what the question was? 11 A. Yes. Yes. 12 Q. What is the question? 13 A. The question is -- no, why don't you 14 repeat the question. 15 Q. Yes, sir. 16 A. So -- 17 Q. You know that would not 18 advance allegations on behalf of a client that that 19 client had been lent out by Jeffrey Epstein to 20 satisfy the sexual desires of friends of Jeffrey 21 Epstein, including academicians, unless 22 believed those allegations to be true, 23 right? 24 A. I believe that -- I know that 25 would never maintain a friendship with www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726589 286 1 me, as he has, if he believed that I was one of 2 those academicians. knows that I was 3 not one of those academicians, and the inference of 4 your question is beneath contempt, sir. 5 Q. Could we try to answer the question now? 6 A. The answer is that would 7 never maintain a friendship with me if he believed 8 that there was any possibility that I was among the 9 academicians who she was accusing of sexual 10 misconduct. I do not believe that she ever accused 11 me of sexual misconduct to , to the 12 FBI, to the U.S. attorney, or even, sir, to you and 13 Bradley Edwards, as she says in 2000, I think, '11. 14 I think she made up this story on the eve of the 15 filing in 16 Q. You do agree that would not 17 have advanced the claims that he advanced if he did 18 not have confidence that they were true, correct? 19 A. I have no idea what he believed or knew at 20 the time. I would say this: I know 21 is an extraordinarily ethical lawyer. I don't know 22 what his responsibilities were in the case. I don't 23 know whether his responsibilities were to make those 24 kinds of judgments or whether his responsibility was 25 simply to make sure that money was paid to each of www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726590 287 1 the people who the FBI had put on the -- the list. 2 I just don't know what his responsibility was. 3 I can say with confidence that he would 4 only act ethically and would, A, not represent -- 5 not make any false statements the way your clients 6 made them, and that I wish your clients had the 7 ethics of 8 Q. You then agree that if 9 advanced the claims that I have described in a 10 complaint on behalf of a client, he would not have 11 done so unless he believed those allegations to be 12 true, having conducted a fair and reasonable 13 investigation, correct? 14 MR. SCOTT: Objection, asked and answered 15 several times. 16 A. I don't know the answer to that question 17 because I don't know the context in which he made 18 these arguments. All I do know is that he never 19 would maintain a friendship with me if he believed 20 in any way that I was one of the people that she had 21 accused. 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. Did Alfredo Rodriguez, another one of your 24 friend's staff persons, have a motive to lie against 25 you? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726591 288 1 A. Alberto Rodriguez -- 2 Q. No, sir, Alfredo Rodriguez. 3 A. Alfredo Rodriguez, I never knew him by 4 name. He was, of course, there out -- well outside 5 of the timeframe of the alleged events in this case. 6 And so anything that he would be able to testify to 7 would bear no relationship whatsoever to the -- the 8 allegations here. 9 He was criminally prosecuted, to my 10 memory, for having stolen material and turned it 11 over to Bradley Edwards is my recollection. And as 12 the result of that clearly had a motive to lie. And 13 the same with Mr. Alessi, clearly would have a basis 14 for believing that I may have played a role as 15 Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer in seeking to do harm to 16 him. 17 But again, there's nothing in 18 Mr. Rodriguez's testimony which is in any way 19 inculpatory of me. I think he has me sitting and 20 and reading a book and drinking a glass of wine. 21 Q. In the presence of young women? 22 A. No. 23 Q. No? 24 A. I don't -- 25 Q. Do you -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726592 289 1 A. believe that. 2 Q. -- recall the following testimony -- 3 A. It wouldn't be true if he said it. 4 Q. Yes, sir. Well, do you recall the 5 following testimony having been given by Mr. Alfredo 6 Rodriguez in a deposition that was taken on 7 August 7, 2009? 8 "Question: Mr. Rodriguez, you stated last 9 time that there were guests at the house, 10 frequent guests from Harvard. Do you remember 11 that testimony? 12 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 13 "Question: Was there a lawyer from 14 Harvard named Alan Dershowitz? 15 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 16 "Question: And are you familiar with the 17 fact that he's a famous author and famous 18 lawyer? 19 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 20 "Question: How often during the six 21 months or so that you were there was 22 Mr. Dershowitz there? 23 "Answer: Two or three times. 24 "Question: And did you have any knowledge 25 of why he was visiting there? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726593 290 1 "Answer: No, ma'am. 2 "Question: You don't know whether or not 3 he was a lawyer acting as a lawyer or whether 4 he was there as a friend? 5 "Answer: I believe as a friend. 6 "Question: Were there also young ladies 7 in the house at the time he was there? 8 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 9 "Question: And would those have included, 10 for instance, 11 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 12 "Question: Were there other young ladies 13 there when Mr. Dershowitz was there? 14 "Answer: Yes, ma'am. 15 "Question: Do you have any idea who those 16 young women were? 17 "Answer: No, ma'am. 18 "Question: Were there any of these -- 19 excuse me. Were any of these young women that 20 you have said came to give massages? 21 "Answer: Yes, ma'am." 22 Do you recall that testimony having been 23 given -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- and those answers having been given to www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726594 291 1 that testimony? 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. SCOTT: Objection. This is totally 4 improper cross examination of a witness by 5 trying to use a deposition. The only purpose 6 of doing this is to interject this into the 7 record, which has no relevance and would not be 8 admissible at trial. And in any case, he never 9 actually has my client doing any of the things 10 that you've accused him of. 11 Go ahead, let's go ahead and do it. 12 Answer the question. Answer the question. 13 MR. SCAROLA: He did. 14 A. Yes, I remember that. 15 MR. SCAROLA: He said yes. 16 A. Yes, I remember that, yes. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. And do you know why it was that back in 19 19 -- excuse me, back in 2009, August of 2009, four 20 and a half years before you allege that this story 21 about you was being made up out of whole cloth, that 22 lawyers representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims, 23 including from ■ 24 office, who had filed the complaint 25 alleging that you had -- excuse me, that www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726595 292 1 had been lent out for sexual purposes to 2 academicians, were asking specific questions about 3 you? Do you know why it was in 2009 they were doing 4 that? 5 A. I have no idea that it happened. And I 6 imagine that they had a list of every academic that 7 was in the house. Probably included -- 8 MR. SCOTT: I want to object to this whole 9 procedure because you're taking pieces out of 10 the record and not reading other pieces that 11 totally absolve my client. For example, 12 there's testimony by him that says -- 13 MR. SCAROLA: Is this an objection? 14 MR. SCOTT: Yes, it's a statement into the 15 record just like you're putting into the 16 record. There's -- I want to show this to my 17 client and refresh his memory as to some other 18 testimony by this witness -- 19 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending 20 as to what you can -- as to what you can 21 refresh your client's memory. What you are 22 doing is coaching him. 23 MR. SCOTT: No, I'm not. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Improperly. 25 MR. SCOTT: And you are improperly reading www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726596 293 1 excerpts out of a deposition to try to imply 2 something when there's other parts that totally 3 are inconsistent with that. And if you're 4 going to do that, then he has the ability under 5 our rules to review the entire transcript of 6 the deposition and that's what I'm permitting 7 him to do, just like when we're in court. 8 MR. SCAROLA: What I am doing, 9 Mr. Scott -- what I am doing, Mr. Scott -- 10 MR. SCOTT: Have you read that now, sir? 11 MR. SCAROLA: -- is reviewing the evidence 12 that was relied upon by Bradley Edwards and by 13 Paul Cassell in coming to the conclusion that 14 the allegations that had been made by 15 were, in fact, credible allegations. 16 MR. SCOTT: And I'm -- 17 MR. SCAROLA: Because your own client has 18 acknowledged that this is information that was 19 available to both him and to them back in 2009. 20 MR. SCOTT: And what I am doing is showing 21 him portions of the same deposition that 22 totally take a different position from this 23 witness from what you have read, so that this 24 record is a complete record and not a partial 25 record with your inference only. And I feel www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726597 294 1 that that's totally appropriate. If we were in 2 a courtroom, a judge would permit him to do it. 3 So you have your position and I have mine. 4 MR. SWEDER: Can we have the witness read 5 that? 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Do you recall the following testimony 8 having been given in that same deposition? 9 "Question: All right. This is follow-up 10 to questioning by asked 11 you about Mr. Dershowitz being present in 12 Mr. Epstein's home, and I think you said -- I 13 think you said Mr. Epstein and he and 14 Mr. Dershowitz were friends? 15 "Answer: Yes. 16 "Question: She also, I think, asked was 17 Mr. Dershowitz ever there when one of the young 18 women who gave a massage was present in the 19 home. 20 "Answer: I don't remember that. 21 "Question: That's where I want to clear 22 up. Is it your testimony that Mr. Dershowitz 23 was there when any of the women came to 24 Mr. Epstein's home to give a massage? 25 "Answer: Yes." www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726598 295 1 Do you remember that testimony having been 2 given? 3 A. I assume that when your clients used the 4 transcript as a basis for their false conclusion 5 that I was guilty, they read the whole transcripts, 6 not just the -- 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 8 Q. Every word. 9 MR. SCOTT: Don't interrupt him. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. You don't need to assume that. I will 12 stipulate they read every word. 13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Scarola, he's speaking. 14 You don't have a right to do this. 15 A. And if you read every word, you will see 16 that it's totally exculpatory, that I have no idea 17 whether there were any young women in one part of 18 the house when I was in another part of the house. 19 It's completely consistent with my testimony that I 20 have never seen any underage women. Let's see. 21 And if you read the whole transcript, 22 you'll see, I think: 23 "Was Dershowitz ever there when one of the 24 woman gave a massage? 25 "I don't remember that. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726599 296 1 "Were you in -- were you in any way 2 attempting in your response to imply that 3 Mr. Dershowitz had a massage by one of these 4 young ladies? 5 "I don't know, sir. 6 "You have no knowledge? 7 "No, sir. 8 "And you certainly weren't implying that 9 that occurred; you just have no knowledge, 10 correct? 11 "Answer: I don't know." 12 And I would hope that your clients would 13 be reading the whole thing in context, unlike what 14 you've tried to do to try to create a false 15 impression that this testimony in any way exculpates 16 me. 17 I have to say if this is what they relied 18 on, my confirmation of their unethical and 19 unprofessional conduct has been strongly 20 corroborated by that and you're helping my case. 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 Q. Would it have been reasonable for Bradley 23 Edwards and Paul Cassell to have relied upon the 24 detailed reports of Palm Beach police department? 25 A. I don't know. I don't know what the Palm www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726600 297 1 Beach police department says. 2 Q. You never read those reports? 3 A. I don't know which reports you're 4 referring to. 5 Q. All of the reports about Jeffrey Epstein. 6 MR. SCOTT: Asked and answered yesterday 7 on this whole line. 8 A. I probably did not read all the reports on 9 Jeffrey Epstein. I'm sure I've read some of them. 10 I do not recall -- 11 MR. SCOTT: Be careful about any work -- 12 attorney-client privilege. 13 THE WITNESS: Right. 14 A. I don't remember my name coming up. I was 15 the lawyer during that period of time. 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 Q. To the extent that Bradley Edwards and 18 Paul Cassell relied upon detailed reports from the 19 Palm Beach police department in order to assess the 20 credibility of , would it be 21 reasonable for them to rely upon police reports? 22 A. I would hope that they would rely on all 23 the police reports, including the ones that showed 24 that 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726601 298 1 2 I would hope they would look at all the 3 reports, not just selected portions of those 4 reports. 5 Q. Would that include the reports of the 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation? 7 A. I would hope so. 8 Q. Would that include the information 9 provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office? 10 A. I would sure hope so, and I could tell you 11 that the 12 Q. Would that include -- 13 A. Let me just say that the U.S. Attorney's 14 Office has told me unequivocally that my name never 15 came up in any context of any accusation against me 16 during the negotiations. 17 Q. Is this part of your work product that 18 you're waiving right now? 19 MR. SWEDER: No, no. 20 A. My conversation with is not 21 work product. 22 MR. SCOTT: Here's a 23 BY MR. SCAROLA: 24 Q. What is the work product -- 25 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. Please review www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726602 299 1 this. 2 A. Excuse me one second. 3 MR. SCOTT: You know, you think this is 4 funny and I think this man's -- and I think 5 this man's -- 6 MR. SCAROLA: I think it's improper for 7 you to be coaching the witness in the middle of 8 examination. If you think that there's 9 something that needs to be brought out, you do 10 that in cross examination. You don't feed him 11 information that you want him to be reading in 12 the middle of my examination of this witness. 13 MR. SCOTT: No. But it's also true that 14 under our rules, when you read portions of a 15 deposition, he has the ability to read other 16 portions of the deposition which clarify the 17 answers. That's done in every courtroom on 18 every time a witness -- you have selected 19 portions of it that are not accurate based on 20 other portions and I am having him review them 21 since you did not offer him the deposition to 22 review. 23 MR. SCAROLA: And that's what you do -- 24 MR. SCOTT: And I think that's totally 25 proper -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726603 300 1 MR. SCAROLA: -- in cross examination. It 2 is -- 3 MR. SCOTT: -- to do. No -- 4 MR. SCAROLA: -- improper. 5 MR. SCOTT: No. 6 MR. SCAROLA: There's no question pending 7 as to which that's relevant. But let's take a 8 look at what you're showing him. 9 MR. SCOTT: Sure. Why don't you read it 10 into the record? 11 THE WITNESS: I've read it. 12 MR. SCOTT: Read it into the record so 13 that Mr. Scarola is advised. 14 A. "Okay. When Alan Dershowitz was in the 15 house, I understand you to say that these local 16 Palm Beach girls would come over to the house 17 while he was there, but you're not sure if he 18 had a massage from any of these girls? 19 "Exactly. 20 "And what would he do while these girls 21 were in the house? 22 "He would read a book with a glass of 23 wine by the pool, stay inside. 24 "Did he ever talk to any of the girls? 25 "I don't know, sir. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726604 301 1 "Certainly he knew they were there? 2 "I don't know, sir." 3 That's the best you can do? That's really 4 the best you can do? You think a professional 5 lawyer would make these allegations based on "I 6 don't know, sir." 7 MR. SCAROLA: Is there a question pending, 8 Mr. Scott? 9 MR. SCOTT: He's reading you asked him 10 what he was reading -- 11 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 12 MR. SCOTT: -- from and I had him publish 13 it. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, I know, and then he 15 went on to make a speech. So I know I don't 16 have to do it, but I'm compelled to move to 17 strike the unresponsive speeches. 18 MR. SCOTT: And I consider these to be a 19 response to the interrogation that you did 20 taking excerpts improperly and not having the 21 entire record in front of him, which he's 22 entitled to do to make that the record is 23 complete. And I intend to protect him in that 24 way. 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726605 302 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. So we have agreed that it was reasonable 3 for Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, in assessing 4 the credibility of , to rely upon 5 police reports, FBI reports, U.S. Attorney's Office 6 information, and information from the Palm Beach 7 County State Attorney's Office, correct? 8 A. No. 9 Q. No? 10 A. No. It would not be enough for them to do 11 that -- 12 Q. I didn't ask you whether it was enough. 13 A. You said it was 14 Q. I asked you: Would it reasonable for them 15 to rely upon those sources of information in 16 assessing the credibility of 17 A. Not alone, not without looking at -- 18 Q. That wasn't my question. 19 A. -- other sources of information. 20 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 Q. Well, what he's relying upon 23 MR. SCOTT: You're not the judge here. 24 Let him -- ask a question and let him answer it 25 and not cut him off, please. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726606 303 1 A. Let me answer. "Rely" connotes to me that 2 they would place a heavy emphasis on that to the 3 exclusion of other things and that it would be 4 enough. And so my answer is, yes, they certainly 5 should have read all the reports. They certainly 6 should have read all the transcripts. But they also 7 should have called me, they should have made other 8 inquiry, and they should have 9 read all of these depositions and reports in 10 context. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 made sure that they And if you're implying that there are FBI reports that in any way inculpate me, that's inconsistent with the information I have from Former Chief of Assistant , who was prepared to file an affidavit saying that that wasn't the case but was prevented from doing so by the Justice Department. MR. SCOTT: It's about noon now. So I guess we're heading -- we're wrapping this up? MR. SCAROLA: Not quite yet. BY MR. SCAROLA: 4• You do agree that the allegations that made against Prince Andrew were well-founded allegations, correct? A. I have absolutely no idea. I've met www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726607 304 1 Prince Andrew on a number of occasions in a public 2 context. He came and spoke in my class at Harvard 3 law school. The dean then had a dinner in his -- or 4 lunch in his honor. I was then invited to a dinner 5 at the British Consulate. 6 I've never seen him in the presence of any 7 underaged women, so I have absolutely no basis for 8 reaching any conclusion whatsoever about 9 Prince Andrew. 10 Q. So you don't know one way or another 11 whether those allegations are true or false? 12 A. Neither do you. Nobody would know except 13 two people, I imagine. But I don't know. Of course 14 not. 15 Q. All right. 16 A. But I presume -- 17 Q. You say you have never seen him 18 A. -- people innocent -- 19 Q. -- in the presence of any underaged women, 20 but you've seen photographs of him in the presence 21 of an underaged woman, correct? 22 A. I have, yes. 23 MR. SCAROLA: May we mark this as the next 24 numbered exhibit, please. 25 A. And I want to note -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726608 305 1 THE REPORTER: Hold on. Hold on. 2 A. -- the absence of any 3 MR. SCOTT: She can't take it down. 4 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 5 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 6 Exhibit 8.) 7 THE REPORTER: It's okay. Go ahead. 8 A. And I want to note the absence of any 9 photograph of me with 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. That's the photograph that you were 12 referring to? 13 A. I've seen this photograph in the 14 newspapers. 15 Q. Yes, sir. And the woman on the far right 16 of that photograph, who is that? 17 A. Ghislaine Maxwell. 18 Q. The woman that you and your friend Jeffrey 19 Epstein have traveled with repeatedly, correct? 20 A. No. A woman who I may have traveled with 21 on two or three occasions. I can't think of more 22 times than that that I traveled with her, but it's 23 possible. But not -- I wouldn't say repeated 24 occasions. I've -- 25 Q. Well -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726609 306 1 A. -- probably been in her presence fewer 2 than a dozen times. 3 Q. I'm going to hand you -- 4 A. But just to be clear, what I knew about 5 Ghislaine Maxwell was that she was the daughter of a 6 prominent British publisher 7 Q. I haven't asked you what you knew about 8 Ghislaine Maxwell. I asked you 9 A. Well, you asked -- 10 Q. -- whether or not you recognized her in 11 the photograph? 12 A. Yes. Yes. 13 Q. Thank you very much, sir. 14 I'm going to hand you an airport codes log 15 that identifies the airports that are identified by 16 abbreviations in the case -- in case that is of some 17 assistance to you in answering the next series of 18 questions that I'm about to ask you. 19 A. Right. 20 Q. And I'm going to hand you this composite 21 exhibit, which we will mark as the next numbered 22 composite. 23 A. Uh-huh, right. 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 25 Exhibit 9.) www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726610 307 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I need to a take 2 a very quick bathroom break. 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. 4 THE WITNESS: Probably be two minutes or 5 less than two minutes. 6 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 7 time is approximately 12:03 p.m. 8 (Sidebar held off the record.) 9 MR. SCAROLA: While we're waiting, let me 10 mark the next numbered exhibits as well. That 11 will save us some time. 12 MR. SCOTT: What is this? 13 MR. SCAROLA: Her calendar, his calendar. 14 MR. SCOTT: Who's calendar is this, 15 Carolyn's? 16 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. This is Number 10. 17 MR. SCOTT: Carolyn's calendar. 18 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 19 Exhibit 10.) 20 MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 11. 21 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 22 Exhibit 11.) 23 MR. SCAROLA: This is Number 12. 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 25 Exhibit 12.) www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726611 308 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, I have handed you a 3 composite exhibit that is marked as Number 9. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. The first document in that composite is a 6 page from -- 7 MR. SCOTT: Here's Number 9. 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 Q. -- is a page from your wife's calendar; is 10 that correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the 13 exhibit, please. 14 A. Yes, it looks like -- I'm looking at the 15 first page. It looks like my wife's -- my wife's 16 handwriting, yes. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. And the second page is another page from 19 your wife's calendar; is that correct? 20 A. Looks like it, yes. 21 Q. And -- 22 MR. SCOTT: Take the time to review it 23 before you answer questions, please. 24 A. Right. 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726612 3C, 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. And can you determine from the calendar 3 entries here where your wife is during the period of 4 time that's covered by these calendar entries? 5 A. I would have to look at a particular 6 entry. If it describes where she is, yes. 7 Q. Okay. Well, tell me where she is. 8 A. What day? 9 MR. SCOTT: Which one? What point? 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. The period covered by this calendar 12 between December 7 and December 13. 13 A. What year? 14 Q. You know what, I can't tell you what year 15 it is from these calendars. So you tell me. 16 I suggest to you that this is a calendar 17 from December of 2000, since the next two months at 18 the top of the calendar are January 2001 and 19 February 2001. So let's assume that since it is a 20 page from a calendar that appears to be December of 21 2000, that it's December of 2000. 22 That would be a reasonable conclusion, 23 wouldn't it? 24 A. I have no idea. 25 Q. You don't know? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726613 310 1 A. I don't know. I mean, I don't know -- you 2 said you don't -- you can't tell what the year is, 3 so -- 4 Q. Well, I'm telling -- 5 A. I can't tell what the year is. 6 Q. you that it appears to be December 2000 7 because the next two months at the top of the 8 calendar are January of 2001 and February of 2001. 9 A. I only see -- I'm sorry, we're probably 10 looking at different things. I see November 2000, 11 December 2000. I don't see January or anything like 12 that. Maybe you can show them to me. Oh, it's on 13 the first page. 14 Q. First page, yes, sir. 15 A. So it's in reverse order. 16 Yeah, so the pages are in reverse order. 17 The first page says on top January 2001, 18 February 2001 and the second page says 19 November 2000, December 2000, yeah. 20 Q. So it appears we're looking at 21 December 2000, correct? 22 A. When we're looking at which page? When 23 we -- 24 Q. Both pages. 25 A. Well, one is January/February and one is www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726614 311 1 December. 2 Q. One shows the subsequent two months and 3 the -- 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. -- other one shows -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- the preceding and following month, 8 correct? 9 A. Yes, that does look like it's December of 10 2000, yes. 11 Q. Okay, sir. So look at the calendar and 12 tell me where it appears your wife is during this 13 period of time. 14 A. The whole period of time? 15 MR. SCOTT: Please read the exhibit, all 16 the pages, thoroughly, so that you have a full 17 context. 18 A. It says, A.D. in Boston. That means I was 19 in in Boston. 20 It says Charleston, New York. It says 21 book fair. It says book fair. It says A.D. in 22 Boston. 23 It then says the Halbreiches arrive. 24 They -- they were probably our guests. 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726615 312 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Your guests at home in Cambridge, 3 Massachusetts, right? 4 A. No, I don't know. I don't know. 5 Halbreiches arrive. 6 And I can't really tell from here where 7 Carolyn is. McDonalds -- let's see, this is 2000 8 and what year? 2001. 2000. Yeah, yeah. 9 So tell me what you're looking for. I'll 10 try to -- 11 Q. I want to know where your wife was during 12 this period of time if you can tell from the 13 calendar entries. 14 A. Well, she may have been in -- there's 15 something about Charleston. There's something about 16 New York. There's something about me being in 17 Boston. I really can't tell much beyond that. 18 Q. Okay. So you don't know one way or 19 another from these calendar entries where your wife 20 was during this period of time; is that correct? 21 A. I can't tell that from this entry, no. 22 Q. What we can tell from the entry in the 23 bottom right-hand corner -- 24 MR. SCOTT: Which page? 25 A. Which page? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726616 313 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 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. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726617 314 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 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. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726618 315 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 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 16 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 12, the entry is 22 1:30, Jeff, correct? 23 A. Right. Yeah. 24 Q. And that's a reference to Jeffrey Epstein, 25 correct? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726619 316 1 A. I don't -- I don't know. 2 Q. Well, what other Jeff might it be? 3 A. I know -- I know many, many Jeffs. 4 Q. Tell me which other Jeffs it might have 5 been a reference to 6 A. I have no idea. 7 Q. -- on this calendar page. 8 A. I just have no idea. I would be 9 speculating. 10 Q. During the same period of time on 11 December 12 when there's a calendar entry that 12 reflects 1:30, Jeff, we know from the flight logs 13 that Jeffrey Epstein traveled on December 11 from 14 Palm Beach International Airport to Teterboro 15 Airport, which is the private plane facility that 16 services the New York Metropolitan area. 17 A. I have no idea. 18 Q. You don't know? 19 A. No, I have no idea whether he was on that 20 plane. I haven't seen the flight log. 21 Q. Well, I'm calling your attention to the 22 flight log. It's the next page. 23 A. It's the next page here? 24 Q. Yes, sir. 25 A. Okay. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726620 317 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, I see that. 10 Q. Palm Beach International Airport to 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. Andlilland , 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. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726621 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 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 New 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 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726622 319 1 that, but that you were in New York at the same time 2 Jeffrey Epstein -- 3 A. And that Carolyn 4 Q. -- and were in New York and you 5 were -- 6 A. And that Carolyn arranged for a massage. 7 Q. -- having a massage. 8 A. And that my wife arranged for a massage. 9 Q. No, I didn't say that at all, sir? 10 MR. SCOTT: Well, that's what he's saying 11 that the record reflects. 12 A. The record 13 MR. SCOTT: Don't cut him off. 14 A. -- reflects that Carolyn -- Carolyn always 15 wanted me to have massages because she thought it 16 would relax me. I don't like massages particularly, 17 but when Carolyn arranged massages, almost always we 18 had them together at the same time. We would have 19 the same masseuse, sometimes a man, sometimes a 20 woman, come to the house and give us massages 21 together. 22 The idea that my wife would arrange for me 23 to have a massage with an underage girl for sexual 24 purposes is so bizarre and absurd as to defy any 25 kind of credibility, but go on. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726623 320 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Yes. Thank you very much, sir. 3 A. Go on. 4 Q. I intend -- 5 MR. SCOTT: Since you're both smiling, 6 there seems to be some humor that I'm missing 7 here. I guess I -- 8 MR. SCAROLA: Well, I'm missing the humor 9 too. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 11 Q. Let's go to Composite Exhibit Number 10. 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. The first page of that composite exhibit 14 is a photocopy of pages from your personal calendar 15 in January 2001, correct? 16 A. That's right, yes. 17 Q. Another Court TV appearance on January 11, 18 correct? 19 A. January 11. 20 Q. Yes, sir. Thursday, January 11, entry in 21 the left-hand column, Court TV. 22 A. Entry on -- yes, January -- I see it as -- 23 I see it on January 12. I don't see it on 24 January 11, but... 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726624 321 1 2 3 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. I'm sorry, maybe it is January 12, but some time between the 11th and 12th, either on the 11th or on the 12th, it's Court TV, correct? 5 A. No, no, no. You're just totally 6 Q. It's the 12th -- 7 A. -- wrong -- it's the 12th, yes. 8 Q. Okay. Good. Thank you. 9 A. It's clearly stated on the 12, yeah. 10 Q. Okay. And then on Friday, the 19th, a 11 week later, another Court TV appearance, correct? 12 A. 19th. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And on the 26th on Friday, 14 another Court TV appearance, correct? 15 A. That's what it says, yes. These were 16 all -- 17 Q. During this period of time -- 18 MR. SCOTT: Whoa. Let -- let him finish 19 his answer. 20 A. These are all scheduled appearances. I 21 assume that I did them. These -- these were when 22 they requested me to -- to do them, I would do them, 23 yes. 24 BY MR. SCAROLA: 25 Q. Okay. And it looks like you're appearing www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726625 322 1 on a scheduled basis every Friday during this period 2 of time? 3 A. I don't think that was right. Yeah, I 4 don't think that was right. I think that they 5 called me when they wanted me. And it may have been 6 several Fridays in a row, but I think it depended on 7 breaking news at the -- 8 Q. What is "scheduled appearance" 9 MR. SCOTT: Well, wait a minute. Let him 10 finish his questions [sic]. 11 A. It would depend very much on whether there 12 was a particular trial because I would be the 13 commentator on the trial, along with other lawyers. 14 And there were some days when there were trials and 15 some days when there weren't and I would be 16 available because I was living in New York at the 17 time. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. On Tuesday, the 16th, there is an entry 20 that says Epstein, right? 21 A. On Tuesday, the 16th? 22 Q. Yes, sir. 23 A. Where are we? Which calendar now? 24 Q. Page 2. Page 2 of the composite, Tuesday, 25 the 16th, Epstein. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726626 323 1 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. Let him get to 2 it. 3 A. 2 of the composite. Page 2, and what 4 what day are we on? 5 MR. SWEDER: Do we even have it? 6 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Do we 7 have copies of this exhibit? 8 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you copies of 9 everything -- 10 THE WITNESS: Were these produced in 11 discovery? 12 MR. SCOTT: I assume. 13 A. Okay. What are we up to? What page? 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 Q. Page 2 of Composite Exhibit Number 10. 16 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Now, stop. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Tuesday, the 16th. 19 MR. SCOTT: What year are we talking about 20 now? 21 MR. SCAROLA: 2001, the only year covered 22 in this composite exhibit. 23 A. Yeah, dinner foreign policy Epstein, that 24 was dinner we had at Jeffrey Epstein's house with a 25 group of very distinguished foreign policy experts, www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726627 324 1 yes. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 3 Q. All right, sir. Let's go to the next 4 page. I've just focused on this period of time in 5 January 2001 and on Friday, January 12 -- 6 A. So we're going back to Friday, January 12. 7 Yeah. 8 Q. Your wife is in Cambridge, correct? 9 A. No, I don't think so. My wife was living 10 in New York with me at the time. I don't see any 11 record of her being in Cambridge. 12 She was -- we were living together in 13 New York at NYU downtown. I was a visiting scholar. 14 Having been appointed by John Sexton of NYU to be a 15 visiting scholar, we were there for the year. And 16 my wife was with me during the year. Our daughter 17 was in school in New York. She went to Little Red 18 Schoolhouse in New York. And we had -- our life was 19 in New York for a period of one year. 20 Q. And on Friday, January 12, you had another 21 massage, right? 22 A. I don't see anything on my record that -- 23 Q. Massage, A.D.? 24 A. We must be looking at the different pages. 25 Q. Friday, January 12, page 4 -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726628 325 1 A. Who's -- 2 Q. -- of Composite Exhibit 10. 3 MR. SCOTT: Let me see the page you're 4 talking about so he can 5 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire 6 calendar. 7 MR. SCOTT: Come on, Jack. 8 MR. SCAROLA: I've given you the entire 9 composite -- 10 THE WITNESS: So you're talking about my 11 wife's -- 12 MR. SCAROLA: Fourth page -- fourth page 13 of Exhibit 10. You have Exhibit 10, I've given 14 a copy of that. 15 MR. SCOTT: I understand it and he has it 16 front of him and I'm trying to get him to the 17 right page. Thank you. Please take it down. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 Q. Fourth page, Composite Exhibit 10. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Friday, January 12. 22 A. Okay. That's very simple. We were both 23 in Cambridge and I had a massage in Cambridge. How 24 do I know that? Because it had basketball. And 25 that's where I play and watch basketball was in www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726629 326 1 Cambridge. So probably I was in Cambridge if it 2 says B ball 3:30, 4:15 and says Cambridge with Ella, 3 so I'm sure I was in Cambridge. 4 Q. All right. So -- 5 A. But I'm -- I'm looking at my wife's 6 calendar. I can't tell you and nor can you tell me 7 where I was at that period of time. 8 Q. So, the basketball entries are references 9 to your watching basketball in Cambridge? 10 A. No. They could be playing basketball. I 11 played basketball in those days -- 12 Q. Watching or playing basketball? 13 MR. SCOTT: Let him finish his answer, 14 please. 15 A. I either watched basketball or played 16 basketball, yeah. I did not go to basketball games 17 in New York, to my recollection, unless the Celtics 18 were in New York and maybe we can check -- 19 MR. SCOTT: You've got about five minutes, 20 Counsel. 21 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 Q. The Celtics didn't play from 4:15 to 5:00, 23 did they? 24 A. No, but I did. 25 Q. You did? www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726630 327 1 A. Uh-huh. 2 Q. Okay. Or from 3:30 to 4:15, that would be 3 a playing time for you in Cambridge; is that 4 correct? 5 A. You'd be asking me to speculate. I can't 6 speculate based on my wife's calendar. It says 7 utility bill, Reservoir address. That suggests 8 Cambridge. Reservoir is our house in Cambridge. 9 Q. So, it would appear that this is another 10 massage that you got somewhere? 11 A. But I would like to also say one thing. I 12 don't -- I at least wonder were these records 13 available to your clients at the time they made the 14 false accusations against me or are they 15 after-the-fact constructs designed to simply try to 16 find excuses to justify their false allegations? It 17 seems to me the latter is probably the case. 18 Q. And you are going to have an opportunity 19 through your counsel to ask those questions. 20 A. And we will. 21 Q. And my clients are anxious to be able to 22 answer those questions. 23 A. Not as anxious as I am to hear their 24 answers. 25 Q. Okay. www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726631 328 1 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Let's wrap it up. 2 MR. SCAROLA: Not quite. 3 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, it's 12:30. I'm ending 4 this. That gives you three and a half hours. 5 We take a lunch break and then we have three 6 and a half. 7 MR. SCAROLA: We don't need three and a 8 half hours for lunch. 9 MR. SCOTT: No, I didn't say that. I said 10 we take an hour break and then we have three 11 and a half hours with your client, just like... 12 MR. SCAROLA: If -- if that's what you 13 want to do -- 14 MR. SCOTT: That's the fair thing to do 15 because that's why we're dividing it equally 16 and I suggested that -- 17 MR. SCAROLA: I will state -- I will state 18 for the record that Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 -- 19 excuse me, Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 12, 20 composite exhibits, directly conflict with the 21 witness's assertion -- 22 MR. SCOTT: This is all a speech on your 23 part. 24 MR. SCAROLA: It is a speech. 25 MR. SCOTT: It is a speech and -- www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726632 329 1 MR. SCAROLA: I'm giving you notice as to 2 what you can do to do your homework. Okay? 3 They directly conflict with the witness's 4 assertion that the flight logs exonerate him. 5 In fact -- 6 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 7 MR. SCAROLA: -- the flight logs the 8 flight logs corroborate 9 assertions. 10 MR. SCOTT: And I thank you very much for 11 that explanation and we look forward to 12 resuming this at the appropriate time and 13 responding to that. 14 THE WITNESS: And that is a false 15 statement. 16 MR. SCOTT: Thank you. 17 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 18 time is approximately 12:26 p.m. 19 (The proceedings ADJOURNED at 12:26 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726633 330 CERTIFICATE OF OATH STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, the undersigned authority, certify that ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ personally appeared before me and was duly sworn on the 16th day of October, 2015. Signed this 16th dax of October, 2015. •ItttAtal ' I BERLY FONTAI O, RPR, FPR, CLR Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. EE 161994 Expires: 2/01/16 www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726634 331 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD I, KIMBERLY FONTALVO, Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that I 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, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. Dated this 16th day of October, 2015. KIMBERLY FONTALVO, RPR, FPR, CLR www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726635 332 October 16, 2015 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 BY: THOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ. Re: Edwards v. Dershowitz Please take notice that on the 16th day of October, 2015, you gave your deposition in the above cause. At that time, you did not waive your signature. The above-addressed attorney has ordered a copy of this transcript and will make arrangements with you to read their copy. Please execute the Errata Sheet, which can be found at the back of the transcript, and have it returned to us for distribution to all parties. 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 Forum Place, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 I do hereby waive my signature. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726636 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 stated in it are true. Date ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ www.phi sre orting.com EFTA02726637